NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 01:54 pm

Title: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 01:54 pm
10am Eastern.

Webcast: Link (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010)

Congress version starts here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.345
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:05 pm
Webcast coverage starting; not getting any sound yet.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:07 pm
No sound here either. A bit of a farce. Seeing what I can pick up on captions.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:08 pm
Seems to be in close-caption mode.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Owen on 07/15/2010 02:10 pm
Got sound on refresh.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:10 pm
Woo, we have sound and we've not missed anything :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:10 pm
Got sound on refresh.
Got it without, too.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:10 pm
Sen Hutchison says it's a very special day and will make a motion at the end.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:13 pm
"We began (the process) more than four months ago to tackle the balance between commercial and a robust mission. The president's plan would have ended the US dominance in space, and ended ISS' future, and manned space flight.

"We are charting a different course. Many people thought we would never be able to do it. But we have. We can close big gaps between members and the admin.

"I am deeply greatful to Sen Nelson for his leadership. (Mentions other senators). But Sen Nelson, I thought we could work together for the benefit of NASA and the workforce. I fully support this bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:13 pm
Senator Hutchison praising Senator Nelson and Chairman Rockefeller. Nice to see bipartisan support for space again.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 02:14 pm
Hutchinson also gives props to Obama for commercial crew to LEO.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:15 pm
"We address Commercial vehicles in a measured way. We protect our nation in the event commercial providers face challenges, by starting work on a HLV IMMEDIATELY and a crew capsule.

"By starting work IMMEDIATELY we'll have an exploration vehicle, on an agressive schedule.

"We add STS-135 next summer."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:17 pm
"We're doing the right thing for America"

Sen Rockefeller praise for the cooperation.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:18 pm
In Senator Hutchison's motion, sounds like all the amendments were modified in some form or another.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:19 pm
Voice vote; the ayes have it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:20 pm
Senator Nelson:

"I just simply want to say thank you to everybody. We have reached consensus, even with the White House (wow!?). We will be marking up next week."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:20 pm
So the amendements were accepted as modified?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:20 pm
Senator Nelson:

Praise for staffers, including Jeff Bingham - for doing the hard work :)

Short statement.

Senator Vitter also very happy: "This is a very strong bi-partisan product. Rather than re-inventing the wheel, this incorporates shuttle technology and Orion."

(So SD HLV?)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:21 pm
So the amendements were accepted as modified?
Sounds like it, but I haven't seen any drafts; we may only see the version of the bill voted out of committee.

Senator Nelson:

"I just simply want to say thank you to everybody. We have reached consensus, even with the White House (wow!?). We will be marking up next week."
The markup hearing he refers to is with the appropriations subcommittee:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/sc-commerce.cfm
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:22 pm
Nelson also thanked Senator Shelby.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:23 pm
Senator Vitter wants a roadmap for dev. Think he mentioned 2016 to be ready?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 02:24 pm
Boxer seems happy also. Seems her amendment was accepted. Said tech funding has been increased.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:25 pm
Heh -- Senator Boxer hints that she'll be working on amendment(s) to the bill on the floor.  (And also that she wants to work on the language for commercial dev, too.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:25 pm
Can't see her name, but another Senator says she will be talking with some people who want a little bit more done with the commercial element. Some concerns about the lanuage over the workforce. Overall congratulations.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: raketen on 07/15/2010 02:25 pm
Senator Vitter wants a roadmap for dev. Think he mentioned 2016 to be ready?
That's what I heard.  Everybody seems to be onboard on this bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/15/2010 02:26 pm
So the amendements were accepted as modified?

We'll probably have to read the finalised bill to know that.  Anyone know where (if?) they might be published on the 'Net?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:27 pm
Can't see her name, but another Senator says she will be talking with some people who want a little bit more done with the commercial element. Some concerns about the lanuage over the workforce. Overall congratulations.
That's Senator Boxer.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:27 pm
"It's not a perfect bill, some say it didn't go far enough, but it does provide HLV in a shorter timeframe. Continues shuttle with STS-135. Allows for the extreemly talented workforce to stay in place longer."

Still concerned about the Florida workforce. But overall happy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:29 pm
So the amendements were accepted as modified?

We'll probably have to read the finalised bill to know that.  Anyone know where (if?) they might be published on the 'Net?
Wouldn't be surprised if one of the news organizations covering this posts it soon, but it will eventually be available on the Library of Congress site (a.k.a., 'Thomas'):
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:29 pm
Senator Warner wants to speak on the bill, but is not there right now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: PahTo on 07/15/2010 02:29 pm

Wow, very curious to see what the actual mark-up language/amendment(s) are (or what they become in the final bill).  Very exciting though!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:30 pm
Talking about S. 3304, Equal Access to 21st Century Communications Act now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: raketen on 07/15/2010 02:33 pm

Wow, very curious to see what the actual mark-up language/amendment(s) are (or what they become in the final bill).  Very exciting though!

Senator Warner was reported as wanting the following amendment:

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wants to spend $500 million on commercial crew development in 2011 — an increase over earlier drafts of the bill — by taking money from the new heavy-lift rocket and launch system. He will introduce an amendment to that effect today.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DavisSTS on 07/15/2010 02:33 pm
Isn't that the fella that ran for president on right now?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:34 pm
Isn't that the fella that ran for president on right now?
Yes, Senator Kerry.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=CommitteeMembers
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:35 pm

Wow, very curious to see what the actual mark-up language/amendment(s) are (or what they become in the final bill).  Very exciting though!

Senator Warner was reported as wanting the following amendment:

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wants to spend $500 million on commercial crew development in 2011 — an increase over earlier drafts of the bill — by taking money from the new heavy-lift rocket and launch system. He will introduce an amendment to that effect today.

The amendement were accepted as modified. So who knows if it's been modified. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it had been accepted as is.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:41 pm
Hmmm...parsing what Senator Warner says, it sounds like the top line number(s) may have been increased a little bit.  Guess we'll find out, but going to be a question of whether those numbers survive on the appropriations side.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:41 pm
Senator Warner's arrived.

"I want to highlight two things, as an advocate of commercial space. Wanted the funding levels to move up from the draft. Very important good faith effort. Was going to withdraw his two ammendments, but it's already passed.

"I feel very strongly we need to upgrade the infrastructure at all our space sites, such as Wallops etc.

"Appreciates Nelson and Hutchison on hearing his concerns about commercial space."

Seems happy with things.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: raketen on 07/15/2010 02:41 pm

Wow, very curious to see what the actual mark-up language/amendment(s) are (or what they become in the final bill).  Very exciting though!

Senator Warner was reported as wanting the following amendment:

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wants to spend $500 million on commercial crew development in 2011 — an increase over earlier drafts of the bill — by taking money from the new heavy-lift rocket and launch system. He will introduce an amendment to that effect today.

The amendement were accepted as modified. So who knows if it's been modified. Although I wouldn't be surprised if it had been accepted as is.

$500M moved from heavy-lift to commercial would be a big change.  Perhaps they split the difference.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:43 pm
Senator Hutchison:

"I want to make sure we recognise the staff that worked so hard on the bill. Amazing work. (names and then)... Jeff Bingham who knows this issue more than anyone in this capital." :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:43 pm
And that's a wrap; markup adjourned.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 02:44 pm
"Everyone feels they've given something, but fairly and for the benefit of this country." - Senator Hutchison.

That's it!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:44 pm
Hutchison thanks Jeff Bingham. She says that he knows more on this than any of us in Washington.   Time for him to ask for a raise...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 02:45 pm
Yay for 51D Mascot :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: raketen on 07/15/2010 02:45 pm
"Everyone feels they've given something, but fairly and for the benefit of this country." - Senator Hutchison.

That's it!

Guess the next item is Sen. Nelson's news conference?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/15/2010 02:45 pm
Senator Hutchison:

"I want to make sure we recognise the staff that worked so hard on the bill. Amazing work. (names and then)... Jeff Bingham who knows this issue more than anyone in this capital." :)

OUTSTANDING!

One person whose posts I seek out and look forward to. An outstanding NSF member!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 02:48 pm
Here is what happens next to this bill:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg614614#msg614614

Curious wording about the timing of submitting to the President.  If it's an authorization bill, that's unlikely to get through Congress and to the President that soon.  There's been reports about mid-month being timing for when the Senate authorizing committee might vote to send a bill to the floor.  If it's not a bill, whatever the plan is would still need to be passed in some form by Congress.


Chalk it up to reporter confusion...Jay knows a lot about space, but not so much about the legislative process. The 15th is the date set for Committee Mark-up of a bill, where it will consider any proposed amendments, then vote to report it to the Senate (or not) as amended. Then it gets in line for consideration by the full Senate, presumably via a unanimous consent procedure, since floor time (for debate, etc.) is VERY limited. Then, of course, there's the issue of House action, either on a Senate-passed bill or a version of their own, followed by, if needed, a joint Senate-House Conference to iron out differences, and acceptance of that outcome by both houses after that, so quite a few steps before being "presented" to the President. (There IS the possibility, as well, that, at some point along the line, the White House/President may engage in discussions/negotiations with the Congress, so it is "possible" that the final language will be "acceptable".) But I can tell you, as of this moment, the final draft language of the bill in question has not been completed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2010 02:48 pm
Does this mean peace can now break out ?  8)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 02:51 pm
Does anyone know when we'll see the numbers in the bill?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/15/2010 02:53 pm
Senator Hutchison:

"I want to make sure we recognise the staff that worked so hard on the bill. Amazing work. (names and then)... Jeff Bingham who knows this issue more than anyone in this capital." :)

OUTSTANDING!

One person whose posts I seek out and look forward to. An outstanding NSF member!

SECONDED!!

Nothing short of amazing they got to this point with concensus, and I'm sure we all want to extend our thanks to him for all his help for what I would consider saving HSF, but more particularly: SKILLED JOBS, in the United States.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 02:53 pm
Here is what happens next to this bill:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg614614#msg614614

Curious wording about the timing of submitting to the President.  If it's an authorization bill, that's unlikely to get through Congress and to the President that soon.  There's been reports about mid-month being timing for when the Senate authorizing committee might vote to send a bill to the floor.  If it's not a bill, whatever the plan is would still need to be passed in some form by Congress.


Chalk it up to reporter confusion...Jay knows a lot about space, but not so much about the legislative process. The 15th is the date set for Committee Mark-up of a bill, where it will consider any proposed amendments, then vote to report it to the Senate (or not) as amended. Then it gets in line for consideration by the full Senate, presumably via a unanimous consent procedure, since floor time (for debate, etc.) is VERY limited. Then, of course, there's the issue of House action, either on a Senate-passed bill or a version of their own, followed by, if needed, a joint Senate-House Conference to iron out differences, and acceptance of that outcome by both houses after that, so quite a few steps before being "presented" to the President. (There IS the possibility, as well, that, at some point along the line, the White House/President may engage in discussions/negotiations with the Congress, so it is "possible" that the final language will be "acceptable".) But I can tell you, as of this moment, the final draft language of the bill in question has not been completed.
51D Mascot can provide an inside take, but given Senator Boxer's comments, it doesn't sound like the bill will go the unanimous consent route on the Senate floor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: e of pi on 07/15/2010 02:55 pm
I just wanted to say that this bill really excites me. I'm a a second-year aerospace student, and I hope to work in the space industry someday, and this seems like it will do good stuff for NASA with the new (possibly SD?) heavy launch vehicle and continued support for commercial space.

To put it another way, this bill has interested me enough in a Congressional hearing that I found this forum while looking for more information. So even if the bill dies, I got one thing out of it by leading me here.

Now, if you'lle excuse me, I have to return to trying to read every thread in the forum archives at once.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 02:57 pm
Welcome to the forum e :)

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: AndrewSTS on 07/15/2010 03:03 pm
Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 03:09 pm
Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?

Implicitly, but not explicitly. They require NASA to use as much existing STS and CxP hardware and contracts as possible (including explicitly ET-94), while not doing the engineering for NASA and selecting a specific option.

That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: quark on 07/15/2010 03:09 pm
Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?

Not exactly.  the language says it should make use of shuttle and constellation assets "to the greatest extent practicable".  It will be up to the administration and NASA to determine the specifics.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: e of pi on 07/15/2010 03:10 pm
Welcome to the forum e :)

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.

It certainly seems like it. Is there any sort of typical thing for new members, someplace to acclimatize? I found the acronym page, but...I guess I'm thinking more of trying to get a feel for the culture of the board. I sort of feel like a kid sitting at the adults table for Thanksgiving for the first time...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 03:12 pm
Welcome to the forum e :)

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.

It certainly seems like it. Is there any sort of typical thing for new members, someplace to acclimatize? I found the acronym page, but...I guess I'm thinking more of trying to get a feel for the culture of the board. I sort of feel like a kid sitting at the adults table for Thanksgiving for the first time...

There's an introduction thread if you want to check that out - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=606.0
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 03:15 pm
Welcome to the forum e :)

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.

It certainly seems like it. Is there any sort of typical thing for new members, someplace to acclimatize? I found the acronym page, but...I guess I'm thinking more of trying to get a feel for the culture of the board. I sort of feel like a kid sitting at the adults table for Thanksgiving for the first time...

Welcome to the site's forum :)

The Q&A sections: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?board=36.0 are usually a good place to get your feet wet, but feel free to dive in. There's a lot of experts and people who work with the vehicles here, but don't feel intimidated.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 03:16 pm
Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?

Implicitly, but not explicitly. They require NASA to use as much existing STS and CxP hardware and contracts as possible (including explicitly ET-94), while not doing the engineering for NASA and selecting a specific option.

That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...

Another trade study maybe.....although technically they've already been there with that.

Will be interesting to follow regardless :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 03:16 pm
Welcome to the forum e :)

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.

It certainly seems like it. Is there any sort of typical thing for new members, someplace to acclimatize? I found the acronym page, but...I guess I'm thinking more of trying to get a feel for the culture of the board. I sort of feel like a kid sitting at the adults table for Thanksgiving for the first time...

There's an introduction thread if you want to check that out - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=606.0

hey this is cool ,hadn't seen this thread before.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 03:17 pm
Does this mean peace can now break out ?  8)

I'm waiting on seeing the amended draft of the bill, but I'm hopeful. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 03:21 pm
Anybody seen a link to watch the remarks from the Senate Radio and TV Gallery at 11:45 am Eastern?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmoulder on 07/15/2010 03:22 pm
e of pi,

Glad to see I am not the first new-comer to this forum!   8)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 07/15/2010 03:31 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:31 pm
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:37 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:42 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC and JSC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they've screwed up about a dozen consecutive launch vehicle programs over the past 20 years.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!
~Jon

The backup argument never made any sense. The commercial companies are each other's backup. If one of them fails, you replace them (such as was done with Kistler under COTS). In any event, I never expected Congress to go along with a commercial HLV. So I can't say that I am disapointed or surprised by the turn of events.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/15/2010 03:43 pm
Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?

Implicitly, but not explicitly. They require NASA to use as much existing STS and CxP hardware and contracts as possible (including explicitly ET-94), while not doing the engineering for NASA and selecting a specific option.

That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...

Another trade study maybe.....although technically they've already been there with that.

Will be interesting to follow regardless :)

Or they can just finish the HLV study...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/15/2010 03:44 pm
That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...

Another trade study maybe.....although technically they've already been there with that.

Will be interesting to follow regardless :)

Presumably the new launcher programme will be mostly MSFC? Isn't side-mount more favoured by JSC?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 03:47 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon

That's a little cynical Jon, not like you.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:48 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC and JSC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they've screwed up about a dozen consecutive launch vehicle programs over the past 20 years.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!
~Jon

The backup argument never made any sense. The commercial companies are each other's backup. If one of them fails, you replace them (such as was done with Kistler under COTS). In any event, I never expected Congress to go along with a commercial HLV. So I can't say that I am disapointed or surprised by the turn of events.

I'm also amused that so many here seem to be so happy with this when:

1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 
2-The shuttle won't be extended past 2011 now other than a single extra mission, so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. 

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/15/2010 03:50 pm
So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

That was rhetoric. It was always about the jobs and the money.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:50 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon

That's a little cynical Jon, not like you.

I'm just frustrated at the blatant hypocrisy here.  Shelby can talk about too big to fail, then MSFC gets another $10B in mulligans.  At what point will failure to deliver anywhere near on-time or on-budget ever result in negative consequences for NASA's fair-haired boys?  Why is commercial held to a higher standard than the people being given an order of magnitude more money?

I guess it was more the whole attitude that this compromise was somehow protecting the taxpayer from a bailout, when really it's a bailout bigger than the worst-case bailout that Cernan and Armstrong were peddling.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:54 pm
I think I'm going to shut-up now.  Those of us who wanted to see NASA get out of the 70s have more or less lost at this point.  There are a couple of crumbs, and the dot-product of NASA HSF and something actually enabling spacefaring is now a little bit bigger (we're now say a little bit on the good side of orthogonal, instead of actively moving in the wrong direction).  But a lot of potential was wasted here.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Longhorn John on 07/15/2010 03:55 pm
It's not perfect Jon, a lot would have prefered a shuttle extension into 2012 plus, but compared to FY2011, this is much better.

You can't even begin to say this is the same when the previous was a five year study for HLV and this is immediate start developing the HLV.

It's not Cernan's fault about the bailout comment, it's Bolden's comment for admitting it.

Money to skilled workers who have run shuttle vs rich stockholders with portfolios at commercial companies is always going to get my vote.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 03:57 pm
"We address Commercial vehicles in a measured way. We protect our nation in the event commercial providers face challenges, by starting work on a HLV IMMEDIATELY and a crew capsule.

"By starting work IMMEDIATELY we'll have an exploration vehicle, on an agressive schedule.

"We add STS-135 next summer."

so 135 is offical now? :D :D And SDHLV begins that same year. Workforce transition should be smoother now.

They said that the white house agreed to this, but I have yet to see concrete proof..........lets see if he signs it ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/15/2010 03:58 pm
So is the "Major Breakthrough" press conference (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31245) with Nelson and Hutchison happening now, or was the Executive Session it?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: agman25 on 07/15/2010 03:58 pm
It's not perfect Jon, a lot would have prefered a shuttle extension into 2012 plus, but compared to FY2011, this is much better.

You can't even begin to say this is the same when the previous was a five year study for HLV and this is immediate start developing the HLV.

It's not Cernan's fault about the bailout comment, it's Bolden's comment for admitting it.

Money to skilled workers who have run shuttle vs rich stockholders with portfolios at commercial companies is always going to get my vote.

So commercial aerospace companies do not have skilled workers ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:58 pm
I think I'm going to shut-up now.  Those of us who wanted to see NASA get out of the 70s have more or less lost at this point.  There are a couple of crumbs, and the dot-product of NASA HSF and something actually enabling spacefaring is now a little bit bigger (we're now say a little bit on the good side of orthogonal, instead of actively moving in the wrong direction).  But a lot of potential was wasted here.

~Jon

Perhaps but at least commercial crew and things like propellant depots are being funded. So we are one step closer to being a space fairing nation with some of these measures.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/15/2010 03:58 pm
Forgive my ignorance of the structure of the way bills go through the senate (I need to watch that school house rock video again lol), but what happens next? Does it go through a vote in the senate or goes straight to the President?

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:59 pm
So is the "Major Breakthrough" press conference (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31245) with Nelson and Hutchison happening now, or was the Executive Session it?

It's not being webcast as far as I can tell.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 04:00 pm
1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 

It's better than that. The bill (if you read it) includes a provision for a National Academies study in what to do with manned spaceflight 2014-2023. This is the same as what all the unmanned programs do, and allows a concrete set of goals to be laid down with a politician dictating priorities...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 04:01 pm
"We address Commercial vehicles in a measured way. We protect our nation in the event commercial providers face challenges, by starting work on a HLV IMMEDIATELY and a crew capsule.

"By starting work IMMEDIATELY we'll have an exploration vehicle, on an agressive schedule.

"We add STS-135 next summer."

so 135 is offical now? :D :D And SDHLV begins that same year. Workforce transition should be smoother now.

They said that the white house agreed to this, but I have yet to see concrete proof..........lets see if he signs it ;)

Not yet, process to follow on that. Certainly more hopeful.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: ras391 on 07/15/2010 04:02 pm
does anyone have a link to watch or listen?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:02 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC and JSC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they've screwed up about a dozen consecutive launch vehicle programs over the past 20 years.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!
~Jon

The backup argument never made any sense. The commercial companies are each other's backup. If one of them fails, you replace them (such as was done with Kistler under COTS). In any event, I never expected Congress to go along with a commercial HLV. So I can't say that I am disapointed or surprised by the turn of events.

I'm also amused that so many here seem to be so happy with this when:

1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 
2-The shuttle won't be extended past 2011 now other than a single extra mission, so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. 

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

~Jon


I don't know why your so angry. They put SDHLV in. Ok? Thats, as we agreed previously, loads better than fy2011 or por. Its a heck of a big step and you can't expect them to do everything all at once. Just doing that  is its own miracle.



Its far from perfect but given the situation id say its "ideal" .
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:03 pm
"We address Commercial vehicles in a measured way. We protect our nation in the event commercial providers face challenges, by starting work on a HLV IMMEDIATELY and a crew capsule.

"By starting work IMMEDIATELY we'll have an exploration vehicle, on an agressive schedule.

"We add STS-135 next summer."

so 135 is offical now? :D :D And SDHLV begins that same year. Workforce transition should be smoother now.

They said that the white house agreed to this, but I have yet to see concrete proof..........lets see if he signs it ;)

Not yet, process to follow on that. Certainly more hopeful.
i suppose bolden could block it if he really hates STS that much -_-
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 04:04 pm
That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon


"Commercial" is being funded.  It will exist.  It will be the primary method for LEO when it becomes available.

It seems to simply take a pragmattic approach to bringing it online and starts with answering the fundamental and foundational questions that are still unanswered.  That is a good thing and you should know that the first step in any project process is getting a solid project plan and requirements definition.  It is ironic you want all the money for something by definition that should not be government-funded development, yet at the same time don't want any terms and conditions to go with it. 

Welcome to the party but you really should roll back the whining and assumption "some" are better than everyone else. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 04:08 pm
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.

In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. 

Quote
So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

~Jon

It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/15/2010 04:08 pm
i suppose bolden good block it if he really hates STS that much -_-

Obviously he liked STS enough to fly on it 4 times, twice as Commander.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/15/2010 04:08 pm
As long as decent funding levels for commercial crew and cargo are maintained, all hope is not lost. They are the true future of American HSF. In LEO and beyond.

I agree with Jon - I just don't see the benefit of pushing ahead with a SDHLV, when there are no funds for actual payloads. We'll be stuck with a HLV that only launches once or twice per year, at enormous cost. BEO exploration will not become economical this way.

But at least it is better than CxP. Developing one rocket instead of two, imagine that!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/15/2010 04:09 pm
i suppose bolden good block it if he really hates STS that much -_-

Obviously he liked STS enough to fly on it in the pilot/Commander seat 4 times.

Orbiter

Yet he repeadtedly stated after fy 2011 was announced how much it needed to go away, quickly, with no hope whatsoever of extension...............
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 04:12 pm
i suppose bolden good block it if he really hates STS that much -_-
If the language we've seen in the draft were to be enacted, the administrator would be obligated to fly the mission, with the caveats in the language.  (I'm not sure that the administrator has necessarily objected to flying the LON hardware; the additional mission is often conflated with different ideas about 'extension.')

Quote
(1) SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION.

The Administrator shall fly the Launch-On-Need Shuttle mission currently designated in the Shuttle Flight Manifest dated February 28, 2010, to the ISS in fiscal year 2011, but no earlier than June 1, 2011, unless required earlier by an operations contingency, and pending the results of the assessment required by paragraph (2) and the determination under paragraph (3)(A).

In this context, I believe 'shall' means 'must,' and I don't know that the caveats provide much wiggle room.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 04:13 pm
I'm also amused that so many here seem to be so happy with this when:

1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 
2-The shuttle won't be extended past 2011 now other than a single extra mission, so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. 

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

Indeed. It seems that those items (the gap, ISS support, firm plan, mission details, deadlines, near-term destinations) were issues of convenience to utilize in the push for an HLV and bash the WH's FY2011 plan, rather than issues people actually thought were important.

That said, my view on the bill is rather more optimistic than yours, although I'm of course waiting to see the actual contents of the current bill. Even if the bill is suboptimal, it seems like it'd be the best that can be politically achieved at the current time, and seems to do a lot for important items like commercial crew and space technology.

I'm also guessing that odds are less than 50% that the SDHLV would end up surviving development to the point that it'd actually be able to take business away from commercial launchers. There's wasted money there, sure, but in the meantime the SDHLV dev would also give commercial companies time to develop to the point that former shuttle/constellation workers would be able to transition to them in higher numbers.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/15/2010 04:15 pm
Yet he repeadtedly stated after fy 2011 was announced how much it needed to go away, quickly, with no hope whatsoever of extension...............

I believe he hoped, as Jon did, that he could move NASA out of 1970's launch technology and have it become the leader in propulsion technology research and development. This bill will now cede that mantle to the Air Force and private industry, as they are the only ones now applying modern technology to a new breed of launchers.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/15/2010 04:16 pm
i suppose bolden good block it if he really hates STS that much -_-

Obviously he liked STS enough to fly on it in the pilot/Commander seat 4 times.

Orbiter

Yet he repeadtedly stated after fy 2011 was announced how much it needed to go away, quickly, with no hope whatsoever of extension...............

Probably was reciting to the POTUS's words to him and trying to add enthusiasm. Its like a pilot coming out during a heated political debate on a airplane he once flew with pride and saying he is totally against it continuing with no bird to replace it.

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jason Sole on 07/15/2010 04:18 pm
The way I read it is commercial still gets its money (more than the draft too, due to ONE senator wanting pork for his commercial friends in his State!) but are more accountable, as opposed to throwing money at them. Strange as to why some (two) people aren't happy, maybe they just hate shuttle and only want to see shuttle and shuttle derived die, so that there's no competition. Could be a lack of confidence and the hope for that multi-billion bailout Bolden promised them.

I would have been happier with the bill wiping the six billion, handing it to shuttle and telling the commercial providers to prove themselves by completing CRS on time, and then be awarded for crew, not before! They've got investors, they can afford to prove themselves. If they can't, they aren't stable enough.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 04:25 pm
...
The politicans just compromised :o Will you?
My comments were about Jon, not myself.

I'm not a politician, so my job is not to compromise. An HLV isn't necessary, especially when it takes most of the funding away from tech R&D. I'm willing to compromise on my opinion of an HLV if:
1) There's actually money for real hardware/payloads to fly on it... usually payloads cost 10x the launch vehicle, I'll settle for 4x (more like Apollo). That means an increase of many billions of dollars a year is needed to make it worthwhile (you NEED a higher flight rate than just 2 a year, otherwise just use a dang EELV). 2) An architecture is chosen (and ACTIVELY DEVELOPED) such that it can still can survive and work if the HLV is cut. I'm not willing to repeat another post-Apollo or post-Shuttle gap.

That said, if NASA's budget is increased by even a billion dollars, then wasting money on an unused HLV isn't nearly so bad. Even half a billion helps.

I maintain that NASA would be better off if LC-39 went away and they were forced to focus only on payloads and missions instead of launch vehicles.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 07/15/2010 04:27 pm
Any news about the press conference?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MrTim on 07/15/2010 04:31 pm
Forgive my ignorance of the structure of the way bills go through the senate (I need to watch that school house rock video again lol), but what happens next? Does it go through a vote in the senate or goes straight to the President?

Orbiter
I think people are getting a bit carried away here...

Remember, the Senate and the House must both pass the same bill. If the House produces one bill and the Senate passes a different bill, then there will have to be a conference with persons from both House and Senate to hammer-out a compromise bill that will then have to be passed in both the House and the Senate. Only after both the House and Senate pass the same bill with that bill go to the President for his signature. This thing is not yet set in stone.

It may be that areas of this bill are not specific in order to preserve enough wiggle room for everybody to agree. The Cx huggers (like Shelby) need to be careful, because this administration has demonstrated a willingness to push things to the limits of the law (and, one might argue, a bit beyond) so the lack of specificity could make the Obama/Bolden implementation very different from the congressional intent.

I personally expect that the NASA rollercoaster ride will continue through the next presidential election.  ::)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 04:36 pm
I'm also guessing that odds are less than 50% that the SDHLV would end up surviving development to the point that it'd actually be able to take business away from commercial launchers. There's wasted money there...

That's one of the things that makes me nervous. Without a defined mission or some concrete plan, what's to prevent this HLV from being competition for the EELV's? Von Braun defined Heavy Lift as 100mt to LEO, but once we left the Saturn-V era, people began calling heavy lift anything they wanted to, or even whatever they were able to lift, even now referring to the advanced Delta-IV and Atlas-V as "heavy lift" when they certainly are not. Without a definition or a mission, what's to prevent them from defining heavy lift right smack in the middle of the Advanced EELV range, thus actually taking business away from the EELV's, which are already underutilized? I want a heavy lift to have it's bottom end be no less than the max capability of the EELV's so there's no danger of competing with them. It needs to complement the EELV family, not compete with it. Commercial access to LEO is the future, and while I favor the HLV very much, whatever we do now must not make it hard for the commercial companies to make that leap. We need them to eventually *BE* the route to LEO.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 04:37 pm
Any news about the press conference?
Haven't seen any -- if anyone does find a link, hopefully they'll share that here.  Video may come out on C-SPAN later today after the floor sessions adjourn.  (While significant here, today's action is far from the biggest thing on the Hill today.)  There will likely be reports online from different news organizations with Washington staff before that.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MrTim on 07/15/2010 04:41 pm
(snip)
I maintain that NASA would be better off if LC-40 went away and they were forced to focus only on payloads and missions instead of launch vehicles.
Did you mean LC39?

NASA critics occasionally fantasize that LC39 could be abandoned and that this would be of some benefit to NASA but I believe this is an error. If I recall correctly, the VAB, the firing rooms and the two hardstands have all been put on the register of national historic sites that must be maintained for posterity. As such, NASA would be required to keep them up even if they went unused. The best thing for the taxpayer is to maintain and use them. I personally think the honest thing is to move their costs into the core NASA budget (since they'll exists no matter what) and stop hanging their costs on whatever systems fly from LC-39 (which only continues to perpetuate the illusion that the costs would go away if whatever system uses them is retired).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2010 04:43 pm

Did you mean LC39?

 the VAB, the firing rooms and the two hardstands have all been put on the register of national historic sites that must be maintained for posterity. As such, NASA would be required to keep them up even if they went unused.


Not true.  There is no requirement for NASA to maintain them indefinitely.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2010 04:48 pm
personally think the honest thing is to move their costs into the core NASA budget (since they'll exists no matter what) and stop hanging their costs on whatever systems fly from LC-39 (which only continues to perpetuate the illusion that the costs would go away if whatever system uses them is retired).


No such thing as NASA core budget.  Every program has to pay for the resources that it uses, that is only thing that makes sense.  No point in funding unused or overly expensive facilities.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MrTim on 07/15/2010 04:54 pm
That's one of the things that makes me nervous. Without a defined mission or some concrete plan, what's to prevent this HLV from being competition for the EELV's? Von Braun defined Heavy Lift as 100mt to LEO, but once we left the Saturn-V era, people began calling heavy lift anything they wanted to, or even whatever they were able to lift, even now referring to the advanced Delta-IV and Atlas-V as "heavy lift" when they certainly are not. Without a definition or a mission, what's to prevent them from defining heavy lift right smack in the middle of the Advanced EELV range, thus actually taking business away from the EELV's, which are already underutilized? I want a heavy lift to have it's bottom end be no less than the max capability of the EELV's so there's no danger of competing with them. It needs to complement the EELV family, not compete with it. Commercial access to LEO is the future, and while I favor the HLV very much, whatever we do now must not make it hard for the commercial companies to make that leap. We need them to eventually *BE* the route to LEO.
I suspect that the senators intend to get the HLV built so it is available for future presidents to re-commit to the Moon and Mars; The development schedule will outlast Obama's desire to lower the HSF goals. A future president will be able to grab that massive rocket and aim it at whatever goal he/she wants. At this point, I think we all need to hope for and support the biggest HLV we can get, both for the reasons you cite, and also because it appears that HLV is what congress insists on building. If this bill makes it all the way through to a presidential signature, then let's all hope for something that barely fits out the VAB doors  ;D

If we must go big, then let us at least get something with a voluminous fairing and a low price per pound...

I'd prefer a 2nd gen shuttle system, but I recognize that my preference will not happen and I do remember the Saturn V... if we get something at least as capable, it will be worthy of the nation, will dazzle the youth, and I will learn to be happy with it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 04:54 pm
(snip)
I maintain that NASA would be better off if LC-40 went away and they were forced to focus only on payloads and missions instead of launch vehicles.
Did you mean LC39?

NASA critics occasionally fantasize that LC39 could be abandoned and that this would be of some benefit to NASA but I believe this is an error. If I recall correctly, the VAB, the firing rooms and the two hardstands have all been put on the register of national historic sites that must be maintained for posterity. As such, NASA would be required to keep them up even if they went unused. The best thing for the taxpayer is to maintain and use them. I personally think the honest thing is to move their costs into the core NASA budget (since they'll exists no matter what) and stop hanging their costs on whatever systems fly from LC-39 (which only continues to perpetuate the illusion that the costs would go away if whatever system uses them is retired).
Yes, I meant LC-39.

I am not a NASA critic. I love NASA. They're doing substantially more BEO exploration than anyone else right now:
Mars:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/mro/
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/

Saturn:
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/

Ceres and Vesta:
http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/

Interstellar space:
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

Just to give a few.

I love manned exploration, as well. I just don't see it progressing anywhere if we spend all of our manned space money designing and building a new launch vehicle every few years and maintaining an effectively NASA-only launch vehicle architecture. There are already suitable launch vehicles. Use them.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: padrat on 07/15/2010 04:54 pm
Nice to see that we'll at least get another mission. As long as i can make it through the oct chopping block.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/15/2010 04:56 pm
I'm also guessing that odds are less than 50% that the SDHLV would end up surviving development to the point that it'd actually be able to take business away from commercial launchers. There's wasted money there...

That's one of the things that makes me nervous. Without a defined mission or some concrete plan, what's to prevent this HLV from being competition for the EELV's? Von Braun defined Heavy Lift as 100mt to LEO, but once we left the Saturn-V era, people began calling heavy lift anything they wanted to, or even whatever they were able to lift, even now referring to the advanced Delta-IV and Atlas-V as "heavy lift" when they certainly are not. Without a definition or a mission, what's to prevent them from defining heavy lift right smack in the middle of the Advanced EELV range, thus actually taking business away from the EELV's, which are already underutilized? I want a heavy lift to have it's bottom end be no less than the max capability of the EELV's so there's no danger of competing with them. It needs to complement the EELV family, not compete with it. Commercial access to LEO is the future, and while I favor the HLV very much, whatever we do now must not make it hard for the commercial companies to make that leap. We need them to eventually *BE* the route to LEO.

There are no payloads for the heaviest variants of EELVs anyway, so don't worry about any competition. If an HLV gets build (very theoretical), it will be a nice to have tool that won't be used because the money for payloads just isn't there. It might then be misued to service the station, until some future Congress says it has way to high operations costs (if it isn't already canceled in development) and cancels it due to lack of funding and lack of a mission leaving us right were we started.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2010 04:57 pm
a low price per pound...


Not going to happen with an SDLV
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: phantomdj on 07/15/2010 05:06 pm
Nice to see that we'll at least get another mission. As long as i can make it through the oct chopping block.

That is a major problem for a lot of people regardless of this bill passing.

The people that build and test the FWD and AFT skirt electronics and hydraulics for the SRB’s will have all the assembly and test work done by the end of September.  This includes STS-135.  So the SRB folks, with the knowledge and skills to assemble and test the SRB’s, will not be around when the SD-HLV needs them in about 2 years.

Does NASA or USA believe they can hire them back then?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MrTim on 07/15/2010 05:09 pm
No such thing as NASA core budget.  Every program has to pay for the resources that it uses, that is only thing that makes sense.  No point in funding unused or overly expensive facilities.
Jim, you excel at ignoring context and details of posts...

I said that I was posting a recollection about the historic site designations. If you have information that these were never so designated or have been stricken from the lists than you may say that my recollections are incorrect... but you can under no circumstances get inside my head and announce that I do not recall these things.

As for my sloppy reference to a "core budget", They obviously have no budget item called "core budget" and I assumed most here were smart enough to know that  ::) I was not intending to be so specific as to designate some particular line in some portion of NASA's budget. I was making a general point I trusted the readers to get without a multi-page discourse about the intricate details of federal agency budgets. My point: If the taxpayer is paying for the facilities anyway, then it is not really fair to hang the accounting for that on a particular launch vehicle (though I can see why somebody who lives in the EELV world would like every NASA-owned system to be falsely saddled with that expense and made to look artificially expensive)  ;)

Try to focus more on shooting down actual technical errors about systems with hard numbers, and not opinions or general ideas which are obviously not being made with precision.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: ugordan on 07/15/2010 05:13 pm
Money to skilled workers who have run shuttle vs rich stockholders with portfolios at commercial companies is always going to get my vote.

So commercial aerospace companies do not have skilled workers ?

I'm very much interested in hearing the answer to that myself.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 05:15 pm
Is there any news on the actual budget numbers? Any updated draft, yet?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pm
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/15/2010 05:46 pm
Updated draft here:
  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=50faad79-f79d-4531-9f69-cf646b2b96ba
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 05:48 pm
Updated draft here:
  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=50faad79-f79d-4531-9f69-cf646b2b96ba
Thanks!

EDIT: There are no fiscal numbers in the document you linked to. :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/15/2010 05:50 pm
Updated draft here:
  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=50faad79-f79d-4531-9f69-cf646b2b96ba

Thanks for the link.  That seems to be just an eight page summary, though, not the actual text of the bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/15/2010 05:57 pm
Updated draft here:
  http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=50faad79-f79d-4531-9f69-cf646b2b96ba
Thanks!
EDIT: There are no fiscal numbers in the document you linked to. :(

Nope, no numbers. That doesn't appear to be public yet.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 06:01 pm
It's also a summary of the bill but not the actual bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/15/2010 06:03 pm
Quote from: simonth

There are no payloads for the heaviest variants of EELVs anyway, so don't worry about any competition. If an HLV gets build (very theoretical), it will be a nice to have tool that won't be used because the money for payloads just isn't there. It might then be misued to service the station, until some future Congress says it has way to high operations costs (if it isn't already canceled in development) and cancels it due to lack of funding and lack of a mission leaving us right were we started.

Which is, of course, exactly what will happen.

Today, they told me: "Cheer up, things could be worse!"
So I cheered up, and what do you know, things became worse...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/15/2010 06:04 pm
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

According to Nelson's statement, this advances things from 2025 to 2016.  The 2025 date was for a full-on mission to an asteroid, unless he is stating the 2016 date is for a full-on mission to an asteroid, this comparsion is not the same.  I hope someone can get some attention to this and get clarification for the record.

If it is not for a full-on mission then I would point out that the previous plan was to start BEO manned launches in 2020 in prep for the 2025 mission.  Either Nelson has to revise his comparison to 2020 or state in clear terms that 2016 is for a real mission.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 06:09 pm
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

According to Nelson's statement, this advances things from 2025 to 2016.  The 2025 date was for a full-on mission to an asteroid, unless he is stating the 2016 date is for a full-on mission to an asteroid, this comparsion is not the same.  I hope someone can get some attention to this and get clarification for the record.

If it is not for a full-on mission then I would point out that the previous plan was to start BEO manned launches in 2020 in prep for the 2025 mission.  Either Nelson has to revise his comparison to 2020 or state in clear terms that 2016 is for a real mission.


I don't think he's talking about BEO for 2016 (it's the date for Orion LEO capability), which makes it a very strange comparison:
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&
Quote
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today passed a bipartisan spending plan for NASA that extends the space shuttle program well into next year and advances the date for future human flight in a newly developed spacecraft to 2016 from a 2025 target-date initially proposed by the administration.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 06:09 pm
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/15/2010 06:12 pm
2-The shuttle won't be extended past 2011 now other than a single extra mission, so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. 

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

I believe the bill requires NASA to quickly produce an up-to-date report of ISS's up-mass requirements, and available spares. It also requires the Shuttle infrastructure to be retained to enable Congress to request a further flight (or flights?), presumably based on that report.

However, yes, STS-135 is the only gap reduction measure without this.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 06:14 pm
1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 

It's better than that. The bill (if you read it) includes a provision for a National Academies study in what to do with manned spaceflight 2014-2023. This is the same as what all the unmanned programs do, and allows a concrete set of goals to be laid down with a politician dictating priorities...

So you're saying that all the unmanned programs decide on committing a lions share of their budgets to developing new systems, including a commitment to tie up a significant chunk of their future budgets on maintaining the yearly fixed costs for those systems, before they even figure out what they're going to do with said systems?  Pardon my ignorance of unmanned systems, but I kind of thought that they solicited feedback from PIs on destinations and let them pick how they want to handle the transport...If you could enlighten me though I'd be intrigued.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/15/2010 06:17 pm
Has chances for STS-135 increased with this?

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 06:17 pm
I don't know why your so angry. They put SDHLV in. Ok? Thats, as we agreed previously, loads better than fy2011 or por. Its a heck of a big step and you can't expect them to do everything all at once. Just doing that  is its own miracle.

Its far from perfect but given the situation id say its "ideal" .

I guess my frustration is that the section of NASA that has historically proven to be the worst return on investment is the one getting the lion's share of the budget again.  I am glad that it isn't a total loss, and that at least some money will be available for stuff I think will actually provide any value to the country (unlike SDHLV).  I just can't get too jazzed up about a rocket to nowhere that at best will be sucking the air out of the room for the next several decades, diverting money to provide it with missions.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 06:18 pm
Should note we shouldn't forget that STS-136 is now in the mix. At a very early stage and one step at a time, but certainly in the mix.

Will work on that.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/15/2010 06:20 pm
Has chances for STS-135 increased with this?

Orbiter

Section 503 of the bill directs NASA to fly it provided it can be done safely.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/15/2010 06:22 pm
One more note, on the Warner amendment. There's a major disconnect with regard to how it handles the multi-purpose crew vehicle (MPCV). The amendment mandates a re-compete rather than re-using Orion, but neglects to reinstate the "Constellation Transition" line item that carried the termination costs of the Orion contract. That's a several-hundred-million dollar hole that the amendment ignores.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 06:22 pm
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.

In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. 

I guess here's my question.  One of OV's and 51D's chief complaints about FY11 was that it left the station in the lurch.  This does almost *nothing* to change the situation (other than a single token extra shuttle flight), but now they're happy.  Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable?  If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns.  Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.

Quote
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.

Bingo.  They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. 

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 06:22 pm
Should note we shouldn't forget that STS-136 is now in the mix. At a very early stage and one step at a time, but certainly in the mix.

Will work on that.

Don't you mean STS-336 as I don't think that the work on the ET-94 is meant to be anything other than a LON or a test flight for a SD-HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 06:28 pm
As long as decent funding levels for commercial crew and cargo are maintained, all hope is not lost. They are the true future of American HSF. In LEO and beyond.

As much as I've whined this morning, reality is reality.  If this bill passes, we'll just have to take what we've got and do our part to maximize the actual utility the country gets out of this porkfest.

Quote
I agree with Jon - I just don't see the benefit of pushing ahead with a SDHLV, when there are no funds for actual payloads. We'll be stuck with a HLV that only launches once or twice per year, at enormous cost. BEO exploration will not become economical this way.

It's far worse than that.  They'll "find" payloads for their HLV.  Even if it means forcing stuff that doesn't need an HLV into being developed so only the HLV can lift it.  It's just like what happened with the Shuttle during the early days and with ISS.  The good news for MSFC and JSC is that if they can suck more and more projects into "needing" an HLV, they'll just happen to be the centers that would "have to" do the development. 

The hope is that the money they left over for commercial crew and technology can be better spent now that it's no longer being used to try and replace the HSF "baby rattle". 

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: phantomdj on 07/15/2010 06:29 pm

I’m going to say this again

The people that build and test the FWD and AFT skirt electronics and hydraulics for the SRB’s will have all the assembly and test work done by the end of September and a majority of them will be laid-off.  This includes STS-135.  So the SRB folks, with the knowledge and skills to assemble and test the SRB’s that will be needed for a SD-HLV or a possible STS-336, will not be around when the SD-HLV needs them in about 2 years.

Does Congress, NASA or USA believe they can hire them back on a year or two?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 06:30 pm
These remarks sound like they came from the press conference:
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/07/hutchison-champions-new-nasa-p.html

Also, something else to look for, as noted in the story:

Quote
Nelson said he expected the White House to put out a statement supporting the bill later today.

Although it's also important to remember that HR 4173 (Wall Street reform) will continue to dominate the discussion on the Hill; that Senate vote is occurring right now on the floor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 06:33 pm
The press conference for the Senate 2010 NASA Authorization Bill has now been posted, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBfXy1LulP0
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 06:34 pm
Should note we shouldn't forget that STS-136 is now in the mix. At a very early stage and one step at a time, but certainly in the mix.

Will work on that.

Don't you mean STS-336 as I don't think that the work on the ET-94 is meant to be anything other than a LON or a test flight for a SD-HLV.

No, I mean STS-136. I'm informed there is an aim to convert to a mission, in the style of STS-135 (four person crew).

IF ET-94, it would take a hit on upmass, but when comparing to other vehicles, it's still a huge upmass bonus (along with options).

ET-139 becomes part of the mix, depending on how far they can stretch.

Again, long way off on that, but not something to be dismissed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 06:35 pm
The press conference has now been posted, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBfXy1LulP0
Cool, thanks -- looks like it's courtesy of Senator Hutchison.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/15/2010 06:35 pm

1.  I said that I was posting a recollection about the historic site designations. If you have information that these were never so designated or have been stricken from the lists than you may say that my recollections are incorrect... but you can under no circumstances get inside my head and announce that I do not recall these things.

2.  As for my sloppy reference to a "core budget", They obviously have no budget item called "core budget" and I assumed most here were smart enough to know that  ::) I was not intending to be so specific as to designate some particular line in some portion of NASA's budget. I was making a general point I trusted the readers to get without a multi-page discourse about the intricate details of federal agency budgets.

3.  My point: If the taxpayer is paying for the facilities anyway, then it is not really fair to hang the accounting for that on a particular launch vehicle (though I can see why somebody who lives in the EELV world would like every NASA-owned system to be falsely saddled with that expense and made to look artificially expensive)  ;)

4.Try to focus more on shooting down actual technical errors about systems with hard numbers, and not opinions or general ideas which are obviously not being made with precision.


1.  See the Mercury Control Center.   

2.  And NASA uses total cost accounting.  It is fair and standard practice in the real world and not just NASA.  Projects must account for and maintain the assets they use.  Using taxpayer money has nothing to do with it

3.    Wrong.  I live in the real world and it has nothing to do with EELV.   The user of a facility must fund it out of its budget and be saddled with it.  This applies to all facilities and not just LC-39.  The shuttle no longer needed the VPF, it was torn down.   Maintenance of LC-39 needs to be added to any vehicle that use it because it would correctly show the true costs.  Your point that it "made to look artificially expensive" is lucricous.  Only HSF pork supporter would saddle the rest of NASA with LC-39 costs.   

4.  See #2.  Shot down with hard facts.  Try to use real world data vs HSF pork policies. 

Your point is just plain inane.  If LC-39 costs too much, then it needs to go away.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/15/2010 06:40 pm
The bill (if you read it) includes a provision for a National Academies study in what to do with manned spaceflight 2014-2023. This is the same as what all the unmanned programs do, and allows a concrete set of goals to be laid down with a politician dictating priorities...

So you're saying that all the unmanned programs decide on committing a lions share of their budgets to developing new systems, including a commitment to tie up a significant chunk of their future budgets on maintaining the yearly fixed costs for those systems, before they even figure out what they're going to do with said systems?  Pardon my ignorance of unmanned systems, but I kind of thought that they solicited feedback from PIs on destinations and let them pick how they want to handle the transport...If you could enlighten me though I'd be intrigued.

Not quite answering your question, but I believe the unmanned programmes start with "these are the launchers at our disposal".

It looks like HSF is being put into the same position by this order of events - the new missions will work around the available launchers. However, it's not like we haven't already put a lot of thought put into what could be achieved with these sized launchers.

I guess the paradigm here is "assembled from 75mT chunks" (or more with a big u/s). The world mostly seems to divide into "it'll be easier with an HLV" and "we can do it with 25mT chunks". I don't think this will put a big constraint on what the study could recommend in terms of missions, or how to achieve them.

But I do understand your frustration.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 06:41 pm
Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable?  If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns.  Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.

Quote
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.

Bingo.  They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. 

~Jon
My issues to a "T".

I thought much of the drabble about FY2011 was insincere as well.

The reason no one sets goals/timelines is that it is too effective ... limits their agendas. Hearing certain people on this board put down others "with agendas" - when they are clearly demonstrating bias.  Lost a lot of value for this forum with that.

Either way not defining things here is a very bad sign.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 06:41 pm
Should note we shouldn't forget that STS-136 is now in the mix. At a very early stage and one step at a time, but certainly in the mix.

Will work on that.

Don't you mean STS-336 as I don't think that the work on the ET-94 is meant to be anything other than a LON or a test flight for a SD-HLV.

No, I mean STS-136. I'm informed there is an aim to convert to a mission, in the style of STS-135 (four person crew).

IF ET-94, it would take a hit on upmass, but when comparing to other vehicles, it's still a huge upmass bonus (along with options).

ET-139 becomes part of the mix, depending on how far they can stretch.

Again, long way off on that, but not something to be dismissed.

Great!

I imagine that it would have to be flown late in FY2011.  Will be looking forward to reading your article or post on it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/15/2010 06:47 pm
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

The summary says:
Quote from: 2010NASA.pdf
Sec. 302 - Space Launch System as Follow-on Launch Vehicle to the Space Shuttle – NASA will
initiate development of a Government-owned and NASA-managed “Space Launch System”

But the draft bill in both the SLS and MPCV sections contains this language:
Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf
The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.

So how does this work? What does "commercial operations" mean here?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 06:49 pm
My guess is that it means that the HLV can be used by non-NASA clients (if there is any).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/15/2010 06:49 pm
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.

In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. 

I guess here's my question.  One of OV's and 51D's chief complaints about FY11 was that it left the station in the lurch.  This does almost *nothing* to change the situation (other than a single token extra shuttle flight), but now they're happy.  Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable?  If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns.  Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.

Quote
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.

Bingo.  They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. 

~Jon

If the SRB/SSME/ET base is now being maintained for SD-HLV then that leaves the opportunity for one Orbiter to be left on LON standby while it's being developed. There is going to be a study to see if more than STS-135 is required so there maybe more than one extra mission anyway.

We had a plan with missions already designed, going back to the Moon. The President now wants Flexible Path, well Congress is giving him the tool to do it early so he and Bolden can come up with the exact plan.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 06:56 pm
The press conference has now been posted, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBfXy1LulP0
Cool, thanks -- looks like it's courtesy of Senator Hutchison.
FYI, the Q&A starts at about the 17-minute mark.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/15/2010 06:56 pm
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

According to Nelson's statement, this advances things from 2025 to 2016.  The 2025 date was for a full-on mission to an asteroid, unless he is stating the 2016 date is for a full-on mission to an asteroid, this comparsion is not the same.  I hope someone can get some attention to this and get clarification for the record.

If it is not for a full-on mission then I would point out that the previous plan was to start BEO manned launches in 2020 in prep for the 2025 mission.  Either Nelson has to revise his comparison to 2020 or state in clear terms that 2016 is for a real mission.


I don't think he's talking about BEO for 2016 (it's the date for Orion LEO capability), which makes it a very strange comparison:
http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&
Quote
The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation today passed a bipartisan spending plan for NASA that extends the space shuttle program well into next year and advances the date for future human flight in a newly developed spacecraft to 2016 from a 2025 target-date initially proposed by the administration.



What about a BEO mission to lunar orbit?

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 06:56 pm
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.

In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. 

I guess here's my question.  One of OV's and 51D's chief complaints about FY11 was that it left the station in the lurch.  This does almost *nothing* to change the situation (other than a single token extra shuttle flight), but now they're happy.  Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable?  If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns.  Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.

Quote
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.

Bingo.  They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. 

~Jon

Thank you for speaking to my emotional state Jon.

This is a compromise, meaning you give and you take.

In a perfect world, obviously I believe we should fly shuttle until a replacement is online, proven and readily available, both cargo and crew.  That is, as much as I dislike it, unlikely.

That said, the addition of STS-135 does give something.  There is a possibility of using ET-94 for STS-136.  A SDLV also places certain possibilities in the mix in order to protect ISS in the immediate term.

Commercial crew is funded, yet it provides for answers first to key questions that absolutely must be answered in order for it to be the most effective it can be.  COTS and CRS still gets its funds. 

Orion appears to be restored to what it was meant to be, and provides a payload for the SLS.  Orion will not be a LEO-only vehicle, a CRV or anything like that unless absolutely necessary.  It gives the CRV role to "commercial", where it should be if the plan is to turn LEO over to "commercial". 

It provides funds for R&D to develop certain technologies that will be required.  Not all at once, but enough that the money can be focused on near term results and what is needed in the near-term.

I believe it restores balance to operations and development. 

Will it be difficult still?  Yes, in a variety of ways.  As I have said in the past, I am willing to work with everyone, because in this industry, we really are all in this together.  The question remains if certain others feel that way. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/15/2010 06:58 pm
The summary says:
Quote from: 2010NASA.pdf
Sec. 302 - Space Launch System as Follow-on Launch Vehicle to the Space Shuttle – NASA will
initiate development of a Government-owned and NASA-managed “Space Launch System”

But the draft bill in both the SLS and MPCV sections contains this language:
Quote from: NASA Rockefeller1.pdf
The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.

So how does this work? What does "commercial operations" mean here?

The Rockefeller doc also says "governement-owned civil launch system developed, managed, and operated by NASA" (p10). It's not a difference in intent between the documents.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mikegi on 07/15/2010 07:08 pm
I guess my frustration is that the section of NASA that has historically proven to be the worst return on investment is the one getting the lion's share of the budget again...
I agree. Ridiculous. Anyway, I guess astronauts heading to the ISS in this SDHLV in the future will be able to say something like, "you're sitting on top of the most complex machine ever built by man, with a million separate components, all supplied by the highest bidder".

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 07:09 pm
Senator Shelby's statement:
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=d7091b9a-802a-23ad-411f-3fd40e393e73
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/15/2010 07:10 pm
I guess my frustration is that the section of NASA that has historically proven to be the worst return on investment is the one getting the lion's share of the budget again...
I agree. Ridiculous. Anyway, I guess astronauts heading to the ISS in this SDHLV in the future will be able to say something like, "you're sitting on top of the most complex machine ever built by man, with a million separate components, all supplied by the highest bidder".

Make that the only bidder... for both the launcher and the spacecraft!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/15/2010 07:10 pm
It may not be perfect, but at least now we have a plan that makes some sense! I view this as very good news.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: si39 on 07/15/2010 07:10 pm
I believe this question was asked previously:  What is the next step?

As I understand it - there is to be no FY2011 Federal Budget - just continuing resolutions.  Is today's hearing part of the budget process or is it something else?

What is your best guess of what will happen - will the committee's desires be met or will the Obama administration block it?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/15/2010 07:12 pm
It may not be perfect, but at least now we have a plan that makes some sense! I view this as very good news.

Does it really make sense. They stripped away the R&D (once again) and kept the funding in the launcher and spacecraft area which won't be competed (once again) and canceled the overall mission (once again). It is a compromise that doesn't achieve either the original intent of the WH (heavy R&D spending in preparation of future exploration) nor the original Cx intent (missions).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/15/2010 07:14 pm
What is your best guess of what will happen - will the committee's desires be met or will Obama administration block?

Nelson said in the press conference that the WH supports the bipartisan bill. That would mean it likely gets implemented with some further mods.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 07:17 pm
I believe this question was asked previously:  What is the next step?

As I understand it - there is to be no FY2011 Federal Budget - just continuing resolutions.  Is today's hearing part of the budget process or is it something else?

What is your best guess of what will happen - will the committee's desires be met or will Obama administration block?

According to Senator Nelson, the President will issue a statement supporting the bill. IMO this means that the general principles of the legislation will remain the same (e.g. SD-HLV, a BEO capsule and commercial crew). However, the numbers are still subject to some change. But we are waiting for 51D Mascot's comments for more on all of this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: phantomdj on 07/15/2010 07:19 pm
This is absolutely criminal – Kongress thinks we are down here frying chickens…

Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KFC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days

“Finger lickin’ good” program.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 07:23 pm
This is absolutely criminal – Kongress thinks we are down here frying chickens…

Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KFC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days

“Finger lickin’ good” program.

LOL
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/15/2010 07:25 pm
This is absolutely criminal – Kongress thinks we are down here frying chickens…

Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KFC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days

“Finger lickin’ good” program.

LOL


Hungry Congressional staffer typing up bill = Freudian slip.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kch on 07/15/2010 07:26 pm
This is absolutely criminal – Kongress thinks we are down here frying chickens…

Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KFC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days

“Finger lickin’ good” program.


"Fry Me To The Moon"?  ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/15/2010 07:36 pm
This is absolutely criminal – Kongress thinks we are down here frying chickens…

Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KFC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days

“Finger lickin’ good” program.

LOL


Hungry Congressional staffer typing up bill = Freudian slip.

There real horrible part is, those documents are proofread by several different people. I guess they were all hungry then...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/15/2010 07:40 pm
Hahaha, someone should tell 51D about this. Someone might be left wondering "which center is KFC?"
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 07:51 pm
Just noticed that Nelson said in the press conference that the "deadline" for the SLS first flight is in 2016. The JSC HLV document implies that inline can't do that in the constrained budget. Thus sidemount seems to be coming out the more likely...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/15/2010 07:54 pm
I'm still confused.. STS-135 isn't officially added is it?

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/15/2010 07:55 pm
Just noticed that Nelson said in the press conference that the "deadline" for the SLS first flight is in 2016. The JSC HLV document implies that inline can't do that in the constrained budget. Thus sidemount seems to be coming out the more likely...

I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/15/2010 07:58 pm
Just noticed that Nelson said in the press conference that the "deadline" for the SLS first flight is in 2016. The JSC HLV document implies that inline can't do that in the constrained budget. Thus sidemount seems to be coming out the more likely...

However, sidemount won't scale to 150mt To LEO. Unless that language got deleted, there may be more money in the offing. Perhaps that's why the bill isn't available yet.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 07:58 pm
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 08:01 pm
Just noticed that Nelson said in the press conference that the "deadline" for the SLS first flight is in 2016. The JSC HLV document implies that inline can't do that in the constrained budget. Thus sidemount seems to be coming out the more likely...

However, sidemount won't scale to 150mt To LEO. Unless that language got deleted, there may be more money in the offing. Perhaps that's why the bill isn't available yet.

The bill came out of the committee this morning. They shouldn't be working on it at this point (except for printing purposes). 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/15/2010 08:04 pm
It may not be perfect, but at least now we have a plan that makes some sense! I view this as very good news.


Agreed given the circumstance.

Much still remains though, I am wary even though people are saying Obama will sign off on this more or less.

Not to mention next year, the year after that and after that, etc.

Like a tag line from a sci fi movie, the battle for the future has just begun.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:07 pm
Senator Shelby's statement:
http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=d7091b9a-802a-23ad-411f-3fd40e393e73

It's not often that I concur with Shelby, but this statement is spot on and important to note:
Quote
While this authorization bill is a good first step in the legislative process, it is important to note that the Appropriations Committee will determine the ultimate outcome.

It'll be important to watch if Shelby, using his position on the Appropriations Committee, plays any funding games again, like last year when he had CCDev funding cut from $150m to $50m.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: bad_astra on 07/15/2010 08:07 pm
Just noticed that Nelson said in the press conference that the "deadline" for the SLS first flight is in 2016. The JSC HLV document implies that inline can't do that in the constrained budget. Thus sidemount seems to be coming out the more likely...

Or the hybrid
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:09 pm
...

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.
That's about $400 million more than the older draft of the Senate Committee bill, but still less than HALF the $3.3 billion proposed for the next 3 years under the White House's FY2011. The higher ($3.3b over 3 years) amount just about guarantees that more than one provider can be chosen.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/15/2010 08:10 pm
I'm still confused.. STS-135 isn't officially added is it?
This bill would authorize the flight, should it be enacted.  The language in the draft was in Section 503; noted the language in an earlier post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618575#msg618575
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 08:14 pm
However, sidemount won't scale to 150mt To LEO. Unless that language got deleted, there may be more money in the offing. Perhaps that's why the bill isn't available yet.

He said "to 130 tonnes" in the press conference, so maybe it did got modified.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 08:18 pm
It'll be important to watch if Shelby, using his position on the Appropriations Committee, plays any funding games again, like last year when he had CCDev funding cut from $150m to $50m.

Nelson and Hutchison several times emphasized that they wrote this in concert with Shelby and Mulkowski, and they don't expect much changes from Appropriations (or the White House, for that matter).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:19 pm
For the curious, I've tallied up the total spending on various items for FY2011-FY2013 (the only three years covered by the Senate draft bill):

Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)

From the other thread, I've pasted the totals for various items in the earlier leaked draft bill and the WH proposals above. Below are relevant statements regarding funding figures in today's bill from Sens. Nelson and Shelby:

Nelson: "it bolsters commercial space ventures by allocating about $1.6 billion for development in the next three years." ($1.2B in earlier draft, $3.3B white house)

Shelby: "The legislation maintains $19 billion in total funding for NASA in fiscal year 2011, with modest growth in years thereafter." (same top-line as earlier draft and white house)

"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $7.15 billion for development of a new Space Launch System" (same as earlier draft)

"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)

"Over 3 years, the legislation provides over $2.1 billion for a combination of Exploration and Space Technology Development" (earlier draft had $2.15B, WH $8.09B)

Which makes me wonder... if the top-line is the same, and Space Launch System funding isn't being reduced, where is the money coming from for the reportedly amended increases in commercial crew and space technology relative to the earlier draft? (also note that Shelby's comment doesn't indicate an increase for exploration & space technology relative to the earlier draft)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm
...

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.
That's about $400 million more than the older draft of the Senate Committee bill, but still less than HALF the $3.3 billion proposed for the next 3 years under the White House's FY2011. The higher ($3.3b over 3 years) amount just about guarantees that more than one provider can be chosen.

Why?  You don't know that, again, becuase no one has known the public/private partnership dynamic.

Those of you screaming about "commercial" funding, don't see what you are complaining about is an oxymoron.  You want government money for a "commercial" development.

You demand all that money, or more of it, when none of you can even tell me what the funding arrangement is, but want and expect more.  This bill helps provide those answers first.

Besides, what was all that crowing about SpaceX and what they did for a certain price?  Doesn't that mean the 1.6 billion is more than enough?

Edit:  Typed the wrong number.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 08:28 pm
CSF are happy...........sorta.

Presser:

CSF Lauds Senators Warner, Boxer, Tom Udall, and Brownback for Support of Commercial Spaceflight
NASA Bill Provides Funding for Commercial Crew, But Falls Short of Expert Panel's Vision for Future


Washington, D.C., July 15, 2010 – Following today’s executive session of the Senate Commerce Committee, the President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Bretton Alexander, stated, “Thanks to Senators Warner, Boxer, Udall, and Brownback, American industry won a victory today.  But this legislation must be improved so that we create more sustainable American jobs, instead of exporting jobs to Russia.  This compromise committee bill represents progress from the original draft, but there is still a long way to go to get to where the Augustine Committee said NASA needs to be.”

“We strongly supported Senator Warner’s proposed amendment to increase funding for, and remove needless restrictions on the development of, commercial crew and cargo.  We greatly appreciate all that Senator Warner did to promote commercial spaceflight and help the United States regain its human spaceflight capability quickly.”  Alexander added, “Senator Boxer’s leadership has also been pivotal in securing improvements to the bill.”

Alexander continued, “The Senate committee’s recognition that commercial systems, not government systems, will be the primary means of crew transportation to the International Space Station represents a milestone for our industry.  Instead of spending money to purchase seats on Russian launch vehicles, the commercial industry will create jobs and critical technological capabilities here in America through investment in commercial spaceflight.  I would also note that Senator Nelson has stated that he intends to fund commercial crew fully over the envisioned six-year timeframe for the program.  Moving forward, a firm Congressional commitment to commercial spaceflight will be critical to enable industry to accelerate its rate of hiring and job creation.”

Alexander also applauded Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, saying, “The Senate Committee also adopted Senator Udall’s amendment specifying funding and support for NASA’s innovative Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) Program, which will enable university students and researchers to fly science payloads aboard new low-cost commercial suborbital vehicles whose development is well underway.”

During this morning’s markup, Senators Boxer and Warner made several comments supportive of commercial spaceflight.  These quotes can be viewed in the Senate Commerce Committee webcast at 39:00 and 53:50 respectively, and verbatim versions are provided below for reference.


# # #


July 15 Markup: Webcast Quotes from Senators Boxer and Warner

Senator Boxer: “As we move to the floor, I’m going to be teaming up with some colleagues who would like to see a little more done on the commercial side, so we’ll all work together and maybe we can get that done.  We think this is a great area and we know the Committee worked hard to find that balance but we’d like to work a little more on that.” (39:00 into webcast)

Senator Warner: “I wanted to highlight two things as somebody who’s been a large advocate of commercial spaceflight, both from a cargo standpoint and ultimately from a manned standpoint.  I want to thank Senator Nelson and the work of the Chairman and others to make sure that the funding levels moved up from where the draft legislation was.  I know it’s been a challenging process, I know the Administration has been working with us and others as well who are advocates of commercial space, and I think there may be even more room to go, but I think this is a very important good faith-effort.”  (53:50 into webcast)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/15/2010 08:32 pm
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

thank you
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:33 pm
...

I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.

I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.

Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.

SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:35 pm
Those of you screaming about "commercial" funding, don't see what you are complaining about is an oxymoron.  You want government money for a "commercial" development.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
Quote
The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers .
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 08:36 pm
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

thank you

I suspect that the decision between inline and sidemount is purposely left to NASA. Nelson specifically said that they did not want to get involved in the engineering aspects of it. We will have to wait for the answer to this question.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 08:38 pm

July 15 Markup: Webcast Quotes from Senators Boxer and Warner

Senator Boxer: “As we move to the floor, I’m going to be teaming up with some colleagues who would like to see a little more done on the commercial side, so we’ll all work together and maybe we can get that done.  We think this is a great area and we know the Committee worked hard to find that balance but we’d like to work a little more on that.” (39:00 into webcast)

Senator Warner: “I wanted to highlight two things as somebody who’s been a large advocate of commercial spaceflight, both from a cargo standpoint and ultimately from a manned standpoint.  I want to thank Senator Nelson and the work of the Chairman and others to make sure that the funding levels moved up from where the draft legislation was.  I know it’s been a challenging process, I know the Administration has been working with us and others as well who are advocates of commercial space, and I think there may be even more room to go, but I think this is a very important good faith-effort.”  (53:50 into webcast)

Boy and howdy!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 08:41 pm
...

I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.

I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.

Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.

SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.

I don't disagree with your preamble.  No one should.  That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 

1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient.  SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K.  As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta.  Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 08:53 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/15/2010 08:57 pm
Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Quote
"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)


I thought the Boxer Amendment specifically increased that? 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 08:59 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...

Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason.  9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/15/2010 09:02 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).

Why?  If SpaceX did if for what they claim in press releases and two rockets already exist and are flight proven, then 1.6 billion essentially allows for many "other SpaceX-types" with some wiggle room to account for variations in company-to-company. 

Again, this does not include whatever factor capital investment is required.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 09:04 pm
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

JSC management is 100% Side-Mount oriented. They said several things that were designed to enhance the expectations of Side-Mount at the expense of In-Line. Of course they would. It's their baby. The JSC vs. MSFC (Side-Mount vs. In-Line) dynamic is in full swing in that document. Knowing the politics at play, would anyone have expected to see anything different?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 09:04 pm
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though. Perhaps the issue of whether Orion should be developed as a BEO-only vehicle is still in discussion? That'd also explain where the money to pay for the amendments is coming from, since the budget top-line is being kept the same.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 09:06 pm
Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Quote
"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)


I thought the Boxer Amendment specifically increased that? 

That was for exploration & space technology, which actually curiously still seems to be at the same level as in the earlier draft (at least according to Shelby).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 09:07 pm
It'll be important to watch if Shelby, using his position on the Appropriations Committee, plays any funding games again, like last year when he had CCDev funding cut from $150m to $50m.

Nelson and Hutchison several times emphasized that they wrote this in concert with Shelby and Mulkowski, and they don't expect much changes from Appropriations (or the White House, for that matter).

Of the 4 names, Shelby is by far the most powerful and full-on undisputed king of Appropriations. His state is Alabama, home to MSFC, which intensely favors the In-Line over the Side-Mount. Any takers on how this will play out? Read the tea leaves.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/15/2010 09:13 pm
Well, I'm glad Warner is going to continue the fight for more commercial funding.    I'm less optimistic about the tech budget.

If commercial advocates in the Senate are smart, they'll be talking up the gap and russian price gouging every chance they get.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rjholling on 07/15/2010 09:22 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...

Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason.  9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
I think what he is saying is that there should be greater accountability with the way funds are spent.  While Ares I didn't account for the whole $9 billion, it sure as heck tied up Orion forcing numerous redesigns that forced it over budget and its performance to lack what it was envisioned as.  Certainly this is not the fault of the vast majority of people who work at those centers but rather people who pushed their favorite design over serious misgivings by a lot of people who said Ares I was a poor architecture.  There should be greater transparency in reporting what goes on at NASA to Congress, or really any government agency for that matter to see that funds are not wasted.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 09:24 pm
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though.

Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:
The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.

Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 09:24 pm
CSE happy:

Coalition Commends Committee’s Passage of NASA Plan

HOUSTON – The Coalition for Space Exploration (Coalition) commends the action taken today by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to authorize a nonpartisan spending plan for NASA.

The legislation is an important, positive measure for our nation’s space exploration program that demonstrates fiscal responsibility, maximizes goals of the program and offers commitment to current workforce resources.

The Coalition applauds the committee for acknowledging the strong support of the American people for a robust space exploration program, and for providing the needed leadership to ensure a balanced approach to meeting our nation’s goals in space.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/15/2010 09:25 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...

Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason.  9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
I think what he is saying is that there should be greater accountability with the way funds are spent.  While Ares I didn't account for the whole $9 billion, it sure as heck tied up Orion forcing numerous redesigns that forced it over budget and its performance to lack what it was envisioned as.  Certainly this is not the fault of the vast majority of people who work at those centers but rather people who pushed their favorite design over serious misgivings by a lot of people who said Ares I was a poor architecture.  There should be greater transparency in reporting what goes on at NASA to Congress, or really any government agency for that matter to see that funds are not wasted.

Speaking of Orion, any chance we will see land landing return now that it will be sitting on a far more capable vehicle?

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 09:28 pm
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though.

Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:
The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.

Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.

That still leaves open the question of whether Orion will be used for transporting crew to LEO, though, or if crew will be launched separately. I also think use of the phrase "the vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project" rather than simply describing it as "the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle" is interesting.

I suppose it could go the other way, too, and the funding for the amended items is paid for by cost reductions in Orion since it no longer has to be crammed onto an Ares I.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/15/2010 09:31 pm
Calm it down please. There's literally four people playing tag team. Let others feel they can post without being jumped on.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 09:35 pm
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though.

Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:
The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.

Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.

That still leaves open the question of whether Orion will be used for transporting crew to LEO, though, or if crew will be launched separately. I also think use of the phrase "the vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project" rather than simply describing it as "the Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle" is interesting.

I suppose it could go the other way, too, and the funding for the amended items is paid for by cost reductions in Orion since it no longer has to be crammed onto an Ares I.

Draft bill calls for the MPCV to be capable of launching crew to ISS, but doesn't mean it HAS to be used that way I suppose.

Quote
(3) The capability to provide an alternative means of delivery of crew and cargo to the ISS, in the event other vehicles, whether commercial vehicles or partner-supplied vehicles, are unable to perform 
that function.

I think the language intentionally high level so that its "Orion" but with whatever mods are needed for its role. I don't they want to incur termination costs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/15/2010 09:37 pm
Just from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed.   And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality.   They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 09:48 pm
Just from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed.   And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality.   They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.

They may even continue with the Block 0 already being worked first, and evolve from there.

If functionality is being brought back in, Orion isn't going to be cheaper, so hopefully they don't pull from Orion funding with these amendments while at the same time levying additional requirements.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: padrat on 07/15/2010 10:01 pm
I'll just say that for myself, I'm just happy that MAYBE now we can get some hint of direction of how to proceed with work. Because, quite frankly, working with this mentality of just drifting along, not knowing what to maintain, tear down, etc. because noone knows what the next program, if there is one, will require, since everyone is waiting for SOMEONE to make a frickin' decision, is really beginning to suck.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 10:02 pm
Just from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed.   And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality.   They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.

They may even continue with the Block 0 already being worked first, and evolve from there.

If functionality is being brought back in, Orion isn't going to be cheaper, so hopefully they don't pull from Orion funding with these amendments while at the same time levying additional requirements.

My understanding of the July 13th Senate bill was that there would only be one single BEO capsule since BEO capability was stated to be a minimum requirement for the capsule. In other words, there would be no block 0 or block 1 capsules.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: STS Tony on 07/15/2010 10:13 pm
Good news for sure. Not too sure what the amendments mean and hopefully it does not harm HLV for the sake of the fat cat commercial companies.

Remember what Augustine said, you can ONLY close the gap from the left, and only shuttle can do that. I would not want to lose another flight (STS-136 or whatever) for the sake of Warner's lobbying.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 10:17 pm
Just from things Ive read smart people post here in the past, I'd be surprised if Orion block 1 was significantly changed.   And, imo, they are still going to have a close the gap mentality.   They may even develop a sense that they are racing commercial to the finish line.

They may even continue with the Block 0 already being worked first, and evolve from there.

If functionality is being brought back in, Orion isn't going to be cheaper, so hopefully they don't pull from Orion funding with these amendments while at the same time levying additional requirements.

My understanding of the July 13th Senate bill was that there would only be one single BEO capsule since BEO capability was stated to be a minimum requirement for the capsule. In other words, there would be no block 0 or block 1 capsules.

Yeah but with this snippet below, I wonder if they couldn't use the Block 0 for a "test", which was pretty much its original intent until the CRV idea came along (though it was always launched manned).  It seems like it still could be a Block 0 before 2016, and then be at full BEO capacity by 2016.

I can't recall any language in the draft that forbids it from evolving it from a Block 0 prior to 2016. They seem to simply require it have BEO capability by 2016.

Quote
For purposes of meeting such goal, the Administrator may undertake a test of the transportation vehicle at the ISS before that date.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/15/2010 10:19 pm
Not too sure what the amendments mean and hopefully it does not harm HLV for the sake of the fat cat commercial companies.

Thanks, that's one of the funniest things I've read today.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/15/2010 10:20 pm
I am of the same mind about Orion. If it is to be for BEO and it needs to be ready when the SLS is slated, then Block 2 should be vigorously pursued.

As for what transpired today...I am excited that we at least have a date and potentially firm direction in hand. I love reading all your posts. Your Pasions and knowledge are inspiring, but speaking plainly, I just want the hell out of LEO!

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rv_rocket on 07/15/2010 10:28 pm
I'll just say that for myself, I'm just happy that MAYBE now we can get some hint of direction of how to proceed with work. Because, quite frankly, working with this mentality of just drifting along, not knowing what to maintain, tear down, etc. because noone knows what the next program, if there is one, will require, since everyone is waiting for SOMEONE to make a frickin' decision, is really beginning to suck.

Well said padrat! Let's get on with it!!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 10:32 pm
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/15/2010 10:33 pm
"Greater Houston Partnership Applauds bi-partisan compromise bill"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31251
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/15/2010 10:34 pm
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?

Was also wondering this since Nelson said to expect it today.  Do the amendments have to be settled first?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 10:37 pm
JSC management is 100% Side-Mount oriented. They said several things that were designed to enhance the expectations of Side-Mount at the expense of In-Line. Of course they would. It's their baby. The JSC vs. MSFC (Side-Mount vs. In-Line) dynamic is in full swing in that document. Knowing the politics at play, would anyone have expected to see anything different?

I agree, but there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it. Inline is probably cheaper in the long run, but that's not the issue at the moment...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 10:44 pm
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?

Was also wondering this since Nelson said to expect it today.  Do the amendments have to be settled first?

The amendments have passed as modified. But we don't know what that means.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 10:51 pm
...

I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.

I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.

Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.

SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.

I don't disagree with your preamble.  No one should.  That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 

1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient.  SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K.  As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta.  Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient.

I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success?  I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit?  If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?

Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. 

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/15/2010 10:54 pm
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).

Why?  If SpaceX did if for what they claim in press releases and two rockets already exist and are flight proven, then 1.6 billion essentially allows for many "other SpaceX-types" with some wiggle room to account for variations in company-to-company. 

Again, this does not include whatever factor capital investment is required.

I actually don't disagree with OV on this one.  The $1.6B isn't necessarily the end of the world.  Back two years ago, we were hoping that we could somehow stretch $500M to cover at least two companies.  That said, putting restrictions on how the money is spent the first year is stupid.  How long did it take them from when they had the go-ahead on COTS to when they had the solicitation figured out, proposals in, and awards in place?  Why do they need to spend a whole year studying the problem out, when they already have good experience to build on?  Or is it just $20B HLV programs that should get funding go ahead without a plan ready in advance?

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 10:54 pm
but there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it.

You don't understand what Side-Mount really is then. That "thing" they hang on the side of the ET is not just a huge cargo canister. It's an entire rocket all it's own that has to be developed from scratch. There is no way in hell that can be deployed faster than the inline. Put propellant tanks inside the cargo bay and it flies without the ET. It's not a cargo carrier. It's a bloody great rocket with an internal cargo bay.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/15/2010 10:59 pm
...wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides
~Jon

It wasn't the *program* that spent the money. It was Mike Griffin and his hand-picked crowd pursuing the Griffin vision while totally, and it seemed at times, deliberately blind to reality. They are gone now, thank God!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 11:04 pm
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?

There seems to be a confirmation from the White House in this article but it's not exactly a ringing endorsement:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100715-senate-nasa-bill.html

Quote
“While we are still in the process of reviewing the details of the draft, the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the President’s vision for NASA and represents an important first step towards helping us achieve the key goals the President has laid out,” the administration official said in a July 15 statement. “We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to help advance an ambitious and achievable space program — one that helps us blaze a new trail of innovation and discovery.”

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Downix on 07/15/2010 11:05 pm
but there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it.

You don't understand what Side-Mount really is then. That "thing" they hang on the side of the ET is not just a huge cargo canister. It's an entire rocket all it's own that has to be developed from scratch. There is no way in hell that can be deployed faster than the inline. Put propellant tanks inside the cargo bay and it flies without the ET. It's not a cargo carrier. It's a bloody great rocket with an internal cargo bay.
*chuckles*  I am suddenly imagining someone with a bright idea of mounting two Delta IV on the side....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/15/2010 11:19 pm
You don't understand what Side-Mount really is then. That "thing" they hang on the side of the ET is not just a huge cargo canister. It's an entire rocket all it's own that has to be developed from scratch. There is no way in hell that can be deployed faster than the inline. Put propellant tanks inside the cargo bay and it flies without the ET. It's not a cargo carrier. It's a bloody great rocket with an internal cargo bay.

All that is true Chuck, but that doesn't mean an Inline would read any sooner. The "bloody great rocket" has just as many systems and complexity as Inline, but the load paths and LOX tank for Inline are unique, and add development time.

I'm not going to argue that Sidemount has lower recurring costs, but I do think it would be ready sooner. It's up to NASA HQ now to make the decision which is more important.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 07/15/2010 11:20 pm
...wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides
It wasn't the *program* that spent the money. It was Mike Griffin and his hand-picked crowd pursuing the Griffin vision while totally, and it seemed at times, deliberately blind to reality. They are gone now, thank God!
   How much of the MSFC (and Ares @ JSC?) senior management is still in place? (Apart from Jeff Hanley.) The same management that, apparently, either wasn't technically competent to see the Ares forest for the trees, or were ineffective at moving their concerns upstream?
   Obviously Griffin's top-down pressure is hugely to blame, but his plans were being executed, ineffectively, by others. What reason is there to believe that they will now execute inline efficiently as DIRECT?
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/16/2010 12:00 am
and on that same line of thinking, do we or do we NOT want Mike Griffin's endorsement of this plan? Oh the irony's abound :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/16/2010 12:06 am
...

I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.

I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.

Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.

SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.

I don't disagree with your preamble.  No one should.  That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 

1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient.  SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K.  As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta.  Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient.

I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success?  I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit?  If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?

Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. 

~Jon

Quite honestly Jon, I am not inclined to explain my rationale to someone who is only going to whine further, try to pick something apart, etc no matter what I say.  No one will change what you choose to believe no matter the data provided. 

Look at your comments on the this forum today, quite sad actually.  Even when you say you agree with me on a point, you still choose to place an unnecessary dig in at people, programs, etc you know next to nothing about. 

As I said earlier and will say again, I hope to work with everyone in this industry, because we are all in this together and must work to make this compromise work also.  Clearly not everyone feels the same.  Some believe they are better than others, feel entitled to tell everyone else how something should be done and everything else is utterly unacceptable, etc. 

Hopefully, as we move forward, we find most out there within industry and government are willing to make this work. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/16/2010 12:08 am
Thank you Chris Bergin. Great job. Without you... No, I'm not even going to think about it!

Cheers and More Cheers!



Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Silmfeanor on 07/16/2010 12:19 am
As someone who just relatively recently got into the thick of all this legislationing and political process, my feeling is something along the lines of carefull optimism, with carefull being the key word. Although it certainly looks better than the previous proposal, I cant help feeling uneasy with the HLV without a goal thing, smells too much like CxP to me.

Let's say it like this; in 4-5 years, when im reviewing this topic, I hope I dont feel like I was overtly optimistic. I guess there still are interesting times ahead of us. I'll just have the good faith that everything will turn out for the better and hope that faith was warranted.

edit: I'd also like to extend thanks to Chris for these very accurate and timely updates and inside informations in the process. Gives me the chance to play prophet to a few less informed friends of me again, until I direct them to NSF of course.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 12:21 am

I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success?  I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit?  If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?

Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. 

~Jon

5-seg SRB, J2-X, Orion, LAS, recovery system development and testing, test and launch facilities construction, new tooling are all a bit more than powerpoint now and none of it is really wasted going forward now.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21787.msg596873#msg596873
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/16/2010 12:27 am
Thank you Chris Bergin. Great job. Without you... No, I'm not even going think about it!

Cheers and More Cheers!

What did I do? :D
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/16/2010 12:34 am
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.

In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. 

I guess here's my question.  One of OV's and 51D's chief complaints about FY11 was that it left the station in the lurch.  This does almost *nothing* to change the situation (other than a single token extra shuttle flight), but now they're happy.  Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable?  If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns.  Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.

Quote
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.

Bingo.  They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. 

~Jon

Jon,

You might try reading the entire bill...and recognize that it is the product of a compromise among a WIDE range of views. "Compromise"....that's when all parties involved in a discussion or dispute try to find the place where they can all agree and establish a foundation from which each can see a path forward for the things they feel are important.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2010 12:38 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 12:41 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Nelson said the appropriators were also on board on this. Mikulski and Shelby were both supportive.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/16/2010 12:41 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


And why are you so sure they won't....or do you really just hope they do not?  I believe it is the latter and you are just trying to make it sound like you are informed with some "insider" info. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 12:53 am
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.

It just occurred to me that Nelson is possibly including the extra COTS money in his $1.6B total. So commercial crew might be less than $1.6B.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 12:54 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Nelson said the appropriators were also on board on this. Mikulski and Shelby were both supportive.

Although as I mentioned previously, the figures Shelby gave in his statement don't add up with Nelson's figures for increased commercial crew funding. If the top-line is the same (as a number of senators have stated), the money's coming from somewhere, and that somewhere isn't clear yet.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 12:57 am
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.

It just occurred to me that Nelson is possibly including the extra COTS money in his $1.6B total. So commercial crew might be less than $1.6B.

I just read it through again, and you are indeed correct: "And, it bolsters commercial space ventures by allocating about $1.6 billion for development in the next three years"

Supposedly Warner's and Boxer's amendments for increased commercial crew and space technology funding were incorporated, though. If so, where's the money?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: SpaceDave on 07/16/2010 01:04 am
Warner's amendment was not included in the committee session. They will fight for it now when the bill goes to the Senate floor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/16/2010 01:08 am
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.

Really at a major crossroads....Sidemount pretty much boxes us in (in terms of evolution). Inline allows for much more growth. Which one does NASA choose? Or do they take the middle road and choose the hybrid?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Diagoras on 07/16/2010 01:09 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Thanks for the update on the legislation progress, it sometimes gets hard to keep track of where this is in Congress.

Appropriations might agree, if Obama says he's good with it. I can't really see them passing something he's not alright with.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 01:13 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


Whatever is agreed will include a SD-HLV. Listening to that Press Conference and hearing Senator after Senator gush about SRBs showed where their preferences lie. Congress has form here as it canceled the last all EELV plan in 2005. It was very optimistic to assume they would just meekly accept FY2011 as is especially when there has been open hostility to it ever since introduction.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/16/2010 01:14 am
Hahaha, someone should tell 51D about this. Someone might be left wondering "which center is KFC?"

Hehe...good thing initials aren't used in the actual legislative text, where "Kennedy Space Center" is spelled out, as opposed to this excerpt from the Section-by-Section description. This is what happens when someone is asked to quickly pull together a summary of the bill to send around (Wednesday morning) when the bill was distributed to Member offices, and those working on the bill don't read through the draft carefully enough--or too soon after eating fried chicken, as suggested--to catch it.

It has been passed on to the "appropriate authorities" to at least correct the version on the Committee website.

"Thank ya muchly, phantomdj!!"
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 01:17 am
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 01:18 am
A commenter on another site looked at the FY2010 projections for FY2011-2013 and noticed that Orion expenditures were about $1.9B-$2.0B/year, while in the draft bill from earlier this week (which seems to be largely the same as today's funding-wise) it's $1.3B-1.4B/year. Any thoughts on the difference?

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/345955main_8_Exploration_%20FY_2010_UPDATED_final.pdf
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA%20Rockefeller1.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/16/2010 01:24 am
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.


Perhaps, but with Senate and Presidential support it would not be too much of a leap to see forward work being done to support the draft bill as is was being done for the proposed FY2011,  work for STS-135/136 has already been worked for a while per L2 sources.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 01:29 am
Glad to see some good news come out of Congress for once. :) Now the fun part starts...the ball is now in NASA's court to do the right thing.
The ball is not in NASA's court yet.  It still will be a bit before this bill makes it through Congress; today was another step in that process, but there are several remaining.


Perhaps, but with Senate and Presidential support it would not be too much of a leap to see forward work being done to support the draft bill as is was being done for the proposed FY2011,  work for STS-135/136 has already been worked for a while per L2 sources.
Those would be more akin to high-level assessments than work in earnest.  Even if it would be within its authority to do so in absence of the kind of language in this bill, NASA had not yet committed to fly 135 (and hasn't yet).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 01:43 am
Nelson's statement:

http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&

I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9

According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.

It just occurred to me that Nelson is possibly including the extra COTS money in his $1.6B total. So commercial crew might be less than $1.6B.

I just read it through again, and you are indeed correct: "And, it bolsters commercial space ventures by allocating about $1.6 billion for development in the next three years"

Supposedly Warner's and Boxer's amendments for increased commercial crew and space technology funding were incorporated, though. If so, where's the money?

I suspect that some of the amendements passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said the amendements passed but "as modified". The modifications must have been to the amounts proposed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: spectre000 on 07/16/2010 01:45 am
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 01:47 am
I suspect that some of the amendement passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said the amendements as modified. The modifications most of been to the amounts proposed.
Definitely another question for 51D Mascot, but listening to Senator Hutchison's motion again in the archived webcast, I do not hear an amendment from Senator Warner in the list she read.  (As SpaceDave noted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618887#msg618887) a few posts back.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 01:52 am
I suspect that some of the amendments passed but were for much lesser amounts. They said that the amendments were passed but as modified. The modifications must have been to the amounts proposed.
Definitely another question for 51D Mascot, but listening to Senator Hutchison's motion again in the archived webcast, I do not hear an amendment from Senator Warner in the list she read.  (As SpaceDave noted (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618887#msg618887) a few posts back.)


