Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[Jeff Bingham]

They will only accept it if it's part of an enacted NASA Authorization bill.

We could have an enacted reauthorization for NASA, but still have a 'clean' CR that only refers to the FY2010 enacted appropriations, without explicit language for NASA.  In that case, I don't believe the newly authorized numbers would apply.  The oft-used phrase 'unfunded mandate' comes to mind, but I would welcome corrections.  This is an unique situation.

You're basically correct, as far as the numbers go, but remember, an authorization bill is not just about MONEY and authorization of appropriations. That accounts for about 5% of the bill's language. The rest is about POLICY and PROGRAM authority and direction. THAT's as much, if not more, what is at stake here...a redefinition of the DIRECTION that NASA and especially its human spaceflight programs will be headed in the near and long-term future.

Agreed; however, I haven't seen a definitive/consensus answer this year about what happens to some of the directorates and programs depending on the variables involved in enactment of a reauthorization, particularly the timing -- given a lot of layoffs are coming up next week and again at the end of the year.  The general question is what happens if the policy (w/mandates) is enacted after the workforce is (more or less) gone.

Precisely why there is a push in every way humanly possible to get ACTION on authorization NOW, using the bird that is in the hand, which is the Senate-passed vehicle.

[simonbp]

If I had a good answer to that question, I wouldn't need to be watching the dosages of my blood pressure medicine so carefully, hehe.

Touché.

[Namechange User]

All I was saying is supporting a CR need not be an irrational position either, even if you would like to see commercial development of space.

What has been explained to you more times than I can keep track of right now is that a CR without any kind of authorization to help guide how the money is ultimately spent, actually hurts the "commercial development" of space at this particular point. 

[yg1968]

M_Puckett, I don't think you understand my motivation. I am not in favour of "one true way", since I don't believe there is such a thing. Just as there is more than one good way, there are very many bad ways too. Three of those are on offer today. Briefly there appeared to be one that was reasonably good, even if it wasn't perfect. That option has now all but disappeared. Of the three remaining options a CR seems like the least bad to me, but then again my goals don't seem to be compatible with those of the majority of posters here.

A CR (without an authorization bill) probably doesn't fund commercial crew either. CCDev was funded under the stimilus package, I am not convinced that it can be funded in FY2011 if an authorization bill isn't passed. There is a reason that SpaceX and other commercial companies are in favour of the Senate bill. Because it's the best compromise that can be achieved for them politically. I don't think that the election will help much either. It probably delays any action until next year. 

[Andy USA]

I'm sure we can all appreciate the difference in value between 51D's comments and Mmeijeri. I suggest we allow this thread to focus on the former, and not allow it to be derailed by someone who decided to be "controversial" middle of an interesting conversation about the CR process.

This is a open moderator note, in case someone thinks it's open for debate.

[Robotbeat]

I'm sure we can all appreciate the difference in value between 51D's comments and Mmeijeri. I suggest we allow this thread to focus on the former, and not allow it to be derailed by someone who decided to be "controversial" middle of an interesting conversation about the CR process.

This is a open moderator note, in case someone thinks it's open for debate.

Agreed. (and, just to defend mmeijeri a little, I believe originally this controversial opinion was posted  by mmeijeri on another site and brought up here on NSF by someone who was not mmeijeri... no need to bring up controversial personal opinions by other members into other threads, that's what PMs are for)

[robertross]

Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?

Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?
People leaving the Orion program would be bad enough, but if we're talking about 'skin in the game', NASA is really the only one forking over the money. Even ULA has indicated (in another thread) that they wouldn't persue the tourist market to space without additional funding.

If we hold off on the necessary capabilities to go to LEO, then BEO, we are not shifting to the right by weeks or months, but years. As was indicated by others: the politicians are determined not to allow an EELV solution as long as they can help it. So if we wait long enough to mess things completely up for a SD-HLV solution, then THAT would be the starting point for any program using them (EELV). But until that happens, SD-HLV will still be on the minds of the politicians, so they may in fact get one, but since much of the workforce and industrial capability goes away, your costs to restart go up in a big way. That means even LESS capability, or in our case: BEO further out than as planned (more like HEFT). imo of course.

In the interim, FY2010 & previous says go forward with CxP. That means whatever is left on CxP that can be worked on, is all that there would be.

[sdsds]

Specifically to 51D Mascot with proper respect:  if AJAX (an all liquid Shuttle-derived HLV concept) were the best way forward for NASA, wouldn't a continuing resolution give that option the greatest likelihood of eventually being chosen for development?

'Cause from the non-Utahan peanut gallery it sure seems like nothin' my legislators are currently considerin' is gonna get us where we really should be headin'.

[Robotbeat]

Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?

Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?

