Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 753286 times)

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
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...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17943
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 662
  • Likes Given: 7924
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...

Offline Drapper23

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 262
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.).

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
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

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
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?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39463
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25588
  • Likes Given: 12245
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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18244
  • Liked: 7864
  • Likes Given: 3300
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
« Last Edit: 07/22/2010 05:14 pm by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Doesn't work for me, but that could be just a problem at my end.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125
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.
« Last Edit: 07/22/2010 05:23 pm by psloss »

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17996
  • Liked: 4071
  • Likes Given: 2125
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.)
« Last Edit: 07/22/2010 05:27 pm by psloss »

Offline MP99

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

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
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
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Online Chris Bergin

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.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
garamenci wondering about term "US commercial company," concerned about potential for foreign-owned companies
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Tags:
 

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