Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[sdsds]

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.

[psloss]

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.)

[yg1968]

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):

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.

[simonbp]

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.

[Spacetime]

[Drapper23]

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?

[Jorge]

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.

[Drapper23]

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/

[CessnaDriver]

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?

[Jim]

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.

[nooneofconsequence]

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.

[yg1968]

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

[mr_magoo]

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.

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[Chris Bergin]

Copy that YG!

[Mark S]

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.

[zerm]

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.

[Bill White]

@ Mark S

Click here for a potential "Step Two" - - 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.

[MP99]

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