Author Topic: LIVE: Full Committee Hearing - A Review of NASA's Space Launch System  (Read 475718 times)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
1) as I said earlier, if SLS goes away it is very unlikely that NASA will get to keep the money.  So even if it never gets used, it's a wash.  At least.  More likely it's shielding NASA from even worse cuts.
As has been observed by others, it looks a lot like the only funding SLS protects is SLS funding. Other programs get far deeper cuts in the proposed budget.

Isn't that more or less what I just said, except from a different perspective?

Look at it this way.  Even if SLS only protects SLS funding, as you say, if it goes away that funding is lost.  So nothing else benefits if SLS is cancelled.

In other words, NASA can effectively get an HLV for free.  And operate it for free too, if the ops budget plays in Congress the same way the dev budget does...

If I'm right about the cuts elsewhere being even worse without SLS running interference, then the HLV is a positive benefit to everything else NASA does, even if it's never used.

Suboptimal?  Definitely.  So is democracy.  Got a better idea?

Quote
(Not to mention you've conveniently ignored the BA-2100 in your 'no payloads' argument; everyone does that for some reason.)
I can't speak for anyone else, but I didn't ignore it. I concluded equivalent habitable volume could be provided by assembling smaller modules.

That's the sort of thinking I'm arguing against. If you decide you need HLV because it would take ~6 EELV launches or ~3 FH launches, what probably happens is that you get no station. You might not even get HLV.

I didn't want to lean too much on the commercial argument because I don't think it's necessary, but frankly the only reason the BA-2100 concept has been developed as far as it has is because Bigelow Aerospace doesn't rely on congressional largesse. That's also why they can get away with proposing a lunar architecture that doesn't need HLV.

...so you think the BA-2100 is a shining example of commercial operating without government restraints, and that it's a bloated white elephant that should be replaced with clustered Sundancers and BA-330s?

All I'm saying is that it constitutes a proposed payload that's too large for anything but SLS.  It is therefore erroneous to claim that there are no payloads but Orion.  (You also ignored the proposed Orion+DHCUS cislunar stack, judging by the comment about EELVs being sufficient...)

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
You answered incorrectly.  You went on about numbers from OMB.  She asked for the technical details of the decision that the NASA Administrator made and one Congress should have a right to know given the whole "transparent government" that this administration claims and that pesky balance-of-powers thing in the Constitution. 
Again, I was answering the question as it related to the Office of Management and Budget. It is not OMB's purpose or place to release technical details of this decision, that's NASA's territory. Even if it were, the Senator has no authority to compel the OMB to do anything on her own; the Congress as a whole in fact has little to say about the OMB beyond confirmation of it's Director.

Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. OMB was created through an  Executive Order by Nixon, but it was an iteration of the Budget Bureau, which was established within the Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Congress actually has the power to legislate OMB out of existence, or restrict any appropriated funds from being used to support its functions. Obviously, no one is suggesting that, but the point is, the Congress DOES have that power. Sort of like the fact that Congress CREATED NASA, and has the "power" to make it disappear.
That would be political suicide for them, so then they could claim the title of “destroying spaceflight” That I fear would be an empty threat.
Regards
Robert
P.S. Thanks always for all the hard work and information :)

Correct, it likely would be political suicide; but that wasn't my point, which was sort of why I put the quotes around "power": Just to underscore they "could."

Too many folks seem to think that NASA is an "entitlement" and a repository, along with the rest of the federal bureaucracy, of "eternal life." I just like to occasionally throw out a reminder that it "ain't necessarily so." As to how empty a threat it might be, I hope a VERY empty one, myself (since I was only raising it as a hypothetical), but in this day and age I wouldn't bet the farm on anything being a certainty.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison calls for immediate public release of the SLS decision. Presser release today, 7/13/2011.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today called for immediate action by the Administration and the Office of Management and Budget on approval of NASA's heavy lift vehicle. The Senator's statement follows:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=667


Somehow I knew Senator Hutchison would do something.  Thumbs up for you!