I think that you are right about Warner's amendement. As far as the other amendments, 51D Mascot kind of answered this question in this post by saying the amendments were relatively minor and that the revised bill will not be very different from the July 13th bill:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg618865#msg618865
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/16/2010 02:00 am
Hahaha, someone should tell 51D about this. Someone might be left wondering "which center is KFC?"

Hehe...good thing initials aren't used in the actual legislative text, where "Kennedy Space Center" is spelled out, as opposed to this excerpt from the Section-by-Section description. This is what happens when someone is asked to quickly pull together a summary of the bill to send around (Wednesday morning) when the bill was distributed to Member offices, and those working on the bill don't read through the draft carefully enough--or too soon after eating fried chicken, as suggested--to catch it.

It has been passed on to the "appropriate authorities" to at least correct the version on the Committee website.

"Thank ya muchly, phantomdj!!"


Thank you 51D Mascot. Excellent work!

Cheers and More Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/16/2010 02:10 am
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years.

That's the point of this type of transition.  IF Obama gets a second term, it's possible the follow on HLV, and 1, 2 or even 3 commercial launchers could be going to LEO by the end of his second term.  IF gears are changed at that point it would be payload changes not launcher changes.

So the "worst" that could happen is in 2016 President Sara Palin decides she is going to go to a new destination, say Moon 1st instead of NEO.  In the end that's the good thing about a non shuttle architecture, you can change destination much quicker.

Now if Obama get's 1 term, who knows, we could be back here again on 1-20-13, but this time with only commercial launchers and internationals going to ISS.  Then it gets REALLY hairy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: ratman on 07/16/2010 02:24 am
I think the motto of the day should be the famous quote from Sir Winston:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/16/2010 02:29 am
I think the motto of the day should be the famous quote from Sir Winston:
“You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.” :)

Heh, yeah, I just had that very same thought!  Glad to see Congress do the right thing here!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/16/2010 02:47 am
I'm happy to see congress directing Nasa to build a new heavy lift launcher.  But this all just seems like 2004 all over again.  What's going to happen when a new administration takes office?  2016 is a long ways away.  Our problem is we keep switching gears every 5-10 years. 

Well, if what was set in motion today turns into another Ares 1, then we'll need to switch gears.

Both jongoff and NOofC mentioned something, and it does deserve some discussion: a system was rewarded today (some refer to it as the Arsenal system) that hasn't successfully completed a HSF system since the Shuttle. Rewarding failure strikes many as a recipe for continued failure, especially when the alternative was to join hands with the Air Force and commercial space to build a new, exciting kerolox architecture with an eye to reducing operating costs. Now NASA is going off alone again with a HLV that most likely will have no other customer.

We already know we didn't pick the launcher with the lowest operating costs. A failure to produce a working launch system, or the production of a launcher with a failure rate approaching that of the Shuttle will call the entire NASA HSF program into question. Given how the medicine of the original FY2011 was taken, I feel the only path forward from there would be to follow the recommendations of the Aldridge commission and break up NASA. It would be the only way to get control of the political process in the face of repeated failures.

Success moving forward is vital; we can't afford another VentureStar or Ares 1. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hope we can find the money for fuel depots and that kerolox engine just in case the Arsenal system fails once again.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 02:59 am
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7110626.html

"We think this is a great start," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It accomplishes the major shifts the president set out to have for the space program."

An unnamed White House official not authorized to comment said "the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the president's mission for NASA."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/15/AR2010071505913.html

"This is a milestone in the realignment of the space program for the 21st century," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It preserves the most important parts of the president's plan."


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-senate-committee-vote-20100715,0,2590515.story

With the Obama plan going nowhere fast, Nelson said he was forced to compromise. Indeed, during the past several weeks, several proponents of the president's plan met with Nelson to express their concerns about the bill -- only to be told that NASA's future had to be determined by "political science," not "rocket science."

But Deputy NASA chief Lori Garver defended the end result, saying the Obama administration got what it wanted in canceling Constellation and getting some money -- $1.6billion during three years -- for commercial rockets that would carry cargo and crew. "The key aspects of what the president set out for NASA are in this bill," she said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/science/space/16nasa.html?_r=1

“This is way beyond what we had hoped for, the ability to come into agreement with Congress this soon,” Ms. Garver said.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 03:13 am
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/109109-adoption-of-nasa-compromise-means-continued-leadership-in-space-exploration-rep-frank-wolf

Last month, I joined Reps. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), John Culberson (R-Texas), Gene Green (D-Texas) and 58 other bipartisan members representing 18 states on a letter to President Obama detailing a compromise plan centering on the immediate development of a “heavy lift rocket” and crew capsule capable of exploring beyond low Earth orbit, something the U.S. has not done since the Apollo era.

Our compromise proposal — which was embraced by the Senate Commerce Committee in its NASA authorization bill — ensures that NASA will have an exploration rocket available within six years. Our plan also capitalizes on the nearly $10 billion already invested in the development of the next-generation rocket, guaranteeing that taxpayers' previous investments were not made in vain. Importantly, it protects our defense industrial base and keeps our skilled space workforce employed, making sure we don’t lose their critical skill sets.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/16/2010 03:16 am

Both jongoff and NOofC mentioned something, and it does deserve some discussion: a system was rewarded today (some refer to it as the Arsenal system) that hasn't successfully completed a HSF system since the Shuttle. Rewarding failure strikes many as a recipe for continued failure, especially when the alternative was to join hands with the Air Force and commercial space to build a new, exciting kerolox architecture with an eye to reducing operating costs. Now NASA is going off alone again with a HLV that most likely will have no other customer.

If that potential synergy was the reason for delaying HLV development, it sure wasn't well stated in the FY2011 rollout!

Quote
A failure to produce a working launch system, or the production of a launcher with a failure rate approaching that of the Shuttle will call the entire NASA HSF program into question.

Assuming we count both catastrophic failures against the launch vehicle, does that not still give STS one of the highest overall reliability rates of any launcher, with 2 failures in 132 flights? 

 
Quote
Success moving forward is vital; we can't afford another VentureStar or Ares 1. I'm keeping my fingers crossed, and hope we can find the money for fuel depots and that kerolox engine just in case the Arsenal system fails once again.

It's do or die time for sure - SDHLV has a golden opportunity here, but it's gotta work!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2010 03:36 am
Whether you love the plan, hate it, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, there is no denying that Sen. Nelson stood up, when no one else would, and *led* on the U.S. human spaceflight issue. 

The White House didn't seem to understand the realities of the problem.  The President decided only to stop NASA's existing program, leaving the future adrift.  Bolden was all over the place.  Garver I don't even want to talk about.   

Sen. Nelson stepped forward and *decided*, and then figured out how to make it happen.  The plan may not be perfect, or even close to perfect, but at least it sets something useful in motion.  It preserves, or provides the opportunity to preserve, important national capabilities. 

Obama's plan left the U.S. with less human space capability than Russia and China and only ISS for a near-term destination. 

Sen. Nelson has aimed NASA on a new course.  No more pussyfooting around.  The destination is deep space.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/16/2010 03:42 am
Good post Ed, concur - along with Hutchison and Vitter. And for what it's worth as a non-American, I've been really impressed by the bi-partizan attitude with these lawmakers.

I think it would be a cold day in hell before we could come close to citing a similar example in England, I'll say that much.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 03:43 am
Ed, you nailed it as you so often do.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 03:43 am
Whether you love the plan, hate it, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, there is no denying that Sen. Nelson stood up, when no one else would, and *led* on the U.S. human spaceflight issue. 

The White House didn't seem to understand the realities of the problem.  The President decided only to stop NASA's existing program, leaving the future adrift.  Bolden was all over the place.  Garver I don't even want to talk about.   

Sen. Nelson stepped forward and *decided*, and then figured out how to make it happen.  The plan may not be perfect, or even close to perfect, but at least it sets something useful in motion.  It preserves, or provides the opportunity to preserve, important national capabilities. 

Obama's plan left the U.S. with less human space capability than Russia and China and only ISS for a near-term destination. 

Sen. Nelson has aimed NASA on a new course.  No more pussyfooting around.  The destination is deep space.

 - Ed Kyle

Nelson and Hutchison. Remember that Hutchison's bill started all of this. They needed bi-partisan support for this bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/16/2010 04:25 am
Both jongoff and NOofC mentioned something, and it does deserve some discussion: a system was rewarded today (some refer to it as the Arsenal system) that hasn't successfully completed a HSF system since the Shuttle. Rewarding failure strikes many as a recipe for continued failure, especially when the alternative was to join hands with the Air Force and commercial space to build a new, exciting kerolox architecture with an eye to reducing operating costs. Now NASA is going off alone again with a HLV that most likely will have no other customer.
If that potential synergy was the reason for delaying HLV development, it sure wasn't well stated in the FY2011 rollout!

I believe the synergy of kerolox development with the Air Force and SpaceX/ULA was pretty well understood, at least as well as anything can be that's ten years in the future.

A failure to produce a working launch system, or the production of a launcher with a failure rate approaching that of the Shuttle will call the entire NASA HSF program into question.
Assuming we count both catastrophic failures against the launch vehicle, does that not still give STS one of the highest overall reliability rates of any launcher, with 2 failures in 132 flights? 

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/16/2010 04:54 am


Bottom line for me.
Some of the machines necessary for getting us back to the moon are going to be built.
Obama failed to kill Orion in BEO form. We leapfrog to heavy lift over Ares I.
I don't care what form heavy lift comes in. As long as it will exist.
We don't lose a bunch of time thinking about it, NASA will build rockets and spacecraft to get us into the solar system.

Next admin will have the option to do an Apollo 8 style mission this decade and start building landers. The launcher to get the landers up there will exist.

The argument for moon is going to only grow. We learn more and more about water there, and we will have a vehicle that can orbit her.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 07/16/2010 04:58 am
I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2010 04:58 am
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.

If you think 1.5% is an unacceptable failure rate, then you must believe that no launch vehicle in existence today is safe enough.  The very best rockets do no better than a 2% predicted failure probability given the bounds of statistical uncertainty.  Delta 4 and Atlas 5 were *designed* to a 2% failure rate requirement.

Atlas 5 and Delta 4 each have suffered one launch vehicle failure (in 21 and 13 attempts, respectively) that resulted in premature engine shutdowns and incorrect orbits.  Shuttle has, in 132 launches, suffered two catastrophic failures and one premature engine shutdown that resulted in an incorrect orbit.

These results rank all three vehicles among the nine most reliable active launch vehicle families in the world today, all of which possess expected reliabilities in excess of 90%.   The nine are Delta 2, R-7/Soyuz, STS, Long March, Kosmos 3M, Ariane 5, Proton, Atlas 5, and Delta 4. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/16/2010 05:04 am
Jimgagnon, it's definitely nothing like keeping Ares I/V going the direction they were headed. I will admit that it's not the worst thing that Congress has ever done, not by a long shot. There's still money in there for commercial crew and I really, really hope more tech funding gets restored, and if the DIRECT team's plan is basically copied by NASA, then one of the best ways of developing an HLV quickly using Shuttle parts and keeping LC-39 will have prevailed. While I still believe the future lies with non-NASA launch vehicles, this will be helpful to some people out there whose jobs may be saved at least for a little while, which is definitely a good thing for them.

Still, no timetable for exploration and no lander. But at least Ares I looks to finally be dead and something more rational, if still expensive, is on the table. STS-135 makes some sense, hopefully it is put to good use.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/16/2010 05:32 am
Good post Ed, concur - along with Hutchison and Vitter. And for what it's worth as a non-American, I've been really impressed by the bi-partizan attitude with these lawmakers.

I think it would be a cold day in hell before we could come close to citing a similar example in England, I'll say that much.

You're an honorary American as far as I'm concerned.
Now if we could get our political brethren in the UK to join us for some BEO planning once they pass their austerity measures, we could have some real fun...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2010 05:43 am
I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.

Obama was a bit busy 18 months ago, what with the pending collapse of the economic system and all that.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/16/2010 05:46 am
If you think 1.5% is an unacceptable failure rate, then you must believe that no launch vehicle in existence today is safe enough.  The very best rockets do no better than a 2% predicted failure probability given the bounds of statistical uncertainty.  Delta 4 and Atlas 5 were *designed* to a 2% failure rate requirement.

Atlas 5 and Delta 4 each have suffered one launch vehicle failure (in 21 and 13 attempts, respectively) that resulted in premature engine shutdowns and incorrect orbits.  Shuttle has, in 132 launches, suffered two catastrophic failures and one premature engine shutdown that resulted in an incorrect orbit.

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. As far as the Delta IV, the only failure I know of is the shakedown launch of the Delta IV heavy that had a premature engine shutdown and left the DemoSat in an incorrect orbit. It's been fine ever since.

If we had an orbital tug capability in place, incorrect orbits could be corrected. It's part of developing a robust orbital infrastructure. It's unclear to me if the compromise reached today retains the funding for that capability.

Saturn IB and Saturn V had perfect launch records of achieving an useful orbit. They may be special cases, but I do believe that the Atlas V and Delta IV records aren't; they're a product of what Boeing and LM went through with the Atlas III and Delta III -- those launchers had less than desirable characteristics. From what I understand, the Air Force sat down with ULA to refine both designs and procedures to come up with the very successful launchers they have today.

It remains to be seen if the Arsenal system can do the same with anything Shuttle-derived. My heart sinks when I see cockamamie designs as sidemount and side engine pods; those designs would be a redux of Ares 1 (thank god the stick is dead). At any rate, NASA will get its chance, but they'll be doing it alongside of SpaceX, Boeing, etc. Should the private companies have a better launch record than NASA, then you can be sure we'll visit the question again of whether NASA should be in the launch business in the first place.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2010 05:46 am
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


And why are you so sure they won't....or do you really just hope they do not?  I believe it is the latter and you are just trying to make it sound like you are informed with some "insider" info. 

Again, its the Authorizers' job to make everyone happy, the Appropriators are the ones who play the heavy. That's just the way the system works.  The Authorizers get to say: "Well, we tried, but there just wasn't enough money in Appropriations for what we wanted".


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/16/2010 06:14 am
Whether you love the plan, hate it, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, there is no denying that Sen. Nelson stood up, when no one else would, and *led* on the U.S. human spaceflight issue. 

The White House didn't seem to understand the realities of the problem.  The President decided only to stop NASA's existing program, leaving the future adrift.  Bolden was all over the place.  Garver I don't even want to talk about.   

Sen. Nelson stepped forward and *decided*, and then figured out how to make it happen.  The plan may not be perfect, or even close to perfect, but at least it sets something useful in motion.  It preserves, or provides the opportunity to preserve, important national capabilities. 

Obama's plan left the U.S. with less human space capability than Russia and China and only ISS for a near-term destination. 

Sen. Nelson has aimed NASA on a new course.  No more pussyfooting around.  The destination is deep space.

 - Ed Kyle

I see it quite differently. This is a lobbyist's dream bill. The big companies get projects that don't even have to perform anything. The losers right now are the universities, the small businesses which could have profited from R&D and the economy (which gets the biggest boost from R&D spending).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 06:54 am
Jimgagnon, it's definitely nothing like keeping Ares I/V going the direction they were headed. I will admit that it's not the worst thing that Congress has ever done, not by a long shot. There's still money in there for commercial crew and I really, really hope more tech funding gets restored, and if the DIRECT team's plan is basically copied by NASA, then one of the best ways of developing an HLV quickly using Shuttle parts and keeping LC-39 will have prevailed. While I still believe the future lies with non-NASA launch vehicles, this will be helpful to some people out there whose jobs may be saved at least for a little while, which is definitely a good thing for them.

Still, no timetable for exploration and no lander. But at least Ares I looks to finally be dead and something more rational, if still expensive, is on the table. STS-135 makes some sense, hopefully it is put to good use.

It remains to be seen if the Arsenal system can do the same with anything Shuttle-derived. My heart sinks when I see cockamamie designs as sidemount and side engine pods; those designs would be a redux of Ares 1 (thank god the stick is dead). At any rate, NASA will get its chance, but they'll be doing it alongside of SpaceX, Boeing, etc. Should the private companies have a better launch record than NASA, then you can be sure we'll visit the question again of whether NASA should be in the launch business in the first place.

I heartily agree with both of the above statements. If commercial (ULA, SpaceX, et al) has continued successes and commercial cargo/crew milestone demonstrations, and SDLV ends up going down the same route that Ares I and all the other post-Shuttle launcher projects did, it'll be quite interesting seeing what'll happen when the situation is reevaluated in one or two years. Then again, it'll also be quite interesting seeing what happens if both routes end up being successful.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 07/16/2010 07:22 am
Whether you love the plan, hate it, or don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, there is no denying that Sen. Nelson stood up, when no one else would, and *led* on the U.S. human spaceflight issue. 
The White House didn't seem to understand the realities of the problem.  The President decided only to stop NASA's existing program, leaving the future adrift.
    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.

Quote
Sen. Nelson stepped forward and *decided*, and then figured out how to make it happen. 
    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.


Quote
Obama's plan left the U.S. with less human space capability than Russia and China and only ISS for a near-term destination. 
    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!
   
Quote
Sen. Nelson has aimed NASA on a new course.  No more pussyfooting around.  The destination is deep space.
     The destination is the ability to loft 100+ mT in a single lift to LEO. Actually, with the preservation of Orion, and a decade's delay of much of the technology needed for NEO missions, we may be limited in the 2020s to just going around the moon. No deep space. Hurrah hurrah.

     I really hope it goes better than that. We're taking a tremendous gamble on future budgets. In about ten years, we'll know if we get away with it.

     Sorry if I'm pessimistic. The situation is indeed better than it was on 1 January.
        -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/16/2010 07:40 am
Reaction from Lori Garver in Houston Chronicle (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7110626.html):

Quote
"We think this is a great start," said Lori Garver, NASA's deputy administrator. "It accomplishes the major shifts the president set out to have for the space program."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/16/2010 07:46 am
Already mentioned by marsavian (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618922#msg618922).

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

Edit to phrase it better.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/16/2010 07:56 am
Quote
Sen. Nelson stepped forward and *decided*, and then figured out how to make it happen. 
    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.

It's even more frightening than that. It's not even Nelson alone designing rockets here, it's Hutchinson, Nelson, Rockefeller and Co. designing rockets! And boy, did they do it. They already decided on the way forward re kerolox or shuttle-derived. They decided side-mount vs. in-line, hey they even decided whether to use directly shuttle-derived or big, big, big rocket! And not only that, they also have apparently done trade studies on architectures, deciding 150mt evolutionary HLV paths are required!

Quote
    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!

I guarantee that a. Orion won't fly to the ISS by 2016, not at the prospected funding, not with the big problems the program has been facing, not with the program in limbo still, not with all the engineering pause they had and b. that there won't be any BEO flight by the end of the decade.

Quote
     Sorry if I'm pessimistic. The situation is indeed better than it was on 1 January.

You aren't pessimistic. Let's look at the whole thing (if that bill would pass):
1. Congress is appropriating some 11 billion dollars for Shuttle-derived inline (side-mount being out of the question) until 2016, although NASA has done studies saying it can't be done for the money, not even accounting for the infrastructure maintenance costs that would have to be added to that figure.

2. Congress is continuing Orion development, appropriating far fewer funds than projected until now for a program which is severely behind schedule and has been estimated to be conservatively ready to fly LEO flights in 2017 by the Augustine Committee IF funds are increased.

3. Congress cuts commercial crew so severely, that they can say in FY2012 or FY2013 "look, it doesn't work, haven't we told you, capitalism doesn't work!"

4. Congress cuts R&D to a bare minimum and once cost overruns with the HLV emerge will zero R&D out, just as Cx did.

5. Congress does not fund any missions, nor mission architecture, nor mission planing. There is no lunar lander, nor hab module, no in-space infrastructure, no propellant depots, no advanced propulsion, no robotic precursor missions to asteroids etc. in the plan. Why? Because, lobbyists don't like money going to smaller entities.

6. The only program that is still on solid ground now is the ISS, thankfully because Congress doesn't change a thing with regard to this program. Thankfully enough their is Soyuz to get to it until the end of this decade!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 08:44 am
I've been reading through the bill, and my reservations with the other parts of the bill aside, I was quite intrigued by the (new?) STEM-Commercial Orbital Platform idea, which seems like a great outreach/education tool:
Quote
SEC. 1003. SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND 5
MATHEMATICS COMMERCIAL ORBITAL PLAT-6
FORM PROGRAM. 7
A fundamental and unique capability of NASA is in 8
stimulating science, technology, engineering, and mathe-9
matics education in the United States. In ensuring max-10
imum use of that capability, NASA shall— 11
(1) establish a program to annually sponsor sci-12
entific and educational payloads developed with 13
United States student and educator involvement to 14
be flown on commercially available orbital platforms, 15
when available and operational, with the goal of 16
launching at least 50 such payloads (with at least 17
one from each of the 50 States) to orbit on at least 18
one mission per year; 19
(2) contract with providers of commercial or-20
bital platform services for their use by the STEM- 21
Commercial Orbital Platform program, preceded by 22
the issuance of a request for proposal, not later than 23
90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, to 24
enter into at least one funded, competitively-awarded 25
contract for commercial orbital platform services and 1
make awards within 180 days after such date; and 2
(3) engage with United States students and 3
educators and make available NASA’s science, engi-4
neering, payload development, and payload oper-5
ations expertise to student teams selected to partici-6
pate in the STEM-Commercial Orbital Platform pro-7
gram.

It'd be fascinating to have NASA purchasing space on something like a DragonLab for launching students' science experiments every year (one small experiment from each state). I don't think I've ever heard of this idea before, but I like it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/16/2010 09:10 am
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/109181-commerce-committee-approves-nasa-compromise

The White House expressed support for the reauthorization bill, which contains many of the cuts to the Constellation program that President Obama advocated but stops short of completely eliminating NASA's space shuttle program.

“The bill contains the critical elements necessary for achieving the President's vision for NASA, it recognizes that Constellation is no longer the right program for achieving our boldest ambitions, it helps launch a commercial space transportation industry, it embraces the President’s proposal for an additional $6 billion for NASA, it extends the International Space Station and it represents an important first step towards helping us achieve the key goals the President laid out,” said White House spokesman Nick Shapiro.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/16/2010 12:38 pm
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


And why are you so sure they won't....or do you really just hope they do not?  I believe it is the latter and you are just trying to make it sound like you are informed with some "insider" info. 

Again, its the Authorizers' job to make everyone happy, the Appropriators are the ones who play the heavy. That's just the way the system works.  The Authorizers get to say: "Well, we tried, but there just wasn't enough money in Appropriations for what we wanted".




Yes, I'm quite familar with the way the system works but that's not what I said. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JosephB on 07/16/2010 12:43 pm
Promise everything to everybody...


at least 'till the November election.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: strangequark on 07/16/2010 01:30 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/16/2010 01:44 pm
Thank you Chris Bergin.

What did I do? :D

Gave folks a website to help them come up with needed new options in the direction NASA was headed...  Amazing. Of course this won't be the last time... The power of the Internet to influence events is just beginning.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/16/2010 01:46 pm
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.


And why are you so sure they won't....or do you really just hope they do not?  I believe it is the latter and you are just trying to make it sound like you are informed with some "insider" info. 

Again, its the Authorizers' job to make everyone happy, the Appropriators are the ones who play the heavy. That's just the way the system works.  The Authorizers get to say: "Well, we tried, but there just wasn't enough money in Appropriations for what we wanted".




No, actually Appropriations has already agreed to the $19B top-line number for NASA in FY2011.  And they specifically stated that no money could be spend on HSF until Authorizations came to agreement on the path forward.  In other words, the money is there, a compromise has now been reached, and Appropriations is not going to repeat all of the gritty painful work that Authorizations already did.

And the Authorizations committee members stated quite plainly that they have been working closely with Appropriations members so that there are no major impediments to approval by that committee.  Sure, Sen. Shelby may throw some language in to really lock NASA into favoring MSFC over JSC or KSC, but he is not going to upset the whole apple cart.

I'm happy to say that this looks like a done deal. Even Lori Garver came out gushing over the bill.  Looking forward to the day that Pres. Obama signs the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 into law!

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/16/2010 01:56 pm

"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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/16/2010 02:01 pm

"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. Same with Apollo 13's launch (until Apollo 13 suffered a explosion in the SM a few days later of course)

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/16/2010 02:05 pm
I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.


Ross, you hit the nail on the head.

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.

Cheers!

 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 02:13 pm
I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.

I disagree. This couldn't have hapenned 18 months ago. You are merely focusing on Orion and the SD-HLV. But a lot of this bill contains the principles of the FY2011 Budget and of the Augustine Committee's report. This is a compromise and at the beginning of this process, Congress was in no mood to compromise and wanted to maintain Constellation as it was (with Ares I, etc.). Remember how Augustine was greeted by Congress after he issued his report. As painful as this may have been for some, this process was necessary.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/16/2010 02:17 pm
I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.

I disagree with you. You are merely focusing on Orion and the SD-HLV. But a lot of this bill contains the principles of the FY2011 Budget and of the Augustine Comittee's report. This is a compromise and at the beginning Congress was in no mood to compromise and wanted to maintain Constealltion as it was (with Ares I, etc.). Remember how Augustine was greeted by Congress after he issued his report. As painful as they may have been for some, this process was necessary.

completely agree, with out obama's initial proposal, none of this would have happened.  congress would have stuck with Ares.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/16/2010 02:20 pm

"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. Same with Apollo 13's launch (until Apollo 13 suffered a explosion in the SM a few days later of course)

Orbiter

The explosion in the SM was partially caused by POGO problems of the Saturn V.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/16/2010 02:22 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 02:33 pm
Already mentioned by marsavian (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618922#msg618922).

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

Edit to phrase it better.

According to 51D Mascot, the amendments were not significant. In other words, some funding was likely added to technology but not a lot. That explains why Senator Boxer said that she will be pushing for more.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg618865#msg618865
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/16/2010 02:35 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/16/2010 02:37 pm
That explains why Senator Boxer said that she will be pushing for more.

I thought she said that about the commercial amendment? Guess we'll have to wait and see.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/16/2010 02:38 pm
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.


I think its actually quite sad that Obama didn't come in and make this happen ~18 months ago.   If he had, he would have potentially gotten his Apollo 8 style mission before the end of his first term, and an injection of national pride (one of the things NASA excels at)  can do wonders for floundering incumbents at re-election time.

This was a very badly squandered opportunity for his administration, IMHO.   At least Congress is still going to make it happen.

Ross.


Ross is right. We didn't need to go down this road.

Cheers!

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 02:40 pm

"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. Same with Apollo 13's launch (until Apollo 13 suffered a explosion in the SM a few days later of course)

Orbiter

The explosion in the SM was partially caused by POGO problems of the Saturn V.
Those were separate incidents.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/16/2010 02:43 pm
I heartily agree with both of the above statements. If commercial (ULA, SpaceX, et al) has continued successes and commercial cargo/crew milestone demonstrations, and SDLV ends up going down the same route that Ares I and all the other post-Shuttle launcher projects did, it'll be quite interesting seeing what'll happen when the situation is reevaluated in one or two years. Then again, it'll also be quite interesting seeing what happens if both routes end up being successful.

There will be limited progress on commercial crew since there the bill places  restrictions on what NASA can do before 2012.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 02:44 pm
That explains why Senator Boxer said that she will be pushing for more.

I thought she said that about the commercial amendment? Guess we'll have to wait and see.

Yes you are right. Nevertheless, she must have accepted less than what she originally asked.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618459#msg618459
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/16/2010 02:48 pm
Already mentioned by marsavian (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618922#msg618922).

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/16/2010 02:48 pm

"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"
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: tminus9 on 07/16/2010 02:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 02:57 pm
Already mentioned by marsavian (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618922#msg618922).

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/16/2010 02:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2010 03:11 pm
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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 07/16/2010 03:26 pm
    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.

Quote
    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.
Quote
    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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 03:27 pm
Already mentioned by marsavian (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg618922#msg618922).

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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/16/2010 03:28 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 03:31 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/16/2010 03:34 pm
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/16/2010 03:50 pm
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...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 03:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Downix on 07/16/2010 03:55 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 04:00 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 07/16/2010 04:03 pm
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".
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/16/2010 04:05 pm
Quote
    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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/16/2010 04:05 pm

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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/16/2010 04:06 pm
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)?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/16/2010 04:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/16/2010 04:12 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/16/2010 04:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/16/2010 05:41 pm
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 06:03 pm
(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
Quote
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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/16/2010 06:24 pm
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.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 10:07 pm
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/16/2010 10:26 pm
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 10:33 pm
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

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/16/2010 10:34 pm
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RyanC on 07/16/2010 11:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: renclod on 07/16/2010 11:11 pm
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.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/17/2010 03:53 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/17/2010 04:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Rabidpanda on 07/17/2010 05:01 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RyanC on 07/17/2010 05:54 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/17/2010 07:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/17/2010 07:36 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cinder on 07/17/2010 09:51 am
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2010 11:02 am
This one?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 07/17/2010 11:04 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cinder on 07/17/2010 11:55 am
Yes Ross.  Is Pathfinder wrong, or is the chart, or is there something more to it (Jupiter bang for buck in a BEO role) that I missed?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 07/17/2010 01:39 pm
An example of just some of the issues which he's missing:

Scenario A:   An Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle costs $168m to lift a 20mT payload at a flight rate of 20 flights per year @ ~$8,400 per kg to LEO.   Mission needs 200mT IMLEO.

Factors at work:   The hardware portion of the payload now needs additional hardware because it can't be fully integrated on the ground and now has to include docking adapters and additional bulkheads.   All that costs more.   What would have massed, say, 40mT now masses 50mT.   Costs will have actually grown at an even greater rate than that due to all the additional systems involved, but you get the point.

Additionally, each propellant vehicle now requires a system to steer and dock it to a propellant depot, which 'costs' both extra fuel and extra mass, so the effective 20mT payload is now reduced to, say, 18mT per flight of final delivered mass.

Net result:   3 flights needed for 50mT of hardware launches, another 9 required for the fuel (not counting launching the depot).   At $168m per flight, this single mission for that year costs $2 billion in launch costs alone, not counting any of the additional penalty costs involved in the extra hardware development and production which is required.


Scenario B: An SD-HLV like J-246 costs ~$4,100 per kg to LEO at a flight rate of 6 per year, and can lift more than five payloads worth in a single launch, for a per flight cost of $451m.   Yes, that's three times the cost of the smaller EELV vehicle, but you only need 2 of them to meet the same 200mT IMLEO requirement for the same mission, not 12.

All of the hardware can be fully integrated on the ground prior to launch, and no design compromises have to be made at all, incurring only minimal payload development and production costs.

Total launch costs are a little under $1bn.   And you can proceed with most early Human Exploration class missions without actually having to develop the depot -- although doing so at some point only expands the capabilities by a substantial amount.


The difference only becomes greater when you start considering the costs for 2 missions or 3 missions per year.   And if we aren't planning an exploration program which is going to be flying more than one mission per year, really, what is the point?

We designed the Jupiter-246 to provide a 'sweet spot' enabling up to 1,200 tons of both hardware and propellant to be launched every year for a reasonable price (less than $4bn per year in launch costs -- about 80% of nominal Shuttle operations).   That is sufficient to support 6 Lunar Class missions per year without a depot, 12 with a depot.   And with that capability, only half of those each year are required in order to support Mars-class missions -- so you can continue to operate Lunar missions while conducting Mars missions every two years as well.

The reason why we have aimed at this level is so that we can get some reasonable production rates on the even more expensive spacecraft, not just the launchers.   If it costs $3bn/year to make landers, but each one then costs only $300m, 1 per year costs $3.3 billion whereas 6 per year cost only $4,800m and each mission only has to pay $800m for its lander.

You can't even dream of doing any of that with the non-HLV's.   And Ares-V grew too big to be economical any more, so you have to look in the mid-ground between the 20mT EELV class and the 180mT Ares-V class.

Take a guess where Jupiter is...

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 07/17/2010 02:09 pm
Ross,  I can't recall if you have presented one before, but do you have a similar chart of cost per kg vs kg per year for each launcher?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/18/2010 01:45 am
So if all of this clears congress, what is next for NASA? Are we going to get an ESAS 2.0? Or will the SD-HLV report already released be seen as good enough evidence to make a decision?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 07/18/2010 01:58 am
The reason why we have aimed at this level is so that we can get some reasonable production rates on the even more expensive spacecraft, not just the launchers.   If it costs $3bn/year to make landers, but each one then costs only $300m, 1 per year costs $3.3 billion whereas 6 per year cost only $4,800m and each mission only has to pay $800m for its lander.

What lander? :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr. mark on 07/18/2010 02:17 am
I don't know about manned landers since the plan is to orbit the moon anyways, not land there.It may be a free return trajectory not even a lunar orbit. As far as unmanned, Armadillo Aerospace or Masten might be able to put something together by then for much cheaper than NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/18/2010 03:30 am
Scenario A:   An Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle costs $168m to lift a 20mT payload at a flight rate of 20 flights per year @ ~$8,400 per kg to LEO.   Mission needs 200mT IMLEO.

$168m at 20 flights per year? Does this take into account spreading the fixed costs over those 20 launches? Is "Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle" Atlas, Delta, or both (for 10 launches of each)?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 07/18/2010 04:25 am
So if all of this clears congress, what is next for NASA? Are we going to get an ESAS 2.0?

This will clear Congress only if it has the tacit agreement of the President, so if it clears Congress the President will sign it into law.

I am not a political scientist but with this legislation the "intent of Congress" can be fairly clearly understood.  (When making determinations about the intent of lawmakers, courts consider not only the law itself, but also statements made on the floor or in committee, or as part of a Conference Report.) 

The intention expressed by Senator Hatch (R-Utah) was crystalline in its clarity:  only a heavy lift vehicle using (Utah-made) solid rocket boosters would meet the listed requirements.  I don't know of any other member of the committee who contradicted that in any way.  The intention expressed by Senator Vitter (R-Louisiana) was fairly clear as well, mentioning Michoud by name several times in the context of where the heavy lift vehicle would be assembled.  Physics strongly suggests that if a vehicle is using large SRBs the core should be hydrolox with regenerative nozzle cooling, i.e. SSME.  (This is probably the reverse of how a rocket scientist thinks about it....)  So except for the upper stage there isn't much design work left to do.

The intent of Congress expressed by this law would be that NASA find missions for which this vehicle is appropriate.  Implicitly this is an adoption of the "flexible path" mentality, which says we don't know today exactly where we're going tomorrow, or exactly how we'll get there, and that's OK.

This aspect of the legislation is perhaps the truest reflection of the "sea change" that will take place in the 2011 fiscal year.  It turns out Congress doesn't need to mandate specific destinations for human space exploration missions!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 07/18/2010 07:37 am
An example of just some of the issues which he's missing:
Scenario A:   An Intermediate EELV-class launch vehicle costs $168m to lift a 20mT payload at a flight rate of 20 flights per year @ ~$8,400 per kg to LEO.   Mission needs 200mT IMLEO.
...
Net result:   3 flights needed for 50mT of hardware launches, another 9 required for the fuel (not counting launching the depot).   At $168m per flight, this single mission for that year costs $2 billion in launch costs alone, not counting any of the additional penalty costs involved in the extra hardware development and production which is required.

Scenario B: An SD-HLV like J-246 costs ~$4,100 per kg to LEO at a flight rate of 6 per year, and can lift more than five payloads worth in a single launch, for a per flight cost of $451m.   Yes, that's three times the cost of the smaller EELV vehicle, but you only need 2 of them to meet the same 200mT IMLEO requirement for the same mission, not 12.
    But if you can only afford one 200mT mission a year (how many NEO or Lagrange missions are there, already?), your $3-$5 billion fixed costs SDHLV (depending on how NASA mangles DIRECT) is more expensive than just paying for EELV launches. A point which, IIRC, you have made yourself.

Quote
You can't even dream of doing any of that with the non-HLV's.   And Ares-V grew too big to be economical any more, so you have to look in the mid-ground between the 20mT EELV class and the 180mT Ares-V class.
Take a guess where Jupiter is...
   In a sweet spot. So would EELV Phase I or II, without the same fixed costs.
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: telomerase99 on 07/18/2010 08:48 am
This path doesnt seem so flexible. I don't see how it embodies the flexible path as Garver and the Whitehouse state. If we spend 11 billion on a launch  system with really high operating costs then we are really stuck with it. If times get tough we have to cancel the whole project and are left with nothing. Maybe NASA could do a study and find that a liquid would have much lower operating costs and use the 11 billion to develop an all liquid heavy lift much sooner.

I guess the downside would be that it still would not be competitively awarded... Probably the best thing would be for NASA to be dismantled all together and for money for technology and manned space flight to be competitively awarded directly. Looks like there are too many hands in the pot. Obama in my mind has failed once again.

I am glad that there will be less lay offs in this tough job market though... That in my mind, is the silverlining in this otherwise tragic compromise that virtually grounds us for another five years and prevents the development of any new technology via NASA funds.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 07/18/2010 11:29 am
Maybe NASA could do a study and find that a liquid would have much lower operating costs and use the 11 billion to develop an all liquid heavy lift much sooner.

Just responding to your musing: The AJAX HLV fits that bill. But let's not go there in *this* thread.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cinder on 07/19/2010 08:34 pm
Thank you Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/20/2010 12:21 am
Not sure if this is the place to mention this, but according to Jeff Foust on twitter:

Jeff Foust   RT @KenMonroe: The House Science and Technology Cmte will mark up the #NASA Authorization Act of 2010 on Thurs at 10am in 2318 Rayburn HOB.

Anyone know if it will be live fed? and what the url would likely be if it is? Anyone have info on what their draft looks like, and if there are any important differences with the Senate bill?

Lastly, should this be in a new thread?

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/20/2010 12:25 am
Not sure if this is the place to mention this, but according to Jeff Foust on twitter:

Jeff Foust   RT @KenMonroe: The House Science and Technology Cmte will mark up the #NASA Authorization Act of 2010 on Thurs at 10am in 2318 Rayburn HOB.

Anyone know if it will be live fed? and what the url would likely be if it is? Anyone have info on what their draft looks like, and if there are any important differences with the Senate bill?

Lastly, should this be in a new thread?

~Jon

http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=2885

That's the highlights...

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 12:34 am
http://science.house.gov/legislation/leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=2885

That's the highlights...
Thanks for the spot, Jon -- FWIW, the full text of the bill on the House side "as noticed for markup" is linked on that page (direct link (http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/NASA_Authorization_Act_2010.pdf)).  Just got it now, but will be interesting to see how much of a match this is with the Senate bill.

Edit: never mind about it 'matching' -- at least going into markup, it's significantly different than the Senate bill.  Wish I had more time to look at this tonight, but at first glance this is closer to the President's proposed budget.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 12:58 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 01:00 am
No sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?
Nope, it's not in this draft, and neither is any additional money for operations -- the Senate bill authorizes ~$1.6 billion, this bill authorizes $1 billion (same as in the President's request).

Will be interesting to see what it looks like when it goes to the House floor, but if it's anything like this draft, perhaps there's still some negotiating to do in conference.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 01:19 am
No sign of STS-135 in this? Did I miss it?
Nope, it's not in this draft, and neither is any additional money for operations -- the Senate bill authorizes ~$1.6 billion, this bill authorizes $1 billion (same as in the President's request).

Will be interesting to see what it looks like when it goes to the House floor, but if it's anything like this draft, perhaps there's still some negotiating to do in conference.


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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/20/2010 01:20 am
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?

Just a note- in the Senate hearings, Nelson asked Bolden what he thought of using an Ares I (X) type of vehicle to flight test the 5 seg. SRBs for a HLV. Bolden replied that he thought that would be a good idea because budget wise it would allow the costs of the Ares I program to then be spread across both programs, thus making it appear to be lower in cost. This type of reasoning could be the reason that you see this mentioned.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 01:26 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/20/2010 01:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 01:32 am
This really does read like someone's pressing to keep Ares I.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mrryndrsn on 07/20/2010 01:38 am
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

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 07/20/2010 01:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 01:41 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/20/2010 01:45 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 01:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/20/2010 01:51 am
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...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 01:52 am
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)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/20/2010 01:56 am
What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 01:57 am
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............

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 01:57 am
What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?

POTUS fy 2011 is dead ethier way. Period.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/20/2010 02:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/20/2010 02:03 am
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 02:03 am
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
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 02:04 am
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?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/20/2010 02:08 am
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. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 02:09 am
I dont think thats where we should be worried.

I dont see any reason why Obama wouldn't just veto the thing.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/20/2010 02:10 am
Please.. NO.. NO.. NO.. and NO again to Ares-1.  That will completely kill the budget.. and the bill. UGHH!   Just say NO!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 02:11 am
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).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/20/2010 02:21 am
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).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

Edit: And to top it all off, it doesn't even have to actually be safer, as long as someone can claim that it's safer using a computer model or probabilistic calculations.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 02:23 am
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).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

I didn;t say they want more than just a test flight (house side). I know that.

I said it will only be one more

If they go down this road one way or another there will only be one more ares 1 flight

If there is more than one it will most likely break the bank........again :P
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DigitalMan on 07/20/2010 02:56 am
I don't care for a few things you (not to imply you did it all yourself!) put in the senate bill, but I think yours is MUCH better than the house bill.

One of my concerns is how much development, if any will be accomplished for commercial crew in 2011.  Time is of the essence.   The house version seems to allow this to proceed right away.  It might even concede that Atlas and Delta could qualify easily since they already launch 'Class A' payloads, according to its definition.

Another is the huge cuts to technology development, the house version does not seem to cut as much, although I didn't take the time to add the numbers or do side-by-side comparisons.  Some of these things are low TRL or will require more or longer build / launch / test cycles to get to a point where they are usable for BEO exploration.  Small fission reactors for instance and effective shielding.

In spite of all the disagreements between so many folks, I'm happy to have been here for so long watching this unfold and then to see someone like yourself be recognized like that last week. 

Congrats.

Quote from: 51D Mascot link=topic=22270.msg620098#msg620098
date=1279591408
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.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/20/2010 03:21 am
I dont think thats where we should be worried.

I dont see any reason why Obama wouldn't just veto the thing.

At this point I'm starting to hope that he WILL veto the thing. More CxP and Ares allusions that you can shake a stick at. Ugh. Or call it the "jobs creation act" and just call it a day.

BUT if Commercial crew is funded at decent levels I will be happy. The rest of NASA can take their money and and prove once again how poor they are at project management.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: SpacexULA on 07/20/2010 03:24 am
What happens when you blend this bill and the president's proposal?
POTUS fy 2011 is dead ethier way. Period.

It's already blended.  That's the Nelson Bill
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 03:25 am
What happens if this all results in the President vetoing it? I thought Congress has the power? If he vetoes it, what happens?

(I REALLY don't understand politics ;D)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Aobrien on 07/20/2010 03:39 am
As I know it it's a check and balances set up. I believe the president can be overpowered by congress with a strong enough vote...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HelixSpiral on 07/20/2010 03:43 am
A veto by the President can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. From my recollection, it doesn't happen that often.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2010 03:45 am
That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 03:46 am
A veto by the President can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress. From my recollection, it doesn't happen that often.

OV and others seem to have indicated that as there wre 0 descenting votes on the Senate side, and there are likley to be very few or none on the House side, such a majority is already there in case of a Veto HOWEVER: If he vetoes it what guaranty is there that the "Vote" to override will occur before fy 2011 begins ? If they don;t enact this thing before year's end then SDHLV is a goner.

Not out of the woods yet. If congress can pull this off it will be one of the few good things (IMO) that *this* congress has done.

If not, well................



Another monkey wrench: Many in Congress most likely wont be there next year. What are the chances of the "new" congress cutting this thing drastically for the fy 2012 bill?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 03:48 am
That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/20/2010 03:54 am
I'm not seeing this as the resurrection of Ares I, maybe I'm missing something. 

House:
Quote
In an environment of constrained budgets, responsible stewardship of taxpayer-provided resources makes it imperative that NASA’s exploration program be carried out in a manner that builds on the investments made to date in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and other activities of the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year 2011 rather than discarding them.

Senate Draft:
Quote
In developing the Space Launch System pursuant to section 302 and the multi-purpose crew vehicle pursuant to section 303, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1 projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and Ares 1 components that use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines, and associated testing facilities, either in being or under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.

Are they really that drastically different from an Ares I perspective? Other than the mention of shuttle derived these two basically both say "use as much as you can from CxP" to me. I'm assuming that Orion was to be government owned and operated in the Senate draft too.

What speaks more is the $50 million a year compared to $312/$400/$500 million for commercial crew. Massive difference, unless I'm missing something again. All the sudden the Senate bill draft speaks pretty favorably to commercial crew IMO.

Also, 51D Mascot mentioned that the White House is saying they support the Senate bill, and Nelson said to expect a comment last Friday, but I haven't seen anything directly from them. Anybody have a link?

Whats involved in the merger of these two? How long will it take?

Quote
However, NASA’s share of the Federal discretionary budgetary authority has declined significantly relative to its post-Apollo historical average share of 2.07 percent. It should be a national goal to restore NASA’s funding share to its post-Apollo historical average.

Hah! TEASE!  :-X 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/20/2010 03:56 am
Lets also remember that this is the Authorization bill--not the Appropriations bill. The Appropriators may realize that putting Ares 1 back in is an absolute diaster!!!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 04:05 am
Thanks, but if the President vetos, does that mean there's a Continuing Resolution?

I know, long way off yet, but there's thousands of workers about to lose their jobs in October, and I doubt a CR would save many of them?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2010 04:13 am
That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................

The Democrats will still control the Senate as only 1/3 of the Senators are up for election. However, the Democrats will likely lose control of the House.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/20/2010 04:30 am
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).

No, they don't want just one more test flight.  Read the draft, they use the CAIB language that Griffin used to justify Ares-I: safety above all else, even if it's not affordable, flexible, practical, or even usable.  Just "safe".  You know, like sitting in a bank vault underground somewhere.

Mark S.

Edit: And to top it all off, it doesn't even have to actually be safer, as long as someone can claim that it's safer using a computer model or probabilistic calculations.

You'd be amazed what you can prove with computer models... ;-)

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/20/2010 04:30 am
Thanks, but if the President vetos, does that mean there's a Continuing Resolution?

I know, long way off yet, but there's thousands of workers about to lose their jobs in October, and I doubt a CR would save many of them?

Veto of the authorization bill does not directly affect the appropriations. If the appropriators are unable to pass a separate appropriations bill before October 1st, THAT is what triggers a CR. A CR can have a wide range of things incorporated into it, from benchmarking funding levels at levels in a House or Senate version of a specific appropriations bill, if passed, by either body, but not yet by both, or by tying the spending levels during the life of the CR to the amounts previously appropriated for FY 2010, or can even incorporate relevant language from an authorization bill passed by one House of Congress, or by an authorization bill in which a veto was over-ridden, assuming no objection is raised to "legislating in appropriations." It's not as cut and dried as many people think, and it depends heavily on the degree of consensus among the Appropriations leadership, in concert with the White House, primarily, so no definitive, cut-and-dried answer to the question is really possible--or valid--until much later in the process.

I know...clear as mud, as many of my "process posts" seem to be, because the legislative process is just not "simple," regardless of how simple-minded many of us involved in it might be, hehe. There's also the potential that, if the Administration has truly embraced the essence of the compromise Senate bill, and at least the Senate appropriators have adopted the funding levels and distribution for FY 2011, that it could represent an evolution of the internal policy of the Administration in such a way that they could, administratively, direct NASA to "undo" some of the steps taken to begin implementing the direction of the FY 2011 Budget Request which, by the "adoption of the new policy direction" are no longer valid, and in fact disruptive of the "new policy direction." That could have immediate salutary effects on the workforce disruptions that were initiated or accelerated to implement the February 1st policy. They don't NEED the legislation to make voluntary shifts in the new, compromise direction, IF they have truly embraced it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 04:46 am
Not at all, sure it's complicated, but that actually helps explains things - even to me! :) Appreciate the info, as always!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/20/2010 06:34 am
Well, it seems that someone in the House is determined to see NASA go under. Resurrecting Ares I is the best way to achieve that.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/20/2010 07:19 am
That's right. It also unlikely to happen since the Democrats control Congress and they don't want to overide the President.

They have until November.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

Nasa fits both of those so.................

I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Many voices on the right were upset that NASA HSF was radically being altered by Obama and also there is upset that soon American astronauts will have to ride Russian rockets to get to space station we mostly payed for.

I would venture that NASA HSF is viewed more as a strategic interest that America must maintain a lead in.

It could easily be a change for the positive for NASA HSF.

In fact I would bet on it. Democrats are generally far more likely to make the old tired and flawed arguement of why are we "wasting" money up there when there are people down here that need help.

At least that is my experience with everyday folks that are clearly on the side of one party or the other.





Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/20/2010 07:29 am
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
Many voices on the right were upset that NASA HSF was radically being altered by Obama and also there is upset that soon American astronauts will have to ride Russian rockets to get to space station we mostly payed for.

I would venture that NASA HSF is viewed more as a strategic interest that America must maintain a lead in.

It could easily be a change for the positive for NASA HSF.

In fact I would bet on it. Democrats are generally far more likely to make the old tired and flawed arguement of why are we "wasting" money up there when there are people down here that need help.

At least that is my experience with everyday folks that are clearly on the side of one party or the other.


If the GOP takes control, many of their people will indeed be making loud noises about not giving control of America's strategic interest (HSF) to those "godless commies" and how Obama's plan is tantamount to treason. They will endorse a nationalistic alternative. But when it comes to funding, they will cut NASA's budget rather than increase it. This will be sold to the public as "cutting the fat of socialistic NASA spending" and "rationalisation". The public will ofc approve, especially in the current economic situation, and the politicians will promise that NASA will continue to fly US astronauts (which is all most common folk care about, even if it means cancelling all unmanned and research projects and that those astronauts will only do circles in LEO in a capsule like Apollo 7).

The budget cut wil be just enough so that there will be no hard mass-layoffs and that some studies for future "American Greatness in Space" continue and that some form of SD-launcher is in construction (so that contractors get money) but spread out over enough time that it can quietly be shut down a few years hence when nobody cares anymore...

Like I said before, Congress does not care if anything actually flies. They only care about pork money in their own back yard, no angry laid-off workers voting them out of office and nice speaches about "American Greatness in Space" and "no US taxpayer money for the Russkies".

This is true irrespective of which party controls the House and Senate.

Politics is more about make-believe than any form of reality.

All IMO, ofc. And yes, I don't like politicians (and that's putting it mildly).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/20/2010 07:58 am
For the curious, I've tallied up the total spending on various items for FY2011-FY2013 (the only three years covered by the Senate draft bill):

Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)

For comparison, I've tallied up FY2011-FY2013 totals from the House draft bill. The House bill also includes FY2014 and FY2015, but for the sake of comparison I'm leaving these out:

Restructured exploration program (seems to include HLV, Orion): 4.1563+4.5168+4.5135=$13.1866B

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology and demonstrations: $5M

Robotic exploration precursor missions: $5M

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 572.2+1,012.2+1059.7=$2.644B

Commercial crew: 50+50+50=$150M

Loan and loan guarantee program for commercial crew: 100+100+100=$300M

One curious item (out of many) is that the amount for the "restructured exploration program" total for FY2011-2013 in the House bill has around $2B more than the SDHLV+Orion total in the Senate bill. Reading through the bill, it almost sounds like a slush fund to be used at the Administrator's discretion for other items (e.g. exploration technology and commercial crew), although that seems to be contrary to what I would've expected from the House.

It's also interesting that the House bill specifies that "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," rather than the 2016 deadline in the Senate bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/20/2010 08:12 am

One curious item (out of many) is that the amount for the "restructured exploration program" total for FY2011-2013 in the House bill has around $2B more than the SDHLV+Orion total in the Senate bill. Reading through the bill, it almost sounds like a slush fund to be used at the Administrator's discretion for other items (e.g. exploration technology and commercial crew), although that seems to be contrary to what I would've expected from the House.

Scratch that, I was reading through Sec. 202 again and it seems the $13.1866B from FY2011-FY2013 (or $22.64B over FY2011-FY2015) is specifically for HLV and Orion development.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/20/2010 08:19 am
From the press release announcing the House bill:

http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2883
Quote
it provides more than $4.9 billion in funding for commercial crew- and commercial cargo-related initiatives

Does anybody know how this figure gets generated from what's actually in the bill? By my calculations, from FY2011-2015 the House bill spends a total of $250M on commercial crew, and $500M on the loan program. Where does the other $4.15B appear?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonth on 07/20/2010 08:29 am
From the press release announcing the House bill:

http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2883
Quote
it provides more than $4.9 billion in funding for commercial crew- and commercial cargo-related initiatives

Does anybody know how this figure gets generated from what's actually in the bill? By my calculations, from FY2011-2015 the House bill spends a total of $250M on commercial crew, and $500M on the loan program. Where does the other $4.15B appear?

They probably added up nominal CRS procurement funds with CCdev etc. Or alternatively, Orion is now dubbed a "commercial crew" initiative.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 07/20/2010 08:34 am
Or alternatively, Orion is now dubbed a "commercial crew" initiative.

Very possible, even probable. After all, they define what "commercial" means...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/20/2010 09:29 am
The problem is, of course, that the House is still running on 'Griffin-time', where Ares-I is the safest rocket in existance and is on schedule with no serious show-stoppers.  It is clear that the Senate is no longer operating under that misapprehension.

Overall, the reconcilliatino of the two bills is going to be what is charitably known as 'a hell of a show'.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 11:29 am
Thanks, but if the President vetos, does that mean there's a Continuing Resolution?

I know, long way off yet, but there's thousands of workers about to lose their jobs in October, and I doubt a CR would save many of them?
Not sure the Senate reauthorization would save the USA layoffs already announced, as the level funded is still significantly reduced.  The timing might also rule out the extra Shuttle flight, if the decision has to be made next month.  This seems to make things less certain; it also threatens to drag passage/enactment out for a longer period of time.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/20/2010 12:32 pm
There is a differance in terms so far as what Repub.s may vote for or against following the November election- and that will be key. If NASA HSF is "sold" as being an "Investment program" in the future, the nation, the human race, rather than an "entitlement program" then Repub.s will be able to vote for it. If you look at many of the spaceflight lobby groups, you will already see them using that term. Secondly, voting for cuts in NASA can easily appear as voting with Obama- now many newly sworn-in Congress people from the right are going to want to be seen in that light?

Still- it is FAR too early in the process for such speculation. Heck- I'm amazed, here we are not even a week after the Nelson bill mark-up in one committee, and some of you folks have already got it trashed and vetoed! Why?... because the term "Ares I" is in it? It may be wise to put the brakes on a bit, slow down and let the process work.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/20/2010 12:35 pm
The House bill is terrible!  Makes the Senate's look positively visionary in comparison.  Only $5M for tech development and another $5M for robotic precursors by 2013?  Might as well not even waste that money, because $5M won't get you anything beyond some powerpoint graphics.  I hope the reconciliation throws this garbage straight into the trash.  I don't see how Obama would support a finished bill with these numbers.   

P.S.  And no money for a restart of Pu-238 development!  This is atrocious. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/20/2010 01:42 pm
...And to top it all off, it doesn't even have to actually be safer, as long as someone can claim that it's safer using a computer model or probabilistic calculations.

This is a good observation, and I think our government needs to be under a lot more supervision, because things are getting too squishy in the legal department.

In the Census, it has been seriously proposed to statistically estimate the nation's population, not count it, as is the Constitutional directive.  In the Patriot act, people can be put on the "list" on the basis of appearing to be terrorists, which seems to allow actual terrorists to merely maintain the "appearance" of being law abiding.  I imagine that there are other instances of this, where actual facts are delegated to the vagaries of personal opinion, and codified into law.

I have pointed out this obvious flaw of categorizing probabilistic "safety" against actual safety records, and concluding that the theoretical probabilities have more compelling reality.  I can't be sure of motive here, but it seems that this strategy allows some legal wiggle room when the poopo hits the fan and some catastrophic failure occurs.  It can always be argued that the letter of the safety law will have been followed, and that the theory has some subtle flaw, hitherto undiscovered.

I don't know how better language in this regard can be effectively inserted into these bills.  True that computer models are "amazing" in their abilities, properly programmed.  GIGO still rules, and it is the determination of the GI which can be subject to political manipulation; witness the "hockey stick" calculations for climate change.

If we had a few more moral scientists and mathemeticians in Congress, I'd feel a lot better.

A major political shift is coming, I believe it will hurt NASA in the long run because the candidates that are getting elected in these primaries are increasingly "anti spending" and "anti government"

We'll have to wait and see about that shift.  There's an argument which suggests that the "liberal" media is hamming up the "tea party" thing, in order to drum up the democratic party's base of support, which is thought to have falllen off somewhat because the racial aspects of the presidential election are a one-time thing.  Regarding the amnesty issue, there's also a slight possibility of many new voters being suddenly added, if that issue successfully passes Congress in that form in sufficient time.

The other thing to keep in mind is that since education is incorrectly seen as a "liberal" issue, that long term harm to NASA and the country may result from the "anti-spending" crowd cutting education, if they get the power to do so.

...if the Administration has truly embraced the essence of the compromise ... that it could represent an evolution of the internal policy of the Administration in such a way that they could, administratively, direct NASA to "undo" some of the steps taken to begin implementing the direction of the FY 2011 Budget Request which, by the "adoption of the new policy direction" are no longer valid, and in fact disruptive of the "new policy direction." That could have immediate salutary effects on the workforce disruptions that were initiated or accelerated to implement the February 1st policy. They don't NEED the legislation to make voluntary shifts in the new, compromise direction, IF they have truly embraced it.

I want to grab this rare opportunity for me to speak for all of us in saying thanks for reporting.

There's a lot of debate here on the "intent" and "motivation" of the industry insiders, Congress and the Administration as to the future of HSF.  The tortuous steps that all of these parties take to hide and then possibly reveal their intentions is just agonizing.

And still, we are only left with "if the Administration has truly embraced the essence of the compromise".  Big "if".

Nevertheless, there is some good in the language of the Senate bill.  The House bill less so.

...Still- it is FAR too early in the process for such speculation...

A slight miss, tho I agree with the gist of your remarks.  This has been going on since the A-Comm was appointed!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr. mark on 07/20/2010 02:38 pm
If I was the president I would insist on the Senate version of the bill especially when it comes to commercial spaceflight. The House version is a turkey. If commercial is drastically cut, if I were the president, I'd veto the bill asap.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2010 02:41 pm
I haven't read the entire bill but one thing that I noticed is that they require ASAP to review NASA's human rating requirements for commercial crew. Given the fact that ASAP is not exactly favourable to commercial crew, this is a strange requirement. I am guessing that representative Gabrielle Gifford added this requirement as she is married to an astronaut and seemed very much against commercial crew.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Martin FL on 07/20/2010 02:41 pm
How about a poll, for preference to the Senate or House bill, or neither?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 02:55 pm
Done:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22308.0
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/20/2010 03:26 pm
I'm rarely this frustrated about a bill.. I called my congressman(House) a few minutes ago.. Didn't talk to him directly, but tried to outline my feelings and oppostion to the House version of this to his staffer to pass along.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/20/2010 03:33 pm
IMO: The final Bill sent to the President, which he will sign, will very closely align with the Senate version. I can see a scenario, where a few Amendments will be added (concerning 5seg use on HLV etc) to the senate bill on behalf of some congressional counterparts when the bill goes before the full senate. Once the full Senate passes the bill, the House will simply pass that version on an up or down vote, doing away with the need for reconciliation and the bill is sent to the President.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 03:50 pm
SpaceX backing the Senate:

SpaceX Applauds Breakthrough Compromise in U.S. Senate on NASA Budget

Legislation Supports Domestic Commercial Crew Initiatives to Reduce Reliance on Russian Soyuz and Bring Critical High-Tech Jobs Back to the US

 

Hawthorne, CA – July 20, 2010 –SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies) applauds the efforts of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee for their unanimous, bipartisan approval of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.  This landmark legislation ushers in a new era in human spaceflight by embracing the commercial sector as a full partner and recognizing commercial crew services as the primary means of astronaut transport to the International Space Station (ISS).

 

“We are pleased that the Senate Commerce Committee has recognized that the best and only near-term option for eliminating America’s reliance on the Russian Soyuz for astronaut transportation is the development and use of commercial systems, such as SpaceX’s Falcon 9 and Dragon spacecraft” said Elon Musk, CEO & CTO, SpaceX.  “For the about the same amount that is currently being spent on purchasing seats on Russian launch vehicles, we can create thousands of high-tech, high-paying jobs right here at home.” 

 

In 2010, NASA will pay the Russian Space Agency $287.4 million for 6 seats on Russian Soyuz flights, which amounts to $47.9 million per seat.  By 2013, the price per seat paid to Russia to carry U.S. astronauts will exceed $55 million. 

 

Though it provides less funding than the President’s request, the new legislation provides $312 million in FY11 funding for the development of American commercial systems to transport crew to the ISS.  SpaceX is one of several companies currently developing commercial crew technology funded by NASA, including Nevada-based Sierra Nevada Corporation, Illinois-based Boeing Company, Colorado-based United Launch Alliance, Washington-based Blue Origin, Nevada-based Bigelow Aerospace, and Arizona- based Paragon Space Development Corporation.

 

SpaceX successfully launched its Falcon 9 rocket carrying a Dragon spacecraft test article in June 2010, meeting 100% of mission objectives on its first attempt.  The first demonstration flight with a fully operational Dragon spacecraft is targeted for late summer 2010.  This flight will be the first under NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program which was established in 2006 to encourage private companies to develop commercial space transport capabilities.  SpaceX currently employs over 1,100 people across California, Texas and Florida.

 

About SpaceX

SpaceX is developing a family of launch vehicles and spacecraft intended to increase the reliability and reduce the cost of both manned and unmanned space transportation, ultimately by a factor of ten. With the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 vehicles, SpaceX offers highly reliable/cost-efficient launch capabilities for spacecraft insertion into any orbital altitude and inclination. Starting when the Space Shuttle retires,  SpaceX’s Dragon spacecraft will provide Earth-to-LEO transport of pressurized and unpressurized cargo, including resupply to the International Space Station.

Founded in 2002, SpaceX is a private company owned by management and employees, with minority investments from Founders Fund and Draper Fisher Jurvetson. The SpaceX team now numbers over 1100, with corporate headquarters in Hawthorne, California. For more information, and to watch the archived video of the Falcon 9, Flight 1 launch, visit the SpaceX website at SpaceX.com.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/20/2010 05:28 pm
Way to go SpaceX!  Nice press release.  This shows that SpaceX is a classy organization, and is not going to throw a hissy fit because they didn't get the whole pie.

Now we need everyone else to get behind the Senate bill, and leave the House bill on the cutting-room floor.  The Senate obviously put a lot more thought and hard work into crafting their bill, and the House authorizations committee should be happy to adopt the Senate's version without too much debate.

Let's get it done!

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/20/2010 05:43 pm
IMO: in the end, the House will adopt the Senate version with minimal conflicting amendments. Senators, Hutchinson / Nelson will deal with their congressional counterparts accordingly. With an SD HLV / Orion BEO slated for 2016, keeping the installed contractor base mainly in-check and some agreements on how supporting Commercial will benefit certain local districts, this will all be done in short order. We are very close and the Senate Bill will be the way forward.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 05:45 pm
There's a letter from Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan to Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby coming out shortly.

Make of it what you will when it's published.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/20/2010 05:49 pm
There's a letter from Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan to Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby coming out shortly.

Make of it what you will when it's published.


Good! I have wondered what they have thought of everything lately.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/20/2010 05:50 pm
Prediction: They will come out in full support of the Senate Bill.
Here we go!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 05:50 pm
Prediction: They will come out in full support of the Senate Bill.
Here we go!
I really, really hope so. That's not the only option, though. I've seen lots of irrationality regarding sticking with Ares I being thrown around in the various hearings, and so until I see their letter, I'm not going to rejoice.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/20/2010 06:02 pm
The case still needs to be made though....

We seriously underfund NASA!

A half a penny of federal discretionary spending dollar?
A tiny tiny portion of the federal budget?

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

Given the tiny amount spent compared to the tens of billions or more congress will authorize in a hearbeat, even during these economic times, it's amazing that there is so much time and argument spent about NASA in Congress.

They could eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it wouldn't change a thing in the big federal spending picture. And that argument goes for doubling the NASA budget too!

Yet NASA assures so much for this nations future, and humanity.

There are those that accept underfunding as a fact of life, that it will never change.

That has been a big mistake in my view.

We do not make our wheels squeek as well as others that get far more funding for questionable returns to the nation.

That needs to change.


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 06:06 pm
The case still needs to be made though....

We seriously underfund NASA!

A half a penny of federal discretionary spending dollar?
A tiny tiny portion of the federal budget?

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

Given the tiny amount spent compared to the tens of billions or more congress will authorize in a hearbeat, even during these economic times, it's amazing that there is so much time and argument spent about NASA in Congress.

They could eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it wouldn't change a thing in the big federal spending picture. And that argument goes for doubling the NASA budget too!

Yet NASA assures so much for this nations future, and humanity.

There are those that accept underfunding as a fact of life, that it will never change.

That has been a big mistake in my view.

We do not make our wheels squeek as well as others that get far more funding for questionable returns to the nation.

That needs to change.
Sure, let's squeak our wheels for more money, but don't hobble NASA by designing the architecture so it can only work with more money! That's sure to lead more and more failure.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. It's foolish to hope for the best and prepare only for the best.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/20/2010 08:12 pm
Prediction: They will come out in full support of the Senate Bill.
Here we go!

I suspect it'll be more praiseworthy of the process moving forward in general; don't imagine they're inclined to wade into the thick of a debate on details, but stay at the very top level--at least for now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/20/2010 09:12 pm
I've always been a cynic so far as the Congress is concerned, but so far this process has done a lot to restore my faith in the checks and balances.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/20/2010 10:00 pm
There's a letter from Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan to Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby coming out shortly.

Make of it what you will when it's published.

Letter is out:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31271
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 10:04 pm
There's a letter from Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan to Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby coming out shortly.

Make of it what you will when it's published.

Letter is out:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31271
Synopsis: They say both the House and Senate bills represent good progress, please fund NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/20/2010 10:06 pm
There's a letter from Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan to Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby coming out shortly.

Make of it what you will when it's published.

Letter is out:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31271
Synopsis: They say both the House and Senate bills represent good progress, please fund NASA.

I am glad that they didn't take sides between the two bills.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/20/2010 10:25 pm
Now, is exactly the time to take sides. We are in the final stages of this game.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/20/2010 10:33 pm
Final Reported version of the Senate:
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 10:59 pm
For FY2011 (comparison between old Senate bill and new, in millions)
old vs new:
total budget:19000 and 19000
Exploration: 3990 and 3868
  multipurpose crew vehicle: 1300 and 1120
  SLS: 1900 and 1631
  Exploration tech: 75 and 250 (YES!!! Still a lot less than the Feb 1 at 652, but something can actually be done with $250 million)
  Human Research: 215 and 155
  Commercial cargo: 144 and 300 (also good, new version is almost as much as the $312M in Feb 1st version)
  Commercial crew: 312 and 312
  Robotic Precursor: 44 and 100 (a marked increase)

Space Ops: 5508.5 and 5508.5 (same for both)

Science: 5005.6 and 5005.6 (same for both)

Aeronautics: 804.6 and 929.6
  Aeronautics research: 579.6 and 579.6 (same)
  Space Tech: 225 and 350 (yay! still less than the $572M of Feb 1st, but much better! Finally, investing in the future again!)
 
Education: 145.8 and 145.8 (same)
Cross-agency support: 3111.4 and 3111.4 (same)
Construction/Environmental: 394.3 and 394.3 same
Inspector general: 37 and 37 same


This looks considerably better.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/20/2010 11:21 pm
Not bad.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/20/2010 11:22 pm
Quote
SEC. 204. INDEPENDENT STUDY ON HUMAN EXPLORATION
 OF SPACE.


(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.


This is what we need. Not artificially-constrained "options" like the Aug. Commission, not a giant trade study like ESAS, but a list of actual priorities. Let's hope it is actually that...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 11:25 pm
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/20/2010 11:32 pm
New version looks good. More money, but not unreasonably so, for commercial, Money allocated for "new orion" BEO vehicle and plenty allocated for SDHLV (in fy 2011).

Constraints are such that expanding beyong a j13  or 140/j24x style rocket would be very hard, Great job Congress on keeping em on a short leash 8)

These numbers should prevent another ares fiasco. And Ares 1 is solidly off the table :D
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/20/2010 11:32 pm
Now, is exactly the time to take sides. We are in the final stages of this game.
Maybe from a time standpoint, but this is where the real work is going on and it's still early in this process; both of these re-authorization bills could still be amended -- the House bill during markup this week and then both bills could be further amended on the floor before they are voted on as a whole by each chamber.  (And before conference.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 11:54 pm
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/20/2010 11:57 pm
For fy 2011:

$1,631,000,000 shall be for Space
18 Launch System and associated program and
19 other necessary support;


Over 5 years to 2016 thats: 8 billion, right on DIRECT's numbers ;) ;)
The first year (FY2011) it's $1.631 billion but FY2012 and FY2013 are around $2.6 billion, according to the new Senate draft. Over four years at $2.6 and one at $1.631 billion, that's a total of $12 billion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/21/2010 12:08 am
The case still needs to be made though....

We seriously underfund NASA!

A half a penny of federal discretionary spending dollar?
A tiny tiny portion of the federal budget?

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

Given the tiny amount spent compared to the tens of billions or more congress will authorize in a hearbeat, even during these economic times, it's amazing that there is so much time and argument spent about NASA in Congress.

They could eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it wouldn't change a thing in the big federal spending picture. And that argument goes for doubling the NASA budget too!

Yet NASA assures so much for this nations future, and humanity.

There are those that accept underfunding as a fact of life, that it will never change.

That has been a big mistake in my view.

We do not make our wheels squeek as well as others that get far more funding for questionable returns to the nation.

That needs to change.


You just don't get it.  NASA is not going to get the blank check of the 60's.   NASA did it job and helped win the Cold War.   It is not going to be funded for more than 20 billion per year, nor should it.  NASA can do its charter with that amount of money. There is no national need for it to have anymore.
NASA is not about lunar settlements. It is about supporting the USA directly.  It does the USA no good to establish colonies in space or on the moon.  They eventually will want to be self determined and therefore no use to the USA.
Space exploitation is better left to NGO's. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/21/2010 12:17 am
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 12:29 am
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.
That's not the only discrepancy. In some cases, the sum of the parts is greater than the amount allotted for that category.

The only errors greater than $100,000 are in the old draft. Here are two examples in the old draft where the sum of the parts is greater than the amount allotted:


*FY2012 Aeronautics under is listed as $934.7 million, but the sum of the parts is $1034 million.

*Likewise, in FY2013, the Exploration budget parts add up to $5278.6 million, but is only allocated a total of $5028.6 million, a difference of $250 million.

There are smaller errors in the new draft (I caught one), which is disconcerting since it shows a sort of sloppiness even a draft which is supposed to be "reported." A similar error is in the Obama version, but at least Obama's February 1st bill doesn't purport to have 10 digits of accuracy like the bill drafts. Anyways, it doesn't inspire confidence in my leaders.  ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/21/2010 12:41 am
For fy 2011:

$1,631,000,000 shall be for Space
18 Launch System and associated program and
19 other necessary support;


But for 2012 (i guess as contracts are awarded and paid for CCDEV)"

$2,650,000,000 shall be for Space
2 Launch System and associated program and
3 other necessary support;


hmm........

2013:
first off fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000

Thats almost 20 billion. Thats alot of bucks. ALOT.

second of all:

$2,640,000,000 shall be for Space
7 Launch System and associated program and
8 other necessary support;



It should be noteworthy that for 2012 and 2013, 1.4 billion are marked for "new orion" with 1.16 in fy2011.


Pretty good IMHO, all tho 2.64 for 2 years seems excessive (sidemount estimates caused this number?) its not overkill. Plenty of money remains for CCDEV and new tech, especially after the CCDEV and CCT contracts are awarded and the check's written.

In other words as CCDEV winds down and CCT begins, SDHLV winds up while "new orion" finishes out to completion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/21/2010 12:45 am
Still, Robot is correct overall HLV numbers are about 12 billion. While thats not enough for Ares 1 or 5 (or ethier 1 on its own) they are enough for:

DIRECT (too much actually)
 Sidmount (closer)

the "SH" models that use 5 seg with tank stretch (very close, still on the high end)

The "SH" models that use 5 seg strecth AND j2x (about right)



However, none of this would be sufficent for an r68 based HLV, a 10 meter core HLV, or more than 1 additional ares 1 flight, with an HLV to follow

Therefore: Ares 1/5 POR are both dead per this legislation

But the final bill will depend on the version reconciled with the house, where some ares huggers yet remain.

Bottom Line: I don't see any way for a core that does not use rs25e, which is good because this is by far the cheapest option. But due to the House bill, Ares isn't dead yet :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 01:11 am
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 01:17 am
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.

You are correct, Jorge, as can be seen in the bill, it doesn't drive down to the details and so you end up with rounding errors, which are considered "minimal and normal" in authorization bills, and are addressed in appropriations where they often drill down pretty deeply in specifics below the account and sub-account level generally not done in authorization.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 01:18 am
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Okay, yes. For the new draft on page 14:
Quote
(4) For Aeronautics, $1,070,600,000, of which—
(A) $584,700,000 shall be for Aeronautics
Research; and
(B) $486,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

A difference of $100,000.

584.7+486=1070.7, not 1070.6

Finally, a chance to make a difference! ;)

The old draft had considerable differences. Obviously, $100,000 isn't much in the total budget. Rounding error, for sure. But... can it be a rounding error in my favor? ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 01:23 am
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Okay, yes. For the new draft on page 14:
Quote
(4) For Aeronautics, $1,070,600,000, of which—
(A) $584,700,000 shall be for Aeronautics
Research; and
(B) $486,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

A difference of $100,000.

584.7+486=1070.7, not 1070.6

Finally, a chance to make a difference! ;)

The old draft had considerable differences. Obviously, $100,000 isn't much in the total budget. Rounding error, for sure. But... can it be a rounding error in my favor? ;)

EDIT: Oops, this is supposed to be a PM.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rjholling on 07/21/2010 01:44 am
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/21/2010 01:48 am
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 03:47 am
Final Reported version of the Senate:

Senator Nelson had already mentionned this but the 150mt extension possibility for the HLV has been lowered to 130mt in the revised Senate bill. See page. 26.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 07/21/2010 05:12 am
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Fund ISS, HLV, Orion and a lander all at the same time?  I don't think so.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 07/21/2010 05:14 am
What really annoys me :):) about both the Senate and House bills is that neither does anything at all to reduce spending on outreach to Muslim countries.  It's zero in the President's proposal; why don't the Senate and House reduce it below zero?  :) :) :)

EDIT: Added more smilies to make sure nobody takes this seriously.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/21/2010 05:44 am
What really annoys me about both the Senate and House bills is that neither does anything at all to reduce spending on outreach to Muslim countries.  It's zero in the President's proposal; why don't the Senate and House reduce it below zero?  :) :) :)

Actually, you shouldn't be annoyed. Outreach to the whole world is mainly the ongoing duty of space exploration supporters like yourself.  :) NASA's critical role is to support you through its education budget. NASA is willing to take a backseat to your capable outreach efforts, and those of other space exploration supporters, because they are a little busy right now in designing America's near-term and long-term space exploration systems.  :)  :) But NASA is confident that if you do your part and every other space exploration supporter does whatever he or she can do to make the outreach to the world a success, then indeed many good things will happen... :)  :)

Cheers!


Edited: Added more smilies to make sure nobody takes this too seriously.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 07/21/2010 08:05 am
Final Reported version of the Senate:

The SLS language on page 26 has changed:
Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System
developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-
signed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core ele-
ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-
loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons

into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit
for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated
upper Earth departure stage bringing the total
lift capability of the Space Launch System to
130 tons or more.


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 07/21/2010 09:10 am
So in metric terms that's between 63 and 91 tonnes to LEO and 118 tonnes with an extra stage.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simcosmos on 07/21/2010 09:24 am
Final Reported version of the Senate:

The SLS language on page 26 has changed:
Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System
developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-
signed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core ele-
ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-
loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons

into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit
for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated
upper Earth departure stage bringing the total
lift capability of the Space Launch System to
130 tons or more.

Although not sure if it wouldn't be better to stay with a slightly more conservative SDLV assumption
(and as noted on other posts / threads), one possible interpretation of the language used above (and in other sections) - assuming that the ton reference is about 'metric tons' - is that the aim could be very close to something like ESAS HLV recommendation: stretched 8.4m diameter core (with prop. load of about 950t - read 950000 kg - or even slightly greater) powered by 4 (up to 5 SSME) and 5 seg. SRB at the sides for the ~100t goal and then an upper stage with about 210t to 220t (220000 kg) prop or so added on top (powered by a variable number of something like J-2X vs mission design / objectives) for equal or greater than 130t goal delivered into a given injection target...

Something like what have represented in these outdated pictures:

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/172/449343392_2c81e0c94c_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/449343392/

(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/529811873_b1bd0753c4_o.jpg)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/529811873/

António
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2010 09:55 am
130mT is a much more reasonable target IMHO.

And NASA needs to give very serious consideration to 2-launch for NEO.   It can save quite a bit of development money on the launcher side -- which means more for developing the spacecraft, the hab modules and THE SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS which are the real purpose of the mission.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/21/2010 10:14 am
I think that is 130 US tons which is 118mT which you may like even more ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Spacetime on 07/21/2010 11:54 am
130mT is a much more reasonable target IMHO.

And NASA needs to give very serious consideration to 2-launch for NEO.   It can save quite a bit of development money on the launcher side -- which means more for developing the spacecraft, the hab modules and THE SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS which are the real purpose of the mission.

Ross.

I think the numbers being kicked around are more than 2. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/21/2010 12:29 pm
What about spec'ing a "mission" TLI mass.. Instead of LEO tonnage w 2nd stage?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/21/2010 12:35 pm
For FY2011 (comparison between old Senate bill and new, in millions)
old vs new:
total budget:19000 and 19000
Exploration: 3990 and 3868
  multipurpose crew vehicle: 1300 and 1120
  SLS: 1900 and 1631
  Exploration tech: 75 and 250 (YES!!! Still a lot less than the Feb 1 at 652, but something can actually be done with $250 million)
  Human Research: 215 and 155
  Commercial cargo: 144 and 300 (also good, new version is almost as much as the $312M in Feb 1st version)
  Commercial crew: 312 and 312
  Robotic Precursor: 44 and 100 (a marked increase)

Space Ops: 5508.5 and 5508.5 (same for both)

Science: 5005.6 and 5005.6 (same for both)

Aeronautics: 804.6 and 929.6
  Aeronautics research: 579.6 and 579.6 (same)
  Space Tech: 225 and 350 (yay! still less than the $572M of Feb 1st, but much better! Finally, investing in the future again!)
 
Education: 145.8 and 145.8 (same)
Cross-agency support: 3111.4 and 3111.4 (same)
Construction/Environmental: 394.3 and 394.3 same
Inspector general: 37 and 37 same


This looks considerably better.

Agree.  That money for exploration tech and the robotic precursors should actually allow each program to launch their first mission in late 2014 (the original schedule derived from the President's budget).  The programs will still have to shrink over what was originally proposed, but they won't be empty shells if this budget stands. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 07/21/2010 12:54 pm
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.

Alternatively, one or more of the International Partners could develop a lander (Russia?), surface hab (ESA?), etc, with the US providing HLV, EDS and CEV.

Optimists may substitute Armadillo/Masten and Bigelow for Russia & ESA. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 01:22 pm
FYI, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science is scheduled to meet at the top of the hour to markup the corresponding FY 2011 appropriations bill, which includes NASA.
http://appropriations.senate.gov/events.cfm?date=7/21/2010
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Stephan on 07/21/2010 01:44 pm
Now I need some help on the US legislative system :)

Do both commitees have to approve the very same bill (with the same terms) ?
And do both Houses have to vote the bill adopted by the commitees ?

And then what's the role of the WH, can POTUS reject the bill (and then
another round of negociations) ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/21/2010 02:07 pm
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.

Alternatively, one or more of the International Partners could develop a lander (Russia?), surface hab (ESA?), etc, with the US providing HLV, EDS and CEV.

Optimists may substitute Armadillo/Masten and Bigelow for Russia & ESA. :)


Some other optimists might add in South Korea, China, India, and quite a few other countries as both potential new ISS Partners and builders of landers, surface habs, mobile habs, power stations, Lunar jeeps, and telescopes.

It is not about simply returning to the Moon. It is how we will return and what we will do there that will make all the difference. If we want a permanent Lunar Base near those lovely ice covered craters, we should make the base a colony for everyone. The Internet is one of the tools that NASA and the other ISS Partners could use to help to organize such an international and open-ended mission. The preparations and actual colony and helpful Lunar robots would make a great reality TV show…

"Here humans from the planet Earth established our first permanent home on the Moon, July 2025 A.D. We are here to create new opportunities and knowledge and hope for every member of our species."

Maybe some members of Congress are thinking of something similar...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 07/21/2010 02:13 pm
Now I need some help on the US legislative system :)

Do both commitees have to approve the very same bill (with the same terms) ?
And do both Houses have to vote the bill adopted by the commitees ?

And then what's the role of the WH, can POTUS reject the bill (and then
another round of negociations) ?

Both houses of Congress (Senate and House) must pass a bill, but it does not become law until the President signs it.

The President of the Untied States has three choices. He can sign a law which makes it a law the moment he signs it. He can veto a law, and his veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress (not likely). The third thing he can do is called a pocket veto. If the President does not sign a bill within 10 days and congress is in secession then it becomes law. If however congress adjourns and he does not sign the bill, it is automatically vetoed.

Right now the House is working on it’s version of the bill. Both House and Senate versions must be reconciled by committee before the whole House and the whole Senate votes on it. Also the President can only Veto a bill as a whole (He can’t veto a part of a bill) so there will likely be non space things thrown in the budget.

Due to it being an election year the budget is not likely to be passed before October(when the fiscal year ends). However if the Democrats lose esp. if they lose the house then the outgoing congress will vote in a budget to prevent the incoming congress from being able to change things until the budget expires.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 02:26 pm
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.

Alternatively, one or more of the International Partners could develop a lander (Russia?), surface hab (ESA?), etc, with the US providing HLV, EDS and CEV.

Optimists may substitute Armadillo/Masten and Bigelow for Russia & ESA. :)

ESA and Russia seem more concerned with extending the life of the ISS than BEO. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2010 02:33 pm
Live Streaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 02:35 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2010 02:36 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 02:37 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.

Thanks. It's actually over. But it will probably be archived.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 07/21/2010 02:38 pm
130mT is a much more reasonable target IMHO.

And NASA needs to give very serious consideration to 2-launch for NEO.   It can save quite a bit of development money on the launcher side -- which means more for developing the spacecraft, the hab modules and THE SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS which are the real purpose of the mission.

Ross.

I think the numbers being kicked around are more than 2. :)

They don't need to be.

I sure hope NASA learned its lesson from Ares:   Stop planning uber-projects which have no hope of being funded properly.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 02:50 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.

Did anybody watch this?

There is an article on the meeting (prior to it), here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/07/nasa-compromise-holds-for-now.html
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 07/21/2010 02:56 pm
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.

Alternatively, one or more of the International Partners could develop a lander (Russia?), surface hab (ESA?), etc, with the US providing HLV, EDS and CEV.

Optimists may substitute Armadillo/Masten and Bigelow for Russia & ESA. :)

ESA and Russia seem more concerned with extending the life of the ISS than BEO. 

First step, second step, third step, fourth step... Robust support for the ISS and the extension of its mission are just the beginning. NEOs need to be explored and clearly understood in order to decrease their risk to the planet Earth. The ESA, Russia, Japan, Canada, America, and other countries know that water on the Moon is too valuable to ignore. Congress is paying some attention to space exploration... The next few decades should be interesting.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 03:06 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.

Did anybody watch this?

There is an article on the meeting (prior to it), here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/07/nasa-compromise-holds-for-now.html

It seems that nobody watched this. It will eventually be archived (probably later today), here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 03:16 pm
Final Reported version of the Senate:

It's also available online, here:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KSC Engineer on 07/21/2010 04:34 pm
Final Reported version of the Senate:

It's also available online, here:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01


Shelby: CJS Bill Sustains Human Space Flight
Share
 Today at 9:46am
WASHINGTON, D. C. Wednesday, July 21, 2010 U.S. Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), ranking member of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee (CJS), today announced subcommittee approval of the fiscal year 2011 CJS Appropriations bill, which restores significant funding for NASA’s human space flight program. Following today’s action by the subcommittee, the bill will now go to the full Appropriations Committee for consideration.

“The Administration canceled the only realistic approach for the United States to return to low earth orbit and beyond,” said Shelby. “The President’s budget proposal surrendered our nation’s leadership in space to the Russians, Chinese, and Indians and instead chose to set up an entitlement program for the so-called commercial space industry.

“This proposal was simply unacceptable. The overarching point is simple: No so-called commercial space company has ever carried anything successfully to the space station, much less safely launch and return a human being. We cannot risk human lives or the entire future of the space program by deploying an unproven commercial crew concept. The risk is too great.

“The Administration’s plan was not a responsible or realistic approach to human space flight and was not approved by the subcommittee. Instead, the bill restores NASA to its historical purpose, a preeminent leader in space flight.

“The CJS bill solidifies American’s human space flight program by funding a robust heavy lift vehicle based on demonstrated technological reality.”

The Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request terminated NASA’s Constellation program. This bill reaffirms our nation’s commitment to a robust human space exploration program by providing $1.9 billion to begin to build an integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system that will be designed, managed, and integrated by the Marshall Space Flight Center. This heavy lift rocket, when completed in 2016, will ensure that NASA begins to explore well beyond low earth orbit where we have been stuck for decades.

Senator Shelby was instrumental in increasing the $1.6 billion funding level recently proposed by the Senate Commerce Committee for a heavy lift rocket to $1.9 billion under this bill and specifying Marshall Space Flight Center as the lead NASA Center for the heavy lift vehicle.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 07/21/2010 04:38 pm
Big Shocker on the MSFC Lead.. although does this mean "In-line" is now also In-the-bag?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/21/2010 04:43 pm
I think he's as mad as hell and not going to take it anymore ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 04:44 pm
Well, congratulations, DIRECT team, it looks like you guys are in the newest Senate bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 04:48 pm
It seems that nobody watched this. It will eventually be archived (probably later today), here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm
No "breakthrough" compromise leading up to this -- and it's still going to come down to bills and votes.  The news is going to be the full text of the CJS Senate appropriations bill as reported out of the committee to the Senate floor.  And then we'll have seen the initial versions of three of the four bills (all of which can still be amended further, particularly the appropriations bills).

Edit: this is the subcommittee markup; the full Appropriations committee markup is tomorrow (22 July) afternoon.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 04:49 pm
Live Sreaming of Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Markup Of NASA Budget   http://appropriations.senate.gov/

Thanks. Has it started?
  Yes. It started at 10:00AM.

Did anybody watch this?

