but there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it.
...wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides ~Jon
Any confirmation yet of White House backing of this bill?
“While we are still in the process of reviewing the details of the draft, the bill appears to contain the critical elements necessary for achieving the President’s vision for NASA and represents an important first step towards helping us achieve the key goals the President has laid out,” the administration official said in a July 15 statement. “We look forward to continuing to work with Congress to help advance an ambitious and achievable space program — one that helps us blaze a new trail of innovation and discovery.”
Quote from: simonbp on 07/15/2010 10:37 pmbut there's no way inline would be ready before sidemount, there's just too much new stuff on it. You don't understand what Side-Mount really is then. That "thing" they hang on the side of the ET is not just a huge cargo canister. It's an entire rocket all it's own that has to be developed from scratch. There is no way in hell that can be deployed faster than the inline. Put propellant tanks inside the cargo bay and it flies without the ET. It's not a cargo carrier. It's a bloody great rocket with an internal cargo bay.
You don't understand what Side-Mount really is then. That "thing" they hang on the side of the ET is not just a huge cargo canister. It's an entire rocket all it's own that has to be developed from scratch. There is no way in hell that can be deployed faster than the inline. Put propellant tanks inside the cargo bay and it flies without the ET. It's not a cargo carrier. It's a bloody great rocket with an internal cargo bay.
Quote from: jongoff on 07/15/2010 10:51 pm...wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides It wasn't the *program* that spent the money. It was Mike Griffin and his hand-picked crowd pursuing the Griffin vision while totally, and it seemed at times, deliberately blind to reality. They are gone now, thank God!
...wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides
Quote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:41 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:33 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm...I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.I don't disagree with your preamble. No one should. That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient. SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K. As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta. Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient. I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success? I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit? If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. ~Jon
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:33 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm...I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.I don't disagree with your preamble. No one should. That doesn't mean you have to abandon everything to achieve it. 1.6 billion, or there abouts, for what the hard-corp advocates have compared to Gemini, should be sufficient. SpaceX claims they did everything for less than the Ares 1 tower, approximately 500K. As folks also like to point out, some of the rockets already exist and are flight proven, meaning Atlas and Delta. Therefore, when factoring some amount of capital investment, 1.6 billion seems sufficient.
Quote from: OV-106 on 07/15/2010 08:22 pm...I'm a tax-payer, I have no horse in this race other than seeing the best return on investment for my money.I have been a part of many bids for computer equipment for the government, and I can't tell you how many times "favored" companies were chosen which cost multiple times more for the same or less capability, sometimes in the name of a single feature "check-box" (ignoring the more important features not included) but usually for no real reason. There were other competitors with similar price-points and features and quality as our systems, but they weren't chosen either. This is just one more example of the government not making a decision based on price/performance.Is the idea that there should be a decision based on price/performance so outrageous that I have to be characterized as demanding "all the money"? Besides, I don't work for the government, the government works for me (as a tax-payer), so it's partly my money! The money belongs to the tax-payers, not to the government workers or the government contractors. I'm allowed to have an opinion on how it's spent, and I don't have to be happy when I think it's not being spent wisely.SpaceX is great, but there are many other contenders out there. If a robust commercial system is to exist, there needs to be more than one.
...
I'm just curious why you think it's a good idea to be rewarding failure and punishing success? I mean, if you were a neutral party looking at this, wouldn't you think that the program that spent $10B and didn't produce much more than powerpoint slides should maybe possibly be treated less favorably than the company that spent less than $500M and put a vehicle all the way into orbit? If this situation existed in some other government agency's domain, would you act the same way?Me, I try to reward what I want to see more of. ~Jon
Thank you Chris Bergin. Great job. Without you... No, I'm not even going think about it!Cheers and More Cheers!
Quote from: clongton on 07/15/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:48 pm... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable. I guess here's my question. One of OV's and 51D's chief complaints about FY11 was that it left the station in the lurch. This does almost *nothing* to change the situation (other than a single token extra shuttle flight), but now they're happy. Why was "relying on commercial crew" then so unacceptable, but now, when the government doesn't really have any better backup options than before, it's now acceptable? If they honestly were so worried about the fate of ISS before, I don't see how this new budget actually alleviates any of those concerns. Which makes me doubt the sincerity of their concerns, even though I have a lot of respect for them as individuals.QuoteIt's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.Bingo. They're doing the same thing they accused FY11 of, just swap out "flagship technologies" for HLV/BEO spacecraft development. ~Jon
Quote from: jongoff on 07/15/2010 03:48 pm... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. In addition to the ESA & JAXA modules, both EELV's have the capability to provide material support to ISS, at least excepting "the last mile". But that is solvable.
... so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup.
It's the lack of a firm plan for the HLV that makes me nervous. What's it going to be used for? There are great possibilities, both good and bad, and without a plan or mission, it's too easy for extrordinary waste to set in at the cost of other more worthy efforts. I want the HLV, I really, really do, but I want it knowing how it's supposed to be used.
Note to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 06:09 pmQuote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:31 pmHere is Senator Hutchison's statement:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010Nelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pmQuote from: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:31 pmHere is Senator Hutchison's statement:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010Nelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 03:31 pmHere is Senator Hutchison's statement:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010Nelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&
Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010
Quote from: Danderman on 07/16/2010 12:38 amNote to everyone: this is the Senate Authorization language, the House must agree, or there's no Authorization. Also, even if this is enacted into law, the people who write the checks, the Appropriations folks, must also agree - and its sure that they won't. Authorization's job is to make people happy, Appropriations' job is to get things actually running.Nelson said the appropriators were also on board on this. Mikulski and Shelby were both supportive.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/15/2010 07:58 pmQuote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 06:09 pmQuote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pmNelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill. It just occurred to me that Nelson is possibly including the extra COTS money in his $1.6B total. So commercial crew might be less than $1.6B.
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 06:09 pmQuote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pmNelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9According to Nelson's statement, $1.6B will be going to commercial crew development. So it's a bit more than in the July 13th proposed bill.
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 05:25 pmNelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&I don't think anybody posted it yet, but here's Chairman Rockefeller's opening statement and summary of "key elements" of the bill:http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=4ae69fe8-581d-4d10-85b0-5b15643680b9
Nelson's statement:http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/details.cfm?id=326398&