What are the expectations ?
Where does NASA's budget fits in the big picture ?
What elements from CxP are going to survive?
Who's who in appropriations ?
Where does NASA's budget fits in the big picture ?The current Congress reconvenes on November 15. FY 11 appropriations are currently funded through December 3 by a continuing resolution.
First there's the election on November 2, and currently an anticipation that power in the House and/or Senate could change hands from the Democrats to the Republicans. That has no literal/legal bearing on the current Congress, but if there's a large swing, that might have some influence.Another example of how these things are complicated: one election that could have some direct bearing on the lame duck session is the one to fill the seat vacated by Roland Burris in Illinois. The winner of the special election to finish the current term would be seated "immediately" (more or less) and might change the outcome of cloture votes in the Senate.
Orion, under the name "Multipurpose Crew Vehicle".
I've just written an article rather related to all of this:Good summary Chris.
NASA faces tough decisions to plan STS-135 ahead of funding appropriation:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/10/nasa-decisions-plan-sts-135-ahead-funding-appropriation
I've just written an article rather related to all of this:
NASA faces tough decisions to plan STS-135 ahead of funding appropriation:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/10/nasa-decisions-plan-sts-135-ahead-funding-appropriation
With regard to HSF, my predictions under those circumstances are:
1) STS 135 will receive funding
2) Between HLV, MPCV, and Commercial, we'll have to "pick two out of three" - and then the fight will be on -
3) The Administration is unlikely to yield on Commercial, Shelby & Nelson behind the scenes will push for HLV because of (a) money to MSFC and (b) workforce transition, therefore
4) MPCV is the loser.
With regard to the HSF centers, in this scenario JSC will be the big loser once the dust settles - so we might see a revival of the "keep the shuttle flying" handwaving from Hutchison to try to force MPCV back in - and in the worst possible scenario for the agency as a whole, that might just work - because it wlil hasten the train wreck and repeat the history of insufficient funding to excute programs.
On the other hand, it could retain capability long enough to actually transfer it to commercial and think through all this again, which could be good thing.
Great article, Chris. NASA is operating "at risk", fiscally speaking, w.r.t STS-135. But no choice. You captured the issues well.A masterful analysis and a scary set of conclusions. History seems to indicate that your worst case scenario is the most likely and that your closing comment is understated.
My view about Approps is a little different. I don't think the elections will matter, except that if the Repubs take the House there will be more pushback on spending across the board, to include the budget upper afforded to NASA in FY11. In any case, two major issues loom: (a) There is not enough money in the existing budget to meet the guidelines set out in S.3792 (now the "NASA Authorization Act of 2010"), and (b) there is likely to be a cut in discretionary expenditures before the end of fiscal 2011, meaning that the already-insufficient budget, even if it survives Approps, may be cut anyway.
With regard to HSF, my predictions under those circumstances are:
1) STS 135 will receive funding
2) Between HLV, MPCV, and Commercial, we'll have to "pick two out of three" - and then the fight will be on -
3) The Administration is unlikely to yield on Commercial, Shelby & Nelson behind the scenes will push for HLV because of (a) money to MSFC and (b) workforce transition, therefore
4) MPCV is the loser.
With regard to the HSF centers, in this scenario JSC will be the big loser once the dust settles - so we might see a revival of the "keep the shuttle flying" handwaving from Hutchison to try to force MPCV back in - and in the worst possible scenario for the agency as a whole, that might just work - because it wlil hasten the train wreck and repeat the history of insufficient funding to excute programs.
On the other hand, it could retain capability long enough to actually transfer it to commercial and think through all this again, which could be good thing.
Right.
All that said - my crystal ball has pretty much shattered this year - what the heck do I know?
We need a different approach...
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/10/how-republican-take-over-in-midterm-elections-could-affect-nasaRepublicans are promising a $100B discretionary spending cut by January if they take over. That's a 21% across the board cut. If that's applied to NASA, you're looking at a $4B cut! So long to all the new toys for HSF and probably several robotic planetary/astronomy/Earth science missions.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/10/how-republican-take-over-in-midterm-elections-could-affect-nasa
I'm just not one.
http://www.neontommy.com/news/2010/10/how-republican-take-over-in-midterm-elections-could-affect-nasaRepublicans are promising a $100B discretionary spending cut by January if they take over. That's a 21% across the board cut. If that's applied to NASA, you're looking at a $4B cut! So long to all the new toys for HSF and probably several robotic planetary/astronomy/Earth science missions.
The Republicans aren't going to run the table over the next two years. Assuming they do take over the House (likely), the Senate still seems very likely to stay Democrat, and the Oval Office certainly will.
Sadly, the reality is that *NOTHING AT ALL* is going to get "done" over the next two years. We're only going to have a complete stale-mate with both houses of Congress in complete opposition to each other and virtually no bills will get approval across that political divide.
Ross.
The Republicans aren't going to run the table over the next two years. Assuming they do take over the House (likely), the Senate still seems very likely to stay Democrat, and the Oval Office certainly will.Sounds about right. Unless something else drastic happens. NASA could use a string of very large meteors right now.
Sadly, the reality is that in such a situation *NOTHING AT ALL* is going to get "done" over the next two years.
We're only going to have a complete stale-mate with both houses of Congress in complete opposition to each other and virtually no bills will get approval across that political divide.
I predict two full years of CR's. Anyone want to bet against me?
Ross.
The Republicans aren't going to run the table over the next two years. Assuming they do take over the House (likely), the Senate still seems very likely to stay Democrat, and the Oval Office certainly will.
Sadly, the reality is that in such a situation *NOTHING AT ALL* is going to get "done" over the next two years.
We're only going to have a complete stale-mate with both houses of Congress in complete opposition to each other and virtually no bills will get approval across that political divide.
I predict two full years of CR's. Anyone want to bet against me?
Ross.
Senate has approved both Auth. and Approp. language already. House has Authorized already. We're just waiting for the fourth domino to fall now.Little got to either floor on the appropriations side and CJS wasn't one of the two bills on the House side (nothing in the Senate):
There really is no chance of a re-written bill being passed through all four quadrants at this late stage -- that's pure fantasy. So the only real remaining options are:
1) House Appropriations agrees to existing Senate/House Authorizations & Senate Appropriations language, and it gets approved.
2) They don't, and we end up on a CR through at least most of next year.
