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.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 07/23/2010 04:23 amQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any 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.
Quote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any 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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any changes from yesterday?Haven't had a chance to go through it yet...
Quote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any changes from yesterday?
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
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.
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.
...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...
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.
Quote from: mr_magoo on 07/23/2010 01:49 pmI 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.
So no, it is not unreasonable to expect NASA to be able to develop SLS for less money and in less time than CxP.
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.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 07/23/2010 04:23 amQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any 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:QuoteAs 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
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:02 pmQuote from: 51D Mascot on 07/23/2010 04:23 amQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:48 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/22/2010 08:32 pmQuote from: psloss on 07/22/2010 08:20 pmAudio 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-bbbe34c3b002Any 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:QuoteAs 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.
According to the article, their estimate of 2020 was for a different level of funding. Augustine also estimated early 2020s for a SD-HLV.
Quote from: Pheogh on 07/23/2010 05:06 pmhttp://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
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:21 pmAccording 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.
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.
Quote from: Mark S on 07/23/2010 02:22 pmWhereas 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.
Whereas true SDLV has been studied to death, since even before Shuttle was flying.
Quote from: jongoff on 07/23/2010 05:24 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 07/23/2010 05:06 pmhttp://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. ~JonI thought Ares I was the long pole (not Orion) under Constellation.
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.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/23/2010 05:33 pmQuote from: jongoff on 07/23/2010 05:24 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 07/23/2010 05:06 pmhttp://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. ~JonI 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