Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 710853 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
For fy 2011:

$1,631,000,000 shall be for Space
18 Launch System and associated program and
19 other necessary support;


Over 5 years to 2016 thats: 8 billion, right on DIRECT's numbers ;) ;)
The first year (FY2011) it's $1.631 billion but FY2012 and FY2013 are around $2.6 billion, according to the new Senate draft. Over four years at $2.6 and one at $1.631 billion, that's a total of $12 billion.
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
The case still needs to be made though....

We seriously underfund NASA!

A half a penny of federal discretionary spending dollar?
A tiny tiny portion of the federal budget?

http://www.federalbudget.com/chart.gif

Given the tiny amount spent compared to the tens of billions or more congress will authorize in a hearbeat, even during these economic times, it's amazing that there is so much time and argument spent about NASA in Congress.

They could eliminate the NASA budget entirely and it wouldn't change a thing in the big federal spending picture. And that argument goes for doubling the NASA budget too!

Yet NASA assures so much for this nations future, and humanity.

There are those that accept underfunding as a fact of life, that it will never change.

That has been a big mistake in my view.

We do not make our wheels squeek as well as others that get far more funding for questionable returns to the nation.

That needs to change.


You just don't get it.  NASA is not going to get the blank check of the 60's.   NASA did it job and helped win the Cold War.   It is not going to be funded for more than 20 billion per year, nor should it.  NASA can do its charter with that amount of money. There is no national need for it to have anymore.
NASA is not about lunar settlements. It is about supporting the USA directly.  It does the USA no good to establish colonies in space or on the moon.  They eventually will want to be self determined and therefore no use to the USA.
Space exploitation is better left to NGO's. 
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 12:10 am by Jim »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.
JRF

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.
That's not the only discrepancy. In some cases, the sum of the parts is greater than the amount allotted for that category.

The only errors greater than $100,000 are in the old draft. Here are two examples in the old draft where the sum of the parts is greater than the amount allotted:


*FY2012 Aeronautics under is listed as $934.7 million, but the sum of the parts is $1034 million.

*Likewise, in FY2013, the Exploration budget parts add up to $5278.6 million, but is only allocated a total of $5028.6 million, a difference of $250 million.

There are smaller errors in the new draft (I caught one), which is disconcerting since it shows a sort of sloppiness even a draft which is supposed to be "reported." A similar error is in the Obama version, but at least Obama's February 1st bill doesn't purport to have 10 digits of accuracy like the bill drafts. Anyways, it doesn't inspire confidence in my leaders.  ;)
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 12:51 am 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 FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
For fy 2011:

$1,631,000,000 shall be for Space
18 Launch System and associated program and
19 other necessary support;


But for 2012 (i guess as contracts are awarded and paid for CCDEV)"

$2,650,000,000 shall be for Space
2 Launch System and associated program and
3 other necessary support;


hmm........

2013:
first off fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000

Thats almost 20 billion. Thats alot of bucks. ALOT.

second of all:

$2,640,000,000 shall be for Space
7 Launch System and associated program and
8 other necessary support;



It should be noteworthy that for 2012 and 2013, 1.4 billion are marked for "new orion" with 1.16 in fy2011.


Pretty good IMHO, all tho 2.64 for 2 years seems excessive (sidemount estimates caused this number?) its not overkill. Plenty of money remains for CCDEV and new tech, especially after the CCDEV and CCT contracts are awarded and the check's written.

In other words as CCDEV winds down and CCT begins, SDHLV winds up while "new orion" finishes out to completion.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Still, Robot is correct overall HLV numbers are about 12 billion. While thats not enough for Ares 1 or 5 (or ethier 1 on its own) they are enough for:

DIRECT (too much actually)
 Sidmount (closer)

the "SH" models that use 5 seg with tank stretch (very close, still on the high end)

The "SH" models that use 5 seg strecth AND j2x (about right)



However, none of this would be sufficent for an r68 based HLV, a 10 meter core HLV, or more than 1 additional ares 1 flight, with an HLV to follow

Therefore: Ares 1/5 POR are both dead per this legislation

But the final bill will depend on the version reconciled with the house, where some ares huggers yet remain.

Bottom Line: I don't see any way for a core that does not use rs25e, which is good because this is by far the cheapest option. But due to the House bill, Ares isn't dead yet :(
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Senators and their staff cannot count. I compared the original February 1st budget with the old and the new Senate drafts. Here is the results:

51D Mascot can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the reason for the apparent discrepancies is that Authorization bills don't have to list *every* subcategory under a category.

You are correct, Jorge, as can be seen in the bill, it doesn't drive down to the details and so you end up with rounding errors, which are considered "minimal and normal" in authorization bills, and are addressed in appropriations where they often drill down pretty deeply in specifics below the account and sub-account level generally not done in authorization.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Okay, yes. For the new draft on page 14:
Quote
(4) For Aeronautics, $1,070,600,000, of which—
(A) $584,700,000 shall be for Aeronautics
Research; and
(B) $486,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

A difference of $100,000.