{snip}
Sadly, the reality is that in such a situation *NOTHING AT ALL* is going to get "done" over the next two years.
We're only going to have a complete stale-mate with both houses of Congress in complete opposition to each other and virtually no bills will get approval across that political divide.
I predict two full years of CR's. Anyone want to bet against me?
Pheogh,
House Appropriations, as long as it occurs *this calendar year*, in the lame-duck session, can still choose to provide budget in order to change to SLS/Commercial/R&D for FY11. But that's really all they have time for.
Senate has approved both Auth. and Approp. language already. House has Authorized already. We're just waiting for the fourth domino to fall now.
There really is no chance of a re-written bill being passed through all four quadrants at this late stage -- that's pure fantasy. So the only real remaining options are:
1) House Appropriations agrees to existing Senate/House Authorizations & Senate Appropriations language, and it gets approved.
2) They don't, and we end up on a CR through at least most of next year. In that case CxP continues, there is no funding for Commercial, Orion gets strangled and there is no new R&D money. *Everyone* loses.
Given those two very stark choices, the House Appropriators would be fools to screw this up.
Of course, its a raging debate as to just how many fools there are in government these days, so I figure its a total crap-shoot. ::)
Ross.
Pheogh,
House Appropriations, as long as it occurs *this calendar year*, in the lame-duck session, can still choose to provide budget in order to change to SLS/Commercial/R&D for FY11. But that's really all they have time for.
Senate has approved both Auth. and Approp. language already. House has Authorized already. We're just waiting for the fourth domino to fall now.
There really is no chance of a re-written bill being passed through all four quadrants at this late stage -- that's pure fantasy. So the only real remaining options are:
1) House Appropriations agrees to existing Senate/House Authorizations & Senate Appropriations language, and it gets approved.
2) They don't, and we end up on a CR through at least most of next year. In that case CxP continues, there is no funding for Commercial, Orion gets strangled and there is no new R&D money. *Everyone* loses.
Given those two very stark choices, the House Appropriators would be fools to screw this up.
Of course, its a raging debate as to just how many fools there are in government these days, so I figure its a total crap-shoot. ::)
Ross.
Just a clarification. The Senate has not adopted any NASA-related appropriations. The Senate Appropriations committee REPORTED out a CJS bill (S. 3636; Report No. S. Rept. 111-229), which had ncluded NASA numbers fairly closely tracking the eventually-enacted Authorization levels, but the Senate did not take that reported bill up before recessing for the elections. In the meantime, the CR is of course providing funding at 2010 enacted levels until December 3rd. There is currently an effort to "pre-conference" an Omnibus appropriations bill for consideration in the lame-duck session, which would wrap all twelve of the as-yet-unpassed appropriations bills into a single package. That is essentially a closed negotiations process within and among the staff and Members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, so no info available on how that is proceeding. Generally, it is considered a long shot that they will be able to reach agreement and get an Omnibus bill passed by both Houses during the lame-duck session, but that, too, is unKNOWable at the moment. Failing that, the option will be another CR to replace the current CR. The questions will be the funding levels used as the benchmark, the degree to which account allocations will be modified within and among Agency accounts, the degree to which any directive language will--or will not--be included, and the effective period of the CR. It could be another short CR, covering appropriations into the next Congress, allowing for yet another attempt at an Omnibus or individual appropriations bills to be considered for the remainder of FY 2011, or it could be a full-year CR. A huge amount of uncertainty on what the numbers and terms or conditions for expenditure or use will be, not only in NASA, but across most of the government. Not a pretty picture, and a VERY dynamic situation. Meantime, remember that only a small portion of the Authorization bill actually deals with authorization of appropriations. The vast majority is "policy"-related, and where it says "shall," that is the direction that the authorizing Committees (at least the in the Senate, but perhaps debatable in the House, given the letter from the House Science Committee leadership to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee leadership a couple of weeks ago) believe must be followed to the maximum extent possible with the resources available to the Agency. That's when the focus will be on interpretations, legal primacy, intent, etc., etc....and still MORE discussion. Stay tuned!
And finally - since it's happened a couple of times on this forum and once or twice in the technical forums - "OpsAnalyst" ain't a he. Don't get me wrong. I love men. I'm just not one. :)
And finally - since it's happened a couple of times on this forum and once or twice in the technical forums - "OpsAnalyst" ain't a he. Don't get me wrong. I love men. I'm just not one. :)
Cool.
While it's pretty hard to tell from usernames, space fora don't exactly appear to be gender balanced. I'm pretty sure most of us appreciate getting input from the full spectrum of society (actually, maybe this calls for a poll -- I am really quite curious how many females there are on this forum. It's not exactly an obvious thing over the internet.)
The ratio is 20.6:1 for those that bother filling in their personal details.
"Respecting the will of the country" that government should move another direction, Cramer said, the outgoing House Democrat leadership will likely OK a continuing resolution to keep funding at 2010 levels.
What's the model in the picture?
What's the model in the picture?
It's some model of the Zvezda FBG from the Russian segment of the ISS! On the website for Hearings before the US Senate! What does that say?
Sorry for the low resolution image and the imperfect position match. It's the best I could find. With Google SketchUp or the STK model of the ISS, it would be easy to pose the model in the matching condition, with matching lighting and all. Someone else can try that.
...what you are suggesting about some reasoning for this picture ...
That makes total sense since the "deficit commission" (kind of a joke to lower the deficit by lowering taxes) wants to cut commercial crew and outsource crew transportation to Russia...What's the model in the picture?
It's some model of the Zvezda FBG from the Russian segment of the ISS! On the website for Hearings before the US Senate! What does that say?
Sorry for the low resolution image and the imperfect position match. It's the best I could find. With Google SketchUp or the STK model of the ISS, it would be easy to pose the model in the matching condition, with matching lighting and all. Someone else can try that.
I would just say that the staffer who prepared the web page just picked an illustration. That, as a Russian piece of the station, it could be some sort of quiet political statement, doesn't make sense to me, not on that webpage.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
The multipurpose crew vehicle seems like the obvious sacrifice if one has to be made. With all of the commercial vehicles in the works. I guess I feel a little bit better after Cots 1, provided it is a success.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
Thanks for the link...I've been traveling the past two weeks and just got back from California...that IS a strange picture to use in connection with the upcoming hearing! I will check with the Majority staff tomorrow and suggest something more in line with the subject matter of the hearing (I am pretty certain JohnFornaro is right, and the person who posted it likely is not aware of what the image specifically is.)