2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
You answered incorrectly.  You went on about numbers from OMB.  She asked for the technical details of the decision that the NASA Administrator made and one Congress should have a right to know given the whole "transparent government" that this administration claims and that pesky balance-of-powers thing in the Constitution. 
Again, I was answering the question as it related to the Office of Management and Budget. It is not OMB's purpose or place to release technical details of this decision, that's NASA's territory. Even if it were, the Senator has no authority to compel the OMB to do anything on her own; the Congress as a whole in fact has little to say about the OMB beyond confirmation of it's Director.

Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. OMB was created through an  Executive Order by Nixon, but it was an iteration of the Budget Bureau, which was established within the Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Congress actually has the power to legislate OMB out of existence, or restrict any appropriated funds from being used to support its functions. Obviously, no one is suggesting that, but the point is, the Congress DOES have that power. Sort of like the fact that Congress CREATED NASA, and has the "power" to make it disappear.
That would be political suicide for them, so then they could claim the title of “destroying spaceflight” That I fear would be an empty threat.
Regards
Robert
P.S. Thanks always for all the hard work and information :)

Correct, it likely would be political suicide; but that wasn't my point, which was sort of why I put the quotes around "power": Just to underscore they "could."

Too many folks seem to think that NASA is an "entitlement" and a repository, along with the rest of the federal bureaucracy, of "eternal life." I just like to occasionally throw out a reminder that it "ain't necessarily so." As to how empty a threat it might be, I hope a VERY empty one, myself (since I was only raising it as a hypothetical), but in this day and age I wouldn't bet the farm on anything being a certainty.
Yes, we are living in interesting times! It would be a sad thing for an agency that inspired me on my path in life from the first Mercury flight right up STS-135. I think most would agree that my NASA is not today’s NASA… But same can be said of the nation as a whole regretfully…
Regards
Robert
NASA 2.0 … why not?
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Ah, now here comes the Senate! (I do make myself laugh as what do I know about the meaning of that :D)

So for those that do. When a Senator says that, does NASA and OMB, panic, laugh, or say "meh!"?
"Ranking member" means she's the most senior member of the minority party on the committee. She doesn't get to set the agenda, the committee chairman (a Demoncrat) does. Also she's retiring at the end of her term so she's essentially a lame duck.

So how does NASA and the OMB respond to that? They work for the President, not for Congress. If he doesn't want to release the report just yet..... then the report doesn't get released. She can bluster all she wants but the administration will just ignore her.

Perfect..Wonder if the good Senator would like to replace Bolden. 

btw: you underestimate what a Senator can do.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
You answered incorrectly.  You went on about numbers from OMB.  She asked for the technical details of the decision that the NASA Administrator made and one Congress should have a right to know given the whole "transparent government" that this administration claims and that pesky balance-of-powers thing in the Constitution. 
Again, I was answering the question as it related to the Office of Management and Budget. It is not OMB's purpose or place to release technical details of this decision, that's NASA's territory. Even if it were, the Senator has no authority to compel the OMB to do anything on her own; the Congress as a whole in fact has little to say about the OMB beyond confirmation of it's Director.

Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. OMB was created through an  Executive Order by Nixon, but it was an iteration of the Budget Bureau, which was established within the Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Congress actually has the power to legislate OMB out of existence, or restrict any appropriated funds from being used to support its functions. Obviously, no one is suggesting that, but the point is, the Congress DOES have that power. Sort of like the fact that Congress CREATED NASA, and has the "power" to make it disappear.
That would be political suicide for them, so then they could claim the title of “destroying spaceflight” That I fear would be an empty threat.
Regards
Robert
P.S. Thanks always for all the hard work and information :)

Correct, it likely would be political suicide; but that wasn't my point, which was sort of why I put the quotes around "power": Just to underscore they "could."

