Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[Jim]

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

[Chris Bergin]

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.

[yg1968]

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?

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.

[Proponent]

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.

[JDCampbell]

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. 

 

[Jeff Bingham]

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?

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.

[yg1968]

Thanks.

[Jim]

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

[psloss]

...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?

[Jeff Bingham]

...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.

[kkattula]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[Jeff Bingham]

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.

[Namechange User]

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. 

[yg1968]

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.   

[Jim]

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

[Danderman]

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.

[marsavian]

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 .

[Namechange User]

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?