"WASHINGTON, D.C.—The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announces the following full committee hearing titled Transition and Implementation: The Nasa Authorization Act of 2010."
Scheduled for next Thursday (18 November) at 10 am Eastern.
Link (http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a)
This is the authorizing committee, but the timing is probably relevant to whatever appropriations comes out of the lame-duck session.
Senate authorization committee oversight hearing rescheduled to December 1st at 10:30 am Eastern:
http://space.flatoday.net/2010/11/senate-hearing-on-new-nasa-policy.html
No reason given.
http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]
http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]
Perhaps if Congressional folks want to avoid "disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act" they should place some strongly worded phone calls to the White House. The White House seems to have completely missed the critical message of the Congressional elections: Folks are unhappy with the President's leadership.
Maybe some senior Congressional folks, or a former POTUS, could privately point out to the current POTUS that the White House's active and obstinate resistance to the bipartisan Congressional direction chosen for NASA means the President will continue to lose political influence within his own party and also with Americans in the other important party. America and the rest of the world are facing some pretty serious problems. A politically narrow and isolated President isn't going to be able to provide the leadership needed to help solve some of those problems.
Cheers!
http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]
Perhaps if Congressional folks want to avoid "disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act" they should place some strongly worded phone calls to the White House. The White House seems to have completely missed the critical message of the Congressional elections: Folks are unhappy with the President's leadership.
Maybe some senior Congressional folks, or a former POTUS, could privately point out to the current POTUS that the White House's active and obstinate resistance to the bipartisan Congressional direction chosen for NASA means the President will continue to lose political influence within his own party and also with Americans in the other important party. America and the rest of the world are facing some pretty serious problems. A politically narrow and isolated President isn't going to be able to provide the leadership needed to help solve some of those problems.
Cheers!
The plans for the 2010 NASA Authorization bill are slowed walk because Congress has yet to pass an appropriation bill. Until the appropriation process is over, these issues will remain.
As regards MPCV, SLS and commercial crew, I'm reminded of the opposition posters that sprang up after Dan Goldin's "faster better cheaper" mandate...."Pick any two".
As regards MPCV, SLS and commercial crew, I'm reminded of the opposition posters that sprang up after Dan Goldin's "faster better cheaper" mandate...."Pick any two".
Possibly, but there is some middle ground. Downselecting to a single CRS supplier from the get-go would drop its budget somewhat, as would pushing back the date on SLS and/or MPCV by a year.
http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]
Perhaps if Congressional folks want to avoid "disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act" they should place some strongly worded phone calls to the White House. The White House seems to have completely missed the critical message of the Congressional elections: Folks are unhappy with the President's leadership.
Maybe some senior Congressional folks, or a former POTUS, could privately point out to the current POTUS that the White House's active and obstinate resistance to the bipartisan Congressional direction chosen for NASA means the President will continue to lose political influence within his own party and also with Americans in the other important party. America and the rest of the world are facing some pretty serious problems. A politically narrow and isolated President isn't going to be able to provide the leadership needed to help solve some of those problems.
Cheers!
The plans for the 2010 NASA Authorization bill are slowed walk because Congress has yet to pass an appropriation bill. Until the appropriation process is over, these issues will remain.
Note that Senator Bob Bennett's above comment went, "I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel." Senator Bob Bennett fully understands the need for the appropriation process to continue but is less than impressed with what NASA is doing in the meantime. The President is a lawyer and knows what can and cannot be done in the meantime. The President is deliberately playing the "delay" and slow it down game for both the Orion spacecraft and SLS. Spin it however you wish, his lackluster leadership of NASA and inability or unwillingness to form a robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station have been and remain as ongoing problems for NASA and his Presidency. Despite what some folks claim, NASA is important for America and the high technology industries of our current and future economy. That the President didn't develop an effective NASA policy and is opposed to the bipartisan Congressional NASA policy are two examples of his extreme short-sightedness and are not indicative of a leader that will have much influence on other important issues during the next two years. Cheers!
inability or unwillingness to form a robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station have been and remain as ongoing problems for NASA
What's the model in the picture?
It's some model of the Zvezda FBG from the Russian segment of the ISS! On the website for Hearings before the US Senate! What does that say?
Curious what you are suggesting about some reasoning for this picture on a Senate Committee website...and which one? and when was it posted?
Interesting article at space news:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101119-extra-flights-needed-hedge-cots-delays.html
Did I get it right? For, you know, for the budget. Best case was,
best case would have been to get the President’s budget exactly as it was
proposed,
That didn’t happen, but I think we’re still at what
could be a best case with the Authorization Act if the appropriators follow
suit.
I think when you look at some of the systems that
came out of both the plan for Ares V and the execution of Ares I-X, we’re
going to find that there are definite things that will be applicable to
whatever we do in terms of future exploration. The J2X undoubtedly will
play a critical role, not just in NASA, but probably across the national
front in terms of providing an upper stage capability.
What’s next? What’s
next in human exploration? I think all of you have heard of the HEFT.
Don’t be confused by it. Don’t get concerned by it. Don’t get worried by
it.
They [HEFT] just feed information to me and the rest of the leadership team and
we try to use that information to go off and either do what we’re about to
do, which is to have Robert and Doug Cook get together and decide who
will be the Program Manager for the Heavy Lift program. That has to be
decided here sometime soon and I’m going to depend on Robert and Doug
Cook and the rest of the leadership team in coming up with that particular
person and then the programatics of how that program runs.
We expect that there will be another
Continuing Resolution passed here pretty soon. It could go out until
February. Some people tell me it will likely go out to February. But as I
mentioned to you, I talked to almost every Congressman and Senator who
was either re-elected or elected and in talking even as late as yesterday
with some, they said look, don’t give up. We are still trying to get out an
omnibus bill before we go on vacation for Christmas
Right now if you’re
an engine person, or if you’re a Heavy Lift person, I think you’ll know,
and for those of you who are like me and aren’t a Heavy Lift person, the
big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine? Do we use
LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.
It'll have SSMEs, I'll put money on that....ironically based on a conversation I had with someone important two hours ago (sorry, can't elaborate any further, anywhere, at this stage).
inability or unwillingness to form a robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station have been and remain as ongoing problems for NASA
When has this been a problem? There is one, CRS and commercial crew.