Too many folks seem to think that NASA is an "entitlement" and a repository, along with the rest of the federal bureaucracy, of "eternal life." I just like to occasionally throw out a reminder that it "ain't necessarily so." As to how empty a threat it might be, I hope a VERY empty one, myself (since I was only raising it as a hypothetical), but in this day and age I wouldn't bet the farm on anything being a certainty.
Yes, we are living in interesting times! It would be a sad thing for an agency that inspired me on my path in life from the first Mercury flight right up STS-135. I think most would agree that my NASA is not today’s NASA… But same can be said of the nation as a whole regretfully…
Regards
Robert
NASA 2.0 … why not?


Has it ever been suggested that the various directorates be separated out into their own agencies? Just asking, so that the funding priorities are more clearly defined? So perhaps not dissolve NASA but instead shave of the HSFP into it's own agency and put a new head over it under congressional purview.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Those are good points. But one argument in favour of an HLLV is that it requires a lot less flights to get to Mars. If I remember correctly, the number of EELV flights (with propellant depots) that was required to get to Mars was several hundreds.
And that's actually a good thing. A high launch rate is essential to there ever being an economically viable reusable launch vehicle.

I don't remember which document said this but I believe that something like 600 EELV flights would be required to get to Mars...

Sorry yg, your posts are usually really informative, but that 600 flights number just sounds completely bogus.  Even if you pick the smallest EELV, that's 6000mT in LEO.  That would take almost 50x 130mT SDHLV launches, or at least 4 years worth of SDHLV launches even using the most optimistic DIRECT numbers, and a budget to match them. If that was what it took to make it to Mars, we should just flat out give up hope right now.

Fortunately, it's not. If you take an approach like what Jeff Greason was proposing (the planet-hopping strategy of setting up ISRU infrastructure on the Moon and Phobos/Deimos first), the amount you need to launch from LEO for any Mars mission from there drops precipitously.  Quite frankly, unless NASA gets a 2x budget increase, I think an indirect, planet-hopping depot-centric architecture is likely going to get people on Mars sooner (and a lot more sustainably, and with a lot more on-the-ground capability) than the more direct SDHLV route.

~Jon

I can't find any documents where the number of flights was detailed for Mars. The only document that I found was the August 2010 HEFT document on L2 which mentionned 15 flights for a NEO asuming that a 28mt EELV was built. So my number was indeed bogus... Sorry for the confusion that I may have caused.  I should have checked before posting that.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 02:07 am by yg1968 »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
You answered incorrectly.  You went on about numbers from OMB.  She asked for the technical details of the decision that the NASA Administrator made and one Congress should have a right to know given the whole "transparent government" that this administration claims and that pesky balance-of-powers thing in the Constitution. 
Again, I was answering the question as it related to the Office of Management and Budget. It is not OMB's purpose or place to release technical details of this decision, that's NASA's territory. Even if it were, the Senator has no authority to compel the OMB to do anything on her own; the Congress as a whole in fact has little to say about the OMB beyond confirmation of it's Director.

Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. OMB was created through an  Executive Order by Nixon, but it was an iteration of the Budget Bureau, which was established within the Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Congress actually has the power to legislate OMB out of existence, or restrict any appropriated funds from being used to support its functions. Obviously, no one is suggesting that, but the point is, the Congress DOES have that power. Sort of like the fact that Congress CREATED NASA, and has the "power" to make it disappear.
That would be political suicide for them, so then they could claim the title of “destroying spaceflight” That I fear would be an empty threat.
Regards
Robert
P.S. Thanks always for all the hard work and information :)

Correct, it likely would be political suicide; but that wasn't my point, which was sort of why I put the quotes around "power": Just to underscore they "could."

Too many folks seem to think that NASA is an "entitlement" and a repository, along with the rest of the federal bureaucracy, of "eternal life." I just like to occasionally throw out a reminder that it "ain't necessarily so." As to how empty a threat it might be, I hope a VERY empty one, myself (since I was only raising it as a hypothetical), but in this day and age I wouldn't bet the farm on anything being a certainty.
Yes, we are living in interesting times! It would be a sad thing for an agency that inspired me on my path in life from the first Mercury flight right up STS-135. I think most would agree that my NASA is not today’s NASA… But same can be said of the nation as a whole regretfully…
Regards
Robert
NASA 2.0 … why not?


