Quote from: Pheogh on 07/15/2010 07:55 pmI'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).
I'm sorry, where does it say that in the document?
...
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.
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 .
Quote from: simonbp on 07/15/2010 08:22 pmQuote from: Pheogh on 07/15/2010 07:55 pmI'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
July 15 Markup: Webcast Quotes from Senators Boxer and WarnerSenator 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)
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.
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).
Robotic exploration precursor missions: 44+100+100= $244M (WH proposed $1.33B)
"Over 3 years, the legislation provides $244 million for Robotic Precursor Missions. " (same as earlier draft, WH $1.33B)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, 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 ...
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:19 pmRobotic 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?
Quote from: neilh on 07/15/2010 08:07 pmIt'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).
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.
Quote from: nooneofconsequence on 07/15/2010 08:53 pmQuote from: Robotbeat on 07/15/2010 08:45 pmWell, 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 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.