As regards MPCV, SLS and commercial crew, I'm reminded of the opposition posters that sprang up after Dan Goldin's "faster better cheaper" mandate...."Pick any two".
It may take a Presidential election cycle or two or three, but eventually there is going to be a President who says, "America and our space exploration partners are going to the Moon to tap the rich resources that the Moon offers humanity.
We are going to the Moon to establish a second home for everyone." That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available for the amazing adventure we face in exploring and colonizing the Moon.
Cheers!
It may take a Presidential election cycle or two or three, but eventually there is going to be a President who says, "America and our space exploration partners are going to the Moon to tap the rich resources that the Moon offers humanity.
Not NASA's job and not going to happen unless the cost of getting and working in space comes down and an government owned/operated HLV has no hope of doing that.QuoteWe are going to the Moon to establish a second home for everyone." That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available for the amazing adventure we face in exploring and colonizing the Moon.
Cheers!
This will only happen if both the technology for lunar settlement and the means to do it are privately available. The only way the government would do it is by forced labor camps, military bases, or prisons or something else not ideal. The government of the US does not pay people to travel who are not Government employees.
It may take a Presidential election cycle or two or three, but eventually there is going to be a President who says, "America and our space exploration partners are going to the Moon to tap the rich resources that the Moon offers humanity. We are going to the Moon to establish a second home for everyone." That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available for the amazing adventure we face in exploring and colonizing the Moon.
Interesting article at space news:
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101119-extra-flights-needed-hedge-cots-delays.html
From the transcript:Quote from: Charlie BoldenI think when you look at some of the systems that came out of both the plan for Ares V and the execution of Ares I-X, we’re going to find that there are definite things that will be applicable to whatever we do in terms of future exploration. The J2X undoubtedly will play a critical role, not just in NASA, but probably across the national front in terms of providing an upper stage capability.
J-241SH then?
QuoteWhat’s next? What’s next in human exploration? I think all of you have heard of the HEFT. Don’t be confused by it. Don’t get concerned by it. Don’t get worried by it.
Seems to be downplaying HEFT here?
QuoteThey [HEFT] just feed information to me and the rest of the leadership team and we try to use that information to go off and either do what we’re about to do, which is to have Robert and Doug Cook get together and decide who will be the Program Manager for the Heavy Lift program. That has to be decided here sometime soon and I’m going to depend on Robert and Doug Cook and the rest of the leadership team in coming up with that particular person and then the programatics of how that program runs.
How soon will this happen, and who might/should get the job?
QuoteRight now if you’re an engine person, or if you’re a Heavy Lift person, I think you’ll know, and for those of you who are like me and aren’t a Heavy Lift person, the big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine? Do we use LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.
*facepalm*
Note that Senator Bob Bennett's above comment went, "I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel."
From the transcript:
That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available...
The only way the government would do it is by forced labor camps...
That wise President will work hard to make sure that the needed appropriations are available...
And I just wanna say that a vote for me will guarantee everyone a chicken in every pot, and a rocket in every garage...
My guess is an interim EDS/upper stage based on the Ares-I Upper Stage lauched on EELV-Hs, at least in the short term; J-2X is too big even for the proposed Common Centaur. The ultimate plan will be to put it on SLS, of course.What would be the point of building a 5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?
Yes, that is indeed most interesting.QuoteInteresting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.QuoteRight now if you’re an engine person, or if you’re a Heavy Lift person, I think you’ll know, and for those of you who are like me and aren’t a Heavy Lift person, the big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine? Do we use LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.*facepalm*
My guess is an interim EDS/upper stage based on the Ares-I Upper Stage lauched on EELV-Hs, at least in the short term; J-2X is too big even for the proposed Common Centaur. The ultimate plan will be to put it on SLS, of course.What would be the point of building a 5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?
Granted, NASA could pay to do it, but what role would it serve for NASA beyond Orion-to-LEO?
Huh? It's the existing tooling already used to produce the 5m DCSS/ DIVHUS or the Delta IV cores, no? (I forget which -- in fact, is the same tooling used for both?)5.5m stage on a brand-new production line at Michoud to fly only atop a Delta IVH, probably requiring new fairings, rather than the 5.1m designs that ULA desperately wants to build on the existing tooling in Decatur to fly on everything?Well, the 5.5m tooling is already at Michoud whilst the 5.1m tooling for Common Centaur aren't ready to go yet. NASA has been directed to use existing equipment and tooling wherever possible rather than spend on new stuff. So, it makes more budgetary and schedule sense to utilise the 5.5m tooling rather than sit around for another couple of years whilst ULA get the 5.1m production line running.
Granted, NASA could pay to do it, but what role would it serve for NASA beyond Orion-to-LEO?
QuoteRight now if you’re an engine person, or if you’re a Heavy Lift person, I think you’ll know, and for those of you who are like me and aren’t a Heavy Lift person, the big question for us is what do we use for a first stage engine? Do we use LOX hydrogen or do we use LOX RP, kerosene.
*facepalm*
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative. It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107. I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility). However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.
Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
Hmm. Thinking about it some more, I wonder if this is just PR and he doesn't mean it. Before the Senate bill appeared, wasn't Bolden/Garver/etc talking only about LOX/RP-1? Now that the bill is law, maybe Bolden is trying to "transition" the PR to SLS by including LOX/LH2 (SSME) along with LOX/RP-1, and later (January/February) will publicly "decide" on LOX/LH2 (SSME) + SRB?
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative. It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107. I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility). However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.
Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.
Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...
There is no work for ATK with those engines. The point with ATK is to keep the segmented solids facilities and people in work. Throwing ATK composite structure work is not going to help UT.
Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?
Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?
No, there is no need for segmented solids. They can do more ICBM's and other missiles.
Perhaps ATK could partner with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to build a TAN version of the SSME... Or even a TAN version of the J-2X. Who knows, maybe a version of a TAN J-2X could burn methane...
There is no work for ATK with those engines. The point with ATK is to keep the segmented solids facilities and people in work. Throwing ATK composite structure work is not going to help UT.
Do you have any ideas that might help the good folks in UT stay in the space exploration game?
Cheers!
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative. It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107. I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility). However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.On what HLV thread is this talk? I've seen hardly anything recent on Phase II vehicles (even though it's probably, through not yet provably, the cheapest HLV technically possible at this time.)
On what HLV thread is this talk?