There is an article on the meeting (prior to it), here:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/07/nasa-compromise-holds-for-now.html

It seems that nobody watched this. It will eventually be archived (probably later today), here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm

The webcast is now archived. You can listen to it here:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d2453d40-c14f-4fe1-a9c1-069c3330ffcb
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 04:52 pm
Subcommittee markup summary:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=56660e39-3811-4133-816f-93392e152437

The excerpt from the press release:
Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - The bill provides $19 billion for NASA, $278 million above the Fiscal Year 2010 level and equal to the President’s request.  The total funding includes $1.6 billion for Space Shuttle operations; $2.78 billion for Space Station operations; $3 billion for development of the next generation Crew Launch Vehicle and Crew Exploration Vehicle; $5 billion for science; and $904 million for aeronautics and space technology research.  The bill restructures NASA’s human spaceflight programs, providing for a new heavy lift launch vehicle and crew capsule for exploring beyond low-Earth orbit, extending the life of the International Space Station through 2020, supporting the burgeoning commercial space industry, investing in new technology development, and allowing one additional Space Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 05:05 pm
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/21/2010 05:10 pm
Does "integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system" mean a single vehicle, and not a system of vehicles? No way for this to leave a back-door for Ares I to squeeze back in as part of a "system"?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/21/2010 05:15 pm
It sure does but the House needs to be reconciled to it as they want to continue with the PoR. It also means no sidemount either. I also wonder whose hide Shelby took the extra $300m from ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/21/2010 05:18 pm
Does "integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system" mean a single vehicle, and not a system of vehicles? No way for this to leave a back-door for Ares I to squeeze back in as part of a "system"?

To me, it means an LV family with the maximum amount of commonality between them, scalable to different sizes and missions.  A good example of this would be the D-SDLV In-line.  However, and I can't stress this too much, to someone else it might mean something different.  Depending on the exact details and what you mean by 'maximum commonality', then, yes, the ALS could fit the description.  That doesn't make it any more affordable but...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/21/2010 05:25 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 05:28 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 05:33 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.
Stupid. Yeah, we'd much rather support the Russian economy...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/21/2010 05:34 pm
Well, if true then they are moving closer to the House version.   More for HLV, kill CC.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2010 05:34 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

could it be that they are going to side with the other side of the house, re the loans guarrantee plan for Commerical Crew?? this would possibly slow down CC for some and make it more difficult if not impossible for others; not saying who, but I suspect venture capital in this area will be extremely lean;
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/21/2010 05:35 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 07/21/2010 05:41 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Very hard to tell.  MC(P)V was at 1.4 coming out of Authorization with HLV at 1.6  The press release says "3B" for launch and crew vehicle.  Just doing the math they could have reduced MCV to 1.1B and sent the plus up to HLV.  Or it could be CC, since standing pat on the 300 or so for cargo and eliminating CC would buy it back, as you point out - although that's not too hot for the "compromise" component of all this. Or it could be some other combination - I think ISS is a bit down in this version as well.

Bottom line is won't know until we see the text -  (or 51DMascot chimes in!).  Text release is unlikely before the whole Appropriations Committee takes it up tomorrow - unless staffers are completely tanked on caffeine...  :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 05:46 pm
Well, if true then they are moving closer to the House version.   More for HLV, kill CC.

I am inferring this from her comments at 30:05 of the webcast. The NASA part starts at 29:30.

$19B overall.
$5B for discovery and earth science. She must have made a mistake on this but that's what she said.
$570 million for aeronautics.
Funding for 1 additionnal Shuttle flight.
Extension of the ISS to 2020.
Growing commercial industry that will deliver cargo to the ISS.
HLV and capsule to carry our astronauts to BEO.
Measures to protect the safety of U.S. astronauts.

http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=d2453d40-c14f-4fe1-a9c1-069c3330ffcb
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Stephan on 07/21/2010 05:49 pm
Both houses of Congress (Senate and House) must pass a bill, but it does not become law until the President signs it.

The President of the Untied States has three choices. He can sign a law which makes it a law the moment he signs it. He can veto a law, and his veto can be overturned by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress (not likely). The third thing he can do is called a pocket veto. If the President does not sign a bill within 10 days and congress is in secession then it becomes law. If however congress adjourns and he does not sign the bill, it is automatically vetoed.

Right now the House is working on it’s version of the bill. Both House and Senate versions must be reconciled by committee before the whole House and the whole Senate votes on it. Also the President can only Veto a bill as a whole (He can’t veto a part of a bill) so there will likely be non space things thrown in the budget.

Due to it being an election year the budget is not likely to be passed before October(when the fiscal year ends). However if the Democrats lose esp. if they lose the house then the outgoing congress will vote in a budget to prevent the incoming congress from being able to change things until the budget expires.
Thanks for the answer pathfinder.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/21/2010 05:54 pm
Quote

Shelby: CJS Bill Sustains Human Space Flight
Share
 Today at 9:46am
“The Administration canceled the only realistic approach for the United States to return to low earth orbit and beyond,” said Shelby. “The President’s budget proposal surrendered our nation’s leadership in space to the Russians, Chinese, and Indians and instead chose to set up an entitlement program for the so-called commercial space industry.

“This proposal was simply unacceptable. The overarching point is simple: No so-called commercial space company has ever carried anything successfully to the space station, much less safely launch and return a human being. We cannot risk human lives or the entire future of the space program by deploying an unproven commercial crew concept. The risk is too great.

 How much had the US launched into space when Kennedy made his charge to go to the Moon?  You fund these companies to DEMONSTRATE their capabilities.  If they fail, they get no more money.  Shelby's going to get his mega-jobs program for MSFC and when we have nothing flying in 2016 and haven't launched an American into space in 5 years, Congress will go crawling back to SpaceX and Orbital and beg forgiveness.  I hope Elon rubs these quotes in his face when that time comes. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 06:07 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

cheers, Martin

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 07/21/2010 06:15 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

cheers, Martin

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

the problem as I see it, the NASA FY11 Appropriations is bundled into a 60B Justice, Commerce and Science Bill, going to be hard for the President to Veto this, without creating a boondogle for the Democrates come the Novemeber vote; this bill covers everything from the cop on the beat up to and including Homeland Security; tell me that the people will allow him to get away with veto on all that;
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 06:18 pm
Yeah, the $300 million plus up for HLV is a little scary.   I wonder what was raided?   But I don't follow it closely, maybe that was already accounted for...

Very likely commercial crew. Mikulski said that they only support commercial cargo.

Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

cheers, Martin

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

the problem as I see it, the NASA FY11 Appropriations is bundled into a 60B Justice, Commerce and Science Bill, going to be hard for the President to Veto this, without creating a boondogle for the Democrates come the Novemeber vote; this bill covers everything from the cop on the beat up to and including Homeland Security; tell me that the people will allow him to get away with veto on all that;

I think that the Commerce and Science Appropriation Bill later gets bundled with other appropriation bills in one large appropriation bill for the entire FY2011 Budget.

This is a long process and many amendments are possible along the way. Stay tuned...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: wronkiew on 07/21/2010 06:29 pm
Quote
$19B overall.
$5B for discovery and earth science. She must have made a mistake on this but that's what she said.
$570 million for aeronautics.
Funding for 1 additionnal Shuttle flight.
Extension of the ISS to 2020.
Growing commercial industry that will deliver cargo to the ISS.
HLV and capsule to carry our astronauts to BEO.
Measures to protect the safety of U.S. astronauts.

Protecting them by taking away their ride to orbit. Nice. Are they going to ground the T-38s too?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/21/2010 06:45 pm
Well, both Boeing and SpaceX claim that they'd be developing their crew capsules anyway for "commercial customers". Here's their chance to put their own money where their mouth is...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/21/2010 06:48 pm
Well, both Boeing and SpaceX claim that they'd be developing their crew capsules anyway for "commercial customers". Here's their chance to put their own money where their mouth is...
So it's a good idea to defund commercial crew entirely for 2011 just to increase funding for the HLV and Orion by a measly 10%?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 07:11 pm
I think that the Commerce and Science Appropriation Bill later gets bundled with other appropriation bills in one large appropriation bill for the entire FY2011 Budget.

This is a long process and many amendments are possible along the way. Stay tuned...
The CJS appropriations bill doesn't have to be bundled with other appropriation bills, but it has been in several recent years.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/21/2010 07:16 pm
I doubt it would be vetoed.   The WH already revealed their stick when Garver linked the funding boost to CC.    If the WH is displeased they may simply lose interest and reduce funding next year.  It will be left to the Congress to restore the funding year after year.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/21/2010 07:47 pm
Wouldn't surprise me if that would push the president into a veto.

It's unlikely that the President will veto the entire FY2011 Budget appropriation. This will have to be fought in Congress.

D'oh! You're right, of course.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/21/2010 08:08 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 08:17 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

That's actually a lot better than what I expected from Shelby. The NASA Authorization bill had $312 million for commercial crew for FY2011.  So it's a cut of $62 million. The FY2011 funding for commercial crew was expected to be lower in its first year. Hopefully, it will go up to $500 million in FY2012.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 08:22 pm
I doubt it would be vetoed.   The WH already revealed their stick when Garver linked the funding boost to CC.    If the WH is displeased they may simply lose interest and reduce funding next year.  It will be left to the Congress to restore the funding year after year.
It doesn't sound like there's any public veto threat for either type of bill, but there are two types of bills "in play" right now.  An authorization bill for only NASA, which we've seen full text versions of from both House and Senate.  And an appropriations bill from today's Senate subcommittee markup of which NASA is only a part.  We haven't seen the text of the Senate CJS appropriations bill; the House subcommittee marked up a bill at the end of last month before the "compromise" was publicized.  (I don't know that the House appropriations bill has been marked up by the full committee yet.)

Vetoing either or both bills (or threatening to do so) would be different matters.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/21/2010 08:28 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

That's actually a lot better than what I expected from Shelby. The NASA Authorization bill had $312 million for commercial crew for FY2011.  So it's a cut of $62 million. The FY2011 funding for commercial crew was expected to be lower in its first year. Hopefully, it will go up to $500 million in FY2012.


Yeah.  But this still leaves $250 million of the HLV boost coming from somewhere.  Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 08:29 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”

From the same article:

Quote
For months, Shelby has threatened to torpedo the new direction for NASA and only came on board after lengthy negotiations with other lawmakers with ties to NASA, particularly Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, according to congressional sources.

So we owe thanks to Senator Hutchison and her staff (Jeff Bingham) for the compromise which should finally fund commercial crew. This was long overdue.  Good work.

P.S. I apologize for scaring people before, I took Mikulski's comments to mean that they would only fund commercial cargo. Thankfully, this is not the case.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 09:08 pm
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 

Modifying this post, since the latest from yg1968 was being posted as I was writing this:

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/21/2010 09:08 pm
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/

This says $562 million for commercial activities.   Only $250m of it for commercial crew.

Shelby quotes:

“At the end of the day, NASA is going to have to show a lot of vision,” Shelby said.

Indeed, Shelby reluctantly supported funding for commercial spaceflight, noting Wednesday that “when you put a legislative package together, you have to consider other people’s views.”
My read of the situation is that they are getting past the denial/anger stages WRT the commercial providers "12 step" program, courtesy of the administration.

There is a creeping realization that if the gap becomes politically important again (viz. the "blame game"), injuring the most likely means to close the gap is an unacceptable liability.

The House has not yet caught up to the Senate in understanding the new political realities of Shuttle close out. In attempting to get in late hits in this conflict, the net effect is to hasten the demise of govt HSF by a grand overreach in the opposite direction of the Senate. So the Senate version drifts more to compensate for this towards the administration's side, in anticipation of conference. The situation is highly unstable.

The longer this goes on, the greater likelihood of bad choices for both govt/commercial HSF, as the govt HSF is less and less dominated by BEO and the ability for more near term resilience for commercial providers occurs.

And finally at the end of the process, when they discover (if they do) that the fixed (and dev) costs of govt HSF is not in keeping with future budgets, and that keeping the old deals they have/are fighting for ... are unaffordable ... they may find it hard to lock the admin into a multi year plan that they require ... that they have to accept full blame for/close down ... because a)it like CxP falls behind/cost overruns and b) straddles BEO/LEO too much while seeming like a pink elephant to the anemically financed but more flashy commercial guys.

Then it looks like all they did was enforce "earmarks". Again. Sigh.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 09:19 pm
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.

Yes, I made a mistake and apologize for it. I shouldn't have inferred things from one sentence that Mikulski said and should have waited for the numbers to come out. I am glad that $250M was appropriated for commercial crew. Thanks for your comments.

The Orlando Sentinel said that Senator Hutchison managed to persuade Shelby of going along with this compromise.  Congratulations to her and her staff for making this happen. Good work. It's a clever compromise. It also goes along with what Elon Musk has proposed on many occassions: commercial crew concentrates on LEO (and the ISS) and NASA concentrates on BEO.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2010 09:23 pm
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 

Modifying this post, since the latest from yg1968 was being posted as I was writing this:

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.
Is there launguage in the detailed Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Bill which states that the new HLV will be a SD-HLV? I know this language was in the Senate NASA Authorization Bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 09:32 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the authorization bill. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/21/2010 09:46 pm
For the curious, I've tallied up the total spending on various items for FY2011-FY2013 (the only three years covered by the Senate draft bill):

Space Launch System: $7.15B (1.9+2.65+2.6)

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: $4B (1.3+1.3+1.4)

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: $975.9M (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 225+450+500= $1.175B (WH proposed $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+500= $1.2B (WH proposed $3.3B)

For reference, I've tallied up the FY2011-FY2013 numbers for the final Senate authorization bill (the last pre-Appropriations bill):

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Space Launch System: 1.631+2.65+2.64=$6.921B

Multi-purpose crew vehicle/Orion: 1.12+1.4+1.4=$3.92B

Mid/high-TRL exploration technology, heavy-lift, exploration architectures, and demonstrations: 250+437.3+449=$1.1363B (WH proposed $5.45B)

Robotic exploration precursor missions: 100+100+100= $300M (WH $1.33B)

Low/mid-TRL space technology: 350+486+500= $1.336B (WH $2.64B)

Commercial crew: 312+400+515= $1.227B (WH $3.3B)

Also, in the Education section, whose top-line is remaining the same, there's $25M/year for the pre-existing "Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research" which I hadn't seen in the earlier draft of the bill. It seems like an interesting program, and this amount is substantially higher than the ~$10M/year the WH sought for it.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 09:47 pm
Mikulski said that they supported "commercial cargo". She stressed "commercial cargo" in order to mean that they did not support commercial crew. The full committee will consider the appropriation bill tommorow at 2:30PM. 

Some compromise... So much for the appropriators and the authorizors being on the same side.

I believe that Hutchison is on the full committee. Hopefully, she will defend the compromise bill. 

Modifying this post, since the latest from yg1968 was being posted as I was writing this:

Really not sure how you gleaned those impressions from a very top-level discussion of some of the high points of a mark-up. In point of fact, as I review the account numbers, this is the closest that the appropriators for NASA have marked to levels provided in a NASA authorization bill (and one not even formally enacted yet!) than I can recall in thirty-five years of being in the business! This mark-up result, when you see the details, SOLIDLY supports the Commerce compromise bill reported out last week. It clearly demonstrates Senate solidarity between the authorizers and the appropriators!

BTW, They did NOT eliminate commercial crew, but did reduce it to $250m for FY 2011, from $312m in the Senate Commerce compromise. Nothing done in this mark-up that would undermine that compromise!

And MSFC being the lead on rocket development is no surprise and nothing new..it's what they DO and always have. Where and how a "program" office is set up and divided up, will be a function of the eventual architecture determined for the system and its components.

Replying to myself...tells you what sort of several weeks it's been! 

Here are the basic puts and takes, comparing preliminary--unofficial--notes from the appropriations mark-up with the Commerce-reported compromise authorization bill:

Space Launch System (HLLV) increased from $1.631B to $1,900B; Commercial Cargo increased from $300m to $312m; Space Flight and Support up from $1.119B to $1.144B; and Inspector General up from $37m to $38m.

Accomplished by taking $20m from Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, $100m from Exploration Tech Development, $62m from Commercial Crew, $55m from Robotic Precursors, and $25m from Space Technology Development, $35.6m from Cross-Agency Support, and $13m from Construction and Remediation.

All other accounts marked at the same levels as the Commerce compromise bill (Science, ISS Ops, Shuttle, Aeronautics, and Education.)

Some "rounding errors" might mean some variances when adding and subtracting to get totals, but these are pretty close.



Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 09:54 pm
Thanks for the early look, 51D Mascot.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 10:00 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/21/2010 10:05 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/21/2010 10:11 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

I am sure you know this but I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Let's not forget that Ares-1 as originally envisioned was simpler, and the Ares-V actually at one point did have 5 SSME's?

If they play the same games as before then I can guarantee NASA will be put out of business by the taxpayers, well at least this one :)

and thank you enormously for all your work. Your efforts have certainly made the very late nights worth it and provided more than a little hope.

Thank you


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 10:13 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?

Yes, thanks. Will you need to adjust the numbers in the NASA Authorization bill for FY2011 in order for them to correspond to the FY2011 appropriation bill? My guess is that it is not really necessary to do so.

For FY2012, the numbers in the FY2012 appropriation bill should have precedence over the numbers in the NASA Authorization bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 10:33 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/21/2010 10:40 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/21/2010 10:41 pm
I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 
There are still the matters of which of these bills gets to the finish line.  Not sure it's a guarantee that both will yet.  Full passage of appropriations may still be up in the air.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/21/2010 10:54 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

Ares V lite would probably still fit the bill. But I suspect that Bolden and the President want the cheapest HLV possible.  So Direct becomes a front runner because of this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/21/2010 11:00 pm
I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

I'm worried about that too.  But the language specifically requires 75-100 tons to LEO.  That rules out Ares-I (too small) and Ares-V (too big).  Another clause requires the design to support future growth to 130 tons, which would rule out side-mount.  Other clauses require currently existing (or in progress) engines and boosters, so that would rule out RS68A/Regen (ala Augustine Ares-V "Lite"). 

So what's left that can fit within all of these constraints?  Only inline SD-HLV, as far as I can see, using SSME and 8.4m tanks.  Possibly using stretched 8.4m tankage, possibly 5-segment RSRM, possibly J2-X.  Or just as easily they can leave all three of those options for future growth, which is what I think they should do.

Only time will tell.  I just hope we don't have to endure more endless (and pointless) studies and trades.  I think everyone now acknowledges that a baseline inline SD-HLV using 4-segment SRBs and Shuttle-sized tankage is a workable choice, even if many do not agree with the policy.

My hope is that NASA takes the easy path for once, and gets a J-130 (or whatever they want to call it) ready to launch sooner and cheaper than Congress is asking for, instead of the other way around.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/21/2010 11:04 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 

That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

I am still not 51D Mascot but I am almost sure that the SD-HLV requirement will not be contradicted in the appropriation bill. Appropriation legislation will generally not contradict the language in an authorization bill. Sometimes money that is authorized will not be funded by the appropriators. In that case, NASA will ignore it. But the HLV is funded in the appropriation bill. So this is not the case. 

I can't stress this enough, up until about a month ago there were still very vocal and high ranking voices that would tell you the Ares-I/V was Shuttle Derived, how does the language prevent this same thing from occurring once again.

Ares V lite would probably still fit the bill. But I suspect that Bolden and the President want the cheapest HLV possible.  So Direct becomes a front runner because of this.

and that is precisely what I am worried about!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/21/2010 11:47 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 


That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 07/22/2010 01:37 am
BTW, what makes Sen. Mikulski tick?  Are there any factors in particular that would explain her emphasis on crew safety and her lack of enthusiasm for commercial crew?  I can see why she would be interest in space: APL and the Space Telescope Science Institute are both in her state.  Neither of these, however, has much to do with HSF.

Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 07/22/2010 02:13 am
I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Wishing there was "de-authorization" legislation, e.g.:  "NASA is not authorized to contract for development of a new first-stage rocket engine, nor a major modification of an existing engine."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/22/2010 02:23 am
I think the over-arching question is, what specific legal mechanism is there to prevent the program deviating so far afield as it did before.

Wishing there was "de-authorization" legislation, e.g.:  "NASA is not authorized to contract for development of a new first-stage rocket engine, nor a major modification of an existing engine."
Never going to happen - would allow admin  latitude to abandon J-2X and 5 seg contracts.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: madscientist197 on 07/22/2010 10:57 am
Isn't it possible to add a clause saying that no appropriated money may be used for a specific purpose?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2010 02:34 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 


That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   

I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2010 02:43 pm
I probably should let 51D Mascot answer this himself (as he knows a lot more than I do on this). But I don't think that it is necessary that this language be in the appropriation bill. Appropriation bills usually don't go into that kind of detail (they are mostly numbers). Most of the details are found in the autorization bill. 


That is correct, and essentially part of why there are separate bills and separate committees. The authorizers are the "policy and oversight" committees, who establish program guidelines and general direction for agencies or subject matter within their jurisdiction and establish the legal authority for the appropriations, where the actual spending is meted out; the appropriators take the piece of the actual total federal budget "pie" that they are allocated and apply it to the programs as they see fit and are able to within their allocation and jurisdiction.

Does that help clarify?
Then what your saying is that the NASA 2010 Authorization Bill language creating a SD-HLV is not contradicted or overturned by any comments in the NASA Appropriations Subcommittee bill. Is that correct?

Well, there was not an authorization bill for FY 2010. That, unfortunately, was essentially a "victim" of the decision by the Administration to conduct a review of US Human Space Flight activities and to propose only "placeholder" numbers in their budget request for FY 2010--at roughly the same as FY 2009 levels--until after the review was completed. That review--the Augustine Panel--took place during the same period of time that the Congress would have considered an FY 2010 authorization bill (the previous bill, enacted in 2008, was only for FY 2009.) The Administration indicated its intent was to provide an "amended Budget Request" following the conclusion of the Augustine Panel review.  So, on the Senate side, some of the authorizing committee staff continued to prepare draft authorizing language while the review was under-way, but obviously needed to await the outcome of the report to evaluate what options would be recommended. In the end, the Administration decided to not provide an amended FY 2010 request, but to develop its response to the Augustine report and release it as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. It did that, of course, with a dramatic proposed realignment of US civil space programs for human spaceflight, and started the debate that's been raging. Meantime, Senator Hutchison decided to introduce a bill, based on the work done during and after the Augustine report, coupled with a review of the FY 2011 request, which suggested a possible area of compromise in the area of human spaceflight issues, between the existing programs and the proposed changes. She did that on March 3, with the introduction of S. 3068, and offered to use that to work, on a bipartisan basis, and with the White House, towards a compromise solution to the question of US human spaceflight.  Not long after, the Senate Commerce Committee, on which she is the Ranking Republican, and on which Senators Nelson and Vitter are the Chairman and Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Science and Space, began discussions leading to the joint development of a full NASA bill, including human spaceflight provisions as well as the rest of NASA's programs, which eventually became the Committee bill that was marked up last week and is the subject of this forum discussion. But by this time, it's essentially too late to expect final passage of an authorization bill very much before the end of FY 2010, so the Senate bill only addresses FY2011, 2012, and 2013.

It remains now to be seen if either the House or Senate--or both--pass versions of a NASA authorization bill that they can then try to reconcile together to enact a final product into law.  So...a VERY long way of saying why there is no FY 2010 authorization bill.

But I sense an underlying question that really relates, I think, to the language--in both the 2005 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2006, 2007 and 2008) and the 2008 NASA Authorization Act (for FY 2009), which provided authorization for development of replacement vehicles for the shuttle, and said that they should be based on shuttle-derived systems "to the maximum extent practicable." The appropriators have not provided specific language that would change that guidance; they have simply appropriated funds requested for the program developed by NASA under the authority of the two authorization bills I mentioned. It was the decision of NASA to develop the architecture for what became the Constellation Program, and which ended up being something different than strictly "SD-HLV", but that was still within the scope of the authorization, which did not MANDATE a strictly shuttle-derived vehicle.

Folks will argue for decades, I'm sure, whether that was the right choice, and it's not strictly relevant to this discussion, I suppose. But it is clear that the issue of "design heritage" for a follow-on space launch system is once again being addressed in some detail, at least in the Senate authorization language. But the Senate appropriations subcommittee today used the basic funding levels of the Senate Commerce Committee's compromise authorization bill as the guide for the funding levels in their appropriations for FY 2011. Those numbers, by themselves, don't provide "policy guidance" or "design recommendations," so I guess I'm saying that the underlying premise of the question is incorrect, in that there has never been a "mandated" SD-HLV (and again, it can be debated whether Congress should have been more prescriptive in its language on that point in the past, and whether the language in the current Senate Commerce compromise authorization bill is the right mix of options versus direction), so there was--and is--really nothing for the appropriators to contradict or overturn in that respect. Sorry for the long way to get there, but I hope I've answered your question, at least as I read it.   

By the way, is Alan Mollohan(Chairman of the House NASA Appropriations Subcommittee) bound by the language in the House NASA 2010 Authorization Bill? In other words, if he wants to fund a bill like the Senate's Compromise can he use it as his guidance & not the House's NASA Authorization Bill? I ask this because Chairman Mollohan has expressed deep concerns about funding the Ares 1 rocket.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/22/2010 02:46 pm
Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/22/2010 02:50 pm
I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).

Well, the real kicker for SDLV is the 2016 date, which effectively excludes any new-start engines (but not J-2X), like the RP-1 designs used.

And Direct/Inline is not a given, as sidemount could replicate those numbers; it'll be up to NASA to decide between the two...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/22/2010 03:15 pm
I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).

Well, the real kicker for SDLV is the 2016 date, which effectively excludes any new-start engines (but not J-2X), like the RP-1 designs used.

And Direct/Inline is not a given, as sidemount could replicate those numbers; it'll be up to NASA to decide between the two...

Just to throw something into that...developing a SD-HLV by 2016 does not fix you to a specific requirement WHEN YOU INDICATE GROWTH OPTIONS.

There is still room in there for an RL-10 variant, is what I'm saying. It may be a round-about way, but for them to be pushing that hard for J-2X, means they have something in mind (IE: Political). If the numbers for J-2X don't pan out, they can still persue the RL-10 cluster, but it might be in the second development phase. Just saying...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/22/2010 03:16 pm
I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).

Well, the real kicker for SDLV is the 2016 date, which effectively excludes any new-start engines (but not J-2X), like the RP-1 designs used.

And Direct/Inline is not a given, as sidemount could replicate those numbers; it'll be up to NASA to decide between the two...
I don't think sidemount is likely for two reasons. First, the Congress(In particular Senator Mikulski) is deeply concerned about safety. Sidemount is far less safe during a launch abort. Secondly, its growth potential is far less than inline. The Augustine Commission addressed both of these questions when it stated on page 67 of its final report,"the side mount variant is considered an inherently less safe arrangement if crew are to be carried & is more limited in its growth potential." Finally, it will be far more expensive to evolve a sidemount to an inline SD-HLV than to evolve a smaller inline(J-130,etc.) to a larger inline(J-241SH,etc.).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: libs0n on 07/22/2010 03:16 pm
The language of the legislation excludes from due consideration the Atlas 5 Phase 2, which was a competitive option to SDLV with its own merits as shown in the Augustine commission.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/22/2010 03:37 pm
I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).

Well, the real kicker for SDLV is the 2016 date, which effectively excludes any new-start engines (but not J-2X), like the RP-1 designs used.

And Direct/Inline is not a given, as sidemount could replicate those numbers; it'll be up to NASA to decide between the two...

Replicate 130+ tons with an upper stage ?? Where are you going to put it ?

MSFC is running the show and their reaction to this other center proposal is probably best expressed by one of their number ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11386.msg423645#msg423645
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Hop_David on 07/22/2010 04:27 pm
Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.

But doesn't the house bill want to gut COTS? Wouldn't that harm Orbital?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Downix on 07/22/2010 04:41 pm
Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.

But doesn't the house bill want to gut COTS? Wouldn't that harm Orbital?
I did not see it gutting COTS, only the Commercial Crew angle, which Orbital is not participating in regardless.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 04:42 pm
Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.

But doesn't the house bill want to gut COTS? Wouldn't that harm Orbital?
I did not see it gutting COTS, only the Commercial Crew angle, which Orbital is not participating in regardless.
Orbital has expressed interest in commercial crew, though they aren't nearly as well prepared as SpaceX and Boeing.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 04:48 pm
Ditto Rep. Giffords.  Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband.  Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?

Orbital in Chandler, AZ.

Also ATK and Boeing
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 04:54 pm
Looks like Marcia Smith live-tweeted some of the House S&T's markup session today:

http://twitter.com/spcplcyonline

Is this being webcast somewhere?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 04:57 pm
Looks like Marcia Smith live-tweeted some of the House S&T's markup session today:

http://twitter.com/spcplcyonline

Is this being webcast somewhere?

Some interesting bits from Marcia Smith's twitter feed:
Quote
Kosmas amendment adds money for COTS, commercial crew up to Senate level. Takes money from exploration,kills loan guarantees...

Hall and Giffords oppose it; Rohrabacher supports it. Gordon opposes. Defeated by voice vote.

Rohrabacher amendment to add money for commercial cargo. Bill cuts all but $14 m from $312 request for FY11. Defeated (voice)

Grayson amendment to strike loan and loan guarantee language; no company asked for it and is wrong approach. Voice vote underway.

Grayson defeated 23-6.

Kosmas amendment to add funding for exploration technology development. Funds at level adopted by Senate cmtes. Defeated (voice)

Lujan amendment to remove $1 million limit on CRuSR suborbital program and leave amt up to Administrator. Approved (voice)

Broun amendment to make it a three year instead of five year authorization bill is approved (voice)

Sensenbrenner amendment to use the word "Constellation" in bill to show Congress still supports it. Defeated 10-19.

Committee recesses for floor votes. Will recovene 10 minutes after last floor vote.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 05:09 pm
Looks like Marcia Smith live-tweeted some of the House S&T's markup session today:

http://twitter.com/spcplcyonline

Is this being webcast somewhere?

Yes, here:
http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?newsid=2884
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 05:14 pm
Doesn't work for me, but that could be just a problem at my end.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 05:15 pm
Direct link (WinMedia):
http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia-live/science/59363/300_science-scitech_090819.asx
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 05:17 pm
Rep. Wu objecting to the language on where the retired Shuttle orbiters would go.  (Section 223 -- "...with priority consideration given to eligible applicants meeting all conditions of that plan which would provide for the display and maintenance of orbiters at locations with the best potential value to the public, including where the location of the orbiters can advance educational opportunities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines, and with an historical relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or processing of the Space Shuttle orbiters.").

Sounds like Rep. Wu is offering an amendment to change that.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 05:25 pm
Standard procedure...now going to recorded vote; on the voice vote, the chair called it for the "no's," but one of the members requested the recorded vote.

(Unfortunately, my lunch break is over; have to split for now.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/22/2010 05:33 pm
Some interesting bits from Marcia Smith's twitter feed:
Quote
Sensenbrenner amendment to use the word "Constellation" in bill to show Congress still supports it. Defeated 10-19.

10 in favour - yikes!

And, in general, looks like the house committee is in the mood to fight tooth-and-nail for the status quo. We're a long way from a compromise here, I think.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:36 pm
Grayson discussing proposed amendment, regarding lack of confirmation from NASA administrator that commercial launches will be from Florida:

dual track, one way is to continue having government operations, other is to try to develop capability through commercial entities, thinks both are possible, only one proven and demonstrated by can imagine capability of other, make-or-buy decision faced in DOD, bill would change make-or-buy rule and put in favor of commercial entitities, which Grayson thinks they don't deserve, complains that once commercial entity is capable (certifiable?) of serving ISS proven government systems would have to go to the wayside permanently, says doesn't make any sense, wants more level competition between government and commercial

saying commercial entities have no product, little experience, etc., wants to see fair competition between commercial alternatives and the program that's stood so well over past 50 years
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 05:36 pm
Webcast now working for me.

Congressman wants to see a fair level playing field. Led astray by government contractors too many times.

Mr Hall is opposed to the amendment due to his support for commercial HSF.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:38 pm
garamenci wondering about term "US commercial company," concerned about potential for foreign-owned companies
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:41 pm
Rohrabacher peeved at Grayson, dice already loaded in favor of government approach, luke skywalker vs han solo debate (heh), laying foundation so commercial sector can play a role, at beginning of American century (?) there were some who wanted US government to build all the ships, would have different country today if we had decided government would be running all transportation systems, what's going on here is attempt to ease away from total government approach to private sector approach, mentions boeing, lockheed, delta system, atlas system as examples

Rohrabacher: opposes Grayson's amendment
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:43 pm
Giffords opposing Grayson amendment, points out that government system would not be shut down when commercial begins operation, don't want government unfairly competing with private sector once they satisfy NASA's requirements, makes clear that commercial systems can't cost more than government systems, would not be giving unearned and undeserved preference to commercial entities, would have to meet all requirements before they can be considered for federal government contracts, thinks it strikes a fair balance
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:43 pm
Grayson amendment voted down
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:44 pm
proposed amendment by ms. fudge and mr. wilson from Ohio

Fudge: mentions National Academies study (I think), withdraws amendment (?)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 05:44 pm
Good work Neil. They all seem to be throwing amendments into the arena.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:46 pm
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 05:47 pm
ouch, Rohrabacher up next, Chairman Gordon said something like "since Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, this might take a while," so taking (pre-scheduled?) break beforehand ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 05:47 pm
Mr Matheson didn't want the continued funding during that time to be held in reserve to pay for termination costs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/22/2010 05:50 pm
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 05:52 pm
ouch, Rohrabacher up next, Chairman Gordon said something like "since Mr. Rohrabacher is up next, this might take a while," so taking (pre-scheduled?) break beforehand ;)

I like Rohrabacher. It's nice to see a Republican that is consistently pro-business. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/22/2010 05:52 pm
The House seems deadset on keeping Constellation alive in all but name.  Orion, Ares I and some HLV (*cough*Ares V*cough*).  They couldn't care less about closing the spaceflight gap or having an actual spaceflight program.  I hope the Senate has a lot of power in the upcoming negotations, because there is NOTHING to like about the House's bill.  I don't see how Obama could support a compromise much below what the Senate Appropriations committee agreed to yesterday. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 06:00 pm
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun ;).

I think you mean Conference Committee. Reconciliation is for budget items. Conference committee meetings are mostly held in private (except for the first meeting).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:33 pm
house committee resuming
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 06:35 pm
Mr Rohrabacher is not a fan of the Chinese government!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:40 pm
Rohrabacher: need report on collaboration with China (?), requirements for new nations joining ISS team, need report on military uses of chinese space program, need report on potential threat to ISS from China asat weapons tests

Gordon: mentions investigation might be better left to CIA, etc., rather than NASA

Hall: supports Rohrabacher's amendment, simply asks for report

Gordon: would take resources from NASA that could be used in a number of other areas, seems like asking DOD about hogs in texas

Rohrabacher: there've been indications of having similar space relationship with china as with russia, but has not made same internal progress (regarding oppression, etc.) as russia

vote: No's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:43 pm
amendment offered by Ms. Johnson from Texas

Johnson: clarifies section 405 of bill, ensures NASA has clear plan to put NASA-owned aeronautical structures... (?), reverse deterioration of aeronautics ground test facilities...

Vote: Aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:46 pm
amendment offered by Mr. Wilson from Ohio:

Wilson: evidence-based programs to improve STEM in country, represents rural part of Ohio, many constituents inspired by John Glenn who came from nearby, too many rural students lack adequate STEM education they would need to become NASA astronauts or engineers in future

Gordon: as son of two farmers and representative of largely rural district, agrees

Vote: aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 06:47 pm
Ammendments for R&D for future missions, ammendment for space tech
Ayes have it!
(I'm happy about that)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:48 pm
amendment offered by Fudge & Wilson from Ohio

Fudge: research and development needed for future missions, if we don't start now R&D needed for Mars mission may never happen

Hall: inclined to support, but wants elaboration on how program will help overall exploration

Vote: aye's have it (anybody know exactly what this amendment covered?)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:53 pm
amendment offered by Lujan from New Mexico:

Lujan: some STEM activities in Education should specifically be for minorities and under-represented communities,

Garamendi question about if it'd only be for highest-levels, wants to be sure that it doesn't end up devoting only to highest levels, Lujan said that's not the case

Hall: wondering why a particular portion was stricken from the bill regarding Higher Education act of 1965,

(had difficulty following this one)

Vote: Aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 06:57 pm
amendment offered by Ms. Johnson from Texas

Johnson: section 601 focuses on improving STEM education, discusses shortage of minority teachers, amendment would task NASA administrator to consult with Secretary of Education and others on this topic

Vote: aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 07:00 pm
Ms. Fudge offering amendment by Ms. Edwards, who's temporarily absent at press conference

Fudge: pilot program for hands-on technology-related education and training, emphasis on underserved and underrepresented minority populations,

vote: aye's have it

Ms. Fudge and Mr. Wilson from Ohio offering another amendment

Fudge: adds provision to institutional management system, assessment of what structural modifications would be needed

Vote: aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 07:02 pm
NEO ammendment: federal agencies designated with how to deal with a NEO that might be heading towards the Earth, what to do, how to deflect, reaffirms existing policy and an October 15th deadline.
Ayes have it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 07:03 pm
amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher: near-Earth objects a threat to our nation and humanity, administration needs to designate what would be done and who would be responsible for deflecting near-earth objects if one were detected by (Oct 15?) deadline

Bartlett: mentions NEO ending dinosaurs, supports amendment

Vote: Aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 07:04 pm
Ammendment reaffirms role of Arecibo telescope for identifying NEOs, reaffirms existing policy. Ayes have it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 07:11 pm
Rohrabacher ammendment about China (he hates that gov't!)
"Hug a Nazi, make a liberal" argument discussed.

Prohibits expanding cooperation (?) between NASA and China. Talks about China deploying a probe near ISS which threatened the station (anyone have info on this?).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 07:14 pm
Mr. Wu talking about how Apollo-Soyuz happened during the middle of the Cold War, etc... little tech transfer...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 07:25 pm
amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher: role of Arecibo telescope in identification of threats of near-earth objects, without telescope would be unable to chart course (?), reaffirming existing policy

Vote: aye's have it

amendment offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

Rohrabacher: two serious threats of radical Islam and emergence of powerful China, lack of political reform in China and evolution into more democratic country, Chinese government threat to its people and US, amendment prohibits any exchange or contact between NASA/contractors and China, mentions danger posed to space station from debris caused by prior china asat weapons, would prevent NASA from expanding relationship with "vicious dictatorship," transfer of knowledge has been one-way from us to them, knows it's a controversial declaration, would want to see some reform on their end before resetting restriction

Gordon: amendment says to not even discuss with them, mentions Jim Baker quote about how we shouldn't be afraid to talk with them, although appreciates general concerns

Bartlett: asks if amendment is passed if would require referral to international relations; counsel responds doesn't think so, Gordon says it's a "definitive maybe" ;)

Rohrabacher: State department would still be able to contact and discuss with China, just saying NASA shouldn't at this time

Wu (born in Taiwan): work began with Russians when they were Soviet Union in 70s, when had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other and very limited technology transfer, had Apollo-Soyuz docking, led to several decades of worthwhile (although sometimes testy) space relations, Soviet Union not exemplar for human rights, Secretary Gates during Bush Administration testified that he favored sharing some space activities with Chinese to enhance our security interests, better understanding of intentions and capabilities inherently in our interest, confidence-building to allow us to put pressure on them to not conduct anti-satellite tests, Gates said well worth risks

Rohrabacher: was opposed to space collaboration with Soviet Union, corresponded with massive build-up of Soviet weaponry, believes had negative effect, Wu question if rohrabacher thinks earlier collaboration helped later collaboration on ISS

Vote: No's have it, rohrabacher asks for roll call, clerk recording vote

Gordon: no
costello:
johnson: no
woolsey:
wu: no
baird:
miller: no
lepinsky:
giffords: no
edwards: no
fudge: no
lujan: no
tonko: no
rothman: no
matheson: no
davis:
chandler:
carnahan:
hill: no
mitchell: no
wilson: no
dahlkepper: no
grayson: no
kosmas: no
peters: no
garamendi:
hall: aye
sensenbrenner:
lamar smith:
rohrabacher: aye
bartlett: aye
aylers:
lucas:
biggert:
aiken:
nogibower:
ingless:
mccall: no
bollart:
bilbray: aye
adrian smith: aye
brown:
olson: aye

6 members aye, 20 no, no's have it (Gordon almost misspoke and said aye's had it initially)

(pardon misspelling)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 07:35 pm
amendment offered by Donna Edwards from Maryland

Edwards: need to retain internal capacity at NASA to oversee/manage/direct/influence many talented contractors, nothing in bill can happen without skilled workforce, calls to extend moratorium against reduction in force, NASA workforce very fluid and adaptable,

Hall: reluctantly support amendment, reluctant to protect only civil service employees when contractors being eliminated

Gordon: would give 5-year moratorium, if it makes sense for someone in NASA to do another job they'll be reassigned but NASA needs flexibility to hire new people with new skills

Edwards asks for recorded vote

Gordon: no
costello:
johnson:
woolsey: aye
wu: aye
baird: no
miller: no
lepinsky: no
giffords: no
edwards: aye
fudge: aye
lujan: aye
tonko: aye
rothman:
mathison: no
davis:
chandler:
carnahan:
hill: no
mitchell: aye
wilson: aye
dolkepper: no
grayson: aye
kosmas: aye
peters: no
garamendi:
hall: no
sensenbrenner:
lamar smith:
rohrabacher: no
bartlett: no
ailers:
lucas:
biggert: no
aiken:
nogabower:
ingless: no
mccall: no
bollart:
bilbray: no
adrian smith: no
brown:
olson: no

12 aye, 18 no, no's prevail

They're now breaking for a vote, 3 amendments left to go over
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 07/22/2010 07:44 pm
feed died for me, anyone else?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/22/2010 07:46 pm
Yep, feed died for me too :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 07:58 pm
BTW, the House version of the authorization bill is HR 5781.  Thomas has the version that was referred to the subcommittee for markup.  (With all the amendments, it will look different when it goes to the floor for debate and possible further amendments.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/22/2010 08:00 pm
My feed's back
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 08:15 pm
mccall from texas: decadal survey puts forth recommendations for research developed by top scientists in fields, funding was moved from science to cover earlier (Constellation?) budget shortfalls, wants to strengthen language regarding decadal surveys

vote: aye's have it

proposed amendment from miller and sensenbrenner

miller (from NC): miller and sensenbrenner disagreed on earlier amendment, disappointed in nasa's office of general counsel, feels two instances in which did not follow letter and spirit of law, amendment requires ethics training for licensed attorneys in office, moves office of ethics officer away from counsel

vote: aye's have it

proposed amendment, modified amendment from mr. peters of michigan

peters: administrator conduct study on radiation studies on non-human primates, research had been done for 40 ways, other ways to conduct these sorts of studies, USAF and ESA have moved away from these studies, need to provide justification and rationale for additional research

Bartlett: part of research team that put first primates in space, school physiologist (?), had army monkey and navy monkey (rhesus monkey and spider monkey), suborbital flight, supports amendment, says don't need whole-body exposures anymore

Wu: agree study is in order, yields back time

Vote: aye's have it
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 08:17 pm
Gordon: not a perfect bill, because don't have perfect amount of money, but thanks all for assistance, hearing adjourned
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/22/2010 08:23 pm
Gordon: not a perfect bill, because don't have perfect amount of money, but thanks all for assistance, hearing adjourned

Thanks for your efforts Neil. Much appreciated.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/22/2010 08:25 pm
Gordon: not a perfect bill, because don't have perfect amount of money, but thanks all for assistance, hearing adjourned

Thanks for your efforts Neil. Much appreciated.
Seconded!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 07/22/2010 08:30 pm
Gordon: not a perfect bill, because don't have perfect amount of money, but thanks all for assistance, hearing adjourned

Thanks for your efforts Neil. Much appreciated.

You're quite welcome.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:48 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/22/2010 09:05 pm
Missed this amendment; in Rep. Kosmas's press release "Kosmas Successful in Fight for Additional Shuttle Mission":
http://www.kosmas.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=331&Itemid=65

Not sure if it includes changes to the ops budget...guess we'll have to wait to see the updated bill.

Edit, the last line in the press release makes it sound like we'll need to continue to have patience:  "The NASA reauthorization process is expected to continue into the fall."

Edit 2: Florida Today reports that the ops budget was increased to be in line with the Senate bill:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/07/house-panel-backs-additional-shuttle.html
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: moose103 on 07/22/2010 09:36 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002


Compare that to: http://vimeo.com/channels/hsf

The politicians sound like they're ordering expensive pizzas rather than deciding the future of humanity!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/23/2010 01:52 am
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story

Bolden told Nelson that the HLV couldnt be completed before 2020 (before the HLV funding bump).   Might explain the bump in the Senate version and the House's desire to kill CC for more HLV money.

edit: It seems Bolden may have been referring to an even lower amount that was floated pre-compromise.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/23/2010 02:08 am
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun ;).

I think you mean Conference Committee. Reconciliation is for budget items. Conference committee meetings are mostly held in private (except for the first meeting).

http://robbishop.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199378

“It is extremely encouraging that both the House and Senate, in a bipartisan manner, have recognized the importance of maintaining solid rocket motor technologies, such as the Ares 1 rocket.  The draft House version of this bill is a strong repudiation of the President’s flawed proposal – stronger even than the good developments we saw last week out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“Building on the momentum generated by the recent Senate proposal, the House version takes a further step toward preserving the Ares 1 rocket and the future of manned space flight, but we still have a ways to go and legislative hurdles to cross.  I will continue to work with my House colleagues to ensure that the final version reconciled in the conference committee includes all components necessary to maintain superior national defense capabilities and the future of manned space flight,” said Congressman Bishop.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/23/2010 02:28 am
And they said I was paranoid for saying Ares I still wasn't quite dead...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2010 03:17 am
proposed amendment by Mr. Matheson of Utah

Matheson: language requires NASA to come up with spaceflight plan within 180 days of enactment, nothing keeping from NASA from ... (missed this, something about termination) ... during that time,

all voice voted in favor

... continuing programs already authorized e.g. PoR. Also stated again that NASA should not set aside expenses for termination which hasn't been authorized by Congress. No sign of compromise here, reconciliation should be fun ;).

I think you mean Conference Committee. Reconciliation is for budget items. Conference committee meetings are mostly held in private (except for the first meeting).

http://robbishop.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=199378

“It is extremely encouraging that both the House and Senate, in a bipartisan manner, have recognized the importance of maintaining solid rocket motor technologies, such as the Ares 1 rocket.  The draft House version of this bill is a strong repudiation of the President’s flawed proposal – stronger even than the good developments we saw last week out of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“Building on the momentum generated by the recent Senate proposal, the House version takes a further step toward preserving the Ares 1 rocket and the future of manned space flight, but we still have a ways to go and legislative hurdles to cross.  I will continue to work with my House colleagues to ensure that the final version reconciled in the conference committee includes all components necessary to maintain superior national defense capabilities and the future of manned space flight,” said Congressman Bishop.


(http://rob.nu/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/facepalm3.jpg)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 07/23/2010 03:19 am
How much of this sub-committee stuf is posturing, so some congressman can go back to his district/state and say: "Look, I offered/passed an ammendment protecting your jobs." ?

It later gets quietly dropped in conference, but he can say he put up the good fight, and the conference bill won't get huge publicity.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/23/2010 03:25 am
If all he cares about is SRBs, someones should point out to him that Shuttle-Derived SLS has two of them, and is thus twice as good for Utah... :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 07/23/2010 03:35 am
If all he cares about is SRBs, someones should point out to him that Shuttle-Derived SLS has two of them, and is thus twice as good for Utah... :)

Good point. But I think he wants the development $$$ necessary to make Ares I possible. Still don't have a solution for TO...I see that taking some more cash to solve.

When the various Cx Supporters thought they were going to lose it all, they started to come to their senses it seemed, and began to support a true SD-HLV. Now that it is clear that FY2011 has zero support in congress, they now feel it is safe to once again support the wasteful programs that got us where we are today.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 07/23/2010 03:49 am
{Edited, and I'm sorry - I do know things are getting very bad over there, but that post was a lawyer's dream, and rather than deleting it, I'll class this edit as your way of saying you're protesting what's going on - Chris.}
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 07/23/2010 04:00 am
Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/23/2010 04:23 am
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/23/2010 04:25 am
Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.
Depends on who you mean by "leadership", what you mean by "fighting", and who you mean by "us".  :)

If you mean rational HSF  - yes. But you'd be surprised how hostile and embattled / bitter this is.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2010 04:30 am
Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.

I missed whatever it was you posted earlier, but regardless, please note that we are behind you and fighting for you in every way that we can.  Even if we're just anonymous Internet bloggers, we believe in NASA and HSF.  And even many in Congress are fighting for you, and not just those with NASA facilities in their districts.

America still wants to be proud of their space program, even if many of them won't admit it.

Hang in there!

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr. mark on 07/23/2010 05:05 am
If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. A veto would give both Spacex and Orbital time to prove themselves at cargo by pushing a new bill into 2011 just about the time when spacex and orbital would start cargo operations, in theory. A relook at the legislation might force congress into a compromise to allow more human spaceflight commercial funding. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/23/2010 05:30 am
If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. 

He does hold the cards with respect to authorization legislation, which is typically passed as a standalone bill. He can veto a NASA authorization bill with no repercussions to the rest of his agenda.

However, he holds few cards with respect to Appropriation legislation, and that is what really matters. It is possible for an agency to operate without an Authorization bill. NASA is doing so at this very moment, since the most recent Authorization bill only covered FY2009. But it is not possible for an agency to operate without Appropriation legislation.

At a minimum, such legislation covers the entire relevant appropriations subcommittee, which in NASA's case includes Commerce, Justice, and several others. So the president cannot veto NASA appropriations without shutting down at least those agencies as well.

And over the last several years, it has been typical for Congress to consolidate several (or all) appropriations bills into an Omnibus bill. The president could not veto that bill without shutting down most of the government.

Mind you, it is not unprecedented for that to happen, but the one time in recent memory that it did (1995), the issue at stake was Medicare, which was much bigger than NASA.

Mark my words, the president will *not* veto an Omnibus appropriations bill (or even a Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill) just because of a dispute over NASA. Won't happen. Would bet my house on that. (In a sense, I already am).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/23/2010 06:39 am
If I were the president I would veto any legislation that does not promote commercial spaceflight to his satisfaction. Why? simple, he holds the program in his hands and holds all the cards. A veto would give both Spacex and Orbital time to prove themselves at cargo by pushing a new bill into 2011 just about the time when spacex and orbital would start cargo operations, in theory. A relook at the legislation might force congress into a compromise to allow more human spaceflight commercial funding. 

Obviously, it depends on what form the final authorization legislation takes. At the present, don't forget that he has communicated his support for the Senate Commerce compromise bill. There are a number of legislative and procedural options available, working in concert with the White House, that could lead to the passage of a bill he can continue to support. The process is not as "cut and dried" as many may think.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/23/2010 11:15 am
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.
Agree -- the commercial number(s) in the House press release for their authorization bill weren't the same as what was in the bill.  I guess now we mostly wait until the bills are considered again on the floor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/23/2010 11:40 am
Understood Chris, just so angry we have a leadership that isn't fighting for us, again.
Depends on who you mean by "leadership", what you mean by "fighting", and who you mean by "us".  :)

If you mean rational HSF  - yes. But you'd be surprised how hostile and embattled / bitter this is.

One thing coming out of all this that was reflected in my 'up close and personal tour' at KSC: politics.

We have all seen what can go on at NASA, and how something (that we thought was straightforward) like shuttle-derived can be twisted into something like Ares I/V.

Now we are seeing the other side of things, for many of us, in this day and age (of the internet). We should take note of these proceedings, and how they affect the space program (and anything else wrt/policy). It's never just as easy as doing what we believe to be the 'right thing' or the 'best way forward'. Quite eye opening.

We are seeing politics in action, for better or for worse, and unfortunately we have to accept the outcome and work within it. SO what we can hope for is the best position to work within, and then hope NASA can also do the best it can with what has been handed to them.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/23/2010 12:57 pm
I'm glad that Bolden and Garver reminded Congress that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.  They want a HLV in LESS time with LESS money than what they were willing to do for Ares I/V.  They are dooming NASA to failure once again.  They need to at least fund CCDev so when the HLV is still only a paper launch vehicle in 2016, we have a chance to have a non-Soyuz ride to LEO.  Don't expect Shelby and Bishop and the other pork-huggers to provide an apology when that time comes. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2010 01:39 pm
I'm glad that Bolden and Garver reminded Congress that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.  They want a HLV in LESS time with LESS money than what they were willing to do for Ares I/V.  They are dooming NASA to failure once again.  They need to at least fund CCDev so when the HLV is still only a paper launch vehicle in 2016, we have a chance to have a non-Soyuz ride to LEO.  Don't expect Shelby and Bishop and the other pork-huggers to provide an apology when that time comes. 

Well, if you think about it, it should take HALF the money and HALF the time to develop SLS, because Ares-I/V obviously called for the development and operations of TWO vehicles, with TWO completely separate production requirements, TWO completely separate operations requirements, etc, etc.

So no, it is not unreasonable to expect NASA to be able to develop SLS for less money and in less time than CxP.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/23/2010 01:49 pm
I think the complaint is that it's less than the money budgeted previously for Ares I and Orion over the next three years.  Ares V wasnt going to really begin for some time.

SDLVers will argue that it's simply cheaper to do SDLV but it worries some people. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 02:11 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.
Agree -- the commercial number(s) in the House press release for their authorization bill weren't the same as what was in the bill.  I guess now we mostly wait until the bills are considered again on the floor.

Another thing, I was wondering about is whether the House appropriators could increase the amounts for commercial crew that are in the House authorization bill.

Even if this happened, this would not solve the entire problem as there are significant roadblocks in the House bill that prevents commercial crew from being an option. For example, the requirement that commercial crew have demonstrated capability before NASA can enter into a services contract with them. Although this may seem like a reasonable requirement, it isn't because the main incentive for the commercial companies to invest some of their funds in the development of commercial crew is the potential reward of obtaining a commercial crew services contract from NASA.   

The requirement that ASAP approve human rating requirements seems like another roadblock since ASAP did not seem very favourable to commercial crew at Congressionnal Hearings.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/23/2010 02:22 pm
I think the complaint is that it's less than the money budgeted previously for Ares I and Orion over the next three years.  Ares V wasnt going to really begin for some time.

SDLVers will argue that it's simply cheaper to do SDLV but it worries some people. 

Well yes, if you put it that way.  But Drkskywxlt specifically said "Ares-I/V", so I took that at face value.  Also, the Ares-I was a completely novel configuration for a manned vehicle, and maybe even unmanned.  So it's not too surprising that there were unforeseen complications and delays, which caused costs to skyrocket.

Whereas true SDLV has been studied to death, since even before Shuttle was flying.  Of course turning a any paper rocket into a real rocket is going to turn up issues.  But one would hope that after 30+ years of SDLV studies, AND 30 years of operational experience with Shuttle, not to mention five years of angst wrestling with the intractable Ares-I, that most of the kinks have been worked out of SDLV by now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/23/2010 02:27 pm
Quote
At a minimum, such legislation covers the entire relevant appropriations subcommittee, which in NASA's case includes Commerce, Justice, and several others. So the president cannot veto NASA appropriations without shutting down at least those agencies as well.

This is a good check and balance.  Any agency can't be turned on an off like a faucet.  I believe that whatever NASA sausage is presented to the President, he will sign.

...Quite eye opening.

We are seeing politics in action, for better or for worse, and unfortunately we have to accept the outcome and work within it...

There ya go.  Keep calling 'em like you see 'em, Robert.  This is also the most I've ever been imvolved in politics as well, and very eye opening.

Quote
They want a HLV in LESS time with LESS money than what they were willing to do for Ares I/V.  They are dooming NASA to failure once again.

Nelson, Shelby, KBH, and a lot of these pols are refusing to acknowledge this.  For me to agree that Bolden is correct in this logic is not to say that he is correct in all of his logic.

I would hope that the new bill puts a four year moratorium on an HLV, and that the money be used to continue five or six more shuttle flights, more lunar prospecting and ISRU missions, a remote determination of martian exobiology, and some more money to commercial space.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/23/2010 02:53 pm
I think the complaint is that it's less than the money budgeted previously for Ares I and Orion over the next three years.  Ares V wasnt going to really begin for some time.

SDLVers will argue that it's simply cheaper to do SDLV but it worries some people. 

Well yes, if you put it that way.  But Drkskywxlt specifically said "Ares-I/V", so I took that at face value.  Also, the Ares-I was a completely novel configuration for a manned vehicle, and maybe even unmanned.  So it's not too surprising that there were unforeseen complications and delays, which caused costs to skyrocket.

Whereas true SDLV has been studied to death, since even before Shuttle was flying.  Of course turning a any paper rocket into a real rocket is going to turn up issues.  But one would hope that after 30+ years of SDLV studies, AND 30 years of operational experience with Shuttle, not to mention five years of angst wrestling with the intractable Ares-I, that most of the kinks have been worked out of SDLV by now.

My mistake, I did mean Ares I and Orion. 

Quote
So no, it is not unreasonable to expect NASA to be able to develop SLS for less money and in less time than CxP.
Unfortunately, reason has little to do with it.  No offense to the DIRECT team, but even if their budget/schedule predictions are correct and even if (huge if) NASA decides to implement the simplest DIRECT architecture to meet Congress' requirements, I have no faith that the budget and schedule will be met. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 07/23/2010 03:03 pm
Concerning Bolden, Garver et al, and HlV timeline and budget....stop the civil service mind-set...

Step outside of the box. Think anew. As the previous post mentions very nicely, this SDHLV concept is nothing new. Do what LM did. Create a skunk works. Small, integrated, cross functional team, break down the barriers between the design, engineering, production and management teams. Keep them away from the monster mother ship and let them go at it 24/7 365. We'll get our SDHLV by 2015.


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/23/2010 03:58 pm
Please keep in mind ... that what you see here ... are what each respective 'community of interest' ... thinks NASA should be.

It is very revealing. Tells you what it can/cannot do. And why.

Keep that in mind when you get vexed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:02 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

I believe that there was an amendment to add $27M to Flagship 1 (new propulsion device for the next generation of spacecraft) that passed (at 76 minutes of the webcast; NASA starts at 71:50). http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

For what it's worth, the Orlando Sentinel said the exact same thing as you:
Quote
As it stands, the path for the NASA compromise to become law runs through must-pass spending bills that likely will come up for votes later this year. There remains an outside chance that it could be scuttled by dissenters in the House, but the combined support of the White House and Senate means compromise backers have the heavy advantage when dealing with House leaders.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/23/2010 05:06 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

I believe that there was an amendment to add 37M to technology that passed.

For what it's worth, the Orlando Sentinel said the exact same thing as you:
Quote
As it stands, the path for the NASA compromise to become law runs through must-pass spending bills that likely will come up for votes later this year. There remains an outside chance that it could be scuttled by dissenters in the House, but the combined support of the White House and Senate means compromise backers have the heavy advantage when dealing with House leaders.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2

"Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions -- U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings."

Did I hear that correctly? You are telling me that NASA (MSFC) is going to take a decade to build a vehicle based on existing technology!?! Infrastructure, Tooling, People, Process, etc etc, etc,...?

Did I get that right, one that has been studied and traded nearly to death since the 80's.

I have another congressional action to propose, these 2 jokers need to be fired if not for this outrage but their actions to date, This is outrageous waste.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:21 pm
According to the article, their estimate of 2020 was for a different level of funding. Augustine also estimated early 2020s for a SD-HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/23/2010 05:24 pm
Audio of the Senate Appropriations Committee markup of a few appropriations bills (including CJS, which includes NASA):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=0a23cc27-5cc3-4936-9d06-bbbe34c3b002

Any changes from yesterday?
Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...


No...still very close to the numbers provided in the Commerce compromise bill--and nothing that threatens the coalition of support developed through the drafting of the Commerce bill...a fact that will have considerable impact in coming weeks. The Senate has a consolidated policy position, supported by appropriations levels endorsed by the full Appropriations Committee, so two separate bills will be reported to the floor, one from each primary committee of jurisdiction, which are as much in synch as never before seen in recent history...and with the expressed support of the White House behind the underlying principles of the compromise plan. You really can't go into a bargaining position with the House from a much stronger position than that.

I believe that there was an amendment to add 37M to technology that passed.

For what it's worth, the Orlando Sentinel said the exact same thing as you:
Quote
As it stands, the path for the NASA compromise to become law runs through must-pass spending bills that likely will come up for votes later this year. There remains an outside chance that it could be scuttled by dissenters in the House, but the combined support of the White House and Senate means compromise backers have the heavy advantage when dealing with House leaders.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2

"Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions -- U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings."

Did I hear that correctly? You are telling me that NASA (MSFC) is going to take a decade to build a vehicle based on existing technology!?! Infrastructure, Tooling, People, Process, etc etc, etc,...?

Did I get that right, one that has been studied and traded nearly to death since the 80's.

I have another congressional action to propose, these 2 jokers need to be fired if not for this outrage but their actions to date, This is outrageous waste.

What in Marshall's recent (say over the past 25 years) launch vehicle development history actually makes this sound suspect?  Just curious. 

Two other points:
1-You left out the quote in most of those articles stating that that comment was based on an earlier budget that had a bit less set aside for SLS and capsule work. 
2-Even if you believe the DIRECT numbers and that they'll survive contact with MSFC reality, they're budgeting a lot less for Orion than under CxP and that wasn't going to have Orion ready to fly until after 2016.  There's reason to be worried here that there isn't enough money being budgeted to meet the Senate's timelines.

But yeah, please shoot the messengers.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 07/23/2010 05:28 pm
According to the article, their estimate of 2020 was for a different level of funding. Augustine also estimated early 2020s for a SD-HLV.

That was the 130 -150mT vehicle not the 70-100mT vehicle (J-130). Even Sidemounts development doesn't stretch out to 2020. This is low rate demagoguery and it seems like Nelson and crew see it for what it is (listen to his q/a at the press conference).

I think if this package does go forward NASA will need leadership that supports it not this "word" machine.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:33 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2

"Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions -- U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings."

Did I hear that correctly? You are telling me that NASA (MSFC) is going to take a decade to build a vehicle based on existing technology!?! Infrastructure, Tooling, People, Process, etc etc, etc,...?

Did I get that right, one that has been studied and traded nearly to death since the 80's.

I have another congressional action to propose, these 2 jokers need to be fired if not for this outrage but their actions to date, This is outrageous waste.

What in Marshall's recent (say over the past 25 years) launch vehicle development history actually makes this sound suspect?  Just curious. 

Two other points:
1-You left out the quote in most of those articles stating that that comment was based on an earlier budget that had a bit less set aside for SLS and capsule work. 
2-Even if you believe the DIRECT numbers and that they'll survive contact with MSFC reality, they're budgeting a lot less for Orion than under CxP and that wasn't going to have Orion ready to fly until after 2016.  There's reason to be worried here that there isn't enough money being budgeted to meet the Senate's timelines.

But yeah, please shoot the messengers.

~Jon

I thought Ares I was the long pole (not Orion) under Constellation. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:41 pm
According to the article, their estimate of 2020 was for a different level of funding. Augustine also estimated early 2020s for a SD-HLV.

That was the 130 -150mT vehicle not the 70-100mT vehicle (J-130). Even Sidemounts development doesn't stretch out to 2020. This is low rate demagoguery and it seems like Nelson and crew see it for what it is (listen to his q/a at the press conference).

I think if this package does go forward NASA will need leadership that supports it not this "word" machine.

Fair enough but for all we know Bolden may have been talking about the HLV with the upperstage. That's why I don't like these second hand reports, they provide no context.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 07/23/2010 05:46 pm
I think the complaint is that it's less than the money budgeted previously for Ares I and Orion over the next three years.  [...]  SDLVers will argue that it's simply cheaper to do SDLV but it worries some people. 

Yes.  Supporters of the Senate plan will also argue that it's simply cheaper to do Orion when Orion is relatively unconstrained by the capability limitations of its launcher.  The mass mismatch between Orion and J-130 decouples the two systems, allowing each to bloat freely without constraining the other.

Whereas true SDLV has been studied to death, since even before Shuttle was flying. 

[...] if (huge if) NASA decides to implement the simplest DIRECT architecture to meet Congress' requirements, I have no faith that the budget and schedule will be met. 

Looking at NASA's human spaceflight design capabilities with a pessimistic eye, the hope is that the Senate is asking NASA to do a task so easy, even the NASA culture of today can't mess it up.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/23/2010 05:49 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2

"Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions -- U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings."

Did I hear that correctly? You are telling me that NASA (MSFC) is going to take a decade to build a vehicle based on existing technology!?! Infrastructure, Tooling, People, Process, etc etc, etc,...?

Did I get that right, one that has been studied and traded nearly to death since the 80's.

I have another congressional action to propose, these 2 jokers need to be fired if not for this outrage but their actions to date, This is outrageous waste.

What in Marshall's recent (say over the past 25 years) launch vehicle development history actually makes this sound suspect?  Just curious. 

Two other points:
1-You left out the quote in most of those articles stating that that comment was based on an earlier budget that had a bit less set aside for SLS and capsule work. 
2-Even if you believe the DIRECT numbers and that they'll survive contact with MSFC reality, they're budgeting a lot less for Orion than under CxP and that wasn't going to have Orion ready to fly until after 2016.  There's reason to be worried here that there isn't enough money being budgeted to meet the Senate's timelines.

But yeah, please shoot the messengers.

~Jon

I thought Ares I was the long pole (not Orion) under Constellation. 

Yeah, but the Senate Bill doesn't necessarily fund Orion as it was currently being designed.  Depending on how much rework is necessary to make Orion back into a BEO from the start vehicle, this could add up.  More importantly, while at the previous budget, Orion wasn't the long pole in the tent, this budget gives the new crew module less than the old budget.  I think there's reason for questioning if this will really be ready by 2016, even if the DIRECT guys have models that show it should be easy. 

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 07/23/2010 05:54 pm
Looking at NASA's human spaceflight design capabilities with a pessimistic eye, the hope is that the Senate is asking NASA to do a task so easy, even the NASA culture of today can't mess it up.

Unfortunately, even if they do screw it up, it's not like failure to complete a launch vehicle program has *ever* resulted in negative feedback for MSFC. 

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:56 pm
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-compromise-policy-20100722,0,3975954.story?page=2

"Days before the compromise was announced, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden and Deputy Administrator Lori Garver told its two champions -- U.S. Sens. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., and Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas — that NASA could not finish the proposed new rocket before 2020, according to three sources present at the meetings."

Did I hear that correctly? You are telling me that NASA (MSFC) is going to take a decade to build a vehicle based on existing technology!?! Infrastructure, Tooling, People, Process, etc etc, etc,...?

Did I get that right, one that has been studied and traded nearly to death since the 80's.

I have another congressional action to propose, these 2 jokers need to be fired if not for this outrage but their actions to date, This is outrageous waste.

What in Marshall's recent (say over the past 25 years) launch vehicle development history actually makes this sound suspect?  Just curious. 

Two other points:
1-You left out the quote in most of those articles stating that that comment was based on an earlier budget that had a bit less set aside for SLS and capsule work. 
2-Even if you believe the DIRECT numbers and that they'll survive contact with MSFC reality, they're budgeting a lot less for Orion than under CxP and that wasn't going to have Orion ready to fly until after 2016.  There's reason to be worried here that there isn't enough money being budgeted to meet the Senate's timelines.

But yeah, please shoot the messengers.

~Jon

I thought Ares I was the long pole (not Orion) under Constellation. 

Yeah, but the Senate Bill doesn't necessarily fund Orion as it was currently being designed.  Depending on how much rework is necessary to make Orion back into a BEO from the start vehicle, this could add up.  More importantly, while at the previous budget, Orion wasn't the long pole in the tent, this budget gives the new crew module less than the old budget.  I think there's reason for questioning if this will really be ready by 2016, even if the DIRECT guys have models that show it should be easy. 

~Jon

Given the fact that BEO Orion is actually a backup to commercial crew for ISS under the Senate Bill, maybe the risk is an acceptable one. Of course, this assumes that commercial crew is funded...

The other alternative that is being offered by the House is to continue Ares I but it provides almost no funding for commercial crew. The House plan is riskier as it is likely that neither Ares I nor commercial crew will be ready for 2016 under their bill. Plus, it also doesn't give you BEO capability.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 07/23/2010 06:36 pm
I'm glad that Bolden and Garver reminded Congress that doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is one definition of insanity.  They want a HLV in LESS time with LESS money than what they were willing to do for Ares [...].  They are dooming NASA to failure once again.   

There is a diagnostic technique sometimes used with young children who may be experiencing psychological difficulties.  The child is presented with a drawing of a simple scene -- perhaps a house with a tree in the front yard -- and is asked to make a copy of the drawing.  Based on various characteristics of the result and on discussions about it with the child, the therapist can better understand underlying factors that may be causing the child difficulties.

In a sense, the Senate's proposal presents a drawing of a Jupiter 130, and asks NASA to reproduce it.  I predict NASA will in fact create a nice drawing of rocket, but that the drawing will include a fairly elaborate upper stage, and possibly also a pony, both of which will be characterized as "essential".  A small area on the forehead of the pony will be marked with an asterisk, and the footnote will indicate that a horn at this location would make the pony into a highly valued unicorn, which would in turn provide the functionality needed for efficient Martian surface ISRU.

After long discussions with NASA representatives about Martian surface ISRU, unicorns, and ponies, the Senate will conclude that in comparison the idea of an upper stage isn't all that crazy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/23/2010 06:48 pm
The Senate CJS appropriations bill is S.3636.  The appropriations bills are showing up on Thomas now; however the text for S.3636 is still pending there:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

(The accompanying committee report is available and it does have numbers.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 08:42 pm
The Senate CJS appropriations bill is S.3636.  The appropriations bills are showing up on Thomas now; however the text for S.3636 is still pending there:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

(The accompanying committee report is available and it does have numbers.)

Here is the committee report:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

Not that it actually matters (because the report is not part of the legislation), but there is an obvious typo on page 123, it should say that Orion should be ready by December 31, 2016 (not by FY2014):

Quote
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle.—The Committee provides
$1,100,000,000 for an Orion crew exploration vehicle that will enable
human transportation beyond low Earth orbit. The vehicle
shall be capable of being launched on the heavy lift launch vehicle
and may also provide alternative access to low Earth orbit, including
the International Space Station by fiscal year 2014.

I am also not sure that it should be called Orion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/23/2010 09:56 pm
Orion wasn't the long pole in the tent

It might be more accurate to say it wasn't the longest pole in the tent. Recall the Augustine hearing at JSC last year where it was reported that even with an infinite budget, no more design changes, and existing launchers, it wouldn't be until 2015 that humans could fly on Orion. If Ares I had had zero problems (or just been replaced with a less compromised vehicle), we'd all be complaining about the overbudget and schedule-slipped Orion...

Personally, I think that just as the 2016 date for SLS requires a very SD HLV, the same date for the Multipurpose Crew Vehicle really requires not many major changes relative to CxP Orion. The size of the SM fuel tanks may change, and bits and pieces may get added/removed from the cabin, but I seriously doubt there will be any real redesign. Orion is a (mostly) known quantity now, and they're going to want to exploit that the to the fullest.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Spacetime on 07/23/2010 10:28 pm
(http://nasaengineer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/wwsd14a.jpg)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/23/2010 10:30 pm
The Senate Appropriations NASA 2011 Funding Bill calls for an Orion to be able to fly to the ISS by Fiscal Year 2014. Will this flight be on a SD-HLV(J-130) or Commercial Launch Vehicle?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 07/23/2010 10:59 pm
The Senate Appropriations NASA 2011 Funding Bill calls for an Orion to be able to fly to the ISS by Fiscal Year 2014. Will this flight be on a SD-HLV(J-130) or Commercial Launch Vehicle?

2014 is almost certainly a typo; earlier drafts had 2016.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 07/25/2010 08:34 pm
Space X, National Space Society & The Mars Society Support Senate NASA Compromise Funding Bill  http://blog.nss.org/?p=1896   http://www.nss.org/ 
http://www.marssociety.org/portal/mars-society-cheers-senate-committee-approval-of-hlv-funding/
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: CessnaDriver on 07/26/2010 08:06 pm
I was disappointed with NSS during all this.
Planetary Society I gave up on a long time ago.

Mars Society I wasn't watching too closely but they seemed to have
some fight in them.


At least there is unifying now.

Anyone have opinions on what space advocacy groups are best for aggressive support of NASA HSF?

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/26/2010 11:16 pm
I was disappointed with NSS during all this.
Planetary Society I gave up on a long time ago.

Mars Society I wasn't watching too closely but they seemed to have
some fight in them.


At least there is unifying now.

Anyone have opinions on what space advocacy groups are best for aggressive support of NASA HSF?



The best space advocacy group for HSF is CSF. 
NASA HSF doesn't need nor should it have aggressive support.  Hence the lack of advocacy groups.  Its major task for existing occurred more than 40 years ago.  The Cold War is over.  There is no legitimate reason (inspiration being one of the worse) for it to be anymore than it has been.   NASA's charter doesn't require it to do more.  And Govt funded and operated lunar bases are not in the best interest of the USA as a nation.   It is time for private industry, just like it was for aircraft in the 1930's.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/26/2010 11:51 pm

The best space advocacy group for HSF is CSF. 
NASA HSF doesn't need nor should it have aggressive support.  Hence the lack of advocacy groups.  Its major task for existing occurred more than 40 years ago.  The Cold War is over.  There is no legitimate reason (inspiration being one of the worse) for it to be anymore than it has been.   NASA's charter doesn't require it to do more.  And Govt funded and operated lunar bases are not in the best interest of the USA as a nation.   It is time for private industry, just like it was for aircraft in the 1930's.
Absolutely. Looking forward to that. But when will most come to that realization, and stop the endless games playing with NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2010 02:30 pm
The Senate CJS appropriations bill is S.3636.  The appropriations bills are showing up on Thomas now; however the text for S.3636 is still pending there:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html

(The accompanying committee report is available and it does have numbers.)

The text of the Senate appropriation bill is now available (NASA starts at page 76):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3636pcs.txt.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/27/2010 02:42 pm
The Mars Society statement is a bit optimistic for my tastes (as usual).  IIRC, they want to build a crew module now for BEO in 2016?   Manned Mars in 2020.   Okay.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2010 03:00 pm
There's another one (unless it was just the format I've seen it - need permission to post - but it'll turn up anyway), where NASA starts on Page 115. Anyone seen it? From Ms. Mikulski. 1.9 billion for HLV in 2011. To be ready for 2016. 11.5 billion cap through 2017.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2010 03:37 pm
There's another one (unless it was just the format I've seen it - need permission to post - but it'll turn up anyway), where NASA starts on Page 115. Anyone seen it? From Ms. Mikulski. 1.9 billion for HLV in 2011. To be ready for 2016. 11.5 billion cap through 2017.

You are thinking about the Committee report (which isn't law) which starts at page 115. The cap that you mention is discussed on page 123 of the Committee Report:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

This is a better question for 51D Mascot than me but I imagine that some of the changes that appear in the Committee report will appear in the Senate NASA Authorization bill (and not in the Senate Appropriation bill). Appropriation bill generally cover only one year. Authorization bills can cover more than one year.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2010 04:06 pm
Copy that YG!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 07/27/2010 05:16 pm
NASA HSF doesn't need nor should it have aggressive support.  Hence the lack of advocacy groups.  Its major task for existing occurred more than 40 years ago.  The Cold War is over.  There is no legitimate reason (inspiration being one of the worse) for it to be anymore than it has been.   NASA's charter doesn't require it to do more.  And Govt funded and operated lunar bases are not in the best interest of the USA as a nation.   It is time for private industry, just like it was for aircraft in the 1930's.

And which for-profit corporation or other NGO is willing to fund a manned lunar base, research station, or anything else on the moon?  What about just a simple rover, or a sample return mission?  I don't see the govt blocking any privately funded missions to the moon.

But I'm all for private development on the moon. Where is the money going to come from?  Where is the profit?  What is the business justification for a publicly-held corporation to invest that level of funds in a science base?  Heck, corporations don't even fund research on Earth unless there is solid business case for it.  Which is as it should be, if they would just look a little further down the road than then next quarterly report.

You really shouldn't argue against government funded missions unless there are private investors ready to take its place.  Otherwise there simply won't be any exploration or expansion into the Solar system.

Step 1: Build a lunar outpost.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!

It's always that pesky little Step 2 getting in the way.

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 07/27/2010 06:07 pm

The best space advocacy group for HSF is CSF. 

CSF? All I know about them is it's run by two X Prize organizers,

Chris- you've made a huge error... you used the terms "X-Prize" and "organizers" in the same sentance. My personal, business experience has shown that the two terms should never be placed in the same paragraph.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 07/27/2010 06:13 pm
@ Mark S

Click here for a potential "Step Two" (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=20475.0;attach=238839;image) - - although mileage will vary on whether such ideas are for better or for worse.

Also, I wish I knew which NSF member uploaded the linked photoshop image, so I could thank them. That simple image is worth a whole lot of words.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/27/2010 06:22 pm
And which for-profit corporation or other NGO is willing to fund a manned lunar base, research station, or anything else on the moon?  What about just a simple rover, or a sample return mission?  I don't see the govt blocking any privately funded missions to the moon.

Mark,

SpaceX seems to have been founded with Mars as a long term goal, and apparently Moon along the way.

The only way this makes sense to me is that Elon will use profits from other elements of the business to make this push outwards. I don't know if this is purely philanthropic, or a huge gamble in hopes of a huge payoff. (Or maybe just to be there ready if NASA fails again).

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/27/2010 06:24 pm
NASA HSF doesn't need nor should it have aggressive support.  Hence the lack of advocacy groups.  Its major task for existing occurred more than 40 years ago.  The Cold War is over.  There is no legitimate reason (inspiration being one of the worse) for it to be anymore than it has been.   NASA's charter doesn't require it to do more.  And Govt funded and operated lunar bases are not in the best interest of the USA as a nation.   It is time for private industry, just like it was for aircraft in the 1930's.

And which for-profit corporation or other NGO is willing to fund a manned lunar base, research station, or anything else on the moon?  What about just a simple rover, or a sample return mission?  I don't see the govt blocking any privately funded missions to the moon.

But I'm all for private development on the moon. Where is the money going to come from?  Where is the profit?  What is the business justification for a publicly-held corporation to invest that level of funds in a science base?  Heck, corporations don't even fund research on Earth unless there is solid business case for it.  Which is as it should be, if they would just look a little further down the road than then next quarterly report.

You really shouldn't argue against government funded missions unless there are private investors ready to take its place.  Otherwise there simply won't be any exploration or expansion into the Solar system.

Step 1: Build a lunar outpost.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit!

It's always that pesky little Step 2 getting in the way.

Mark S.

I never said that the US gov't shouldn't have any role in providing some of the funding.  It just shouldn't be a gov't organization (specifically NASA) doing the work.

NASA shouldn't be involved in routine type operations
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/27/2010 06:31 pm
Cool, and pulled that post. I've got them confused with someone else as they don't use that PR company. Coalition for SE is who I was confused with.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/27/2010 08:31 pm
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

Quote
SEC. 305. NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
9 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall carry out
11 a program the primary purpose of which is to prepare in
12 frastructure at the Kennedy Space Center that is needed
13 to enable processing and launch of the Space Launch Sys
14 tem. Vehicle interfaces and other ground processing and
15 payload integration areas should be simplified to minimize
16 overall costs, enhance safety, and complement the purpose
17 of this section.

18 (b) ELEMENTS.—The program required by this sec
19 tion shall include—
20 (1) investments to improve civil and national
21 security operations at the Kennedy Space Center, to
22 enhance the overall capabilities of the Center, and to
23 reduce the long term cost of operations and mainte
24 nance;

1 (2) measures to provide multi-vehicle support,
2 improvements in payload processing, and partnering
3 at the Kennedy Space Center; and
4 (3) such other measures as the Administrator
5 may consider appropriate.

6 (c) REPORT ON NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND IN
7 FRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.—
8 (1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 120
9 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
10 Administrator shall submit to the appropriate com
11 mittees of Congress a report on the plan for the im
12 plementation of the NASA launch support and infra
13 structure modernization program.
14 (2) ELEMENTS.—The report required by this
15 subsection shall include—
16 (A) a description of the ground infrastruc
17 ture plan tied to the Space Launch System and
18 potential ground investment activities at other
19 NASA centers related to supporting the devel
20 opment of the Space Launch System;
21 (B) a description of proposed initiatives in
22 tended to be conducted jointly or in cooperation
23 with Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Flor
24 ida, or other installations or components of the
25 United States Government; and

1 (C) a description of plans to use funds au
2 thorized to be appropriated by this Act to im
3 prove non-NASA facilities, which plans shall in
4 clude a business plan outlining the nature and
5 scope of investments planned by other parties.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 07/28/2010 12:02 am
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

Obama made noise about that during his April speech at KSC.  My take at the time was that was what that it was intended to maintain NASA-related employment in Florida in order to make the termination of Shuttle and Constellation politically acceptable.  Obviously Nelson and friends weren't satisfied with this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JDCampbell on 07/28/2010 03:48 am
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/28/2010 03:53 am
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

Quote
SEC. 305. NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
9 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.

10 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall carry out
11 a program the primary purpose of which is to prepare in
12 frastructure at the Kennedy Space Center that is needed
13 to enable processing and launch of the Space Launch Sys
14 tem. Vehicle interfaces and other ground processing and
15 payload integration areas should be simplified to minimize
16 overall costs, enhance safety, and complement the purpose
17 of this section.

18 (b) ELEMENTS.—The program required by this sec
19 tion shall include—
20 (1) investments to improve civil and national
21 security operations at the Kennedy Space Center, to
22 enhance the overall capabilities of the Center, and to
23 reduce the long term cost of operations and mainte
24 nance;

1 (2) measures to provide multi-vehicle support,
2 improvements in payload processing, and partnering
3 at the Kennedy Space Center; and
4 (3) such other measures as the Administrator
5 may consider appropriate.

6 (c) REPORT ON NASA LAUNCH SUPPORT AND IN
7 FRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION PROGRAM.—
8 (1) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 120
9 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
10 Administrator shall submit to the appropriate com
11 mittees of Congress a report on the plan for the im
12 plementation of the NASA launch support and infra
13 structure modernization program.
14 (2) ELEMENTS.—The report required by this
15 subsection shall include—
16 (A) a description of the ground infrastruc
17 ture plan tied to the Space Launch System and
18 potential ground investment activities at other
19 NASA centers related to supporting the devel
20 opment of the Space Launch System;
21 (B) a description of proposed initiatives in
22 tended to be conducted jointly or in cooperation
23 with Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Flor
24 ida, or other installations or components of the
25 United States Government; and

1 (C) a description of plans to use funds au
2 thorized to be appropriated by this Act to im
3 prove non-NASA facilities, which plans shall in
4 clude a business plan outlining the nature and
5 scope of investments planned by other parties.

I would say your interpretation is reasonable. The Senate bill essentially retitled the "21st Century Launch Complex" line in the Budget Request and included language to provide some flexibility in its use as part of the larger effort to assist in the development of the Space Launch System (i.e., "evolvable HLV). The flexibility notion is illuminated a little more in the reporting requirement that is part of Section 305. Since the initial request was made in the context of the "new" Obama plan, which did not contemplate near-term HLV development, it was determined that it made sense to "redefine" the effort in the context of the compromise approach outlined in the Senate bill, and taking into account the Senate bill's effort to support COTS cargo development and retain elements of the early, preparatory stages of launch capacity that not only support COTS cargo, but would have applicability to potential Crew capability developments. It still retains a primary focus on KSC (broadly speaking) improvements and supporting activities, of course. The Report to accompany the Senate bill when formally reported to the Senate will likely include some clarifications of the intent of this and other portions of the bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2010 04:46 am
Thanks.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2010 11:04 am
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 

Better than taxpayer subsidized launch vehicle development and operations
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/28/2010 12:19 pm
...The Report to accompany the Senate bill when formally reported to the Senate will likely include some clarifications of the intent of this and other portions of the bill.
Any better idea on when that will happen?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/28/2010 01:31 pm
...The Report to accompany the Senate bill when formally reported to the Senate will likely include some clarifications of the intent of this and other portions of the bill.
Any better idea on when that will happen?


Possibly another day or two, but could slip to early next week.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 07/28/2010 01:46 pm
So is the House more likely to pass the Senate bill (assuming the Senate pass it), or to pass its own bill and go to conference?

I'm guessing, politically, reps get more credo for having actually voted to protect sacred cows, even if the conference bill later kills them.

When are we likely to see each authorization bill (and conference if required) passed?

Ditto appropriations.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2010 02:28 pm
The House will not pass the Senate bill. It will pass its own bill and it will then go to a conference committee in order to draft a common bill. Acording to 51D Mascot, the Senate will likely have the upper hand in negotiations with the House given that the President supports the Senate bill and that the Senate bill seems to have more unanimous approval than does the House bill.

However, it is a bit of a strange situation as some House representatives that favour the compromise in the Senate bill would still rather get the House bill passed as quickly as possible in order to go to conference committee as soon as possible.     

Senator Bill Nelson said that it would take a miracle to pass the authorization bill before October 1st. But he then added that he believed in miracles.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2010 02:32 pm
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 

Better than taxpayer subsidized launch vehicle development and operations

In a way, NASA paying for the infrastructure for commercial crew is like building an airport, you don't usually ask the airline companies to build the airport. If you don't build an airport in one city, the airlines will simply go to a city where there is an airport.  In this case, the infrastructure for commercial crew will be provided at KSC.

You could also argue that the development of the aviation industry also depended a lot on the government but they are still considered commercial. Airbus was heavily subsidised by European governments but Airbus is still considered commercial. In Canada, Bombardier bought Canadair from the Canadian government. Although the development of Boeing airplanes was not directly subsidized by the US government, Boeing has received a lot of other government contracts that has helped them be a viable company.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/28/2010 03:36 pm
So is the House more likely to pass the Senate bill (assuming the Senate pass it), or to pass its own bill and go to conference?

I'm guessing, politically, reps get more credo for having actually voted to protect sacred cows, even if the conference bill later kills them.

When are we likely to see each authorization bill (and conference if required) passed?

Ditto appropriations.

I would say at this point it's likely that whichever bill can get to the calendar and pass will then become the vehicle for working out differences and arriving at a consensus. That consensus can possibly be achieved through an informal "preconference" process--as was done in 2008 with the NASA authorization bill enacted that year--rather than a formal Conference. With so little time remaining in the session, the situation is fluid and dynamic and unpredictable so my suggestion is to sit tight and stay tuned.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/28/2010 03:53 pm
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 

Better than taxpayer subsidized launch vehicle development and operations

So then you are saying ULA will get none of the money allocated to "commercial" crew. 

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2010 05:41 pm
So is the House more likely to pass the Senate bill (assuming the Senate pass it), or to pass its own bill and go to conference?

I'm guessing, politically, reps get more credo for having actually voted to protect sacred cows, even if the conference bill later kills them.

When are we likely to see each authorization bill (and conference if required) passed?

Ditto appropriations.

I would say at this point it's likely that whichever bill can get to the calendar and pass will then become the vehicle for working out differences and arriving at a consensus. That consensus can possibly be achieved through an informal "preconference" process--as was done in 2008 with the NASA authorization bill enacted that year--rather than a formal Conference. With so little time remaining in the session, the situation is fluid and dynamic and unpredictable so my suggestion is to sit tight and stay tuned.

I hope that the House bill doesn't become the starting point. The Senate bill has a lot of the pinciples of FY2011 and of the recommendations of the Augustine committee. It can be sold as a compromise. That can't be said about the House Bill. I would rather have a bill enacted after October 1, 2010 that is a true compromise.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2010 06:25 pm
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 

Better than taxpayer subsidized launch vehicle development and operations

So then you are saying ULA will get none of the money allocated to "commercial" crew. 


\
Clarification

Better than gov't managed launch vehicle development and operations
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Danderman on 07/28/2010 06:35 pm
The language of the legislation excludes from due consideration the Atlas 5 Phase 2, which was a competitive option to SDLV with its own merits as shown in the Augustine commission.

Politicians are clearly preferable to evaluate technical options, not engineers.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/28/2010 06:58 pm

I would say at this point it's likely that whichever bill can get to the calendar and pass will then become the vehicle for working out differences and arriving at a consensus. That consensus can possibly be achieved through an informal "preconference" process--as was done in 2008 with the NASA authorization bill enacted that year--rather than a formal Conference. With so little time remaining in the session, the situation is fluid and dynamic and unpredictable so my suggestion is to sit tight and stay tuned.

I hope that the House bill doesn't become the starting point. The Senate bill has a lot of the pinciples of FY2011 and of the recommendations of the Augustine committee. It can be sold as a compromise. That can't be said about the House Bill. I would rather have a bill enacted after October 1, 2010 that is a true compromise.   