Has it ever been suggested that the various directorates be separated out into their own agencies? Just asking, so that the funding priorities are more clearly defined? So perhaps not dissolve NASA but instead shave of the HSFP into it's own agency and put a new head over it under congressional purview.

Actually, it has been discussed at different times over the years, including the not too distant past. Usually it's in the vein of breaking aeronautics research out--removing the first "A" in "NASA"--as a means of "protecting" that Directorate--which is heavily research and technology-oriented--from being "raided" by the generally more costly program management directorates like SOMD, ESMD and SMD. Then it ends up drawing in a discussion of whether it should be sent to FAA or Department of Commerce, or some other area, and pretty soon it gets dropped or put on the back burner for another day. Recently, there have also been suggestions of reworking the structure to put all pure science and research or technology into one organizational bin and all flight/operations programs into another. But you always get the issues of the ten NASA Centers and how to keep them "healthy" with diversified tasking, etc., so they don't ebb and flow with work as priorities shift from one program to another, etc., and it all gets too complicated to provide a clear solution.

But read sections 1102 and 1103 of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (inserted below) and you can see where some thought has been given to laying the groundwork for considering organizational, managerial, even structural changes. It's not quite a "BRAC"-type effort, but could conceivably lead in that direction. (BRAC="Base Realignment and Closure" process, whereby an independent entity is tasked to recommend consolidations, relocation, closures, etc. of military bases and operations.)

"SEC. 1102. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS STUDY. Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a comprehensive study that, taking into account the long term direction provided by this Act, carefully examines NASA’s structure, organization, and institutional assets and identifies a strategy to evolve toward the most efficient retention, sizing, and distribution of facilities, laboratories, test capabilities, and other infrastructure consistent with NASA’s missions and mandates. The Administrator should pay particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative infrastructure. The Administrator should include in the study a suggested reconfiguration and reinvestment strategy that would conform the needed equipment, facilities, test equipment, and related organizational alignment that would best meet the requirements of missions and priorities authorized and directed by this Act. As part of this strategy, the Administrator should include consideration and application of the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council report,
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, prepared in response to section 1003 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17812)."

"SEC. 1103. NASA CAPABILITIES STUDY REQUIREMENT. Upon completion of the study required by Section 1102, the Administrator shall establish an independent panel to examine alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and related facilities in order to improve efficiency and productivity, while nonetheless maintaining core Federal competencies and
keeping appropriately governmental functions internal to NASA. The study shall include a recommended implementation strategy, which shall identify any additional legislative authorities necessary to enable implementation of the recommended strategy, including recommended actions to provide aid and assistance to eligible communities to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed strategy. The Administrator shall provide the results of this study to the appropriate committees of Congress within 1 year after the date on which the study is begun."
 
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 102
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison calls for immediate public release of the SLS decision. Presser release today, 7/13/2011.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), Ranking Member on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, today called for immediate action by the Administration and the Office of Management and Budget on approval of NASA's heavy lift vehicle. The Senator's statement follows:

http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=667


Somehow I knew Senator Hutchison would do something.  Thumbs up for you!



Thanks Prober. I was glad to spot it and to share it with the NSF community.
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
But read sections 1102 and 1103 of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (inserted below) and you can see where some thought has been given to laying the groundwork for considering organizational, managerial, even structural changes. It's not quite a "BRAC"-type effort, but could conceivably lead in that direction. (BRAC="Base Realignment and Closure" process, whereby an independent entity is tasked to recommend consolidations, relocation, closures, etc. of military bases and operations.)