On what HLV thread is this talk?The "Predicting the SLS" thread on the HLV/SLS board. Look for a post from KSC Sage on the first or second page, IIRC.
Specifically, the design in question is a type of Phase 3A. Because it creates the Phase 2 CCB, Phase 2 comes with it if required.
The "Predicting the SLS" thread on the HLV/SLS board. Look for a post from KSC Sage on the first or second page, IIRC.
Specifically, the design in question is a type of Phase 3A. Because it creates the Phase 2 CCB, Phase 2 comes with it if required.
There has been authoratative talk over on the HLV thread that KSC expects the SLS to be an Atlas-V Phase-2 derivative. It would start with RD-180 and transition to RS-84/TR-107. I'm not sure how reliable this is or whether it was just managers spouting off their pet ideas without authorisation (or responsibility). However, Phase 2/3A in the form described in the post would be able to provide the 70-130t IMLEO payload demanded by the Senate.On what HLV thread is this talk? I've seen hardly anything recent on Phase II vehicles (even though it's probably, through not yet provably, the cheapest HLV technically possible at this time.)
There's plenty of recent talk of 8.4m vehicles powered by SSME or RD-180, augmented by either existing CBC or CCBs or large J-2X middle stages, but that's more or less the opposite of the entire point and spirit behind Phase II.
-Alex
Third that. SLS, and specifically a SDHLV/DIRECT will never see the light of launch.
It's unsustainable. Finishing Orion and seeding the rest to commercial and EELV upgrades would be a better use of money.
There is a lot of truth in that. Bolden in a meeting yesterday at KSC said "everything is still on the table". No SLS architecture has been chosen yet. It'll depend on the NASA budget. Both SDLV and RP-1 based vehicles are being looked at. An EELV (Atlas Phase 2) is substantially cheaper than the SDLV HLLV. He stated that a SLS architecture would be chosen and work will begin soon - "within months".
I predict an EELV based SLS architecture.
everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130
Does anyone know the impact of a year-long CR for NASA's current programs?
The word to many has been that a year-long CR may be passed for FY11 in place of a budget (to avoid complications after Dec 2nd when the budget expires) and/or a short-term CR until agreements on a budget can be made.
If a year-long CR does pass it locks in program funding at FY10 levels, any extension through a CR would offer a prorated amount of funding at FY10 levels for whatever the duration of the passed CR means.
What elements from CxP are going to survive ion ?My predictions are Orion, J-2X engine and the Constellation Space Suit. The reason why I think Orion and the J-2X will be saved because they're already so far into their contracts which have been at least moderatly succesul. The Spacesuit because they haven't run into any problems and I believe they've made all their target dates thus far.
Which old paper, the CBO one?everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130It probably wouldn't be quite as cheap as that old paper said, even accounting for aerospace inflation. It was not originally envisioned as a manned launcher.
There's also the fact that NASA would have to reorient around the new paradigm, and scrap or mothball the Saturn/Shuttle infrastructure. According to the Augustine Commission's report, NASA estimated the cost of this as between $3B and $11B, though who knows if that's accurate...Yes. The booster core hardware isn't the issue. The question is what NASA would need to do to make use of it.
Here is the link to that old paper.everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130
... as that old paper said, ...
Here is the link to that old paper.
Here is the link to that old paper.
What? A paper written in 2010 is already old? Then I must be a dinosaur...
I was talking about the 2004 estimate.
I was talking about the 2004 estimate.
They say the 2004 estimate was $2.3B, and that Delta IV cost $3.5B and that Atlas V cost $2B to develop. Reading between the lines, they're basically saying it would cost in the neighborhood of $3B to develop a Phase 2 HLV. Not bad...
everybody knows anyway, that Atlas Phase 2 would be less expensive to develop than even a DIRECT J-130
It probably wouldn't be quite as cheap as that old paper said, even accounting for aerospace inflation. It was not originally envisioned as a manned launcher.
And that would fit within the current budget.
There's also the fact that NASA would have to reorient around the new paradigm, and scrap or mothball the Saturn/Shuttle infrastructure. According to the Augustine Commission's report, NASA estimated the cost of this as between $3B and $11B, though who knows if that's accurate...
If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required? Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?
If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required? Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?
No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013
If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required? Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?
No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013
Certainly a lot has changed since Atlas Phase 2 was originally proposed in 2004. Inflation naturally suggests higher prices. Where as Atlas Phase 2 assumed Michoud production with the formation of ULA the Phase 2 5m diameter tank tooling is already producing tanks for Delta resulting in a substantial cost reduction.Thank you for mentioning that -- I'd been under the impression that Phase II originally envisioned keeping production in Colorado, but [Sowers 2005] indeed says Michoud, in order to use the (then-new) friction stir welding.
ACES upper stage estimated to be approximately $3.5B including the tanker variant, production rate capability increases and engine upgrades. No completely new upper stage engine is required until Mars operations begin though a line-replacement for the venerable RL10 is advised merely to enable the high production rates that will be demanded. The entire booster system remain as-is for the near-term. The development of a new LO2/kerosene booster engine to supplement the RD-180 is strongly encouraged but is not required to be complete before 2020 at the earliest. The depot evolution is estimated to cost, including the deployment of operational Centaur and ACES depots at LEO and L2 approximately $3B. LEO propellant donor vehicle development would be borne by the suppliers. The key here is that developmental costs for many elements are diluted across both NASA and DoD budgets. We continue to believe that a very substantial permanently crewed lunar base is within our grasp and is mandatory before we venture to Mars. With the depot system in place the only remaining transport elements required for lunar surface exploration are the Ascender/habitat and Cargo Delivery modules. With the proposed Dual Thrust Axis Lander concept the lander design uses the ACES tank as the descent system and a substantial portion of lander development costs are avoided- allowing a focus on equipment for long-duration stays on the surface. The development of the lander/ascender elements is estimated to be approximately $5B. The basic surface system development is estimated to be approximately twice that: $10B. In summary, the entire depot based [Lunar] architecture including all payload elements, payload fairings, habitats, etc. is estimated to cost less than $40B with an IOC for the initial elements in 2016.(my emphasis)
If Orion truly flies on a Delta IV HLV in 2013 is human rating of EELV Phase 2 required? Is human rating of the EELV Phase 2 particularly difficult following the presumed Delta IV human rating?
No "human rating" is needed for an unmanned launch in 2013
Wow, you really think they could do it that fast? Seriously!