The Dragon spacecraft, for instance, may have other uses besides even manned spaceflight: "Though designed to address cargo and crew requirements for the ISS, as a free-flying spacecraft Dragon also provides an excellent platform for in-space technology demonstrations and scientific instrument testing. SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

People leaving the Orion program would be bad enough, but if we're talking about 'skin in the game', NASA is really the only one forking over the money. Even ULA has indicated (in another thread) that they wouldn't persue the tourist market to space without additional funding.

And it's certainly possible for that money to come from the tourist market.

If we hold off on the necessary capabilities to go to LEO, then BEO, we are not shifting to the right by weeks or months, but years. As was indicated by others: the politicians are determined not to allow an EELV solution as long as they can help it. So if we wait long enough to mess things completely up for a SD-HLV solution, then THAT would be the starting point for any program using them (EELV). But until that happens, SD-HLV will still be on the minds of the politicians, so they may in fact get one, but since much of the workforce and industrial capability goes away, your costs to restart go up in a big way. That means even LESS capability, or in our case: BEO further out than as planned (more like HEFT). imo of course.

In the interim, FY2010 & previous says go forward with CxP. That means whatever is left on CxP that can be worked on, is all that there would be.

I agree that it'd be far better for commercial crew to be funded by NASA than not, but commercial crew is not solely dependent on NASA funding for commercial crew.

And I certainly don't like a CR.

I still don't think it is an immutable fact that politicians will prevent an "EELV solution." In fact, it certainly sounds to me that EELVs will be used for testing parts of CxP before the SDHLV is ready (in spite of the ability of a DIRECT-like launcher to be available sooner, if all the pieces fall into place), and if commercial crew (which will likely be launched on EELVs) gets any funding at all, it certainly seems to me that the "EELV solution" will seem mighty attractive if funding is not increased.

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

[robertross]

Concerning defunding: I'd like to see NASA's budget cut by $4B. A minority position around here to be sure.

Then there goes commercial crew.  Guess who has the least-protected interests at this point?

Commercial crew isn't dependent solely on NASA. It can continue, albeit at a slow pace.

How slow do you think is slow? Like at a standstill?

The Dragon spacecraft, for instance, may have other uses besides even manned spaceflight: "Though designed to address cargo and crew requirements for the ISS, as a free-flying spacecraft Dragon also provides an excellent platform for in-space technology demonstrations and scientific instrument testing. SpaceX is currently manifesting fully commercial, non-ISS Dragon flights under the name “DragonLab”. DragonLab represents an emergent capability for in-space experimentation." http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php

Sorry, but how is commercial crew = cargo & uncrewed flights?

Yes, you're flying a 'close to' HR vehicle when there is no crew market, but that's all. And that's also 1 company. The others (that are receiving Ccdev monies)?

[Chris Bergin]

Congress delays NASA decision

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100922/NEWS02/9220325/1086/Congress+delays+NASA+decision

WASHINGTON — Congress isn't expected to make spending decisions about NASA until after the election, lawmakers said Tuesday.

That article is confusing. The core of the article appears to contradict its title.

I agree. Trick with mass media is always to go with the core content, as the headline is usually written by the subeditor, not the writer.

[robertross]

I still don't think it is an immutable fact that politicians will prevent an "EELV solution." In fact, it certainly sounds to me that EELVs will be used for testing parts of CxP before the SDHLV is ready (in spite of the ability of a DIRECT-like launcher to be available sooner, if all the pieces fall into place), and if commercial crew (which will likely be launched on EELVs) gets any funding at all, it certainly seems to me that the "EELV solution" will seem mighty attractive if funding is not increased.

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

Testing, yes. ISS and nowhere else (from a NASA perspective). BEO is just a dream (yet again). But for commercial crew on an EELV for NASA, that's another few votes away from becoming a reality.

I really like the 'Tea Party' - they have great music. As to any other reference, it's just noise up here in Canada.

[Proponent]

NASA administrator draws an ethics reprimand
By Robert Block and Mark K. Matthews, Orlando Sentinel
7:18 p.m. EDT, September 20, 2010

At:  http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-administrator-embarrasses-oba20100920,0,503695.story

NASA Boss Cleared in Ethics Inquiry.

[madscientist197]

In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail. We cannot afford to end up in a situation where a commercial provider has to succeed no matter what -- this is how big government contracts/projects blow out their budgets. The best option is clearly a smooth transition to commercial, which means developing as much capability as possible without putting too much pressure on the commercial companies. We need to have a backup, so that they can afford to take real risks and fail (after all, this is what capitalism is built on... Right?). I think in this respect it is necessary to persue SLS so that commercial has the chance to prove on it's own merits that it is indeed better than NASA's own launchers.