In your striving for purity don't forget all the skilled personnel on the Shuttle/SRB/Cx/Orion side who have been laid off or will be on Oct 1st due to this stalemate. Some of these people will be needed again once a SDLV of some persuasion is agreed. It is best that a bill is passed before then to avoid crucial skill set loss even if the bill isn't perfect. Remember the enemy of the good is always the perfect ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/28/2010 07:06 pm
One thing that I noticed in the Senate bill is that there is $428.6 million in FY2011 for NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program.

Most of this money (in Section 305) seems to be directed towards the HLV but I imagine that some of the funds could also be used for SpaceX, ULA and perhaps Orbital to improve their launch pad and service tower in order to be able to carry astronauts.

In other words, I would imagine that the launch pad and service tower costs for ULA, SpaceX or Orbital would probably not be part of the commercial crew development funds.   Any thoughts on this?

A taxpayer subsidized commercial crew development fund is the problem. 

 

Better than taxpayer subsidized launch vehicle development and operations

So then you are saying ULA will get none of the money allocated to "commercial" crew. 


\
Clarification

Better than gov't managed launch vehicle development and operations

Just out of curiosity since I presume you were around when the EELV's were in development. 

When the USAF forked over 1 billion to then Boeing and Lock-Mart, there were no requirements that went with it?  As a consequence to having that funding they were totally hands-off?

What oversight role does the Air Force have today with respect to the launch vehicles design and operations?  Do they have a program office?  If so, what does it do?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/28/2010 07:08 pm
In your striving for purity don't forget all the skilled personnel on the Shuttle/SRB/Cx/Orion side who have been laid off or will be on Oct 1st due to this stalemate. Some of these people will be needed again once a SDLV of some persuasion is agreed. It is best that a bill is passed before then to avoid crucial skill set loss even if the bill isn't perfect.
Things could change, but it's still sounding like the first appropriations bill to be passed for FY 2011 will be a continuing resolution:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/07/27/wolf-makes-few-predictions-about-the-nasa-appropriations-process/

Quote
On the timing of an appropriations bill, Wolf said it was likely there would be some kind of continuing resolution (CR), although he wasn’t sure how long would run. “I think a lot will depend on what will happen in the elections,” he said. He thought there was a “reasonable chance” that the CR would extend into January and a new Congress, one that Wolf believes, at least on the House side, will be in the hands of the Republican party. He was particularly wary of anything done by a post-election “lame duck” session in November or December, including passage of an omnibus bill that wraps up multiple appropriations into a single bill. “I think the less that happens in a lame duck session the better.”

The language in the bill could still address workforce issues, but the ones we've seen drafted/introduced may be set aside for the elections.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/28/2010 07:16 pm

I would say at this point it's likely that whichever bill can get to the calendar and pass will then become the vehicle for working out differences and arriving at a consensus. That consensus can possibly be achieved through an informal "preconference" process--as was done in 2008 with the NASA authorization bill enacted that year--rather than a formal Conference. With so little time remaining in the session, the situation is fluid and dynamic and unpredictable so my suggestion is to sit tight and stay tuned.

I hope that the House bill doesn't become the starting point. The Senate bill has a lot of the pinciples of FY2011 and of the recommendations of the Augustine committee. It can be sold as a compromise. That can't be said about the House Bill. I would rather have a bill enacted after October 1, 2010 that is a true compromise.   

In your striving for purity don't forget all the skilled personnel on the Shuttle/SRB/Cx/Orion side who have been laid off or will be on Oct 1st due to this stalemate. Some of these people will be needed again once a SDLV of some persuasion is agreed. It is best that a bill is passed before then to avoid crucial skill set loss even if the bill isn't perfect. Remember the enemy of the good is always the perfect ;).

Don't forget that the House bill would likely continue Ares I. So it's the ennemy of a SD-HLV as well.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/28/2010 07:29 pm
My read of the tea leaves is that the House stays in denial as we go into recess. Way too pigheaded and fearful for otherwise.

I'd hate to be rushing around on the Hill to make this happen right now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 07/28/2010 08:27 pm

1.  When the USAF forked over 1 billion to then Boeing and Lock-Mart, there were no requirements that went with it?  As a consequence to having that funding they were totally hands-off?

2.  What oversight role does the Air Force have today with respect to the launch vehicles design and operations?  Do they have a program office?  If so, what does it do?

1.  There were a few requirements documents, performance based.  The USAF had no requirements on the shape of the vehicle, engines, propellants, materials, construction methods, launch ops conops, etc.  Just put these types of payload into these orbits and reduce the cost by 25%. 

2.  They have a program office.  It is there to buy the EELV's and to make sure they get what they pay for.  Much like NASA's LSP.  Aerospace is their support.  The USAF, NRO and NASA collaborate on monitoring the EELV fleet.   NASA has resident offices in Denver and Decatur, for fleet insight and the USAF is following suit.

The USAF program office has 650 government, military, aerospace, and contractor personnel but this number also included Delta II and  Launch and Test Range System Programs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/29/2010 03:47 am
So is the House more likely to pass the Senate bill (assuming the Senate pass it), or to pass its own bill and go to conference?

I'm guessing, politically, reps get more credo for having actually voted to protect sacred cows, even if the conference bill later kills them.

When are we likely to see each authorization bill (and conference if required) passed?

Ditto appropriations.

I would say at this point it's likely that whichever bill can get to the calendar and pass will then become the vehicle for working out differences and arriving at a consensus. That consensus can possibly be achieved through an informal "preconference" process--as was done in 2008 with the NASA authorization bill enacted that year--rather than a formal Conference. With so little time remaining in the session, the situation is fluid and dynamic and unpredictable so my suggestion is to sit tight and stay tuned.

I hope that the House bill doesn't become the starting point. The Senate bill has a lot of the pinciples of FY2011 and of the recommendations of the Augustine committee. It can be sold as a compromise. That can't be said about the House Bill. I would rather have a bill enacted after October 1, 2010 that is a true compromise.   

I can say this with absolute assurance. The House bill, in it's current form, even as amended in Committee, would NEVER pass the Senate. Unlike the House bill, which was essentially an internal, Majority committee product--at least according to minority committee staffers who didn't see the draft until shortly before it was published--the Senate bill was written from the beginning in a bipartisan collaborative effort that included reaching out beyond the Commerce Committee membership to any and every Member known to have an interest or concern with NASA and its programs, and building a consensus around the core elements of the bill, taking all those interests into account and accommodating them to the point there was a unanimous vote to report the bill. It already comes very close to representing a cohesive Senate position, supportable by the body as a whole. The very close adherence of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee AND full Committee last week to the allocations and amounts--and associated redirection of the appropriations lines in the policy and program direction reflected in the Commerce Committee bill, very clearly helped underscore that point.

Of course, the "proof" of that assertion will have to wait for the request for the Senate to adopt it by unanimous consent as well, but I for one have never, in 35 years in this business, been more confident at this stage that such a UC request will be achievable.

That suggests to me that, even if the House takes up and passes its bill before their recess begins on Friday, as it appears they are considering doing (in a way which would not allow for any amendments from the floor of the House, which would not be acceptable to a lot of House members who want a chance to "refine" it further, and in a way closer to the Senate language), and sends that bill to the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it will sit unless and until the unlikely event the Senate could not pass its compromise/consensus-based bill and needed to turn to the House-passed bill as the legislative vehicle to use to enact a NASA Authorization bill.

Even then, before passage by the Senate, it would be amended in its entirety with substitute language for the entire bill which either reflected precisely the language of the Senate bill or--assuming the House is serious about enacting an authorization bill--language agreed upon in the course of the sort of "preconferencing" activity I described in an earlier post.

If the House proceeds to seek consideration of the Science Committee reported bill, there must be a vote on agreeing to suspend the rules for that bill and move it to the Suspension Calendar. A vote against that motion would NOT necessarily represent a vote against the notion of a NASA authorization bill, or even this particular bill, but could be a very reasonable and responsible vote that suggests more time is needed for members of the House to digest a 100-plus page bill that was JUST published yesterday before attempting to force the House to accept it simply as reported.

It will be an interesting next few days in the House--and next week in the Senate, before it, too, breaks for the August recess.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 07/29/2010 04:04 am
When the USAF forked over 1 billion to then Boeing and Lock-Mart, there were no requirements that went with it?  As a consequence to having that funding they were totally hands-off?

That description doesn't capture the essence of the EELV acquisition strategy.  From the horse's mouth:

Quote from: USAF
EELV Fact Sheet (http://www.losangeles.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=5324)
Acquisition History

The initial phase of the EELV program, Low Cost Concept Validation (LCCV), was successfully completed in November 1996. LCCV emphasized competition in preliminary designs and risk reduction demonstrations. Four $30-million contracts were awarded during this phase to Alliant Techsystems, The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation and McDonnell Douglas Aerospace. (Note: Boeing acquired McDonnell Douglas at about the time this competition ended.)

During the second phase, pre-engineering and manufacturing development, two $60-million, 17-month contracts were awarded to The Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin Corporation to continue refining their system concepts and complete a detailed system design.

EELV phase three began in October 1998 with the award of two development agreements and two initial launch services contracts (known as Buy 1) totaling more than $3 billion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/29/2010 01:11 pm
That suggests to me that, even if the House takes up and passes its bill before their recess begins on Friday, as it appears they are considering doing (in a way which would not allow for any amendments from the floor of the House, which would not be acceptable to a lot of House members who want a chance to "refine" it further, and in a way closer to the Senate language), and sends that bill to the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it will sit unless and until the unlikely event the Senate could not pass its compromise/consensus-based bill and needed to turn to the House-passed bill as the legislative vehicle to use to enact a NASA Authorization bill.


It will be an interesting next few days in the House--and next week in the Senate, before it, too, breaks for the August recess.
Is it possible now that the Senate will hold off on putting the Commerce committee's authorization bill on the Calendar until after the House bill?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/29/2010 02:02 pm
Elon Musk is asking us to call our Congressionnal representative to oppose passage of the House bill on Friday:

Quote
SpaceX

Your Help Urgently Needed to Save the Future of Human Spaceflight

If you care about the future of American space exploration, your urgent help is necessary. The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress. SpaceX does not have the enormous lobbying power of the big government contractors to stop them, however with your help the day can still be saved.

NASA’s Authorization bill (H.R. 5781) will be debated on the floor of the US House of Representatives tomorrow. Despite the imminent retirement of the Space Shuttle, H.R. 5781 authorizes over five times as many taxpayer dollars to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than it invests in developing an American commercial alternative, moreover at a time when jobs are sorely needed in the United States. Quite simply, this bill represents the sort of senseless pork politics that has driven our national debt to the point where our economy can barely service it.

The bill is expected to be brought to the House floor this Friday under a special “suspension of the rules,” which is a procedure that limits debate and amendments.

Telephone your Congressional representative right away via the House Switchboard at (202) 225-3121 and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 5781, and instead support the bill unanimously agreed to in the Senate last week.

Your five minutes will make a critical difference, ensuring an exciting and inspiring future in space travel! SpaceX rarely asks you to take action, so you know it really matters when we do.

--Elon--
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/29/2010 02:31 pm
That suggests to me that, even if the House takes up and passes its bill before their recess begins on Friday, as it appears they are considering doing (in a way which would not allow for any amendments from the floor of the House, which would not be acceptable to a lot of House members who want a chance to "refine" it further, and in a way closer to the Senate language), and sends that bill to the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it will sit unless and until the unlikely event the Senate could not pass its compromise/consensus-based bill and needed to turn to the House-passed bill as the legislative vehicle to use to enact a NASA Authorization bill.


It will be an interesting next few days in the House--and next week in the Senate, before it, too, breaks for the August recess.
Is it possible now that the Senate will hold off on putting the Commerce committee's authorization bill on the Calendar until after the House bill?


The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/29/2010 02:50 pm
That suggests to me that, even if the House takes up and passes its bill before their recess begins on Friday, as it appears they are considering doing (in a way which would not allow for any amendments from the floor of the House, which would not be acceptable to a lot of House members who want a chance to "refine" it further, and in a way closer to the Senate language), and sends that bill to the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it will sit unless and until the unlikely event the Senate could not pass its compromise/consensus-based bill and needed to turn to the House-passed bill as the legislative vehicle to use to enact a NASA Authorization bill.


It will be an interesting next few days in the House--and next week in the Senate, before it, too, breaks for the August recess.
Is it possible now that the Senate will hold off on putting the Commerce committee's authorization bill on the Calendar until after the House bill?


The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.

In your opinion, is the quick passage of an unamended House bill a good thing or a bad thing?

I imagine that it's a good thing in the sense that it moves thing frowards. But I imagine that it could also be seen as a bad thing in the sense that it could force the Senate to compromise even further on a bill that already strikes a very difficult balance.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2010 03:20 pm
The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.

Does anyone know if there's a published version of the latest draft of the Senate bill, eg including the change to a 130mT upper limit in place of the original 150mT?

Edit: haven't been able to find anything more up-to-date than the Rockefeller PDF.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/29/2010 03:34 pm
Does anyone know if there's a published version of the latest draft of the Senate bill, eg including the change to a 130mT upper limit in place of the original 150mT?

It was never 130 and 150 metric tonnes, but 130 and 150 US short tons, which are 118 and 136 metric tonnes, respectively. Significant, as the 118 tonne number is very close to the capacity of both the Sidemount and Inline Block III designs in the SD-HLV study (113 tonnes).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/29/2010 03:35 pm
It's not an upper limit, it's a minimum growth target, '130 tons or more'.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/29/2010 03:38 pm
Does anyone know if there's a published version of the latest draft of the Senate bill, eg including the change to a 130mT upper limit in place of the original 150mT?

It was never 130 and 150 metric tonnes, but 130 and 150 US short tons, which are 118 and 136 metric tonnes, respectively. Significant, as the 118 tonne number is very close to the capacity of both the Sidemount and Inline Block III designs in the SD-HLV study (113 tonnes).

Senator Nelson said metric tonnes in the press conference. He said that the HLV should be between 75mt to 100mt.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2010 03:42 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rjholling on 07/29/2010 03:48 pm
118mT sounds like they just picked the number based upon the lift capability of Saturn V which was 118mT.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/29/2010 03:51 pm
That suggests to me that, even if the House takes up and passes its bill before their recess begins on Friday, as it appears they are considering doing (in a way which would not allow for any amendments from the floor of the House, which would not be acceptable to a lot of House members who want a chance to "refine" it further, and in a way closer to the Senate language), and sends that bill to the Senate, it will be referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it will sit unless and until the unlikely event the Senate could not pass its compromise/consensus-based bill and needed to turn to the House-passed bill as the legislative vehicle to use to enact a NASA Authorization bill.


It will be an interesting next few days in the House--and next week in the Senate, before it, too, breaks for the August recess.
Is it possible now that the Senate will hold off on putting the Commerce committee's authorization bill on the Calendar until after the House bill?


The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.

In your opinion, is the quick passage of an unamended House bill a good thing or a bad thing?

I imagine that it's a good thing in the sense that it moves thing frowards. But I imagine that it could also be seen as a bad thing in the sense that it could force the Senate to compromise even further on a bill that already strikes a very difficult balance.

Obviously, any amendments that might be offered that would bring the House bill closer to the Senate, particularly in the areas of HLV development (avoiding the potential for just authorizing a "do-over" on Constellation), commercial development (especially COTS-cargo), and ISS sustainability and utilization, would be better, as those are the areas where the Senate will have to remain firmest, due to the nature of the compromise already reflected in that bill which is essential to Senate passage. So not allowing any amendments does mean the starting points for discussion are wider apart. Of course, there could also be amendments which drove those points still further apart, too, so there's always that risk in opening a bill to amendment. No way to predict that.

The key thing is that, because of the way the Senate bill was produced, and then its programmatic allocations reflected in CJS appropriations language--which required an even expanded level of consensus--it is very well understood where the lines have to be drawn within the Senate to maintain support. So, from that standpoint, having the Senate language as the legislative "vehicle" is the preferred position, from my vantage point.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 03:57 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jkumpire on 07/29/2010 04:02 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

Is that your opinion, or do you have clear knowledge of the future?

I think you assume too much about what tomorrow may bring.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 04:04 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

A shuttle derived vehicle in no way will guarantee the workforce transitions in a 1:1 format.  The most significant portion of the STS workfoce, the orbiter - which equates to the highest number of heads from ground operations, engineering and mission operations, will not all transfer to SLS or whatever it ends up being called. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/29/2010 04:07 pm
The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.

Does anyone know if there's a published version of the latest draft of the Senate bill, eg including the change to a 130mT upper limit in place of the original 150mT?

Edit: haven't been able to find anything more up-to-date than the Rockefeller PDF.

cheers, Martin

This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 04:16 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

Retention of skilled workforce is a good idea - up to a point. It should not be a primary reason.

Many seem to believe that letting go of skilled workforce will make that knowledge go away forever. Not me. I have faith in american know-how, intelligence, and current/future workforce. They will get it done, if given a chance.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 04:22 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

Retention of skilled workforce is a good idea - up to a point. It should not be a primary reason.

Many seem to believe that letting go of skilled workforce will make that knowledge go away forever. Not me. I have faith in american know-how, intelligence, and current/future workforce. They will get it done, if given a chance.

Quite frankly, that is a ridiculous statement, even if you try to spin it and intentionally remove most of my statement because you probably know you cannot rebuttle it. 

For folks that carry on again and again about cost and schedule to an extrodinary degree it would seem silly to handicap ourselves from the beginning by having to re-learn what we know now. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 07/29/2010 04:37 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

2) Combined lunar spacecraft (with dry EDS);

3) NEO encounter vehicle (split into seperate propulsion and hab/return segments over two launches).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2010 04:38 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2010 04:38 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

2) Combined lunar spacecraft (with dry EDS);

3) NEO encounter vehicle (split into seperate propulsion and hab/return segments over two launches).

Thanks Ben, that DOES answer the question I asked :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2010 04:40 pm
This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

Many thanks, that is later than I was able to find.

cheers, Martin

Edit: quote.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/29/2010 04:50 pm

This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf


Authorization.

(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
 (A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
 (B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
 (C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
 (D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
 (2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
 (3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and developed, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow-on Space Launch System.
 (4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.




Appropriations.

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.—The Committee provides $1,900,000,000 to begin building an integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system. The system shall enable human transportation at the highest possible safety standards and lowest life cycle costs for beyond low Earth orbit and shall be designed, managed, and integrated by the Marshall Space Flight Center. This funding shall be part of a sustained, evolvable effort around a common core to culminate in an initial human capability by 2016. The system shall be evolvable to lift the necessary elements for missions beyond low Earth orbit in order to extend human exploration capabilities. The program shall be managed under a strict cost cap of $11,500,000,000 through fiscal year 2017.

Within 60 days of enactment, NASA shall report to the committee on planned milestones, expected performance of the low Earth orbit and beyond low Earth orbit configurations, planned ground and early flight testing programs and deliverables for the heavy lift launch vehicle program, along with any existing contract vehicles the Agency intends to use for this purpose. As part of this report, NASA shall evaluate the preceding cost cap and validate the cap or provide a viable and validated alternative.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2010 05:01 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

Not particularly "light".

Note that Ed's site gives only 120mT to Ares V Classic (LV27.3) with HTPB SRB's, and 145 ton to LEO for Ares V with 6x RS68B & 5.5 seg SRB's. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares5.html (http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares5.html)

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/29/2010 05:03 pm
Technically in the bill it is a US short ton unless the word metric or tonne is specifically used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: muomega0 on 07/29/2010 05:23 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

Is that your opinion, or do you have clear knowledge of the future?

I think you assume too much about what tomorrow may bring.

You may not like what tomorrow will bring given the current NASA budget and the choice of completing a SDHLV, but this depends on the cost estimates and the available budget.

A better metric is to examine Total LV Cost per Year versus Metric Tons to orbit each year.  Then compare this to the available budget.

It is discussed a bit here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622563#msg622563


And Augustine said the same thing: (thanks Neilh for this post)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622687#msg622687


To summarize:

So taking Ross's numbers off of the charts:
MT      J-246     Atlas V      J-246    Atlas V
           $B          $B           $/kg      $kg
200     2.3       1.8         11500    9000
400     2.9       3.1          7250     7750
600     3.3       4.0          5500     6667
800     3.8       5.0          4750     6250

From this one could conclude:

Adding a propellant depot that can store fuel for a long period of time allows NASA to loft non-fuel hardware in 1 to 2 flights, regardless of launch vehicle.

1.7B nonrecurring costs/yr of a SDLV could be diverted in a second FY to a payload/mission using Atlas as the primary LV.

With ISS at 2.1B per year, there still is not adequate funding for landers, outposts, and Mars, at the PRESENT time, since the vehicles need development $$ first, which is likely why the flexible path option was presented, not because it was a reason to stop HSF.

At such a low flight rate, NASA must develop a new "duel use" workforce strategy, where experienced, dedicated workers place their talents on other programs besides just HLV operations.

It comes down to how much metric tons to orbit NASA can afford each year.  My guess is that it is no where near 400MT. :-\  YMMV

Then there is political "compromise".

from previous post reference:
 Vehicle.—The Committee provides
$1,900,000,000 to begin building an integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system. The system shall enable human transportation at the highest possible safety standards and lowest life cycle costs for beyond low Earth orbit and shall be designed, managed, and integrated by the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Congress is mandating to NASA managers and engineers to carry a 1.7B/year (?) non-recurring cost for the SDLV, which would only be necessary if NASA launches over 400MT of payload per year, but Congress has not and likely will not provide budget for this 400MT per year.

Given that cost vs MT comparison above does not include the 10B+ development costs of the HLV, you can see how most would reach a conclusion different from Congress.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 07/29/2010 05:49 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

The Mars DRA 5.0 architcture requires five launches for a crewed mission, none of is listed as more than 110mT, despite being launched on Ares V's.

Each crewed mission requires two additional cargo missions (one surface hab, one lander), which require a total of seven launches, none of more than 103.6mT.

Most of these are fuelled-up propulsion stages, which are basically a third "in space only" stage on top of the existing Ares V's two stages. However, none of these numbers account for boiloff or LEO station keeping, so there is probably additional mass not accounted for above (ie the figures probably shouldn't be labelled as "launch mass").

NB adding a third stage seem to be the easiest way to really bump up the payload of an SDLV.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: phantomdj on 07/29/2010 06:06 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

A shuttle derived vehicle in no way will guarantee the workforce transitions in a 1:1 format.  The most significant portion of the STS workfoce, the orbiter - which equates to the highest number of heads from ground operations, engineering and mission operations, will not all transfer to SLS or whatever it ends up being called. 

OV106 is correct but it is worse than he states. The problem is not have actual SDHLV hardware to work on for years to come.

It is too late for a shuttle derived vehicle to guarantee any major workforce transition.  Most will have to be laid-off.  A simple breakdown of the shuttle workforce goes something like this:

1 - Personnel to assemble and test the FWD and AFT skirt assemblies for the SRB’s in the ARF
2 - Personnel to stack the FWD and AFT assemblies with solid rocket motors to make the SRB’s and test in VAB
3 - Personnel to attach ET and shuttle to the stack and test
4 - Personnel to roll out to pad
5 - Personnel to test at the pad
6 - Personnel to launch
7 - Personnel to recover the SRB and disassemble
8 - Personnel for shuttle landing
9 - Personnel to refurbish the shuttle for next launch

There are others but the point is that most of these people will not be needed after the last launch and the gap to SDHLV is too long.

The people working on 8 and 9 will not be needed at all, people doing #1 are already being cut by 50% in October with more to follow.  I don’t think USA and NASA will have the budget to pay these people to sit around like Maytag repairmen waiting the 3 to 4 years it will take to get actual hardware at KSC to assemble, stack and test for the first test flight of a shuttle derived vehicle.

They might be able to hire some back in 2 or 3 years but most will be gone.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/29/2010 06:14 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

The Mars DRA 5.0 architcture requires five launches for a crewed mission, none of is listed as more than 110mT, despite being launched on Ares V's.

Each crewed mission requires two additional cargo missions (one surface hab, one lander), which require a total of seven launches, none of more than 103.6mT.

Most of these are fuelled-up propulsion stages, which are basically a third "in space only" stage on top of the existing Ares V's two stages. However, none of these numbers account for boiloff or LEO station keeping, so there is probably additional mass not accounted for above (ie the figures probably shouldn't be labelled as "launch mass").

NB adding a third stage seem to be the easiest way to really bump up the payload of an SDLV.

cheers, Martin

Note for Mars DRA 5.0: it was tailored around the Ares V, so drwaing specific references from it must be taken with a grain of salt (imo).

Until we get to the point where we know our actual hardware requirements (based on TRL of: ISRU, PD, advanced propulsion,...) we are only putting estimates on these things. So having a growth option is a grand idea, just as long as it doesn't tie you into an unnecessary architecture (which has been the debate among the various groups for so long now on here). So choose a vehicle that can grow to meet your needs (and move over to the Direct threads to find such a vehicle ;) ).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 06:40 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.

My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/29/2010 06:48 pm
In your opinion, is the quick passage of an unamended House bill a good thing or a bad thing?
It is a bad thing. Amendments move things along faster, reduce conference issues. Makes things more predictable.

My worry is that the House fights for more irrational/waste introduced into the Senate, and it kills the compromise in an unpredicted way.

And then everything wanders off into the tuiles for awhile - like earlier this year.

Must be very frustrating.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 06:58 pm
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.

My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

There are some words in various pieces of legislation that state it should be *evolvable*, which is very, very key, up to 150 tons and even that upper limit is reported to be reduced. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 07/29/2010 07:12 pm
Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Spot on.

As someone who has followed the Direct story form the beginning (Ross first suggested it in a thread that I started about a RS-68 Ares I), I have to say that the language of the Senate Bill perfectly corresponds to the original motivation for Direct. It calls for quick development of a very-shuttle-derived HLV using the maximum amount of Shuttle infrastructure and resources. Everything else about Direct (ACES upper stage, EOR-LOR, etc) is tangential and relatively unimportant.

In my mind, the original Direct concept died a year ago when Not-Shuttle-C was presented to Augustine Commission. What had been rantings on web forum before became potential government policy afterwards. If passed, the Senate language would make the motivation behind Direct into official NASA policy. That's a victory Direct supporters should cherish, and leave everything else to professional trade studies...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 07:17 pm
My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Oh Mike, please stop trying to analyze my "groupthink" and assign whatever motives you think I have.

But if you insist, I have a similar suggestion for you: Please try to see the issues outside of of your USA and Shuttle worker perspective, and as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?

If you think so, then more power to you. But many others (myself included) do not share that opinion. And that is OK.

As for your statement "What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality": Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 07:23 pm
My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Oh Mike, please stop trying to analyze my "groupthink" and assign whatever motives you think I have.

But if you insist, I have a similar suggestion for you: Please try to see the issues outside of of your USA and Shuttle worker perspective, and as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?

If you think so, then more power to you. But many others (myself included) do not share that opinion. And that is OK.

As for your statement "What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality": Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

Hah, that is actually pretty funny.  In reality, you have no idea about anything about me or what I personally believe.  You and others are the one who try to brand me personally as someone who is only trying to defend one thing.

That along with many other "statements" you make with no facts behind them equates to unsubstantiated arm-waving and the superficial nature of some of your comments. 

As to your questions, they are irrelevant.  The reason why is in my previous response. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 07/29/2010 07:44 pm
Apparently Congressman Gordon will meet with 'aggrieved' lawmakers today about commercial crew and tech development.  That would push any possible vote on HR5781 until tomorrow.  I called my Congressman's office to say vote "no!" on the House's currently terrible bill. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 07/29/2010 07:49 pm
as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?


I do not wish to derail this thread by petty remarks, but I have to weigh in on this one.

Taxpayers expect government to hand everything to them for free, ensure that everything works without issue, otherwise they can their butts when they feel disgruntled. Taxpayers (in general) are just as much part of the problem. (I'll leave the issues of job creation to a sperate forum).

Just looking at the those on this forum who CARE about spaceflight show a broad range of beliefs and opinions.

(and to tie it up into this thread): For 51D Mascot to come on here and provide substative proof that many in the Senate are finally working towards a compromise bill that covers all their 'needs', with a poll on here that suggests they 'seem' to be getting the job done (finally), we have to be pretty happy that spaceflight, and specifically 'manned' spaceflight, has a future.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/29/2010 07:50 pm
Technically in the bill it is a US short ton unless the word metric or tonne is specifically used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne


Not if the Committee Reporting the bill specifically notes the intent...or changes the language itself before final passage to ensure no misinterpretation, which is also a possibility. Those are easy kinds of "perfecting" changes that can be made along the way...especially if it becomes apparent that there is sufficient disparity of view or uncertainty about meaning or intent.

Turns out the people who write legislation are...well...PEOPLE, and capable of assumptions and/or outright oversights. Which is a good part of why the process of enactment has a lot of way-points where those things can be refined.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: phantomdj on 07/29/2010 07:51 pm

Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

This is a strawman argument to say the least.

The only vehicle being built in the “foreseeable future” will lift 70mT with the capability to evolve into a 130mT vehicle in the out years if and when we have a need.  We can build 70mT payloads and many are on the drawing boards as listed in many places on this forum.

There is no need for a 150mT vehicle today and no one has suggested such.  Plus there are no legitimate 150mT payload on the drawing.  Maybe 10 or 20 years from now, if or when there is a need for a150mT payloads, we might upgrade a vehicle for that or as some have suggested build it in 2 pieces.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 07:57 pm
as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?


I do not wish to derail this thread by petty remarks, but I have to weigh in on this one.

Taxpayers expect government to hand everything to them for free, ensure that everything works without issue, otherwise they can their butts when they feel disgruntled. Taxpayers (in general) are just as much part of the problem. (I'll leave the issues of job creation to a sperate forum).

I do not wish to derail this either, but what you just posted is a rather amazing statement. Yes, a lot of people expect free hand-outs. But tax payers... you know... actually *pay* taxes. (how could that be 'free'?) It is *our* government. Don't you DARE call it a problem that tax payers should care how the money is spent. People who have spent too much time in Govt. circles start to think of tax payers as just a source of funding. Now *that* is the problem. Not the other way around.

Sorry about the side-track.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 07/29/2010 08:01 pm

Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

This is a strawman argument to say the least.

I was merely responding to OV-106 writing that nothing in my post had any basis in reality. Don't take it out of context. (and that was coming from an earlier reply I made to a post by Chris where he asked what payloads were considered for the upper payload range in the proposed bill)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/29/2010 08:05 pm

Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

This is a strawman argument to say the least.

The only vehicle being built in the “foreseeable future” will lift 70mT with the capability to evolve into a 130mT vehicle in the out years if and when we have a need.  We can build 70mT payloads and many are on the drawing boards as listed in many places on this forum.

There is no need for a 150mT vehicle today and no one has suggested such.  Plus there are no legitimate 150mT payload on the drawing.  Maybe 10 or 20 years from now, if or when there is a need for a150mT payloads, we might upgrade a vehicle for that or as some have suggested build it in 2 pieces.

Not a strawman at all because the argument applies to both 70mt and 150mt "HLVs". Do people think that NASA will magically get a 50% or even a 20% (inflation-adjusted) budget increase over the next decade or two? While I greatly hope it does, I see no data or strong argument to suggest that will actually happen. The only thing an outside observer can reasonably expect is a flat budget adjusted for inflation. And NASA pretty much needs at least 20% more budget in order to pay for real and frequent payloads (without gutting other important programs) on just about any HLV, whether 70 tons or 150 tons, short or long, metric or imperial.

Find that 3 or 4 billion per year extra, and I'll be an HLV advocate. Yes, it isn't much at all in the total federal budget, but where's the actual support for adding that money? None of the FY2011 proposals had anything like that kind of money being added, not from the White House, Senate, or the House of Representatives.

NASA can build and fly a SDHLV under its current budget, but it will need some kind of budget increase to actually fly something regularly on it (EDIT: without gutting other critical areas almost entirely, that is).

EDIT:I should note that this is a marked improvement over Constellation, which couldn't even afford to fly Ares I or V under the current budget even while gutting important programs and without having much in the way of actual payloads.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 08:06 pm

Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

This is a strawman argument to say the least.

I was merely responding to OV-106 writing that nothing in my post had any basis in reality. Don't take it out of context.

Well, with all due respect, you were the one bringing up those size launch vehicles in an attempt to derail the discussion in an attempt to justify your "cannot afford" statements. 

Again, nowhere, has anyone seriously discussed those size launch vehicles.  Again, legislation suggests *evolvable*, a point you ignore for the purposes of your arguement.  Again, that top level requirement seems to have been reduced further and again a first-order SDLV would lift approximately 70-75 mT. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: moose103 on 07/29/2010 08:28 pm
There should be no debate.  The preliminary budget is there to read. 

Either it contains funding for 75mT payloads, or it doesn't.  Which is it?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 08:28 pm

NASA can build and fly a SDHLV under its current budget, but it will need some kind of budget increase to actually fly something regularly on it (EDIT: without gutting other critical areas almost entirely, that is).


So hypothetically speaking at a high level, today in the HSF area we have ISS, CxP and Shuttle. 

CxP is going away, except for Orion, but the money is really not.  Shuttle, in its current form is going away.  With respect to STS, the largest part of the program in terms of budget and manpower is related to orbiter.  If that is no longer needed, then logically, a SDLV should be considerably cheaper.

If "commercial" is to reduce the cost of transport to LEO significantly reduce transportation costs where those can be purchased firm-fixed price, how is so many are saying there is no money for anything?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/29/2010 08:57 pm

NASA can build and fly a SDHLV under its current budget, but it will need some kind of budget increase to actually fly something regularly on it (EDIT: without gutting other critical areas almost entirely, that is).


So hypothetically speaking at a high level, today in the HSF area we have ISS, CxP and Shuttle. 

CxP is going away, except for Orion, but the money is really not.  Shuttle, in its current form is going away.  With respect to STS, the largest part of the program in terms of budget and manpower is related to orbiter.  If that is no longer needed, then logically, a SDLV should be considerably cheaper.

If "commercial" is to reduce the cost of transport to LEO significantly reduce transportation costs where those can be purchased firm-fixed price, how is so many are saying there is no money for anything?
Constellation reduced funding for some old R&D (and unmanned) projects, like the New Millennium Program. That money has been returned via the White House's and Senate's FY2011 compromise. And notice I said "regular" HLV missions. That means at least 5 or 6 launches a year, not of a reusable payload (like the orbiter), but of newly fabricated aerospace-grade hardware.  That's expensive. Specialized payloads typically cost around $100,000/kg, but even if you can somehow reduce that to $10,000/kg, we're still talking 3 or 4 billion dollars. Remember, ISS is sticking around until at least 2020, now. And it doesn't require hundreds of tons of supplies every year.

Of course, this is sort of bass ackwards. The payloads are why the launch vehicle exists, not the other way around.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 09:04 pm

NASA can build and fly a SDHLV under its current budget, but it will need some kind of budget increase to actually fly something regularly on it (EDIT: without gutting other critical areas almost entirely, that is).


So hypothetically speaking at a high level, today in the HSF area we have ISS, CxP and Shuttle. 

CxP is going away, except for Orion, but the money is really not.  Shuttle, in its current form is going away.  With respect to STS, the largest part of the program in terms of budget and manpower is related to orbiter.  If that is no longer needed, then logically, a SDLV should be considerably cheaper.

If "commercial" is to reduce the cost of transport to LEO significantly reduce transportation costs where those can be purchased firm-fixed price, how is so many are saying there is no money for anything?
Constellation reduced funding for some old R&D (and unmanned) projects, like the New Millennium Program. That money has been returned via the White House's and Senate's FY2011 compromise. And notice I said "regular" HLV missions. That means at least 5 or 6 launches a year, not of a reusable payload (like the orbiter), but of newly fabricated aerospace-grade hardware.  That's expensive. Specialized payloads typically cost around $100,000/kg, but even if you can somehow reduce that to $10,000/kg, we're still talking 3 or 4 billion dollars. Remember, ISS is sticking around until at least 2020, now. And it doesn't require hundreds of tons of supplies every year.

Of course, this is sort of bass ackwards. The payloads are why the launch vehicle exists, not the other way around.

Cutting the hairs pretty thinly there. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 07/29/2010 09:15 pm
...
Cutting the hairs pretty thinly there. 
That's what this boils down to. So said Augustine.

But the Senate bill really isn't that bad. Although there's not enough money to really make HLV "worth it", there is some money for payloads that don't necessarily depend absolutely on the HLV. It's far, far better than the House bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 07/29/2010 09:25 pm
Of course, this is sort of bass ackwards. The payloads are why the launch vehicle exists, not the other way around.
My biggest single issue with NASA and Congress for all time.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 07/29/2010 11:18 pm
Another presser - not sure what Columbia has to do with this...?

Planetary Society Urges Debate on NASA Authorization Bill



The Planetary Society today issued a statement about the request that the U.S. House of Representatives suspend the rules when voting on the NASA Authorization bill:

The U.S. House of Representatives is being asked today to bring a highly controversial NASA Authorization bill (H.R. 5781) to the floor for a quick vote before Congress heads out of town for its summer break. The NASA bill would be taken up under procedures to "suspend the rules" that limit debate and do not allow amendments or changes to the bill. The future of the space program is too important to rush through a controversial change in policy.

The Planetary Society is very concerned that the proposed NASA Authorization, which was only recently unveiled by the House Science and Technology committee, has taken an approach to space exploration that deviates significantly from any plan offered by NASA or any previous Administration -- one that raises many fundamental questions about the direction and sustainability of the space program.

Specifically, the proposed bill abandons any significant investment in exploration technology, effectively eliminates the Administration's approach for engaging the commercial sector, establishes a program of loan guarantees that the Administration did not request, and seeks to reinstate programs that have been determined to be unsustainable. It also proposed no specific exploration goals for U.S. human spaceflight, a serious omission that was recognized after the tragic loss of life on the shuttle Columbia. Human space flight should be worth its cost and risk, and, as the Augustine Committee stated after an independent review of the U.S. human spaceflight program, "worthy of a great nation."

There has been inadequate time to review and understand the implications of this new plan. Therefore, the Society urges the House leadership to wait until after the August recess to bring the bill to the House Floor, allowing a full and open debate and for amendments to improve the bill.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/29/2010 11:49 pm
Another presser - not sure what Columbia has to do with this...?


In the CAIB report it strongly recommended NASA be given an overall goal and that goal be consistent throughout administrations and congresses in order to actually achieve some results instead of the constant start/stop cycle.

Since the House version sticks to the "status quo" much more it is ironic they are pointing it out and using that statement to only argue for the points they are advocating. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/30/2010 12:10 am
Mike which proposal do you think will win out: House or Senate?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/30/2010 12:12 am
Mike which proposal do you think will win out: House or Senate?

I would hope the Senate but there is another on here far better qualified to speak to that. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 07/30/2010 12:13 am
Mike which proposal do you think will win out: House or Senate?

I would hope the Senate but there is another on here far better qualified to speak to that. 
51 I would guess.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/30/2010 12:14 am
Yep. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: moose103 on 07/30/2010 03:27 am
CxP is going away, except for Orion, but the money is really not.  Shuttle, in its current form is going away.  With respect to STS, the largest part of the program in terms of budget and manpower is related to orbiter.  If that is no longer needed, then logically, a SDLV should be considerably cheaper.

If "commercial" is to reduce the cost of transport to LEO significantly reduce transportation costs where those can be purchased firm-fixed price, how is so many are saying there is no money for anything?

I agree, but this is hope.  It isn't written down, it isn't law, and no one is committed to it.  Are we so desperate that we should accept half a space program and then just hope for the best?

Let me think of some reasons to not hope for the best and trust Congress.

- Congress is responsible for the gap.  We can't trust their competency to plan.

- Congress is responsible for canceling Saturn V, Shuttle (and what else?).  We can't trust their commitment.

- Congress is responsible for no humans BEO since 1972.  We can't trust their vision.

- Congress is responsible for underfunding Constellation (and what else?).  We can't trust the money will be there when needed.

Am I wrong?  Isn't it time we demand the money to match the vision?  Or if not, then demand the vision to match the money?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 07/30/2010 03:48 am
moose, I was just pointing out simple math on a high level.  By that, I mean where it goes now essentially and where it is theoretically going in the future in order to help dispell the collective arm-waving by some that there will be no money left for anything else.  Again, on a high level. 

In addition, I was hoping to point out that, with respect to commercial, some on here have claimed it being a slam-dunk in substantially lowering the overall cost.  I support "commercial" but still have certain questions.  That said, I have no doubt it will happen at some point relatively soon and likely result in lowering the cost to orbit.  I also have no problem with, and like, it getting substantial funding as long as we know exactly how we are spending it so that it truly does result in short-term gains for the industry and nation. 

In the end, by the above post, I was hoping to force "others" to acknowledge they cannot have it both ways by saying there is no money for anything, because of an assumption on their parts about a specific vehicle, when those same people are saying we are "just a few years from" commercial operations and hence lower cost. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: telomerase99 on 07/30/2010 04:02 am
I think everybody here voted for the senate version on NSF, its time to call your congressmen to let him know how we feel. We have less than 24 hours!!

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=34612
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/30/2010 04:20 am
Mike which proposal do you think will win out: House or Senate?

I would hope the Senate but there is another on here far better qualified to speak to that. 
51 I would guess.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence that I might be able to answer. But the fact is, it's really not a matter of "which one wins." The ideal answer would be that "Both" win, which will be the case if a supportable consensus is reached through the next phases of the legislative process that are designed to yield a consensus on the language of a bill that is agreed to by both House and Senate and is sent to the President. There are clearly things in one bill or the other that could be combined into a single package, and it will be the goal of the involved Committee leadership of both Houses to identify those and ensure they can be included and maintain the support of all--or enough to ensure final passage. (Actually, it will likely need to be "All" in both chambers, because the press of legislative schedule for the remainder of this year is that there will need to be virtual unanimity in both Houses in order to enact a NASA Authorization bill.)

My view is that such an outcome is very "doable," despite what I expect will be the efforts of some individuals and organizations who still seem to believe that their interests would best be served by blocking ANY NASA Bill, so that they can continue the recent "chaos and uncertainty" and somehow turn it to their benefit. I know who they are, and they know who they are, and I am disappointed--but frankly not surprised--that they believe their narrow interests are more important than supporting a compromise path forward that is in the nation's near and long-term interest. But they seem to want what they want when they want it, and it is their right under our system for them to pursue their own self-interest.

But if I were to go back to the original question and try to predict a winner and a loser, it is my prediction that the losers will be those who refuse to accept or unable to understand that their real best hope is a viable space program in which they could have an important and viable role as a valuable contributing resource.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/30/2010 07:04 am

Let me think of some reasons to not hope for the best and trust Congress.

- Congress is responsible for the gap.  We can't trust their competency to plan.

- Congress is responsible for canceling Saturn V, Shuttle (and what else?).  We can't trust their commitment.

- Congress is responsible for no humans BEO since 1972.  We can't trust their vision.

- Congress is responsible for underfunding Constellation (and what else?).  We can't trust the money will be there when needed.

Am I wrong?  Isn't it time we demand the money to match the vision?  Or if not, then demand the vision to match the money?

Didn't Presidents specifically cancel Apollo, Shuttle and CxP ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/30/2010 11:14 am

Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

This is a strawman argument to say the least.

The only vehicle being built in the “foreseeable future” will lift 70mT with the capability to evolve into a 130mT vehicle in the out years if and when we have a need.  We can build 70mT payloads and many are on the drawing boards as listed in many places on this forum.

There is no need for a 150mT vehicle today and no one has suggested such.  Plus there are no legitimate 150mT payload on the drawing.  Maybe 10 or 20 years from now, if or when there is a need for a150mT payloads, we might upgrade a vehicle for that or as some have suggested build it in 2 pieces.


I can think of a few 150mT missions. Single launch HLV missions for the following:- high energy NEOs, sortie and cargo missions to the Lunar North Pole where the water is. It will be cheaper in the long run to send a 150mT HLV on single missions, maybe cargo followed by crew then pairs of 100mT HLVs doing the same job especially if the 150mT HLV is Directly evolved (say 3 stages) from the 100mT one. The 118mT Saturn V could only land a Lunar Module with a Rover on the Moon. Once you start going seriously above that a lot more becomes possible with a single HLV launch.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Orbiter on 07/30/2010 11:26 am
So today's 'H'-Day is it? They vote on the house floor for this don't they today?

Orbiter
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/30/2010 11:35 am
Didn't Presidents specifically cancel Apollo, Shuttle and CxP ?
No, the President and Congress.  Achieving Kennedy's Apollo goal of beating the Soviets was popular, but once that was done, repeating at taxpayer expense was divisive at best.  In the case of Shuttle, Bush's announcement was only weeks after the CAIB report was released; there wasn't much sentiment for leaving policy as it was, and Congress eventually endorsed the VSE outlines in the next authorization bill that made it through both chambers.

And with CxP, at least right now it's not looking like Obama will be able to wholly terminate it.

So today's 'H'-Day is it? They vote on the house floor for this don't they today?
The vote today would be only on their version of an authorization bill.  (HR 5781).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/30/2010 12:25 pm
The SpacePolitics blog (http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/07/30/hr-5781-schedule-and-supporting-the-home-team/) notes that the House bill isn't on today's floor schedule.  (Also noting that they are subject to change.)

Democrat/Majority Whip:
http://majorityleader.gov/links_and_resources/whip_resources/currentdailyleader.cfm

Republican/Minority Whip:
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/floor/

Not the first appearance in a thread, but for the proceedings, the House clerk provides a summary of floor actions:
http://clerk.house.gov/floorsummary/floor.html

(C-SPAN also provides live video, but note that yesterday's session ran until after 1 am local; there's a recess coming up.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/30/2010 12:54 pm
So today's 'H'-Day is it? They vote on the house floor for this don't they today?

Orbiter

not possible from a purely terminology perspective

D-Day     "Day of military event commences"
H-Hour    "Hour of military event commences"

you cannot have a h-day
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 07/30/2010 01:01 pm

...
The only vehicle being built in the “foreseeable future” will lift 70mT with the capability to evolve into a 130mT vehicle in the out years if and when we have a need.  We can build 70mT payloads and many are on the drawing boards as listed in many places on this forum.

There is no need for a 150mT vehicle today and no one has suggested such.  Plus there are no legitimate 150mT payload on the drawing.  Maybe 10 or 20 years from now, if or when there is a need for a150mT payloads, we might upgrade a vehicle for that or as some have suggested build it in 2 pieces.


...
It will be cheaper in the long run to send a 150mT HLV on single missions... Once you start going seriously above that a lot more becomes possible with a single HLV launch.

ISTM that this kind of "bigger is better in the long-run" logic is part of what led to the debacle that was Ares I and V. The argument (correct or not) was that the incremental cost of an Ares I was cheap, and that savings added up over time. And if you were going to build an HLV, you should make it as big as your infrastructure (e.g. VAB doors) could possibly allow. Sure, there might be some theoretical savings at high flight rates spread over 30 years, but if you can't afford to develop the capability in the first place, you'll never see those savings.

I say the DIRECT philosophy is the only way out of it. Build something pretty decent with what you have on-hand, as cheaply and quickly as you can today. That's like a ~70 ton J-130. With a little less urgency develop an upper stage. Then just stick with that! If you can find some low-hanging ways to cut operational costs, look into those over the years. Then, in 10 years time, re-evaluate to see if you really ever need the the 130-150 ton capability, then start work for an eventual upgrade. But I'd say give the next-decade upgrade options a couple months of study as you are designing the first version to make sure your current design doesn't cause any showstoppers later, then just file away those plans and forget them for at least 10 years.

Just some thoughts and opinions...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 07/30/2010 01:18 pm

But I'd say give the next-decade upgrade options a couple months of study as you are designing the first version to make sure your current design doesn't cause any showstoppers later, then just file away those plans and forget them for at least 10 years.


Agreed but also make sure the path is cheap, easy and direct. The way Ares V evolved was not a good example of this. It's obvious you won't be needing it for 10 years at least because there is no lunar lander on the immediate horizon. However tying up and synchronizing the development of the lander with development of the heavier HLV would be an optimum thing.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 07/30/2010 01:27 pm
So today's 'H'-Day is it? They vote on the house floor for this don't they today?

Orbiter

Last I heard it was not going to be brought up today after all, but things can change rapidly
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 07/30/2010 01:35 pm
Quote
Then just stick with that! If you can find some low-hanging ways to cut operational costs, look into those over the years.
Pretty much the right approach, I'd say.  I would add a specific five year moratorium on even studying a new vehicle, so that the funding could go to actual mission accomplishments, which would be limited to PD's and the first lunar outpost for ISRU demonstration and implementation.

We really need to bend metal and light fires and get out from this boondoggle prone analysis paralysis mindset.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/30/2010 01:59 pm
Mike which proposal do you think will win out: House or Senate?

I would hope the Senate but there is another on here far better qualified to speak to that. 
51 I would guess.

Well, thanks for the vote of confidence that I might be able to answer. But the fact is, it's really not a matter of "which one wins." The ideal answer would be that "Both" win, which will be the case if a supportable consensus is reached through the next phases of the legislative process that are designed to yield a consensus on the language of a bill that is agreed to by both House and Senate and is sent to the President. There are clearly things in one bill or the other that could be combined into a single package, and it will be the goal of the involved Committee leadership of both Houses to identify those and ensure they can be included and maintain the support of all--or enough to ensure final passage. (Actually, it will likely need to be "All" in both chambers, because the press of legislative schedule for the remainder of this year is that there will need to be virtual unanimity in both Houses in order to enact a NASA Authorization bill.)

My view is that such an outcome is very "doable," despite what I expect will be the efforts of some individuals and organizations who still seem to believe that their interests would best be served by blocking ANY NASA Bill, so that they can continue the recent "chaos and uncertainty" and somehow turn it to their benefit. I know who they are, and they know who they are, and I am disappointed--but frankly not surprised--that they believe their narrow interests are more important than supporting a compromise path forward that is in the nation's near and long-term interest. But they seem to want what they want when they want it, and it is their right under our system for them to pursue their own self-interest.

But if I were to go back to the original question and try to predict a winner and a loser, it is my prediction that the losers will be those who refuse to accept or unable to understand that their real best hope is a viable space program in which they could have an important and viable role as a valuable contributing resource.

Most organizations are backing the Senate Bill. I guess that ATK is still lobbying for Ares I?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/30/2010 02:43 pm
Another quick timing note from the House clerk page today; both houses passed H.Con.Res 308 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.CON.RES.308:), which would have Congress in recess until September 14, once business is finished in the next few days.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kirghizstan on 07/30/2010 03:50 pm


Most organizations are backing the Senate Bill. I guess that ATK is still lobbying for Ares I?

i just don't understand why.  can someone do the math for me, why is 1 5seg > 2 4seg.

they still have the money they made from the 5 seg development.  then can use the tech for future uprgades that they can propose.  they are going to be looking at higher flight rates thus selling more segments. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 07/30/2010 03:53 pm
House bill stalls according to Spacenews.

http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100730-vote-nasa-bill-unlikely.html

Loan guarantees removed, replaced with $300 million in CC grants.

Quote
The bill previously created federally backed loan guarantees for companies developing commercial crewed vehicles, but the committee dropped that provision after the Congressional Budget Office raised questions about the long-term cost of the program. In place of the loan guarantees, the committee added a $300 million grant program aimed at fostering commercial crewed systems, according to a July 28 copy of the suspension bill obtained by Space News.

In addition, the modified bill would prohibit NASA from laying off civil servants for at least six months following the bill’s enactment.

EDIT: I bet that's $300 million over the length of the authorization,  which is still pretty stinky compared to the Senate version.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 07/31/2010 02:23 am
Very interesting article on what happenned in the House and why a vote wasn't held today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: vt_hokie on 07/31/2010 02:40 am
Very interesting article on what happenned in the House and why a vote wasn't held today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html

Frustrating...wish they'd just take the Senate bill and go with it!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jimgagnon on 07/31/2010 03:32 am
Very interesting article on what happenned in the House and why a vote wasn't held today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html
Frustrating...wish they'd just take the Senate bill and go with it!

Not sure what dog Ohio has in the fight, but California wants to be a full-on space state, and commercial space seems to be the only path available to us. The CA Democrats in both the House and Senate are united along with many Republicans on this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 07/31/2010 12:02 pm
Very interesting article on what happenned in the House and why a vote wasn't held today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html
Also illustrates that there are representatives with additional points of view, which we wouldn't necessarily hear from until floor debate and/or votes.

BTW, the Senate is still session, but the House adjourned last night and is in recess until September 14th.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/01/2010 04:02 am
Very interesting article on what happenned in the House and why a vote wasn't held today:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html
Frustrating...wish they'd just take the Senate bill and go with it!

Not sure what dog Ohio has in the fight, but California wants to be a full-on space state, and commercial space seems to be the only path available to us. The CA Democrats in both the House and Senate are united along with many Republicans on this.

The Glenn research center is involved in a lot of R&D and Technology. So they liked the FY2011 NASA Budget.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 02:21 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 08/06/2010 02:32 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 02:35 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

Not to be a negative ninny, but could the President still throw it all out when it arrives at his desk, or are vetos rare?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnF on 08/06/2010 02:36 am
So this means the Senate part is done now and they just send it over to the House to  blend theirs and the Senate's together to make the final bill that goes to Obama, are we really that close to getting this over, if so when does the prez sign ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/06/2010 02:54 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

Not to be a negative ninny, but could the President still throw it all out when it arrives at his desk, or are vetos rare?

Yes he could, however, doing so would consume an enormous amount of political capital.

Especially after unanimous consent by the entire Senate.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 08/06/2010 02:54 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

Not to be a negative ninny, but could the President still throw it all out when it arrives at his desk, or are vetos rare?

Sure.  The president can veto any bill coming out of congress.  It's a component of the "check and balances" system.  That said, the white house *supposedly* has endorsed the Senate bill. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 08/06/2010 03:03 am
Also, anyone know what the amendments were?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 08/06/2010 03:04 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Cool. Also, I read that the House is being called back from recess next week in order to vote on (and pass presumably) a state aid bill the Senate just passed. Question for anyone in the know, like 51D: is there any conceivable chance that House will take up the NASA bill when they are back? Or will they burn up the hallways sprinting back out as soon as the one state aid vote happens? Or am I completely confused about how my own country's government works?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 08/06/2010 03:10 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Awesome news Chris!   Thanks for letting us know.

I'd like to know more about the amendments which were made, because I am hearing on the grape-vine that the House is currently not very far away from a compromise with the Senate bill.   It could be that the ongoing discussions with House members might have been the inspiration for these amendments, so that now the Senate bill is essentially "acceptable" to the House.   Obviously, that all a big "maybe", but it sounds like a plausible reason for the changes.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 08/06/2010 03:16 am
Not to be a negative ninny, but could the President still throw it all out when it arrives at his desk, or are vetos rare?

The White House is making it very clear behind closed doors that they are strongly in favour of the Senate compromise bill.   It gets them pretty-much everything they wanted in terms of education resources and commercial space flight and it keeps the peace with (and backing of) the Senate at the same time.   That's as good a win-win as anyone ever achieves in politics.

With that in mind, it is unlikely the House will stand resolutely against such a compromise -- they may just hold out for a handful of specific tweaks to make it more friendly to their own members.

I suspect that even if the House does sit again next week, they won't tackle this issue until September -- unless the deals are already worked out behind closed doors and all that remains is just a routine counting of the votes.

I suspect there is more in the pipeline than that though...   Maybe 51D can shed some light?

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 03:16 am
Waiting on the amendments, but the quote was "minor amendments". If it messed around with HLV etc, I doubt would be minor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 08/06/2010 03:20 am
Agreed Chris.

It is certainly a nail biting time for people like myself, not to mention the thousands of people who's careers depend on this.

Win or Lose, we're going "Into The Fire"* in the next two months.

Ross.

* PS - Another Bab-5 reference ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/06/2010 03:22 am
Waiting on the amendments, but the quote was "minor amendments". If it messed around with HLV etc, I doubt would be minor.

If the amendments messed around with HLV, Richard Shelby would not have agreed to a unanimous consent motion. Right?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/06/2010 05:51 am
Also, anyone know what the amendments were?

Just got home...a loooong day!  The amendments were pretty minor, and packaged throughout the day during conversations and negotiations with any Senator wishing to offer amendments, into what is called a "Manager's amendment" which is adopted first as part of the Unanimous Consent request made by the Majority Leader, and then the bill, as this amended, is passed. They include some language that opens up broader competition to eventually get a retired orbiter for display, some pretty tough accountability reporting language (some will consider it micromanaging language) regarding the HLLV and Multi-purpose crew vehicle developments to enable Congress to have a good look under the hood as the HLLV design is solidified and the programs get up and running (or "back up and running" as the case may be); a slight opening of the door for commercial crew development (up to $50m) in FY 2011 IF the required threshold work has been done (Human Rating system clarification, market analysis, procurement process definition, etc.) from within the funding allocated for CCDev in FY 2011. (The bill originally prohibited ANY actual development contracts in FY 2011); a couple of other technical provisions (PayGo language that is pretty much standard for auth bills these days, a word change here or there for clarity, etc.) That's pretty much it.

Hopefully, based on prior discussions between House and Senate committee leadership, this will be the legislative vehicle that the two bodies will use as the basis for "pre-conference" negotiations during the recess and hopefully arrive at a final consensus on language that can simply be inserted by the House as substitute language, passed, sent back to the Senate which can then accept the House amendment, and send it to the White House.  That could be done before the end of September. (After all, NO ONE thought the Senate would pass this bill by UC before the recess, so one could be reasonably comfortable in at least setting that sort of target.)

Bottom line is, this moves the ball a long way down the field towards getting an affirmative and positive policy foundation for NASA's future, especially in the areas of human spaceflight and commercial spaceflight. (and yes, I am biased in that view.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: e of pi on 08/06/2010 07:10 am
Bottom line is, this moves the ball a long way down the field towards getting an affirmative and positive policy foundation for NASA's future, especially in the areas of human spaceflight and commercial spaceflight. (and yes, I am biased in that view.)

I didn't want to get excited without justification, but hearing confirmation of what I thought this meant from someone as close to it as you are....this is great news. Keep doing the work you're doing. It's not just those who are in industry now or are fans now who are rooting you on. As someone who's eying this whole sequence of events with the "what might I be applying for in a few years" view of a college junior, this is also a big step towards a program I'd be excited to work on.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/06/2010 07:45 am
some pretty tough accountability reporting language (some will consider it micromanaging language) regarding the HLLV and Multi-purpose crew vehicle developments to enable Congress to have a good look under the hood as the HLLV design is solidified and the programs get up and running (or "back up and running" as the case may be);

a slight opening of the door for commercial crew development (up to $50m) in FY 2011 IF the required threshold work has been done (Human Rating system clarification, market analysis, procurement process definition, etc.) from within the funding allocated for CCDev in FY 2011. (The bill originally prohibited ANY actual development contracts in FY 2011);

Those amendments seem to be moving in the right direction, too.

Great news re hoped-for consensus with House.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/06/2010 11:00 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

FWIW, I think that a newly-elected House will be unlikely to want to cause too much disruption to a bill that passed by unanimous consent in the upper house.  New and returned representatives will want to focus on more publicity-generating issues like the economy, national defence and social issues.  The only thing that they want from this is to have photos taken shaking hands with Apollo veterans whilst standing next to a J-246H scale model.

Similarly, I think that the President knows that the coming Congress is going to give him a hard time.  I don't think that he will want to pick an unnecessary fight over something like this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2010 11:58 am
Newsflash:

The Senate just passed the Compromise bill - with some minor amendments - by unanimous consent 30 minutes ago. It now goes to the House for the final Senate-House compromise.

Great news! Now, that's a sign of intent and the House may align with the Senate. This could really throw out FY2011 for the better plan.

FWIW, I think that a newly-elected House will be unlikely to want to cause too much disruption to a bill that passed by unanimous consent in the upper house.
It would be an interesting parliamentary question if this bill lingered until the new (112th) Congress in January, but there are still multiple opportunities for the current (111th) Congress to pass it.  The House is reconvening next week to consider another bill that the Senate passed, there's a slim chance their authorization bill could be considered then.  This Congress will be in session again after Labor Day and after the election.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2010 12:07 pm
Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:
Quote
Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/06/2010 12:21 pm
Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:
Quote
Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

I think that means that President Obama is washing his hands of this matter.  That doesn't mean that he won't claim credit for any achievements during his term of office, of course. ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2010 12:26 pm
Orlando Sentinel story:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/senate-passes-nasa-compromise-bill.html

Interesting note in there:
Quote
Administration officials say that the White House is neither supporting nor opposing the bill.

I think that means that President Obama is washing his hands of this matter.  That doesn't mean that he won't claim credit for any achievements during his term of office, of course. ;)
It fits with how quiet NASA administration has been in the last several weeks.  It could mean one or more of several things going forward; I have no idea which one(s).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 12:27 pm
Also, anyone know what the amendments were?

Just got home...a loooong day!  The amendments were pretty minor, and packaged throughout the day during conversations and negotiations with any Senator wishing to offer amendments, into what is called a "Manager's amendment" which is adopted first as part of the Unanimous Consent request made by the Majority Leader, and then the bill, as this amended, is passed. They include some language that opens up broader competition to eventually get a retired orbiter for display, some pretty tough accountability reporting language (some will consider it micromanaging language) regarding the HLLV and Multi-purpose crew vehicle developments to enable Congress to have a good look under the hood as the HLLV design is solidified and the programs get up and running (or "back up and running" as the case may be); a slight opening of the door for commercial crew development (up to $50m) in FY 2011 IF the required threshold work has been done (Human Rating system clarification, market analysis, procurement process definition, etc.) from within the funding allocated for CCDev in FY 2011. (The bill originally prohibited ANY actual development contracts in FY 2011); a couple of other technical provisions (PayGo language that is pretty much standard for auth bills these days, a word change here or there for clarity, etc.) That's pretty much it.

Hopefully, based on prior discussions between House and Senate committee leadership, this will be the legislative vehicle that the two bodies will use as the basis for "pre-conference" negotiations during the recess and hopefully arrive at a final consensus on language that can simply be inserted by the House as substitute language, passed, sent back to the Senate which can then accept the House amendment, and send it to the White House.  That could be done before the end of September. (After all, NO ONE thought the Senate would pass this bill by UC before the recess, so one could be reasonably comfortable in at least setting that sort of target.)

Bottom line is, this moves the ball a long way down the field towards getting an affirmative and positive policy foundation for NASA's future, especially in the areas of human spaceflight and commercial spaceflight. (and yes, I am biased in that view.)

Can't believe you posted that at 2am your time! As much as we totally appreciate it, we can wait till the next day :)

However, those amendments really are minor, so that's great!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 08/06/2010 12:29 pm
Can't believe you posted that at 2am your time! As much as we totally appreciate it, we can wait till the next day :)

However, those amendments really are minor, so that's great!

Yep, well done 51D Mascot.  You're doing a great job!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2010 01:56 pm
The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:)

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r111:@FIELD%28FLD003+d%29+@FIELD%28DDATE+20100805%29)

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r111:FLD001:S56982-S56983)

There, click on the NASA line item.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/06/2010 02:29 pm
Well, looks good so far. Good job, everyone involved in selling this idea to the Senate!

Next step is getting the house to pass it. If it's like the Senate bill, I'm sure the WH will sign it. The nice thing is that it's probably enough of a compromise that it will likely survive if Obama is reelected or not... assuming we don't go into a deeper recession. Hopefully the oversight language does more to keep this plan from "going Griffin," though I'm not convinced the oversight would prevent that sort of thing. Also, it's good something like commercial crew has a chance to get started in FY2011.

Good job, everyone involved in DIRECT! Though, it's not over until the Prez signs it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/06/2010 02:40 pm
I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

Quote
On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 08/06/2010 03:56 pm
I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

Quote
On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.


I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/06/2010 03:57 pm
The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:)

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r111:@FIELD%28FLD003+d%29+@FIELD%28DDATE+20100805%29)

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r111:FLD001:S56982-S56983)

There, click on the NASA line item.


There is a slight correction that will appear in the enrolled version of the bill; the reference to inserting a table of contents reference to Sec 505 will be deleted, because that new section had to be deleted from the manager's amendment due to some concerns with Congressional Budget Office scoring that could not be resolved before the amendment had to be addressed, so that section was pulled, but the reference to the section was not. That was corrected by the Clerk, and should not appear in the enrolled version of the bill that goes to the House. There will also be a new reference in the contents to the new Section 309 on Reporting requirements, since making that a separate Section instead of a sub-paragraph of the Title was a hand-written change made in "real time" to the amendment just prior to consideration (based on hold-related negotiations), so was not reflected in the original version. Minor technical details that often have to be taken care of by the Clerks when pulling together all the various bits and pieces of "moving target amendments" like a Manager's amendment is when working through a UC process. A definite "sausage-making" kind of activity, hehe, and too much "inside baseball" here.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/06/2010 03:58 pm
I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

Quote
On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.


I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.

They are considered calendar days as a matter of practice, but the speed with which NASA usually provides them, you'd think it was assumed to be something far greater than a series of 24-hour periods. On the other hand, it's more important to have the report contain useful information rather than something done in a hurry-up to meet a deadline, so these are generally taken to be "preferred dates" and there is often subsequent communication and agreement that a bit more time is needed to ensure the best data can be provided.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 08/06/2010 04:28 pm
Thanks 51D. In looking ahead to the fall (in a general time-frame where this bill might be signed) there are huge differances between those three forms of "90 days."

In seeing how the current NASA management responds to the Congress, perhaps they should come up with a new term, such as "NASA days" or perhaps "Bolden Days."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/06/2010 05:08 pm
I believe this is the "accountability reporting" section that 51D Mascot is referring to:

Quote
On page 36, after line 25, insert the following:

SEC. 309. Report Requirement.--Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, or upon completion of reference designs for the Space Launch System and multi-purpose crew vehicle authorized by this Act, whichever occurs first, the Administrator shall provide a detailed report to the appropriate committees of Congress that provides an overall description of the reference vehicle design, the assumptions, description, data, and analysis of the systems trades and resolution process, justification of trade decisions, the design factors which implement the essential system and vehicle capability requirements established by this Act, the explanation and justification of any deviations from those requirements, the plan for utilization of existing contracts, civil service and contract workforce, supporting infrastructure utilization and modifications, and procurement strategy to expedite development activities through modification of existing contract vehicles, and the schedule of design and development milestones and related schedules leading to the accomplishment of operational goals established by this Act. The Administrator shall provide an update of this report as part of the President's annual Budget Request.


I'm wondering if that is 90 calender days, 90 federal business days or 90 Congressional session days?

Not joking here- it's important. Perhaps the actual deffinition is in the Senate prublications.

They are considered calendar days as a matter of practice, but the speed with which NASA usually provides them, you'd think it was assumed to be something far greater than a series of 24-hour periods. On the other hand, it's more important to have the report contain useful information rather than something done in a hurry-up to meet a deadline, so these are generally taken to be "preferred dates" and there is often subsequent communication and agreement that a bit more time is needed to ensure the best data can be provided.

Thanks for all the great updates. It's so very much appreciated.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/06/2010 05:29 pm
Thanks 51D. In looking ahead to the fall (in a general time-frame where this bill might be signed) there are huge differances between those three forms of "90 days."

In seeing how the current NASA management responds to the Congress, perhaps they should come up with a new term, such as "NASA days" or perhaps "Bolden Days."

51D.. A better question is.. is 90 days(however you count it) enough time for NASA to optimize their projections and plan for In-line design to anywhere near the extent they have already done so for Side-mount?  I hope this ends up being a "fair" fight where in-line gets it's own full optimized plan prior to trade decision.. and In-line is not stuck with the last "quicky" plan that was piggy backed using suboptimal(for in-line) parts pulled from the side-mount plan! 

Also, will congress have the perogative to change NASA "mind" as to which option is chosen if they are close in the trades?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2010 05:31 pm
The bill number for the Senate authorization is S. 3729.  The full text for the bill is not online yet, but it will be available in multiple places, including here:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729: (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.+3729:)

The Senate daily digest is up, now:
Link on Thomas/Library of Congress (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r111:@FIELD%28FLD003+d%29+@FIELD%28DDATE+20100805%29)

(Busy day -- and the Senate adjourned until September.)

Pages specific to yesterday's action on S. 3729:
Link to pages. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r111:FLD001:S56982-S56983)

There, click on the NASA line item.


There is a slight correction that will appear in the enrolled version of the bill; the reference to inserting a table of contents reference to Sec 505 will be deleted, because that new section had to be deleted from the manager's amendment due to some concerns with Congressional Budget Office scoring that could not be resolved before the amendment had to be addressed, so that section was pulled, but the reference to the section was not. That was corrected by the Clerk, and should not appear in the enrolled version of the bill that goes to the House. There will also be a new reference in the contents to the new Section 309 on Reporting requirements, since making that a separate Section instead of a sub-paragraph of the Title was a hand-written change made in "real time" to the amendment just prior to consideration (based on hold-related negotiations), so was not reflected in the original version. Minor technical details that often have to be taken care of by the Clerks when pulling together all the various bits and pieces of "moving target amendments" like a Manager's amendment is when working through a UC process. A definite "sausage-making" kind of activity, hehe, and too much "inside baseball" here.

One thing that I am still confused about is whether the numbers will be adjusted in the Authorization bill to reflect the numbers as they were proposed during the appropriation process. More specifically, will the Senate authorization bill reflect the numbers that were recommended in this document (starting at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

I am guessing that what ever numbers end up being in the Senate appropriation bill will trump the ones in the NASA authorization bill.

P.S. I found these documents which explain the authorization-appropriations process:
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RS20371.pdf
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/97-684_20081202.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr. mark on 08/06/2010 05:39 pm
well i'm glad the senate has passed their version of the bill. Looks good but what happens if when combining their bill with the House version Ares 1 is put into the mix? Are we back to looking at an unsustainable product and possibly if continued a 2030 target date again?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 08/06/2010 06:04 pm
Everybody's favorite former administrator Mike Griffin is in the process of giving (or just finished) a talk at the Mars Society convention. Courtesy of Jeff Foust, some interesting notes on his remarks on the Senate and House bills (not necessarily verbatim transcriptions):

http://twitter.com/jeff_foust
Quote
Griffin offers his summary of White House NASA plan: we're not going anywhere and spending a lot of money doing it.

Griffin: both House and Senate NASA auth bills "radically better" than WH plan, but not as good as program of record.

Griffin: if a comm'l ISS access provider has an accident, how do they stay in the business?

Griffin makes the case for having a gov't system for ISS as backup to comm'l and also prevent monopoly pricing by comm'l provider.

Griffin: a real program must have a goal, a date, and a budget, all of which must match up. Cannot rely on technical miracles.

Griffin: what is the role of a gov't-funded space program in a democratic society? Augustine Cmte's answer to this was right .

Griffin: Saturn V had the lowest useful payload capability for exploration beyond LEO, critiquing the 70-ton HLV in Senate bill.

Griffin said he guesses that NASA commercial crew funding will end up closer to Senate bill than House version or WH request.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 07:08 pm
Here's the Bill. Will go on the public sites later, so a nice little heads up :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: neilh on 08/06/2010 07:17 pm
Here's the Bill. Will go on the public sites later, so a nice little heads up :)

Thanks! One of these days I really need to write a tool to easily generate diffs between different versions of congressional bills...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/06/2010 08:16 pm
There's very few changes.

There's an addition of investments to improve launch infrastructure at NASA flight facilities scheduled to launch cargo to the ISS under COTS.

Some protection on against reliance on non-United States systems, including foreign rocket motors and foreign launch vehicles.

The "SEC. 309. REPORT REQUIREMENT" is an addition.

"In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Administrator may not execute any contract or procurement agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew services during fiscal year 2011." - is an amendment, and the follow on para is an addition.

There's an extra line on the disposal (hate that phrase) of orbiters - "or the retrieval of NASA manned space vehicles, or significant contributions to human space flight."

"SEC. 1103. NASA CAPABILITIES STUDY REQUIREMENT" - there's a re-write of that para. Same with "SEC. 1105. WORKFORCE STABILIZATION AND CRITICAL SKILLS PRESERVATION."

"TITLE XIII_COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010 SEC. 1301. COMPLIANCE PROVISION." - is an addition.

Rest is grammatical subediting of the bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: EE Scott on 08/06/2010 08:30 pm
Thanks Chris for bringing out these points!  Interesting stuff.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/06/2010 09:19 pm
There is also the "tons" vs metric "tonnes" issue.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/06/2010 11:49 pm
There is also the "tons" vs metric "tonnes" issue.

There is no issue. The US Congress only uses US units, and so they are US short tons (=2000 pounds). The fact that those numbers converted from short tons to kg almost perfectly match the projected performance of JSC's HLV reinforce the point.

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/appxc.cfm#5d
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/07/2010 04:27 pm
WOW! Back from vacation to some REALLY GREAT news!
WONDERFUL way to restart my daily grind!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/07/2010 06:21 pm
I heard that the senate added sts 135 to the reauthorization act.
Yes, it's been in the language in publicly released drafts / versions since last month.  The House bill was also amended to include a similar provision and authorize similar money.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 08/07/2010 06:41 pm
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/07/2010 06:52 pm
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?
Lots and lots of discussion...not really sure the best place to point you, but here's one thread comparing the versions (which are still subject some changes):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22328.0
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/07/2010 07:16 pm
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/08/2010 07:47 am
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/08/2010 09:38 am
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.

The next step will be for the Senate to ask the House to immediately begin preconference discussions with the Senate, using the Senate-passed bill as the base document, with a view to reaching agreement on a "consensus" draft which marries elements of the two bills, even if the House bill is not passed. Time is running out in the legislative session, and it only makes sense for those discussions to take place in the next several weeks, while the Congress is in recess, so that the consensus language could be amended into the Senate bill (which will be on the House Calendar after Monday), as soon as the House returns from the recess. This would be similar to the process followed in 2008, when the House passed a bill, then the Senate reported a bill, but did not press to pass it and, instead, a preconference series of discussions were held which resulted in a modification to the House bill by the Senate which had been agreed to in advance. The House then simply accepted the Senate amendment to their bill on the last day of the session (September 28th, as I recall) and sent it to the President for signature, which came on October 15th.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: SimonShuttle on 08/08/2010 09:50 am
I wonder who is installing the get-out clauses into the House bill.

Sorry about the format...

"The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has re2
viewed the safety issues associated with the additional
3 Shuttle mission as well as NASA’s plans to mitigate
4 any identified risks."

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away. ASAP have always been against Shuttle since Augustine and even before. And NASA have already said they really needed to know by July if they could fly this for planning purposes.

Of course, it's all words. If ASAP are so scared of STS-135, then don't fly STS-133 or STS-134, as they can't go running around saying the risk numbers suddenly go up after those flights.

This is probably the one area where Bolden, Garver (not an engineer, not an astronaut) and Griffin all agree, they want to kill shuttle. They have all the excuses they need in these bills so far, by simply turning around and saying "we don't think it is safe, so we're not doing it."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DavisSTS on 08/08/2010 10:03 am
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.

The next step will be for the Senate to ask the House to immediately begin preconference discussions with the Senate, using the Senate-passed bill as the base document, with a view to reaching agreement on a "consensus" draft which marries elements of the two bills, even if the House bill is not passed. Time is running out in the legislative session, and it only makes sense for those discussions to take place in the next several weeks, while the Congress is in recess, so that the consensus language could be amended into the Senate bill (which will be on the House Calendar after Monday), as soon as the House returns from the recess. This would be similar to the process followed in 2008, when the House passed a bill, then the Senate reported a bill, but did not press to pass it and, instead, a preconference series of discussions were held which resulted in a modification to the House bill by the Senate which had been agreed to in advance. The House then simply accepted the Senate amendment to their bill on the last day of the session (September 28th, as I recall) and sent it to the President for signature, which came on October 15th.

Thank you for your information, would be amazing if this all gets sorted out before STS-133.

Also, you make politics sound interesting, which is no small task to an Englishman, given our MPs would be more suited to the North Korean regime :D

It is interesting how they, the Senators especially, actually do fight for things like NASA. Nelson, Hutchison, and some others really do appear to work for supporting NASA and they are from different political parties I think.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2010 10:06 am
It would be nice if the centrifuge was kept from the House Bill as Low-G long term analysis would be a good thing to do as a heads-up for future exploration requirements. Would kind of make the ISS complete in my opinion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DavisSTS on 08/08/2010 10:07 am
I wonder who is installing the get-out clauses into the House bill.

Sorry about the format...

"The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has re2
viewed the safety issues associated with the additional
3 Shuttle mission as well as NASA’s plans to mitigate
4 any identified risks."

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away. ASAP have always been against Shuttle since Augustine and even before. And NASA have already said they really needed to know by July if they could fly this for planning purposes.

Of course, it's all words. If ASAP are so scared of STS-135, then don't fly STS-133 or STS-134, as they can't go running around saying the risk numbers suddenly go up after those flights.

This is probably the one area where Bolden, Garver (not an engineer, not an astronaut) and Griffin all agree, they want to kill shuttle. They have all the excuses they need in these bills so far, by simply turning around and saying "we don't think it is safe, so we're not doing it."

Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2010 10:13 am
Retrieval of the failed pump module for analysis would be another good reason for doing STS-135.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/08/2010 10:50 am
It would be nice if the centrifuge was kept from the House Bill as Low-G long term analysis would be a good thing to do as a heads-up for future exploration requirements. Would kind of make the ISS complete in my opinion.

Yep. An ISS centrifuge research capability would be great! Lunar bases would allow for 1/6 G experimental research. You might want to put a centrifuge on the Moon and do a wide range of G research. But Lunar bases may be quite a few years down the road.

Cheers!   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 08/08/2010 10:56 am
You could mimic the Martian gravity too as well as trial running artificial gravities of proposed future spaceships/stations. Could provide quite a library of data for future use. Without it the first long-term dwellers on the Moon/Mars are the guinea pigs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/08/2010 11:58 am
Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe ;)
That might be logical and reasonable, but politically it's debatable.  The ASAP was specifically directed by Congress after the STS-107 accident to report annually on "the Administration's compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board through retirement of the Space Shuttle."
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/charter.html

Their position likely continues to have a good deal of influence inside the Beltway, including opposition to a true Shuttle extension and the skepticism about EELV HR that you noted.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/08/2010 04:32 pm
Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe ;)
That might be logical and reasonable, but politically it's debatable.  The ASAP was specifically directed by Congress after the STS-107 accident to report annually on "the Administration's compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board through retirement of the Space Shuttle."
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/charter.html

Their position likely continues to have a good deal of influence inside the Beltway, including opposition to a true Shuttle extension and the skepticism about EELV HR that you noted.


ASAP opposed adding Launch on Need, yet it's in both bills(though only in the House bill as a result of an amendment during mark-up). The Senate Bill (Section 503(e)(2)) designates the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, NOT ASAP, as the organization to assess the safety issues for 135.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/08/2010 05:23 pm
Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe ;)
That might be logical and reasonable, but politically it's debatable.  The ASAP was specifically directed by Congress after the STS-107 accident to report annually on "the Administration's compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board through retirement of the Space Shuttle."
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/charter.html

Their position likely continues to have a good deal of influence inside the Beltway, including opposition to a true Shuttle extension and the skepticism about EELV HR that you noted.


ASAP opposed adding Launch on Need, yet it's in both bills(though only in the House bill as a result of an amendment during mark-up). The Senate Bill (Section 503(e)(2)) designates the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, NOT ASAP, as the organization to assess the safety issues for 135.
They did, but I view a slight "softening" in their stance that's applicable to flying the last launch hardware set.  The 2008 report (http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2008_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf) (released in Spring 2009) and Admiral Dyer's testimony last September (http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2009/Full/15sep/Dyer_Testimony.pdf) was unequivocal:

Quote
As it is directly related, I want to share the ASAP’s strongly held position regarding the Shuttle:  ASAP does not support extending the shuttle beyond the current manifest.

(The emphasis was Admiral Dyer's, I believe.)

The 2009 report (http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/documents/2009_ASAP_Annual_Report.pdf), though, adds a qualifier to that statement and goes on to further qualify things:

Quote
The Panel does not support extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest.  We are especially concerned over any kind of "serial extension" where a few flights at a time might be added.

(My emphasis.)

I think the ASAP equivocated a little bit and I think 2009 report statement provides much more political latitude for flying an additional mission with the left-over LON hardware.  Beyond that, not as much.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/09/2010 12:43 pm
Writing up notes on STS-135 news, article will be today.

Notably, "All feedback indicates that both informally and formally, they approve" - via meeting with ASAP, so they shouldn't be an issue for this imminent decision.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/09/2010 04:00 pm
Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction :)

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

It's the latest bill. It wasn't passed before recess because some Representatives from Ohio and California wanted to amend it further for the reasons that you have mentionned.

P.S. For more on this, see the previous posts on the House bill (and on the Politico article) here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg623643#msg623643
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/10/2010 10:41 am
Thanks for that yg1986. I hope these do get at least the senate's proposed level of funding. 0.25-0.4 billion is not chickenfeed. We should expect results whenever we spend that sort of money.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/10/2010 12:41 pm
Writing up notes on STS-135 news, article will be today.

Notably, "All feedback indicates that both informally and formally, they approve" - via meeting with ASAP, so they shouldn't be an issue for this imminent decision.

And the article is published:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/planning-pre-empts-imminent-decision-sts-135/
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/10/2010 02:54 pm
Quote
To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.
True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 08/10/2010 02:58 pm
Exactly right. I would also state the following: If ethier Bolden or Garver attempts to undermine or otherwise delay/disrupt the compromise plan after it has been implement, they will be fired without hesitation.

Recall that Bolden hasn't been seen since that PR disaster and that apparently the WH approves of the Senate bill (which is counter to everything Bolden/Garver were out "campaigning" for)

Once implemented it will go as planned, with or without those two.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kirghizstan on 08/10/2010 03:04 pm
Quote
To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.
True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/10/2010 03:05 pm
As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".
ASAP defined what they meant, and your definition would qualify as "significant."  Nevertheless, the provision in the Senate authorization bill leaves the door open (at least a little bit and for a little longer) to the kind of "serial extension" that ASAP defined.  (STS-135 is an exception.)

But this just doubles back on 3+ years of discussion on this -- there's still no budget relief to continue funding Shuttle operations, so if one is going to do that, what other NASA program(s) get cut?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 08/10/2010 03:08 pm
Quote
To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.
True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?
There are other fully completed tanks.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 08/10/2010 03:11 pm
There are other fully completed tanks.
The parts for a few more tanks have been manufactured, but there are no other tanks close to being ready for delivery except for ET-122.  (And no money has been set aside to finish assembly -- with the exception of ET-94 in the Senate authorization bill.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/10/2010 04:30 pm
Exactly right. I would also state the following: If ethier Bolden or Garver attempts to undermine or otherwise delay/disrupt the compromise plan after it has been implement, they will be fired without hesitation.

Recall that Bolden hasn't been seen since that PR disaster and that apparently the WH approves of the Senate bill (which is counter to everything Bolden/Garver were out "campaigning" for)

Once implemented it will go as planned, with or without those two.

Why would they be fired? It was their job to defend the FY2011 NASA Budget whether they agreed with it or not. Likewise, it will be their job to implement this compromise.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 08/10/2010 05:15 pm
Actually most of this will simply be fun to watch. Bolden has stated publically that flying the shuttle is "like playing Russian roulette." Now, if the Congress directs that more shuttle flights should be made, he will have to send his crews out with that statement on the record. Additionally, both Bolden and Garver, are political anmials, yet serve at the pleasure of the president. So, if Obama goes along with what the Congress is poised to direct, they will be forced to eat a lot of their words in order to keep in line with both politics and their boss. Thus if the Congress goes in the current direction, it will be interesting to see just how dedicated the two administrators are to that direction.

My bet is on Bolden being a good Marine- he'll say "Yes sir" and move out. (Either that or his will explode like a muppet).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/10/2010 05:24 pm
Shuttle is the "safest its ever been," but it still doesn't have a proper LAS, and adding one would greatly reduce the payload of the Shuttle to almost nothing.

Bolden's statement is true. It's something that all astronauts have to face, and if his saying it unnerves some astronauts, then they have not chosen the right career. He was only stating the obvious to Congresscritters who sometimes don't have a heck of a lot of commonsense (or at least ignore it). The statement wasn't made in a vacuum, either... You can't disregard the context.

EDIT:That said, I still think STS-135 makes sense.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/10/2010 06:45 pm
Glad to hear things are continuing to move forward. Was out of the loop for the past week or so. Thanks for all the updates Chris and 51D!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/10/2010 07:39 pm
Quote
Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gladiator1332 on 08/10/2010 07:51 pm
Quote
Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".

Agreed. While some have made poor decisions in the past, and there are some who are there for the title (had a Representative come into one of my classes and talked to us about that issue), the majority of Congressmen (another acceptable term in my book) are doing a great service to our country, and I am sure it is a VERY stressful job.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/10/2010 07:56 pm
Quote
Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".
They are citizens just like me. They deserve no more respect than anyone else. Respect can be earned or lost.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Current Congressional disapproval rating: 72.2%

Is anyone allowed a little freedom of expression, anymore?

There are all manner of populist arguments I could make right now, but this is not the thread for it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/10/2010 08:08 pm
It's still disrespectful of those who honestly do work hard.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 08/10/2010 08:20 pm
It's still disrespectful of those who honestly do work hard.
I'm just going on what I saw in the various hearings.

It's a generalization, and I'm sure that the nobler members of Congress aren't affected by it. Consider it motivation to change for the less nobler members!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 08/10/2010 08:25 pm
True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Just to be clear, when the current administration took office, or even during the transition, we were quite far from actually terminating the program.  In fact jn late 2008/early 2009 we were still very much in the thick of processing/launches/missions. 

Shuttle retirement and a "go/no-go" decision, for lack of a better word, was listed in the top 10 items needing immediate attention and a decision from the incoming administration by the GAO.  We heard nothing and still to this day have heard nothing.  Nothing was mentioned on April 15 certainly.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 08/13/2010 11:18 pm
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/14/2010 12:42 am
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?

ummm...except for the little word 'likely' that's in there. But I'm certainly hoping.  :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 08/14/2010 01:42 am
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?


Yes, it is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr278):
Click one of the "Full Display" links.

A couple other interesting bits not highlighted in the spacenews article:
Quote
Section 302. Space Launch System as follow-on launch vehicle to the Space Shuttle.
<snip>
Should resources and manufacturing capacity be available to permit parallel development of both the core elements of the launch system and an integrated upper stage for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the Committee believes such concurrent development should be pursued.

In order to meet the mission and cost goals of the vehicle authorized by this section, NASA should focus on designing and building `to cost' versus overall performance. The Committee notes that this requirement represents a fundamental change from NASA's recent history with the Constellation program and a number of previous NASA launch initiatives, and believes it is critical that NASA follow this guidance. In the near-term, NASA should maximize the use of existing assets and capabilities from Shuttle and Ares programs to the extent practicable, while constraining requirements and performance to only those necessary to meet the schedule authorized for early operational capability. Modifications of ground infrastructure and other elements to support the vehicle should be minimized.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 08/14/2010 01:58 am
A couple other interesting bits not highlighted in the spacenews article:
Quote
Section 302. Space Launch System as follow-on launch vehicle to the Space Shuttle.
...
In order to meet the mission and cost goals of the vehicle authorized by this section, NASA should focus on designing and building `to cost' versus overall performance. The Committee notes that this requirement represents a fundamental change from NASA's recent history with the Constellation program and a number of previous NASA launch initiatives, and believes it is critical that NASA follow this guidance. In the near-term, NASA should maximize the use of existing assets and capabilities from Shuttle and Ares programs to the extent practicable, while constraining requirements and performance to only those necessary to meet the schedule authorized for early operational capability. Modifications of ground infrastructure and other elements to support the vehicle should be minimized.
     The language about "designing and building to cost vs performance", and "modifications ... should be minimized" would seem to speak more to sidemount. JSC, at least, believes that sidemount is cheaper and faster (and hence cheaper) than inline. Ross maintains that the older studies show that inline is cheaper in production, and now that inline is getting more recent official study within NASA to catch up with not-shuttle-C that may turn out to be the case, but that's not what the official presentations say yet.
    Sounds like sidemount could win on the most short-term perspective.
     -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnF on 08/14/2010 02:20 am
Sidemount doesn't go well with the safety requirements ie: "Let your troubles be behind you".
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: SpaceDave on 08/14/2010 02:34 am
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?