584.7+486=1070.7, not 1070.6

Finally, a chance to make a difference! ;)

The old draft had considerable differences. Obviously, $100,000 isn't much in the total budget. Rounding error, for sure. But... can it be a rounding error in my favor? ;)
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 01:20 am 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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
I've been noticing some glaring errors (i.e. numbers don't all add up) in the old version of the bill, and one or two in the new version of the Senate bill. Seriously, can anyone read or add anymore?

Apparently not, hehe, even with seven pairs of eyes and a couple of Excel spreadsheets doing the arithmetic. If you can point to specific items in the version released on the website today, please PM me and I can pass them on to be sure they can be addressed before the bill is considered by the Senate.
Okay, yes. For the new draft on page 14:
Quote
(4) For Aeronautics, $1,070,600,000, of which—
(A) $584,700,000 shall be for Aeronautics
Research; and
(B) $486,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

A difference of $100,000.

584.7+486=1070.7, not 1070.6

Finally, a chance to make a difference! ;)

The old draft had considerable differences. Obviously, $100,000 isn't much in the total budget. Rounding error, for sure. But... can it be a rounding error in my favor? ;)

EDIT: Oops, this is supposed to be a PM.
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 rjholling

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Sure, payloads & technology demonstrators.
But we are still too far away to afford actually 'building' one at this point. And there really isn't any rush. In fact, I would counter that as soon as you 'land' on the moon again, you would face some criticism in certain circles that "we've done it again, let's fund domestic issues".

Lots of time to build the recycling technologies & perfect the Orion's systems so they can be applied to a lander.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Final Reported version of the Senate:

Senator Nelson had already mentionned this but the 150mt extension possibility for the HLV has been lowered to 130mt in the revised Senate bill. See page. 26.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 04:00 am by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Is there any way money could be made available for development of a lander with this budget?

Fund ISS, HLV, Orion and a lander all at the same time?  I don't think so.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
What really annoys me :):) about both the Senate and House bills is that neither does anything at all to reduce spending on outreach to Muslim countries.  It's zero in the President's proposal; why don't the Senate and House reduce it below zero?  :) :) :)

EDIT: Added more smilies to make sure nobody takes this seriously.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 07:04 am by Proponent »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
What really annoys me about both the Senate and House bills is that neither does anything at all to reduce spending on outreach to Muslim countries.  It's zero in the President's proposal; why don't the Senate and House reduce it below zero?  :) :) :)

Actually, you shouldn't be annoyed. Outreach to the whole world is mainly the ongoing duty of space exploration supporters like yourself.  :) NASA's critical role is to support you through its education budget. NASA is willing to take a backseat to your capable outreach efforts, and those of other space exploration supporters, because they are a little busy right now in designing America's near-term and long-term space exploration systems.  :)  :) But NASA is confident that if you do your part and every other space exploration supporter does whatever he or she can do to make the outreach to the world a success, then indeed many good things will happen... :)  :)

Cheers!


Edited: Added more smilies to make sure nobody takes this too seriously.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 10:54 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Final Reported version of the Senate:

The SLS language on page 26 has changed:
Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System
developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-
signed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core ele-
ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-
loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons

into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit
for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated
upper Earth departure stage bringing the total
lift capability of the Space Launch System to
130 tons or more.



Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
So in metric terms that's between 63 and 91 tonnes to LEO and 118 tonnes with an extra stage.
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 09:10 am by Proponent »

Offline simcosmos

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Portugal
    • SIMCOSMOS
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
Final Reported version of the Senate:

The SLS language on page 26 has changed:
Quote
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System
developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be de-
signed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The initial capability of the core ele-
ments, without an upper stage, of lifting pay-
loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons

into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit
for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated
upper Earth departure stage bringing the total
lift capability of the Space Launch System to
130 tons or more.

Although not sure if it wouldn't be better to stay with a slightly more conservative SDLV assumption
(and as noted on other posts / threads), one possible interpretation of the language used above (and in other sections) - assuming that the ton reference is about 'metric tons' - is that the aim could be very close to something like ESAS HLV recommendation: stretched 8.4m diameter core (with prop. load of about 950t - read 950000 kg - or even slightly greater) powered by 4 (up to 5 SSME) and 5 seg. SRB at the sides for the ~100t goal and then an upper stage with about 210t to 220t (220000 kg) prop or so added on top (powered by a variable number of something like J-2X vs mission design / objectives) for equal or greater than 130t goal delivered into a given injection target...

Something like what have represented in these outdated pictures:


http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/449343392/


http://www.flickr.com/photos/simcosmos/529811873/

António
« Last Edit: 07/21/2010 09:38 am by simcosmos »
my pics @ flickr

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
130mT is a much more reasonable target IMHO.

And NASA needs to give very serious consideration to 2-launch for NEO.   It can save quite a bit of development money on the launcher side -- which means more for developing the spacecraft, the hab modules and THE SCIENCE EXPERIMENTS which are the real purpose of the mission.

Ross.
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Tags:
 

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