"SEC. 1102. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS STUDY. Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a comprehensive study that, taking into account the long term direction provided by this Act, carefully examines NASA’s structure, organization, and institutional assets and identifies a strategy to evolve toward the most efficient retention, sizing, and distribution of facilities, laboratories, test capabilities, and other infrastructure consistent with NASA’s missions and mandates. The Administrator should pay particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative infrastructure. The Administrator should include in the study a suggested reconfiguration and reinvestment strategy that would conform the needed equipment, facilities, test equipment, and related organizational alignment that would best meet the requirements of missions and priorities authorized and directed by this Act. As part of this strategy, the Administrator should include consideration and application of the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council report,
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, prepared in response to section 1003 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17812)."

"SEC. 1103. NASA CAPABILITIES STUDY REQUIREMENT. Upon completion of the study required by Section 1102, the Administrator shall establish an independent panel to examine alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and related facilities in order to improve efficiency and productivity, while nonetheless maintaining core Federal competencies and
keeping appropriately governmental functions internal to NASA. The study shall include a recommended implementation strategy, which shall identify any additional legislative authorities necessary to enable implementation of the recommended strategy, including recommended actions to provide aid and assistance to eligible communities to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed strategy. The Administrator shall provide the results of this study to the appropriate committees of Congress within 1 year after the date on which the study is begun."
 

I had somehow glossed over that until now, thank you. That's quite intriguing.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Alpha Control

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1236
  • Washington, DC
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 102
You answered incorrectly.  You went on about numbers from OMB.  She asked for the technical details of the decision that the NASA Administrator made and one Congress should have a right to know given the whole "transparent government" that this administration claims and that pesky balance-of-powers thing in the Constitution. 
Again, I was answering the question as it related to the Office of Management and Budget. It is not OMB's purpose or place to release technical details of this decision, that's NASA's territory. Even if it were, the Senator has no authority to compel the OMB to do anything on her own; the Congress as a whole in fact has little to say about the OMB beyond confirmation of it's Director.

Well, technically, that's not necessarily true. OMB was created through an  Executive Order by Nixon, but it was an iteration of the Budget Bureau, which was established within the Department of the Treasury by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Congress actually has the power to legislate OMB out of existence, or restrict any appropriated funds from being used to support its functions. Obviously, no one is suggesting that, but the point is, the Congress DOES have that power. Sort of like the fact that Congress CREATED NASA, and has the "power" to make it disappear.
That would be political suicide for them, so then they could claim the title of “destroying spaceflight” That I fear would be an empty threat.
Regards
Robert
P.S. Thanks always for all the hard work and information :)

Correct, it likely would be political suicide; but that wasn't my point, which was sort of why I put the quotes around "power": Just to underscore they "could."

Too many folks seem to think that NASA is an "entitlement" and a repository, along with the rest of the federal bureaucracy, of "eternal life." I just like to occasionally throw out a reminder that it "ain't necessarily so." As to how empty a threat it might be, I hope a VERY empty one, myself (since I was only raising it as a hypothetical), but in this day and age I wouldn't bet the farm on anything being a certainty.
Yes, we are living in interesting times! It would be a sad thing for an agency that inspired me on my path in life from the first Mercury flight right up STS-135. I think most would agree that my NASA is not today’s NASA… But same can be said of the nation as a whole regretfully…
Regards
Robert
NASA 2.0 … why not?


Has it ever been suggested that the various directorates be separated out into their own agencies? Just asking, so that the funding priorities are more clearly defined? So perhaps not dissolve NASA but instead shave of the HSFP into it's own agency and put a new head over it under congressional purview.

Actually, it has been discussed at different times over the years, including the not too distant past. Usually it's in the vein of breaking aeronautics research out--removing the first "A" in "NASA"--as a means of "protecting" that Directorate--which is heavily research and technology-oriented--from being "raided" by the generally more costly program management directorates like SOMD, ESMD and SMD. Then it ends up drawing in a discussion of whether it should be sent to FAA or Department of Commerce, or some other area, and pretty soon it gets dropped or put on the back burner for another day. Recently, there have also been suggestions of reworking the structure to put all pure science and research or technology into one organizational bin and all flight/operations programs into another. But you always get the issues of the ten NASA Centers and how to keep them "healthy" with diversified tasking, etc., so they don't ebb and flow with work as priorities shift from one program to another, etc., and it all gets too complicated to provide a clear solution.