... FY2014 for flying an Orion ...test ... It will not include a re-entry or recovery ...
As I understand it, Lockheed Martin and the Orion Program have both given FY2014 for flying an Orion qualification unit of some kind on a D-IVH. This will include a test of the nominal seperation of the LAS and as many other Orion systems as possible. It will not include a re-entry or recovery test (which I imagine will be carried out on the Orion-1 mission).
As I understand it, Lockheed Martin and the Orion Program have both given FY2014 for flying an Orion qualification unit of some kind on a D-IVH. This will include a test of the nominal seperation of the LAS and as many other Orion systems as possible. It will not include a re-entry or recovery test (which I imagine will be carried out on the Orion-1 mission).
It includes reentry and recovery
Well, we might see it fly after all.
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101125/NEWS02/11250311/1007/Lockheed+plans+Orion+test+flight
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101124/BREAKINGNEWS/101124037/1007/NEWS02/2013+test+flight+could+lead+to+mission+to+asteroid++moon+by+2015
I was talking about the 2004 estimate.
I'm not sure what exactly I remember reading, but I wouldn't have deliberately called a 2010 paper "old", and in any case there isn't a new cost estimate.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
http://stgnews.com/archive/360
.....
“Today’s meeting confirms that we are in a long-term fight over the future of NASA’s manned space flight program,” Bishop said. “While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver’s willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private start-up technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel. During the meeting, I expressed my disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act.[/i]
Perhaps if Congressional folks want to avoid "disappointment that both Bolden and Garver continue to slow-walk the plans required by the NASA Reauthorization Act" they should place some strongly worded phone calls to the White House. The White House seems to have completely missed the critical message of the Congressional elections: Folks are unhappy with the President's leadership.
Maybe some senior Congressional folks, or a former POTUS, could privately point out to the current POTUS that the White House's active and obstinate resistance to the bipartisan Congressional direction chosen for NASA means the President will continue to lose political influence within his own party and also with Americans in the other important party. America and the rest of the world are facing some pretty serious problems. A politically narrow and isolated President isn't going to be able to provide the leadership needed to help solve some of those problems.
Cheers!
Which has yet to fly an actual mission to ISS................inability or unwillingness to form a robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station have been and remain as ongoing problems for NASA
When has this been a problem? There is one, CRS and commercial crew.
Yeah, but it would cut MSFC and ATK out of the deal.... Shelby and Hatch ain't gonna let that happen.
Any HLV keeps MSFC in the mix and an EELV derivative means more for AL
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
Holdren will be there tommorow.
Here we go again with the hearings.
Surprised?
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
Holdren, Robinson and Chaplain give opening statements.
Senator LeMieux asks Robinson what haven't they done due to no appropriations bill being passed and she says specific funding for each new activity not clear.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a
Holdren will be there tommorow.
Here we go again with the hearings.
In July, we considered whether NASA improperly terminated or eliminated any program, project, or activity of the Constellation program. We determined that NASA had five programs, projects, or activities within the “Constellation Systems” category:
Program Integration and Operations,
Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle,
Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle,
Ares V Cargo Launch Vehicle, and
Commercial Crew and Cargo
We concluded that NASA did not terminate or eliminate any program, project, or activity of the Constellation program because NASA continued to obligate Exploration appropriations to all five of the Constellation programs, projects, and activities. NASA diverted no Exploration funds to create a new program, project, or activity. We also noted that as long as NASA does not improperly create or terminate a program, project, or activity, the agency has discretion in how it carries out the Constellation program consistent with Congress’s statutory direction. Shifts in priority do not in themselves constitute the termination or elimination of a program, project, or activity.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
Robinson says if only $18.7bn agreed then Bolden decided new Space Launch complex would take the financial hit.
My initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years.
My initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years.
My initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years.
Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......
My initial take on the opening remarks were that the Senator's were going after the SLS/SDHLV avenue and why hadn't work started already. Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law. The answers from the other side really sidestepped any direct answers and will continue to research the HLV for the next few years.
Shuttle technology is to be used to the extent possible. It does not prevent NASA from studing other forms of heavy lift......
So riddle me this. You seemingly are implying your interpretation of the law is that an HLV should be a SDLV with some technologies (likely J-2) from CxP. So, if that is the law, and the witness' said over and over again it was their intent to follow said law, what is the point in spending time and money to "study" other forms?
The point is either to have something ready when SLS crashes and burns or have cheaper Options should the law allow. If I had to build an rocket and there were cheaper less restrained alternative available, I would choose them. SLS is about keeping people employed and pork in the right hands more than getting the best deal for NASA, Exploration and the Tax Payer.
The point is either to have something ready when SLS crashes and burns or have cheaper Options should the law allow. If I had to build an rocket and there were cheaper less restrained alternative available, I would choose them. SLS is about keeping people employed and pork in the right hands more than getting the best deal for NASA, Exploration and the Tax Payer.
Of course that is your opinion, laced with insults and hopes for failure.
You're basing them on empty claims because you have no functional technical or contracutal basis to compare an EELV-based HLV versus a SDLV-based HLV. The reason of course being because those details are unknown on how they would be executed, certainly to the public at large. So you are making assumptions and trying to pass them off as facts using unnecessary derogatory comments in the process.
Now I won't go far as to say elected officials in congress do not care about employment in their districts. Obviously they do and that is the nature of things if you are to get government money. That said, you should probably throttle back on the dogma you have been placing in nearly every thread suggesting it is all with malicious intent by all involved.
Robinson (in the context of JWST's mega-overruns) really made the point that she favored SLS evolutionary development and not overestimating the extent to which heritage systems can be cheaply reused. The latter is something that applies equally to Shuttle/CxP-derived and EELV-derived (i.e. Phase II) systems. Sounds reassuring, and I guess we'll see if they follow it when the 90-day report comes out...
No I don't hope for failure, I just don't see success down the current path. The heavy lift is underfunded. It lacks payloads. It isn't economizing on anything at a time when economizing needs to happen. Maybe it will pull through. But one thing I am not is dogmatic. I prefer things that work and so far NASA has not been able to come up with a shuttle replacement for years. That alone is not a good sign.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless.
2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
Robinson (in the context of JWST's mega-overruns) really made the point that she favored SLS evolutionary development and not overestimating the extent to which heritage systems can be cheaply reused. The latter is something that applies equally to Shuttle/CxP-derived and EELV-derived (i.e. Phase II) systems. Sounds reassuring, and I guess we'll see if they follow it when the 90-day report comes out...
and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?
