Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 710741 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

CSF are happy...........sorta.

Presser:

CSF Lauds Senators Warner, Boxer, Tom Udall, and Brownback for Support of Commercial Spaceflight
NASA Bill Provides Funding for Commercial Crew, But Falls Short of Expert Panel's Vision for Future


Washington, D.C., July 15, 2010 – Following today’s executive session of the Senate Commerce Committee, the President of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Bretton Alexander, stated, “Thanks to Senators Warner, Boxer, Udall, and Brownback, American industry won a victory today.  But this legislation must be improved so that we create more sustainable American jobs, instead of exporting jobs to Russia.  This compromise committee bill represents progress from the original draft, but there is still a long way to go to get to where the Augustine Committee said NASA needs to be.”

“We strongly supported Senator Warner’s proposed amendment to increase funding for, and remove needless restrictions on the development of, commercial crew and cargo.  We greatly appreciate all that Senator Warner did to promote commercial spaceflight and help the United States regain its human spaceflight capability quickly.”  Alexander added, “Senator Boxer’s leadership has also been pivotal in securing improvements to the bill.”

Alexander continued, “The Senate committee’s recognition that commercial systems, not government systems, will be the primary means of crew transportation to the International Space Station represents a milestone for our industry.  Instead of spending money to purchase seats on Russian launch vehicles, the commercial industry will create jobs and critical technological capabilities here in America through investment in commercial spaceflight.  I would also note that Senator Nelson has stated that he intends to fund commercial crew fully over the envisioned six-year timeframe for the program.  Moving forward, a firm Congressional commitment to commercial spaceflight will be critical to enable industry to accelerate its rate of hiring and job creation.”

Alexander also applauded Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, saying, “The Senate Committee also adopted Senator Udall’s amendment specifying funding and support for NASA’s innovative Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research (CRuSR) Program, which will enable university students and researchers to fly science payloads aboard new low-cost commercial suborbital vehicles whose development is well underway.”

During this morning’s markup, Senators Boxer and Warner made several comments supportive of commercial spaceflight.  These quotes can be viewed in the Senate Commerce Committee webcast at 39:00 and 53:50 respectively, and verbatim versions are provided below for reference.


# # #


July 15 Markup: Webcast Quotes from Senators Boxer and Warner

Senator Boxer: “As we move to the floor, I’m going to be teaming up with some colleagues who would like to see a little more done on the commercial side, so we’ll all work together and maybe we can get that done.  We think this is a great area and we know the Committee worked hard to find that balance but we’d like to work a little more on that.” (39:00 into webcast)

Senator Warner: “I wanted to highlight two things as somebody who’s been a large advocate of commercial spaceflight, both from a cargo standpoint and ultimately from a manned standpoint.  I want to thank Senator Nelson and the work of the Chairman and others to make sure that the funding levels moved up from where the draft legislation was.  I know it’s been a challenging process, I know the Administration has been working with us and others as well who are advocates of commercial space, and I think there may be even more room to go, but I think this is a very important good faith-effort.”  (53:50 into webcast)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 987
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 39
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

thank you

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
...

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.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 08:34 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Those of you screaming about "commercial" funding, don't see what you are complaining about is an oxymoron.  You want government money for a "commercial" development.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
Quote
The term “commercial,” for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to existing or potential nongovernmental customers .
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17266
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3064
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

thank you

I suspect that the decision between inline and sidemount is purposely left to NASA. Nelson specifically said that they did not want to get involved in the engineering aspects of it. We will have to wait for the answer to this question.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 08:39 pm by yg1968 »

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

July 15 Markup: Webcast Quotes from Senators Boxer and Warner

Senator Boxer: “As we move to the floor, I’m going to be teaming up with some colleagues who would like to see a little more done on the commercial side, so we’ll all work together and maybe we can get that done.  We think this is a great area and we know the Committee worked hard to find that balance but we’d like to work a little more on that.” (39:00 into webcast)

Senator Warner: “I wanted to highlight two things as somebody who’s been a large advocate of commercial spaceflight, both from a cargo standpoint and ultimately from a manned standpoint.  I want to thank Senator Nelson and the work of the Chairman and others to make sure that the funding levels moved up from where the draft legislation was.  I know it’s been a challenging process, I know the Administration has been working with us and others as well who are advocates of commercial space, and I think there may be even more room to go, but I think this is a very important good faith-effort.”  (53:50 into webcast)

Boy and howdy!
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
...