But read sections 1102 and 1103 of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act (inserted below) and you can see where some thought has been given to laying the groundwork for considering organizational, managerial, even structural changes. It's not quite a "BRAC"-type effort, but could conceivably lead in that direction. (BRAC="Base Realignment and Closure" process, whereby an independent entity is tasked to recommend consolidations, relocation, closures, etc. of military bases and operations.)

"SEC. 1102. INSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS STUDY. Within 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall provide to the appropriate committees of Congress a comprehensive study that, taking into account the long term direction provided by this Act, carefully examines NASA’s structure, organization, and institutional assets and identifies a strategy to evolve toward the most efficient retention, sizing, and distribution of facilities, laboratories, test capabilities, and other infrastructure consistent with NASA’s missions and mandates. The Administrator should pay particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative infrastructure. The Administrator should include in the study a suggested reconfiguration and reinvestment strategy that would conform the needed equipment, facilities, test equipment, and related organizational alignment that would best meet the requirements of missions and priorities authorized and directed by this Act. As part of this strategy, the Administrator should include consideration and application of the findings and recommendations of the National Research Council report,
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research, prepared in response to section 1003 of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (42 U.S.C. 17812)."

"SEC. 1103. NASA CAPABILITIES STUDY REQUIREMENT. Upon completion of the study required by Section 1102, the Administrator shall establish an independent panel to examine alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and related facilities in order to improve efficiency and productivity, while nonetheless maintaining core Federal competencies and
keeping appropriately governmental functions internal to NASA. The study shall include a recommended implementation strategy, which shall identify any additional legislative authorities necessary to enable implementation of the recommended strategy, including recommended actions to provide aid and assistance to eligible communities to mitigate adverse impacts resulting from implementation of the proposed strategy. The Administrator shall provide the results of this study to the appropriate committees of Congress within 1 year after the date on which the study is begun."
 

That was very illuminating, 51D. Thank you for posting that portion of the 2010 NASA Authorization act. I didn't focus on those sections upon first reading.

For a long time I have thought that NASA's earth science efforts ought to be transferred to NOAA. It will most interesting to see what develops out of these requirements of the authorization act.

David
Space launches attended:
Antares/Cygnus ORB-D1 Wallops Island, VA Sept 2013 | STS-123 KSC, FL March 2008 | SpaceShipOne Mojave, CA June 2004

Offline marsavian

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

Those are good points. But one argument in favour of an HLLV is that it requires a lot less flights to get to Mars. If I remember correctly, the number of EELV flights (with propellant depots) that was required to get to Mars was several hundreds.

Only if you think high flight rates are a bad thing.  High flight rates allow you to achieve economies of scale like mass production/operation or reusability.  High flight rates spark an impetus to serve that market which leverages the power of competition to improve the state of space access.  There's a common belief that we are lacking a deus ex machina like the skylon to spark change.  Build that deus ex machina and it will come.  I posit the opposite is true; provide a large market and they will come to serve it, and evolution over time may very well result in your deus ex machina. 

Nor are such high flight rates beyond the realm of feasibility.  The R-7 has flown 1,774 times, and during the early eighties it launched at a rate of 60 a year.  The flight rate goals of the shuttle were met, but they were met by the Soviets. 

And I like to point out that the cost of the SLS could afford such large scale purchases.  The development cost of the SLS at 12 billion could buy 222 Falcon 9 Flights, and at its yearly operational cost of 2billion, 37 a year every year.  That's probably enough for a hypergolic mission to Mars, even before taking into account the development of the Heavy.  How many Mars missions worth of launch will NASA spend in just getting and keeping the SLS operational?