Some people (like mmeijeri) think that it can be instantaneously forced. If we suddenly stop funding government launchers and fund commercial launches it is just as bad as if we stop funding commercial launchers and only fund government launchers. Both approached are ideological, and the end result of both is merely further polarisation. Neither encourages or enables unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis which is important to the the making of rational decisions. We do not need NASA to be subject to arbitrary whims -- we have seen enough of this over the past 40 years. Look at where it has gotten us: nowhere. We need to encourage a diversity of opinions and maintain a diversity of options -- eventually, given the opportunities on both sides, the best option will prevail. Eventually, there will be no doubt about what the best option is. We cannot unambiguously say this now.

[alexw]

In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail. We cannot afford to end up in a situation where a commercial provider has to succeed no matter what -- this is how big government contracts/projects blow out their budgets. The best option is clearly a smooth transition to commercial, which means developing as much capability as possible without putting too much pressure on the commercial companies. We need to have a backup, so that they can afford to take real risks and fail (after all, this is what capitalism is built on... Right?).
...
Eventually, there will be no doubt about what the best option is. We cannot unambiguously say this now.

     Commercial companies do need to be free to fail, and it already happened: Rocketplane Kistler lost its COTS contract, replaced by Orbital.

   We already have backups: for cargo, SpaceX is in front, Orbital backing it up, and ULA obviously technically competent as a third provider if the first two somehow go down in flames.

    For crew, which of course has not been awarded, Boeing flying on ULA might be in front, SpaceX will also clearly be entering the business, and if both collapse or withdraw, Orbital could foreseeably upgrade to a crewed carrier. Crew is further backed up by the virtue that CST-100 is designed to be able to fly on Falcon 9 (say, if manned Dragon has a fatal flaw, or a hurricane destroys Decatur, or other disaster scenario), and so our various capsule and launcher providers are geographically distributed.

     Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
   -Alex

[aquanaut99]

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

I think the majority of the Tea Party movement are opposed to NASA on principle, because NASA is "big government". They are probably closest to the "all-commercial" camp.

I'm starting to see things that way, too. Maybe defunding NASA will be for the best in the long run, even though it will cause a set-back in space exploration in the short term.

[robertross]

BTW, robertross, do you see the Tea Party movement being as favorable to SDHLV as mainstream Republicans like Shelby?

I think the majority of the Tea Party movement are opposed to NASA on principle, because NASA is "big government". They are probably closest to the "all-commercial" camp.

I'm starting to see things that way, too. Maybe defunding NASA will be for the best in the long run, even though it will cause a set-back in space exploration in the short term.

In all honesty, you should be careful with a statement like that.

'defunding NASA' leads to defunding of commercial spaceflight as well (wrt crewed launches especially).

[JohnFornaro]

Confucius say: "In order for commercial to be able to succeed, it needs to be able to fail".

unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis

Not invented here, my friend.

Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

True, that is an opinion to require quadruple redundancy.  But we don't have that.  We have one-dundancy today.  And the middle of next year, we are scheduled to have no-dundancy.

Burt Rutan's suggestion that we should have a decade or two of overlap between NASA and commercial is exactly the way we should be proceeding.  That sorta implies the need for "unbiased intellectual discussion and analysis", the concept of which is a hard sell, it would seem.

[Robotbeat]

Defunding NASA accomplishes nothing for spaceflight.

I will point out that Shelby (and others) have come under fire from Tea Party folks for pork projects.

And regarding a backup for commercial crew... In all likelihood, Orion on EELV is that backup, even if SDHLV is built.

[Namechange User]

     Commercial companies do need to be free to fail, and it already happened: Rocketplane Kistler lost its COTS contract, replaced by Orbital.

   We already have backups: for cargo, SpaceX is in front, Orbital backing it up, and ULA obviously technically competent as a third provider if the first two somehow go down in flames.

   .........

     Whether we require quadruple-redundancy in the form of SLS to guard against complete collapse of the entire commercial industry is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.
   -Alex

With respect to cargo, ULA needs to have a cargo vehicle to launch.

Regarding the "quadruple-redundancy" as you say, if SLS does indeed happen, it has been stated multiple times in multiple ways now that SLS is not being designed and built to simply be a back-up.  It would be built for beyond LEO missions, and could serve as a back-up *IF* absolutely necessary. 

Furthermore, I believe it is legit to point out that none of the companies you just listed are doing this completely on their own and all are requesting some amount of federal funding.  Given that, and how things can happen in DC, and the fact that ISS resupply and utilization is absolutely in the critical path, then having this layer of "redundancy" is a strategically smart move.  That said, the light you are trying to place SLS in with respect to its possible existance is not completely accurate.