Reports are generally available on THOMAS.

They are not, however, binding law.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 08/14/2010 03:46 am
Ross maintains that the older studies show that inline is cheaper in production, and now that inline is getting more recent official study within NASA to catch up with not-shuttle-C that may turn out to be the case

Does anybody know where these studies are or have any details about them, like authors, dates or titles?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/14/2010 04:38 am
More from the Thomas link

Quote
Section 308. Development of technologies and in-space capabilities for beyond near-Earth space missions.

      This section would authorize the Administrator to develop technologies necessary for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. To develop these technologies, this section would allow the Administrator to invest in a space suit, a space-based transfer vehicle, advanced life support capabilities, improved in-space propulsion systems, in-space propellant transfer and storage systems, in situ resource utilization capabilities, and technologies to mitigate of biological impediments to human deep space missions, including radiation challenges. This section would allow the Administrator to utilize the ISS as a test-bed for technologies developed in these areas, where applicable, and require the Administrator to pursue technology development through a coordinated agency technology approach, which includes mission-driven technology developments and risk reduction.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 08/15/2010 12:40 am
Another interesting bit from the report:

Quote
Section 1103. NASA capabilities study requirement.
This section would, after the completion of the study described
in section 1102, require the Administrator to contract with an inde-
pendent entity to submit a report to Congress within 1 year from
initiation of this analysis that examines alternative management
models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, including
the potential conversion of NASA centers to federally funded re-
search and development centers
.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 08/15/2010 12:53 am
Quote
Section 1103. [...] alternative management
models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, including
the potential conversion of NASA centers to federally funded re-
search and development centers
.

Wow!  Thanks for pointing that out!  It could potentially lead, maybe some day, to a more efficient NASA....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 08/15/2010 01:07 am
From the Space News article:

Quote
Jim Muncy, a space policy consultant here, said the $7 billion the bill authorizes over three years for the new rocket may not be enough to undertake a major development program while also sustaining the U.S. solid-rocket motor industrial base, which has more capacity than business.

“If you’ve got to spend $600 million or $700 million a year to keep the base alive, that’s a fairly substantial fraction of your heavy-lift launch development budget keeping that industrial capacity in place,” he said. “It’s very expensive to have those fixed costs while you’re trying to develop something new.”

Do those fixed costs actually come from the SLS development budget, and not the Space Operations budget?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/15/2010 03:25 am
From the Space News article:

Quote
Jim Muncy, a space policy consultant here, said the $7 billion the bill authorizes over three years for the new rocket may not be enough to undertake a major development program while also sustaining the U.S. solid-rocket motor industrial base, which has more capacity than business.

“If you’ve got to spend $600 million or $700 million a year to keep the base alive, that’s a fairly substantial fraction of your heavy-lift launch development budget keeping that industrial capacity in place,” he said. “It’s very expensive to have those fixed costs while you’re trying to develop something new.”

Do those fixed costs actually come from the SLS development budget, and not the Space Operations budget?

Issue is on assumptions being made regarding the sustainment of the industrial base; there are steps being taken to reduce that industrial capacity requirement which could change the relevant  assumptions. Consideration of the potential for such changes played a role in the general approach to require use of large diameter solids in space launch system architecture development; the prof will be in the "pudding" as the SLS architecture prescribed in the Senate bill is refined and matured into  baseline design. The bill language is intended to set up that trade space but on a somewhat constrained basis, in order to avoid a wide-open "design spree" without any performance and mission constraints.  It is also obvious that the out year projections for development costs will almost certainly need to be revisited in subsequent years and modifications to funding profiles made, as appropriate. But starting with a constrained baseline is felt to be the prudent and responsible approach, in the Senate bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/15/2010 04:00 am

Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/ - and that is from the absolute master presentation of all things SD HLV, period.

Where things will stand after the inline assessment is brought up to speed is where the interest is, and where people say inline will win through....

....but that's only just started.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/15/2010 09:48 am

Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/ - and that is from the absolute master presentation of all things SD HLV, period.

Where things will stand after the inline assessment is brought up to speed is where the interest is, and where people say inline will win through....

....but that's only just started.

Presumably JSC have a better understanding of the side-mount config, because that's what they work with now. I do wonder whether MSFC quite share that view, and I believe the Senate bill pushes te work their way.

However, your post raises the question for me whether MSFC might prefer to build an in-line, but the cost constraints force them to go side-mount because it's cheaper to develop.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Martin FL on 08/15/2010 02:09 pm
And let's not forget we have a NASA administrator who's against Shuttle and SD HLV, and who's not been seen since the Muslim outreach scandal.

At a time NASA needs a leader, we've got a political yes man.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/15/2010 02:42 pm
Quote
Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?
I don't think so.  The way I look at it, those various tanks and assorted other hardware were made for the shuttle.  The modifications required would be more correctly described as "finishing the job".  To argue too much about the meaning of the word "significant" would not further either viewpoint; one extra flight versus five extra flights.

The diameter of the tank is similar for the Jupiter class vehicle, so this aspect of the tooling will continue to be used.  Obviously tank diameter is not the only aspect of tank manufacture, but the fierce debate between 8.4m and 10m should indicate that this is a significant tooling cost; we have the former, but not the latter, for one thing.  In addition, this size constraint trickles down thru manufacturing, barge transport, cape assembly, and so on, with greater or lesser costs.  I'm thinking that if you had to choose one factor not to change, this would be it.

The load paths from sidemount are going to be more complicated than inline because of assymetry; same with the assymetrical aerodynamic loading; same with design of an LAS.  So it seems to me that this decision has to be made soon as well.  While the shuttle continues to fly, these decisions will have to be finalized, if I had my way.  Then the next tanks to be made would be for this Jupiter class vehicle.

As to the money for these extra flights, it seems to me like it's already there, at least the gross dollar amount, should the work be prioritized properly.  Again, if I had my way, I would stop further work on the intricacies of side-mount, with that effort to be concentrated on the inline design.  I think it is more important to launch a rocket than to explore the alternate design virtually to the point of completion before making a decision.

True, Joe's Side-Mount Bracket Shop will stand to lose this exact segment of his business.  The issue in this case will be whether Joe refuses to change his business model and adapt, or whether Joe will get his congress critter to sacrifice our nation's dire need for accomplishment in order to save Joe's job, but for no other reason.  I think this is part of the sausage making going on right now.
Quote
And no money has been set aside to finish assembly...
It just can't be cheaper to throw away a tank partially built for the shuttle, and start designing a new tank from scratch.  If no money has ben "set aside", then this points to an accounting prioritization, not to a request for more money, especially considering that no money has been officially disbursed yet for any purpose.
Quote
Bolden has stated publically that flying the shuttle is "like playing Russian roulette."
He did accept that particular job and he had to acknowledge that he would have to follow orders, despite what his prior opinions might have been.  At the same time, I believe that every astro in the program realizes that the Disney Steel Eel ride is a demonstrably safer ride.  That the "safety" issue keeps being raised really irks me to no end, because the pols keep lying about this.  I don't care what the vehicle is, no proponent is arguing to launch an "unsafe" vehicle, purposely meant to be "unsafe".  This is what the pols keep implying, and it is not true.

Critters?  Sorry, Chuck.  Gotta disagree on this one.  They're "critters".  They have played the most influential role in ensuring that: their members get special treatment, our education system is failing, our infrastructure is rotting, our deficits are phenomenal, our social safety nets are nearly gone, our employment is high, our elective wars are out of control, our helath care system is a mess, our financial industry can destabilize the country, our nearly unregulated industries can pollute the gulf, Social Security is constantly in doubt, our immigration policies are simply not enforced, and last, but not least, that we have stayed on planet for forty years, unnecessarily.  And personal favorite: that Chinese honey laundering goes on virtually unabated.  This is a short list.  I may have omitted one or possibly two other items.

Sadly, the few good ones do get painted with this brush.

Quote
At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle...
I understand that to be the case as it stands today.  I have read some of that paper, and I am not convinced of its neutrality, and I understand also that it is not complete.  I will read everything I can.

Quote
Either that or his will explode like a muppet.
That would be a YewToob moment.  Segue to Marlin Perkins: "And if your head is exploding like a muppet, remember your friends at Mutual of Omaha...."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/15/2010 04:33 pm
Presumably JSC have a better understanding of the side-mount config, because that's what they work with now. I do wonder whether MSFC quite share that view, and I believe the Senate bill pushes te work their way.

However, your post raises the question for me whether MSFC might prefer to build an in-line, but the cost constraints force them to go side-mount because it's cheaper to develop.

Marshall does seem to prefer an inline configuration, I can assume at least partially because it's a cleaner design.

And remember, these are the some of the same folks that built a full-scale Shuttle-C back in 1989!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 08/15/2010 07:26 pm

Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

I meant in terms of Congressional preference, since the report specifies inline.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Scotty on 08/15/2010 11:34 pm
Marshall does seem to prefer an inline configuration, I can assume at least partially because it's a cleaner design.

And remember, these are the some of the same folks that built a full-scale Shuttle-C back in 1989! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachments


 shuttle_c_031113a_02.jpg (36.38 KB, 600x400 - viewed 18 times.)
 
 
Back in 1989 (20 plus years ago!), Shuttle C would have been the very best way to go. The Shuttle was still flying and having a cargo vehicle that used exactly the same launch infrastructure as the Shuttle would have been the only way to go.
But we are way past that now, as the Shuttle will be gone for years before the new HLV is ready to fly.
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/18/2010 09:05 pm
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.

I wouldn't say none, as the JSC Sidemount does get away with not having to replace/modify a lot of systems at KSC and MAF, and so could be ready sooner for cheaper initial costs. Its disadvantages come into play in the longer term, with flexibility and recurring costs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/18/2010 10:12 pm
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.

I wouldn't say none, as the JSC Sidemount does get away with not having to replace/modify a lot of systems at KSC and MAF, and so could be ready sooner for cheaper initial costs. Its disadvantages come into play in the longer term, with flexibility and recurring costs.

Not so. They still need to build that side mount pod which EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET (or ignore) is not just an empty can mounted on the side. It's a brand new space shuttle orbiter minus the tiles and wings. It's a huge bloody rocket all by itself with propulsion and avionics all it's own. It's expensive as all hell.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 08/18/2010 10:28 pm
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.

I wouldn't say none, as the JSC Sidemount does get away with not having to replace/modify a lot of systems at KSC and MAF, and so could be ready sooner for cheaper initial costs. Its disadvantages come into play in the longer term, with flexibility and recurring costs.

Not so. They still need to build that side mount pod which EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET (or ignore) is not just an empty can mounted on the side. It's a brand new space shuttle orbiter minus the tiles and wings. It's a huge bloody rocket all by itself with propulsion and avionics all it's own. It's expensive as all hell.

It's important not to *overstate* it either. The *current* sidemount concept remains attached to the ET and does not go into orbit with the payload, so it is not as complex as a Shuttle-C type of design would have been. In particular, the current sidemount needs *no* additional avionics above what inline needs, nor does it need propulsion other than the SSMEs (which are also needed for inline). This means the payload needs propulsion, but that is the case regardless.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 08/18/2010 11:05 pm
Nor does sidemount have OMS/RCS, fuel cells and PRSD tanks, ET disconnects, etc.  It is about as close to an "empty can" as you can get, I mean heck, half of jetisons off during ascent.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/19/2010 03:36 am
Not so. They still need to build that side mount pod which EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET (or ignore) is not just an empty can mounted on the side. It's a brand new space shuttle orbiter minus the tiles and wings. It's a huge bloody rocket all by itself with propulsion and avionics all it's own. It's expensive as all hell.

Chuck, one would think that you hadn't actually read the JSC HLV study on L2. The current sidemount design (first presented publicly over a year ago) is no more complex than an equal-sized inline design.

And I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid that inline is going to be cheap on the infrastructure. The point is that it's cleaner-sheet, and that's going to extend to KSC and MAF...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/19/2010 09:01 am
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.

I wouldn't say none, as the JSC Sidemount does get away with not having to replace/modify a lot of systems at KSC and MAF, and so could be ready sooner for cheaper initial costs.

How much of this infrastructure is really re-used?

It is my understanding that Ares-I-X pretty much trashed Pad 39B's FSS, which had been partially disassembled anyway to fit I-X on it.  The high bays in the VAB would need to be modified as the work platforms would need to be re-shaped for the Side-mount cargo pod, which is wider than the shuttle orbiter.  It is also my understanding that both the pads at LC-39 will need a degree of refurbishment because of the damage caused by SRM exhaust products over the past 30 years and that the MLPs may also need replacement too, no matter what vehicle is chosen.

IMHO, Side-Mount will require as many infrastructure changes & refurbishment as In-line, just different ones.  It is unlikely that they will necessarily turn out The question is more about what kind of vehicle you want.  All the data I've seen suggests that In-line is more adaptable and has higher payload limits than Side-Mount.

@simonbp,

JSC's study is disadvantaged by proposing a completely artificial three-stage evolution (Side-Mount, Hybrid, In-line) that requires the development of three different engine boat-tails, at least one extra redesign of the ET and at least one extra refurbishiment of the VAB high bays.  I've got a feeling that going direct to In-line would cost a lot less and provide a lot more capability and far more quickly.

[edit]
Just to emphasise, my understanding of the JSC study is that they agreed that In-line in some form would eventually be necessary.  Wouldn't it be better to save money and go directly there? An in-line SLS-Medium (J-130) would have the same capabilities as the Side-Mount and be quickly evolvable into the SLS-Heavy (J-246/-241) without costly extra infrastructure and vehicle redesigns.

The JSC Three-Stage HLV evolution is in many ways repeating the key conceptual failing of the published form of ESAS - the fallacy that NASA can afford to develop and field multiple heavy launcher types over a very tight time-frame.

Now it becomes political - are certain individuals willing to have an HLV if it doesn't look like an evolved shuttle to the untutored eye?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Integrator on 08/19/2010 10:09 am
Why are we still discussing sidemount here? It is time to face reality and move forward.  No amount of wishful thinking or evangelizing will ever bring it back folks.  The decision has been made.  Let's move on.

INTEGRATOR
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/19/2010 10:45 am
JSC's study is disadvantaged by proposing a completely artificial three-stage evolution (Side-Mount, Hybrid, In-line) that requires the development of three different engine boat-tails, at least one extra redesign of the ET and at least one extra refurbishiment of the VAB high bays.  I've got a feeling that going direct to In-line would cost a lot less and provide a lot more capability and far more quickly.

That wasn't the recommended way forward, just one way to end up with in-line.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/19/2010 01:58 pm
Quote
They still need to build that side mount pod which EVERYONE SEEMS TO FORGET (or ignore) is not just an empty can mounted on the side.
Except for me?

This is largely why I believe that the partially finished tanks that we already have should be used on the shuttle.  They are already fashioned for this exact purpose.

That the shuttle looks like a rig is because of the circumstances surrounding the decisions at the time of design.  Fine.  It's time to move on.  The assymetrical design, is fraught with unnecessary complications in this day and age, I'd say.  That "The *current* sidemount concept remains attached to the ET and does not go into orbit with the payload" is a small advantage for unmanned cargo flights only, IMO.

If Ben is right, there are no substantial infrastructure benefits either.  Clearly, limitations on payload diameter and length are less critical with in-line.  There is also the design time and cost necessary for the "three stage evolution" that Ben alludes to.  It may be, in some extremely narrow interpretation of optimization, that side-mount will come in a day sooner and a dollar cheaper than in-line.  The other thing going on is that ultimately, we want an in-line vehicle and really are wasting time and money considering the side-mount alternative in any more exhausting detail.

The things I've read so far are so fraught with exceptions and seemingly carefully constructed exclusions, that it is beyond my capabilities to justify my opinion.  Like the shock waves from the sidemount LAS?

I think that the most important part of the term "shuttle derived" is tank diameter.  From that Report on S3729:

Quote
Section 203. Assurance of core capabilities.
This section would provide a sense of Congress that existing space capabilities such as the ISS and Space Shuttle, and initial capabilities of follow-on transportation systems should be utilized to provide operational experience, technology development, and the requisite infrastructure for expanded future exploration missions.
This section also would require the Administrator to refurbish the ET-94 Space Shuttle external tank as a means of retaining necessary skills and capabilities in the fabrication and preparation for
flight readiness of large-diameter vehicle components necessary for development of the new Space Launch System.

Stick the damn thing in-line and let's move on.  [If I may be allowed to be one of 'us'.]
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/19/2010 03:25 pm
Why are we still discussing sidemount here? It is time to face reality and move forward.  No amount of wishful thinking or evangelizing will ever bring it back folks.  The decision has been made.  Let's move on.

INTEGRATOR

You make that sound as if it is already off the table...but is it?

Unless you're making that a conclusive statement of fact? (hopefully) ;)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/19/2010 03:55 pm
IMHO, Side-Mount will require as many infrastructure changes & refurbishment as In-line, just different ones.

I wouldn't go that far; JSC's assertion that Sidemount would require almost no changes is an exaggeration, but Sidemount would definitely require less. If nothing else, Inline needs a taller launch tower than the FSS, and some way of keeping it from falling over during rollout. While Sidemount, on the other hand, could use existing MLPs and at least the 39A FSS/RSS.

Quote
The question is more about what kind of vehicle you want.  All the data I've seen suggests that In-line is more adaptable and has higher payload limits than Side-Mount.

Oh, I'm not going to argue that Inline isn't a better design in the long term. The question is, is NASA confident that it can be flying crews on Inline by the end of 2016, or will they choose the slightly schedule-safer Sidemount? (The inline-payload, sidemount-boattail design in the report may have been an attempted answer to that question.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/19/2010 04:49 pm
Quote
...or will they choose the slightly schedule-safer Sidemount?
I'm just not convinced of the accuracy of, well, any of the schedule estimates.  Where does it say that either scheme will be finished by such and such a date?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/19/2010 05:47 pm
If nothing else, Inline needs a taller launch tower than the FSS, and some way of keeping it from falling over during rollout. While Sidemount, on the other hand, could use existing MLPs and at least the 39A FSS/RSS.

huh?  why would inline have a risk of "falling over during rollout"?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/19/2010 06:05 pm
If nothing else, Inline needs a taller launch tower than the FSS, and some way of keeping it from falling over during rollout. While Sidemount, on the other hand, could use existing MLPs and at least the 39A FSS/RSS.

huh?  why would inline have a risk of "falling over during rollout"?


Good question..  seeing as the 300ft plus Ares-1X model rocket made it to.the pad supported by just a single SSRM.. and much lower bending preload for in-line design than shuttle or side-mount.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: spacetraveler on 08/20/2010 03:29 am
And let's not forget we have a NASA administrator who's against Shuttle and SD HLV, and who's not been seen since the Muslim outreach scandal.

At a time NASA needs a leader, we've got a political yes man.

I'm not sure what the point of this post was.

Griffin supported Constellation, because that's what Bush wanted.

Bolden supports commercial because that's what Obama wants.

It is the job of the NASA administrator to support the president's space policy. If he did not the president would not have appointed him.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 08/20/2010 03:54 am
HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: e of pi on 08/20/2010 04:29 am
HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

If side mount is truly dead, I think all turf wars in the meantime are now irrelevant. I do agree that I hope this means that both groups can now get to work on putting NASA back on track.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/20/2010 08:01 am
The JSC HLLV document pushed ULA-based upper stages.

Obviously, I don't know where MSFC's thinking on this lies, but that could still be a significant difference between the two centres..

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/20/2010 08:06 am
The JSC HLLV document pushed ULA-based upper stages.

Obviously, I don't know where MSFC's thinking on this lies, but that could still be a significant difference between the two centres..

The MSFC D-SDLV study ('Ares-IV Redux' as I think of it) is where the re-purposing of the AIUS as an EDS comes from.  JSC, as you say, uses ACES heritage designs and Boeing's HLV paper uses something not unlike the AVUS.  DIRECT's proposals is essentially for a super-sized ACES (the JUS and ACES having a common ancestry in the Common Upper Stage concept) and, in that, they could be considered a hybrid of the Boeing and JSC proposals.

Fortunately, the 2016 deadline is for the SLS-M launching Orion to the ISS, not any BEO objective.  Instead of using five years to develop an HLV, will those years be used deciding which EDS to use?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/20/2010 10:09 am
DIRECT's proposals is essentially for a super-sized ACES

No so Ben; it's the other way around. The JUS came long before ACES. Therefore ULA's proposal is actually for a downsized JUS. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/20/2010 11:12 am
HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

Woo hoo!!

Finally. Thanks for the info Ross.

Yes, let's get down to the business at hand and get her done.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/20/2010 12:58 pm
Let's roll!

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/20/2010 02:10 pm
Quote
I can't help but think what a total waste of time...
I've been saying this for a while.  Cooperation instead of survival of the fittest bully?

I'm glad to hear about inline.  Does this have the force of law, or are there administrative technicalities which can derail the effects of this decision?  Now, can we extend the shuttle for another five or six flights?  Can we start cracking the lunar ice?  Can we scout the outpost location?  Can we design the martial orbiting ring station?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/20/2010 02:15 pm
HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: PahTo on 08/20/2010 02:37 pm

Yay!  A hearty handshake and "well done" to all who helped common-sense rule the day (and future).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drkskywxlt on 08/20/2010 04:06 pm
There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.

The problem is that the House might consider Ares V to be the inline SD-HLV.  That was the (original) idea for Ares V anyway. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/20/2010 04:13 pm
HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.

Yes, but that in of itself is a separate entity/issue.

Having both JSC & MSFC on the same wavelength wrt/vehicle design is by far one of the biggest moves forward in a LONG time. That will go a long way to a harmoneous solution & architecture.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: zerm on 08/20/2010 10:55 pm
Not to rain on any of this, but all of this high-5'ing and yeahooing should be placed on hold for a bit folks. You're not "there" until the hardware is rolling out on its way to stacking. There's a long distance to go yet- politically.

I heard Wayne Hale say it best on Space Talk last weekend. He said (paraphrasing) that he hears how NASA is so messed up these days, but in fact NASA only exercises policy, it is those in the White House and the Congress who have things messed up right now. He's correct- this whole comprimise is in a very tender state right now and can easily be messed up.

Remember too all of the up-talk about new boosters, tank sizes, in-line and Direct that went on in the week prior to Obama dumping his budget on the space program.

There's a good direction being leaned toward right now, but we are FAR away from cheering and high-5'ing at this point in time... IMO.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/20/2010 11:12 pm
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/20/2010 11:20 pm
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

Nope. it certainly hasn't!! Great find!

But like he said in the editorial, we still need a destination planned out, which we don't have.

But still another great bit of news.

(can hear a champagne cork popping somewhere...)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/21/2010 04:33 am
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

Thanks again Chris!

Nice line from Mr. Lightfoot!

As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 08/21/2010 07:20 am
As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/21/2010 10:44 am
As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)

You should sell your crystal ball! Lots of folks would be willing to pay some big money for it! Mine was a cheap one, and it broke some time ago... :) 

Goals are good. The smart folks that don't have them seem to get lost a lot and keep going around in circles. Being lost is OK, but it most likely won't get you to a NEO, the Moon, or Mars. Space is too big. That's why you don't want to get lost in space.  ;)

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/21/2010 02:12 pm
Quote
this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore." 
He's been reading my mind, apparently.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/21/2010 02:35 pm
As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)

Internationalize and commercialize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

An EML-1 Gateway depot open to do business with almost everyone (pretty much every nation and private company alike - but maybe not North Korea) is one way to move forward towards these twin goals. Think Babylon 5 as a conceptual model.

And this is the goal I would employ the Jupiters rockets to achieve, if I were "Space Tsar"

Also, I believe the word "commercialization" should be used to discuss the source of the revenue streams rather than merely calling certain taxpayer procurement models "commercial"

IMHO (and I accept that others can legitimately disagree) I also see tourism and various forms of advertising & sponsorship revenues plus potential sale of media rights as being the most likely sources of revenue not derived from the taxpayers, for the near to medium future.

But if others have potential revenue streams not derived from tax dollars, tourism and various forms of advertising, sponsorships and sale of media rights, please share those ideas!

= = =

Lunar property rights? Now there is a fascinating topic!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 08/21/2010 03:31 pm
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JosephB on 08/21/2010 04:23 pm
Not to rain on any of this, but all of this high-5'ing and yeahooing should be placed on hold for a bit folks. You're not "there" until the hardware is rolling out on its way to stacking. There's a long distance to go yet- politically.

I heard Wayne Hale say it best on Space Talk last weekend. He said (paraphrasing) that he hears how NASA is so messed up these days, but in fact NASA only exercises policy, it is those in the White House and the Congress who have things messed up right now. He's correct- this whole comprimise is in a very tender state right now and can easily be messed up.

Remember too all of the up-talk about new boosters, tank sizes, in-line and Direct that went on in the week prior to Obama dumping his budget on the space program.

There's a good direction being leaned toward right now, but we are FAR away from cheering and high-5'ing at this point in time... IMO.


Yes, not to mention the direction a new administration would want to take.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/21/2010 07:23 pm
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/21/2010 09:47 pm
Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

Indeed; especially LM's Orion program, which has gone from full project to no project to half project to full project in the course of six months. Reminiscent (at a much larger scale) of the whole Dawn cancellation affair...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 08/21/2010 10:00 pm
Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

Indeed; especially LM's Orion program, which has gone from full project to no project to half project to full project in the course of six months. Reminiscent (at a much larger scale) of the whole Dawn cancellation affair...

Heh yeah, and it ain't over yet...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/22/2010 12:39 am
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

Absolutely. No truer words.

Are you listening NASA?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/22/2010 01:16 am

Internationalize and commercialize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

An EML-1 Gateway depot open to do business with almost everyone (pretty much every nation and private company alike - but maybe not North Korea) is one way to move forward towards these twin goals. Think Babylon 5 as a conceptual model.

And this is the goal I would employ the Jupiters rockets to achieve, if I were "Space Tsar"

Also, I believe the word "commercialization" should be used to discuss the source of the revenue streams rather than merely calling certain taxpayer procurement models "commercial"

IMHO (and I accept that others can legitimately disagree) I also see tourism and various forms of advertising & sponsorship revenues plus potential sale of media rights as being the most likely sources of revenue not derived from the taxpayers, for the near to medium future.

But if others have potential revenue streams not derived from tax dollars, tourism and various forms of advertising, sponsorships and sale of media rights, please share those ideas!

= = =

Lunar property rights? Now there is a fascinating topic!


Yep! Thanks Bill! I would include North Korea. But that issue is certainly debatable. 8)   And commercialize usually means internationalize these days.  ;D


Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on ahttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=post;quote=630446;topic=22270.885;num_replies=899;sesc=a2e26350a439349d5b86cbb4f3f43ed2n HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?


Ed Kyle, I too really like Mr. Lightfoot's comment. But who has gotten the ballgame to the point where he feels confident enough to make such a public comment? No leadership changes. It would get in the way of moving forward. And that is the only issue. Many folks may be quite annoyed about a lot of things, or at at some individuals in particular, but now is not the time for wasting time and opportunities by recriminating. Now is the time for unity. Now is the time for building the exploration tools and systems of the future. Americans and other folks need to be out exploring space, not loudly and publicly arguing about who is smarter or wiser or more foolish.

The White House and NASA's leadership need to make some trust building efforts. To show their good faith effort in moving things in the exploration direction, NASA's leadership and the White House need to ASAP "reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took".  As usual, 51D Mascot hits the political nail on the head. We should all wish President Obama and the Senate and the House of Representatives and NASA's leaders the absolute best in providing the foresight and iniative that America, and the rest of the world, expects and needs. Let's roll!

Cheers!

Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 08/22/2010 02:52 am
If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?

Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/22/2010 06:43 am
If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?

Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?


Because most folks despise lawyer tricks that are used to thwart lawful and recognized and accepted programs. Sometime in September the unneeded remnants of CxP should cease to have any basis in law. The "questionable termination liability actions" didn't build trust or hope. Trust and hope and forward movement in exploring space are what we need now, not lawyer games.

America has lots of clever folks that can talk a lot and show sophisticated and fancy PowerPoints but don't know how to create anything of value. Sophistry has it limits.

The Senate has given NASA a direction in which to go. With a little bit of luck, the House of Representatives will pretty much agree with the Senate.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Rabidpanda on 08/22/2010 09:27 am
If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?

Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?


Because most folks despise lawyer tricks that are used to thwart lawful and recognized and accepted programs. Sometime in September the unneeded remnants of CxP should cease to have any basis in law. The "questionable termination liability actions" didn't build trust or hope. Trust and hope and forward movement in exploring space are what we need now, not lawyer games.

America has lots of clever folks that can talk a lot and show sophisticated and fancy PowerPoints but don't know how to create anything of value. Sophistry has it limits.

The Senate has given NASA a direction in which to go. With a little bit of luck, the House of Representatives will pretty much agree with the Senate.

Cheers!

You didn't really answer his question.  Just because 'most folks despise lawyer tricks' doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing and streamline contracts for the SLS like he said.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/22/2010 10:28 am
If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?

Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?

Do we know there was anything actually wrong with those contracts, or was the issue simply with what NASA asked the contractors to build? Novating those contracts (where appropriate) would save time & money re-bidding them.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/22/2010 10:44 am
Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."




You didn't really answer his question.  Just because 'most folks despise lawyer tricks' doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a good thing and streamline contracts for the SLS like he said.



Within the context of going in the direction outlined by the Senate, it would be a great idea to novate or modify as many of the existing contracts as is possible so as to get us building the SLS and Orion ASAP. Lawyers can be very useful. But so are people who actually build things. Too much talk, not enough building and pretty soon you have little to talk about except how good you once were at building things. As the pragmatic Mr. Lightfoot noted about the SLS, "We don't need to study it anymore."

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.

Not sure about a reference but our understanding directly out of ISS Program officials is that they really want about 100-140 metric tons of delivered materials every year in order to get full scientific utilization out of the station and its crew.

Commercial will get to lift a lot of that, but not until COTS is well and truly proven -- and COTS simply can't guarantee that level of demand yet.

Like it or not, the truth remains that Space-X is probably only one or two spectacular failures away from business meltdown.   They are being given the money and the chance to demonstrate their reliability in an early demonstration program.   And with a touch of luck, they will be able to do that.

But the agency would be extremely foolish to assume they can take that to the bank before Space-X has actually demonstrated a fair number of safe flights.   Space-X now has that chance to prove themselves, but they have a way to go before the agency should include them in the critical path to the >$100 billion ISS Program success over the next decade.

OSC are in a slightly better position, given that they already have an established alternative income stream and also an established flight record, but its not beyond imagination that Taurus-II could have just as many early teething problems as Pegasus did and that would probably shut their program down too.   So again, OSC are not a "sure thing" for the agency to be able to rely upon at this early stage.

The COTS Program is really designed as a seed-money investment phase to help spark the new industry.   Only if/when that is proven, will it be followed up with more extensive usage (which I'll call COTS+, just for a temporary name) down the road after they have been given the chance to prove their capabilities.

We are currently entering the "wait and see" period of COTS.


In the meantime, Jupiter-130/Orion will easily be able to supplement whatever COTS & COTS+ can provide.   Jupiter-130/Orion will also provide a full backup capability, to ensure the agency can plan on full utilization irrelevant of whether the new commercial operators get fully established or not.

Ross.


We need to quickly get moving on building the SLS Orion system. NASA's leadership and the White House need to "reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took". 51D Mascot had it right. Rehire the relevant contractor workers ASAP. If the workers are not needed for the new program outlined by the Senate, inform the workers which companies may be hiring under the new program.

It is both smart and wise to keep your eyes on the important game you are actually playing. That current game is the difficult long-term mission of the International Space Station.

Cheers
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/22/2010 01:16 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/22/2010 01:27 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

If true, further shuttle extension would seem called for.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: spacetraveler on 08/22/2010 01:52 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

If true, further shuttle extension would seem called for.

No, we are already at a multi-year gap for any missions beyond the LON -converted Atlantis even if they were ordered today.

And this would just further delay the completion of any replacement.

The decision was made to retire the shuttle over 6 years ago. We have to accept that and get working full speed ahead on a new system.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/22/2010 03:05 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS


Well, I've noted it before and I guess I'll go another round. Shenzhou. I know what some have posted on this website, but it could become a viable backup. Do the talking. See if it is possible. If it is, do the planning and training. The ISS is the mission, not silly politics.

And get moving fast on the SLS Orion combination.

OK. Now I'll read why I'm a fool. It is OK. Wiser and smarter people than me put us in this stupid situation. With no disrespect for Russia or the capable Soyuz system, you can be bloody sure if I had any influence in this world we would not be relying on only one spacecraft for human access to the ISS. I would extend the Space Shuttle flights and also try hard to get Shenzhou flying to the International Space Station.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/22/2010 03:08 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

You sound very sure of that '2016' figure, Jim.  Is there anything you can share with us? I would have thought that 2016 is the latest date.  We might see it come on stream earlier.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/22/2010 03:17 pm
If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?

Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?

No question that streamlining and getting rid of excess "weight" in contract costs, etc., is a good thing, and in fact the pending legislation pushes NASA in the direction of achieving those kinds of efficiencies--and the HLLV and MPCV funding profiles would demand them.

But the point is, the contract actions were taken in the belief that the bulk of the kind of work being done under Constellation would be going away starting on October 1 of this year. They were not looking to "fine-tune" a process; they were intended to terminate it, at the earliest opportunity.

Now that it is increasingly clear, if not yet absolutely certain, that the Congress will direct otherwise--and ideally that the Administration will at least acquiesce if not actively support that redirection--that termination effort should at least be immediately frozen in order to ensure needed skills and capabilities are NOT irretrievably lost while the "policy realignment" process is being finalized over the next few weeks (or months). 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/22/2010 06:58 pm
No, we are already at a multi-year gap for any missions beyond the LON -converted Atlantis even if they were ordered today.

What's changed since the last time this myth was busted?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jml on 08/22/2010 07:03 pm
No, we are already at a multi-year gap for any missions beyond the LON -converted Atlantis even if they were ordered today.

What's changed since the last time this myth was busted?
Especially since refurb'ing ET-94 for such potential use is actually mandated in the Senate Authorization bill, along with prohibiting any actions preventing extension. (But a new set of SRBs hasn't been included in the bill).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/22/2010 08:25 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

You sound very sure of that '2016' figure, Jim.  Is there anything you can share with us? I would have thought that 2016 is the latest date.  We might see it come on stream earlier.

Some people have expressed concerns that there isn't enough money for the HLV and BEO Orion to be ready by the end of 2016. The end of 2016 is actually optimistic. Augustine had predicted the early 2020s.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TexasRED on 08/22/2010 09:02 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

You sound very sure of that '2016' figure, Jim.  Is there anything you can share with us? I would have thought that 2016 is the latest date.  We might see it come on stream earlier.

Some people have expressed concerns that there isn't enough money for the HLV and BEO Orion to be ready by the end of 2016. The end of 2016 is actually optimistic. Augustine had predicted the early 2020s.

There are also talks of launching Orion on another launcher if SLS is not online by the time Orion is.  Not Ares either.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/22/2010 09:38 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

If true, further shuttle extension would seem called for.

Bill, you touch on a point that is a good one, and one that, unfortunately, there is, right now, no really good answer for, and that is the sustainability and utilization of the ISS. The Senate bill makes quite a point of that concern, and, after establishing a clear policy direction to extend it to at least 2020, requires an in-depth analysis and report on projected ISS requirements for that extended time-period, in terms of spares, replacements, etc. It also takes steps to ensure an expanded utilization and research base by opening up half of the US Segment for  management and use coordinated by an external, non-governmental non-profit organization, that can bring in other government agencies, private research entities, academic consortia, etc., to make use of ISS research capability, while NASA of course continues to use the other half for exploration-related science, technology development, etc.. It also of course adds the LON for the specific purpose of helping ensure sufficient spares are delivered--and things like the failed ammonia pump assembly to be brought back for analysis. It also provides for some work looking into potential down-mass capability beyond what might be anticipated in COTS/CRS program, which the bill also strongly supports. The ET-94 refurbishment "could" conceivably be the core of an additional flight, since it could be available by the end of CY 2011, but that would be an issue to consider after the ISS requirements analysis has been done and validated by GAO.

In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 08/22/2010 09:47 pm

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

You sound very sure of that '2016' figure, Jim.  Is there anything you can share with us? I would have thought that 2016 is the latest date.  We might see it come on stream earlier.

Some people have expressed concerns that there isn't enough money for the HLV and BEO Orion to be ready by the end of 2016. The end of 2016 is actually optimistic. Augustine had predicted the early 2020s.

It is said, that it is better to be a pessimist and be proven pleasantly wrong, than to be an optimist and proven unpleasantly wrong; a lot of people appear to fit the bill; Augustine commission included;  ::)

call me an optimist, I believe it CAN be done sooner, because of that word MARGINS and a will to prove Congress and Joe and Josephine Public wrong about NASA's inability to perform HSF post Shuttle; if I am wrong, then I have a wine cellar to drown my sorrows in; or if right, then I will be so high on the adrenaline that I won't need the wine  8)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/22/2010 09:55 pm
Bill, you touch on a point that is a good one, and one that, unfortunately, there is, right now, no really good answer for, and that is the sustainability and utilization of the ISS. The Senate bill makes quite a point of that concern, and, after establishing a clear policy direction to extend it to at least 2020, requires an in-depth analysis and report on projected ISS requirements for that extended time-period, in terms of spares, replacements, etc. It also takes steps to ensure an expanded utilization and research base by opening up half of the US Segment for  management and use coordinated by an external, non-governmental non-profit organization, that can bring in other government agencies, private research entities, academic consortia, etc., to make use of ISS research capability, while NASA of course continues to use the other half for exploration-related science, technology development, etc.. It also of course adds the LON for the specific purpose of helping ensure sufficient spares are delivered--and things like the failed ammonia pump assembly to be brought back for analysis. It also provides for some work looking into potential down-mass capability beyond what might be anticipated in COTS/CRS program, which the bill also strongly supports. The ET-94 refurbishment "could" conceivably be the core of an additional flight, since it could be available by the end of CY 2011, but that would be an issue to consider after the ISS requirements analysis has been done and validated by GAO.

In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.
You are asking the taxpayer to swallow ~200 million a month for two flights a year.

The shuttle is simply too expensive.

I think there are people who would vote for an extension if the cost of the program was under a poultry 100 million a month.  However, you and I both know this will not happen.  Too many people have their hands in the shuttle cookie jar, and much like the F-22 Raptor cookie jar, they are out of cookies.

You know, maybe it could be passed, where we do get a shuttle extension, if somehow NASA could show how it could reduce costs and fly safely.  I just do not think NASA has that leadership.  NASA lacks the fiscal discipline to be trusted with anymore money.  And it pains me to say that.

As you pointed out the recent failure on ISS has raised a lot of eyebrows about future capability.  With the imminent addition of STS-135 next June, shuttle huggers can rejoice.  But if they were smart they would figure out how to "lean" the operation.  Because there is no way the next congress is going to throw ~2.4 Billion a year for two shuttle launches.

Has there been talk of reducing the fleet to two orbiters using one as a spare?  Has there been talk of going from three shifts to one?  Has anyone at NASA invited the private sector to look at the way they conduct business to see where we can not only save money; but the shuttle and SOME shuttle jobs?  These questions are all rhetorical of course.

Best wishes,
RE327

 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 08/23/2010 12:13 am
Bill, you touch on a point that is a good one, and one that, unfortunately, there is, right now, no really good answer for, and that is the sustainability and utilization of the ISS. The Senate bill makes quite a point of that concern, and, after establishing a clear policy direction to extend it to at least 2020, requires an in-depth analysis and report on projected ISS requirements for that extended time-period, in terms of spares, replacements, etc. It also takes steps to ensure an expanded utilization and research base by opening up half of the US Segment for  management and use coordinated by an external, non-governmental non-profit organization, that can bring in other government agencies, private research entities, academic consortia, etc., to make use of ISS research capability, while NASA of course continues to use the other half for exploration-related science, technology development, etc.. It also of course adds the LON for the specific purpose of helping ensure sufficient spares are delivered--and things like the failed ammonia pump assembly to be brought back for analysis. It also provides for some work looking into potential down-mass capability beyond what might be anticipated in COTS/CRS program, which the bill also strongly supports. The ET-94 refurbishment "could" conceivably be the core of an additional flight, since it could be available by the end of CY 2011, but that would be an issue to consider after the ISS requirements analysis has been done and validated by GAO.

In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.
You are asking the taxpayer to swallow ~200 million a month for two flights a year.

The shuttle is simply too expensive.

I think there are people who would vote for an extension if the cost of the program was under a poultry 100 million a month.  However, you and I both know this will not happen.  Too many people have their hands in the shuttle cookie jar, and much like the F-22 Raptor cookie jar, they are out of cookies.

You know, maybe it could be passed, where we do get a shuttle extension, if somehow NASA could show how it could reduce costs and fly safely.  I just do not think NASA has that leadership.  NASA lacks the fiscal discipline to be trusted with anymore money.  And it pains me to say that.

As you pointed out the recent failure on ISS has raised a lot of eyebrows about future capability.  With the imminent addition of STS-135 next June, shuttle huggers can rejoice.  But if they were smart they would figure out how to "lean" the operation.  Because there is no way the next congress is going to throw ~2.4 Billion a year for two shuttle launches.

Has there been talk of reducing the fleet to two orbiters using one as a spare?  Has there been talk of going from three shifts to one?  Has anyone at NASA invited the private sector to look at the way they conduct business to see where we can not only save money; but the shuttle and SOME shuttle jobs?  These questions are all rhetorical of course.

Best wishes,
RE327

 

You're right that shuttle costs could be "leaner" through some of the very things you describe (2 orbiters, less shifts--which would be feasible with a flight rate of two per year, etc.) and yes, those questions have been asked--and in fact you "may" hear more about that in the not too distant future--but so far there isn't widespread agreement or consensus on the real "need." (Frankly, most folks interested in space have been focused more on Big-E Exploration the past five or six years and the station, and why we built it and what it might accomplish, has been left in the "noise" by most and seen as a money-sucking obstacle to Big E Exploration by others.)

But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/23/2010 12:24 am
Shuttle extension would only seem to make sense at this point with side mount. Inline would require sufficient changes to LC-39 that shuttle extension just delays SLS further...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/23/2010 12:37 am
Shuttle extension would only seem to make sense at this point with side mount. Inline would require sufficient changes to LC-39 that shuttle extension just delays SLS further...

Edit: "Perhaps" true (see MPuckett & clongton below).

Maybe the road forward is for the ISS managers to carefully calculate what can best sustain ISS as long as possible and then push for the simplest, cheapest and quickest inline SDLV possible while husbanding whatever logistics can be supplied by Progress, ATV, HTV and U.S. commercial crew and cargo.

Once the SDLV (and Orion!) are available, my understanding is that two shuttle payloads can be lofted per Jupiter 130 launch and if Orion can be used as a tug then massive up-mass capability will come on line.

Ever since February 2010, I have sensed a ticking clock for ISS and maybe that urgency can help with the necessary contract novations and legislative compromises needed to fly the simplest SDLV possible, as quickly as possible.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 08/23/2010 12:44 am
39A or 39B?

There are two and they both don't have to be modded at the same time.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/23/2010 12:51 am
39A or 39B?

There are two and they both don't have to be modded at the same time.

Shuttle and LON from 1 pad and SLS's J-130 equivalent on the other. As long as the $1.5b is made available for 2xSTS per year then SLS can be fielded concurrently with an active STS schedule.

51D, how much money does the US gov have to pay per seat on the Soyuz and how many seats are we buying per year? It seems to me that that money would be better spent offsetting at least some of the cost of maintaining the capability to launch our astronauts on our own launch systems, as is actually required by law.

You see, there's the rub. The *only* way to eliminate the gap is to continue to fly shuttle until Orion is operational on the SLS and that's going to cost $1.5b per year additional expenditure. Taking the money from anywhere else in the NASA budget is unacceptable so it has to be new money. But, as you have said so many times "it's only money". So, the $64k question: Where does it come from?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/23/2010 01:16 am

It seems to me that that money would be better spent offsetting at least some of the cost of maintaining the capability to launch our astronauts on our own launch systems, as is actually required by law.


Yep. The Space Shuttles also offer significant amounts of downmass capability that can help in the analysis of experiments, failed ISS equipment, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. 

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2010 01:19 am
, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. 


No such thing and there is 30 years of history to prove it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/23/2010 01:23 am

But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.


As much as I would love a 2 launch/year shuttle option, we still have the issue of the new foam to re-certify:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg615284#msg615284


So I don't know how that would all play out, unless we do a stand-down until the new foam is ready, possiby extending STS-135 to later in 2011...I suppose those are options, but there seems to be more than just a cost issue, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/23/2010 01:42 am
You're right that shuttle costs could be "leaner" through some of the very things you describe (2 orbiters, less shifts--which would be feasible with a flight rate of two per year, etc.) and yes, those questions have been asked--and in fact you "may" hear more about that in the not too distant future--but so far there isn't widespread agreement or consensus on the real "need."

I have heard "some" but then again, I am in a different position than you.  If the question that cannot be answered is "need"for the shuttle; then are our leaders and experts who manage NASA and space exploration truly experts and leaders?  The down mass capability is huge.  With two flights per year not only do we give ourselves incredible up-mass, but the down-mass capability.  We need need down-mass capability that COTS simply cannot provide.  STS was always designed to work WITH ISS, not decommission it after being completed.   

(Frankly, most folks interested in space have been focused more on Big-E Exploration the past five or six years and the station, and why we built it and what it might accomplish, has been left in the "noise" by most and seen as a money-sucking obstacle to Big E Exploration by others.)

Sir, things like CxP MSL, and JWST are killing NASA.  When will NASA be held accountable for this?  Congress has the power of the purse strings, so why can't we do something right and mandate NASA to become, well, more NASA.  I realize I am speaking from my own, personal and political views (which are probably very close to yours); but when will we "save jobs" by cutting the fat?

But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.

Sir, if we can not find a way to save operating costs by 50% we both know this is unfeasible.  I understand your analogy but I do not agree with it.  The money to run the STS program at ~200 Million is not there.  Could we get 1.2 Billion a year for two or three years?  I think that is  possible. 

STS is a national security issue.  So is the F-22 Raptor.  The contractors producing the F-22 couldn't cut costs so we cut units.  The same will happen to NASA.  I know I am preaching to the choir here. 

I hope you are successful in a further extension; but that does not depend on you but the people who run and operate STS.

Thank you for your time. I do know how busy you are.

Respectfully,
RE327
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/23/2010 02:09 am
Shuttle extension would only seem to make sense at this point with side mount. Inline would require sufficient changes to LC-39 that shuttle extension just delays SLS further...
I completely disagree.

You and I both know we can continue to fly STS from 39A while continue to mod 39B. 

I do not want another side mount vehicle; we do not need to make that mistake, again. 

This is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. 

VR
RE327
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/23/2010 03:06 am
, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. 

No such thing and there is 30 years of history to prove it.

You mean someone lied to us and Congress? Jim, how could that be? I'm shocked! Good thing I put "game changing" in quotation marks, otherwise I would feel like a complete fool. I always had my doubts, but your confirmation is quite useful and might also be a wake up call for other folks. Thank you Jim.

Not to ask a silly off topic question, but how is the VASIMR engine going to get back to Earth for analysis? If someone can just point me to a reference please... If "game changing" technology can't get back to Earth for analysis... the supporters of it are talking hot air. Oh, that's right, maybe Jim just posted something to that effect.

And thank you 51D Mascot! Your many explanations always help us to understand the vexying complexity of the political world.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 08/23/2010 03:53 am
Not to ask a silly off topic question, but how is the VASIMR engine going to get back to Earth for analysis?

Couldn't it be analyzed on orbit? That's the whole point of the ISS, it's a flying laboratory.

Quote
If someone can just point me to a reference please... If "game changing" technology can't get back to Earth for analysis... the supporters of it are talking hot air.

If arbitrary thing A can't happen, pushing the technological envelope further is a bad idea. Brilliant.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/23/2010 03:54 am
This is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. 

No, it's not disingenuous, it's objectively honest.

I'd love to imagine that you could simultaneously stack Shuttle and SLS in the VAB at the same time, but it's just not going to happen. Wishful thinking is no basis for a space program.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: chrisking0997 on 08/23/2010 04:15 am
This is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. 

No, it's not disingenuous, it's objectively honest.

I'd love to imagine that you could simultaneously stack Shuttle and SLS in the VAB at the same time, but it's just not going to happen. Wishful thinking is no basis for a space program.

whats the limitation that prevents this?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 08/23/2010 04:20 am
This is a disingenuous argument in my humble opinion. 

No, it's not disingenuous, it's objectively honest.

I'd love to imagine that you could simultaneously stack Shuttle and SLS in the VAB at the same time, but it's just not going to happen. Wishful thinking is no basis for a space program.

whats the limitation that prevents this?

$$$$$$
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/23/2010 04:23 am
whats the limitation that prevents this?
$$$$$$

Precisely.

I'm not saying it's physically impossible, it's just not worth the cost relative to commercial crew.

And plus, extra money into Shuttle just perpetuates a doomed system. Funding commercial crew creates a solution that will still be available after 2016...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/23/2010 05:20 am
And plus, extra money into Shuttle just perpetuates a doomed system. Funding commercial crew creates a solution that will still be available after 2016...

Now that is a disingenuous argument.

If there is only one viable solution to a problem (and in this case, it looks distinctly possible that Shuttle extension really is the only way to plug the logistics gap), advocating a different solution that doesn't actually solve the problem, on the grounds that it's better value for the money, doesn't make sense.

Unless getting rid of Shuttle matters more to you than keeping the ISS supplied...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 08/23/2010 06:13 am
Now that is a disingenuous argument.

If there is only one viable solution to a problem (and in this case, it looks distinctly possible that Shuttle extension really is the only way to plug the logistics gap), advocating a different solution that doesn't actually solve the problem, on the grounds that it's better value for the money, doesn't make sense.

Unless getting rid of Shuttle matters more to you than keeping the ISS supplied...

How come I get keep getting called "disingenuous" for stating the obvious?  ???

Why does the "gap" need to be filled? We've already taken care of ISS cargo logistics with COTS/CRS, with two separate vendors no less. And there is no reason Soyuz can't provide crew logistics to ISS, just as it already did for 2003-2006. The only real argument against Soyuz seems to be "I don't trust them Russkies"...

I'm not trying to be a shuttle-basher by saying that it will be retired. That's been blindly obvious to almost everyone since Columbia broke up Texas. So extending shuttle is just delaying the inevitable, and in the process, delaying SLS, MPCV, Commercial Crew, and everything else. It's not fixing the problem, it's delaying it a few years.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/23/2010 06:48 am
Why does the "gap" need to be filled? We've already taken care of ISS cargo logistics with COTS/CRS, with two separate vendors no less. And there is no reason Soyuz can't provide crew logistics to ISS, just as it already did for 2003-2006. The only real argument against Soyuz seems to be "I don't trust them Russkies"...

Two COTS/CRS providers - backup for each other.

Soyuz hasn't had a flawless flight record over the last few years (ballistic re-entries). Shuttle is the backup for Soyuz, and I'd love to see it continue to fly (so much I can taste it). But there's only so much budget.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/23/2010 06:59 am
But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.

How much of that capability will be required to operate SLS & MPCV, and what is the cost to maintain that across the gap, or to re-build it before test flights begin?

How much commonality would there be with maintaining Shuttle in the mean-time?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/23/2010 07:48 am
Not to ask a silly off topic question, but how is the VASIMR engine going to get back to Earth for analysis?

Couldn't it be analyzed on orbit? That's the whole point of the ISS, it's a flying laboratory.

Quote
If someone can just point me to a reference please... If "game changing" technology can't get back to Earth for analysis... the supporters of it are talking hot air.


If arbitrary thing A can't happen, pushing the technological envelope further is a bad idea. Brilliant.

I would love to push the technological envelope. I will be ecstatic if the VASIMR engine works out at the ISS.

How big is the VASIMR engine?
How big is the biggest ISS airlock?
Are some of the ISS crew members going to be trained in the skills needed to properly take apart the VASIMR engine?
Are any of the labs properly equiped to deal with the potential environmental and other issues of taking apart the  VASIMR engine in zero G?
Where is the Internet reference that answers these types of questions about the VASIMR engine?

I'm glad to know that Cog_in_the_machine has the answers equal to his or her sarcasm. I always have questions.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 08/23/2010 07:56 am
How much commonality would there be with maintaining Shuttle in the mean-time?

The big money drain would, as always, be the Orbiters themselves and their maintenance teams.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 08/23/2010 08:23 am
How much of that capability will be required to operate SLS & MPCV, and what is the cost to maintain that across the gap, or to re-build it before test flights begin?

How much commonality would there be with maintaining Shuttle in the mean-time?

cheers, Martin

For a long time, Direct have said that Shuttle extension only makes sense in parallel with true SD-HLV development, because of the common infrastructure.

Assuming NASA is keeping the payload, launch and mission people around pending HLV test flights anyway, the only additional costs should be orbiter processing.

It makes sense to start by modifying one VAB high bay and one pad for SLS. Then when it's operational, retire the Shuttle and modify the others. With the added benefit of SLS operational experience to improve the mods.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 08/23/2010 08:55 am
, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. 


No such thing and there is 30 years of history to prove it.

What sort of fraction of NASA's budget has gone towards developing game changing technology over this period? (I don't mean entire new vehicles, just the game changing component)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 08/23/2010 09:55 am

My main concern at this time is robust and ongoing support for the International Space Station. That is the first role for the SLS Orion combination. The recent problems with an ISS coolant pump should help to focus our attention on the mission we are actually flying.


SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS

One would expect barring an unforeseen major emergency the ISS could get to 2016 with the current support manifest and on board spares. However the current 'free' ATV/HTVs end around that time putting more pressure on other vehicles. Having the SLS/Orion combination will help in that regards but also will guarantee full utilization in the last 5 years of the ISS life as well as allowing extension options such as large replacement modules if politics decide that an ISS of some sort should be continued appreciably beyond 2020. It's a long term insurance policy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/23/2010 11:43 am
As for commercial cargo / crew being the sole source of US logistical support of ISS, has this ever been studied, even in a cursory fashion?

In terms of ISS requirements for up mass and down mass, both in terms of mass and volume?

It seems to me that a failure to adequately support ISS cannot be an option, since (among other things) commercial crew and cargo will utterly depend in ISS being available.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2010 11:45 am
, and large pieces of "game changing" hardware. 


No such thing and there is 30 years of history to prove it.

What sort of fraction of NASA's budget has gone towards developing game changing technology over this period? (I don't mean entire new vehicles, just the game changing component)

the comment had to do with returning the hardware.  Nothing the shuttle has return has been game changing
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2010 11:47 am

One would expect barring an unforeseen major emergency the ISS could get to 2016 with the current support manifest and on board spares. However the current 'free' ATV/HTVs end around that time putting more pressure on other vehicles. Having the SLS/Orion combination will help in that regards but also will guarantee full utilization in the last 5 years of the ISS life as well as allowing extension options such as large replacement modules if politics decide that an ISS of some sort should be continued appreciably beyond 2020. It's a long term insurance policy.

SLS is not needed for any of that.  Orion and EELV can do it just as well.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/23/2010 11:58 am
Jim, I certainly believe you are correct from a technical perspective, however I wish to ask why you believe EELV solutions have so little traction in Congress.

Why are SDLV lobbyists so much more effective than the EELV lobbyists?

After all, the same companies pretty much make both systems. Is this really all about whether ATK gets frozen out?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/23/2010 12:01 pm
But I must also say it's more than just a matter of how many launches, divided by the total cost, to get a per-launch cost; you'd be paying for a CAPABILITY. You keep a standing Army at a huge cost, hoping you never really have to send troops into battle; but you need the CAPABILITY to do so if the need arises, because you're protecting a huge value and investment--our freedom. Not trying to compare spaceflight to preservation of national security, of course, but just suggesting more has to be taken into account than simply an estimated per-mission cost. There's VALUE in preserving the CAPABILITY to ensure the ISS--something this nation has invested between $60 and $100 BILLION in developing, assembling and operating so far, depending on what costs you choose to include--can not only survive as a functioning spacecraft and habitat, but also be used to the fullest as a research laboratory--with who knows WHAT potential scientific and economic payoff over the next ten years.

How much of that capability will be required to operate SLS & MPCV, and what is the cost to maintain that across the gap, or to re-build it before test flights begin?

How much commonality would there be with maintaining Shuttle in the mean-time?

The big money drain would, as always, be the Orbiters themselves and their maintenance teams.

Let me re-phrase.

SLS will need a crew to operate it. That crew will either need to be retained over the gap, at some expense to the SLS project or dispersed as the Shuttle programme winds down, then re-built before the first SLS launch, again at some expense to the SLS project.

If SLS test flights can start in 2014, then I'd have thought that crew would need to be in place, and deep into learning the new vehicle & developing SLS procedures early in 2013. (Someone correct me here if wrong).

That gives a 1.5-2.5 year gap that needs to be covered.

I understand that most of Shuttle ops cost is people rather than materials. If the SLS programme will already need to budget for retention or disperse/re-build of that ops team, how does the cost of that compare with operating Shuttles in the mean-time? The people wouldn't necessarily be doing the same things for Shuttle that they'd do for SLS, but I am presuming the skills would be transferable.



You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

I'm simply asking whether the SLS budget will already be carrying parts of that "yearly total cost", and if so how much? I can't see Shuttle extending at the above prices, unless a major ISS logistics shortfall is uncovered.

There's also the bigger issue of long lead-times (ET-94 excepted) to restart the programme, which might make all that moot, anyway.

BTW, 51D - what is now covered by the "21st Century Spaceport" programme? I'd understood it was partly to setup infrastructure for commercial launchers, including a commercial HLV. Without a commercial HLV, what is that element of the budget expected to accomplish under the Senate's bill?

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/23/2010 12:21 pm
BTW, 51D - what is now covered by the "21st Century Spaceport" programme? I'd understood it was partly to setup infrastructure for commercial launchers, including a commercial HLV. Without a commercial HLV, what is that element of the budget expected to accomplish under the Senate's bill?

cheers, Martin

I would suggest that *that* part of the budget could be redirected to help offset the cost of 2xShuttle flights per year. Couple that with not paying the Russians to fly our astronauts to the ISS and redirect that money to STS operations as well and we begin to make a big dent in the $1.5b STS price tag. Add to that the fact that part of that $1.5b is a shared cost with the SSL and now STS cost comes down even more.

With a little thinking outside the box I would bet that we could *at least* cut the 2xShuttle annual cost in half - possibly more.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 08/23/2010 02:11 pm
Won't it take years now to get new tanks even from partly built hardware and isn't that the same hardware that SLS will be using as a starting base ? SLS will also be requiring those working SSMEs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/23/2010 03:54 pm
Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up.

Lunar property rights? Now there is a fascinating topic!

I have brought up the issue of property rights before.  I meant to just link this remark from 07-24-09, but ended up deleting the original post, hence the awkward reposting:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22558.0

I you can't own anything by law, where's the wealth?

If the "questionable termination liability actions" could cause better and more streamlined contracts for SLS (and a better SLS), why reverse them?
Or should NASA be forced to have undesired CxP remnants holding it back for more many more years?
Because most folks despise lawyer tricks...
Both parties wrote and agreed to those impenetrable termination clauses, and have no right, it seems to me, to complain about them being used.  These things shouldn't be so all fired complicated.

It would be a very good idea to streamline future contracts.

SLS and Orion would not help this.  Orion comes on too late 2016 to be of real use to the ISS.  Same would be true of other payloads for SLS
Which strengthens, in my mind, the argument to keep the shuttle flying for another five or six flights.

1. No question that streamlining and getting rid of excess "weight" in contract costs, etc., is a good thing...

2. Now that it is increasingly clear ... that the Congress will direct otherwise ... and ideally that termination effort should at least be immediately frozen in order to ensure needed skills and capabilities are NOT irretrievably lost while the "policy realignment" process is being finalized over the next few weeks (or months). 

1.  In a very real sense, live by the sword, and die by the sword.  The evolution of the increasing complexity of these contracts seems to be so top heavy and dysfunctional that we witness such actions coming to pass.

2.  I am torn on this.  The bad work should be stopped as quickly as possible, and the workforce transitioned as quickly as possible.  But this is not in the financial interest of those people who are profiting from the arrangement where accomplishment is hidden deeply in the contracturalese.  IMO, natch.

...we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible...
The possibility of shuttle extension is pretty much the only possiblity which can fly without interruption for the next several years.  The commercial providers will do what they can, but require time to proceed carefully and rationally.

I believe that it is affordable, as is the new work.  The entrenched parties do not want the status quo changed.  In a related issue, look how much grief Gates is getting for trying to control the military budget!  He should be applauded, but no, the vested interests don't like that.  The analogy here is similar.  It seems clear that the shuttle costs could be reduced significantly; OV-106 is on record suggesting this idea.

...The *only* way to eliminate the gap is to continue to fly shuttle until Orion is operational on the SLS and that's going to cost $1.5b per year additional expenditure...

Furthermore, it seems to me like the new SDHLV might very well come on line quicker if it is unmanned at first.  Elon Musk needs time mostly, to get Dragon operating as a crewed vehicle.  Can he do that faster than Orion can be brought on-line?  The harsh and maybe not complete answer compares the development time and flight capabilities of Ares and F-9.  A big dumb cargo reptile, and small crewed mammal; both of which are needed for HSF evolution.  The big rocket eventally evolves into a passenger vehicle becasue we're not going to get hundreds of people up there until we can bring 'em up dozens at a time.

...Are our leaders and experts who manage NASA and space exploration truly experts and leaders?...
No they are not.  They are beholden individuals.

...This is a disingenuous mistaken argument in my humble opinion.
Fixed that for ya.  His is a mistake, I think, and can be more profitably discussed on those terms, rather than on personal theories on his motivations.  Now, I'll ask him to stop saying things like "wishful thinking".

...it's a flying laboratory.
Think about it for a sec.  We have much bigger labs here on Earth.   It would be nice to bring that ammonia pump back down for example.

whats the limitation that prevents this?
Think about it for a sec.  It's a sidemount vehicle, with a rocket engine of its own, canted at an angle to offset the aerodynamic loads; it has no providion for mounting on top of a rocket.  The idea has been studied some, and there are some stacked versions here and there online.

How come I get keep getting called "disingenuous" for stating the obvious?
Because your level of analysis seems to be deliberately incomplete.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/23/2010 04:39 pm
We've already taken care of ISS cargo logistics with COTS/CRS, with two separate vendors no less.

ISS logistics isn't a boolean value.  Sure, we have some upmass and downmass, assuming nothing much goes wrong with the vendors' machines.  But if I'm not mistaken, COTS/CRS (being a part of the old plan under Griffin) was never designed to do more than keep the ISS limping along at partial utilization to the end of 2015.

Full utilization hadn't been studied in depth last time I checked, but it was seeming very likely to have a logistics gap, which would be too big and too soon for anything but Shuttle to plug.  The commercial guys simply can't ramp up that fast, never mind the issue of stuff only Shuttle can carry (It seems to me that EELV solutions are a non-starter if we need something like that in the next two years, since the required spacecraft system doesn't exist and would take too long to develop).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/23/2010 04:41 pm
never mind the issue of stuff only Shuttle can carry

There is little to none of this
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/23/2010 04:54 pm
never mind the issue of stuff only Shuttle can carry

There is little to none of this

I would have agreed with "little", but "none"?  What else would you fly that spare solar array on?

Either way, my point doesn't require there to be any; it's a side issue.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/23/2010 05:13 pm
As I recall, a Jupiter 130 can launch Orion AND a payload module significantly larger (mass and volume) than the shuttle payload bay.

If Orion can provide "last mile" guidance and ISS docking for that cargo, up mass logistics problem would appear solved, rather nicely in fact.

Whether this is better or worse than a dedicated EELV logistics solution (cargo payload on one Delta IVH, Orion on another, rendezvous in LEO and arrive at ISS?) would depend on detailed number crunching, right?

Note: I am not saying an EELV solution wouldn't work, just that numbers need to be crunched to ascertain whether its better or worse than a Jupiter 130 solution.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/23/2010 05:22 pm
Neither J-130 nor EELV is any good for the next couple of years.  The gap is now.

STS-135 is at the very least a good start.  I'm not up on any logistics analysis that may have been done in the last couple of months...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/23/2010 05:46 pm
Whether this is better or worse than a dedicated EELV logistics solution (cargo payload on one Delta IVH, Orion on another, rendezvous in LEO and arrive at ISS?) would depend on detailed number crunching, right?

Note: I am not saying an EELV solution wouldn't work, just that numbers need to be crunched to ascertain whether its better or worse than a Jupiter 130 solution.

The unmanned cargo Dragon is due to fly this year.  The Cygnus is due to fly next year.  Both come fitted with docking ports.  By adding an arm or docking equipment it may be possible to turn one of them into a remote controlled short range (harbour) tug.

An Atlas V or Delta IV can lift cargoes massing about 20mT to 25mT to near the ISS.  The delta-V, cargo mass, structural strain and control authority of such a tug would need investigating.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/23/2010 05:47 pm
1. Delivering large items to ISS: If there are any major component breakdowns, such as a station gyro, of if an impact to one of the solar arrays damages it sufficiently to require replacement, or to any other system component that only Shuttle can currently carry, we will be SOL unless Shuttle is extended, even if only minimally to 2 flights per year. There are no other launch systems in existence that can respond in sufficient time to keep the station fully operational or, depending on the severity of the need, even functional. Remember, the entire purpose of extending STS is to maintain a "capability", not a specific manifest, and that is a key difference to understand. Additionally, maintenance of that capability, at least wrt crew access to US space assets, is still mandated by US law. With the latter specifically in mind, if Shuttle becomes unavailable because of some accident or system failure, that is not a violation of US law. But if NASA shuts down STS before its crew-capable replacement is available, that is a violation of US law. That has yet to be addressed, at least as far as I am aware.

2. Normal ISS Logistics support: A fully utilized ISS was designed from the beginning to require the lift and delivery capability of Shuttle for its entire operational lifetime. All other logistical spacecraft are intended to supplement the delivery capability of Shuttle, not replace it. Progress is meant to provide limited logistical support, and the ATV & HTV cargo spacecraft were meant to provide additional supplemental support. COTS was conceived to further supplement that support, as a vehicle to jumpstart a commercial industry. None of these, either individually, in combination or in total, was ever intended to replace Shuttle's role of main logistics support spacecraft. Without the delivery capability provided by Shuttle, the ISS cannot be fully staffed and utilized.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 93143 on 08/23/2010 05:59 pm
The delta-V, cargo mass, structural strain and control authority of such a tug would need investigating.

I suspect all-axis translation would be a problem.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 08/23/2010 06:19 pm
How big is the VASIMR engine?
How big is the biggest ISS airlock?

Why does it need to fit through an airlock? It could be serviced while it's mounted on the outside, much like the experiments on the japanese platform. In addition, it could have diagnostic sensors to monitor it's performance from a distance.

Quote
Are some of the ISS crew members going to be trained in the skills needed to properly take apart the VASIMR engine?
Are any of the labs properly equiped to deal with the potential environmental and other issues of taking apart the  VASIMR engine in zero G?
Where is the Internet reference that answers these types of questions about the VASIMR engine?

Why are you so interested in the details of this one project? Further, what makes you think they would be on the internet? VASIMR is being developed by a private firm in conjunction with NASA. Any information they've chosen to release to the public is available on their website.

This is regarding the prototype engine they plan to test on ISS - http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VF200

For more in depth reading, these are Ad Astra's publications - http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/Publications

If it isn't satisfactory, take it up with the Ad Astra Rocket Co. and demand more information.
The inspace tests aren't due for another 3-4 years at the earliest IIRC and the people that work at Ad Astra and NASA are likely competent enough to manage their own projects.

Quote
I'm glad to know that Cog_in_the_machine has the answers equal to his or her sarcasm. I always have questions.

Cheers!

I don't have "the answers", but neither do you and it's obvious, so you shouldn't assert that if the test article can't fit through an airlock, then it's somehow a pointless project and the entire Office of the Chief Technologist at NASA, along with the people at Ad Astra are apparently too incompetent to plan a demonstration mission. Again I ask, why must it fit through an airlock, why wouldn't the astronauts be trained in time to handle that experiment, why do you think there isn't a way to bring it back to Earth, why is it even necessary to return it, and why, out of the myriad of technologies on the table, you chose this one to focus on?

There are threads elsewhere on the forum about VASIMR that deal with details surrounding it. On a personal note, I feel it's an overrated form of electrical propulsion and think that ISRU and life support are most critical, but again this is OT.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/23/2010 06:32 pm
Quote
...if Shuttle becomes unavailable because of some accident or system failure, that is not a violation of US law. But if NASA shuts down STS before its crew-capable replacement is available, that is a violation of US law. That has yet to be addressed, at least as far as I am aware.
Good point.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 08/23/2010 11:40 pm
It's quite interesting to read that some spaceflight supporters in Washington D.C. are still keeping alive the dream of a substantial extension to the Shuttle program!  It seems this is now principally motivated by a desire to fully support ISS.

While that kind of thinking may be politically viable, from a dispassionate technical perspective those dreams look unrealistic.  Instead the reality seems to be that decisions made long ago have left ISS in a posture where its continuation is exposed to some risks, and no amount of funding now can mitigate those risks in a timely fashion.

Much is made of ISS dependence on Soyuz for crew rotation.  Stand-down of Soyuz would put continued station operation at risk; it might also put crew safety at risk.  However, the likelihood of a Soyuz stand-down is small, and the plan for retiring that risk is the development of commercial crew taxis.

Much is made of ISS dependence on Progress, HTV, ATV, and COTS for up-mass.  None of these have the capability to carry certain large items (solar array blankets, rotary joint race rings, etc.)  Losing the use of an item like that on orbit would curtail full use of ISS.  However the risk of such a loss is low, the result of such a loss may be tolerable, and the eventual plan for retiring that risk is the development of SLS and a ISS-capable tug.

Much is made of ISS dependence on COTS for down-mass.  The only COTS vehicle planned to provide any down-mass is Dragon, and Dragon cannot transport certain large items (ammonia pumps, for example).  Bringing this type of failed component down for analysis would be helpful.  However, full utilization of ISS does not require that large items be transported down; this capability would be an expensive convenience.

Even so, why is it difficult to extend Shuttle?  The technical reasons commonly mentioned are:  no available SRB components and a cold SRB production line; no available ET foam, and a nearly-cold ET production line; orbiters requiring maintenance with limited parts availability; crawler and crawler-way degradation and other deferred ground support maintenance.  The non-technical reasons commonly mentioned are:  no support from the Executive branch; strong resistance based on safety concerns from ASAP; uncertain Legislative support for funding; uncertain support from the general populace; uncertain support from other parts of NASA.

Commercial crew; Orion; LEO SLS; ISS-capable tug.  This is where NASA is headed.  Starting up new Shuttle production now would be ... the opposite of game-changing!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/23/2010 11:45 pm
BTW, 51D - what is now covered by the "21st Century Spaceport" programme? I'd understood it was partly to setup infrastructure for commercial launchers, including a commercial HLV. Without a commercial HLV, what is that element of the budget expected to accomplish under the Senate's bill?

cheers, Martin

I would suggest that *that* part of the budget could be redirected to help offset the cost of 2xShuttle flights per year.

That was what I was edging towards, but to me this is by far the element of the bills that I least understand.

Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html), that commercial launches would need to reimburse NASA for the cost of any NASA facilities used. Wouldn't that make it less likely they'd want to take advantage of the "21st Century" infrastructure?

I can understand refurb'ing SLS-relevant infrastructure during the gap, when it will have minimal impact. For anything commercial, I'd have thought the operators might be happy to invest themselves, then recover the costs through launch services over some guaranteed number of launches? << To be honest, that's more of a question than a statement.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 08/23/2010 11:54 pm
Quote from: sdsds
from a dispassionate technical perspective those dreams look unrealistic.

lol.... Yeah what the world needs now is a few hypergolic depots instead of the Space Shuttle!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 08/24/2010 12:17 am
Nope: merely pointing out that your perspective is neither dispassionate nor technical.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 08/24/2010 12:43 am
The delta-V, cargo mass, structural strain and control authority of such a tug would need investigating.

I suspect all-axis translation would be a problem.

Yes that was being optimistic.  The Dragon is a 7 seater vehicle, in ground terms a family car.  Cars can pull a 1 ton caravan but cannot pull a 30 ton trailer.  Industrial trailers need something stronger.

An ISS-capable tug should be able to refuel at the propellant depot, since buying a new tug each time would be expensive.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: libs0n on 08/24/2010 12:52 am

If Orion can provide "last mile" guidance and ISS docking for that cargo, up mass logistics problem would appear solved, rather nicely in fact.


What you have in mind can be accomplished with an already purposed Progress or ATV flight at the ISS.  It was a part of ULA's Payload Bay Container proposal.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 08/24/2010 01:05 am
Here's a wild idea: Has anyone ever looked into adding some kind of additional "workshop" module to ISS to support full utilization? It could be used for maintenance and tinkering with various experiments on-board (people have been asking about VaSIMR). Or, if it's got enough room, failed components could be investigated there in lieu of downmass opportunities.  Of course, if those things couldn't squeeze into Dragon for a ride home that means it would have to be quite spacious itself, perhaps an inflatable with an oversized airlock?

Long ago our space station was envisioned as an orbital assembly station. This could be a cool way to take one step in that direction. Maybe even have some on-orbit manufacturing and assembly experiments.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/24/2010 01:23 am

Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html), that commercial launches would need to reimburse NASA for the cost of any NASA facilities used. Wouldn't that make it less likely they'd want to take advantage of the "21st Century" infrastructure?

I can understand refurb'ing SLS-relevant infrastructure during the gap, when it will have minimal impact. For anything commercial, I'd have thought the operators might be happy to invest themselves, then recover the costs through launch services over some guaranteed number of launches? << To be honest, that's more of a question than a statement.

cheers, Martin

You know, that's really funny, though not altogether surprising.

Here we get this FY2011 announcement of a 21st Century launch complex, but when I read that NASA is expecting the commercial companies to come back to them with their needs, it makes it seem that it was just pork.

Sure, some elements probably do need upgrading, but to say things need to change, but they really don't know what needs to change, makes me think it was yet another reason to push something down the throat.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/24/2010 01:28 am
Here's a wild idea: Has anyone ever looked into adding some kind of additional "workshop" module to ISS to support full utilization? It could be used for maintenance and tinkering with various experiments on-board (people have been asking about VaSIMR). Or, if it's got enough room, failed components could be investigated there in lieu of downmass opportunities.  Of course, if those things couldn't squeeze into Dragon for a ride home that means it would have to be quite spacious itself, perhaps an inflatable with an oversized airlock?

Long ago our space station was envisioned as an orbital assembly station. This could be a cool way to take one step in that direction. Maybe even have some on-orbit manufacturing and assembly experiments.

They do that now with on-orbit soldering repairs, ORU replacement, and so on.

For what I think you're getting at, many of those items are external ORUs, are of such an extreme toxic hazard or complexity, they dare not attempt such repairs.

But these are discussions for an ISS thread...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 08/24/2010 01:57 am
BTW, 51D - what is now covered by the "21st Century Spaceport" programme? I'd understood it was partly to setup infrastructure for commercial launchers, including a commercial HLV. Without a commercial HLV, what is that element of the budget expected to accomplish under the Senate's bill?

cheers, Martin

I would suggest that *that* part of the budget could be redirected to help offset the cost of 2xShuttle flights per year.

That was what I was edging towards, but to me this is by far the element of the bills that I least understand.

Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html), that commercial launches would need to reimburse NASA for the cost of any NASA facilities used. Wouldn't that make it less likely they'd want to take advantage of the "21st Century" infrastructure?

I can understand refurb'ing SLS-relevant infrastructure during the gap, when it will have minimal impact. For anything commercial, I'd have thought the operators might be happy to invest themselves, then recover the costs through launch services over some guaranteed number of launches? << To be honest, that's more of a question than a statement.

cheers, Martin

Depends on what the facilities are and how much they cost. For instance my city government has a department dedicated to the film industry. A person making a film can pay the city and gain use of an area, or rent a bus or a el train from the CTA. Part of the last Batman film was filmed inside the old post office building. For the filmmaker it is more realistic looking and often cheaper than trying to build a city set themselves. For the city a minor source of revenue.

Anyway for commercial space they need to determine what they need, if they want it from NASA and if the price NASA is charging is worth it. If they need say a wind tunnel, it would be silly to build one of their own when you can rent it.

Wither they buy it themselves, rent it from NASA, or rent it elsewhere they are going to recover their costs from their customers anyway.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2010 02:12 am
Here's a wild idea: Has anyone ever looked into adding some kind of additional "workshop" module to ISS to support full utilization? It could be used for maintenance and tinkering with various experiments on-board (people have been asking about VaSIMR). Or, if it's got enough room, failed components could be investigated there in lieu of downmass opportunities.  Of course, if those things couldn't squeeze into Dragon for a ride home that means it would have to be quite spacious itself, perhaps an inflatable with an oversized airlock?



No viable. 
a.  Astronauts are not real technicians
b.  Spacecraft are full of bad propellants and pyros.
c.  Not enough air to waste in airlocks that large
d.  No spacecraft in the vicinity of the ISS
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/24/2010 02:42 am
BTW, 51D - what is now covered by the "21st Century Spaceport" programme? I'd understood it was partly to setup infrastructure for commercial launchers, including a commercial HLV. Without a commercial HLV, what is that element of the budget expected to accomplish under the Senate's bill?

cheers, Martin

I would suggest that *that* part of the budget could be redirected to help offset the cost of 2xShuttle flights per year.

That was what I was edging towards, but to me this is by far the element of the bills that I least understand.

Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html), that commercial launches would need to reimburse NASA for the cost of any NASA facilities used. Wouldn't that make it less likely they'd want to take advantage of the "21st Century" infrastructure?

I can understand refurb'ing SLS-relevant infrastructure during the gap, when it will have minimal impact. For anything commercial, I'd have thought the operators might be happy to invest themselves, then recover the costs through launch services over some guaranteed number of launches? << To be honest, that's more of a question than a statement.

cheers, Martin

If you watch the webcast, they meant that commercial companies could use NASA testing facilities, etc. But it wouldn't be free. They weren't talking about the launch pad and service tower costs. But if investments are made on LC-40, I imagine that the rent charged to SpaceX could also be increased. That's a good question.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/24/2010 02:34 pm
Starting up new Shuttle production now would be ... the opposite of game-changing!
I thought you were doing pretty good up there till you got to this sentence.  It's a mis-characterization, to say "starting up".  What needs to happen, I think, is "merely" to stretch it out;  use up the last few tanks; buy some critically needed time for COTS to get thru the difficult early flights, and minimize the American human launch capability gap.

Also, I would disagree with your characterization that: "However, full utilization of ISS does not require that large items be transported down; this capability would be an expensive convenience."  The word "convenience" is too loaded with triviality.  True, bringing down the ammonia pump would be an expensive capability, but necessary for a full analysis of the failure mode.  And now's the time to do it, while the shuttle is still flying.  And seeing how critical this component is, maybe we should be building a new one, more reliable, and launching it as soon as possible, to forestall a future calamity.  Even with five or siz extra shuttle flights, the "gap" of launch capability is not guaranteed to go away. even if Chuck and Ross's most optimistic schedules come to pass, right?

Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html

From that article, the insurance and indemnification issue is gathering more widespread attention:

Quote
NASA officials had little to say about the thorny issue of indemnification, or shielding commercial launch service providers against catastrophic third-party liability claims.

Quote from: sdsds
from a dispassionate technical perspective those dreams look unrealistic.

lol.... Yeah what the world needs now is a few hypergolic depots instead of the Space Shuttle!

And of course, this remark attempts to link two relatively unrelated subjects with a false conclusion which itself seems to be the result of false logic.  First, even if the shuttle is extended, it would probably play no role in the development of the depot architecture, which is likely to be launched on an entirely different rocket, whether DIRECT-ish or EELV-ish.  Second, a passionate embrace of hypergolic fuel for depots is readily, and honestly differentiable from a passionate opinion on the shuttle.  or a passionate opinion of the Red Sox.  There is no link between the two passionate technical perspectives.

In other words, one can be right on one subject, and wrong on another.  Don't conflate.

...Long ago our space station was envisioned as an orbital assembly station...
The woodwork fairly crackles with the noise of the naysayers, but I think this is a good opinion, and one which should be considered.  I drag out my Harper's ferry analogy again.  Harper's Ferry was quite the bustling town up till the Civil War or so.  The town, like the ISS eventually, will be an important footnote in American history, as the economics of space come into their own.  We should use what we have already.  This political fascination with theoretical optimization seems the mark of political immaturity, and is amply demonstrated by our lack of human exploration beyond LEO, despite the demonstrated ability to do so.

Here we get this FY2011 announcement of a 21st Century launch complex, but when I read that NASA is expecting the commercial companies to come back to them with their needs, it makes it seem that it was just pork.
Personally, I only laugh at this to keep from crying.

No viable. 
a.  Astronauts are not real technicians
b.  Spacecraft are full of bad propellants and pyros.
c.  Not enough air to waste in airlocks that large
d.  No spacecraft in the vicinity of the ISS
Yes viable.
1.  They are quite amenable and able to be trained for assembling large items in space, with the assitance of Canadarms and Robonauts built for the purpose.
ii. This has not stopped the current work at all.
c.  If we're gonna work in space, we'll have to bring up sufficient O2, no matter what the future holds.
IV. To quote Jed Clampett: "Every time we hear that bell, someone's at the door!"  Every time the shuttle, a type of spacecraft, gets in the vicinity of the ISS, crew members ring the doorbell!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/24/2010 02:46 pm

1.  They are quite amenable and able to be trained for assembling large items in space, with the assitance of Canadarms and Robonauts built for the purpose.
ii. This has not stopped the current work at all.
c.  If we're gonna work in space, we'll have to bring up sufficient O2, no matter what the future holds.
IV. To quote Jed Clampett: "Every time we hear that bell, someone's at the door!"  Every time the shuttle, a type of spacecraft, gets in the vicinity of the ISS, crew members ring the doorbell!

1.  big difference than fixing black boxes
ii.  None of the work has a spacecraft inside a pressurized space
III. we are talking current ISS
iv.  shuttle will be gone and this is about other spacecraft
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 08/24/2010 02:54 pm
I like the idea of a large, inflatable, unpressurised hangar. It could be used for servicing tugs or lander precursors, provided we had those (sadly unlikely) and if one of the goals was to learn how to do this kind of servicing in space.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 08/24/2010 03:01 pm
Also, interesting comment at http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html (http://www.spacenews.com/civil/100820-nasa-ease-doubts-commercial-crew-support.html), that commercial launches would need to reimburse NASA for the cost of any NASA facilities used. Wouldn't that make it less likely they'd want to take advantage of the "21st Century" infrastructure?

I can understand refurb'ing SLS-relevant infrastructure during the gap, when it will have minimal impact. For anything commercial, I'd have thought the operators might be happy to invest themselves, then recover the costs through launch services over some guaranteed number of launches? << To be honest, that's more of a question than a statement.

cheers, Martin

If you watch the webcast, they meant that commercial companies could use NASA testing facilities, etc. But it wouldn't be free. They weren't talking about the launch pad and service tower costs. But if investments are made on LC-40, I imagine that the rent charged to SpaceX could also be increased. That's a good question.

Thanks. Looks likes I need to watch the video through.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 08/24/2010 07:13 pm
It's quite interesting to read that some spaceflight supporters in Washington D.C. are still keeping alive the dream of a substantial extension to the Shuttle program!  It seems this is now principally motivated by a desire to fully support ISS.

While that kind of thinking may be politically viable, from a dispassionate technical perspective those dreams look unrealistic.  Instead the reality seems to be that decisions made long ago have left ISS in a posture where its continuation is exposed to some risks, and no amount of funding now can mitigate those risks in a timely fashion.
This is due to the historical (or should I say hysterical) way HSF is funded ... we play a collective game of "chicken" at the end of a program, forcing a clumsy transition. Political theatre to force a budgetary endgame ... which gets mangled by legislators doing rocket design for favoring special interests.

As long as HSF is still too much of a "circus act", this will happen.

People want to hold on to the past performance while the new one's genned up - but they don't want to pay for "double gate ticket prices"  :)

Much is made of ISS dependence on Soyuz for crew rotation.  Stand-down of Soyuz would put continued station operation at risk; it might also put crew safety at risk.  However, the likelihood of a Soyuz stand-down is small, and the plan for retiring that risk is the development of commercial crew taxis.
It isn't pragmatism ... if it were, we'd phase over launch systems continually. As we did with ELV - EELV.
Much is made of ISS dependence on Progress, HTV, ATV, and COTS for up-mass.  None of these have the capability to carry certain large items (solar array blankets, rotary joint race rings, etc.)  Losing the use of an item like that on orbit would curtail full use of ISS.  However the risk of such a loss is low, the result of such a loss may be tolerable, and the eventual plan for retiring that risk is the development of SLS and a ISS-capable tug.
One of the much maligned technology demonstrators.

Note that when you look at upmass schedules, what gets lost in the debate is the timeline associated with need. Things are conflated together to create a crisis that wasn't there.
Much is made of ISS dependence on COTS for down-mass.  The only COTS vehicle planned to provide any down-mass is Dragon, and Dragon cannot transport certain large items (ammonia pumps, for example).  Bringing this type of failed component down for analysis would be helpful.  However, full utilization of ISS does not require that large items be transported down; this capability would be an expensive convenience.
Yes. Often times all you'd need to isolate a failure is a few components taken off of a larger one to fault isolate a failure. Frequently we've found all we need from handfuls of parts - rarely do you need a Shuttle sized - downmass.
Even so, why is it difficult to extend Shuttle?  The technical reasons commonly mentioned are:  no available SRB components and a cold SRB production line; no available ET foam, and a nearly-cold ET production line; orbiters requiring maintenance with limited parts availability; crawler and crawler-way degradation and other deferred ground support maintenance.  The non-technical reasons commonly mentioned are:  no support from the Executive branch; strong resistance based on safety concerns from ASAP; uncertain Legislative support for funding; uncertain support from the general populace; uncertain support from other parts of NASA.
Part you are not mentioning is the examination of the spending on Shuttle, whereby it might be found to be exorbinant and require legal/congressional inquiry (and bad press). Do not underestimate this as a slower draw down - this has happened on weapons systems before.
Commercial crew; Orion; LEO SLS; ISS-capable tug.  This is where NASA is headed.  Starting up new Shuttle production now would be ... the opposite of game-changing!
We have a culture that is split between going forward and staying back.

If we were not in a "fear culture", we'd have a very different HSF footprint right now. But because we collectively "lost it" in 2000 - we've taken a different path which rejects the "reaching beyond" (but also perhaps the "overreaches" of Shuttle overdesign & X-33/VentureStar SSTO madness), for want of pseudo Apollo CxP, neglecting the grow-in  of commercial providers both new and established.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 08/24/2010 08:26 pm
It's quite interesting to read that some spaceflight supporters in Washington D.C. are still keeping alive the dream of a substantial extension to the Shuttle program!  It seems this is now principally motivated by a desire to fully support ISS.

While that kind of thinking may be politically viable, from a dispassionate technical perspective those dreams look unrealistic.  Instead the reality seems to be that decisions made long ago have left ISS in a posture where its continuation is exposed to some risks, and no amount of funding now can mitigate those risks in a timely fashion.
This is due to the historical (or should I say hysterical) way HSF is funded ... we play a collective game of "chicken" at the end of a program, forcing a clumsy transition. Political theatre to force a budgetary endgame ... which gets mangled by legislators doing rocket design for favoring special interests.

As long as HSF is still too much of a "circus act", this will happen.

I would not be opposed to a funding model that mirrored to some extent the US Postal Service or the Tennessee Valley Authority. Give NASA a multi-decadal mission and let it supplement it's federal funding from private sources. It's HSF future will then be tied more to the interest of the nations' people and less to the special interests of the Legislators.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 08/25/2010 12:19 am

As long as HSF is still too much of a "circus act", this will happen.