To go to Mars, NASA must thread a needle.  Perhaps that needle lies through the opportunities and advantages above, and not through the deus ex machina that Mars advocates think is the missing link.

and how exactly did the 'cheap' 'high flight rate' Soviet R-7 BEO exploration and space commercialization plan work out, one Lunar flyby in all that time ? $150m for the next one !

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/rockets/just-one-150-million-seat-remains-on-space-adventures-lunar-flyby

Expendable rockets have a base cost measured in tens of millions that no amount of flight rate will be able to reduce. HLVs will open up the whole Solar System eventually, MLVs can follow in their wake providing backup and new markets. Ultimately this is not a zero sum game between the two once the new frontiers start getting opened up with HLVs laying down the heavy duty tonnage to sustain a BEO presence.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 07:05 am by marsavian »

Offline aquanaut99

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1049
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 0
Maybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").

Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.

It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 06:33 am by aquanaut99 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
In reviewing the statements by the Committe hearing and reviewing the posts it caused me to look back on NASA's past and how I thiink we got here... Now I'm simply a fan of NASA and manned space flight in General, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.... :)

To me, NASA's (and this Nation's) great achievements have been the result of having a clearly defined goal and taking the steps necessary to achieve that goal.  There would never have been an Apollo 11 without the decision we made in 1961 to put a man on the Moon.  Most would agree that the driving force behind that decision was the Cold War and resultant 'Space Race' between us and the Soviets. Maybe, that's the reason we are where we are now.  Trying to build a launch vehicle/capsule with no clearly defined destination to send it.
 
You could point the finger at the current administration and say the blame lies with them.  The squabbling between Congress and the White House over budgetary items....or the White House canceling the Moon mission planned by the previous administration. 

The previous administration did set out to send man back to the Moon in the aftermath of the Columbia accident, but it was sketched out financially through 2008 with no clear roadmap to the return to the Moon.  Would that have been different if there was an outside force pushing us?  Cold War?...Competition with a rival Nations?  That was pre-'Great Recession'....

Maybe you could say the Nixon Administration suffered from the repeat Super Bowl Champion syndrome.  After the first couple of trips to the Moon, we got used to it and the question, "Is that all?" I think the reason Apollo 18 didn't happen though was purely financial.  Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, and the Shuttle resulted....all LEO programs.....And what about developing a replacement for the Shuttle in the 90's?...ISS was the focus....

Now that it has been decreed that LEO belongs to Commercial Ventures, maybe NASA needs a mission statement and a defined purpose with clear goals.... and Selling those goals to the public...... "Go to Mars by 2030" ...the steps to achieve that goal Develop the necessary new technologies (space craft..propulsion..etc) to achieve that goal, and test those new technologies in a stepped fashion...a. return to Moon...b. visit Asteroid...c. Visit Mars

Just my two cents...and there's trillions more in that last paragraph. ;)

Hopefully I didn't come across as a Captain Obvious.

Dave S

Yes, we have as much of a goal for NASA as we had in 1961 (when we hadn't even decided on the mission mode or exact launch vehicle, yet): Go to a NEO by 2025, go to Mars by the 2030s, and in the meantime keep doing ISS until at least 2020. You're aware of this, right?
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 marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Maybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").

Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.

It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.

Once ISS is eventually ditched or costs transferred to other entities serious HLV missions can be executed including the Moon and Mars.
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 07:06 am by marsavian »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
Here's a small summary of the Exploration budget. All amounts are in millions of dollars.

