Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 759497 times)

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
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. 

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
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.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
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. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
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.   
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 02:14 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
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.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11051
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1306
  • Likes Given: 754
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.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
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. 

Offline rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2384
  • USA
  • Liked: 2031
  • Likes Given: 1023
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.


« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 03:06 pm by rcoppola »
Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
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
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 05:17 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 39
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.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 05:08 pm by Pheogh »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
According to the article, their estimate of 2020 was for a different level of funding. Augustine also estimated early 2020s for a SD-HLV.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 05:24 pm by yg1968 »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4217
  • Likes Given: 1954
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

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 991
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 39
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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
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. 
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 05:34 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
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.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7704
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2457
  • Likes Given: 2287
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.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 05:50 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4217
  • Likes Given: 1954
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

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6920
  • Erie, CO
  • Liked: 4217
  • Likes Given: 1954
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

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18276
  • Liked: 7887
  • Likes Given: 3303
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.
« Last Edit: 07/23/2010 06:17 pm by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1