I would not be opposed to a funding model that mirrored to some extent the US Postal Service or the Tennessee Valley Authority. Give NASA a multi-decadal mission and let it supplement it's federal funding from private sources. It's HSF future will then be tied more to the interest of the nations' people and less to the special interests of the Legislators.
With all my heart.

It comes with the unwinding of the prior pseudo "national security" basis. Both US and Russia ICBMs underwrote large amounts of LV development - where the strategic link was formed. And where the arsenal system had its glory days.

Unfortunately you have to "undo" the ABAMA transition. Strategic weapons have less to do with HSF. National security needs of strategic weapons and lift needs to develop uncoupled from HSF for the clearest focus on end objectives of national security to remain paramount. HSF is no longer a subsidiary arms program boondoggle but an alternative "soft power" capability that is capital effective, competes with rivals with developing advanced industry base no other nation possesses, and risk shares with IP's on a logistical supply reimbursement model.

Unfortunately this means having a US industrial policy model that differentiates rushing everything off to China to "race to the bottom" on pricing to support Walmart "cheap chinese goods" vending, and the development of a native industry base that can't/shouldn't leave the country yet still must be exported for sale (problems akin to ITAR).

No political party has yet to wrestle with this conundrum - it screws both of them up pretty badly. But it is why we continue our screwed up economy and don't incent the proper changes to address an aggressively better future.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/25/2010 02:51 pm
Here's a wild idea: Has anyone ever looked into adding some kind of additional "workshop" module to ISS to support full utilization? It could be used for maintenance and tinkering with various experiments on-board (people have been asking about VaSIMR). Or, if it's got enough room, failed components could be investigated there in lieu of downmass opportunities.  Of course, if those things couldn't squeeze into Dragon for a ride home that means it would have to be quite spacious itself, perhaps an inflatable with an oversized airlock?

Long ago our space station was envisioned as an orbital assembly station. This could be a cool way to take one step in that direction. Maybe even have some on-orbit manufacturing and assembly experiments.

No viable. 
a.  Astronauts are not real technicians
b.  Spacecraft are full of bad propellants and pyros.
c.  Not enough air to waste in airlocks that large
d.  No spacecraft in the vicinity of the ISS

Yes viable.
1.  They are quite amenable and able to be trained for assembling large items in space, with the assitance of Canadarms and Robonauts built for the purpose.
ii. This has not stopped the current work at all.
c.  If we're gonna work in space, we'll have to bring up sufficient O2, no matter what the future holds.
IV. To quote Jed Clampett: "Every time we hear that bell, someone's at the door!"  Every time the shuttle, a type of spacecraft, gets in the vicinity of the ISS, crew members ring the doorbell!

1.  big difference than fixing black boxes
ii.  None of the work has a spacecraft inside a pressurized space
III. we are talking current ISS
iv.  shuttle will be gone and this is about other spacecraft.

All right, I'll tighten up on numbering.  The original question was adding a "workshop" to ISS.  Sounds viable and desirable to me.

1. You say not viable because astros are not technicians.  I believe that they can certainly be trained to fix more than "black boxes".  Future work in space will certainly involve a great deal more than R&R black boxes.  There would be two aspects of a workshop.  The interior space, shirtsleeve environment; zero gee initially; where, for example, they might be able to fix the ammonia pump, if they had a big enough airlock.

Perhaps you mean not viable today, but the questioner seemed to me to be talking about the future.

2. What? I certainly don't think the idea was subggested to put a spacecraft in a prssurised space.

3. We are not talking current ISS; it is tentatively suggested to expand its functionality and utility with a "workshop".  We may very well have to bring up more O2 and other consumables.

4. What?  Ok, the shuttle will be gone, but the next spacecraft in the vicinity of the ISS would be a, well, spacecraft.

I don't quite get what you're saying.  I think the original suggestion was excellent.

would not be opposed to a funding model that mirrored to some extent the US Postal Service or the Tennessee Valley Authority. Give NASA a multi-decadal mission and let it supplement it's federal funding from private sources. It's HSF future will then be tied more to the interest of the nations' people and less to the special interests of the Legislators.
That's not a bad idea at all.  How do you think that model might be gradually implemented?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 08/25/2010 04:34 pm
John has read my mind, or at least my statement more carefully. I never said anything about an entire spacecraft assembly and construction workshop. I was definitely thinking of a ISS module or Bigelow inflatable style workshop, with the possible exception of the airlock. It will be quite a while before we get a Star Trek-like dry spacedock but this was just meant to
Quote
be a cool way to take one step in that direction

The context of this was how to deal with things that fail on the ISS but are too big to get down in Dragon. Not assembling new spacecraft and filling them with hypergolics and pyros. A more relevant question would be what kind of hazardous materials are contained in parts that might fail?

**edited for clarity**
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 08/25/2010 04:38 pm
I would not be opposed to a funding model that mirrored to some extent the US Postal Service or the Tennessee Valley Authority. Give NASA a multi-decadal mission and let it supplement it's federal funding from private sources.

What categories of private funding sources do you foresee?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/25/2010 07:55 pm
Quote
1.  I never said anything about an entire spacecraft assembly and construction workshop.

2.  I was definitely thinking of a ISS module or Bigelow inflatable style workshop...

1. Good.  I never said you said.  And the biggest thing needing technical examination that I mentioned by name was the ammonia pump.

2. I said: "The original question was adding a "workshop" to ISS."  Seems like your and my statement are roughly equivalent.

Not sure what yer drivin' at.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 08/26/2010 02:32 am
1. Good.  I never said you said.  And the biggest thing needing technical examination that I mentioned by name was the ammonia pump.
2. I said: "The original question was adding a "workshop" to ISS."  Seems like your and my statement are roughly equivalent.
Not sure what yer drivin' at.
Oh, I see the confusion now, blasted homographs and heteronyms! I should have written "John has read". You and I are thinking along the same lines. I was attempting to clarify my comments for Jim, who seemed to take them in a way I didn't intend.

Original post edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/26/2010 01:08 pm
There is a "workshop" on the ISS.  They have tools and work areas.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 08/26/2010 02:24 pm
We're talking about the size of the workshop, and its hopeful ability to receive and analyze and repair the damage to the ammonia pump, as one example.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 08/26/2010 06:01 pm
Keep it on topic please.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 08/26/2010 06:43 pm
1) Why you don't novate the contracts now(51D's point):

Because too much of the existing contracts drag along cost centers that make it impossible to fit in the budget footprint Congress will end up with.

Can't until you get to appropriations.

2) What has to happen to get to a more rational (e.g. less earmark driven) NASA exploration funding model (clongton's point):

Because too much depends on a cold war industrial policy model you can't have ANY modern one that replaces it. I gave you an example of how to replace it and why - go find a way to map it into your politics somehow, that's not my problem.

Until then, we'll keep on biting our own a$$ with "projects to nowhere".

Tell me when you get tired of failures.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/26/2010 07:01 pm
1) Why you don't novate the contracts now(51D's point):

Because too much of the existing contracts drag along cost centers that make it impossible to fit in the budget footprint Congress will end up with.

Can't until you get to appropriations.

2) What has to happen to get to a more rational (e.g. less earmark driven) NASA exploration funding model (clongton's point):

Because too much depends on a cold war industrial policy model you can't have ANY modern one that replaces it. I gave you an example of how to replace it and why - go find a way to map it into your politics somehow, that's not my problem.

Until then, we'll keep on biting our own a$$ with "projects to nowhere".

Tell me when you get tired of failures.

This is a better question for 51D Mascot. But I don't think that you can novate the existing contracts until the 2010 NASA Authorization bill (and/or a FY 2011 continuing resolution that would refer to the NASA Authorization bill) has passed. There is language in the FY2010 appropriation bill stating that Constellation cannot be cancelled. This likely prevents you from changing the existing contracts significantly and it continues to apply until new legislation (such as the NASA Authorization or a continuing resolution bill) overturns it.

I think that 51D Mascot's point was only about the termination liability issue (and not the novation of the contracts). I get the feeling that this termination laibaility issue will only be resolved once the NASA Authorization bill is law and once the contracts are novated. I imagine that if a company refuses to novate its contract for whatever reason, the termination liability issue would still be relevant. But like I said this is a better question for 51D Mascot.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 08/26/2010 07:50 pm
1) Why you don't novate the contracts now(51D's point):

Because too much of the existing contracts drag along cost centers that make it impossible to fit in the budget footprint Congress will end up with.

Can't until you get to appropriations.
I think that 51D Mascot's point was only about the termination liability issue (and not the novation of the contracts). I get the feeling that this termination laibaility issue will only be resolved once the NASA Authorization bill is law and once the contracts are novated. I imagine that if a company refuses to novate its contract for whatever reason, the termination liability issue would still be relevant.
Actually further down the path than that. It may be the case that they must continue(even accelerate) termination liability issues due to effects of the legislation (and House issues). Only changes after appropriations, and we don't even have authorization yet. It also makes for an even greater "train wreck" if at the last moment we get stuck into a CR which most feel unlikely.

Has to do with the conflicting interpretations of poorly worded legislation done for selective advantage of certain communities of interest that create contradictions in the field of "tort law liability".

Kinda stupid given first year law school students could see it, and legislators are lawyers, but ...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: spacetraveler on 08/26/2010 09:02 pm
On the continuing resolution, if no agreement on the new authorization bill can be hammered out in time, would the continuing resolution just continue the POR for another year? If so that seems a waste.

Or would it be some kind of a middle ground study phase where just no real work was done on the new system.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 08/26/2010 09:15 pm
Being optimistic I would certainly hope that the same cooperation that formed this compromise could also muster the courage and sense of urgency to avoid the CR and  let NASA and Contractors get to work.

Look around, this is 1968 all over again, the nation IMHO desperately needs (this) something to be proud of.

I fully understand that might be a pipe dream with so much money to be shifted around and promised. However if they were able to accomplish it, this tax-payer would certainly be impressed by the legislative branch in a way I haven't been for quite some time.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jml on 08/26/2010 09:45 pm
On the continuing resolution, if no agreement on the new authorization bill can be hammered out in time, would the continuing resolution just continue the POR for another year? If so that seems a waste.

Or would it be some kind of a middle ground study phase where just no real work was done on the new system.

Original FY 2010 language:
Quote
...none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
Amended language passed into law this spring in a Supplemental:
Quote
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, funds made available for Constellation in fiscal year 2010 for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration’ and from previous appropriations for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration’ shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation  contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in fiscal year 2010’’.

Despite this being the written law of the land, the administration was able to find a loophole big enough to essentially bring much of CxP work to a standstill by strictly enforcing boilerplate gov't termination liability clauses that had not been enforced in prior years, and that apparently are not being enforced for any NASA projects other than CxP.

It seems like a CR under this language would require not terminating CxP contracts for Ares I, and Orion, but doesn't strictly prohibit work on an existing project called Ares V...even if the Ares V NASA works on has SSMEs and an 8.4m core. Whether novating Ares I SRB, avionics, upper stage, LAS, and MLP contracts into contracts for such an Ares V would be allowable under a CR is a good question. 

It almost seems like the worst that would come out of this would be more work on the 5-seg SRBs, J2-X, and a 5m upper stage....which could all eventually be applied to SLS if they happen to be available.

But it also seems to me that the if appropriators could insert language amending the CxP termination clause into the Spring 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, they could just as easily insert a new amendment into the CR that allows NASA to negotiate the novation of Ares I contracts into contracts more suitable for the Senate's preferred HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 08/26/2010 10:28 pm
On the continuing resolution, if no agreement on the new authorization bill can be hammered out in time, would the continuing resolution just continue the POR for another year? If so that seems a waste.

Or would it be some kind of a middle ground study phase where just no real work was done on the new system.

Original FY 2010 language:
Quote
...none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
Amended language passed into law this spring in a Supplemental:
Quote
Provided further, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, funds made available for Constellation in fiscal year 2010 for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration’ and from previous appropriations for ‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration’ shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation  contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in fiscal year 2010’’.

Despite this being the written law of the land, the administration was able to find a loophole big enough to essentially bring much of CxP work to a standstill by strictly enforcing boilerplate gov't termination liability clauses that had not been enforced in prior years, and that apparently are not being enforced for any NASA projects other than CxP.

It seems like a CR under this language would require not terminating CxP contracts for Ares I, and Orion, but doesn't strictly prohibit work on an existing project called Ares V...even if the Ares V NASA works on has SSMEs and an 8.4m core. Whether novating Ares I SRB, avionics, upper stage, LAS, and MLP contracts into contracts for such an Ares V would be allowable under a CR is a good question. 

It almost seems like the worst that would come out of this would be more work on the 5-seg SRBs, J2-X, and a 5m upper stage....which could all eventually be applied to SLS if they happen to be available.

But it also seems to me that the if appropriators could insert language amending the CxP termination clause into the Spring 2010 supplemental appropriations bill, they could just as easily insert a new amendment into the CR that allows NASA to negotiate the novation of Ares I contracts into contracts more suitable for the Senate's preferred HLV.

I don't think that the continuing resolution is much of an issue. The continuing resolution could easily say that NASA funds must be appropriated according to the 2010 NASA Authorization Act. In 2008, the continuing resolution did just that that. It referred to a Senate bill that was not yet law. See this link:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21124.msg607683#msg607683

I believe that the bigger issue is whether the NASA Authorization bill is passed before the end of September. If not, I believe that the continuing resolution could simply refer to the Senate Bill for how to appropriate NASA funds (albeit at the reduced FY2010 level). However, I don't know if the House would be willing to go along with such a plan. I think most people in Congress want the NASA Authorization bill passed prior to the election and ideally prior to the end of September.     
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 08/27/2010 08:04 pm
There's been some talk about downmass capability after Shuttle retirement (or lack thereof) in this thread, so I found this article on spaceflightnow.com interesting:

Europe, Japan weigh cargo return from space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/))

In it is some information about how both ESA and JAXA are studying/planning to add the cabaility to their ATV and HTV to return cargo through a capsule. Both are designs that could evolve into crew launchers eventually.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/27/2010 11:01 pm
There's been some talk about downmass capability after Shuttle retirement (or lack thereof) in this thread, so I found this article on spaceflightnow.com interesting:

Europe, Japan weigh cargo return from space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/))

In it is some information about how both ESA and JAXA are studying/planning to add the cabaility to their ATV and HTV to return cargo through a capsule. Both are designs that could evolve into crew launchers eventually.

And that just goes to reinforce how valuable the shutte is for the ISS, and how critical downmass is. You don't embark on such an expensive venture unless there is a need.

Thanks for the link btw.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 08/28/2010 02:21 am
That's certainly a possibility, but then they are poor planners. They should have started work on their own downmass capability years ago when the shuttle retirement was announced, if the entry of service date for these are 5-10 years (probably the latter) away.

It is also possible that they want to be more independent, through developing capabilities that can later become manned systems. Perhaps they see the U.S. interest in HSF as fickle and/or not certain of success, so they would like to put their own backups in place.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/28/2010 01:03 pm
That's certainly a possibility, but then they are poor planners.

To be fair, you can put a number of countries (USA especially), and companies (like ULA) into that catagory.

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.

And the same could be said for investing in said company. Now everyone is playing catch-up. But that's a moot point now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/28/2010 01:16 pm

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.


That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: brihath on 08/28/2010 02:08 pm
There's been some talk about downmass capability after Shuttle retirement (or lack thereof) in this thread, so I found this article on spaceflightnow.com interesting:

Europe, Japan weigh cargo return from space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/ (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/))

In it is some information about how both ESA and JAXA are studying/planning to add the cabaility to their ATV and HTV to return cargo through a capsule. Both are designs that could evolve into crew launchers eventually.

And that just goes to reinforce how valuable the shutte is for the ISS, and how critical downmass is. You don't embark on such an expensive venture unless there is a need.

Thanks for the link btw.

The problem is not just downmass from ISS, but how you do downmass.  The designs proposed by ESA or JAXA are capsule designs that can support return of experiment packages that can be loaded from the ISS interior.  Other items, such as large ORU's on the ISS exterior become more challenging, as they were specifically designed for Shuttle support, as Steve Lindsey mentioned during the Augustine Committee hearings.

We will not have the capability to return and refurbish items such as the recently failed ammonia pump module.  I haven't heard if ESA or JAXA are developing plans for those items.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/28/2010 03:11 pm

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.


That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.

If that was actually the view of the United Launch Alliance/EELV leadership folks, then they shouldn't complain if Elon Musk takes a big bite out of their market share. I respect the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance. I didn't understand how Elon Musk and the Falcon 9 launcher were going to compete with the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance.

If the President, Congress, and commercial customers want an all American rocket with a can-do company that is willing to pay for human rating its powerful launcher, maybe that is what Elon Musk will give them.

A company with limited vision suffers when things change. And things always change.

Cheers! 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 08/28/2010 06:21 pm

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.


That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.

If that was actually the view of the United Launch Alliance/EELV leadership folks, then they shouldn't complain if Elon Musk takes a big bite out of their market share. I respect the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance. I didn't understand how Elon Musk and the Falcon 9 launcher were going to compete with the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance.

If the President, Congress, and commercial customers want an all American rocket with a can-do company that is willing to pay for human rating its powerful launcher, maybe that is what Elon Musk will give them.

A company with limited vision suffers when things change. And things always change.

Cheers! 
That's unfair.

The role ULA plays is very different and crucial. They provide reliable and predictable launch vehicle services for national security assets, unmanned interplanetary missions, and cost effective GTO/GSO. They have the best track record in this business, and have done it from the beginning. They are a national asset in that service.

They are also strung between two megacorps. This isn't an easy thing to do. But it does mean they can leverage massive resources too.

I'm a frequent critic of them. I'm ecstatic that Space-X and others provide them competition. My issues with them have to do with how they are managed due to the agreement that kept EELV's alive in the first place years back. I'm extremely pleased that they'd tighted up the footprint, that they've had the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots.

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/29/2010 12:31 am

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

Again, this is all a moot point now.

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

But I digress. Flights of fancy of what might have been does not change the reality of now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 08/29/2010 12:41 am
MOOT Robert, MOOT.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 08/29/2010 12:42 am
Thanks, corrected.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/29/2010 01:07 am

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JosephB on 08/29/2010 01:11 am
Interesting. Could anyone elaborate on the HR package?

EDIT: Does it relate to this?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31508
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/29/2010 01:42 am

That's unfair.


I'm extremely pleased that they'd tighted up the footprint, that they've had the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots.


nooneofconsequence's most famous words are, "no one is playing fair"...

Congress, the President, America, and the world need results. ULA has the best rockets, experience, and excuses. Both space and globalization are tough games. Space-X is trying hard, despite the stark fact that "no one is playing fair". 

Having "the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots" means little unless ULA's parent companies are willing to walk the talk. Private money invested again and again in product improvement is one of the strengths of the competition game. Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing. Again and again and again. Lots of women are gutsy and have the balls that are needed to make their businesses successful. Lots of male CEOs and Boards of Directors could take some lessons from those female entrepreneurs who routinely take on real risks for the sake of generating a profit.

Jim has been writing for years about how the Atlas and Delta launchers could do many new and great things. It is true that they could, but they won't unless ULA competes full bore pedal to the metal. The Senate Commerce Committee and the the US economy should expect and actually see the can-do successes in space businesses that are needed to generate hope and confidence and those warm fuzzy feelings that can help us get through a patch of rough economic times.

It was Calvin Coolidge who noted, "The business of America is business." Stephen Hawking is a positive role model. If ULA and Space-X and NASA and each of us in our own little corner of the world push the envelope of what is possible as hard as Stephen Hawking does, we'll all feel pretty good about the future of our species and human spaceflight.

As Thomas Carlyle once noted, "So here hath been dawning a new blue day; think; wilt thou let it slip, useless, away?"

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Hop_David on 08/29/2010 01:57 am
Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing.

Whether Musk's personal investment impresses Congress remains to be seen.

Until recently there were other vehicles approved for transporting humans. If the program of record has other plans, spending money to man rate an EELV wouldn't be an admirable show of initiative. Some congressmen might interpret it as a show of incompetence.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/29/2010 05:07 am
Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing.

 Some congressmen might interpret it as a show of incompetence.

And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

No guts, no glory. No foresight, no progress.   ;)

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Hop_David on 08/29/2010 06:21 am
And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

Eyup. Gabrielle Giffords sure seems impressed with Musk.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 08/29/2010 06:32 am
And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

Eyup. Gabrielle Giffords sure seems impressed with Musk.


We all might even be more impressed with ULA doing a full-court press to capture a larger share of the commercial space launch business.

Cheers!

Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 08/29/2010 12:08 pm

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?

There was no flight package, they just analyzed the data as though it was in a package.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: RocketEconomist327 on 08/29/2010 04:56 pm

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?

There was no flight package, they just analyzed the data as though it was in a package.
tks^^
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 08/30/2010 04:41 pm


In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.

Tried a couple of seconds ago to post - keyboard's dying; switched to new computer.  Apologies if you get garbage -

Question is back on topic :) - does anyone have any information about (or can 51D Mascot "speak" to) how negotiations are going during the recess?  Understand there's a reason not to broadcast them, but even a high-level characterization (going wel, challenging, etc.) if not problematic, would be of interest.  I defer, of course, to 51D Mascot's sense in this regard...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/01/2010 04:17 pm
Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This Sentinel article seems more relevant to this thread (than the Direct thread). But to answer the question that was asked, this group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 09/01/2010 06:32 pm
Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html
<snip> this group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

[poorly informed speculation]
Based strictly on the text there, I would agree this isn't intrinsicly directed against HLV so much as it is directed towards tech dev and commercial crew. While it is true that destroying HLV is probably the only way to get their ideal funding level, it is also true that the House bill gives far less than the Senate bill to those goals (which of course is still far less than ObamaSpace). But it seems a bit telling to me that this effort is only directed at the House, not the Senate. That may suggest they can live with the Senate's version, but not the House's.

Surely they know that negotiations are (suposedly) currently underway and the House version will be moving towards the Senate's. Maybe this is just an attempt to make sure that happens?

Or maybe it is a hail-mary shot to try to get the House to advocate for FY11 and thus move the final bill even closer to FY11 than the Senate bill is!

Or perhaps they just want to be on the record for this issue.
[/poorly informed speculation]
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 09/01/2010 06:36 pm
Its an attempt to keep HLV from eating up all available budget cause its underfed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/07/2010 04:35 pm
Short update on reconciling the authorization bills:
http://www.politico.com/morningtech/0910/morningtech51.html
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 09/07/2010 05:54 pm
For reference - the original letters referred to in the Politico post - the Aug 31 letter to Chairman Gordon from Scott Hubbard and Nobel Laureate signatories, and Gordon's response (on behalf of the House Science & Technology Committee) of Sept. 3.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DavisSTS on 09/07/2010 06:06 pm
Baffling letter from the Nobel Laureates, not that going back to the original FY2011 proposal is going to happen.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/07/2010 06:28 pm
Baffling letter from the Nobel Laureates, not that going back to the original FY2011 proposal is going to happen.
   What's baffling about it?
        -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: savuporo on 09/11/2010 02:20 am
Griffin at his finest (http://blog.al.com/breaking/2010/09/ex-nasa_administrator_congress.html), again :
Quote
Griffin also criticized the 14 Nobel laureates who wrote a letter to Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., in support of Obama's plan. Gordon is the chair of the House Science and Technology Committee.

"It is unsurprising to find that a group of eminent university-affiliated scientists," Griffin said, "along with several former directors of NASA research and robotic spacecraft centers, would favor reallocating the NASA budget toward increased university research, technology development and robotic space missions instead of human spaceflight."

oh .. the irony. Pot .. kettle...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 09/11/2010 03:39 am
The Space Frontier Foundation and Space Access Society are calling for people to contact their representatives about the House bill.
http://spacefrontier.org/2010/09/09/commercial-space-in-jeopardy/ (http://spacefrontier.org/2010/09/09/commercial-space-in-jeopardy/)
http://www.space-access.org/updates/bulletin090910.html (http://www.space-access.org/updates/bulletin090910.html)

The claim is that in 24 hours or less, House leadership will decide on the agenda through the rest of the session. So we should ask them not to put HR.5781 up for vote but instead S.3729 (the Senate bill).

For someone who knows more about this than me, or better yet is involved (51D are you out there??), what urgency is there to this call?

The story was that staffers were working behind closed doors to reach some kind of compromise between the House and Senate, so that something could be enacted quickly. These reports make no mention of such a third option, but maybe they aren't in the know. Is it possible that the House has come all the way over towards the Senate and a House vote on S.3729 might pass?

Perhaps more to the point, is there any reason that a House/Senate compromise couldn't emerge and be put on the agenda after the suggested 18-24 hr deadline?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/11/2010 04:43 am
The Space Frontier Foundation and Space Access Society are calling for people to contact their representatives about the House bill.
http://spacefrontier.org/2010/09/09/commercial-space-in-jeopardy/ (http://spacefrontier.org/2010/09/09/commercial-space-in-jeopardy/)
http://www.space-access.org/updates/bulletin090910.html (http://www.space-access.org/updates/bulletin090910.html)

The claim is that in 24 hours or less, House leadership will decide on the agenda through the rest of the session. So we should ask them not to put HR.5781 up for vote but instead S.3729 (the Senate bill).

For someone who knows more about this than me, or better yet is involved (51D are you out there??), what urgency is there to this call?

The story was that staffers were working behind closed doors to reach some kind of compromise between the House and Senate, so that something could be enacted quickly. These reports make no mention of such a third option, but maybe they aren't in the know. Is it possible that the House has come all the way over towards the Senate and a House vote on S.3729 might pass?

Perhaps more to the point, is there any reason that a House/Senate compromise couldn't emerge and be put on the agenda after the suggested 18-24 hr deadline?


It appears that, at least for next week, there is no plan to bring either the House or Senate bill to the floor for consideration by the House, so the 24-hour "window" described in the above post has effectively closed without the consideration of either the Senate-passed or House-Committee-reported NASA bills. There could remain a possibility to get it included for the following (and last) week of the House's session before they recess at the end of the month, since that floor schedule will be determined b the end of next week.

And yes, a negotiated compromise is still one other possibility, but progress on that front is difficult, as the Senate-passed bill is not something that could be heavily modified in substantive ways and still be supportable if and when the House sent it back to the Senate for approval or rejection of the House amendments.

One thing is certain: if the House simply passes its own bill and sends it to the Senate, it would require a formal conference to attempt to reconcile the differences, because the House bill, in its present form, would NOT be acceptable to the Senate. And, given the parliamentary and political situations, the ability to secure appointment of conferees simply would not happen. (and even if by some miracle it did, the absence of the House due to their having recessed until at least after the election, makes a conference at the Member level virtually impossible until--and if--they return to a lame duck session after the election, which is extremely uncertain at this point.

In the meantime, the Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution by the end of September for those appropriations bills not yet adopted (which includes the CJS bill where NASA appropriations reside.) Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.

An enacted authorization bill would at least provide a strong argument for the content of the CR to reflect the funding levels and allocations reflected in the authorization bill--something both House and Senate appropriators indicated they would prefer to do--and which the Senate appropriations committee has proven good to that commitment by already having adopted and reported out a CJS bill which tracks closely to the Senate authorization formula.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/11/2010 01:00 pm
If the House and Senate do not pass a compromise bill by the end of September, what about that one additional Shuttle flight?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/11/2010 01:38 pm
If the House and Senate do not pass a compromise bill by the end of September, what about that one additional Shuttle flight?
It's an interesting question, when coupled with a CR of unknown duration that funds at FY10 levels.  My guess is that what Chris reported at the beginning of the month -- uncertainty until end of the calendar year -- would be the case:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/09/ssp-cautious-political-decision-funding-sts-135/

I would certainly welcome 51D's point of view, but he has posted in the past that NASA already has the authority to fly the mission:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22163.msg614963#msg614963

If that's the case, then the other hurdle is funding.  If the CR funds Shuttle Operations at the FY10 level (~$3 billion on an annual basis) for sufficient time, that might be enough to cover the much-reduced workforce through 3Q FY11.

But there's been no public commitment from NASA administration so far and Congress isn't formally back in session until the coming week, so we're not done waiting.  With the election coming up, one of the things that people will be looking at is how long the first continuing resolution is set for, given the uncertainty that 51D noted about a lame duck session.

Even as messy as that is for the Shuttle Program, the situation in ESMD with no new authorization and continuing resolutions seems even messier.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/11/2010 01:41 pm
Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.
Another tangential question for you: if no authorization bill makes it through this Congress (the 111th), would a new bill (or bills) have to be re-introduced in the 112th after it convenes after New Year's?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rusty on 09/12/2010 07:53 am
Portions of the House Bill dealing with ISS, Shuttle, CommercialCrew/Cargo, Exploration Program and Space Technology are below. Complete text and information on funding for additional programs is available at...
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5781
Please correct any funding mistakes or misrepresentations I may have made.

SEC. 202. RESTRUCTURED EXPLORATION PROGRAM. [$4.16 - $4.5 - $4.5bil]
a) Requirements- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall develop a plan to restructure the exploration program in existence prior to fiscal year 2011...
   (1) The plan shall make maximum practicable use of the design, development, and test work completed to date on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated ground support and exploration enabling systems, including spacesuit development and related life support technology, and take best advantage of investments and contracts implemented to date.
   (2)... the crew transportation system developed under this section available to assure crewed access to low-Earth orbit and the ISS no later than December 31, 2015 ...If one or more United States commercial entities are certified to provide ISS crew transportation and rescue services, the crew transportation system developed under this section shall be available as a backup ... but shall not be utilized as the primary means
   (3) The crewed spacecraft element of the crew transportation system shall be evolvable on a continuous development path to support--
(A) ISS crew transportation and rescue capability; (B) non-ISS missions to, from, and in low-Earth orbit; and (C) human missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
   (6)... 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
(A) the heavy lift launch vehicle shall be sized to enable challenging missions beyond low-Earth orbit and evolvable on a continuous development path to ... Lagrangian points, the Moon, near-Earth objects, and Mars and its moons; (B) not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall carry out a review ... and shall select an exploration launch vehicle architecture to meet those requirements; (C) the development of the heavy lift launch vehicle ... shall take maximum benefit from the prior investments made in the Orion, Ares I, and heavy lift projects and ... the development, demonstration, and test of the crew transportation system; (D)... the heavy lift launch vehicle authorized in this paragraph available for operational missions by the end of the current decade.
e) Report on NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program for the Restructured Exploration Program- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act

SEC. 211. EXTENSION OF ISS OPERATIONS. [$2.05 - $2.93 - $3.08bil]
a) In General- The Administrator shall, in consultation with the ISS partners, take all necessary measures to support the operation and full utilization of the International Space Station through at least the year 2020

SEC. 215. ISS CARGO RESUPPLY REQUIREMENTS AND CONTINGENCY CAPACITY THROUGH 2020.
b)... The Administrator shall conduct an assessment of the ISS cargo resupply capacity required to support the enhanced research utilization and extended operations of the ISS through 2020. ... In addition, the assessment shall identify the systems to be used for ISS cargo resupply, the amount of cargo those systems will transport, and the timeline for cargo resupply services to the ISS.
c)... The Administrator shall explore with ISS partners options for ensuring the provision of needed upmass to and downmass from the ISS in the event that adequate commercial cargo resupply capabilities are not available during any extended period after the date that the Space Shuttle is retired. Before relying on ISS partners to upmass or downmass cargo, the Administrator must certify to the Congress that no United States or commercial cargo resupply capabilities are available.

SEC. 221. CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION.
b)... The Administrator is authorized to conduct 1 additional Space Shuttle mission to the ISS beyond the missions contained in the flight manifest as of February 1, 2010, if--

SEC. 242. COMMERCIAL CREW AND RELATED COMMERCIAL SPACE INITIATIVES. [cargo: $14mil/2011 - crew: $50mil/yr]
a)... NASA shall seek, to the extent practicable, to make use of commercially available space services ... provided that--
   (1) those commercial services have demonstrated the capability to meet NASA-specified ascent, transit, entry, and ISS proximity operations safety requirements;
   (2) the services provider has completed, and NASA has verified, crewed flight demonstrations or operational flights that comply with NASA standards, policies, and procedures;
   (3) the per-seat cost to the United States is not greater than the per-seat cost for the system developed under section 202.

SEC. 243. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL ORBITAL HUMAN SPACE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. [$100mil/yr]
a)... The Administrator shall establish a program to provide financial assistance in the form of direct loans or loan guarantees to commercial entities for the costs of development of orbital human space transportation systems.
b)... A loan or loan guarantee may be made under such program only for a project in the United States to develop commercial orbital human space transportation systems that would be used to provide transportation services to and from low-earth orbit.

SEC. 501. SPACE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM. [$0.57 - $1.0 - $1.0bil]
a)... The Administrator shall establish a space technology program to enable research and development on advanced space technologies and systems that are independent of specific space mission flight projects.
   (2) development of innovative technologies in areas such as in-space propulsion, power generation and storage, liquid rocket propulsion, avionics, structures, and materials that may enable new approaches to human and robotic space missions;
   (3) flight demonstrations of technologies, including those that have the potential to benefit multiple NASA mission directorates, other Federal Government agencies, and the commercial space industry;
   (4) research, development, and demonstration of enabling technologies in support of future exploration missions.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rusty on 09/12/2010 08:05 am
If I understand this correctly...
- Orion and AresI will be in service by the end of 2015. In 6mos, a SDHLV design will be selected and in service by the end of the decade.
- In addition to existing commercial contracts, $150mil/yr will be made availble for commercial crew development, including loans, and $14mil for commercial cargo next year. No NASA service contract will be signed until they have an existing, viable service independant of NASA.
- ISS operational until at least 2020

IMO, this bill is much prefered over the Augustine Review, Senate proposal and Administration suggestion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/12/2010 08:58 am
If I understand this correctly...
- Orion and AresI will be in service by the end of 2015. In 6mos, a SDHLV design will be selected and in service by the end of the decade.

I think it means more to use Ares I technology (i.e. 5-seg and J-2X), rather than actually finish and fly Ares I. This gets over the political complaints from Utah and Mississippi about totally canceling Ares I, while still not having to actually build it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: KelvinZero on 09/12/2010 10:02 am
It totally slaughters the exploration technology budget and the robotic precursor budget. Thats such things as closed cycle lifesupport, ISRU, radiation mitigation, and going to the lunar poles to actually see what is there so we can begin considering how it affects our goals.

IMO, Human Space Flight without exploration technology or even a lander is just shooting clowns from cannons. IMO, this bill totally kills any point of bothering with BEO HSF. I want us to go beyond earth orbit to do something and to stay.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Svetoslav on 09/12/2010 10:14 am
I personally prefer Senate's bill rather than House's Bill, but even the House's bill is much better than President Obama's no-plan. If Ares I and Orion will be in service by the end of 2015, that actually is great news. Greater than Augustine commission's prediction - 2017.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: GClark on 09/12/2010 12:44 pm
If Ares I and Orion will be in service by the end of 2015, that actually is great news. Greater than Augustine commission's prediction - 2017.

That's the point.  They won't be.  Augustine predicted 2017 based on a significant budget bump every year.  NASA will be lucky to get it once.  This bill actually underfunds HSF rather more than Obamas' plan.

Along with the aforementioned gutting of Technology & Precursors.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: grdja on 09/12/2010 04:44 pm
Can a better speaker of Legalese please say if this is really resurrecting Ares I once more or not?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: savuporo on 09/12/2010 05:05 pm
IMO, Human Space Flight without exploration technology or even a lander is just shooting clowns from cannons. IMO, this bill totally kills any point of bothering with BEO HSF.

Nailed it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/12/2010 05:22 pm
So it would be appear the Ares 1 huggers are winning in the house.


AUGH! :( :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Svetoslav on 09/12/2010 05:26 pm
So it would be appear the Ares 1 huggers are winning in the house.


AUGH! :( :(

Do you have any information about this? I mean - has this been brought to vote?

Svetoslav
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/12/2010 05:34 pm
So it would be appear the Ares 1 huggers are winning in the house.


AUGH! :( :(

At worst, that would mean no US-indigenous crew launch capablity until the first commercial crew launchers are accepted enough by NASA for them to send up crews on them.  Meanwhile, Ares-I/Orion will remain 'in development' until ~2020 but, much like other "long range" projects, will slowly slip into a PowerPoint netherworld.

It would essentially mean ObamaSpace by default - all NASA launch by commercial providers (ULA, SpaceX and Orbital), all NASA crew launch by commercial providers (CST-100 and Dragon) and no BEO system because it is horrifically under-funded and facing such technical challenges that it can only fly crewed with a folder-full of flight rule waivers.

It is possible that, in such a scenario, we might see something like this being seriously proposed for the early 2020s: A multi-launch scenario including an uncrewed Orion/Ares-I (as it is unsafe to lauch crews on the type).  The crew would be launched on a commercially LEO crew taxi, would rendezvous with the Orion and transfer over before they fly the Orion to the multiple EELV-Heavy-launched & robotically-assembled mission vehicle.  In other words, the death of NASA HSF as a program with realistic plans to do anything BEO.

More realistically, it means a head-on collision with the Senate and a CR that could run for six months until after the elections this autumn.  At that time, a right-wing Congress will have to somehow compromise its distrust of large Federal agencies with its instinctive rejection of anything President Obama has proposed (a commercially-based space program, in this case).


@ Svetoslav,

As I understand it, the House of Representatives is still on recess for another week.  FF was referring to how the public positions of the power players in the House seem to stand at the moment.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Svetoslav on 09/12/2010 05:39 pm
Thank you for your reply. I was wondering because of the bombastic headlines about how the bill would be brought to vote "within 24 hours""
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/12/2010 05:44 pm
If the HEFT HLV option with a J-2X/SSME middle stage was chosen then Ares I could always be restarted if the commercial guys failed in some way. Perhaps specifying at least a 4-seg/SSME or 5-seg/SSME or J-2X combination in the HLV to allow for a potential Ares I restart might be enough to placate the Ares I huggers in the House and allow reconciliation in the two bills. So HLV and commercial would be Plan A but you could always go to HLV and Ares I if commercial proved unreliable in some way for just crew transportation if you had already developed a meaty enough upper stage engine for the HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/12/2010 05:52 pm
Thank you for your reply. I was wondering because of the bombastic headlines about how the bill would be brought to vote "within 24 hours""
Those are press releases from lobbying groups; the varying sense of urgency is about whether the authorization bill on the House side (HR 5781) will get on the House calendar for floor debate and/or vote in the upcoming pre-election session.  The groups were anticipating an imminent decision.  (So far, there's a bunch of legislation already on the Majority Whip's calendar, but not that bill yet.)

Edit: 51D Mascot provided a good overview of where things stand (neither authorization bill is on the calendar):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg635999#msg635999

But that's only the authorization part of things...Congress will almost certainly pass some kind of appropriations bill before the election recess, regardless of the outcome of negotiations on an authorization.  (A continuing resolution of some duration would need to be passed before October 1st to prevent even a minimal "gov't shutdown.")
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/12/2010 06:16 pm
The best compromise between the SDHLV and the all-commercial world is the AJAX. It uses a SD Core which can be human rated, and the Atlas-V CCB's as the LRB's. The Atlas-V's would do double duty as the default CLV. It can be configured to cover the complete range of 50-190mT to LEO without an upper stage. But it leaves ATK out, which is a "political" non-starter.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jorge on 09/12/2010 06:21 pm
The best compromise between the SDHLV and the all-commercial world is the AJAX. It uses a SD Core which can be human rated, and the Atlas-V CCB's as the LRB's. The Atlas-V's would do double duty as the default CLV. It can be configured to cover the complete range of 50-190mT to LEO without an upper stage. But it leaves ATK out, which is a "political" non-starter.

I never saw the attraction at all, myself. AJAX is technically inferior to Atlas V Phase 2 and is politically inferior to DIRECT (a complete non-starter, as you acknowledge).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/12/2010 07:13 pm
I never saw the attraction at all, myself. AJAX is technically inferior to Atlas V Phase 2 and is politically inferior to DIRECT (a complete non-starter, as you acknowledge).

Yeah, if there hasn't been the political will to enable a Shuttle LRB in the past 30 years, what's the probability it'll happen now...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: uko on 09/12/2010 09:50 pm
In the meantime, the Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution by the end of September for those appropriations bills not yet adopted (which includes the CJS bill where NASA appropriations reside.) Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.

An enacted authorization bill would at least provide a strong argument for the content of the CR to reflect the funding levels and allocations reflected in the authorization bill--something both House and Senate appropriators indicated they would prefer to do--and which the Senate appropriations committee has proven good to that commitment by already having adopted and reported out a CJS bill which tracks closely to the Senate authorization formula.

It's hard for me to understand the "continuing resolution".. can someone please explain..

I was thinking that a CR repeats the funding levels for 2011 that were in place for 2010. If that's true, then there should be quite a lot of money for shuttle to fly the additional mission and also a lot of money for Constellation meaning heavy lift development.

Where do I get it wrong?


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: notsorandom on 09/12/2010 10:29 pm
So it would be appear the Ares 1 huggers are winning in the house.


AUGH! :( :(
My paranoid fear is that the Ares I will actually get built. I have no doubt that NASA can make it work. They have pulled off miraculous things before. However, once Ares I and Orion are flying there are no guarantees that any HLV would be built. More then likely an HLV would not be built due to the cost involved. So what we would be left with is a rocket that was more expensive and less capable than the EELVs and a system stuck in LEO that wouldn't have nearly the capability of the Space Shuttle. It really seems to me that the Jupiter rockets are the best bet.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/12/2010 11:27 pm
So it would be appear the Ares 1 huggers are winning in the house.


AUGH! :( :(
My paranoid fear is that the Ares I will actually get built. I have no doubt that NASA can make it work. They have pulled off miraculous things before. However, once Ares I and Orion are flying there are no guarantees that any HLV would be built. More then likely an HLV would not be built due to the cost involved. So what we would be left with is a rocket that was more expensive and less capable than the EELVs and a system stuck in LEO that wouldn't have nearly the capability of the Space Shuttle. It really seems to me that the Jupiter rockets are the best bet.

Which is exactly why we tried to kill Ares-I 4 years ago.
Four years ago we stated in no uncertain terms, over and over again, that NASA was only going to get to build *ONE* rocket, not 2. If they get Ares-I operational it will be left for the Indians to return mankind to the moon because the United States will have STUPIDLY given up any hope of space leadership - gone - fini!

Russia cannot afford to do it. Europe cannot afford to do it. China is not interested. Maybe Elon? Certainly *NOT* NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 09/13/2010 12:23 am
In the meantime, the Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution by the end of September for those appropriations bills not yet adopted (which includes the CJS bill where NASA appropriations reside.) Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.

An enacted authorization bill would at least provide a strong argument for the content of the CR to reflect the funding levels and allocations reflected in the authorization bill--something both House and Senate appropriators indicated they would prefer to do--and which the Senate appropriations committee has proven good to that commitment by already having adopted and reported out a CJS bill which tracks closely to the Senate authorization formula.

It's hard for me to understand the "continuing resolution".. can someone please explain..

I was thinking that a CR repeats the funding levels for 2011 that were in place for 2010. If that's true, then there should be quite a lot of money for shuttle to fly the additional mission and also a lot of money for Constellation meaning heavy lift development.

Where do I get it wrong?


it means the continued dismantling of the Shuttle Infrastructure and the laying off of the people with the skills to build the SDLV Core; in 6 months to a year, that will remove almost any hope of a SD HLV as an option, because the cost and time necessary to get re contracting, retooling and rehiring would be too much for any NASA budget conceivable at this time;
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/13/2010 03:09 am
In the meantime, the Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution by the end of September for those appropriations bills not yet adopted (which includes the CJS bill where NASA appropriations reside.) Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.

An enacted authorization bill would at least provide a strong argument for the content of the CR to reflect the funding levels and allocations reflected in the authorization bill--something both House and Senate appropriators indicated they would prefer to do--and which the Senate appropriations committee has proven good to that commitment by already having adopted and reported out a CJS bill which tracks closely to the Senate authorization formula.

It's hard for me to understand the "continuing resolution".. can someone please explain..

I was thinking that a CR repeats the funding levels for 2011 that were in place for 2010. If that's true, then there should be quite a lot of money for shuttle to fly the additional mission and also a lot of money for Constellation meaning heavy lift development.

Where do I get it wrong?


it means the continued dismantling of the Shuttle Infrastructure and the laying off of the people with the skills to build the SDLV Core; in 6 months to a year, that will remove almost any hope of a SD HLV as an option, because the cost and time necessary to get re contracting, retooling and rehiring would be too much for any NASA budget conceivable at this time;

Good response. Sorry I just don't have time to respond to a lot of these questions in depth...things are very busy and what IS going on is something I can't really talk about at this stage, but will try to as I get time.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 09/13/2010 03:42 am
With no inside knowledge whatsoever, my guess is:

The House are going to throw a few non-binding words about Ares I, J-2X & 5-seg into the Senate bill and pass it next week.

That way they can go to the election claiming to have saved Shuttle/CxP jobs in their districts. If NASA eliminates some of those in the design process over the next few months, after the election, the electorate will have 2 years to get over it, and they'll have plausible deniability.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/13/2010 03:47 am
In the meantime, the Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution by the end of September for those appropriations bills not yet adopted (which includes the CJS bill where NASA appropriations reside.) Without an adopted (enacted) NASA Authorization bill, funding levels--and allocations--for NASA funding levels would likely be defined as a continuation of the 2010 levels and allocations among accounts, leaving the Agency in the status quo of uncertainty and lack of clear direction for the future; a potential disaster for the skilled workforce and the related capabilities that would be needed to embark on the immediate development of a heavy-lift.

An enacted authorization bill would at least provide a strong argument for the content of the CR to reflect the funding levels and allocations reflected in the authorization bill--something both House and Senate appropriators indicated they would prefer to do--and which the Senate appropriations committee has proven good to that commitment by already having adopted and reported out a CJS bill which tracks closely to the Senate authorization formula.

It's hard for me to understand the "continuing resolution".. can someone please explain..

I was thinking that a CR repeats the funding levels for 2011 that were in place for 2010. If that's true, then there should be quite a lot of money for shuttle to fly the additional mission and also a lot of money for Constellation meaning heavy lift development.

Where do I get it wrong?


it means the continued dismantling of the Shuttle Infrastructure and the laying off of the people with the skills to build the SDLV Core; in 6 months to a year, that will remove almost any hope of a SD HLV as an option, because the cost and time necessary to get re contracting, retooling and rehiring would be too much for any NASA budget conceivable at this time;

A CR would likely only last a few months.  Once seated and leadership and committee assignments are made, the first order of a new Congress would likely be to pass FY11 as quickly as possible.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/13/2010 10:49 am
A CR would likely only last a few months.  Once seated and leadership and committee assignments are made, the first order of a new Congress would likely be to pass FY11 as quickly as possible.   
Agreed, but as speculated for many months, they could do the same thing the 110th Congress did.  That mid-term-elected Congress "quickly" passed another CR (the fourth for that year) that covered the remainder of the fiscal year:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app07.html

We'll still have to wait to see what happens, since it's a possibility (but not a certainty) that the CR language could specify different top-line numbers for NASA than FY10.  (Such as from an enacted authorization bill.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/13/2010 01:07 pm
Quote
... just shooting clowns from cannons ...

Harsh, but well put.

Quote
... CR that could run for six months until after the elections this autumn ...

And during the lame duck session, expect more terminations based on arcane legal provisions; expect more infrastructure to be disposed of;  expect national capabilities to become weaker.  Should the work be started again, expect expense, delay, and mankind's continued Earth boundedness.

The talk around here, some months ago, along the lines of "now that Ares is dead..." seems to have been a sort of premature exultation.

(I was going to use the word that means "a short sudden emotional utterance", but decided against it.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: uko on 09/13/2010 01:09 pm
it means the continued dismantling of the Shuttle Infrastructure and the laying off of the people with the skills to build the SDLV Core; in 6 months to a year, that will remove almost any hope of a SD HLV as an option, because the cost and time necessary to get re contracting, retooling and rehiring would be too much for any NASA budget conceivable at this time;

Ok.. so a CR does not mean that the same amount of money that was available to shuttle in 2010 will be available in fy 2011?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 01:14 pm
Ok.. so a CR does not mean that the same amount of money that was available to shuttle in 2010 will be available in fy 2011?

Unless there is specific guidance in the CR it would also keep authorisation for Mike Griffin's scorched earth policy in place.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 02:08 pm
From where you are sitting is irrelevant.  You have no stake in this in any way, even less tax dollars. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 02:12 pm
I do have a stake: the effect this has on manned spaceflight, both government funded and commercial. Even if you're looking at tax money: whatever NASA does has an impact on ESA and the other international partners, mainly through the ISS, but also through the effect on the commercial viability of US launchers.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 02:25 pm
I do have a stake: the effect this has on manned spaceflight, both government funded and commercial. Even if you're looking at tax money: whatever NASA does has an impact on ESA and the other international partners, mainly through the ISS, but also through the effect on the commercial viability of US launchers.

ESA already has the far more commercially successful Ariane 5. Not very surprisingly this has not lead to a cheap lift nirvana for all ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 02:30 pm
ESA already has the far more commercially successful Ariane 5. Not very surprisingly this has not lead to a cheap lift nirvana for all ;).

Ariane 5 is an overly complicated, overly large, government funded launcher with a monopoly for European payloads, at least those payloads that aren't too small for it. Small wonder that it doesn't offer cheap lift.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 02:37 pm
ESA already has the far more commercially successful Ariane 5. Not very surprisingly this has not lead to a cheap lift nirvana for all ;).

Ariane 5 is an overly complicated, overly large, government funded launcher with a monopoly for European payloads, at least those payloads that aren't too small for it. Small wonder that it doesn't offer cheap lift.

It has a relatively high flight rate though that is consistent with true commercial demand as it shares the commercial market with Protons as well as having its fixed/development costs paid for by ESA. It is the current reality of 'cheap lift' which is quite unlike all the wonderful theorized dreams you have about it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Stephan on 09/13/2010 02:40 pm
Ariane 5 is an overly complicated, overly large, government funded launcher with a monopoly for European payloads, at least those payloads that aren't too small for it. Small wonder that it doesn't offer cheap lift.
For government payloads.
Do NRO payloads fly on Proton ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 02:47 pm
For government payloads.
Do NRO payloads fly on Proton ?

There's nothing wrong with wanting assured access to space for military payloads. Excess capacity can then be sold at a price that maximises gross profit. Unfortunately that's not enough to make a net profit, but at least it offsets some of the cost of the assured access. This is the same argument as for EELVs. It's just an economical way to pay for assured access to space. There is no reason to believe it will ever lead to cheap lift, which was never its goal anyway.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 02:50 pm
The CR will continue with Ares I and Cx so you are hoping for the wrong thing.

Well, I'd expect those to collapse within a year. With the option of a sidemount or DIRECT-like SDLV cut off, SDLV would likely be doomed. Again, the worst possible outcome if you want an SDLV, but a good (not perfect) outcome if you want commercial manned spaceflight. We all know that the space enthusiast community is deeply divided and deeply polarised at the moment, whether we like it or not.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/13/2010 02:55 pm
No, it just means you simply gut Comercial Crew to re-start SDLV.  You really don't get US politics.

The money people are behind SDHLV.  They are going to get fed first or nobody is going to eat.  You simply do not get it and are operating squrely from within the realm of wishful thinking.

Besides, the Ares 1 work preserves a SDHLV to a large extent.

"Nice Propellant Depot you have there, I would be a shame if something happened to it."

You have to understand you are dealing with entrenched political intrests.  You can make the best of them and try to come up with the least objectional plan that meets your interests (The Senate Plan) or you can fight them and you will end up with something that looks like the House Plan.  No matter how you wish it so, there is no option C that is the MM plan.

Just give the Bear it's sandwich and walk on by.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 02:55 pm
The CR will continue with Ares I and Cx so you are hoping for the wrong thing.

Well, I'd expect those to collapse within a year. With the option of a sidemount or DIRECT-like SDLV cut off, SDLV would likely be doomed. Again, the worst possible outcome if you want an SDLV, but a good (not perfect) outcome if you want commercial manned spaceflight. We all know that the space enthusiast community is deeply divided and deeply polarised at the moment, whether we like it or not.

You are still not getting it. SD-HLV may be sidetracked temporarily but Ares I won't be. You better be hoping for the Senate bill to pass because that will be as good as you get otherwise the two Cx rockets will be reinstated. Ares I is not reliant on the Shuttle stack infrastructure and the timeline of its dismantling and any cancellation steps the Administration has taken will be reversed in the CR. Congress and some sort of SDLV will win this dispute, it's just a question of which.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 02:56 pm
The CR will continue with Ares I and Cx so you are hoping for the wrong thing.

Well, I'd expect those to collapse within a year. With the option of a sidemount or DIRECT-like SDLV cut off, SDLV would likely be doomed. Again, the worst possible outcome if you want an SDLV, but a good (not perfect) outcome if you want commercial manned spaceflight. We all know that the space enthusiast community is deeply divided and deeply polarised at the moment, whether we like it or not.

"Commercial manned spaceflight" is doomed as well.

If you don't believe me, just look around.  Get educated. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 03:07 pm
You are still not getting it. SD-HLV may be sidetracked temporarily but Ares I won't be.

Ares I is way behind schedule and is having major performance difficulties. Sooner or later it will become obvious to everybody that Ares I cannot compete with EELV and Orion cannot compete with Dragon for ISS support. And Ares I cannot support exploration without Ares V, and probably not even with Ares V without propellant transfer in light of its performance problems. It is one doomed rocket.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 03:08 pm
Congress is not listening to your 'obvious' dreams. Congress has always been quite happy to fund Ares I.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 03:09 pm
any cancellation steps the Administration has taken will be reversed in the CR.

Not exactly.  Certain NASA officials would likely continue to hamstring along CxP, even though it is officially funded via the CR.

What you would be looking at is no "real" Constellation Program, people still being cut loose.  You would be looking at no Shuttle Program.  People would be cut loose.  You would be looking at no "commercial" funding.  Certainly that would have a further ripple through the industry. 

Again, worse possible outcome for everything. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 03:11 pm
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 03:13 pm
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.

True, but not continued in the way you think.  Look at recent history as an example with little known and even less seldom executed clauses. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 03:14 pm
Congress is not listening to your 'obvious' dreams. Congress has always been quite happy to fund Ares I.

It doesn't have to. If Congress wants to preserve the long term future of the Shuttle stack, then it has to go for something like DIRECT Lite or sidemount. Ares I will lose much of the workforce, then it will get ever further behind its competitors, then it will lose much of its political support and then it will be cancelled for good. It may be a slow motion trainwreck, but it is a trainwreck nevertheless.

It is now or never for the Shuttle stack. Ares I or a CR that preserves Ares I for a while and cuts off the possibility of a barely affordable SD-HLV makes the end inevitable even if it isn't imminent.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/13/2010 03:16 pm
In truth no matter your stance on commercial or SDLV, the Senate bill must be passed by the House so we can finally end Constellation.  It is a good compromise, and gives both proposals a foot in the door. The president has already said he would sign the Senate bill, it is time for the House to get over its phantom dream of Ares and make the practical compromise with CCDev/SDLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/13/2010 03:17 pm
Quote
"Nice Propellant Depot you have there, It would be a shame if something happened to it."

And the very worst part of this notion is that those who would get the nice contract to build it would be the same who would sell the "insurance policy" to make sure nothing happened to it.

And I believe that OV is right; those terminations would keep going under a CR. It would be ironic.

Just apologize, please, for the "delicious" part.  Let's shake hands and move along.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/13/2010 04:16 pm
Ares I is way behind schedule and is having major performance difficulties. Sooner or later it will become obvious to everybody that Ares I cannot compete with EELV and Orion cannot compete with Dragon for ISS support. And Ares I cannot support exploration without Ares V, and probably not even with Ares V without propellant transfer in light of its performance problems. It is one doomed rocket.

The simple problem is that the Powers That Be don't accept that it is doomed and won't accept it.  Many of them believe that it is vital and the only thing that can do the job and have argued with the strongest rhetoric that it is a minimum necessity.  Letting it go now is tantamount to admitting that they are wrong, something that they would never do.

The way I see it, the scenarios are like this:

1) The House blinks and a Senate-like bill is passed (just on the very edge of being possible).  Result - SLS starts this year; It isn't really DIRECT but has DIRECT-like elements.  Fine-tuning might tighten its timeline and reduce its costs;

2) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  The incoming right-wing Congress demands massive budget cuts and all HSF work is put on indefinate hiatus.  The timelines for CST-100 and Dragon soar out to the right as all government subsidies fade away (because any kind of government funding is anti-free enterprise and therefore anathema to the right-wing mind);

3) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  After the election, the new Congress gets together and develops a compromise with the most likely outcome that money is siphoned from the 'long shot' commercial option, tech development and robotic exploration so as to mitigate the effects of the delay on the Orion/SLS system.  IMHO, this is the most likely outcome;

4) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  Post-election, the horse-trading runs on for a long time because entrenched elements in the House want Ares-I or nothing.  Meanwhile the shuttle infrastructure goes away and NASA continues to cancel CxP elements "in preparation for the upcoming transition".  Congress demands a halt to this, NASA, citing obscure legal obligations, ignores them.  Once the compromise is reached, whatever it is, it is suddenly realised that there are no longer the tools to carry it out.  The political barriers to utilisation of any commercial system remain high.  We may very possibly see the counter being zeroed and NASA being told to start from square one, possibly on a kerolox-core HLV.  Once again, the budget is utterly insufficient for NASA's grandiose plans and NASA demonstrates its typical inability to understand this.  Commercial crew crawls along with minimal or non-existant federal funding and reaches flying state in the 2020s, if at all.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:20 pm
The simple problem is that the Powers That Be don't accept that it is doomed and won't accept it.

All I'm trying to say is that this is only a problem if you want SDLV to succeed. If you don't, then a doomed attempt at Ares I is the best thing that could happen. If it unexpectedly succeeded, then that would be bad from that perspective. If you want SDLV to succeed, then it is just the other way round.

In other words, you and I disagree on a CR because we have different goals.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/13/2010 04:33 pm
If you want Commercial Crew and Prop Depots to succeed, a continuing resolution is the worst possible outcome.  They will be gutted first when funds get tight.  They have the weakest political constitutencies.

A CR hurts you most MM.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 04:36 pm

In other words, you and I disagree on a CR because we have different goals.

Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:37 pm
I don't think commercial crew and depots are urgent. I do believe getting NASA out of the launch business is urgent. Not many here agree with that of course. A CR would likely have that effect, whether Congress intends it to or not. And once NASA had got out of the launch business resistance to commercial crew and depots would fade.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:39 pm
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/13/2010 04:39 pm
NASA won't go out of the launch business, It might gut everything else it does to revive it but it won't go out of the business.  If you force it to eat the baby, it will. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 04:39 pm
Congress is not listening to your 'obvious' dreams. Congress has always been quite happy to fund Ares I.

It doesn't have to. If Congress wants to preserve the long term future of the Shuttle stack, then it has to go for something like DIRECT Lite or sidemount. Ares I will lose much of the workforce, then it will get ever further behind its competitors, then it will lose much of its political support and then it will be cancelled for good. It may be a slow motion trainwreck, but it is a trainwreck nevertheless.

It is now or never for the Shuttle stack. Ares I or a CR that preserves Ares I for a while and cuts off the possibility of a barely affordable SD-HLV makes the end inevitable even if it isn't imminent.

The Shuttle stack was going to go away with Cx anyway. All you daydreamers still don't get it, Congress pays for NASA and it wants SDLVs and has so since 2004-5. If a very popular incoming President with the majority of both sides of Congress allied to his party can't cancel that then you guys bleating on forums have no chance. Some of us were telling you that's would happen ever since FY2011 came out. If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order. The battle now is purely between Ares I and a SD-HLV of some description. FY2011 fans can only hope that as much of the Senate bill gets through as possible.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: grdja on 09/13/2010 04:40 pm
Most likely outcome of CR passing as it is, or prolonged fighting between Senate, Congress and Administration is a completely gutted NASA with a budget comparable to ESA and no manned spaceflight whatsoever once ISS goes down.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 04:42 pm
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.

True, but not continued in the way you think.  Look at recent history as an example with little known and even less seldom executed clauses. 

Oh yeah it will be stop and start with no doubt the Administration pulling the same cancellation contingency stunt next fiscal year but this time the contractors will be prepared and budget accordingly until a proper bill is passed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:43 pm
NASA won't go out of the launch business, It might gut everything else it does to revive it but it won't go out of the business.  If you force it to eat the baby, it will. 

Do you really think it could do that after Ares I failed? Or do you think they could get it operational and use it to support the ISS? Will the rest of Congress accept that when EELV/Orion and/or Falcon 9/Dragon is cheaper?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:45 pm
Most likely outcome of CR passing as it is, or prolonged fighting between Senate, Congress and Administration is a completely gutted NASA with a budget comparable to ESA and no manned spaceflight whatsoever once ISS goes down.

That is a serious possibility. But I do wonder if the rest of Congress would accept getting out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. Maybe they would.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 04:46 pm
If the CR contains Cx continuation funding it will have to be continued.

True, but not continued in the way you think.  Look at recent history as an example with little known and even less seldom executed clauses. 
Oh yeah it will be stop and start with no doubt the Administration pulling the same cancellation contingency stunt next fiscal year but this time the contractors will be prepared and budget accordingly until a proper bill is passed.


Yet no real work will be accomplished.  People will still be let go, the workforce will be a shell and the political back-and-forth will continue.

The product is wasted money and time.  Nothing else. 

It also places NASA and the industry as a whole in the worst possible position we collectively can be placed in. 

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:47 pm
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/13/2010 04:48 pm
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?

Without something like Direct to replace it?  I am 100% sure it would.  The jobs would still be ther wouldn't they?  The contracts would still be there wouldn't they?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 04:51 pm
If Ares I is built then a large Ares V will be built later in that original order.

Do you seriously believe Ares I would survive longer than a year, maybe two years?

If it's authorized again now after a direct Presidential attempt to kill it will last this whole century as NASA's preferred 25mT launcher. They will be in no mood to hand out any future work to EELVs if they win this one.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 09/13/2010 04:56 pm
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.

Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 04:59 pm
Without something like Direct to replace it?  I am 100% sure it would.  The jobs would still be ther wouldn't they?  The contracts would still be there wouldn't they?

Much of the workforce would be gone. The option of a somewhat affordable SD-HLV would have been cut off. The SSME would be gone. The 5 seg boosters and the J2X would still not be finished and the J2X would still have performance problems. In the mean time ISS continues to eat resources and continues to feed SpaceX and Orbital. Falcon and Dragon are building up a reliability record. Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/13/2010 05:05 pm
I don't think commercial crew and depots are urgent. I do believe getting NASA out of the launch business is urgent. Not many here agree with that of course. A CR would likely have that effect, whether Congress intends it to or not. And once NASA had got out of the launch business resistance to commercial crew and depots would fade.

You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Do you understand now? No matter what the details, it is unlikely that any scenario starting with a CR leads to commercial crew launch.  Indeed, it may force the prevention of commercial crew launch because the money is needed to develop the NASA launch system.  Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 05:05 pm
Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.

which will do no good if it's never authorized to. If the House wins expect Cx to be reinstated in full. Lunar landings may not take place until the 2030s now but it will eventually happen if the Griffin camp wins. Obama and Garver will be long gone before Ares I IOC and the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/13/2010 05:12 pm
You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Those are not essential and they can't kill Dragon. Also remember that NASA will be getting out of the launch business very, very soon, for at least a couple of years, while ULA, SpaceX and Orbital won't.

Quote
Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

Who are "they"? How much influence will they have in a new Congress? How much influence will they have once much of the Shuttle workforce and supply chain is dismantled?

Quote
The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.

Falcon/Dragon or EELV/Orion is all we need and we will probably end up with both. Dreamchaser and CST-100 are not crucial. Depots aren't crucial. And you can always try to reintroduce them later. Only SDLV doesn't have that luxury.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 09/13/2010 05:14 pm
Everybody knows EELV could carry Orion as well. And Obama would still be opposed to Constellation Lite and might allow Garver to sabotage it as much as possible. Severe budget cuts across the board are likely and NASA is unlikely to escape that. Not a very promising future for Ares.

which will do no good if it's never authorized to. If the House wins expect Cx to be reinstated in full. Lunar landings may not take place until the 2030s now but it will eventually happen if the Griffin camp wins. Obama and Garver will be long gone before Ares I IOC and the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 

Hogwash. If CxP is reinstated, it won't go anywhere. The budget situation hasn't changed. CxP was in reality not going anywhere (beyond possibly LEO), and a reborn CxP won't either.

CxP is an evolutionary dead end for NASA HSF. (and perhaps even NASA in general)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 05:19 pm
the Republicans that count, the ones in direct control of NASA, want government controlled rockets and HSF to continue. 

Just to clarify, there are too many, not saying you are one but they are "out there", that want to draw overly-simplistic lines.

Republicans are not anti-commercial and pro-government anymore than all democrats are anti-government and pro-commercial. 

With SLS, NASA has the potential oppurtunity to develop an HLV based on existing and known technology to be a component in beyond LEO work and exploration.  There is no "commercial" HLV in this lift class.

Since that does not exist, and the market does not support it, NASA builds it. 

This should not be seen as anti-commercial.  It is a capability the government provides when a commercial alternative does not exist.  This is no different than any other point in history nor is it unique to NASA. 

Should Orion and SLS ever exist, they will serve as a back-up to commercial crew and cargo to the ISS, etc.  Not the other way around.  Orion and SLS for LEO/ISS should commercial fail or not live up to expectations is a strategically smart thing to do.

Yet none of this will likely happen with a CR.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jnc on 09/13/2010 05:23 pm
3) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  After the election, the new Congress gets together and develops a compromise with the most likely outcome that money is siphoned from the 'long shot' commercial option, tech development and robotic exploration so as to mitigate the effects of the delay on the Orion/SLS system.  IMHO, this is the most likely outcome;

4) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  Post-election, the horse-trading runs on for a long time because entrenched elements in the House want Ares-I or nothing.  Meanwhile the shuttle infrastructure goes away and NASA continues to cancel CxP elements "in preparation for the upcoming transition".  Congress demands a halt to this, NASA, citing obscure legal obligations, ignores them.  Once the compromise is reached, whatever it is, it is suddenly realised that there are no longer the tools to carry it out. ... We may very possibly see the counter being zeroed and NASA being told to start from square one, possibly on a kerolox-core HLV.  Once again, the budget is utterly insufficient for NASA's grandiose plans and NASA demonstrates its typical inability to understand this.  Commercial crew crawls along with minimal or non-existant federal funding and reaches flying state in the 2020s, if at all.

Excellent analysis. My only quibble would be to rate your last possibility as equally likely with the one before.

Noel
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/13/2010 05:38 pm
Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.

The hole in your argument is that the Ares I is not ready to launch.  The Augustine Commission predicted the first crewed launch of the Ares I would be in  2017-2019 (under last years budget).  That is longer than Project Apollo.

Currently Ares I is being supported by its own R&D money plus Shuttle operations money.  When the last Shuttle lands the operations money goes away followed by the contractors' jobs.  A pork programme that creates unemployment is a lot less popular in Congress.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/13/2010 05:42 pm
The fact that Ares 1 is not ready is not a hole in his arguement.  It is his point and it is correct. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/13/2010 05:42 pm
Ares I is way behind schedule and is having major performance difficulties. Sooner or later it will become obvious to everybody that Ares I cannot compete with EELV and Orion cannot compete with Dragon for ISS support. And Ares I cannot support exploration without Ares V, and probably not even with Ares V without propellant transfer in light of its performance problems. It is one doomed rocket.

The simple problem is that the Powers That Be don't accept that it is doomed and won't accept it.  Many of them believe that it is vital and the only thing that can do the job and have argued with the strongest rhetoric that it is a minimum necessity.  Letting it go now is tantamount to admitting that they are wrong, something that they would never do.

The way I see it, the scenarios are like this:

1) The House blinks and a Senate-like bill is passed (just on the very edge of being possible).  Result - SLS starts this year; It isn't really DIRECT but has DIRECT-like elements.  Fine-tuning might tighten its timeline and reduce its costs;

2) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  The incoming right-wing Congress demands massive budget cuts and all HSF work is put on indefinate hiatus.  The timelines for CST-100 and Dragon soar out to the right as all government subsidies fade away (because any kind of government funding is anti-free enterprise and therefore anathema to the right-wing mind);

3) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  After the election, the new Congress gets together and develops a compromise with the most likely outcome that money is siphoned from the 'long shot' commercial option, tech development and robotic exploration so as to mitigate the effects of the delay on the Orion/SLS system.  IMHO, this is the most likely outcome;

4) The House holds firm (very possible).  Result - A CR whilst the election is being fought.  Post-election, the horse-trading runs on for a long time because entrenched elements in the House want Ares-I or nothing.  Meanwhile the shuttle infrastructure goes away and NASA continues to cancel CxP elements "in preparation for the upcoming transition".  Congress demands a halt to this, NASA, citing obscure legal obligations, ignores them.  Once the compromise is reached, whatever it is, it is suddenly realised that there are no longer the tools to carry it out.  The political barriers to utilisation of any commercial system remain high.  We may very possibly see the counter being zeroed and NASA being told to start from square one, possibly on a kerolox-core HLV.  Once again, the budget is utterly insufficient for NASA's grandiose plans and NASA demonstrates its typical inability to understand this.  Commercial crew crawls along with minimal or non-existant federal funding and reaches flying state in the 2020s, if at all.

A continuing resolution is likely for reasons other than NASA. It has happenned in the last few years. So it wouldn't be a surprise. The only question is whether the authorizing bill is passed before the continuing resolution. If it isn't, it becomes more complicated. But there is middle ground solutions: one would be to rescind the obligation to not cancel Constellation which was introduced in the FY2010 appropriation bill. This would allow NASA more leeway which would allow it to modify Constellation.

In other words, I don't think that a continuing resolution necessarely means that Constellation must be continued without modifications. This is only the case because of the language introduced in the FY 2010 appropriation bill. But that language can be changed in the FY 2011 continuing resolution. If Congress changes this language, NASA can change parts of Constellation and essentially adopt the flexible path with a SD-HLV (which is essentially a modified version of Constellation anyways). I would be surprised if a solution by Congress isn't found. If they leave this as an open item before the election, they will be seen as dropping the ball. They can't blame the President on this and they know it. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/13/2010 05:48 pm
You fail to understand the likely outcome.  NASA will not be out of the launch business. To ensure that NASA will not be out of the launch business, commercial crew and possibly tech development will be strangled at birth to ensure that some breed of SLS comes into existence.

Those are not essential and they can't kill Dragon. Also remember that NASA will be getting out of the launch business very, very soon, for at least a couple of years, while ULA, SpaceX and Orbital won't.

Once again, you miss the point.  It isn't about 'killing' anything.  It is about starving it of funding to the point that its development takes as much as a decade and thus it enters service after the de-orbit of ISS.  Without that 'anchor customer', Commercial Crew will be hard-pressed to make much headway.

Don't forget that getting NASA back into the launch business is a political priority for reasons of national prestige (making the case for SLS paradoxically stronger in a right-wing Congress). It will probably be such a high priority that funding will be diverted from other programs to that end.

Quote
Quote
Understand, Martjin, that they won't give up.  Giving up means that they were wrong and that is the one thing that they will never, ever accept.

Who are "they"? How much influence will they have in a new Congress?

They are the power-brokers (most notably figures like Senator Shelby) in Congress and also the lobbyists for OldSpace.  They are so heavily-entrenched that they are essentially immune to removal until they choose to retire.  The lobbyists want their companies to get the guaranteed giga-bucks of SLS, not the dribble of milestone awards of commercial development.

Quote
How much influence will they have once much of the Shuttle workforce and supply chain is dismantled?

Still more than ULA; The politicians apparently are hard-pressed to remember that they even exist.  ULA does not seem to be in a hurry to remind them either, given their silence in the post-Augustine phase.

Quote
Quote
The most that we can hope for right now is an Orion/SLS being adopted swiftly in a bill that allows for the development of commercial crew and the infrastructure related to commercial BEO in parallel to the SLS program.

Falcon/Dragon or EELV/Orion is all we need and we will probably end up with both. Dreamchaser and CST-100 are not crucial. Depots aren't crucial. And you can always try to reintroduce them later. Only SDLV doesn't have that luxury.

I'm sure this is likely in your head.  However, you forget that Orion is being heavily-optimised for Ares-I's extremely flaky performance.  It would cost money to convert it for flight on an EELV, money that simply isn't available after billions are spent on a hopeless drive to get Ares-I flyable that could last half a decade or more.  The same billions that would have been sucked from CCDev, slowing CST-100 and Crewed Dragon down to the point where they do not enter service before the retirement of the ISS.

There might be some post-ISS commercial-only developments in LEO.  However, in this "doomsday" scenario, years and possibly decades would have been lost and the last tatters of political support for any kind of space exploration would have been squandered.  BEO no earlier than 2050 will suddenly be a very real possibility.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/13/2010 07:46 pm
Here's a crazy question..

If, by some twist of unholy fate(act of congress), we end up stuck with Ares-1.. and J-2X is not required for whatever SLS is proposed(as seems to be the case currently). 

Wouldn't it make sense to switch Ares-1 back to Air Start SSME?  Air Start SSME has already been proposed for use in some SLS variants(with seperate RL-10/60 dervied EDS)

How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/13/2010 07:56 pm
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/13/2010 08:09 pm
Good summary of current status

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1695/1

Meanwhile, there are efforts in Congress to try and reconcile the differences between the House and Senate bills. At a separate space policy forum in Washington on Friday, organized by the University of Nebraska College of Law, Jeff Bingham, a staffer on the Senate Commerce Committee, said there was “preconferencing” underway to try and smooth out the differences between the two bills before the House votes on a bill, but couldn’t discuss the details about the negotiations. Such negotiations might be critical to the eventual passage of any authorization bill, as some fear that if the House passes its own version, there may not be the time or ability to go through a formal conference committee process to work out differences between the final House and Senate versions, even if Congress returns for a “lame duck” session after the November elections.

Bingham said that the Senate’s version, which passed by unanimous consent, was itself crafted as a compromise to deal with differing opinions among senators about NASA’s future direction. “What you end up with, inevitably, is a bill that no one really loves, but that everybody likes and can accept,” he said.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/13/2010 08:12 pm
To all:

Keep it civil at all times, or lose your post.

If you want to have a shouting match, go to another site, or lose your posts.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/13/2010 08:35 pm
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote

That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/13/2010 08:43 pm
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


[edit]
Whoops! Fixed quote

That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

No, you couldn't.  The 8.4m tank would be too heavy as well as being unstable beyond the ability of engineering to fix.  A longer 5.5m AIUS might be possible though.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/14/2010 02:46 am
And the comparison to V-22 is a good one.  For a while there, V-22 had killed more Marines than any Al-Qaeda attack.  And now, they're afraid to use 'em, because they might get shot down.  And then they'll tell me that I can demonstrate patriotism by purchasing cheap Chinese sh...stuff at the mall.  And what do I know anyhow... [Takes deep breath...]
I had a chance to talk with a V-22 crew last year shortly after they returned from combat.  In the discussion was a helicopter pilot who had flown in Vietnam.  The V-22 crew said that the problems have been for the most part been worked out and love their aircraft.  They said that some of the early problems were training issues on how to fly the aircraft.  They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Patchouli on 09/14/2010 04:45 am
any cancellation steps the Administration has taken will be reversed in the CR.


What you would be looking at is no "real" Constellation Program, people still being cut loose.  You would be looking at no Shuttle Program. 

CxP never was a real exploration program.
 It was under funded and they choose a less then ideal architecture that certainly was not the most affordable.

Most other return to the moon proposals such as ELA,LANTR,LUNOX and HLR avioded an Apollo style architecture for a number of very good reasons.

When I saw the mess called ESAS for the first time I knew at best this would be a repetition of Apollo and would not open the the door to exploration of the rest of the solar system.

Constellation might have put another handful of people on the moon but we would not be staying nor going on the Mars.
Over all it could even had delayed things by eating up money for R&D on advanced propulsion,RLVs,advance life support, and fuel depots.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2010 01:35 pm
... They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.

That was my understanding as well, that the V-22 now works pretty well.  Ask your pals if the LZ they were working in was under fire.  My current understanding is that the asset is considered to be too expensive to risk in that situation.  If that's changed, it would mean that they have a much greater confidence in the vehicle than earlier.  Plus that particular analogy had a limited lifetime.

Per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey

The flyaway cost in 2010 was $67M per unit.  For the Blackhawk helicopter, $14M, per:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_UH-60_Black_Hawk

For every two V-22's you could get nine Blackhawks.  I believe that if I were running a battlefield, that I could get more done with nine vehicles than two.  This is not the current thinking however, and I'm not the expert, and I digress a bit.

However, the original point was that some programs are rammed thru the procurement process despite factual and common sense objections to the contrary.  Today's example would be the alternate F-35 engine.  Is this anyway to run an airline? Air Force? Space Program?

... Over all it could even had delayed things by eating up money for R&D on advanced propulsion, RLVs, advance life support, and fuel depots.

True, but I object to the first item on the list.  There should be a temporary moratorium on "advanced propulsion", for example.  My prioritization would spend that money building stuff, not researching stuff.  The R&D money is not well prioritized, and it is delaying mission accomplishment by delaying the fixing of specifications in the ever distant hope and promise of the unclear future.  It's almost like the software industry these days:  "Just wait for the next version... It fixes all those bugs interfering with printing...."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/14/2010 01:46 pm
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

It would be in the 27mT class approximately the same as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy. More importantly it would actually get that performance whereas the Isp of the production J-2X is still to be determined meaning that Ares I probably won't hit its 26mT design performance.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/14/2010 02:30 pm
How much would a 5-seg  Ares-1 with and SSME Upper Stage be able to lift to LEO?

As I understand it, an SSME upper stage Ares-I would be hypothetically able to launch a 25t Orion to the ISS with a four-seg core.


That much I knew already..  With the extra thrust of the 5-seg and SSME could you switch to an 8.4m tanked Upper Stage.. that would be common with an intermediate stage for SLS?

It would be in the 27mT class approximately the same as RS-68A Delta IV Heavy. More importantly it would actually get that performance whereas the Isp of the production J-2X is still to be determined meaning that Ares I probably won't hit its 26mT design performance.

Thanks..

I am also dubious J-2X version could hit 26mT or even 24mT for that matter.. 

I would also have thought 5-Seg algong with SSME with it's significantly better ISP and ability to fly with a heavier(more fuel) US, without major gravity losses, would have put it closer to 30mT.. but that was a total SWAG on my end.

I am not arguing that this is a better solution than RS-68A D-IV Heavy..(or anything else for that matter!)  Just that if we do get stuck with it.. let's at least give it half a chance(by using SSME) of lifting a beyond LEO capable Orion with some margin to spare.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/14/2010 02:45 pm
Your "goals" are misguided.  Whatever you think a CR will do for your "goals" are incorrect.

Many SDLV supporters will agree Ares I would be a disaster for the Shuttle workforce. They seem to agree it would get NASA out of the launch business. That's one of my goals, and a means to higher level goals.

Hate to tell you, but if Ares I is continued that is HSF for the next 30 years.  No Ares V, no commercial launchers, just Ares I/Orion to LEO. Just look that the F-22 and V-22 program, despite a huge movement to cancel the programs in the early stages they still continued due to special interests, and even after all the subsequent delays and overruns they did enter production.  That is what will happen to the HSF program if there is a CR.

That is exactly what we (DIRECT) have been saying for almost 5 years. NASA is only going to get to build ONE new launch vehicle. Congress will say "look, we saved American HSF" and then forget all about it and go build the next bridge to nowhere. If Ares-I limps along until it is actually flying, that will be the end of any new LV development for at least a generation, maybe longer, with no HLV and no CCDev.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Eric Hedman on 09/14/2010 04:06 pm
... They said they could get in and our of an LZ very quickly and it was a very effective aircraft.  So I don't know if the V-22 analogy is quite right.  It is however very expensive.

That was my understanding as well, that the V-22 now works pretty well.  Ask your pals if the LZ they were working in was under fire.  My current understanding is that the asset is considered to be too expensive to risk in that situation.  If that's changed, it would mean that they have a much greater confidence in the vehicle than earlier.  Plus that particular analogy had a limited lifetime.

For every two V-22's you could get nine Blackhawks.  I believe that if I were running a battlefield, that I could get more done with nine vehicles than two.  This is not the current thinking however, and I'm not the expert, and I digress a bit.
V-22s to Blackhawks is in some ways an apples to oranges comparison.  The V-22 has greater range, greater speed and greater payload.  Because of that it can do some missions a Blackhawk cannot.  If that's worth the extra price tag, I can't tell.  I'm not a an expert on the topic.  But in someways it's like comparing the capabilities of an HLV to an EELV.  Do two Jupiter 130s equal nine Atlas Vs or nine Delta IVs?  DoD has a mixed fleet of V-22s and Blackhawks.  This gives them the flexibility to use the vehicle best suited for a mission when both are available.  The development cost are sunk.  Going forward the only costs to consider versus capabilities are operations and upgrades.

P.S. I met the V-22 crew at the EAA show in Oshkosh last year so I will not be able to ask them any further questions.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/14/2010 04:16 pm
V-22s to Blackhawks is in some ways an apples to oranges comparison.  The V-22 has greater range, greater speed and greater payload.  Because of that it can do some missions a Blackhawk cannot.  If that's worth the extra price tag, I can't tell.  I'm not a an expert on the topic.  But in someways it's like comparing the capabilities of an HLV to an EELV.  Do two Jupiter 130s equal nine Atlas Vs or nine Delta IVs?  DoD has a mixed fleet of V-22s and Blackhawks.  This gives them the flexibility to use the vehicle best suited for a mission when both are available.  The development cost are sunk.  Going forward the only costs to consider versus capabilities are operations and upgrades.

P.S. I met the V-22 crew at the EAA show in Oshkosh last year so I will not be able to ask them any further questions.

I'm enjoying this conversation.  It is a microcosm of exactly the un-ending debate going on here.

Some like to compare costs again and again and how many of this or that you can get for one of those.  The hole in the arguement always is not acknowledging that you are also not getting the same capabilities.

If you were, the debate would obviously be over.  If your not, then that may be ok for some applications but the blanket statements that some make are also not always acknowledging the "larger picture".
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/14/2010 06:26 pm
The hole in the argument is that there is no apples to apples comparison.  It is always apples to oranges, either of which could provide nutrition, depending on the complete quality of the orange or the apple. 

Savvy?

Edit:  I see that my detailed comment was "lost", but that OV corrected his minor spelling error.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/14/2010 07:25 pm
If Ares-I limps along until it is actually flying, that will be the end of any new LV development for at least a generation, maybe longer, with no HLV and no CCDev.
     You're probably right about the HLV, but I'm not sure about CCDev. The costs to run Ares I + Orion twice a year for crew rotation to ISS will be large. (Augustine Com's quip about "If it were handed to us today fully developed, we'd have to shut it down because we can't afford to fly it"). Meanwhile, even if CCDev is shut out at the moment, both Orbital and SpaceX will over time gain more and more experience flying their vehicles. That's very likely to happen, since Orion+Ares-I wouldn't come online until the end of the decade at best (what is the present estimate to finish Ares I?), so CRS will be ongoing until then.
    Orbital may guess $3 billion now to develop crewed Taurus IIe+Cygnus, but the picture might be different after flying it steadily for about a decade. The operations costs difference would look extremely attractive to NASA -- and possibly defensible before Congress. A half-American, half-Ukrainian Soyuz, to be sure, and a whole lot of irony.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/14/2010 11:01 pm
They won't be flying it for a decade because the CR's won't keep ISS in orbit past 2015-2016. So they will have nowhere to go.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/14/2010 11:35 pm
They won't be flying it for a decade because the CR's won't keep ISS in orbit past 2015-2016. So they will have nowhere to go.

I am pretty sure a new congress--republican would not go the CR route. Otherwise you would fund democratic programs. Likewise the out going congress can pass a budget to lock in their will.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/14/2010 11:48 pm
They won't be flying it for a decade because the CR's won't keep ISS in orbit past 2015-2016. So they will have nowhere to go.

I am pretty sure a new congress--republican would not go the CR route. Otherwise you would fund democratic programs. Likewise the out going congress can pass a budget to lock in their will.

That is way too simplistic. With all due respect I don't think you understand how difficult it is to get *anything* passed thru Congress, regardless of the political party makeup. There are 120 *different* needs in the Senate and over 460 *different* needs in the House. EVERYBODY wants something different. It's really, REALLY hard to get legislation of *any* kind passed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/14/2010 11:56 pm
There are 120 *different* needs in the Senate and over 460 *different* needs in the House. EVERYBODY wants something different. It's really, REALLY hard to get legislation of *any* kind passed.
    Who are the 20 and who are the 25? Are you referring to certain committees as effectively 'persons'?
       -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 12:52 am
There are 120 *different* needs in the Senate and over 460 *different* needs in the House. EVERYBODY wants something different. It's really, REALLY hard to get legislation of *any* kind passed.
    Who are the 20 and who are the 25? Are you referring to certain committees as effectively 'persons'?
       -Alex

Sorry, the Senate & the House. I got the numbers wrong. :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: STS Tony on 09/15/2010 04:11 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22725.0

1.24 billion dollars to Boeing for the ISS to 2015, a Station we're about to lose domestic NASA access to, by paying Russia 100s of millions for spare seats on Soyuz and hope an unproven new commercial company, which has yet to launch a human, can step up to the plate.

That's no slight on anyone, that's simply the facts of the matter.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/15/2010 05:10 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22725.0

1.24 billion dollars to Boeing for the ISS to 2015, a Station we're about to lose domestic NASA access to, by paying Russia 100s of millions for spare seats on Soyuz and hope an unproven new commercial company, which has yet to launch a human, can step up to the plate.

That's no slight on anyone, that's simply the facts of the matter.

Well if Ares 1 and Orion were flight ready(or a lot closer to flight ready) we wouldn't have this problem. Instead NASA was willing to dump a $100 billion dollar investment for a rush to the moon. It was willing to have a gap rather than be realistic about funding, technology, and timing. 

For that the sooner american spaceflight is out of NASA's direct control the better. I would have prefered a less risky approach, but NASA shut down of the shuttle without clear replacement in sight prevented that. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: beancounter on 09/15/2010 05:35 am
Ares ! / Orion was supposed to be the LEO replacement but it all went horribly wrong when Griffin selected an unproven design (5 segment stick) and cost plus contracting.

SpaceX is about to launch it's COTS-C Demo1 flight.  Next year the other 2 demo's either separately or combined will be flown in order to meet the NASA milestones.  After that we have an ISS accredited company doing cargo to the ISS.  Once that happens then the argument against commercial crew is essentially over since SpaceX will be demonstrating safe provision and return of cargo.  It's not a big step to go to crew and the arguments against it will be lost.
JM2CW
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/15/2010 07:17 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22725.0
1.24 billion dollars to Boeing for the ISS to 2015, a Station we're about to lose domestic NASA access to, by paying Russia 100s of millions for spare seats on Soyuz and hope an unproven new commercial company, which has yet to launch a human, can step up to the plate.
That's no slight on anyone, that's simply the facts of the matter.
     Paying the Russians may be irksome, but for a measly few hundred million a year, Soyuz at least actually works. Ares I squanders that every few months, accomplishing nothing. (And apparently forced Orion to do the same.)

     Meanwhile, Orbital is neither a new nor an unproven commercial company. SpaceX is hardly looking incompetent either. One or both have good shots at adding to the other three resupply vehicles.

     When the time comes to compete or downselect commercial crew, neither Boeing nor ULA are unproven companies (and Boeing has launched crew before), and Orbital and SpaceX may be looking pretty good.

     So, it's true we've wasted a lot of time and a lot of money so far, and that was stupid, but the sky isn't falling for the ISS. We have a diversifying portfolio, and we have some time.
     -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/15/2010 09:11 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22725.0

1.24 billion dollars to Boeing for the ISS to 2015, a Station we're about to lose domestic NASA access to, by paying Russia 100s of millions for spare seats on Soyuz and hope an unproven new commercial company, which has yet to launch a human, can step up to the plate.

That's no slight on anyone, that's simply the facts of the matter.