                   Authorisation     CR    PBR     HA
                 2011  2012  2013   2011   2012   2012
-------------------------------------------------------
MPCV            $1120 $1400 $1400 $1200.0 $1010.2 $1063
SLS             $1631 $2650 $2640 $1800.0 $1800.0 $1985
Tech. Develop.   $250  $437  $449  $167.4     0.0  $289
Human Research   $155  $165  $175  $103.8  $164.1    $0
COTS             $300    $0    $0  $200.8    $0.0    $0
CCDEV            $312  $500  $500  $269.3  $850.0  $312
Robotic Prec.    $100  $100  $100   $67.0    $0.0    $0
Advanced Explor.   $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $124.4    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Exploration     $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $3948.7 $3649
Explor. Tech. Dev. $0    $0    $0    $0.0  $310.0    $0
-------------------------------------------------------
Total           $3868 $5252 $5264 $3808.3 $4258.7 $3649

CR = Continuing Resolution
PBR = President's Budget Request
HA = House Appropriations

If we assume an Authorisation budget of $2.65B per year for SLS, then from 2012 to 2016 (a period of five years) plus $1.8B for 2011, the total SLS budget is $15.05B. Direct estimated $12.5B for the development of both J-130 and J-246 so that's plenty of money to get the job done on time. With the President's Budget Request of $1.8B for six years, that's $10.8B, which is enough to do J-130 (Direct estimated $8.9B). So I don't understand how the Administrator can claim that it will be the early 2020s before the first crewed flight of SLS.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline madscientist197

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1014
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Sorry, Beb, but you really need to do some more looking into how the US Senate works. In an era where unanimous consent is needed for virtually anything to happen, from confirmation of nominees to adoption of amendments, to passage of key legislation, and where voting majorities are very slender, one Senator of any party can be crucial at some point in time to a President pursuing his own agenda. There really aren't "lame ducks" in the Senate for that very reason. So, while the Administration certainly "Can" simply ignore any single Senator, it would not be in their best interest to do so. In this case I think you can expect some action from the Administration and/or NASA before the end of the week. 

IMHO it's almost the polar opposite of a "lame duck"; the senator has all the power of his/her position, without having to deal with the electoral consequences of his/her actions. In comparison, when a president is a "lame duck" that is because his successor has already been chosen, therefore it is seen as inappropriate for the sitting president to make certain types of decisions without consulting his successor. Very different circumstances.
John

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428

For a long time I have thought that NASA's earth science efforts ought to be transferred to NOAA. It will most interesting to see what develops out of these requirements of the authorization act.

David

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21927.0

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
He didn't say that he wouldn't provide the information. He simply said that he doesn't want the information printed in the NY times.

That is as much as to say he does not want public debate.  This was the fatal flaw of the original Obama FY11 proposal.  A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community.  It was a recipe for disaster then, and it still is.  What we need as a nation isn't to be told the answer, but to be engaged in the discussion!

And here I always thought of it as the secret society of White House political clowns and now we learn it was A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community.  

Live and learn. I do like your use of the word cabal.

We could compromise and say that 'A small cabal of White House clowns continues to do everything they can to illegally delay implementing the legally mandated SLS and Orion. With any luck the law-breaking clowns will someday give daily performances in the prisons they live in.'
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Maybe we should just come away from that unhealthy Mars focus. Ever since Apollo, Mars has always been dangled before us as the "next big thing". Part of the reason CxP failed was because of Griffin's intention to have a rocket big enough to eventually send humans to Mars (hence the name "Ares").

Since we obviously cannot afford a manned Mars mission now nor in the forseeable future, is it really intelligent to base our decision what kind of launch architecture to get (HLV or multiple EELVs) on a manned Mars architecture? I think this is just asking for trouble.

It's time to lower our sights. Mars can wait.

Once ISS is eventually ditched or costs transferred to other entities serious HLV missions can be executed including the Moon and Mars.
I see your point… but we should think twice about throwing away an asset like ISS as a National Lab or destroying the tooling or the knowledge base that created it just like we did with Project Apollo hardware. After all we didn’t close Oak Ridge after we built the Atomic Bomb. As a nation we should not have to reinvent at great expense down the road, we need to think in the long term and not as we all have collective ADD.
Regards
Robert
« Last Edit: 07/14/2011 01:34 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0