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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 08:47 pm by Robotbeat »
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 nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Quote
"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)


I thought the Boxer Amendment specifically increased that? 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...

Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason.  9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).

Why?  If SpaceX did if for what they claim in press releases and two rockets already exist and are flight proven, then 1.6 billion essentially allows for many "other SpaceX-types" with some wiggle room to account for variations in company-to-company. 

Again, this does not include whatever factor capital investment is required.
« Last Edit: 07/15/2010 09:06 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?

If by that you mean the JSC document, page 175 of the PDF on L2 lists sidemount IOC as the middle of FY15, while the first Block I inline could be ready by early FY17 (with ET-94 demo flight at the end of FY15; page 178).

JSC management is 100% Side-Mount oriented. They said several things that were designed to enhance the expectations of Side-Mount at the expense of In-Line. Of course they would. It's their baby. The JSC vs. MSFC (Side-Mount vs. In-Line) dynamic is in full swing in that document. Knowing the politics at play, would anyone have expected to see anything different?
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though. Perhaps the issue of whether Orion should be developed as a BEO-only vehicle is still in discussion? That'd also explain where the money to pay for the amendments is coming from, since the budget top-line is being kept the same.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)

Quote
"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)


I thought the Boxer Amendment specifically increased that? 

That was for exploration & space technology, which actually curiously still seems to be at the same level as in the earlier draft (at least according to Shelby).
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
It'll be important to watch if Shelby, using his position on the Appropriations Committee, plays any funding games again, like last year when he had CCDev funding cut from $150m to $50m.

Nelson and Hutchison several times emphasized that they wrote this in concert with Shelby and Mulkowski, and they don't expect much changes from Appropriations (or the White House, for that matter).

Of the 4 names, Shelby is by far the most powerful and full-on undisputed king of Appropriations. His state is Alabama, home to MSFC, which intensely favors the In-Line over the Side-Mount. Any takers on how this will play out? Read the tea leaves.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Well, I'm glad Warner is going to continue the fight for more commercial funding.    I'm less optimistic about the tech budget.

If commercial advocates in the Senate are smart, they'll be talking up the gap and russian price gouging every chance they get.

Offline rjholling

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Well, I agree that $1.6 billion is enough for a single commercial crew provider, more (if spent on more providers, not just squandered on a single one) could allow multiple providers to be available faster. I'd be much happier with the $3.3 billion and think it could allow multiple providers by 2015, but there will eventually be multiple commercial crew providers either way (though it may take a lot longer, like 2020).
So  would I.

As a taxpayer, shelling out 9+B and watching Ares I-X was a very painful experience. I do not hold JSC or MSFC in high regard - more desire a tight leash with a choke chain on the end ...

Then you should probably keep your facts straight too if you're going to bash thousands of people for no reason.  9+ billion was not just for Ares 1-X.
I think what he is saying is that there should be greater accountability with the way funds are spent.  While Ares I didn't account for the whole $9 billion, it sure as heck tied up Orion forcing numerous redesigns that forced it over budget and its performance to lack what it was envisioned as.  Certainly this is not the fault of the vast majority of people who work at those centers but rather people who pushed their favorite design over serious misgivings by a lot of people who said Ares I was a poor architecture.  There should be greater transparency in reporting what goes on at NASA to Congress, or really any government agency for that matter to see that funds are not wasted.

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7347
  • Likes Given: 3749
I also just noticed that none of the released statements (from Sens. Rockefeller, Nelson, Hutchison, and Shelby) actually explicitly mention Orion.  Hutchison and Nelson do mention a "crew capsule for exploration", though.

Didn't have to. It's mentioned in the draft, Section 303:
The Administrator shall pursue the development of a multi-purpose crew vehicle to be available as soon as practicable, and no later than for use with the Space Launch System. The vehicle shall be based on designs and materials developed in the Orion project.

Orion as we know it will be morphed back into what it was originally intended for.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Chris Bergin

CSE happy:

Coalition Commends Committee’s Passage of NASA Plan

HOUSTON – The Coalition for Space Exploration (Coalition) commends the action taken today by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation to authorize a nonpartisan spending plan for NASA.

The legislation is an important, positive measure for our nation’s space exploration program that demonstrates fiscal responsibility, maximizes goals of the program and offers commitment to current workforce resources.

The Coalition applauds the committee for acknowledging the strong support of the American people for a robust space exploration program, and for providing the needed leadership to ensure a balanced approach to meeting our nation’s goals in space.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Tags:
 

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