Are you seriously telling us that Boeing (capsule) and Lockheed-Martin (launch vehicle) are 'unproven'?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/15/2010 09:40 am
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22725.0

1.24 billion dollars to Boeing for the ISS to 2015, a Station we're about to lose domestic NASA access to, by paying Russia 100s of millions for spare seats on Soyuz and hope an unproven new commercial company, which has yet to launch a human, can step up to the plate.

That's no slight on anyone, that's simply the facts of the matter.

A good reminder that it is STILL current NASA "policy" to assume end of ISS in 2015, in the absence of approval of a legislative mandate to authorize and direct a different course....and a reminder of the failure of the Bush Administration, the Obama Administration, and the Congress to address "the gap" in a fully responsive way, despite at least one effort to clearly articulate a solution to that challenge. S. 3068 (Hutchison, with an identical companion House bill by Kosmas, et al.) at least made the effort, but its "spaceflight reassurance" provisions simply could not be folded into the current Senate NASA bill (S. 3729) given the unwillingness of sufficient Members to do go beyond the top-line agency budget profile put on the table in the Obama FY 2011 Request. My own greatest personal frustration and disappointment.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/15/2010 10:15 am
... My own greatest personal frustration and disappointment.

Take good of yourself 51D Mascot. Have a rest. You've been doing great! Thank you!

This effort to maintain and expand our ISS toehold in space needs you for the long haul ahead of us...

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/15/2010 11:23 am
... My own greatest personal frustration and disappointment.

Take good of yourself 51D Mascot. Have a rest. You've been doing great! Thank you!

This effort to maintain and expand our ISS toehold in space needs you for the long haul ahead of us...

Cheers!

Second that
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/15/2010 11:25 am
...but its "spaceflight reassurance" provisions simply could not be folded into the current Senate NASA bill (S. 3729) given the unwillingness of sufficient Members to do go beyond the top-line agency budget profile put on the table in the Obama FY 2011 Request.
Despite its being unwritten, it sure seems to get passed from one Congress to another.  Also a reminder about long-term budget expectations.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 12:29 pm
[…] the sooner American spaceflight is out of NASA's direct control the better.

That is a path that you do not want to see actually happen.

I agree that we must have commercial crew launch capability, even to the point that the vast majority of human access to LEO will be by commercially owned and operated spacecraft and launch vehicles. That will be good for the American economy overall. But the day that NASA no longer has the ability to access LEO on its own with its own launch vehicles and spacecraft is the day that the nation will be at the mercy of the commercial stockholder. That's a bad move.

I reminded folks in another place that while the commercial space companies have folks in them that are in it for the spaceflight, the companies themselves are in it for the money – period. Spaceflight is just a means to an end to them. It could just as easily be lollypops. They *do not care*. If we find ourselves totally dependant on companies who don't give a rat's ass about spaceflight as long as they're making money and suddenly there is a problem with the companies portfolio, then American HSF will be cast off as easily as Ford Motor Co cast off the Edsil. And please, don't anybody say that Beoing/LM/ULA/USA/Orbital/SpaceX/ATK/etc will not fail. Every one of them, regardless of size can go under, taking everything they do with them. That would be very bad for the American HSF program.

The American Space Agency (currently NASA) must always have its own access to space without being dependant on the commercial concerns. As inefficient as the government funding program is, it is still the only safeguard that the nation has to vital national concerns, such as the HSF program, as a hedge against severe economic upheaval. Commercial companies, big and small, have and will continue to go out of business, with their goods and services becoming extinct with them. That is an intolerable risk to put on the American HSF program. The only safeguard against it is independent access to space by NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2010 12:50 pm
But the day that NASA no longer has the ability to access LEO on its own with its own launch vehicles and spacecraft is the day that the nation will be at the mercy of the commercial stockholder. That's a bad move.

I reminded folks in another place that while the commercial space companies have folks in them that are in it for the spaceflight, the companies themselves are in it for the money – period.

The US government and US citizens depend heavily for many, many things on companies which are just in it for the money.  On the whole, that arrangement works pretty well.

Quote
And please, don't anybody say that Beoing/LM/ULA/USA/Orbital/SpaceX/ATK/etc will not fail. Every one of them, regardless of size can go under, taking everything they do with them.

That's why we should have multiple companies providing services.  Even then, there is still risk, but the government can and sometimes does fail too.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2010 12:50 pm
Ares ! / Orion was supposed to be the LEO replacement but it all went horribly wrong when Griffin selected an unproven design (5 segment stick) and cost plus contracting.

Wasn't the selected Ares I from ESAS a four seg first stage, among other things that were SD? They started to hit long poles on dev via five seg, J-2X, messing around with Orion on the DACs due to the mass props on Ares I, etc. In the end, they made an astonishing amount of changes from the original ESAS Ares I.

The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

However, five years worth of study was overkill, and thankfully that's been identified as a FY2011 mistake by the lawmakers and NASA itself (MSFC etc).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2010 12:54 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2010 01:09 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?

Because that's what all the NASA studies are saying, and I trust NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/15/2010 01:14 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?

Pay close attention to what 51D Mascot wrote.

Under current law, U.S. support for ISS ends in 2015. To change that requires the agreement of the House, Senate and White House. That requires compromise.

= = =

Now my two cents:

The political calculus behind DIRECT (as far as I can tell, as an outsider) includes the recognition that an all EELV solution cannot get through Congress. Therefore, even if EELV is "better" than SDLV, it does not matter because "all EELV" is not politically feasible.

Now perhaps some believe a CR can be used to gut STS infrastructure and thereby leverage Congress into thereafter accepting an "all EELV" solution. Perhaps. However the Bush plan involved splashing ISS after 2015 (or at least withdrawing U.S. support). And that plan remains current law.

Therefore, unless a compromise is worked out that the House, Senate and White House will all agree to, there will be no need to fund EELV or commercial crew or COTS because the U.S. will cease being an ISS partner.

Personally, I am appalled at the political "dice throwing" that is going on and I find the need for genuine compromise to be extremely urgent.

In the larger context of our ongoing political issues, whatever hypothetical or theoretical advantage all EELV may have over SDLV (if any) is quite beside the point.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gospacex on 09/15/2010 01:24 pm
[…] the sooner American spaceflight is out of NASA's direct control the better.

That is a path that you do not want to see actually happen.

I agree that we must have commercial crew launch capability, even to the point that the vast majority of human access to LEO will be by commercially owned and operated spacecraft and launch vehicles. That will be good for the American economy overall. But the day that NASA no longer has the ability to access LEO on its own with its own launch vehicles and spacecraft is the day that the nation will be at the mercy of the commercial stockholder. That's a bad move.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. US is "at a mercy of commercial" food producers, while Russian government was, and North Korean government is controlling its food production. Same goes for clothing, cars, passenger aircraft, electronics... etc... etc... etc...

Why US's problem is obesity whereas NK's problem is starvation, not the other way around? Why Russian electronics sucks compared to West, even military one? Why Boeing passenger planes roam Russian skies now, not Antonov planes US sky?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 01:52 pm
[…] the sooner American spaceflight is out of NASA's direct control the better.

That is a path that you do not want to see actually happen.

I agree that we must have commercial crew launch capability, even to the point that the vast majority of human access to LEO will be by commercially owned and operated spacecraft and launch vehicles. That will be good for the American economy overall. But the day that NASA no longer has the ability to access LEO on its own with its own launch vehicles and spacecraft is the day that the nation will be at the mercy of the commercial stockholder. That's a bad move.

I'm sorry, but this is completely wrong. US is "at a mercy of commercial" food producers, while Russian government was, and North Korean government is controlling its food production. Same goes for clothing, cars, passenger aircraft, electronics... etc... etc... etc...

Why US's problem is obesity whereas NK's problem is starvation, not the other way around? Why Russian electronics sucks compared to West, even military one? Why Boeing passenger planes roam Russian skies now, not Antonov planes US sky?

Why isn't the US military being done "all commercial" for example?
The answer is simple.
There are some things that a smart nation does not leave to the commercial entities alone.
American HSF is one of them.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2010 02:18 pm

Why isn't the US military being done "all commercial" for example?
The answer is simple.
There are some things that a smart nation does not leave to the commercial entities alone.
American HSF is one of them.

False logic.  HSF is not the same as the military
There is no legitimate reason for this, just as airlines are not gov't operated.

smart nations know this
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/15/2010 02:24 pm
[…] the sooner American spaceflight is out of NASA's direct control the better.

That is a path that you do not want to see actually happen.

I agree that we must have commercial crew launch capability, even to the point that the vast majority of human access to LEO will be by commercially owned and operated spacecraft and launch vehicles. That will be good for the American economy overall. But the day that NASA no longer has the ability to access LEO on its own with its own launch vehicles and spacecraft is the day that the nation will be at the mercy of the commercial stockholder. That's a bad move.

I reminded folks in another place that while the commercial space companies have folks in them that are in it for the spaceflight, the companies themselves are in it for the money – period. Spaceflight is just a means to an end to them. It could just as easily be lollypops. They *do not care*. If we find ourselves totally dependant on companies who don't give a rat's ass about spaceflight as long as they're making money and suddenly there is a problem with the companies portfolio, then American HSF will be cast off as easily as Ford Motor Co cast off the Edsil. And please, don't anybody say that Beoing/LM/ULA/USA/Orbital/SpaceX/ATK/etc will not fail. Every one of them, regardless of size can go under, taking everything they do with them. That would be very bad for the American HSF program.

The American Space Agency (currently NASA) must always have its own access to space without being dependant on the commercial concerns. As inefficient as the government funding program is, it is still the only safeguard that the nation has to vital national concerns, such as the HSF program, as a hedge against severe economic upheaval. Commercial companies, big and small, have and will continue to go out of business, with their goods and services becoming extinct with them. That is an intolerable risk to put on the American HSF program. The only safeguard against it is independent access to space by NASA.


Yep. I certainly agree with that. Thank you Clongton.

And if I may step up on the soapbox for a minute...

What a few folks don't seem to care about is the reaction of our current and potetial future International Space Exploration Partners when we carefully explain to them that any long-term human spaceflight exploration mission agreements America signs up to do are of course contingent upon our commercial providers remaining in business and willing to submit acceptable bids for the appropriate equipment, launchers, and spacecraft to a sometimes fickle and split Congress and an often space policy indecisive President.

The current imbroglio of America's lack of an accepted and sensible national human space program is illustrative of badly things could also go by exclusively relying on "commercial" LEO taxis and "commercial" launchers. Relying completely on "commercial" providers will mean an even worse series of zigs and zags in our national space policy. Commercial American launchers and their boardroom owners once had a lock on the commercial launch of satellites. We all know how well that turned out. 

Some of our current and potential future International Space Exploration Partners will simply roll their eyes when we start explaining the confusing limitations of what we are capable of doing and willing to be responsible for, others will start to have brain giggles, and the smart ones, who don't want to gamble with their scarce space exploration dollars, will quietly look around for a new leader of the International Space Exploration Community.

America, as a nation that leads in space, needs a government that is able to negotiate as a government, not as a defacto subsidary of a company or group of companies.

Neither Congress nor the President should be foolish enough to give up their power to decide what we are going to do in space and when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it. The world of corporate boards are already powerful enough, they don't need to gain the de facto veto power over America's human spaceflight program.

Power to decide such matters as space exploration needs the means to impliment the decisions that are made. America doesn't outsource aircraft carriers, submarines, and fighter aircraft. National power talks to the power of other nations. The exploration of space isn't a military activity, and it will hopefully be international, cooperative, commercial, and peaceful. Nonetheless, the critical leading role of America and NASA in ensuring that outcome requires the capabilities of the Orion/SD HLV/J-130.

Don't worry Jim, the Delta IV and Atlas V and Falcon 9 will also have their very useful roles to play, but don't underestimate the important national and international value of the Orion/SD HLV/J-130 combination in helping to protect American interests and define the future of beyond Earth exploration.

Cheers!

Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2010 02:38 pm

Don't worry Jim, the Delta IV and Atlas V and Falcon 9 will also have their very useful roles to play, but don't underestimate the important national and international value of the Orion/SD HLV/J-130 combination in helping to protect American interests and define the future of beyond Earth exploration.


That is not the issue.  The issue is a gov't operated system.  There is no need for an arsenal managed launch vehicle.

Also, this is nothing but hogwash
"but don't underestimate the important national and international value of the Orion/SD HLV/J-130 combination"

There are many more cheaper and effective ways to project short power and enhance the USA's standing in the world's eyes. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2010 02:38 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?

   ...

Under current law, U.S. support for ISS ends in 2015. To change that requires the agreement of the House, Senate and White House. That requires compromise.

Note that I merely asked why Chris Bergin believes that it is "obvious" that SDHLV is the best approach economically.  I merely asked why he believes it is.  I ask because I don't understand how people can be so sure of these things, and I must say I still don't understand it.

That point aside, I do agree that SDHLV has more political backing and that compromise is necessary.  One can, however, still inquire as to the technical and economic merits of the various possible paths.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/15/2010 02:40 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?

Pay close attention to what 51D Mascot wrote.

Under current law, U.S. support for ISS ends in 2015. To change that requires the agreement of the House, Senate and White House. That requires compromise.



Just to be clear...it is NOT a matter of LAW that the ISS be terminated in 2015; it's a matter of NASA planning, as directed by OMB budget projections. References to ISS lifetime in the law are that NASA should take no action to preclude its operations beyond 2015 for at least five years (2008 NASA Authorization Act). But that is not deemed sufficient direction to REQUIRE that ISS operations continue beyond that, or that US participation continue (though as a practical reality, without US participation, ISS becomes virtually impossible to sustain, despite what some have suggested in the past, but that's a subject for a different forum. The Senate-passed bill would clarify ISS lifetime to "at least 2020" as the "policy of the United States Government."  The House bill is similar, but only specifies "to 2020" and includes the caveat of "if it can continue to be operated safely," and goes on to require the Administrator to ensure the availability of ISS cargo resupply capability through 2020.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2010 02:41 pm
Neither Congress nor the President should be foolish enough to give up their power to decide what we are going to do in space and when we are going to do it and how we are going to do it. The world of corporate boards are already powerful enough, they don't need to gain the de facto veto power over America's human spaceflight program.

This is a wrong characterization of the issue.  NASA is not going away and its work done by contractors.  The issue is commercial companies doing routine operations for the gov't, just as the gov't uses airlines.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 02:41 pm
Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost ... being a SD HLV.

Why is it obvious?  What makes you sure that an EELV-derived HLV, for example, is not better in this regard?

   ...

Under current law, U.S. support for ISS ends in 2015. To change that requires the agreement of the House, Senate and White House. That requires compromise.

Note that I merely asked why Chris Bergin believes that it is "obvious" that SDHLV is the best approach economically.  I merely asked why he believes it is.  I ask because I don't understand how people can be so sure of these things, and I must say I still don't understand it.

That point aside, I do agree that SDHLV has more political backing and that compromise is necessary.  One can, however, still inquire as to the technical and economic merits of the various possible paths.

The same point can be turned around on EELV supporters, so you know. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637164#msg637164
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 03:01 pm

Why isn't the US military being done "all commercial" for example?
The answer is simple.
There are some things that a smart nation does not leave to the commercial entities alone.
American HSF is one of them.

False logic.  HSF is not the same as the military

No, it is not false logic.
It speaks directly to whether or not one believes that HSF should be a national imperative (akin to the military) or an economic engine (exclusive commercial capability).
Enough people apparently consider it to be a national imperative to lobby for NASA maintaining it's own HSF capability. Others do not.
I am personally in the former camp.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2010 03:02 pm
The same point can be turned around on EELV supporters, so you know. 

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637164#msg637164

Yes, there is uncertainty in cost estimates for EELV-derived HLVs too.  That's why I'd like to see more study of it.  I'm just puzzled as to how people can be so sure sometimes.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/15/2010 03:10 pm
It speaks directly to whether or not one believes that HSF should be a national imperative (akin to the military) or an economic engine (exclusive commercial capability).
Enough people apparently consider it to be a national imperative to lobby for NASA maintaining it's own HSF capability. Others do not.

As far as I can tell, everybody participating in this debate wants NASA to have its own HSF capability.  The only question is whether it needs its own earth-to-LEO capability.  Notice that even HEFT assumes commercial transport to LEO.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 03:20 pm
It speaks directly to whether or not one believes that HSF should be a national imperative (akin to the military) or an economic engine (exclusive commercial capability).
Enough people apparently consider it to be a national imperative to lobby for NASA maintaining it's own HSF capability. Others do not.

As far as I can tell, everybody participating in this debate wants NASA to have its own HSF capability.  The only question is whether it needs its own earth-to-LEO capability.  Notice that even HEFT assumes commercial transport to LEO.

No, there are many who use words like "get NASA out of the HSF business", "get NASA out of the launch business", etc. There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/15/2010 03:55 pm
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/15/2010 04:21 pm
It didn't help that the response/reviews that ESAS got weren't of the highest quality; I seem to recall a CBO report that mixed up Atlas V and Delta IV...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/15/2010 04:25 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: ugordan on 09/15/2010 04:26 pm
It speaks directly to whether or not one believes that HSF should be a national imperative (akin to the military) or an economic engine (exclusive commercial capability).
Enough people apparently consider it to be a national imperative to lobby for NASA maintaining it's own HSF capability. Others do not.
I am personally in the former camp.

You can belong to whichever camp you like, but a statement like "There are some things that a smart nation does not leave to the commercial entities alone. American HSF is one of them." implies those not in your camp are not "smart". Frankly, I find that a little bit insulting.

Call it a different philosophy, don't call it an established fact when it very clearly is not.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2010 04:52 pm
I have no problem with a government-run launch capability, but it must be a better deal than the alternatives. Privatization isn't always a good idea for everything. But for launch vehicles? The evidence just doesn't seem to be on NASA's side, especially with the budget issues nowadays.

Jim is right to bring up that the US military (higher on the list of national priorities than HSF) actually uses only "commercial" launch vehicles!

And how can people say that such-and-such-domestic-rocket is not "politically viable" because of the political stakeholders in Congress, but then claim that Congress isn't at fault?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 09/15/2010 04:56 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.

The military uses commercial services for quite a few additional things these days. Names such as 'Blackwater' should ring a bell. Logistics and supplies for front-line troops are also provided by commercial contractors. In fact it is hard to find an aspect of the modern U.S. military that a contractor does not have a deep involvement in.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 05:01 pm
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon

I happen to agree with Jon here.  I think having outside interests involved is crucial.  Engage them from the beginning to help plant the seeds of that ultimate architecutre to encourage them what they can provide, at what cost, etc and how that compliments and can compliment government provided equipment. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2010 06:24 pm

Note that I merely asked why Chris Bergin believes that it is "obvious" that SDHLV is the best approach economically.  I merely asked why he believes it is.  I ask because I don't understand how people can be so sure of these things, and I must say I still don't understand it.

I think you might of missed my response (as your response was to someone else), so to clarify, I said "Because that's what all the NASA studies are saying, and I trust NASA."

My comment is driven by the documentation, as much as it's also my own personal opinion (given I'm swayed by NASA documentation :)).

If the documentation was singing and dancing over an RP-1 or a super heavy EELV, I'd be very careful to represent that favor at NASA.....just as I went from "Sidemount? Meh!" to "Sidemount, Oh, interesting!" after the 700 page assessment by SSP.

My "opinion" counts for nothing, but my representation of the current documentation is pretty fair when I say SD HLV is the obvious frontrunner right now.

I also note I'm much more careful not to get over-excited by studies nowadays, as we all saw how much they counted for when they rolled out FY2011. I know people are worried about the costs, but they sometimes base it against the costs we have no idea about with other alternative HLVs.....which isn't all that fair.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2010 06:27 pm
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon

Outside vetting such as Aerospace Corp?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/15/2010 07:25 pm
No, there are many who use words like "get NASA out of the HSF business", "get NASA out of the launch business", etc. There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

Possibly but they still expect the astronauts exploring the Moon and Mars to work for NASA.

EELV may launch deep space probes but the probes are still produced under NASA's control.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 08:00 pm
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon

Outside vetting such as Aerospace Corp?

More like getting them involved in the actual planning process, whatever it ends up being called, if it is an outgrowth of HEFT, etc.

Basically saying this is what NASA is thinking about bringing to the table and openly asking and soliciting what products or services could commercial companies bring to be part of that overall infrastructure and architecture. 

Doing this from the beginning is key instead of shoe-horning them in later.  It will make the partnership vastly more productive and give commercial a feeling of "owenership" as well. 

It also establishes those relationships early so that any evolution already has a certain foundation from which to start. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 08:47 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.

Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. All major transports of any kind are done totally in-house.

NASA should do exactly the same. Use commercial transport for everyday normal mundane needs and use its own capability for its missions.

With regard to rockets, I have never seen a commercial employee down in any of the silos I've been in. ALL military rockets that are designated mission critical are owned, maintained and (hopefully never) operated by military personnel, not contractors.

Again, use commercial for ordinary requirements, use in-house capability for the mission.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2010 08:48 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.

Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. ALL, and I do mean all, major transports of any kind are done totally in-house. They are never contracted out.

NASA should do exactly the same. Use commercial transport for everyday normal mundane needs and use its own capability for its missions.

With regard to rockets, I have never seen a commercial employee down in any of the silos I've been in. ALL military rockets that are designated mission critical are owned, maintained and (hopefully never) operated by military personnel, not contractors.

Again, use commercial for ordinary requirements, use in-house capability for the mission.
Yet, the only launch vehicles the military uses are commercial.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 08:55 pm
Yet, the only launch vehicles the military uses are commercial.

Not really.  The Air Force funded a portion of development, ULA cannot do *anything* they want to the Delta/Atlas without some sort of approval from the military and the DOD subsidizes ULA.

Not exactly "commercial"......
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/15/2010 09:07 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.

Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. ALL, and I do mean all, major transports of any kind are done totally in-house. They are never contracted out.

NASA should do exactly the same. Use commercial transport for everyday normal mundane needs and use its own capability for its missions.

With regard to rockets, I have never seen a commercial employee down in any of the silos I've been in. ALL military rockets that are designated mission critical are owned, maintained and (hopefully never) operated by military personnel, not contractors.

Again, use commercial for ordinary requirements, use in-house capability for the mission.
Yet, the only launch vehicles the military uses are commercial.

No. You're forgetting the ICBMs. Those are also "launch vehicles". We just hope that their "payloads" are never delivered.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/15/2010 09:13 pm
There are apparently quite a few that would prefer to see NASA be forced to rely on commercial lift for *any* mission it wants to do.

That is exactly what NASA should do.  It does need to be involved in routine operations or service that contractors can provide. It is not a military organization and hence there is no national need.  Heck, even the military uses airlines and commercial rockets.

Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. ALL, and I do mean all, major transports of any kind are done totally in-house. They are never contracted out.

NASA should do exactly the same. Use commercial transport for everyday normal mundane needs and use its own capability for its missions.

With regard to rockets, I have never seen a commercial employee down in any of the silos I've been in. ALL military rockets that are designated mission critical are owned, maintained and (hopefully never) operated by military personnel, not contractors.

Again, use commercial for ordinary requirements, use in-house capability for the mission.
Yet, the only launch vehicles the military uses are commercial.

No. You're forgetting the ICBMs. Those are also "launch vehicles". We just hope that their "payloads" are never delivered.
They are suborbital.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 09:26 pm
They're still launch vehicles that are "launching".  Your words.....

Either way, your arguement isn't exactly correct. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/15/2010 09:35 pm
Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. All major transports of any kind are done totally in-house.
     Chuck, what you're saying may have been true a long time ago, but IIRC a good deal of heavy depot maintenance is now carried out by contractors. And most troop movements to- and from- overseas are carried out by charter airlines.

Random googlage turns up the B-2 strategic bomber:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60778/pg1
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-b2-bombers-leading-the-way-in-contracting-for-availability-02950/
"Depot maintenance responsibility for the B-2 is performed by Air Force contractor support and is managed at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/11/faa_plan_addresses_pilot_fatigue/
"Charter airlines fly 95 percent of US troops and 40 percent of military cargo around the world."

Clearly, numerous critical operations, including strategic national security capabilities and the movement of government personnel are not, in fact, done in-house.
-Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 09:49 pm
Yes they do - for normal routine travel (airlines). But not when it comes to operations. While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor. They do all that stuff themselves. The Air Forces maintains a Command dedicated to it (Military Air Transport Service [MATS]). All the times I was "transported" around the globe from place to place it was always on a military aircraft owned, maintained and operated by the Air Force. All major transports of any kind are done totally in-house.
     Chuck, what you're saying may have been true a long time ago, but IIRC a good deal of heavy depot maintenance is now carried out by contractors. And most troop movements to- and from- overseas are carried out by charter airlines.

Random googlage turns up the B-2 strategic bomber:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread60778/pg1
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-b2-bombers-leading-the-way-in-contracting-for-availability-02950/
"Depot maintenance responsibility for the B-2 is performed by Air Force contractor support and is managed at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center at Tinker AFB, Oklahoma."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/09/11/faa_plan_addresses_pilot_fatigue/
"Charter airlines fly 95 percent of US troops and 40 percent of military cargo around the world."

Clearly, numerous critical operations, including strategic national security capabilities and the movement of government personnel are not, in fact, done in-house.
-Alex

No, what Chuck is saying is quite correct.  You are confusing it Alex with depot operations, when a plane "goes down" for a significant amount of time for some major modification. 

Charter airlines can and do often carry large amounts of troops because it is easier and they do not have to task military transport.  That said, it is just as likely if a military aircraft is available, you're on that as well.  In addition it will be military, and military only, that transport troops and equipment into theatre. 

When it comes to cargo, if the military does need to ship something, and it can be shipped commercially, they are obligated to do so since government cannot compete with private industry.  However, the Air Force very much maintains, and must maintain, its own cargo capability. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/15/2010 10:17 pm
No, what Chuck is saying is quite correct.  You are confusing it Alex with depot operations, when a plane "goes down" for a significant amount of time for some major modification. 
   "... under the new “contracting for availability” performance-based logistics approach, Northrop Grumman will be measured by its ability to meet specified combat readiness requirements for the B-2 fleet, rather than being given money for specific tasks, spare parts, or maintenance on a specified schedule. All of that now becomes the contractor’s responsibility."                    (link above)
     
Quote
Charter airlines can and do often carry large amounts of troops because it is easier and they do not have to task military transport.  That said, it is just as likely if a military aircraft is available, you're on that as well.
     "95%" != "just as likely"           (link above)

Quote
In addition it will be military, and military only, that transport troops and equipment into theatre. 
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/air-transportation-airlines-air-freight/12612460-1.html
"National Air Cargo Extends Flights from Bagram Air Base to Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan"
     -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/15/2010 11:03 pm
No, what Chuck is saying is quite correct.  You are confusing it Alex with depot operations, when a plane "goes down" for a significant amount of time for some major modification. 
   "... under the new “contracting for availability” performance-based logistics approach, Northrop Grumman will be measured by its ability to meet specified combat readiness requirements for the B-2 fleet, rather than being given money for specific tasks, spare parts, or maintenance on a specified schedule. All of that now becomes the contractor’s responsibility."                    (link above)
     
Quote
Charter airlines can and do often carry large amounts of troops because it is easier and they do not have to task military transport.  That said, it is just as likely if a military aircraft is available, you're on that as well.
     "95%" != "just as likely"           (link above)

Quote
In addition it will be military, and military only, that transport troops and equipment into theatre. 
http://www.allbusiness.com/transportation/air-transportation-airlines-air-freight/12612460-1.html
"National Air Cargo Extends Flights from Bagram Air Base to Kandahar Air Base in Afghanistan"
     -Alex

Alex,

The first point about NG is simply a statement on the terms of the depot contract.  It changes nothing nor does it validate your point and the AF is quite responsible for operations and general maintenance.  I very much assure you of that considering that is my other job. 

I can also promise you that every time a "troop" goes on deployment somewhere that it is not guaranteed you are going to be on a commercial airliner chartered by the government.  It depends on a many factors. 

As for whatever the link is about cargo from A to B, it doesn't work for me but I was talking about an "active" combat zone.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/15/2010 11:26 pm
The first point about NG is simply a statement on the terms of the depot contract.  It changes nothing nor does it validate your point and the AF is quite responsible for operations and general maintenance.  I very much assure you of that considering that is my other job. 
  Chuck wrote "While the planes may have been built by a commercial contractor, they are not maintained or operated by a commercial contractor." Clearly, the contractor is actually maintaining them. If you want to draw a distinction between heavy depot maintenance and (light?) maintenance, you are welcome to do so, but by any semantic definition, maintenance includes maintenance.

Quote
I can also promise you that every time a "troop" goes on deployment somewhere that it is not guaranteed you are going to be on a commercial airliner chartered by the government.  It depends on a many factors. 
    No doubt. But I didn't say it was commercial "every time". Chuck wrote that it was USAF-in-house "all the times" and "all ... totally in-house", which may have been true back when, but is clearly not the case today.


Quote
In addition it will be military, and military only, that transport troops and equipment into theatre.
Quote
As for whatever the link is about cargo from A to B, it doesn't work for me but I was talking about an "active" combat zone.
    Hmmm, looks like you have to press some annoying skip-this-ad. Sorry 'bout that.
    You wrote "theatre", not active combat zone. Bagram and Kandahar Air Bases, Afghanistan, are by any definition I am aware of, in-theatre.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/15/2010 11:26 pm
Whoa. We've gone from a good conversation, to numerous posts of off topicness. Back on topic from this point onwards please.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 09/16/2010 01:01 am
OK, let's try to get this back on topic, then.

just as I went from "Sidemount? Meh!" to "Sidemount, Oh, interesting!" after the 700 page assessment by SSP.

Comparing the SD-HLLV study with HEFT, JSC "gets it" and MSFC are still doing "same old, same old". SM vs IL aspects were secondary.

The exciting aspects of the JSC study were:-

* they concentrated on a basic 4-seg vehicle;
* went for a truly incremental approach (there are many details I'd love to be in the public domain so we could discuss them);
* reduced the carrier mass;
* put ULA upper stages on top;
* and just generally went for a "biggest bang for the smallest buck" approach.
* Also, the Senate budget & timeline for SLS seems to have been drawn up using these figures.

Basically, the streamlined approach that almost everyone seems to favour, and which MSFC plainly still haven't grasped.

Fidelity of in-line was lower, but most of the results seemed applicable.



At the moment, I'd really like to see the whole project (*at least* the launcher and u/s) handed over to JSC, and just pray that they stick with the decision to implement an in-line HLV.

I know it'll never happen. <sigh>

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/16/2010 01:55 am
{snip}
Basically, the streamlined approach that almost everyone seems to favour, and which MSFC plainly still haven't grasped.

Fidelity of in-line was lower, but most of the results seemed applicable.



At the moment, I'd really like to see the whole project (*at least* the launcher and u/s) handed over to JSC, and just pray that they stick with the decision to implement an in-line HLV.

I know it'll never happen. <sigh>

cheers, Martin

One of the best summaries I've seen in a long time. Bravo.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/16/2010 04:09 am
I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...

Outside vetting such as Aerospace Corp?

When I started taking a close look at DIRECT, I noticed in the threads repeated references in support of DIRECT's claimed costs to a GAO study (e.g., here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20475.msg561689#msg561689)) and to validation by the Aerospace Corporation (e.g., here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=17295.msg445294#msg445294)).  I have repeatedly asked for details about these (e.g., here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22335.0)), which I'd have thought would be gladly provided to the extent possible, since they presumably support DIRECT's claims.

Well, nobody's ever answered my question about the GAO report.  I have searched the GAO website but found nothing relevant.  I can only presume that the report discussed is the 1975 GAO estimate of the Space Shuttle's development costs (http://archive.gao.gov/f0202/093513.pdf) on which DIRECTer Stephen Metschan based a submission to the Augustine Committee regarding DIRECT's development cost (http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383305main_CostEstimates_SDHLV_Rev1.pdf).  Unfortunately this report does not substantiate (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg623436#msg623436) the statement that the GAO believes DIRECT's development costs would be less than claimed by DIRECT.

Given the above experience with the GAO report, I am suspicious of unsubstantiated claims about cost validation by the Aerospace Corporation.  Do you have any additional information about it that would make the claims more concrete?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/16/2010 04:39 am
I said "Because that's what all the NASA studies are saying, and I trust NASA."

My comment is driven by the documentation, as much as it's also my own personal opinion (given I'm swayed by NASA documentation :)).

If the documentation was singing and dancing over an RP-1 or a super heavy EELV, I'd be very careful to represent that favor at NASA.....just as I went from "Sidemount? Meh!" to "Sidemount, Oh, interesting!" after the 700 page assessment by SSP.

I too think NASA studies are significant, but has there been any recent NASA analysis of a super-heavy EELV?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2010 04:45 am
There's a fair amount of reading there, Proponent! :) Will have to go back to that tomorrow, and that's clearly a well thought out post that raises some interesting points.

The short answer is I don't think I'd be able to provide anything additional to what you've found above. I tend to angle towards vehicle hardware, rather than cost evaluations.

However, and more of a "to all", I want to make it clear that when *I* say or report SD HLV, I'm not saying Direct, nor am I using their claims. I think the last time I mentioned Direct in an article was a reference to the HEFT 27.5 SD HLV looking like a Jupiter configuration (because it does) but all the content was from the NASA HEFT presentation.

Just wanted to make that clear, as obvious as it should be.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/16/2010 04:46 am
I said "Because that's what all the NASA studies are saying, and I trust NASA."

My comment is driven by the documentation, as much as it's also my own personal opinion (given I'm swayed by NASA documentation :)).

If the documentation was singing and dancing over an RP-1 or a super heavy EELV, I'd be very careful to represent that favor at NASA.....just as I went from "Sidemount? Meh!" to "Sidemount, Oh, interesting!" after the 700 page assessment by SSP.

I too think NASA studies are significant, but has there been any recent NASA analysis of a super-heavy EELV?

If there has been a recent NASA study into super-heavy EELV, we've not been made aware of it. It's mainly been RP-1 vs SD.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/16/2010 04:46 am
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon

Outside vetting such as Aerospace Corp?

More like getting them involved in the actual planning process, whatever it ends up being called, if it is an outgrowth of HEFT, etc.

Basically saying this is what NASA is thinking about bringing to the table and openly asking and soliciting what products or services could commercial companies bring to be part of that overall infrastructure and architecture. 

Doing this from the beginning is key instead of shoe-horning them in later.  It will make the partnership vastly more productive and give commercial a feeling of "owenership" as well. 

It also establishes those relationships early so that any evolution already has a certain foundation from which to start. 

Not exactly what I was getting at, but it's very well said.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/16/2010 04:50 am
The biggest "mistake", I'd claim, was ESAS only having 90 days to create that massive exploration architecture. Thankfully they seem to be really taking their time to think it through with the HLV - despite the obvious choice on cost and transition being a SD HLV.

I think the biggest mistake of ESAS was that it was done in a vacuum with no outside vetting or input...like is being done with HEFT.  We may be seeing and being able to grouse about some of the preliminary conclusions, but is there any chance that outside input is going to make it back into the process?  You lock in over 90% of the life cycle costs during the conceptual design phase, that's the place where you really need to make sure you're being the most open--mistakes now result in tens of billions of dollars of lost potential.  And once again, NASA is doing this mostly in a vacuum and in the dark without proper vetting.

~Jon

Outside vetting such as Aerospace Corp?

The problem I've seen is that everyone seems to be pretty good at gaming the Aerospace Corp.  If you want the Aerospace Corp to rubber stamp your decision, you just hire them and give them all sorts of assumptions that force your solution.  You saw it a lot during Mike Griffin's tenure at NASA.  Aerospace wasn't asked to really independently look to see if there were better ways, but was asked to compare EELVs with very specific shackles on them to Ares-I using a lot of NASA's assumptions about price etc...

That said, even then they still tended to show inconvenient answers (ie even with NASA gaming the system they still came back with answers that weren't always exactly what NASA "wanted"), but they tend not to question assumptions or do other things that you really need for a truly independent look.

Maybe I'm missing something, but that seemed to be my take--they're great at taking your assumptions and rigorously running with them, but if the assumptions are part of the problem (which has been a key issue with both ESAS and HEFT), having them look at it doesn't really help....

That make any sense at all?

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: madscientist197 on 09/16/2010 08:47 am
I think you're right on the money with that comment Jon. We're dealing with some real smart people, who don't need to fix the process in order to ensure the result they want. All it takes is the careful choice of an assumption -- like the necessity for global access, anytime return in ESAS -- to ensure the result they want.

It does raise all sorts of questions about whether it is ever possible to have a fair process. Perhaps the best way to analyse everything would be to do an analysis that focuses on how the assumptions affect the chosen course of action. Create an explicit list of assumptions and alternative assumptions, and then explicitly analyse how each of these cases impacts on the outputs. Then if one particular assumption has an inordinate impact on the output of the analysis, at the very least that fact is now explicit. This then allows an informed argument over whether that assumption is valid or is forcing a suboptimal conclusion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2010 12:24 pm
I can't speak for the other groups that Aerospace Corp examined on behalf of the Augustine Commission, but for the DIRECT team I can categorically state that they took every assumption we had made apart, right down to the bone, and made us prove everything. It was a grueling experience. Nothing was sacred. We spent hours in the room with them and the questioning was intense. Everything about the Jupiter was examined in excruciating detail, compared to their data and the differences identified and adjudicated. In the end they had exhausted all their questions, satisfactorily addressed  every difference and they could think of nothing further to examine us on. They took that data and went off to do their analysis with it after we were gone. When we finally left Los Angeles we were confident of one thing only; that they had totally accurate data and knew as much about the Jupiter launch vehicle as we did, maybe even more. We didn't learn of their conclusions until much later.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/16/2010 12:53 pm
One take on where things stood yesterday:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/09/nasa_budget_a_small_window_for_clarity_now_or_else.html

A couple of these posts seem to say that a bill will be voted on by the full House during this session.  (Perhaps we'll see another burst of lobbying ahead of that...)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 01:00 pm
One take on where things stood yesterday:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2010/09/nasa_budget_a_small_window_for_clarity_now_or_else.html

A couple of these posts seem to say that a bill will be voted on by the full House during this session.  (Perhaps we'll see another burst of lobbying ahead of that...)


From the article:

Quote
Will there be a deal by the end of the month?

I'm told that something is going to get brought to the House floor during the next week to 10 days. If U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer brings the House bill to the floor, there will be no deal because the Senate cannot accept the House bill.

However, there's a chance Hoyer brings the Senate bill to the floor for a vote. If the House passes the Senate bill, with amendments, there's a decent chance it could get to the President by the end of the fiscal year.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Justin Space on 09/16/2010 02:31 pm
OK, so let's say a Senate bill with amendments passes and goes to the President, is there any chance he won't sign it?

What would happen if he didn't sign it?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 02:35 pm
He already said (through a spokesperson, Nick Shapiro) that he would not veto the NASA Senate bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Justin Space on 09/16/2010 02:43 pm
He already said (through a spokesperson, Nick Shapiro) that he would not veto the NASA Senate bill.

Even with unknown amendments? What about the House bill no one seems to like?

Just trying to get a feel for the House representative's thinking. If the President has already said he'd support the Senate version, which I think a lot of us really like, then the democrats wouldn't go against the President in a vote?

How off base am I? :D
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 03:04 pm
He already said (through a spokesperson, Nick Shapiro) that he would not veto the NASA Senate bill.

Even with unknown amendments? What about the House bill no one seems to like?

Just trying to get a feel for the House representative's thinking. If the President has already said he'd support the Senate version, which I think a lot of us really like, then the democrats wouldn't go against the President in a vote?

How off base am I? :D

The President said nothing about the House bill (only the Senate bill as it was passed in August). I hope that you are right but I guess it depends how stubborn the House is about their bill. If you watch some of the recent House hearings, you will see that they are still convinced that Ares I and V is still the way to go.

Personally, I find that the House and Senate should compromise by saying that the next generation rocket should be Constellation or Shuttle derived and let NASA make the choice of which rocket it wants.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/16/2010 04:03 pm

.... Obama Administration, and the Congress to address "the gap" in a fully responsive way, despite at least one effort to clearly articulate a solution to that challenge. S. 3068 (Hutchison, with an identical companion House bill by Kosmas, et al.) at least made the effort, but its "spaceflight reassurance" provisions simply could not be folded into the current Senate NASA bill (S. 3729) given the unwillingness of sufficient Members to do go beyond the top-line agency budget profile put on the table in the Obama FY 2011 Request. My own greatest personal frustration and disappointment.

I'm surprised no one has made a bigger deal out of this.. Unless I'm misreading this?  It sure sounds like 51D has given up hope of the House reconciling with the Senate bill and coming up with anything that could be passed by both the House and Senate.

Is there still hope out there... or not? 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 04:06 pm
I think he is referring to the lack of consensus on Shuttle extension.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/16/2010 04:19 pm
I think he is referring to the lack of consensus on Shuttle extension.

Yes, Shuttle extension to bridge the gap would have required an additionnal $2B per year but a number of politicians weren't willing to increase the NASA budget by such an amount.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/16/2010 04:22 pm
I think he is referring to the lack of consensus on Shuttle extension.
In this specific case, but "the unwillingness of sufficient Members to...go beyond the top-line agency budget" is something that has existed for decades.  That's affected different programs/proposals over the years.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/16/2010 04:37 pm
I think he is referring to the lack of consensus on Shuttle extension.

Correct. The issue of Senate-House compromise is still in work and I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome on that front.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 04:39 pm
Fingers crossed, the workforce deserve stability and certainty as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/16/2010 04:47 pm
I think he is referring to the lack of consensus on Shuttle extension.

Correct. The issue of Senate-House compromise is still in work and I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome on that front.

That's really good to hear 51D. Thank you.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/16/2010 05:51 pm
The issue of Senate-House compromise is still in work and I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome on that front.
   Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits  $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 06:10 pm
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/09/crunch_time_for_nasa_budget_as.html

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville, confirms there has been pressure for the House to simply adopt the Senate plan.

"There is behind-the-scenes lobbying by special interest groups to force a vote on the Senate NASA authorization bill in the House, with no chance to offer or vote on amendments," Aderholt said Wednesday in a statement. "While I appreciate some aspects of the Senate authorization bill, the House of Representatives deserves a vote on its own committee bill, and I hope Democrat House leadership schedules that soon."

* The House committee's NASA bill is waiting for Speaker Nancy Pelosi to bring it to the floor. House members have lobbied their leadership, too, but no vote had been set as of Wednesday.

If the full House could pass its own plan, that would mean a House-Senate conference. Not having a House bill strengthens the Senate bill's chances.

* If nothing passes, the last option is a continuing budget resolution passed by both House and Senate. Nobody wants one, but most people expect it. And if one is coming, partisans will try to use it to push NASA closer to one version or the other.  A funding resolution could resolve the debate or, if it's weak, leave NASA dangling until a new Congress convenes.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/16/2010 06:17 pm
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/09/crunch_time_for_nasa_budget_as.html

Another nugget from this link:

Quote
In e-mail correspondence with The Times this week, [Michael] Griffin further spelled out why he thinks Huntsville should be leery of the Senate bill.

The Senate requires NASA to develop the core stage of the heavy-lift rocket first and add an upper stage later, Griffin said. Given federal budget realities, Griffin said, that really means no upper stage.

Add: The link indicates Griffin is fighting for the J2X for the upper stage rather than accept the idea of using multiple RL-10s.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 09/16/2010 06:26 pm
I'm sorry but when is this guy going to go away. Can anyone point to a NASA administrator that has lurked around for so long after he was fired. Not the least of which one that presided over such a disaster. That being said I couldn't be happier he is supporting the house bill, keep it up Mike. *snark*
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 06:27 pm
It does seem a waste to not use the J-2X in some capacity now even if it only ends up ultimately as the middle stage, same with the 5-seg SRBs. If ATK are going to be paid anyway they might as well be paid to develop something rather than just warming up the 4-seg facilities ;). Also preserves the option to do an Ares I afterwards if there is some tragic accident with commercial. It's funny though to see Griffin worrying about budget realities now as he wasn't so bothered when he was the pontificating Emperor ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/16/2010 06:42 pm
It does seem a waste to not use the J-2X in some capacity now even if it only ends up ultimately as the middle stage, same with the 5-seg SRBs. If ATK are going to be paid anyway they might as well be paid to develop something rather than just warming up the 4-seg facilities ;). Also preserves the option to do an Ares I afterwards if there is some tragic accident with commercial. It's funny though to see Griffin worrying about budget realities now as he wasn't so bothered when he was the pontificating Emperor ;).

J-2X for middle stage makes ZERO sense.. Air Start SSME is much better for this role..  And Even as much work as has been done on J-2X.. I bet Air Start SSME would take less development.. not to mention giving >> performance on all fronts compared to J-2X.

If we are going with RL-10 based EDS and an SSME based core... Is there ANY reason whatsover to continue dumping money into J-2X(lower ISP/Lower Thrust and not much cheaper than SSME)?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 09/16/2010 06:46 pm
and not much cheaper than SSME)?

Completely agree, if you're going for separate upper stage & EDS / CPS. Not yet convinced re that one!

BTW, ISTM J-2X is pretty expensive - RS-25e might actually be cheaper. And common with core engine, of course.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/16/2010 06:48 pm
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/09/crunch_time_for_nasa_budget_as.html

Another nugget from this link:

Quote
In e-mail correspondence with The Times this week, [Michael] Griffin further spelled out why he thinks Huntsville should be leery of the Senate bill.

The Senate requires NASA to develop the core stage of the heavy-lift rocket first and add an upper stage later, Griffin said. Given federal budget realities, Griffin said, that really means no upper stage.

Add: The link indicates Griffin is fighting for the J2X for the upper stage rather than accept the idea of using multiple RL-10s.

I think it means no "brand new" mega upper stage and new engine.  Dr. Griffin is likely correct on that point.  The question is if we need it.

In this case, I think it makes sense to "evolve" an existing upper stage that can be purchased from ULA, etc. 

You get an SDLV-class lift capability, without handing a near monopoly to a company and nearly subsidizing everything, but still get the "economy of scale" that others have wanted to see.  Kind of a comprise, kind of a best-of-both-worlds approach. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 06:49 pm

J-2X for middle stage makes ZERO sense.. Air Start SSME is much better for this role..  And Even as much work as has been done on J-2X.. I bet Air Start SSME would take less development.. not to mention giving >> performance on all fronts compared to J-2X.

If we are going with RL-10 based EDS and an SSME based core... Is there ANY reason whatsover to continue dumping money into J-2X(lower ISP/Lower Thrust and not much cheaper than SSME)?


A test unit is being delivered in December which strikes me as being more advanced than a future expendable air-started SSME. It could also be used by commercial vehicles (e.g. D-IVH) as a restartable upper stage. This HLV is going to be pricey enough as it is, let's start using what we got already and go from there.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 09/16/2010 06:49 pm
Clearly Griffin hasn't given up in the slightest on any aspect of his baby. Hmm, let's see: HLV<150mt is crap and we can't possibly waste anything from Ares I.

The Senate legislation says to use existing or in development stuff as much as is practicable, but I don't think that means you are required to stick with it. For the J-2X in particular, it would be a shame to waste all those sunk costs, but an even bigger shame to succomb to the sunk-cost-fallacy and force using in a design where it wasn't an optimum choice. I think DIRECT has shown that the AIUS type US and the J-2X (even on a JUS) are inferior for performance and cost.

A similar argument is made for the 5-segs, although some discussion on the DIRECT thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22381.msg637284#msg637284) indicates that since we are 2 years further down the road and Shuttle is so close to an end, they *could*, *maybe* actually be worth it since sustaining ATK for years is only slighly less expensive than finishing 5-seg development.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rcoppola on 09/16/2010 07:00 pm
I'm sorry but when is this guy going to go away. Can anyone point to a NASA administrator that has lurked around for so long after he was fired. Not the least of which one that presided over such a disaster. That being said I couldn't be happier he is supporting the house bill, keep it up Mike. *snark*
He goes away when we get another Administrator who can show real leadership. Right now there seems to be a leadership void...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/16/2010 07:04 pm

J-2X for middle stage makes ZERO sense.. Air Start SSME is much better for this role..  And Even as much work as has been done on J-2X.. I bet Air Start SSME would take less development.. not to mention giving >> performance on all fronts compared to J-2X.

If we are going with RL-10 based EDS and an SSME based core... Is there ANY reason whatsover to continue dumping money into J-2X(lower ISP/Lower Thrust and not much cheaper than SSME)?


A test unit is being delivered in December which strikes me as being more advanced than a future expendable air-started SSME. It could also be used by commercial vehicles (e.g. D-IVH) as a restartable upper stage. This HLV is going to be pricey enough as it is, let's start using what we got already and go from there.

And keeping all the yearly infrastructure costs of yet another completely different engine..  which is not really needed.. and performs significantly worse.. is worth it?  Other than the Air-Start portion which has been deemed by NASA's own studies as "pretty trivial" what validation would need to be done on SSME and could it not be rolled together with RS-25e development?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 07:07 pm
You get a BEO HLV straight away though as the J2-X middle/upper stage will be ready at the same time as the core. You could save years on missions. So what if you lose a couple mT in ultimate performance if you can start years earlier.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 09/16/2010 07:09 pm
http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/09/crunch_time_for_nasa_budget_as.html

Another nugget from this link:

Quote
In e-mail correspondence with The Times this week, [Michael] Griffin further spelled out why he thinks Huntsville should be leery of the Senate bill.

The Senate requires NASA to develop the core stage of the heavy-lift rocket first and add an upper stage later, Griffin said. Given federal budget realities, Griffin said, that really means no upper stage.

Add: The link indicates Griffin is fighting for the J2X for the upper stage rather than accept the idea of using multiple RL-10s.


In this case, I think it makes sense to "evolve" an existing upper stage that can be purchased from ULA, etc. 



In that same sense doesn't it make more sense to move down the RL-10 route and not the J2-X
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/16/2010 07:10 pm
You get a BEO HLV straight away though as the J2-X middle/upper stage will be ready at the same time as the core. You could save years on missions. So what if you lose  a couple mT in ultimate performance if you can start years earlier.

Only if you have missions years earlier; recall that NEOs are presently the priority, and none are reachable before 2025...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/16/2010 07:16 pm
Send probes/rovers to the Lunar North pole ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/16/2010 07:44 pm
The issue of Senate-House compromise is still in work and I am cautiously optimistic about the outcome on that front.
   Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits  $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?
   -Alex

That's correct. Of course, the actual vehicle design and development plan, to be put together by NASA under either bill, will refine cost and schedule estimates. The out-year numbers--in either bill, by the way--are essentially notional, since there is no actual program on the table (though to the extent the House reflects a "restructured" Constellation program, as it's been described, one might argue the PoR numbers would have more refinement--but the problem is, remember, PoR runouts in a flat top line budget REQUIRED the cessation of ISS support in 2015, which is not now on the table), those out-year numbers could be modified by subsequent action to reflect refined program requirements. The Congress is not irrevocably bound by authorizing numbers, as we saw over the last five years, when the authorizing numbers far exceeded either the requested or the appropriated amounts. And, in the end, there is the "cardinal rule" that no Congress can bind a future Congress....unless it allows itself to be so bound by inaction or reaffirmation.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/17/2010 02:37 am
The political calculus behind DIRECT (as far as I can tell, as an outsider) includes the recognition that an all EELV solution cannot get through Congress....

Personally, I am appalled at the political "dice throwing" that is going on and I find the need for genuine compromise to be extremely urgent.

I have the same interpretation as you regarding DIRECT's political calculus.  The trouble I have with it is that DIRECT seems to me to be a big throw of the dice too.  It requires NASA to commit now to many years of high fixed costs.  If, as is very possible, NASA's budget decreases in coming years, the likely result is that all other activities would be starved to keep SDHLV going.  Even so, SDHLV would be drawn out and quite possibly eventually canceled as costs mount.  That would leave us with many billions spent and nothing to show for it but a ruined civilian space program.  The concept just doesn't scale gracefully to lower budgets.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/17/2010 07:38 am
J-2X for middle stage makes ZERO sense.. Air Start SSME is much better for this role..  And Even as much work as has been done on J-2X.. I bet Air Start SSME would take less development.. not to mention giving >> performance on all fronts compared to J-2X.
If we are going with RL-10 based EDS and an SSME based core... Is there ANY reason whatsover to continue dumping money into J-2X(lower ISP/Lower Thrust and not much cheaper than SSME)?
A test unit is being delivered in December which strikes me as being more advanced than a future expendable air-started SSME. It could also be used by commercial vehicles (e.g. D-IVH) as a restartable upper stage. This HLV is going to be pricey enough as it is, let's start using what we got already and go from there.
      We don't have J-2X, which is fine, since it is technically inferior to cheaper RL-10 clusters for Jupiter-like SSME cores, and for EELVs. Read the paper Jon posted -- ULA is unimpressed with J-2X even for D-IVH or EELV Phase II. We have no need for and cannot possibly afford a dedicated middle stage for SLS. Short of deciding to build Falcon XX / Concept 103 instead of SLS, there's no reason even to pay to finish development.
                                       -Alex
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637560#msg637560


Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/17/2010 12:51 pm
J-2X for middle stage makes ZERO sense.. Air Start SSME is much better for this role..  And Even as much work as has been done on J-2X.. I bet Air Start SSME would take less development.. not to mention giving >> performance on all fronts compared to J-2X.
If we are going with RL-10 based EDS and an SSME based core... Is there ANY reason whatsover to continue dumping money into J-2X(lower ISP/Lower Thrust and not much cheaper than SSME)?
A test unit is being delivered in December which strikes me as being more advanced than a future expendable air-started SSME. It could also be used by commercial vehicles (e.g. D-IVH) as a restartable upper stage. This HLV is going to be pricey enough as it is, let's start using what we got already and go from there.
      We don't have J-2X, which is fine, since it is technically inferior to cheaper RL-10 clusters for Jupiter-like SSME cores, and for EELVs. Read the paper Jon posted -- ULA is unimpressed with J-2X even for D-IVH or EELV Phase II. We have no need for and cannot possibly afford a dedicated middle stage for SLS. Short of deciding to build Falcon XX / Concept 103 instead of SLS, there's no reason even to pay to finish development.
                                       -Alex
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637560#msg637560




Again.. if you're going to a seperate RL-10 EDS.. could an SSME 2nd stage be based off existing 8.4m "Core" tank tooling?  While this would hurt performance to some degree(how much?).. wouldn't it allow for a much cheaper to develop and more quickly available 100mT+ Booster?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 02:29 pm

We have no need for and cannot possibly afford a dedicated middle stage for SLS. Short of deciding to build Falcon XX / Concept 103 instead of SLS, there's no reason even to pay to finish development.
                                       -Alex
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637560#msg637560


What can and cannot be afforded will be decided by Congress and the White House not by internet posters. If they decide they want to retain as much as possible of Ares I development then that's what will happen. The Senate bill does indicate that intention.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/17/2010 07:08 pm
      We don't have J-2X, which is fine, since it is technically inferior to cheaper RL-10 clusters for Jupiter-like SSME cores, and for EELVs.

Depends on you definition of inferior. J-2X is superior for high-thrust applications (maximizing mass to LEO), while the RL-10 cluster is better at direct-to-escape trajectories. As the NEO DRMs seem to all involve LEO assembly, that sounds like it should be the focus.

Also, the first J-2X will be delivered to SSC in December, so it's not really accurate to say it doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Mark S on 09/17/2010 09:01 pm
Personally, I find that the House and Senate should compromise by saying that the next generation rocket should be Constellation or Shuttle derived and let NASA make the choice of which rocket it wants.   

Egads! What planet have you been on for the past six years? Let NASA choose the rocket it wants? Insanity!

We'd get a gold-plated Ares-7-zilla triple-launch architecture with double Ares-I goodness, just to get a crew out of LEO.

No, I think NASA has had their chance to design and build the rocket of their choice. If you want proof that NASA's severe case of bloat-itis disease is not yet cured, just look at the HEFT2 report.

No, the best path is to stick strictly to the Senate bill as it is. Or better yet, make it even stricter and more specific (if possible).

Mark S.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/17/2010 09:08 pm

We have no need for and cannot possibly afford a dedicated middle stage for SLS. Short of deciding to build Falcon XX / Concept 103 instead of SLS, there's no reason even to pay to finish development.
                                       -Alex
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg637560#msg637560


What can and cannot be afforded will be decided by Congress and the White House not by internet posters. If they decide they want to retain as much as possible of Ares I development then that's what will happen. The Senate bill does indicate that intention.
And, of course, Congress is elected by the people. Even mainstream Republicans and incumbents are not immune, as the Tea Party has shown. So yes, internet posters (those who are US citizens) can play an important role in the decision making process of the US Congress. If Congress makes too many bad decisions, it affects their own political viability. Just saying. I don't like the poo-pooing of rational discourse because such-and-such idea isn't what Congress likes!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 09:22 pm
Space is not a big voter issue therefore special interests and influential Congress members preferences dominate this issue as the mass of the general public does not care either way whether NASA flies to the ISS, Moon, Mars or nowhere. It is not rational to say something can't be afforded when it clearly is about to. In fact Cx was going to be funded quite happily until a few Presidential advisors and a pro-NewSpace committee decreed otherwise even though the people in charge of dispensing the funds were not complaining. There are plenty of what-if alternative threads on this site but this thread is a serious one about what is actually being decided not personal opinions about the matter.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 09/17/2010 09:24 pm
It is not rational to say something can't be afforded when it clearly is about to. In fact Cx was going to be funded quite happily until a few Presidential advisors and a pro-NewSpace committee decreed otherwise even though the people in charge of dispensing the funds were not complaining.

Which parallel universe are you posting from?
Much of Congress wants/wanted CxP yes - but still not with sufficient funding levels to get any BEO exploration done in the next 2 decades.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 09:34 pm
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some. The ones who are in a parallel universe are those who think an option that was purposely aborted in 2004 will suddenly be resurrected even though it has no broad influential political support.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/17/2010 09:45 pm
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some. The ones who are in a parallel universe are those who think an option that was purposely aborted in 2004 will suddenly be resurrected even though it has no broad influential political support.
     Wasn't it slipping by a year for every year that passed? That's hardly a "future path". Yet it cost many billions to walk in place. M.J. was skilled at doing that for free.
     -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/17/2010 09:46 pm
Again.. if you're going to a seperate RL-10 EDS.. could an SSME 2nd stage be based off existing 8.4m "Core" tank tooling?  While this would hurt performance to some degree(how much?).. wouldn't it allow for a much cheaper to develop and more quickly available 100mT+ Booster?
     Apparently not. You can get 100mT just by going to a J140H, I think, ie take your basic 4-engine core and add the 5-seg booster (which I'm hardly a fan of, but apparently costs about as much to finish development as just paying ATK to keep the 4-seg around.)
     Building a whole dedicated non-restartable non-EDS "middle stage" requires developing airstart SSME (may or may not be difficult) and then judging by several other upper stage projected costs, at least another $3 billion for the stage itself.
    -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/17/2010 09:59 pm
Quote from: marsavian
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some.

Dude, what you wrote is a total logical contradiction. CxP WAS the program that WAS being funded. Guess what, it's not anymore. It will not be the true future path not because it SEEMED inefficient to some, but because it WAS/IS/ALWAYS will be godawfully inefficient--an objective fact as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.

The Senate proposal isn't any better. Compared to the easily available alternatives that are out there, and given the bleak history of the CxP affair, the Senate bill will be the boneheaded mistake of the century if it ever get implemented. It will crash and burn under the weight of it's own inefficiency. The question is not if, but when.

One pattern I notice here is that the people who emphasize overriding importance of a few hack senators and that we should all just shut up and get on board despite the nausea tend to be non-Americans (interesting that your location isn't next to your anonymous handle, perhaps because it's not American and your afraid it will lessen your credibility? You shouldn't, your credibility depends on whether what you say makes sense or not.) But the fact is, we Americans don't have to accept stupid decisions made by our government. I think it was Churchill who said something like you can always count on the Americans to do the right thing--after they've exhausted all other alternatives. This story is not over. Not by a long shot....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 10:03 pm
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some. The ones who are in a parallel universe are those who think an option that was purposely aborted in 2004 will suddenly be resurrected even though it has no broad influential political support.
     Wasn't it slipping by a year for every year that passed? That's hardly a "future path". Yet it cost many billions to walk in place. M.J. was skilled at doing that for free.
     -Alex

Billions that produced real hardware (5-seg/J-2X/Orion) that will be used going forward or should be if elegance purists are hopefully ignored.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/17/2010 10:16 pm
Billions that produced real hardware (5-seg/J-2X/Orion) that will be used going forward or should be if elegance purists are hopefully ignored.
    None of which are close to operational, all of which will require billions more to finish, none of which are necessary.
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/17/2010 10:32 pm
Prediction:  the continuation of J-2X development will be required for the Senate and House to reach a funding compromise.

Reasoning:  J-2X enables some vehicle designs that are not possible with RL10.  A faction that exerts considerable influence in the House wants to keep open one of those design options.  That design is, of course, the "Rocket That Shall Not Be Named."  At least, it won't be openly named during this funding tussle, nor at all unless that faction gains additional influence in the legislative or administrative branches of the federal government. 

"They" are beaten, but not yet dead.  The sign of that will be the apparently irrational continuation of J-2X.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TrueBlueWitt on 09/17/2010 10:52 pm
Prediction:  the continuation of J-2X development will be required for the Senate and House to reach a funding compromise.

Reasoning:  J-2X enables some vehicle designs that are not possible with RL10.  A faction that exerts considerable influence in the House wants to keep open one of those design options.  That design is, of course, the "Rocket That Shall Not Be Named."  At least, it won't be openly named during this funding tussle, nor at all unless that faction gains additional influence in the legislative or administrative branches of the federal government. 

"They" are beaten, but not yet dead.  The sign of that will be the apparently irrational continuation of J-2X.

And the sad part is.. they are too ignorant to realize that Air-start SSME is very much superior in that role(not to mention being picked for it originally!).. before Griffin tried to pay for part of the exhorbitant Ares-V development cost using Ares-1 funds.. but I digress..
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 11:02 pm

"They" are beaten, but not yet dead.  The sign of that will be the apparently irrational continuation of J-2X.

What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/17/2010 11:13 pm
"They" are beaten, but not yet dead.  The sign of that will be the apparently irrational continuation of J-2X.

What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.
    1) Heavy and low-isp (poor performance)
    2) Which makes it a poor choice for depots (or EDSs)
    3) And why no commercial vehicle wants it (read ULA's paper).
    4) Sunk-cost fallacy
-Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/17/2010 11:17 pm
...nevermind, alexw beat me to it. ;) (almost the exact same message)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/17/2010 11:25 pm
What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.

What would be irrational would be FY11 funding of an upper stage engine when there isn't even enough funding for all of:

 * The first stage core
 * The solid rocket boosters
 * The spacecraft

Which of the above three items would it be rational to defer so as to fund an upper stage engine?

J-2X would be a great capability to have.  The work done to date has not been wasted.  Let's fund its development again when we have a way to get it off the pad.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 11:37 pm
"They" are beaten, but not yet dead.  The sign of that will be the apparently irrational continuation of J-2X.

What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.
    1) Heavy and low-isp (poor performance)
    2) Which makes it a poor choice for depots (or EDSs)
    3) And why no commercial vehicle wants it (read ULA's paper).
    4) Sunk-cost fallacy
-Alex

1,2) It's not a kerosene engine ;)
3) "A more promising alternative scenario is one where the ACES becomes the upper stage for the Phase I EELV using existing boosters, then a new J-2X stage becomes a LEO 2nd stage for the Phase 2, and subsequent Phase 3 phases, with the ACES evolving to become the (in-space) 3rd stage for beyond LEO on these vehicles, where its high Isp, excellent mass fraction, and low-boiloff design provide the greatest benefits."  which coincidentally is how HEFT2 sees it as well.
4) Not really because the rest of the money is worth spending.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/17/2010 11:44 pm
What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.

What would be irrational would be FY11 funding of an upper stage engine when there isn't even enough funding for all of:

 * The first stage core
 * The solid rocket boosters
 * The spacecraft

Which of the above three items would it be rational to defer so as to fund an upper stage engine?

J-2X would be a great capability to have.  The work done to date has not been wasted.  Let's fund its development again when we have a way to get it off the pad.

Agreed but it would be ideal if development could continue at a level that would mean the core stage would not have to wait too long for its upper stage. Time is the issue with the J2-X not cost as I think it has been mostly paid for.

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/jul/HQ_C07030_J2X_Contract_prt.htm

NASA has signed a $1.2 billion contract with Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne Inc., of Canoga Park, Calif., for design, development, testing and evaluation of the J-2X engine that will power the upper stages of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles.

The contract includes ground and test flight engines. It continues work that began on June 2, 2006, under a preliminary letter contract with Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne.

NASA awarded the cost-plus-award fee contract to Pratt and Whitney Rocketdyne on a sole-source basis, NASA determined that no other existing capability meets its architecture requirements and is able to be extended to future exploration missions to the moon and beyond.

The contract performance period extends through Dec. 31, 2012. Engines for operational missions will be purchased through a separate contract.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/17/2010 11:51 pm
What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.

What would be irrational would be FY11 funding of an upper stage engine when there isn't even enough funding for all of:

 * The first stage core
 * The solid rocket boosters
 * The spacecraft

Which of the above three items would it be rational to defer so as to fund an upper stage engine?

J-2X would be a great capability to have.  The work done to date has not been wasted.  Let's fund its development again when we have a way to get it off the pad.
If an "upper stage" is launched empty or nearly empty on an EELV-class launcher, it could be refueled in orbit to be used as a big EDS. In that scenario, though, RL-10 would be much better.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/18/2010 12:19 am
What is irrational about completing a design that is about to start hardware testing and that would be the highest thrust restartable upper stage engine in the world ? It would not only allow the possibility of Ares I being resumed in the future but gives you the most performance flexibility and growth potential on the HLV as well as being potentially useful in Depots or commercial vehicles. What would be irrational is not using it now after billion(s) had already been spent.
    1) Heavy and low-isp (poor performance)
    2) Which makes it a poor choice for depots (or EDSs)
    3) And why no commercial vehicle wants it (read ULA's paper).
    4) Sunk-cost fallacy
1,2) It's not a kerosene engine ;)
3) "A more promising alternative scenario is one where the ACES becomes the upper stage for the Phase I EELV using existing boosters, then a new J-2X stage becomes a LEO 2nd stage for the Phase 2, and subsequent Phase 3 phases, with the ACES evolving to become the (in-space) 3rd stage for beyond LEO on these vehicles, where its high Isp, excellent mass fraction, and low-boiloff design provide the greatest benefits."  which coincidentally is how HEFT2 sees it as well.
4) Not really because the rest of the money is worth spending.
     1) I assume you are aware it is not kerolox. I also assume that you know not merely its thrust but its dry mass and isp, and that of RL-10A-4-2, RL-10B-2, SSME, RL-60, Vinci, HM7B, and can look up other engines as needed. You are not, however, expected to know the Russian expander and staged-combustion LH2 engines; that's extra credit.
     2) follows from (1)
     4) you haven't established a needed use for it, and the examples you keep pointing out for its use are either irrelevant or wrong  (heavens, I sound like certain someone else now ... !)
     3) Ahhhh, selective quoting. Try reading the previous sentences:

"A J-2X powered stage is much too big for the existing EELVs, but is reasonably sized for the larger Phase 2 EELV boosters for LEO delivery. Although ULA has received many inquiries on the compatibility of a J-2X upper stage on existing EELVs, it actually provides less performance, requires more booster modifications, and a stage less compatible with higher energy GTO and GEO missions (losing synergy with National Security Space) than the existing upper stages or the ACES stage."

You keep saying "commercial". Let us know when you've decided to endorse EELV Phase IIIB. 
   -Alex


edit: quote marks
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/18/2010 12:47 am
1,2) Performance is no worse than about 5% (remember you will need more than one RL10).
3) That isn't true for the Delta IV Heavy whose LEO performance alone is increased by 7mT.
4) The need is for the best performance on the HLV from where we are now and that is as an initial upper stage/EDS and as a final middle stage once a common cryogenic upper stage can be agreed between NASA/ULA and any future Depot needs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: spacetraveler on 09/18/2010 04:11 am
    4) Sunk-cost fallacy

I think whether the sunk cost argument makes any sense depends on how much work is left to go. Already spent $2.2 billion on J-2X. If we have to spend $200 million more to finish it, sure that makes sense. If we have to spend another $2 billion, then not so much. I don't know the answer to how much is left however.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: pathfinder_01 on 09/18/2010 06:01 am
1,2) Performance is no worse than about 5% (remember you will need more than one RL10).
3) That isn't true for the Delta IV Heavy whose LEO performance alone is increased by 7mT.
4) The need is for the best performance on the HLV from where we are now and that is as an initial upper stage/EDS and as a final middle stage once a common cryogenic upper stage can be agreed between NASA/ULA and any future Depot needs.

1,2)  Why take a 5% hit when you don't have to? Remember DOD and comsats pay the bills not NASA or commercial crew.

3) The target market for EELV isn't LEO but GEO and cost is important. RL10 is better at GEO than J2X and cheaper.  7MT is not much, esp when that 7 tons is to a minor market(LEO).

4) A common upper stage is good, but it does not need to be tuned for NASA's needs at the expense of other users to be useful.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/18/2010 09:14 am
1,2) The hit, at least in the HLV and EELV Heavy derivatives, is only against theoretical RL10 clusters that have not been financed or developed yet.
3) I really doubt whether the Delta IV Heavy will lose all of a 25% LEO advantage when using the J2-X for GEO work. Agreed the J-2X makes no sense for the mediums but for the heavy it's a big crude fit. The advantage to ULA is that they don't have to spend any money developing it. They don't have to use it as neither do say SpaceX for the Falcon 9 Heavy but it will be available if they do.
4) NASA is the only one that's going to be seriously funding this common stage so it's more courtesy to other potential follow-on users. Remember NASA is funding the Depot demonstration not ULA or DoD.

The deal about the J2-X (or air-started SSME) is that once you have decided on a RL10 upper stage you are limited in growth potential to what further you can wring out of the first stage, do we really want NASA to go the 10-11m core, 6-7 regen RS-68 route again to eke out more performance if it's needed somewhere down the line ? With the J2-X you could go up to 4 in a middle stage if you needed substantial extra (double digit mT) performance. For an engine whose development is already contracted and paid for until 2012 it is worth finishing the development up till then and it will then be available for everyone who needs it going forward. Let's not waste/cancel what has already been contracted and paid for out of some purist view.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/18/2010 10:38 am
With the J2-X you could go up to 4 in a middle stage if you needed substantial extra (double digit mT) performance. For an engine whose development is already contracted and paid for until 2012 it is worth finishing the development up till then and it will then be available for everyone who needs it going forward. Let's not waste/cancel what has already been contracted and paid for out of some purist view.

Yep! Thank you marsavian. Once again your pragmatism is a refreshing breeze.

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/18/2010 11:34 am
Quote from: marsavian
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some.

Dude, what you wrote is a total logical contradiction. CxP WAS the program that WAS being funded. Guess what, it's not anymore. It will not be the true future path not because it SEEMED inefficient to some, but because it WAS/IS/ALWAYS will be godawfully inefficient--an objective fact as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.

The Senate proposal isn't any better. Compared to the easily available alternatives that are out there, and given the bleak history of the CxP affair, the Senate bill will be the boneheaded mistake of the century if it ever get implemented. It will crash and burn under the weight of it's own inefficiency. The question is not if, but when.


People power did not stop Cx, only a consensus between an ISS favoring President and Senate has done that. It will not be canceled because it is an inefficient exploration architecture but because a SD-HLV being built first will be seen as more conducive to supporting the ISS in its lifetime going forward than Ares I. Congress could still railroad Cx through if it wanted to and united to do so and there would not be revolts in the streets or mass politician removals if that happened. No-one is asking you to accept what politicians do just to be more realistic as to how much you can influence their decisions especially in a general non-controversial background topic such as Space where lobbyists and jobs hold more sway than individual interested voter preferences amongst a background of general voter apathy about the subject.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/18/2010 12:46 pm
1,2) The hit, at least in the HLV and EELV Heavy derivatives, is only against theoretical RL10 clusters that have not been financed or developed yet.

See 2 images below.

Quote
The deal about the J2-X (or air-started SSME) is that once you have decided on a RL10 upper stage you are limited in growth potential

RL-10 can very easily become the RL-60.

Engine    Dia         Mass      Thrust          ISP       
RL-10     0.92m     131kg     15,000 lbs     410s
RL-60     0.92m     500kg     65,000 lbs     465s
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/18/2010 01:06 pm
Quote from: marsavian
It was still the program that was being funded and ultimately that's what counts, that is the true future path no matter how inefficient it seems to some.

Dude, what you wrote is a total logical contradiction. CxP WAS the program that WAS being funded. Guess what, it's not anymore. It will not be the true future path not because it SEEMED inefficient to some, but because it WAS/IS/ALWAYS will be godawfully inefficient--an objective fact as certain as 2 + 2 = 4.

The Senate proposal isn't any better. Compared to the easily available alternatives that are out there, and given the bleak history of the CxP affair, the Senate bill will be the boneheaded mistake of the century if it ever get implemented. It will crash and burn under the weight of it's own inefficiency. The question is not if, but when.


People power did not stop Cx, only a consensus between an ISS favoring President and Senate has done that. It will not be canceled because it is an inefficient exploration architecture but because a SD-HLV being built first will be seen as more conducive to supporting the ISS in its lifetime going forward than Ares I. Congress could still railroad Cx through if it wanted to and united to do so and there would not be revolts in the streets or mass politician removals if that happened. No-one is asking you to accept what politicians do just to be more realistic as to how much you can influence their decisions especially in a general non-controversial background topic such as Space where lobbyists and jobs hold more sway than individual interested voter preferences amongst a background of general voter apathy about the subject.

My recollection is:

1. that President Obama consulted neither the Senate nor just about anyone else outside of his close circle of advisers when he made the decision to cancel CxP;

2. that President Obama imposed a moratorium on major HLV development until 2016, and which point a decision would be made about whether HLV's are even necessary for the goal of American HSF;

3. that the goal of American HSF is beyond Earth exploration--specifically NEO's and eventually Mars (remember the photo op with Buzz Aldrin?);

4. that while the ISS was to be continued, it was to be supported with commercial space (remember the photo op with Elon Musk?);

5. that the reason given for canceling CxP was precisely because it could not achieve the goal of BEO exploration within the current budget;
 
6. and that the budget was going to stay the same, because, as you say, space isn't the top priority.

Canceling CxP furthers the consensus goal of the space community to conduct BEO exploration because CxP was inefficient beyond all hope of redemption. While I strongly disagree with the current President's decision to bypass the Moon, I, the space community, President Obama, and President Bush all agree that BEO exploration is a proper, indeed overriding, goal of the US space program.

I'm 47 years old, and I don't know a single person younger than me with a living memory of men actually walking on the Moon. The BEO "gap" is getting to be scandalous. The problem is that budgets are limited; therefore, the primary challenge is to accomplish BEO exploration in an affordable manner. That is the primary reason why porkish, inefficient boondoggles cannot be tolerated. Call it puritanism if you want. That's actually a good label: waste not; want not.

So what's going on is a few hack senators are attempting to subvert the consensus view of the last two presidents, and the vast majority of all people with more than a passing interest in the US space program. It's not going to work. Saving jobs in Utah and Alabama in order to fund an inefficient, socialistic rocket at the expense of an efficient, capitalistic rocket ain't going to fly on the streets of Denver and Decatur: (http://www.waff.com/Global/story.asp?S=13146617)

Quote
For Decatur, the lost opportunity if the Senate Authorization Bill becomes law could be enormous. ULA's Decatur Plant employs 670 people with another 200 contract employees.

Decatur Mayor Don Stanford says its not fair that his city was overlooked.

"I'd say you all really need to take a look at ULA. I think Decatur has the best product, and I think if they haven't talked to our folks at ULA, come see what we can offer out there," said Mayor Don Stanford.

Senator "Porker" Shelby is treading on thin ice. This Senate Authorization Bill is only the tip of the iceberg of his shenanigans. He's POing everybody, on both the left and right. Last I checked, the President is still calling Illinois his home state. We'll see who comes out on top in the end....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/18/2010 01:08 pm
Yep! Thank you marsavian. Once again your pragmatism is a refreshing breeze.

Advocating for the inefficient and the unnecessary is not the hallmark of pragmatism, nor is the breeze thereby generated refreshing....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/18/2010 01:14 pm
My recollection is:


Not that I wanted to enter this 'debate', but I have to correct you on the sequence of events.

There this little thing called a Blue Ribbon Panel led by Norm Augustine. That came about (no doubt) via the internal rumblings within NASA through the transition team.

Now how all that fits into WHEN the decision to cancel CxP, whether it was pre-determined and the A-Com used as a 'smoke-screen' for justification, or simply secondary proof via a public spectacle, I'll leave that to the jury. But it seems many in congress now realize they had been duped (if that is the correct word), and they still see the value in a space program led by NASA (except under new leadership, IE: no Griffin). IMO, some still are holding onto the CxP elements, but primarily for more selfish reasons, rather than the greater good to simply move on. To criticize the NASA past is for congress to look at themselves in the exact same light. So much for that notion of 'change'.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/18/2010 01:27 pm
I didn't forget about Augustine. They said the same thing: that CxP could not accomplish the stated goals within the current budget. I didn't mention it because the A-com was a totally flawed, politically biased project. I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion. That was forgivable, however. What was not forgivable was the
failure to consider the best alternative to CxP out there: the ULA architecture.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/18/2010 01:30 pm
Another point of view on current status from Rep. Kosmas via Florida Today:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/09/kosmas-hoping-for-house-shift-on-nasa.html
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/18/2010 02:00 pm
Yep! Thank you marsavian. Once again your pragmatism is a refreshing breeze.

Advocating for the inefficient and the unnecessary is not the hallmark of pragmatism, nor is the breeze thereby generated refreshing....


I have always liked the J-2X. And pragmatically, it is funded and it is moving forward, and that counts for something. The reliable RL-10 is available today. The RL-60 is quite impressive, but why isn't it flying? Or more importantly, how long would it take to get the RL-60 flying and how much money would it cost? Doesn't Congress want NASA to make good use of the existing contracts and investments made in the CxP? Does that mean the J-2X?

Cheers! 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/18/2010 02:12 pm
I didn't forget about Augustine. They said the same thing: that CxP could not accomplish the stated goals within the current budget. I didn't mention it because the A-com was a totally flawed, politically biased project. I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion. That was forgivable, however. What was not forgivable was the
failure to consider the best alternative to CxP out there: the ULA architecture.


"I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion."

What is the Invasion? Who has invaded who?


Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/18/2010 02:20 pm
I have the same interpretation as you regarding DIRECT's political calculus.  The trouble I have with it is that DIRECT seems to me to be a big throw of the dice too.
You are not alone.  There needs to be some procedure by which the DIRECT plan, if adopted, could be fixed in capabilities from the very beginning.  Pick one: J-130 or J-246.  Proceed without deviation.

It's a simplistic assessment, but the point is, somehow the program must be run without all these escalations.

If you want proof that NASA's severe case of bloat-itis disease is not yet cured, just look at the HEFT2 report.
Good.  I was beginning to think I was just about the only person noticing this.  The bill should be very specific.

So yes, internet posters (those who are US citizens) can play an important role in the decision making process ...
As always, the key problem is sorting out which of them make sense.  Perhaps the main reason that Congress gets such lo poll ratings is because it doesn't engage in "rational discource" enough.  After all, it too, is full of "internets posters"

It is not rational to say something can't be afforded when it clearly is about to. In fact Cx was going to be funded quite happily until a few Presidential advisors and a pro-NewSpace committee decreed otherwise even though the people in charge of dispensing the funds were not complaining.

Which parallel universe are you posting from?
Much of Congress wants/wanted CxP yes - but still not with sufficient funding levels to get any BEO exploration done in the next 2 decades.

If you strike out the gratuitous and unnecessary "happiness", his parallel universe gets very close indeed to this one.  Perhaps the parallel universe might be better considered as the one which Congress inhabits.

By law, as of today, CxP is the program that is being funded.  The apparently totally legal various obscure termination clauses now being used to scrap parts of it are part of the "funding", I guess.  Which is why DIRECT, if adopted, needs to be fixed in capabilities and operated under adult supervision.  Basically, it seems to me that we have exhausted all the other alternatives.

Quote
I'm 47 years old...
Kids these days.  Think they know everything.

Quote
There this little thing called a Blue Ribbon Panel ...
Which he seems to have overlooked fa sum reezun.  'Cuz he doesn't subsequently explain, only criticizes.

Quote
The contract performance period extends through Dec. 31, 2012
Good.  Ten days after the world is scheduled to end.  Good luck getting that last invoice paid!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/18/2010 02:22 pm
I didn't forget about Augustine. They said the same thing: that CxP could not accomplish the stated goals within the current budget. I didn't mention it because the A-com was a totally flawed, politically biased project. I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion. That was forgivable, however. What was not forgivable was the
failure to consider the best alternative to CxP out there: the ULA architecture.


"I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion."

What is the Invasion? Who has invaded who?


Cheers!

" ISS failed to mention the Invasion..."

Either you messed up your statement some how(mean't to say something else?) or you have completely lost your mind. Your comments seem to suggest something in between the two.

Your straying quite aways away from the facts.
We all agreed, a long time ago, that CXP was messed up due to management/political over engineering/fact. Why are you bringing this up? SDHLV is   not Cxp by any stretch of the imagination. Its not even in the same league as far as cost is concerned. Why people continue to overlook the MASSIVE differences in cost and the VERY LOW cost of SDHLV is beyond me.

Thats notwithstanding that EELV should probably have been (and maybe should still be) the CLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/18/2010 02:24 pm
I have the same interpretation as you regarding DIRECT's political calculus.  The trouble I have with it is that DIRECT seems to me to be a big throw of the dice too.
You are not alone.  There needs to be some procedure by which the DIRECT plan, if adopted, could be fixed in capabilities from the very beginning.  Pick one: J-130 or J-246.  Proceed without deviation.

It's a simplistic assessment, but the point is, somehow the program must be run without all these escalations.

If you want proof that NASA's severe case of bloat-itis disease is not yet cured, just look at the HEFT2 report.
Good.  I was beginning to think I was just about the only person noticing this.  The bill should be very specific.

So yes, internet posters (those who are US citizens) can play an important role in the decision making process ...
As always, the key problem is sorting out which of them make sense.  Perhaps the main reason that Congress gets such lo poll ratings is because it doesn't engage in "rational discource" enough.  After all, it too, is full of "internets posters"

It is not rational to say something can't be afforded when it clearly is about to. In fact Cx was going to be funded quite happily until a few Presidential advisors and a pro-NewSpace committee decreed otherwise even though the people in charge of dispensing the funds were not complaining.

Which parallel universe are you posting from?
Much of Congress wants/wanted CxP yes - but still not with sufficient funding levels to get any BEO exploration done in the next 2 decades.

If you strike out the gratuitous and unnecessary "happiness", his parallel universe gets very close indeed to this one.  Perhaps the parallel universe might be better considered as the one which Congress inhabits.

By law, as of today, CxP is the program that is being funded.  The apparently totally legal various obscure termination clauses now being used to scrap parts of it are part of the "funding", I guess.  Which is why DIRECT, if adopted, needs to be fixed in capabilities and operated under adult supervision.  Basically, it seems to me that we have exhausted all the other alternatives.

Quote
I'm 47 years old...
Kids these days.  Think they know everything.

Quote
There this little thing called a Blue Ribbon Panel ...
Which he seems to have overlooked fa sum reezun.  'Cuz he doesn't subsequently explain, only criticizes.

Quote
The contract performance period extends through Dec. 31, 2012
Good.  Ten days after the world is scheduled to end.  Good luck getting that last invoice paid!

You have some good points.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/18/2010 02:30 pm
There needs to be some procedure by which the DIRECT plan, if adopted, could be fixed in capabilities from the very beginning.  Pick one: J-130 or J-246.  Proceed without deviation.

John;
Under the DIRECT plan there is no fundamental difference between the 2. The plan is to design for and build the J-246. But then that gives you the option to fly without using the upper stage and the 4th SSME. That configuration is known as the J-130.

So don't build 2 rockets. Build ONE rocket and then fly with or without the upper stage; the flight configuration decision would be mission defined.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/18/2010 02:32 pm
There needs to be some procedure by which the DIRECT plan, if adopted, could be fixed in capabilities from the very beginning.  Pick one: J-130 or J-246.  Proceed without deviation.

John;
Under the DIRECT plan there is no fundamental difference between the 2. The plan is to design for and build the J-246. But then that gives you the option to fly without using the upper stage and the 4th SSME. That configuration is known as the J-130.

So don't build 2 rockets. Build ONE rocket and then fly with or without the upper stage; the flight configuration decision would be mission defined.
J246 requires tank strengthing above and beyond J 130 doesn't it?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kraisee on 09/18/2010 02:40 pm
Correct, but DIRECT has always recommended those changes be designed-in from day 1.

Apart from an initial test flight that can be based on an existing ET LH2 Tank (study shows that is strong enough for the 3-engine configuration already), all new Jupiter Core Stages after that should *ALL* be designed for the greater loads of the Jupiter-246 configuration to follow.

All Jupiter-130 Cores should be identical and interchangeable with Jupiter-246 Cores.   The capability to add/remove the 4th engine/closeout should be a field operation at KSC.

Design once + Build once + Test once = Lower costs.

Ross.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/18/2010 02:58 pm
"[the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the] ISS failed to mention the Invasion..."

Either you messed up your statement some how(mean't to say something else?) or you have completely lost your mind. Your comments seem to suggest something in between the two.

Dude, the predicate of the sentence was 'the ex-Air-Force-general-in-charge-of-extolling-the-virtues-of-international-cooperation-at-the-ISS'; the predicate of the sentence was 'failed to mention the Invasion'. Slow down next time.....

For the sake of those with short memories: (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29133)

Quote from: Mike Griffin
The Russians are not going to back out of Georgia any time soon, certainly not prior to the election. If they don't, INKSNA is DoA, . . . my guess is that there is going to be a lengthy period with no U.S. crew on ISS after 2011. . . . The alternatives are to continue flying Shuttle, or abandon U.S. presence on ISS. . . . Our focus should be on minimizing the collateral damage to NASA caused by the recent events and their likely consequences. . . . Yes, there are actions we could take to hold ISS hostage, or even to prevent them from using it -- power management stuff, for example. We will not take those actions. Practically speaking, the Russians can sustain ISS without US crew as long as we don't actively sabotage them . . . We need them. They don't "need" us. We're a "nice to have".

Quote from: Final Frontier
the VERY LOW cost of SDHLV is beyond me.

Yeah, me too. Barr and Kutter say they can do a Phase II HLV for $2.5 billion USD, and get it done by 2016. I wouldn't call that VERY LOW, but I doubt that SDHLV/Direct can beat that--but maybe I'm wrong....
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/18/2010 04:28 pm
Quote
So don't build 2 rockets....

That I had not realized.  From looking at the various charts, I always thought that J246 was "evolved".  So why haven't you guys started already?  Some liberal/conservative thing?

Quote
They don't "need" us. We're a "nice to have".

That was a sobering remark.  And it points to, ahem, the wisdom of my desire to extend shuttle for five or six flights, and eliminate the gap totally, while transitioning the "workforce" in an orderly fashion to the DIRECT based SLS program, which, with its fixed throw weight (Edit: of 100mt), will be managed responsibly, even tho somewhat delayed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/18/2010 05:58 pm
Quote
So don't build 2 rockets....

That I had not realized.  From looking at the various charts, I always thought that J246 was "evolved".  So why haven't you guys started already?  Some liberal/conservative thing?

Sometimes thick skulls are SO thick that you can't  even penetrate them with a pneumatic hammer. So many people in management just never get it - that slightly different flight configurations don't have to use a different rocket. Just design the rocket in the first place for the heaviest anticipated load, plus margin, and be done with it. When it's flown without the heavy loads it is just a little sub-optimal, but so what? That's what margin is for. We have been hammering  away with this single fundamental design philosophy  sense 2005. Every iteration of the Jupiter has been based on this fundamental - beginning with DIRECT v0.5, which was pre-release.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/18/2010 06:06 pm
That I had not realized.  From looking at the various charts, I always thought that J246 was "evolved".  So why haven't you guys started already?  Some liberal/conservative thing?

I think it boils down to them wanting two rockets and having some kind of weird mental lock about the fact that they will never get enough money to pay for them.  Saturn-V casts a long shadow over the collective groupthink of NASA is seems.  "All we need is to propose a new Project Apollo and we'll have Project Apollo-level budgets again!"
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/18/2010 06:08 pm
That I had not realized.  From looking at the various charts, I always thought that J246 was "evolved".  So why haven't you guys started already?  Some liberal/conservative thing?

I think it boils down to them wanting two rockets and having some kind of weird mental lock about the fact that they will never get enough money to pay for them.  Saturn-V casts a long shadow over the collective groupthink of NASA is seems.  "All we need is to propose a new Project Apollo and we'll have Project Apollo-level budgets again!"

That group think has got to be killed off, because it ain't gonna happen, not in their wildest dreams!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Warren Platts on 09/18/2010 07:23 pm
Quote from: clongton
Just design the rocket in the first place for the heaviest anticipated load, plus margin, and be done with it. When it's flown without the heavy loads it is just a little sub-optimal, but so what? That's what margin is for. We have been hammering  away with this single fundamental design philosophy  sense 2005. Every iteration of the Jupiter has been based on this fundamental - beginning with DIRECT v0.5, which was pre-release.

That's interesting, because the ULA design philosophy seems to be just the opposite: make your launch systems modular, so that payload capacity is always calibrated to payload weight. That way, there's no overkill for interim missions with lower payload requirements.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/18/2010 07:28 pm
That I had not realized.  From looking at the various charts, I always thought that J246 was "evolved".  So why haven't you guys started already?  Some liberal/conservative thing?

I think it boils down to them wanting two rockets and having some kind of weird mental lock about the fact that they will never get enough money to pay for them.  Saturn-V casts a long shadow over the collective groupthink of NASA is seems.  "All we need is to propose a new Project Apollo and we'll have Project Apollo-level budgets again!"

That group think has got to be killed off, because it ain't gonna happen, not in their wildest dreams!
Yes, yes, and Amen!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 09/18/2010 07:48 pm
Quote from: clongton
Just design the rocket in the first place for the heaviest anticipated load, plus margin, and be done with it. When it's flown without the heavy loads it is just a little sub-optimal, but so what? That's what margin is for. We have been hammering  away with this single fundamental design philosophy  sense 2005. Every iteration of the Jupiter has been based on this fundamental - beginning with DIRECT v0.5, which was pre-release.

That's interesting, because the ULA design philosophy seems to be just the opposite: make your launch systems modular, so that payload capacity is always calibrated to payload weight. That way, there's no overkill for interim missions with lower payload requirements.

As I understand it, DIV Common Booster Cores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Booster_Core) are the same whether in the Heavy config or not. Standard or Heavy using the same core design.

Same concept for the core for J-130 & J-24x.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Stephan on 09/18/2010 08:03 pm
As I understand it, DIV Common Booster Cores (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Booster_Core) are the same whether in the Heavy config or not. Standard or Heavy using the same core design.
Not sure about that.
IIRC, there are some (minor) differences bewteen cores. You cannot swap cores from Delta 4m or heavy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: ugordan on 09/18/2010 08:07 pm
They are not the same. Optimized for different loads for different single sticks as well as heavy configuration. Also, one heavy strapon is a mirror image of the other one. The RS-68A upgrade will IIRC allow the single stick versions at least to become common.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 09/18/2010 08:35 pm
Ah, OK. Thanks.

cheers, Martin
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: gospacex on 09/18/2010 09:01 pm
They are not the same. Optimized for different loads for different single sticks as well as heavy configuration. Also, one heavy strapon is a mirror image of the other one. The RS-68A upgrade will IIRC allow the single stick versions at least to become common.

BTW Jim was unhappy about DIV exactly because of this non-commonality. IIRC he said there are five slightly different CBCs for various DIV configs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/18/2010 11:47 pm
BTW Jim was unhappy about DIV exactly because of this non-commonality. IIRC he said there are five slightly different CBCs for various DIV configs.
    The word around around here is that the Atlas V CCB genuinely are common.
    Why was Delta IV Heavy built before Atlas V Heavy?
         -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: GClark on 09/19/2010 01:29 am
It's them dang furrin' engines!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/19/2010 01:44 am
"[the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the] ISS failed to mention the Invasion..."

Either you messed up your statement some how(mean't to say something else?) or you have completely lost your mind. Your comments seem to suggest something in between the two.

Dude, the predicate of the sentence was 'the ex-Air-Force-general-in-charge-of-extolling-the-virtues-of-international-cooperation-at-the-ISS'; the predicate of the sentence was 'failed to mention the Invasion'. Slow down next time.....

For the sake of those with short memories: (http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=29133)

Quote from: Mike Griffin
The Russians are not going to back out of Georgia any time soon, certainly not prior to the election. If they don't, INKSNA is DoA, . . . my guess is that there is going to be a lengthy period with no U.S. crew on ISS after 2011. . . . The alternatives are to continue flying Shuttle, or abandon U.S. presence on ISS. . . . Our focus should be on minimizing the collateral damage to NASA caused by the recent events and their likely consequences. . . . Yes, there are actions we could take to hold ISS hostage, or even to prevent them from using it -- power management stuff, for example. We will not take those actions. Practically speaking, the Russians can sustain ISS without US crew as long as we don't actively sabotage them . . . We need them. They don't "need" us. We're a "nice to have".

Quote from: Final Frontier
the VERY LOW cost of SDHLV is beyond me.

Yeah, me too. Barr and Kutter say they can do a Phase II HLV for $2.5 billion USD, and get it done by 2016. I wouldn't call that VERY LOW, but I doubt that SDHLV/Direct can beat that--but maybe I'm wrong....

The Russians are still in Georgia. Did we do any major extension of the Space Suttle flights? No. As far as I know it had zip political influence on anything we do in space... Should it influence plans for our space program? How? Build the capable and extremely mission flexible Orion/J-130 space truck ASAP? What do you think many folks on this website have been encouraging for the last four or more years? Talk is cheap. Performance costs. Leadership isn't cheap, be it going the Moon or chasing down NEOs or going to Mars.

Cheers!

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/19/2010 02:24 am
What many folks are hearing about NASA and space policy might be something like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/science/space/16nasa.html

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2010 03:48 am

    Why was Delta IV Heavy built before Atlas V Heavy?


Because the DOD chose it in the first competition
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/19/2010 05:09 am
They are not the same. Optimized for different loads for different single sticks as well as heavy configuration. Also, one heavy strapon is a mirror image of the other one. The RS-68A upgrade will IIRC allow the single stick versions at least to become common.

BTW Jim was unhappy about DIV exactly because of this non-commonality. IIRC he said there are five slightly different CBCs for various DIV configs.

Possibly Jim gets unhappy about the suboptimal engineering compromises that get made in the real world because of politics and other quirky factors... Many others that post here and joust with windmills and have dreams of humanity's quest to travel the universe may have similar issues with reality, myself included.

At:  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/suboptimal  the writer gave this example for suboptimal: "A quickly-produced suboptimal solution to a problem is often better than an optimal one that takes a long time to produce."

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/19/2010 05:33 am
    Why was Delta IV Heavy built before Atlas V Heavy?
Because the DOD chose it in the first competition
    I'm not very familiar with the early history of the program. The initial downselect among Boeing, LockMart, McD, and ATK in '96 went to McD and LockMart, so weren't AV and DIV chosen at the same time? The program was supposed to be winner-take-all, wasn't it? So, going off a limb here I would guess that it looked like LockMart was going to win on cost grounds, but that was politically unacceptable because of RD-180, so they went for a split buy, followed by the scandel, etc. Is that at all correct? How did the Heavies fit in the history?
 -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/19/2010 01:56 pm
What many folks are hearing about NASA and space policy might be something like this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/science/space/16nasa.html

Good for Boeing!  That was a pretty good article.  Compare it to the WaPo this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567.html

The two articles tell two stories that have some interesting differences.

In a very important sense, both articles are "sub-optimal" in that they don't seem to hit on enough of the issues.  Together, they're better.

Just being me, I noticed that "the tight constraint, of course, is money."  Huh.  I never.

I also noticed that the article quotes Mr. Anderson a lot.  Izzat the same Mr. Anderson who starred in the Matrix movies?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/19/2010 02:29 pm
I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion.
"I knew this to be true when the ex-Air Force general in charge of extolling the virtues of international cooperation at the ISS failed to mention the Invasion."

What is the Invasion? Who has invaded who?

You mean when the Georgians started a war with Russia by shelling Tskhinvali? When you indulge in killing your own citizens, you can't really expect them to want to stay in your country. With friends like Saakashvili, the US doesn't need enemies.


Russia and the Soyuz spacecraft have been essential to the survival and success of the International Space Station. Nonetheless, politics, both national and international, can go in odd and foolish directions. America, as the leader in Space Exploration, needs to have assured access, provided by American government launched spacecraft, to our National Laboratory at the International Space Station. That we will lose our nationally owned means of access, for at least several years, to the ISS that we largely paid for is clearly indicative of how incompetent the current and previous presidential leadership has been in working with Congress to develop a sensible and bipartisan national space policy. The Senate's current plan is bipartisan and doable and supported by President Obama. If the members of the House Representatives can see the wisdom of the Senate's plan and do so quickly, perhaps there will be some light at the end of this curving dreary tunnel that we're about enter, and perhaps a few photons of light will somehow reach us and give us some confidence that the phrase serving our nation's best interests means something...

And to prevent anyone from claiming that I don't see the potential of a Bigelow habitat attached to the ISS with dozens of annual visits by commercial LEO taxis carrying astronauts, tourists, movie stars, and film directors... let me assure you that I do hope for all of that and a whole lot more. But at the moment we are losing our independant access to one very expensive National Laboratory. Relying on one means of getting humans to the ISS is a bad gamble and it would still be a bad gamble even if it were a fully American government or private U.S.A. company owned and operated system... Let's hope we soon see some wisdom and progress out of the House of Representatives.

It might also be quite useful if all the ISS Partners talked to the Chinese leadership about what they might be interested in doing at the ISS...

Cheers!

Edited.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jim on 09/19/2010 02:42 pm
    Why was Delta IV Heavy built before Atlas V Heavy?
Because the DOD chose it in the first competition
    I'm not very familiar with the early history of the program. The initial downselect among Boeing, LockMart, McD, and ATK in '96 went to McD and LockMart, so weren't AV and DIV chosen at the same time? The program was supposed to be winner-take-all, wasn't it? So, going off a limb here I would guess that it looked like LockMart was going to win on cost grounds, but that was politically unacceptable because of RD-180, so they went for a split buy, followed by the scandel, etc. Is that at all correct? How did the Heavies fit in the history?
 -Alex

Yes the downselect to one never occurred.  No, RD-180 had nothing to do with it and LM lost on cost grounds (falsely) on the award of the first buy.  LM begged off on not developing the HLV and west coast pad.  The USAF added the Atlas west coast pad later
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/19/2010 04:19 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_pf.html

A full House committee vote on the bill was put off at the last minute because, congressional sources say, it would have faced sure death in the Senate. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Bill Nelson  (D-Fla.) had cobbled together a complex compromise bill that passed by unanimous consent - a procedural move that allows any single senator to kill the bill later if it incorporates significant House changes.

"It's been quite a propaganda war," said Musk, who complained that Shelby refused to even meet with him. "You know there is something strange going on when Republicans, who ostensibly should be pro-privatization, are arguing as though they are from the Soviet Politburo. There's something wrong with that picture."

Given the attacks on Musk and his company, the Senate compromise funding commercial space efforts passed only after Boeing gave congressional staffers a detailed presentation about its own space plans, participants in the negotiations said.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/19/2010 04:34 pm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_pf.html


The last paragraph offers the key passage, IMHO:

Quote
In an effort to restore a NASA consensus and fund future human space travel, negotiators from the House and Senate have been meeting frequently in recent weeks. Participants say, however, that the sides are dug in and that stalemate is a real possibility.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/19/2010 04:44 pm
I wonder is 51D Mascot is in any position to comment on that statement?  Obviously, he is one of the involved parties.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/19/2010 04:45 pm
Maybe they need a compromise like build HLV first followed by Ares I later so Griffin's 1.5 architectures can still eventually take place. So all the hardware built for Ares I is not scrapped but mothballed for later.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Hauerg on 09/19/2010 05:49 pm
Maybe they need a compromise like build HLV first followed by Ares I later so Griffin's 1.5 architectures can still eventually take place. So all the hardware built for Ares I is not scrapped but mothballed for later.
There is NOT ENOUGH $$$ for anything like this. Indeed I am very skeptical that there will be enough $$$ for development AND operations of the 70-100t HLV.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: A_M_Swallow on 09/19/2010 06:30 pm
Maybe they need a compromise like build HLV first followed by Ares I later so Griffin's 1.5 architectures can still eventually take place. So all the hardware built for Ares I is not scrapped but mothballed for later.

Commercial space are basically promising to replace the Ares I with their own rockets for the money in the Senate bill.  The money may need breaking down into the development budget and operations budget (such as flights to the ISS).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/19/2010 06:53 pm
I am being cynical and assuming that the House's problem is that NASA won't be getting 2 rockets instead of 1 ;).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/19/2010 07:24 pm
Maybe they need a compromise like build HLV first followed by Ares I later so Griffin's 1.5 architectures can still eventually take place. So all the hardware built for Ares I is not scrapped but mothballed for later.

Commercial space are basically promising to replace the Ares I with their own rockets for the money in the Senate bill.  The money may need breaking down into the development budget and operations budget (such as flights to the ISS).

Perhaps they may be thinking of man-rating the Atlas-V as a commercial CLV and then offering the Atlas CCB's as LRBs to be used with the HLV core stage in lieu of SRBs (can somebody say AJAX?). That's a good marriage between government and commercial LVs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/19/2010 11:28 pm
Maybe they need a compromise like build HLV first followed by Ares I later

Commercial space are basically promising to replace the Ares I with their own rockets

can somebody say AJAX?

Clearly there's a continuum:

AJAX - Ares I gets nothing
J-130/J-246 - Ares I gets (wrong-sized) solids
----
J-130/J-241 - Ares I gets (wrong-sized) solids and J-2X
B-140SH/B-246SH - Ares I gets right-sized solids
----
B-140SH/B-241SH - Ares I gets right-sized solids and J-2X
HEFT-whatever - Ares I gets right sized solids, J-2X, and AIUS

I'm betting on B-241SH as the FY11-funded compromise due primarily to "sunk cost" thinking, aka saving face.  Either of the two just above that in the list would be more sensible, though.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/19/2010 11:42 pm
B-140SH/B-241SH - Ares I gets right-sized solids and J-2X
HEFT-whatever - Ares I gets right sized solids, J-2X, and AIUS
     I don't think under the HEFT they naturally get AIUS or J-2X. The document mentions "evolution ... is feasible" and "build on for early demonstration" (p.37), but the CPS-Medium in the mission profiles is very much smaller than AIUS, has near-zero boiloff in LEO (which means not using the orange ET foam!), and CPS Medium and Heavy have been closely identified (sleuthing by MP99) with the two 2xRL-10 and 5xRL-10 EDSes from the Mars DRA5 architecture.  Just a guess, but their design actions make it sound like AIUS is mentioned as kind words to soothe those stakeholders, but not actually used anywhere.
    Likewise, they mention the possibility of a future middle stage that could use J-2X (or RS-25E, or other), but they don't seem to use it anywhere in the architecture (because they don't use the 130mT performance.)
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/20/2010 01:13 am
Perhaps they may be thinking of man-rating the Atlas-V as a commercial CLV and then offering the Atlas CCB's as LRBs to be used with the HLV core stage in lieu of SRBs (can somebody say AJAX?).

Umm, no.

They're not arguing about the best technical or ideological solution (i.e. EELV vs SDLV), they're arguing about the best political solution. And both houses have stated pretty explicitly that any political solution would involve large solid rocket manufactured in the state of Utah...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: edkyle99 on 09/20/2010 04:02 am
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_pf.html

This article also includes the following rather breathtaking sentence. 

"The House bill awaiting action would give twice as much money to Russia for transporting astronauts and cargo to the space station as it would give to U.S. companies working to build that capacity."

Something very wrong there.

 - Ed Kyle
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 09/20/2010 04:28 am
I can understand why a few Representatives, who happen to be fairly influential in the relevant committee and sub-committee, are holding out for a bill closer to to the POR.

But can't the Speaker just bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote? Seems like it would get a large bi-partisan majority. Or would that burn too many political bridges? i.e. she might need their votes on something else, and she doesn't want to irritate them?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/20/2010 04:41 am
I wonder is 51D Mascot is in any position to comment on that statement?  Obviously, he is one of the involved parties.

Sorry, but It's really not appropriate for me to comment in any specifics or even characterization on ongoing negotiations. Suffice it to say they continue and the clock is running, so it's critical come to whatever outcome they're able to by the middle of this week in order to have time for floor action before the House recesses.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/20/2010 04:51 am
I can understand why a few Representatives, who happen to be fairly influential in the relevant committee and sub-committee, are holding out for a bill closer to to the POR.

But can't the Speaker just bring the Senate bill to the floor for a vote? Seems like it would get a large bi-partisan majority. Or would that burn too many political bridges? i.e. she might need their votes on something else, and she doesn't want to irritate them?

That definitely IS an option that the Speaker could exercise. Obviously, the best of all worlds is for there to be a compromise on language that could be substituted into the Senate bill, but that will only work if the compromise is constructed to be sure and get unanimous consent again in the Senate when the amended bill goes back there for final concurrence before sending to the President. That is the path being worked now in the discussions between House and Senate. But if that does not achieve a result that can pass the Senate, the only option for getting an NASA authorization passed before the recess would then be for the House to take up the Senate Bill and accept it, without amendments.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: kkattula on 09/20/2010 08:29 am
Is NASA authorization a priority for the House majority leadership?  I kind of get the feeling it isn't, but I'm about 12,000 miles away, so it's hard to read the political temperature. :)

Seems like it would be an easy win, demonstrating bi-partisanship and scoring points off the previous WH admin at the same time. ("We fixed Bush's failed NASA policy...", throw in some Direct-ish artwork, etc).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 08:52 am
According to this Washington Post article, a stalemate is now a distinct possibility: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines

If no decision is obtained by 09/30, contractors will start laying off the workforce. Clearly, this will make SLS/DIRECT (and the CxP holdouts) lose. On the other hand, it will also mean no extra money to commercial spaceflight.

So everyone loses. Am I missing something here?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/20/2010 09:06 am
   Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits  $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?
That's correct. Of course, the actual vehicle design and development plan, to be put together by NASA under either bill, will refine cost and schedule estimates. The out-year numbers--in either bill, by the way--are essentially notional, since there is no actual program on the table (though to the extent the House reflects a "restructured" Constellation program, as it's been described, one might argue the PoR numbers would have more refinement--but the problem is, remember, PoR runouts in a flat top line budget REQUIRED the cessation of ISS support in 2015, which is not now on the table), those out-year numbers could be modified by subsequent action to reflect refined program requirements. The Congress is not irrevocably bound by authorizing numbers, as we saw over the last five years, when the authorizing numbers far exceeded either the requested or the appropriated amounts. And, in the end, there is the "cardinal rule" that no Congress can bind a future Congress....unless it allows itself to be so bound by inaction or reaffirmation.
    Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years.

    Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.)
     No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer?
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 09:11 am
According to this Washington Post article, a stalemate is now a distinct possibility: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_2.html?hpid=moreheadlines

If no decision is obtained by 09/30, contractors will start laying off the workforce. Clearly, this will make SLS/DIRECT (and the CxP holdouts) lose. On the other hand, it will also mean no extra money to commercial spaceflight.

So everyone loses. Am I missing something here?

No need for another new thread when that article is already linked and discussed in this one. And they've been laying off the workforce for months. 400 got their marching orders last week at JSC (MOD and Jacobs).

Also, it's SLS, not SLS/Direct. No final decision has been made on the config of the SLS.

These are pointers, not discussion points, so continue with the political process conversation.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 09:17 am
   Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits  $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?
That's correct. Of course, the actual vehicle design and development plan, to be put together by NASA under either bill, will refine cost and schedule estimates. The out-year numbers--in either bill, by the way--are essentially notional, since there is no actual program on the table (though to the extent the House reflects a "restructured" Constellation program, as it's been described, one might argue the PoR numbers would have more refinement--but the problem is, remember, PoR runouts in a flat top line budget REQUIRED the cessation of ISS support in 2015, which is not now on the table), those out-year numbers could be modified by subsequent action to reflect refined program requirements. The Congress is not irrevocably bound by authorizing numbers, as we saw over the last five years, when the authorizing numbers far exceeded either the requested or the appropriated amounts. And, in the end, there is the "cardinal rule" that no Congress can bind a future Congress....unless it allows itself to be so bound by inaction or reaffirmation.
    Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years.

    Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.)
     No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer?
   -Alex

HEFT is in the very early days. It only started it's full team this month. That's the reason HEFT is all "pre-decisional" now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/20/2010 10:04 am
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/9200306/1006/NEWS01/NASA+advocates+pushing+Congress

Nelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years.

"He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week.  "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, echoed that optimism, saying she hopes "we will have a move-forward plan" by mid-week.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/20/2010 10:09 am
So the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: brihath on 09/20/2010 11:12 am
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/9200306/1006/NEWS01/NASA+advocates+pushing+Congress

Nelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years.

"He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week.  "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, echoed that optimism, saying she hopes "we will have a move-forward plan" by mid-week.


If cost is the issue, it seems DIRECT would make more sense than an Ares V sized vehicle.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/20/2010 12:11 pm
So the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.

I think that the argument remains Ares-I.  Ares-I is perceived by some (especially in the House) as the only possible successor to the Shuttle.  This delusion has not died and its partisans remain determined to protect it.

What has happened is that both the House and Senate are now playing a deadly game of Chicken, with the future of NASA HSF likely to be the first casualty.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 12:18 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/9200306/1006/NEWS01/NASA+advocates+pushing+Congress

Nelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years.

"He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week.  "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, echoed that optimism, saying she hopes "we will have a move-forward plan" by mid-week.


If cost is the issue, it seems DIRECT would make more sense than an Ares V sized vehicle.

Yep, or even a stage further, Sidemount (noted as cheaper than inline)? (Yes, I know HLV needs missions).

I'll be glad when a decision on a forward plan is made, as this is starting to look like a "game" (as Ben said) and people are losing their frakking jobs in the meantime - while the rest worry about their jobs.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jason Davies on 09/20/2010 12:21 pm


Yep, or even a stage further, Sidemount (noted as cheaper than inline)? (Yes, I know HLV needs missions).

I'll be glad when a decision on a forward plan is made, as this is starting to look like a "game" (as Ben said) and people are losing their frakking jobs in the meantime - while the rest worry about their jobs.

What would you go with if it came down to Ares vs EELV?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 12:40 pm


Yep, or even a stage further, Sidemount (noted as cheaper than inline)? (Yes, I know HLV needs missions).

I'll be glad when a decision on a forward plan is made, as this is starting to look like a "game" (as Ben said) and people are losing their frakking jobs in the meantime - while the rest worry about their jobs.

What would you go with if it came down to Ares vs EELV?

My opinion counts for nothing, but EELV with Orion and prop depots etc? I do like those plans, and will be writing some more on that, but everything looks great on a company presentation that removes most of the key information under the proprietary tag. I know they have to do that, of course. On paper it's a good plan.

Ares has had a very bad childhood, via the costs and schedule....and there's a massive problem - Augustine. They confirmed what we all knew, and for some time, that Ares I with Orion won't be ready until late this decade, needed a ton of extra money just to make around 2015 (LEO crew to ISS - which we know we can get from other vehicles), and the fallout from that was the moon return being set back five or more years. Ares should only continue with a major revamp (more than a Hanley-style revamp). Got to admit, I'd be shocked if Ares continues.

Still think a commercial/NASA mix is best. LEO to commercial. HLV (SD <---and I really do feel strongly about SD) for BEO and providing a backup in case of commercial issues with LEO. Again, it's going to come down to money.

Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2010 01:30 pm
The House bill awaiting action would give twice as much money to Russia...

I saw that too.  I quite appreciate the Russians and their work.  Nevertheless, we should not be abandoning our nation's capabilities, until well after our commercial companies can comfortably step to the plate.  The Springfield armory comes to mind as a partial analogy.

And while the phrase "Socialist conspiracy to destroy American manufacturing" would never come from my lips, apparently my fingers can type the phrase with alacrity.  Then I recall that the American people, when polled, did not approve of the recent health care legislation, and that the disapproval was pretty strong, yet the House enacted this legislation.  So what's going on here?

Whatever it is, it's wrong.

It seems to me that one enormous sticking point is that the business case of converting a solid rocket industry to a liquid rocket industry is not at all easy.  To make matters worse, the intellectually lazy proprietors of the former don't wish to even talk about it.  Change for the good is seen as weakness.  I believe that there's a technical solution somewhere, but it will be difficult to achieve.

...HEFT is all "pre-decisional:...

I quite realize that you are reporting, not advocating. 

Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it.  Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.

It is the thought process of the report which is problematical, and it is this thought process which is being used to confuse 'innocent' members of Congress.  And when I say, facetiously, 'innocent', I mean to imply that, granting the fiction that the members act in good faith for the nation's welfare, the issues of mission determination and budgetary analysis in this field are incredibly difficult as it stands.  It is a small thing for a report to misstate the parameters which Congress needs in order to created good legislation.  Alas.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/20/2010 03:10 pm

Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it.  Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.

Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).

Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a  Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2010 03:30 pm
Still think a commercial/NASA mix is best. Just my opinion.

Would you consider something like AJAX to fit that description?
Not looking for endorsement, just looking to understand your viewpoint.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 03:48 pm
Still think a commercial/NASA mix is best. Just my opinion.

Would you consider something like AJAX to fit that description?
Not looking for endorsement, just looking to understand your viewpoint.

Not read up on notional LV idea #623 yet. Also struggling to get past Ajax being a Dutch football (soccer) team and a name for an oven cleaner.

I think the most important question right now is how much power does Bart Gordon have, and if he's claiming something (on cost), where's the documentation?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:49 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Will on 09/20/2010 03:52 pm

Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it.  Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.

Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).

Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a  Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.

Obama had requested Mars *orbit* by the 2030s. Once the life support is qualified for longer missions, the HEFT asteroid spacecraft design is capable of a Phobos mission.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/20/2010 03:55 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 03:59 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Where's SpaceX going to get the money from in that scenario. They are a business and won't do things that aren't good business (rightly so).

Edit: Beaten to it by Marsavian :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 03:59 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.

Possible. But Soyuz won't last forever either. Sooner or later an alternative will become available. Or we abandon HSF entirely.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/20/2010 04:04 pm
Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.

Some here believe that under a CR COTS and CCDev would continue to be funded ($100M each?) and that Obama could direct NASA to exercise SpaceX's COTS-D option. Jim has said NASA doesn't want to do this because they want to give other companies a fair shot at the prize, but if no solution is forthcoming this could be a way to create facts on the ground. Assuming Obama still cares about his original plan, which isn't a given.

EDIT: found the thread in question:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21939 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21939)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 09/20/2010 04:14 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.

Possible. But Soyuz won't last forever either. Sooner or later an alternative will become available. Or we abandon HSF entirely.

Strange post. Why comment on Soyuz when you don't know any facts on it? Here's one, it's good for the length of the ISS extension. I assume you are anti-HSF?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2010 04:29 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Where's SpaceX going to get the money from in that scenario. They are a business and won't do things that aren't good business (rightly so).

Edit: Beaten to it by Marsavian :)

SpaceX has said that it only needs $100 million for its pusher LAS (excluding any test flight). If commercial crew isn't funded, it will take longer for SpaceX to fly a crewed Dragon but it will still happen.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/20/2010 04:31 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Who's going to fund the development ? A CR will have no funds for commercial crew. Soyuz is what will be relied on.

Possible. But Soyuz won't last forever either. Sooner or later an alternative will become available. Or we abandon HSF entirely.

Strange post. Why comment on Soyuz when you don't know any facts on it? Here's one, it's good for the length of the ISS extension. I assume you are anti-HSF?

No, I'm not. Just fed up with the whole endless discussions and political infighting. And Soyuz won't last forever, since the Russians intend to replace it with the PPTS spacecraft (eventually).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: MP99 on 09/20/2010 05:03 pm
Maybe this is the way to pick a winner...

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-09-19/ (http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2010-09-19/)

cheers, Martin

PS Dilbert = House or Senate?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 05:12 pm
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.

Where's SpaceX going to get the money from in that scenario. They are a business and won't do things that aren't good business (rightly so).

Edit: Beaten to it by Marsavian :)

SpaceX has said that it only needs $100 million for its pusher LAS (excluding any test flights). If commercial crew isn't funded, it will take longer for SpaceX to fly a crewed Dragon but it will still happen.

Ok, so SpaceX only need another $100m....on top of what they were awarded in the $3.1 billion CRS contract (is that money safe?), and in addition to whatever COTS contract award will be required to actually launch crew?

Just asking :)

Just fed up with the whole endless discussions and political infighting.

Unavoidable, and it was always going to be the case, but I think we're all fed up with it. I have no idea how 51D etc manage to keep fighting, as it's a drain just reading this thread :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Lars_J on 09/20/2010 05:23 pm
Ok, so SpaceX only need another $100m....on top of what they were awarded in the $3.1 billion CRS contract (is that money safe?), and in addition to whatever COTS contract award will be required to actually launch crew?

Just asking :)

I think any "COTS-crew" (or whatever it would be called) contract is what would be used to fund the development of the LAS. Not in addition to it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/20/2010 06:20 pm
Ok, so SpaceX only need another $100m....on top of what they were awarded in the $3.1 billion CRS contract (is that money safe?), and in addition to whatever COTS contract award will be required to actually launch crew?

Just asking :)

I think any "COTS-crew" (or whatever it would be called) contract is what would be used to fund the development of the LAS. Not in addition to it.

Yes. The $100 million would be for the LAS only. It doesn't include any test flights and also doesn't include infrastructure improvements (e.g. launch and service towers). The infrastructure improvements would probably be funded under the 21st century NASA infrastructure funds under the Senate bill (not commercial crew). I doubt that SpaceX would be funding these with its own money.  SpaceX will obviously need NASA to fund those.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/20/2010 06:32 pm
Nelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. ... Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week.  "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said.

Remember that Gordan isn't standing for reelection, so it's not in his interests to let this go to a CR...
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/20/2010 06:36 pm
Throw 5-seg SRB (for ATK) and J-2X (for Ares I restart potential) in for the HLV and he will be there I think ;).

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/20/2010 06:42 pm
Remember that Gordan isn't standing for reelection, so it's not in his interests to let this go to a CR...

What on Earth is his interest in all this, given that he isn't standing for reelection?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/20/2010 06:58 pm

Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it.  Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.

Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).

Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a  Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.

Obama had requested Mars *orbit* by the 2030s. Once the life support is qualified for longer missions, the HEFT asteroid spacecraft design is capable of a Phobos mission.

Well I guess my memory of that was a little hazy. It was orbit Mars in the mid 2030s, and then landing 'soon after that'.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Will on 09/20/2010 07:12 pm

Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it.  Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.

Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).

Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a  Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.

Obama had requested Mars *orbit* by the 2030s. Once the life support is qualified for longer missions, the HEFT asteroid spacecraft design is capable of a Phobos mission.

Well I guess my memory of that was a little hazy. It was orbit Mars in the mid 2030s, and then landing 'soon after that'.

"And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it."

Of course, there's a good chance Obama will be alive at least until 2039, and he could be optimistic about advances in medical science.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/20/2010 07:19 pm
    Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years.

    Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.)
     No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer?
HEFT is in the very early days. It only started it's full team this month. That's the reason HEFT is all "pre-decisional" now.
     There are references to the team at least back to April, and Doug Cooke was discussing it in May. Of course everything is preliminary, no one is saying otherwise.
      But when a NASA high-level team (which is presumably not comprised of idiots) that has access to all the other individual studies done along the way at JSC, MSFC, etc., comes out with total end-game numbers significantly more expensive, one has to consider whether the new information might have some validity. Especially in light of Bart Gordon's comments. NASA is not known for overestimating costs on major projects.
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/20/2010 07:21 pm
Unavoidable, and it was always going to be the case, but I think we're all fed up with it. I have no idea how 51D etc manage to keep fighting, as it's a drain just reading this thread :)

When you truely love someone or something, it's not just about the good times. It's the bad times too. He truely loves the American HSF program.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/20/2010 07:46 pm
So the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.

I think that the argument remains Ares-I.  Ares-I is perceived by some (especially in the House) as the only possible successor to the Shuttle.  This delusion has not died and its partisans remain determined to protect it.

What has happened is that both the House and Senate are now playing a deadly game of Chicken, with the future of NASA HSF likely to be the first casualty.

Chicken is more like running headlong at each other and seeing who will blink, or rather, swerve. Several weeks and dozens of hours of direct negotiations trying to see if a basis for agreement can be defined in order to avoid such a collision or either-or outcome seems to me to put a slightly different light on it...though, in the end, the result could be the same. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/20/2010 07:54 pm
What on Earth is his interest in all this, given that he isn't standing for reelection?

To put his stamp on before he becomes a lame duck.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/20/2010 08:13 pm
What on Earth is his interest in all this, given that he isn't standing for reelection?

Consider what he might be doing after he leaves office.  Cynically, that could provide a clue.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 08:52 pm

     There are references to the team at least back to April, and Doug Cooke was discussing it in May. Of course everything is preliminary, no one is saying otherwise.


Good point, I should clarify (to all) via a quote from a Staff Seniors memo (L2) that I used in an article...

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/live-atk-dm-2-test-inline-sd-hlv-nasa-support/

“EA/Engineering: We briefed Charlie (Bolden) and Lori (Garver) on HEFT in mid July and they accepted our recommendations will talk to the Senate about those,” noted the latest Staff Senior Meeting notes (L2).

“The HEFT team talked to the steering council. The team will continue through August 31st and then turn it over to a long term HEFT team.”

So my comment was about the full/long term team.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: grdja on 09/20/2010 09:03 pm
Excuse me if I'm to sarcastic. But is it so that SLS problem is that its too cheap?!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/20/2010 09:09 pm
House may adjourn by end of week

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42439.html

Democrats are still holding out hope that they will be able to finish both a continuing resolution and a tax bill before the House shuts down for election season, whether that date is at the end of this week or the end of next week, as has been the plan. House Democratic leaders are scheduled to meet tomorrow among themselves and, separately, with Senate leaders. It should become more clear after those meetings whether they intend to go home earlier than anticipated.

Looks like NASA needs to be agreed no later than the tax bill for clear direction to be given.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/21/2010 06:56 am
Unavoidable, and it was always going to be the case, but I think we're all fed up with it. I have no idea how 51D etc manage to keep fighting, as it's a drain just reading this thread :)

When you truely love someone or something, it's not just about the good times. It's the bad times too. He truely loves the American HSF program.

Yep. Well said. Thank you Clongton and Chris. Some of us, myself included, should learn a lesson or two in patience from 51D Mascot.

Good luck 51D Mascot!

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/21/2010 04:05 pm
The news that ESA is seriously considering a robotic lunar lander makes me believe that perhaps the flexible path could work provided ESA (and Japan and perhaps Russia) are on-board. See this thread:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22770.0

See this quote in particular:
Quote
It is a great pleasure to see progress being made in Europe in the field of space exploration relying on key technologies developed for human spaceflight.”, affirmed Mrs. Di Pippo, ESA Director for Human Spaceflight.

“As we prepare ourselves to join the US, Russia and Japan in the decision to utilize the International Space Station (ISS) for ten more years and beyond, we are preparing the next steps and we are working to position Europe at the level of its competences and capabilities within the global exploration undertaking. With a strong and successful presence in LEO, the Moon is the next natural goal on our common path to further destinations. Europe is actively and successfully present in these global projects, like ISS and exploration, which contribute to affirm our role as a modern, dynamic and innovation-driven continent.”, she added.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Drapper23 on 09/21/2010 05:36 pm
Congressman Bart Gordon (Chairman Of The House OF Representatives NASA Authorization Committee) says he's "very optimistic" about the completion in a few days of the NASA Autorization Bill.  http://www.space.com/news/nasa-space-policy-congress-hurdles-100920.html 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/21/2010 05:45 pm
Congressman Bart Gordon (Chairman Of The House OF Representatives NASA Authorization Committee) says he's "very optimistic" about the completion in a few days of the NASA Autorization Bill.  http://www.space.com/news/nasa-space-policy-congress-hurdles-100920.html 

Also from your link:

Quote
"They haven't worked out anything yet, and that's a dangerous situation," said Rep. Ralph Hall of Texas, the top Republican on the science committee and an ardent supporter of NASA. "I have preferences for what I want, but I'll take the House bill. I'll take the Senate bill rather than no bill."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/21/2010 07:29 pm
On the appropriations (continuing resolution) side of things, but also includes some comments on the authorization bill negotiations:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=cqmidday-000003736425

The implication of a 'clean CR' is that there would be no explicit language on NASA funding, so the FY10 numbers would apply for the duration of the CR.  The implication of coming back to this during the lame duck session is that the first CR would last until sometime in mid/late November.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/21/2010 07:35 pm
Congressman Bart Gordon (Chairman Of The House OF Representatives NASA Authorization Committee) says he's "very optimistic" about the completion in a few days of the NASA Autorization Bill.  http://www.space.com/news/nasa-space-policy-congress-hurdles-100920.html 

This is the same Florida Today article which was linked here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg638404#msg638404
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/22/2010 02:01 am
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/hoyer-wont-adjourn-house-this-week.html

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer knocked down reports today that the House could shut down at the end of the week to enable members to return early to their districts to campaign for reelection.

“I don’t know where they report came from and the answer is no,” Hoyer, D-Maryland, said. “My view is we’re going to be in session next week. You know the Senate has got to take up the [Continuing Resolution] and I don’t think they’re going to take up the C.R., and if they get it to us this week, fine. But I think we’ll be in. We’re going to be in next week.”

At a briefing with reporters this morning, Hoyer blitzed through an ambitious to-do list to tackle before adjournment, including a NASA Reauthorization bill , the Child Nutrition Bill, and the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The House is currently targeting adjournment for October 8, although the majority leader would not commit today to returning for the week of October 4.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: 2552 on 09/22/2010 02:24 am
Is it the House or Senate bill?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 04:44 am
Is it the House or Senate bill?

That part is still under discussion, but at this stage I would say it would most likely be either the House bill with modifications that bring it closer to the Senate or agreeable to the Senate (because anything else would be dead-on-arrival in the Senate, and even THAT might be if only ONE Senator were to object) or the Senate bill, as passed by the Senate, with no amendments, and sent directly from the House to the President--who, I am certain, would sign it. Anything they do, given the compressed schedule available, will likely have to be under suspension of the rules, which allows no amendments from the floor.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: savuporo on 09/22/2010 04:47 am
Would be a good time for another poll

- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR

i'd vote for the CR, as of now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 04:56 am
Would be a good time for another poll

- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR

i'd vote for the CR, as of now.

The CR will NOT contain any new money or new language guiding NASA. Without an enacted authorization/policy bill, signed by the President, things will continue JUST as they have been, with the Constellation funding restricted, impounded, whatever you want to call it, but held back from the contractors, just as it has been for the past six months. That means even longer delays in ending the uncertainty, more unnecessary layoffs and disruption of lives and careers, and I just don't see that as a viable option. At least with an enacted bill, and the President's signature, that officially reverses the policy of the Administration and there would be NO BASIS for continuing the financial squeeze on resources needed for new HLV development. And with an enacted LAW, there would be ample basis for congressional oversight to ensure NASA compliance with that direction regardless of the level and allocation of resources in the CR. There would also then be a legal basis for pressing for new directive language in the follow-on to the CR, whether it is another CR for the balance of FY 2011, or an Omnibus appropriations for 2011, which would reflect the combination of Budget Requests in some areas and enacted authorization levels in other areas, such as NASA.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: TheFallen on 09/22/2010 08:27 am
Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON — Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/22/2010 11:14 am
This could easily be the worst of all possible worlds, no matter what your view on the next path NASA could take.  No one is going to risk making any big strides or taking any big decisions when the overall direction could change as early as the start of next year.  So, we'll just have the various CxP sub-projects spinning their wheels as bits of infrastructure disappear and the gap gets ever wider.

At this rate, commercial will win by default because it is going to be the only thing still seriously in development.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/22/2010 11:34 am
This could easily be the worst of all possible worlds, no matter what your view on the next path NASA could take.  No one is going to risk making any big strides or taking any big decisions when the overall direction could change as early as the start of next year.  So, we'll just have the various CxP sub-projects spinning their wheels as bits of infrastructure disappear and the gap gets ever wider.

At this rate, commercial will win by default because it is going to be the only thing still seriously in development.

The funny thing is (though it's not funny), that commercial DOESN'T win. Nobody does. Many lose, and that's the unnecessary part.

I 'could' see a silver lining in a CR, but not at the expense of so many & so much; it's not worth it. Some in the workforce may just move on to other projects, leaving a huge empty space (excuse the pun) which use to be a developing capability.

And remember, this isn't JUST about BEO, or the jobs, or the skilled workforce (which is still the biggest portion in my view), it's also about the ISS as well. This does nothing to secure it's future, or more to the point, puts it in jeapordy.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: grdja on 09/22/2010 11:34 am
Commercial plus depots is one of best options. If you don't all go crazy with cost plus contracts and allow projects to run and allow contractors to milk government money without ever having to deliver. :(
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 01:35 pm
For opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.

Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA,  whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/22/2010 01:48 pm
Would we be talking days, weeks or months to get an enacted authorization/policy bill signed by the President?

If you're allowed to say (noting other sites are listening in with a glass placed on the side of the wall).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/22/2010 01:54 pm
Would we be talking days, weeks or months to get an enacted authorization/policy bill signed by the President?
The President only has I believe about a fortnight to do something with legislation passed by Congress (don't have the Constitution handy), so the issue is getting both houses to pass the same bill.

We may find out soon enough what NASA does with STS-135, CxP, etc. if this first CR goes into effect without an enacted reauthorization.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: HappyMartian on 09/22/2010 02:12 pm

And remember, this isn't JUST about BEO, or the jobs, or the skilled workforce (which is still the biggest portion in my view), it's also about the ISS as well. This does nothing to secure it's future, or more to the point, puts it in jeapordy.


Amen. Thank you once again Robertross.

The ISS is the mission we are currently flying and sometimes that fact is ignored by some politicians. Placing it in jeapordy for local political gains or pork or ego or whatever else that may float their individual boats seems pretty crazy. If we end up having major problems with or even losing the ISS during the upcoming US human spaceflight capability gap, Congressional members as well as the previous and current President would bear the responsibility for their gross inability to do their jobs and work out an effective replacement for the Space Shuttles.

Politicians, of whatever party, who talk a lot of hot air but fail to maintain our ability to robustly support the International Space Station are sending out mixed messages. Such mixed messages are confusing political and technical invitations for trouble of one sort or another.

Does the information in this article have any relevance on the political possibilities of a Congressional compromise or is it political noise? 
NASA administrator draws an ethics reprimand
By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel
7:18 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2010

At:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-administrator-embarrasses-oba20100920,0,503695.story


Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mr_magoo on 09/22/2010 03:58 pm
Horrible news.   The worst possible case is NASA getting dragged into the coming post-election political food fight.    I think there is a risk of returning to the drawing board again.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 04:04 pm
Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.

It would certainly be good for those who oppose SDLV. It would also be good for SpaceX and to a lesser extent ULA. It would probably be bad for Boeing and especially for LM, which would be only partially offset by good news for ULA. It would be really bad for SDLV supporters. But a CR might not be the worst thing in the world for all of them. If ATK expects SDLV to fail reasonably soon, no matter which one is chosen, then they're better off with continuation of Ares I and 5 seg development, even if it is only for a year. If the Shuttle workforce is dispersed then that means less competition for that chunk of NASA's budget, which would be good for other NASA centers. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the players are expecting SDLV to continue in some form for a short while, before giving up the ghost eventually. Those players may be positioning themselves for what happens then. In that case they're not trying to save SDLV, but trying to salvage as much from the wreckage as possible.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:26 pm
For opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.

Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA,  whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.

Thanks for your comments. I have a follow up question. Why is a clean continuing resolution likely? It would seem prudent to have a continuing resolution with language directing a different spending authority in case the 2010 NASA Authorization bill isn't passed on time. I imagine that it is a clean continuing resolution because passage of a NASA Authorization is expected.

Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:31 pm
Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON — Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

That article is confusing. The core of the article appears to contradict its title.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:41 pm
For opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.

Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA,  whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.

Thanks for your comments. I have a follow up question. Why is a clean continuing resolution likely? It would seem prudent to have a continuing resolution with language directing a different spending authority in case the 2010 NASA Authorization bill isn't passed on time. I imagine that it is a clean continuing resolution because passage of a NASA Authorization is expected.

Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   

Part of the answer to my question is in this article. It's a clean continuing resolution because Republican Senators are insisting on it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100921/pl_cq_politics/politics000003736425;_ylt=AlBIA.08eNaqpS.fGAPjUCmHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJxajI4aWdyBGFzc2V0A2NxLzIwMTAwOTIxL3BvbGl0aWNzMDAwMDAzNzM2NDI1BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN5bl9wYWdpbmF0ZV9zdW1tYXJ5X2xpc3QEc2xrA2V4dHJhbmFzYWZ1bg--
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: FinalFrontier on 09/22/2010 04:42 pm
CR. Oh well everyone tried. But as usual D.C. is broken beyond repair.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 04:43 pm
CR. Oh well everyone tried. But as usual D.C. is broken beyond repair.

The issue has yet to be decided. Senator Nelson and Representative Gordon are still working on a compromise NASA Authorization bill. Funding will not increase under a continuing resolution but the way that that the money is spent can still change if a NASA Authorization bill is passed.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2010 04:47 pm
Regarding the assertion that no one benefits from a continuing resolution, and regarding the expectation this would result in continued "impound" of NASA funds to contractors:

a) Under a continuing resolution nothing forces those funds to be impounded, and it is not a given that they would be.

b) Even if they were, some might benefit from that.  Holders of U.S. government bonds, for example, since lower spending reduces the likelihood of a default.  Holders of assets tied to the dollar benefit too, because lower government spending reduces the chances of inflation.  Taxpayers might benefit too if lower government spending reduced the tax burden they bear. 

Wouldn't RSC Energia also benefit from a NASA funding stalement?  ;)


EDIT to add:  Oh, unless this meant none of the pirates marauding in the halls of power would benefit from a stalemate?  Too bad for them if they can't figure out a way to divide the plunder!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/22/2010 04:51 pm
Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   
It could, but it doesn't have to and that's one of the scenarios that I think many of us are wondering about.  I would think that 'clean' in this sense means that there are no exceptions to the FY2010 spending levels.  NASA is probably not a high enough national priority to be granted an exception, even in this case -- although we still have to wait and see what happens between now and when Congress recesses for the election.

Federal government spending restraint is often a campaign issue and it definitely is this time; a "clean" CR effectively caps federal spending.  (Whether the CR is absolutely 'clean' also remains to be seen.)

The Library of Congress web site (a.k.a. 'Thomas') has several examples of enacted continuing resolutions (at least one was passed in every recent fiscal year):
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 05:00 pm
Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   
It could, but it doesn't have to and that's one of the scenarios that I think many of us are wondering about.  I would think that 'clean' in this sense means that there are no exceptions to the FY2010 spending levels.  NASA is probably not a high enough national priority to be granted an exception, even in this case -- although we still have to wait and see what happens between now and when Congress recesses for the election.

Federal government spending restraint is often a campaign issue and it definitely is this time; a "clean" CR effectively caps federal spending.  (Whether the CR is absolutely 'clean' also remains to be seen.)

The Library of Congress web site (a.k.a. 'Thomas') has several examples of enacted continuing resolutions (at least one was passed in every recent fiscal year):
http://thomas.loc.gov/


Senator Nelson seems to believe that the amounts will be capped in the continuing resolution for NASA regardless of what happens to the NASA Authorization bill (which can be defended on the basis that NASA isn't more important than the rest of the government). But what remains to be seen is whether the amounts for NASA must be spent on the "same projects" as FY2010. My understanding from the article that I linked and from 51D Mascot's post is that if a NASA Authorization bill isn't passed, Republican senators will not accept changing the policies for NASA in a continuing resolution. They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 09/22/2010 05:22 pm
I'm sorry to be so slow on the uptake here,.. but... So the gist of this is that the House has dug in its heels so much on this that they are willing to sacrifice their own constituents? Is that right, did I here that right?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 05:24 pm
More likely their colleagues' constituents.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/22/2010 05:24 pm
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA.  In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply.  The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections.  This is an unique situation.

Also, as referred to in that CQPolitics article, the CR enacted in this session will probably only cover a month or two.  If that's the case, the current Congress will have to come back after the elections to at least pass another CR to extend into next year to let the next Congress deal with it; however, that's only one scenario and there are lots of others. 

Nothing's decided yet and we have to "stay tuned," so to speak.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 09/22/2010 05:44 pm
Well It pains me to say this but if I was a shuttle worker (and thankfully for all I am not) I wouldn't hang on especially if I had a family like I do. This has been a very sobering and first hand illustration of how our current congress has failed us all. In spite of near heroic efforts from so many people on all sides of the debate.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 05:55 pm
For opponents of SDLV/HLV this is actually a reason to support a CR.

Remember there are two separate functions in play. One is authorizations and one is appropriations. There has to be a CR, in order to continue funding for ALL those agencies, not just NASA,  whose separate appropriations bill has NOT yet been passed by the House and Senate. It's not a choice between a CR and something else. But the CR, if it's what they call a "Clean CR", means that there is no language directing different spending authority than that already in place. It would take an enacted (i.e., passed by both Houses and signed by the President) to provide a changed set of policies and priorities for NASA. Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.

Thanks for your comments. I have a follow up question. Why is a clean continuing resolution likely? It would seem prudent to have a continuing resolution with language directing a different spending authority in case the 2010 NASA Authorization bill isn't passed on time. I imagine that it is a clean continuing resolution because passage of a NASA Authorization is expected.

Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   

As I said, the CR will include a number of agencies, not just NASA. Yes, we would love to be able to have a passed authorization bill and use that as the basis for inserting more directive language regarding NASA programs. But the focus of the CR is NOT NASA; therefore, the decision is made by leadership that opening the door to specific directive language in one area simply leads to similar requests or efforts in other areas, and the only way to avoid that is to agree to NONE for any area.  Does that help?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: marsavian on 09/22/2010 05:58 pm
Could the NASA Administration though take a new authorized bill and decide actions on that even though there is a CR without any specific NASA directive language ? So if you passed the Senate bill in Congress they could act on that basis even with a CR with FY2010 funding ?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Pheogh on 09/22/2010 06:00 pm
Does that preclude an Authorization Bill in the 11 hour if say the house decides to go along with the Senate Bill as being the lesser of 2 evils the CR being the other evil?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 06:08 pm
Not that it matters but I imagine that even if the NASA Authorization bill is passed next week, "a clean continuing resolution" would still have to refer to the enacted 2010 NASA Authorization bill to provide a different spending authority from FY2010.   
It could, but it doesn't have to and that's one of the scenarios that I think many of us are wondering about.  I would think that 'clean' in this sense means that there are no exceptions to the FY2010 spending levels.  NASA is probably not a high enough national priority to be granted an exception, even in this case -- although we still have to wait and see what happens between now and when Congress recesses for the election.

Federal government spending restraint is often a campaign issue and it definitely is this time; a "clean" CR effectively caps federal spending.  (Whether the CR is absolutely 'clean' also remains to be seen.)

The Library of Congress web site (a.k.a. 'Thomas') has several examples of enacted continuing resolutions (at least one was passed in every recent fiscal year):
http://thomas.loc.gov/


Senator Nelson seems to believe that the amounts will be capped in the continuing resolution for NASA regardless of what happens to the NASA Authorization bill (which can be defended on the basis that NASA isn't more important than the rest of the government). But what remains to be seen is whether the amounts for NASA must be spent on the "same projects" as FY2010. My understanding from the article that I linked and from 51D Mascot's post is that if a NASA Authorization bill isn't passed, Republican senators will not accept changing the policies for NASA in a continuing resolution. They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.

Not "Republican" or "Democrat" in this case...the points of resistance on getting something exist on BOTH sides.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 06:09 pm
Could the NASA Administration though take a new authorized bill and decide actions on that even though there is a CR without any specific NASA directive language ? So if you passed the Senate bill in Congress they could act on that basis even with a CR with FY2010 funding ?

Yes, strictly speaking they could, though with some limitations due to overall less money in continuing at FY 2010 levels.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 06:11 pm
Does that preclude an Authorization Bill in the 11 hour if say the house decides to go along with the Senate Bill as being the lesser of 2 evils the CR being the other evil?

The possibility exists for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill and send it directly to the President at ANY point between right now and before they go into recess, presumably near the end of next week.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/22/2010 07:14 pm
The possibility exists for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill and send it directly to the President at ANY point between right now and before they go into recess, presumably near the end of next week.

What kind of probability would you give that possibility?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/22/2010 08:53 pm
Without it, under a clean CR (which is what is expected), the layoffs continue, no real work gets done in the direction of a new HLLV, whatever the design concept, and, in all likelihood, LON goes away and complete shuttle termination/eradication remains the agency focus. I don't see how that helps anyone, except those who prefer those outcomes anyway.

It would certainly be good for those who oppose SDLV. It would also be good for SpaceX and to a lesser extent ULA. It would probably be bad for Boeing and especially for LM, which would be only partially offset by good news for ULA. It would be really bad for SDLV supporters. But a CR might not be the worst thing in the world for all of them. If ATK expects SDLV to fail reasonably soon, no matter which one is chosen, then they're better off with continuation of Ares I and 5 seg development, even if it is only for a year. If the Shuttle workforce is dispersed then that means less competition for that chunk of NASA's budget, which would be good for other NASA centers. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the players are expecting SDLV to continue in some form for a short while, before giving up the ghost eventually. Those players may be positioning themselves for what happens then. In that case they're not trying to save SDLV, but trying to salvage as much from the wreckage as possible.

I don't know Martijn.  I think I'm about as pro-commercial as they get.  And I'm not totally satisfied with the Senate approach.  But a scorched earth approach is more likely to get Commercial space some powerful enemies, who tend to hold grudges.  I'd rather see a compromise that at least gave commercial and technology development a fair shake, even if that compromise means what I see as wasting billions of dollars on an unnecessary HLV with no clear mission.  Sure, there are lots of risks that the HLV will try to suck all the air out of the room, again...but do you really want to be dealing with members of congress who have a vendetta against commercial space?  That just seems like an ugly recipe.

I haven't spoken with my new congressperson out in CO yet, but if I get a chance to, I'm going to suggest supporting the Senate version (and opposing the House version) as a compromise that while I'm not happy with it, I can live with it.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/22/2010 09:03 pm
Wow, thanks for the endorsement and somewhat backhanded slap Jon.  I guess the saying, "with friends like this, who needs enemies" holds true in this sense. 

As always, I and others will always wish "commercial" success because, in the end, we all need to work together in one industry.  That will be true for me even if a colleague in another section of this same industry holds disdain for the work done in the past, possible present and future, and insults his peers seemingly every chance he gets. 

Again best of luck to you in your future endeavors!!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/22/2010 09:04 pm
Jon gets it.

Being a one true wayist is a sure way to get ashes as your reward down the road.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:11 pm
I'm not sure either of course. It depends on what policies you think would be most helpful to commercialisation of space. I can think of three broad categories:

- exploration with propellant transfer and competive commercial launches
- commercial crew
- R&D, especially funding for suborbital RLVs

The first would be the most effective and the most exciting, but also the most expensive. Bigelow appears to think the second is likely to lead to a breakthrough, but that is hardly certain. It would help of course and it is worth trying. It would be less expensive but also less exciting. The third option would be the cheapest and least effective in the short run. On the other hand it would be very likely to work in the long run.

The first two of these would be damaged most by a CR, but the first is fading so fast regardless of what happens that it may not be much of a loss compared to what else is available. The second could also be badly affected, but at least we'd still have CRS. The third isn't affected terribly badly in any case. It might not get a lot of money, but it wouldn't need a lot either.

From that perspective it doesn't sound so bad compared to the alternatives. And a scorched earth policy would at least remove the largest obstacle to a rational space policy. The consequence of that might be not to have a manned space program at all. I'm sure that most here would consider that a disaster, but I think it is highly unlikely to happen and personally I wouldn't consider it a disaster if it did.

All IMHO of course.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/22/2010 09:17 pm
A scorched earth policy will result in powerful enemies de-funding your vision Martin.

You are living in a make-believe land if you think things will pan out the way you want. You are playing Russian Roulette expecting to be showered in sunshine and skittles if you win.  The problem with Russian Roulette is if you win, you end up no better off than you are now.  We know what happens if you lose.

You are an extremist and history shows the extremist is ultimately rejected.  It is those men of vision and courage who are flexible enough to compromise for the greater good that ultimately prevail.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/22/2010 09:21 pm
Could the NASA Administration though take a new authorized bill and decide actions on that even though there is a CR without any specific NASA directive language ? So if you passed the Senate bill in Congress they could act on that basis even with a CR with FY2010 funding ?

Yes, strictly speaking they could, though with some limitations due to overall less money in continuing at FY 2010 levels.

My understanding is after the CR, the House and Senate are going to re-conviene after thanksgiving during a lame duck session to pass FY 11.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:22 pm
M_Puckett, I don't think you understand my motivation. I am not in favour of "one true way", since I don't believe there is such a thing. Just as there is more than one good way, there are very many bad ways too. Three of those are on offer today. Briefly there appeared to be one that was reasonably good, even if it wasn't perfect. That option has now all but disappeared. Of the three remaining options a CR seems like the least bad to me, but then again my goals don't seem to be compatible with those of the majority of posters here.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:23 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 09:31 pm
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA.  In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply.  The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections.  This is an unique situation.



You're basically correct, as far as the numbers go, but remember, an authorization bill is not just about MONEY and authorization of appropriations. That accounts for about 5% of the bill's language. The rest is about POLICY and PROGRAM authority and direction. THAT's as much, if not more, what is at stake here...a redefinition of the DIRECTION that NASA and especially its human spaceflight programs will be headed in the near and long-term future.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 09:33 pm
The possibility exists for the House to take up and pass the Senate-passed bill and send it directly to the President at ANY point between right now and before they go into recess, presumably near the end of next week.

What kind of probability would you give that possibility?

If I had a good answer to that question, I wouldn't need to be watching the dosages of my blood pressure medicine so carefully, hehe.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/22/2010 09:34 pm
My understanding is after the CR, the House and Senate are going to re-conviene after thanksgiving during a lame duck session to pass FY 11.
It sure sounds like they will try, but the results of the election are likely to have a big influence on what kind of appropriations are passed.  If the Republicans gain a large number of seats and control of the House or Senate, GOP members may want to do as little as possible (i.e., another CR).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/22/2010 09:40 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 09:41 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.
Killing NASA does not help the expansion of humanity throughout the cosmos. Reducing its budget by that much (effectively killing manned spaceflight at NASA, not just NASA launch infrastructure) won't help, either, even if you think NASA "shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 09:42 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:46 pm
Killing NASA does not help the expansion of humanity throughout the cosmos. Reducing its budget by that much (effectively killing manned spaceflight at NASA, not just NASA launch infrastructure) won't help, either, even if you think NASA "shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business."

That is certainly true, but if you think it wasn't going to help very much anyway, then that's not a big loss. In principle you could increase spending later, though by that time you might no longer have the special interests in Congress fighting for a bigger budget. If the rest of Congress then doesn't want to fund it, then that's not necessarily a bad outcome if you believe in limited government. That is not a generally accepted belief of course.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 09:54 pm
Killing NASA does not help the expansion of humanity throughout the cosmos. Reducing its budget by that much (effectively killing manned spaceflight at NASA, not just NASA launch infrastructure) won't help, either, even if you think NASA "shouldn't be in the launch vehicle business."

That is certainly true, but if you think it wasn't going to help very much anyway, then that's not a big loss. In principle you could increase spending later, though by that time you might no longer have the special interests in Congress fighting for a bigger budget. If the rest of Congress then doesn't want to fund it, then that's not necessarily a bad outcome if you believe in limited government. That is not a generally accepted belief of course.
We're going to have rich folks and government employees flying into space. You really think there are going to be any more rich folks flying into space if we eliminate all the government employees?

We will someday have zero-gee industry, which will allow regular folk to fly in space. And eventually, middle class folk will be able to afford it by choice (not just profession) because of decreases in spaceflight costs. The knowledge that we've gained from NASA is valuable for both of those.

I've read a lot of libertarian primary sources. Doesn't make sense to me. I mean, a lot of libertarians still probably support some role in government funding for things like NASA.

EDIT:Besides, planetary defense can be considered a viable governmental role (according to libertarians), and it's one of the things that NASA is tasked with (although it isn't funded very well at all).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: mmeijeri on 09/22/2010 09:59 pm
We're going to have rich folks and government employees flying into space. You really think there are going to be any more rich folks flying into space if we eliminate all the government employees?

I wasn't advocating eliminating all the government employees. But if you did, yes it could mean you had fewer rich people going into space. Not something space enthusiasts might like, but not necessarily a bad thing in the larger scheme of things.

Quote
I've read a lot of libertarian primary sources. Doesn't make sense to me. I mean, a lot of libertarians still probably support some role in government funding for things like NASA.

It isn't irrational not to be a libertarian. All I was saying is supporting a CR need not be an irrational position either, even if you would like to see commercial development of space.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/22/2010 09:59 pm
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA.  In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply.  The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections.  This is an unique situation.



You're basically correct, as far as the numbers go, but remember, an authorization bill is not just about MONEY and authorization of appropriations. That accounts for about 5% of the bill's language. The rest is about POLICY and PROGRAM authority and direction. THAT's as much, if not more, what is at stake here...a redefinition of the DIRECTION that NASA and especially its human spaceflight programs will be headed in the near and long-term future.
Agreed; however, I haven't seen a definitive/consensus answer this year about what happens to some of the directorates and programs depending on the variables involved in enactment of a reauthorization, particularly the timing -- given a lot of layoffs are coming up next week and again at the end of the year.  The general question is what happens if the policy (w/mandates) is enacted after the workforce is (more or less) gone.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/22/2010 10:24 pm
They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.
We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA.  In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply.  The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections.  This is an unique situation.



You're basically correct, as far as the numbers go, but remember, an authorization bill is not just about MONEY and authorization of appropriations. That accounts for about 5% of the bill's language. The rest is about POLICY and PROGRAM authority and direction. THAT's as much, if not more, what is at stake here...a redefinition of the DIRECTION that NASA and especially its human spaceflight programs will be headed in the near and long-term future.
Agreed; however, I haven't seen a definitive/consensus answer this year about what happens to some of the directorates and programs depending on the variables involved in enactment of a reauthorization, particularly the timing -- given a lot of layoffs are coming up next week and again at the end of the year.  The general question is what happens if the policy (w/mandates) is enacted after the workforce is (more or less) gone.


Precisely why there is a push in every way humanly possible to get ACTION on authorization NOW, using the bird that is in the hand, which is the Senate-passed vehicle.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: simonbp on 09/22/2010 10:24 pm
If I had a good answer to that question, I wouldn't need to be watching the dosages of my blood pressure medicine so carefully, hehe.

Touché. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/22/2010 10:33 pm
All I was saying is supporting a CR need not be an irrational position either, even if you would like to see commercial development of space.

What has been explained to you more times than I can keep track of right now is that a CR without any kind of authorization to help guide how the money is ultimately spent, actually hurts the "commercial development" of space at this particular point. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/22/2010 10:38 pm
M_Puckett, I don't think you understand my motivation. I am not in favour of "one true way", since I don't believe there is such a thing. Just as there is more than one good way, there are very many bad ways too. Three of those are on offer today. Briefly there appeared to be one that was reasonably good, even if it wasn't perfect. That option has now all but disappeared. Of the three remaining options a CR seems like the least bad to me, but then again my goals don't seem to be compatible with those of the majority of posters here.

A CR (without an authorization bill) probably doesn't fund commercial crew either. CCDev was funded under the stimilus package, I am not convinced that it can be funded in FY2011 if an authorization bill isn't passed. There is a reason that SpaceX and other commercial companies are in favour of the Senate bill. Because it's the best compromise that can be achieved for them politically. I don't think that the election will help much either. It probably delays any action until next year. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Andy USA on 09/22/2010 10:41 pm
I'm sure we can all appreciate the difference in value between 51D's comments and Mmeijeri. I suggest we allow this thread to focus on the former, and not allow it to be derailed by someone who decided to be "controversial" middle of an interesting conversation about the CR process.

This is a open moderator note, in case someone thinks it's open for debate.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 10:45 pm
I'm sure we can all appreciate the difference in value between 51D's comments and Mmeijeri. I suggest we allow this thread to focus on the former, and not allow it to be derailed by someone who decided to be "controversial" middle of an interesting conversation about the CR process.

This is a open moderator note, in case someone thinks it's open for debate.
Agreed. (and, just to defend mmeijeri a little, I believe originally this controversial opinion was posted  by mmeijeri on another site and brought up here on NSF by someone who was not mmeijeri... no need to bring up controversial personal opinions by other members into other threads, that's what PMs are for)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/22/2010 10:55 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?
People leaving the Orion program would be bad enough, but if we're talking about 'skin in the game', NASA is really the only one forking over the money. Even ULA has indicated (in another thread) that they wouldn't persue the tourist market to space without additional funding.

If we hold off on the necessary capabilities to go to LEO, then BEO, we are not shifting to the right by weeks or months, but years. As was indicated by others: the politicians are determined not to allow an EELV solution as long as they can help it. So if we wait long enough to mess things completely up for a SD-HLV solution, then THAT would be the starting point for any program using them (EELV). But until that happens, SD-HLV will still be on the minds of the politicians, so they may in fact get one, but since much of the workforce and industrial capability goes away, your costs to restart go up in a big way. That means even LESS capability, or in our case: BEO further out than as planned (more like HEFT). imo of course.

In the interim, FY2010 & previous says go forward with CxP. That means whatever is left on CxP that can be worked on, is all that there would be.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: sdsds on 09/22/2010 11:11 pm
Specifically to 51D Mascot with proper respect:  if AJAX (an all liquid Shuttle-derived HLV concept) were the best way forward for NASA, wouldn't a continuing resolution give that option the greatest likelihood of eventually being chosen for development?

'Cause from the non-Utahan peanut gallery it sure seems like nothin' my legislators are currently considerin' is gonna get us where we really should be headin'.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/22/2010 11:16 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?
The Dragon spacecraft, for instance, may have other uses besides even manned spaceflight: "Though designed to address cargo and crew requirements for the ISS, as a free-flying spacecraft Dragon also provides an excellent platform for in-space technology demonstrations and scientific instrument testing. SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

Quote
People leaving the Orion program would be bad enough, but if we're talking about 'skin in the game', NASA is really the only one forking over the money. Even ULA has indicated (in another thread) that they wouldn't persue the tourist market to space without additional funding.
And it's certainly possible for that money to come from the tourist market.

Quote
If we hold off on the necessary capabilities to go to LEO, then BEO, we are not shifting to the right by weeks or months, but years. As was indicated by others: the politicians are determined not to allow an EELV solution as long as they can help it. So if we wait long enough to mess things completely up for a SD-HLV solution, then THAT would be the starting point for any program using them (EELV). But until that happens, SD-HLV will still be on the minds of the politicians, so they may in fact get one, but since much of the workforce and industrial capability goes away, your costs to restart go up in a big way. That means even LESS capability, or in our case: BEO further out than as planned (more like HEFT). imo of course.

In the interim, FY2010 & previous says go forward with CxP. That means whatever is left on CxP that can be worked on, is all that there would be.
I agree that it'd be far better for commercial crew to be funded by NASA than not, but commercial crew is not solely dependent on NASA funding for commercial crew.

And I certainly don't like a CR.

I still don't think it is an immutable fact that politicians will prevent an "EELV solution." In fact, it certainly sounds to me that EELVs will be used for testing parts of CxP before the SDHLV is ready (in spite of the ability of a DIRECT-like launcher to be available sooner, if all the pieces fall into place), and if commercial crew (which will likely be launched on EELVs) gets any funding at all, it certainly seems to me that the "EELV solution" will seem mighty attractive if funding is not increased.

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/22/2010 11:21 pm
Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?
Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?
The Dragon spacecraft, for instance, may have other uses besides even manned spaceflight: "Though designed to address cargo and crew requirements for the ISS, as a free-flying spacecraft Dragon also provides an excellent platform for in-space technology demonstrations and scientific instrument testing. SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

Sorry, but how is commercial crew = cargo & uncrewed flights?

Yes, you're flying a 'close to' HR vehicle when there is no crew market, but that's all. And that's also 1 company. The others (that are receiving Ccdev monies)?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/22/2010 11:21 pm
Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON — Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

That article is confusing. The core of the article appears to contradict its title.

I agree. Trick with mass media is always to go with the core content, as the headline is usually written by the subeditor, not the writer.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/22/2010 11:26 pm
I still don't think it is an immutable fact that politicians will prevent an "EELV solution." In fact, it certainly sounds to me that EELVs will be used for testing parts of CxP before the SDHLV is ready (in spite of the ability of a DIRECT-like launcher to be available sooner, if all the pieces fall into place), and if commercial crew (which will likely be launched on EELVs) gets any funding at all, it certainly seems to me that the "EELV solution" will seem mighty attractive if funding is not increased.

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

Testing, yes. ISS and nowhere else (from a NASA perspective). BEO is just a dream (yet again). But for commercial crew on an EELV for NASA, that's another few votes away from becoming a reality.

I really like the 'Tea Party' - they have great music. As to any other reference, it's just noise up here in Canada. :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Proponent on 09/23/2010 05:34 am
NASA administrator draws an ethics reprimand
By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel
7:18 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2010

At:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-administrator-embarrasses-oba20100920,0,503695.story

NASA Boss Cleared in Ethics Inquiry (http://news.discovery.com/space/nasa-boss-cleared-in-ethics-inquiry.html).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: madscientist197 on 09/23/2010 06:21 am
In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail. We cannot afford to end up in a situation where a commercial provider has to succeed no matter what -- this is how big government contracts/projects blow out their budgets. The best option is clearly a smooth transition to commercial, which means developing as much capability as possible without putting too much pressure on the commercial companies. We need to have a backup, so that they can afford to take real risks and fail (after all, this is what capitalism is built on... Right?). I think in this respect it is necessary to persue SLS so that commercial has the chance to prove on it's own merits that it is indeed better than NASA's own launchers.

Some people (like mmeijeri) think that it can be instantaneously forced. If we suddenly stop funding government launchers and fund commercial launches it is just as bad as if we stop funding commercial launchers and only fund government launchers. Both approached are ideological, and the end result of both is merely further polarisation. Neither encourages or enables unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis which is important to the the making of rational decisions. We do not need NASA to be subject to arbitrary whims -- we have seen enough of this over the past 40 years. Look at where it has gotten us: nowhere. We need to encourage a diversity of opinions and maintain a diversity of options -- eventually, given the opportunities on both sides, the best option will prevail. Eventually, there will be no doubt about what the best option is. We cannot unambiguously say this now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: alexw on 09/23/2010 10:14 am
In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail. We cannot afford to end up in a situation where a commercial provider has to succeed no matter what -- this is how big government contracts/projects blow out their budgets. The best option is clearly a smooth transition to commercial, which means developing as much capability as possible without putting too much pressure on the commercial companies. We need to have a backup, so that they can afford to take real risks and fail (after all, this is what capitalism is built on... Right?).
...
Eventually, there will be no doubt about what the best option is. We cannot unambiguously say this now.
     Commercial companies do need to be free to fail, and it already happened: Rocketplane Kistler lost its COTS contract, replaced by Orbital.

   We already have backups: for cargo, SpaceX is in front, Orbital backing it up, and ULA obviously technically competent as a third provider if the first two somehow go down in flames.

    For crew, which of course has not been awarded, Boeing flying on ULA might be in front, SpaceX will also clearly be entering the business, and if both collapse or withdraw, Orbital could foreseeably upgrade to a crewed carrier. Crew is further backed up by the virtue that CST-100 is designed to be able to fly on Falcon 9 (say, if manned Dragon has a fatal flaw, or a hurricane destroys Decatur, or other disaster scenario), and so our various capsule and launcher providers are geographically distributed.

     Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
   -Alex
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: aquanaut99 on 09/23/2010 10:35 am
BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

I think the majority of the Tea Party movement are opposed to NASA on principle, because NASA is "big government". They are probably closest to the "all-commercial" camp.

I'm starting to see things that way, too. Maybe defunding NASA will be for the best in the long run, even though it will cause a set-back in space exploration in the short term.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/23/2010 11:20 am
BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

I think the majority of the Tea Party movement are opposed to NASA on principle, because NASA is "big government". They are probably closest to the "all-commercial" camp.

I'm starting to see things that way, too. Maybe defunding NASA will be for the best in the long run, even though it will cause a set-back in space exploration in the short term.

In all honesty, you should be careful with a statement like that.

'defunding NASA' leads to defunding of commercial spaceflight as well (wrt crewed launches especially).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/23/2010 01:57 pm
Confucius say: "In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail".

Quote
unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis

Not invented here, my friend.

Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

True, that is an opinion to require quadruple redundancy.  But we don't have that.  We have one-dundancy today.  And the middle of next year, we are scheduled to have no-dundancy.

Burt Rutan's suggestion that we should have a decade or two of overlap between NASA and commercial is exactly the way we should be proceeding.  That sorta implies the need for "unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis", the concept of which is a hard sell, it would seem.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Robotbeat on 09/23/2010 02:02 pm
Defunding NASA accomplishes nothing for spaceflight.

I will point out that Shelby (and others) have come under fire from Tea Party folks for pork projects.

And regarding a backup for commercial crew... In all likelihood, Orion on EELV is that backup, even if SDHLV is built.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/23/2010 02:15 pm
     Commercial companies do need to be free to fail, and it already happened: Rocketplane Kistler lost its COTS contract, replaced by Orbital.

   We already have backups: for cargo, SpaceX is in front, Orbital backing it up, and ULA obviously technically competent as a third provider if the first two somehow go down in flames.

   .........

     Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
   -Alex

With respect to cargo, ULA needs to have a cargo vehicle to launch.

Regarding the "quadruple-redundancy" as you say, if SLS does indeed happen, it has been stated multiple times in multiple ways now that SLS is not being designed and built to simply be a back-up.  It would be built for beyond LEO missions, and could serve as a back-up *IF* absolutely necessary. 

Furthermore, I believe it is legit to point out that none of the companies you just listed are doing this completely on their own and all are requesting some amount of federal funding.  Given that, and how things can happen in DC, and the fact that ISS resupply and utilization is absolutely in the critical path, then having this layer of "redundancy" is a strategically smart move.  That said, the light you are trying to place SLS in with respect to its possible existance is not completely accurate. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: orbitjunkie on 09/23/2010 02:26 pm
It's difficult and dangerous to put policy in the mouth of the Tea Party, partly because there is not a strong, comprehensive unity among the candidates. As we've seen here, opinions among well meaning people, even about how to get to the same destination, vary widely. So I'd expect to see varying opinions from different candidates who wear the Tea Party label. Another interesting fact is that space policy is not often a respecter of party lines. And although there are places where it might seem to follow those lines (e.g. "GOP opposition to Obamaspace"), Tea Party candidates have not hesitated to break from GOP when they thought it came down to principle. Recall that Newt Gingrich came out generally in favor of Obama's commercial approach.

If I were to not follow my own advice, I would predict that new conservative potential lawmakers would hold a pretty balanced approach towards space with some of the following planks:
 - GO USA!!! A strong government space program has more in common with a strong government military than a strong government healthcare system.
 - As of TODAY the commercial market for human spaceflight to LEO is in its infancy at best. That means government run systems will probably be deemed necessary, or at least worth the cost, for at least one more decade or so. But, the government has a legitimate role to play in helping to develop the market and then get out as soon as it makes sense.
 - It may never make sense for the government to get out of the business of true frontier exploration. But its primary purpose should be to open up those frontiers for future development and commercial markets. Funding research and technology is also a form of frontier exploration and is therefore a legitimate role as well.
 - Anything the government runs should be done as efficiently as possible without waste or pork, and could inevitably learn a lot from how the business world operates. So I don't think the current cows would be automatically sacred.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/23/2010 03:16 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 03:18 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/23/2010 03:21 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 03:26 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/23/2010 03:28 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.


It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rusty on 09/23/2010 03:28 pm
Would be a good time for another poll
- Obama FY2011
- Senate bill
- House bill
- CR
i'd vote for the CR, as of now.
The CR will NOT contain any new money or new language guiding NASA. Without an enacted authorization/policy bill, signed by the President, things will continue JUST as they have been, with the Constellation funding restricted, impounded, whatever you want to call it, but held back from the contractors, just as it has been for the past six months. That means even longer delays in ending the uncertainty, more unnecessary layoffs and disruption of lives and careers, and I just don't see that as a viable option. At least with an enacted bill, and the President's signature, that officially reverses the policy of the Administration and there would be NO BASIS for continuing the financial squeeze on resources needed for new HLV development. And with an enacted LAW, there would be ample basis for congressional oversight to ensure NASA compliance with that direction regardless of the level and allocation of resources in the CR. There would also then be a legal basis for pressing for new directive language in the follow-on to the CR, whether it is another CR for the balance of FY 2011, or an Omnibus appropriations for 2011, which would reflect the combination of Budget Requests in some areas and enacted authorization levels in other areas, such as NASA.

Excellent points 51D Mascot. A CR is a poor option and Obama FY2011 is nothing more than a suggestion. If a poll is taken, I'd discount these choices and, between H.R.5781 and S.3729, I'd choose the House Bill because...

- Senate maintains Shuttle workforce to leave the door open for extension while the House closes shop, but permits one more flight if criteria are met. Senate maintains ET workforce for Shuttle and a HLV to fly by the end of the decade while House wants an HLV selected in 6mos without putting conditions on what tank, equipment and workforce is used.

- Senate requires a HLV loft 70-100mt and 130mt with upper stage to LEO while House simply requires vehicle capable of extensive BEO human missions.

- Senate continues Orion for BEO and as a Commercial Crew 'back-up' to LEO by the end of 2016 while House funds AresI as primary LEO vehicle by the end of 2015 and Commercial must have an established, cheaper option to replace AresI. Senate funds commercial development at $300mil/yr while House allows $150mil/yr, including $100mil/yr in loans, to put the burden of proof on commercial.

- Senate authorizes a large diameter SRB study which, along with ensuring a Shuttle option, probably means the RSRBs will continue while House mandates there use in AresI and HLV.

<Please correct this comparison if necessary or state disagreements>
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: robertross on 09/23/2010 03:30 pm

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf
Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921


Highlights of House compromise bill:

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/SIDE%20BY%20SIDE%20COMPARISON%20OF%20THE%20COMPROMISE%20TEXT%20AND%20THE%20BILL%20AS%20REPORTED%20BY%20COMMITTEE.pdf
It's comparing this proposed, amended bill with the House bill that passed committee (HR 5781); what would be more useful would be a "side-by-side' comparison to the bill that passed the Senate, S. 3729.

(Expecting a wave of blogosphere postings on that...)

At first glance, it looks like it's closer.


It looks a lot like the Senate bill!!!!

I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/23/2010 03:32 pm
I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)

Seconded.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: JohnFornaro on 09/23/2010 03:36 pm
Thirded.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Namechange User on 09/23/2010 03:37 pm
I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)

It actually could be that easy.  I don't believe that is actually the case here but without a doubt this version of the House bill is much, much closer to the Senate bill and that is a good thing and the immediate message that needs to be sent. 
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Bill White on 09/23/2010 03:38 pm
From the summary:

Quote
EXPLORATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $13.18 billion for the Restructured Exploration program, including ground operations and launch infrastructure investments. It also separately included a total of $150 million for the 21st Century Launch Complex initiative.
The Compromise Bill provides a total of $12.21 billion for the Space Launch System, Crew Vehicle, and associated activities, of which a total of $1.33 billion is provided for a NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization program.

COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $464 million for commercial cargo and crew development activities.
The Compromise Bill provides a total of $1.212 billion for commercial cargo and crew development activities.

INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

• H.R. 5781 provided a total of $9 billion for the ISS.
• The Compromise bill provides a total of $8.9 billion for the ISS.
• Both bills provide a total of $275 million for ISS research.

ADDITIONAL SHUTTLE FLIGHT

The Compromise bill provides $600 million in FY 2011 for an additional “Launch on Need” (STS-135) Shuttle flight.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/23/2010 03:39 pm
Well. I'll leave interpreting the bill to those more skilled than I in these matters.  However, I will make one point: Let's hope they've got this right and clear of nonsense from those whose main concern is their 'legacy' in astronautics.

We often hear polilticians talk of things being "the last chance" to do this that or the other.  However, it is true in this case.  It really is the last chance for them to save the skill-sets and jobs which they claim are so important.  Without a clear direction, irrevocable layoffs and infrastructure demolition will start happening very soon.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 03:41 pm
Don't have time to do much more than a shotgun of a few sections...others here have done a great job breaking these down and hopefully they can do it again.

In Section 101, the Senate bill breaks out SLS and MPCV funding, this bill has a lump sum for both, along with infrastructure and support.

The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

The Senate bill applies $425M to "NASA launch support and infrastructure modernization program" under Space Opertaions; this bill "charges" that to Exploration.

Otherwise, the numbers look the same for ISS and Shuttle Ops.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: M_Puckett on 09/23/2010 03:43 pm
Waiting on 51D Mascot to give us his take.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 09/23/2010 03:44 pm
The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

That fits in with the impression I get that, to the House, Orion/SLS ought to be the primary vehicle rather than the backup.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 03:45 pm
(Skipping around a little bit)

The Senate bill has a section on assurance of "core capabilities" (Section 203) that this bill does not have.

Both bills have a minimum capabilities section on SLS, Section 302(c); they are worded differently, but I'm not sure they can't be interpreted similarly -- this bill doesn't have any initial capability specified and says "provide a scalable capability of lifting payloads of at least 130 metric tons."
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/23/2010 03:53 pm
Worth starting a new thread? I've got several documents on this now.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: DaveJSC on 09/23/2010 03:54 pm
Yes Chris!
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 03:54 pm
Back to Exploration line items...

Technology Development is in different places in Section 101 (FY 2011); the Senate bill has $250M under Exploration, this bill has $300M under Aeronautics & Space Development.

Edit -- got the Senate number wrong; fixed.

In Section 102 (FY 2012), the Senate bill has $500M for Commercial crew capabilities; this bill has $400M for "Commercial Cargo and Crew Capability Development."

Same description and numbers for Section 103 (FY 2013).
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: yg1968 on 09/23/2010 03:56 pm
The Senate bill has $300M for Commercial Cargo, $312M for CCDev; this bill has $412M for both.  (At first blush, that's $200M less for both.)

That fits in with the impression I get that, to the House, Orion/SLS ought to be the primary vehicle rather than the backup.

I am not sure that an extra $300M for FY2011 was needed for COTS anyways. In any event each year NASA is allowed to choose between COTS and commercial crew, so it's a minor change from a policy perspective. I would expect NASA to fund commercial crew (but not COTS) in FY2012 and FY2013.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: e of pi on 09/23/2010 03:58 pm
Worth starting a new thread? I've got several documents on this now.

I think it's probably worth it.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: psloss on 09/23/2010 04:05 pm
On STS-135, the text in Section 503(e) looks almost identical -- including using the NESC safety assessment vs. the ASAP.

This bill does not have a Section 503(f) "Space Shuttle Manifest Flight Assurance."

(I think I'll stop here...still looking for indications that a bill might make it through Congress in this session.  Will be interested in public reaction on the Senate side now.)
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Chris Bergin on 09/23/2010 04:05 pm
Carry on here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22787.0

Won't lock this thread, so you can copy and paste your own posts that would be valuable in the new thread.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: jongoff on 09/23/2010 04:12 pm
I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)

It actually could be that easy.  I don't believe that is actually the case here but without a doubt this version of the House bill is much, much closer to the Senate bill and that is a good thing and the immediate message that needs to be sent. 

Yeah, on a brief skim, the bill seems to be a lot closer to the Senate bill.  I want to wait for others to dig into it more, but at least preliminarily, this might be something I could support.

~Jon
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: rusty on 09/23/2010 04:22 pm
I'm trying to (quickly) understand the differences, and at first glance I agree it looks alot like the Senate Bill, but I know things just aren't that simple. Hoping someone else has the time to do a proper comparison for us folks  :)
Seconded.
~Jon

From what I can tell speed-reading the full text, it's still the House Bill as far as shutting down Shuttle, maintaining a SDHLV with no mass conditions, but many tweeks to funding and programs. The big stink is absorbing the Senate's LEO access.

- Funds Orion Capsule atop SDHLV as Commercial back-up to LEO while original House funded AresI as primary LEO access and seperate HLV.
- Commercial Crew must still prove viability and lower cost for contracts, but shouldn't be difficult considering it's now compared to Orion+SDHLV.
- Original House Bill funds Commercial Crew at $150mil/yr including $100mil/yr in loans, but compromise funds $400mil/yr Crew/Cargo with an 'optional precondition' there be matching private funds.

I strongly disagree with these aspects of the House compromise and, in fact, would rather see them back at the drawing board with a CR, maintaining AresI, then replace the original House Bill with this.
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: clongton on 09/23/2010 04:29 pm
And regarding a backup for commercial crew... In all likelihood, Orion on EELV is that backup, even if SDHLV is built.

In my opinion, the Orion CSM (CM plus SM) should comprise only 2/3 of the Orion Spacecraft, the other 1/3 being the MM. The Orion CSM must not be made too heavy for the EELV launchers to be able to send it to an ISS type LEO. When being flown as a LEO taxi to a LEO destination, there should be no MM included and this would constitute the LEO version of Orion, flyable on the Atlas or the Delta. For LEO applications Orion is simply a taxi. For LEO missions where LEO itself is the destination or for BEO missions, the MM will need to be included and would rightly need to be flown on the SLS. The goal is to make Orion relevant to both LEO and BEO.  The way to do that is to design the CM to be taxi space, not living space. But this is a subject for another thread.

WRT what happens with a CR and no new Authorization Bill, then I believe the current existing Authorization Bill would govern policy. I believe that is Public Law 110-422. That Bill does indeed encourage development of Commercial cargo and crew, and instructs NASA to use it when it becomes available, but doesn't address funding this effort, which would be in a different, "Appropriations" bill. In that case a CR with no new Authorization Bill to specifically address developing Commercial Crew would be a severe setback for Commercial crew because the current Appropriations Bill doesn't address it. Once the Authorization and Appropriations bills are enacted into law the Administrator does have certain latitude in his use of the funding, but it must still comply with the intent of the law. The current Authorization and Appropriations bills would not give him that latitude. Here's the link:

http://legislative.nasa.gov/PL%20110-422.pdf

Now note please that this is an "Authorization Bill" not an "Appropriations Bill".
51D, if you don't mind, would you comment on this?
Title: Re: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 09/24/2010 03:42 am
Waiting on 51D Mascot to give us his take.

My personal "take":

1) This bill does not represent a "compromise" that has been agreed to as the result of House and Senate negotiations, although it is much closer to what that might be than the committee-reported House bill. (It could only reflect a "compromise" when the interested and involved Members on both sides and in both Houses had agreed to the full content, and that is not the case.)

2) There are at least two members of the Senate who will not agree to ANY new authorization bill being passed by unanimous consent before the end of this congressional work period (expected to be the end of next week). Thus, this bill, even if it included the Pledge of Allegiance, as a colleague of mine has said, would not be able to be cleared by the Senate at this stage of the process.

3) No ifs, ands or buts; this bill has no chance of passage before the end of the fiscal year and almost equally unlikely even in a "lame duck" session, because then there would be more issues raised on the merits, combined with the likelihood that unanimous consent would be required for it, while limited floor time and debate would be devoted to an extended CR or an Omnibus Appropriations bill, and other legislation of broader interest.

The House will not be in session tomorrow and it will be midweek next week before they will have an opportunity to take any action on NASA authorization, which the Majority Leader has said was among those issues they would like to complete before the October break.

SO...stay tuned.