It will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill.They may be targeting CR #3. Will take some quick action to get into CR #2. The House appropriations side (Rep. Obey) has drafted a bill that runs through December 18.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `December 18, 2010'.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless.
2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
Vitters didn't give the CFO the chance to actually answer that question. But in all likelyhood, the legal clarity memos relating to the SLS takes a lot more time because they depend on the overall funding of the HLV and they are also more complicated from a legal point of view.
The fact that NASA is allowed to pursue CCDev 2 under a continuing resolution isn't much of a surprise since it's a continuation of CCDev 1 (which was started under the stimilus bill). Drafting a legal opinion on the legality of starting a new SLS program which likely requires cancelling part of Constellation is a lot more dificult.
Why was NASA soliciting 13 companies for heavy lift studies when congress has already mandated that shuttle technology will be used for the SLS as has been signed by the prez and is now law.
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless.
2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
It will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill.
It will be interesting to get 51D Mascot's views on how he viewed this hearing. It seems to have been a very productive hearing. Hopefully the next CR will contain the right language in order to implement the NASA Authorization bill.They may be targeting CR #3. Will take some quick action to get into CR #2. The House appropriations side (Rep. Obey) has drafted a bill that runs through December 18.QuoteResolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-242) is amended by striking the date specified in section 106(3) and inserting `December 18, 2010'.
It's possible that the Senate might substitute/pass different language, but Congress as a whole only has until Friday night to pass the same bill.
Little has been resolved so far on the other issues (Bush tax cuts, etc.), so we're still waiting on the big picture, too.
I don't know the right answer to the riddle OV, but I don't believe that a single one of those Senator's give a hoot about when something will fly or when the gap will be closed. I honestly believe each and every one of them only cares about how much money NASA is going to be spending in their state PERIOD! Why wasn't there a discussion about NASA asking the appropriation members/congress for $$$ to fund STS-135 or pay for the cost overruns on Webb? This take it out of hide crap needs to stop because it seriously does more harm to the other programs within NASA. Congress is holding the checkbook and asking for things to be accomplished, fine, write the checks already...this CR garbage needs to be abolished or directly tied to congress September paychecks...no approved budget, no gravy.
I've been in government for 29 years and 4 of that with NASA, nothing is more frustrating than telling folks not to start working on this or ordering that because it's October or November or December and we're still under a CR...garbage!
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
I think there were actually some interesting pieces of information. While maybe not "breaking news", important nonetheless.
2. Another is a bit more subtle. It was in response to a question asked by Senator Nelson and the "legal clarity" NASA lawyers have given NASA administration regarding certain issues. I found it quite interesting the response the CFO gave and the "pecking order" that was defined and supposedly why. Personally, I found that to speak volumes.
Vitter didn't give the CFO the chance to actually answer that question. But in all likelyhood, the legal clarity memos relating to the SLS takes a lot more time because they depend on the overall funding of the HLV and they are also more complicated from a legal point of view.
The fact that NASA is allowed to pursue CCDev 2 under a continuing resolution isn't much of a surprise since it's a continuation of CCDev 1 (which was started under the stimilus bill). Drafting a legal opinion on the legality of starting a new SLS program which likely requires cancelling part of Constellation is a lot more dificult.
On your first paragraph, as I mentioned, it was Senator Nelson. However, that is not really the subtle point in which I was referring.
On your second paragraph, CCDev 2 is not really a simple "continuation" of the first. It is an open competition, not just additional funding to those who got it during the first round.
I'm not saying by any means CCDev 2 RFPs for Space Act Agreements should not have been let, just curious that seems so "simple" to rationalize. However it takes a lot of time to "explore the trade space" with respect to MPCV (based on Orion where a contract is already in place and significant money already spent) and an HLV (where the options - and really the intent of congress - is pretty clear).
In addition, there was something about grad students thrown in there. While I absolutely agree research is important at universities and the students there are part of the future workforce pipeline, IMHO there are thousands of people now who are the current workforce pipeline who are wondering how long their current job lasts and how best to try to apply their talents and experience for what comes next.
So, as I said, I found that conversational exchange to speak volumes to me personally.
If I understand what was said in this hearing correctly, in order to have NASA moving forward along 2010 auth law guidance, in the context of a long term FY 2011 CR, three (3) things must be inserted in the CR language :
A. an explicit reference to removing current language in the 2009 Appropriation bill and in the new war supplemental funding bill that prohibits NASA to terminate programs, projects or activities relating to Constellation.
B. an explicit reference to removing current language (that is generally found in continuing resolutions) that prohibits NASA (or other government agencies) to start new programs, projects or activities that weren't already funded under the prior appropriation bill. However, given the fact that appropriation bills aren't that specific, there is some leeway on this.
C. an explicit reference to NASA authorization law of 2010 as the legal source of guidance when it comes to distributing CR funds to new and existing programs, projects and activities
Did I get that right ?
"Provided further, that notwithstanding any other provision of law or regulation, funds made available for Constellation in Fiscal Year 2010 for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration' and from previous appropriations for 'National Aeronautics and Space Administration Exploration' shall be available to fund continued performance of Constellation contracts, and performance of such Constellation contracts may not be terminated for convenience by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Fiscal Year 2010."
EXPLORATION
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the conduct and support of exploration research and development activities, including research, development, operations, support, and services; maintenance; space flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities; program management, personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901–5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, $3,746,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2011: Provided, That notwithstanding section 505 of this Act, none of the funds provided herein and from prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year 2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new program, project or activity, unless such program termination, elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent appropriations Acts.
SEC. 101. Such amounts as may be necessary, at a
8 rate for operations as provided in the applicable appropria
9 tions Acts for fiscal year 2010 and under the authority and
1 conditions provided in such Acts, for continuing projects
2 or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan
3 guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for
4 in this Act, that were conducted in fiscal year 2010, and
5 for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were
6 made available in the following appropriations Acts:
and when does the 90 day study start? Is it dependent on the appropriations?The 90 day period starts from the day that the NASA Authorization bill was signed by the President (October 11, 2010).
...90 day study ... January 9, 2011...
Looks like the House is voting on a CR to Dec. 18 right now.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN.aspx
Pretty much a waste of time...are you following the law, yes we're following the law, you better follow the law, we're following the law...
I feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to
a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law,
b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law,
c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and
d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")
It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)
So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe.
I feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to
a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law,
b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law,
c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and
d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")
It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)
So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe.
51D- Thanks for the summary. Just curious, what steps would the committee be empowered to take should implementation of the law deviate from the intended path?
The fact that the appropropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS.
The fact that the appropropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS.
Please don't assume that Members can't "multi-task." The issues in appropriations have been, and continue to be, worked very diligently by these Members. There are "institutional constraints" that are at work as well, which complicate the issue, not least of which is the pending transition of power in the House, and the fact that the current appropriations morass is not just in the area affecting NASA, but the ENTIRE federal government, so getting "special attention" to something that represents less than one half of one percent of that total is not easy; but everything possible is being done in the context of those realities, and one of the outcomes of yesterday's hearing was a commitment for direct White House engagement on the issues affecting NASA. We shall see, as Senator Vitter noted, how well that "test" is met.
The fact that the appropriation process has been stalled in Congress is making it hard for NASA to implement the NASA Authorization bill. If you ask me, Congress should focus its efforts on getting this done before crying foul and claiming that NASA is not following the spirit of the law. Some people in the House have vowed to continue fighting some of the items that are found in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. This makes it difficult for NASA to commit to any new programs including CCDev-2 and the SLS.
Please don't assume that Members can't "multi-task." The issues in appropriations have been, and continue to be, worked very diligently by these Members. There are "institutional constraints" that are at work as well, which complicate the issue, not least of which is the pending transition of power in the House, and the fact that the current appropriations morass is not just in the area affecting NASA, but the ENTIRE federal government, so getting "special attention" to something that represents less than one half of one percent of that total is not easy; but everything possible is being done in the context of those realities, and one of the outcomes of yesterday's hearing was a commitment for direct White House engagement on the issues affecting NASA. We shall see, as Senator Vitter noted, how well that "test" is met.
I am not assuming that Congress is unable to multi-task. But Congress needs to admit that the NASA Authorization bill is stalled partly because of their lack of progress on these issues. But Vitter was honest enough to say that they are partly to blame for the situation when he admitted that there is "language" deficiencies that need to be fixed in the (December 17) continuing resolution.
Incidentally, any news on that? Is there any hope that the December 17th CR will contain the necessary language to fix some of these issues?
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
...And focusing on Ares V/SLS over Ares I in the short term not just on a whim of the administration, but in order to follow the authorization instructions specified by an Act of Congress while at the same time obeying GAO interpretations of how to do so during the current continuing resolution appropriations situation.If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not cancelling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not cancelling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.
I feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to
a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law,
b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law,
c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and
d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")
It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)
So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe.
51D- Thanks for the summary. Just curious, what steps would the committee be empowered to take should implementation of the law deviate from the intended path?
The Committee can develop new legislative language to amend the law to both clarify intent, and remove "wiggle room" if needed. It has the authority to enact "if-then" kinds of provisions, prohibit other actions if desired actions aren't taken, etc. In the broader sense, it has the power to subpoena documents; require specific information that enables it to monitor progress and compliance, use the "bully pulpit" of additional hearings, press conferences, speeches, etc., to publicly highlight issues or concerns and bring attention to them, etc., etc. One thing not seen in yesterday's hearing is the fact that very specific and detailed questions will be sent to the witnesses, which will focus on concerns and issues that were referred to in more general terms during the hearing. The importance of getting the assurances of compliance publicly stated on the record yesterday is that it opens the door for that whole range of "tools" to be able to ensure accountability for the subsequent actions--or lack thereof--taken in fulfilling the obligations committed to. When these kinds of things are done on a bipartisan basis, they can be very powerful elements of the "policy process."
And yes, those are the kinds of logic/arguments that are being evaluated, as she mentioned, by NASA General Counsel.
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not canceling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not cancelling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.
I feel pretty good about the hearing; from my perspective, it accomplished its primary objectives, which were to
a) demonstrate that the Committee is VERY serious about using its oversight authority to closely monitor--and thus be in a position to enforce--compliance with both the language and intent of the law,
b) to express concerns about indications the Committee has received from a variety of sources about less-than-adequate enthusiasm for full and complete implementation of the law or inaccurate "interpretations" of the law,
c) establish a dialogue about what real or imagined impediments exists (i.e., appropriations language and FY 2011 potential funding level scenarios) and potential solutions thereto, and
d) get affirmative statements on the record from senior officials regarding the "adoption" of the law as a matter of Administration policy and commitments to its successful implementation. (The focus was on the NASA CFO for this hearing simply because the current situation of working through the tangled web of CR appropriations--and that official's role in working through that and developing allocations among programs and providing longer-term budget planning guidance--is especially critical right now during the "transition.")
It was also made clear, though maybe not as noticeable to observers as some of the above, that this was the "opening salvo", if you will, of what will be an ongoing process of careful oversight and follow-up; that the enactment of the law represented just the "first step" in ensuring the new "re-direction" established by the law, especially in the realm of human spaceflight; and to reflect that that oversight includes being able to fine-tune the language and policy, where needed, to ensure an "executable" program (including changes to out-year funding, etc., depending on what becomes clear and more certain on exactly what vehicle designs and mission definitions are developed, as required by the law.)
So...a good beginning, in my view, skeptics and critics of the law and the process on this site and elsewhere notwithstanding, hehe.
51D- Thanks for the summary. Just curious, what steps would the committee be empowered to take should implementation of the law deviate from the intended path?
The Committee can develop new legislative language to amend the law to both clarify intent, and remove "wiggle room" if needed. It has the authority to enact "if-then" kinds of provisions, prohibit other actions if desired actions aren't taken, etc. In the broader sense, it has the power to subpoena documents; require specific information that enables it to monitor progress and compliance, use the "bully pulpit" of additional hearings, press conferences, speeches, etc., to publicly highlight issues or concerns and bring attention to them, etc., etc. One thing not seen in yesterday's hearing is the fact that very specific and detailed questions will be sent to the witnesses, which will focus on concerns and issues that were referred to in more general terms during the hearing. The importance of getting the assurances of compliance publicly stated on the record yesterday is that it opens the door for that whole range of "tools" to be able to ensure accountability for the subsequent actions--or lack thereof--taken in fulfilling the obligations committed to. When these kinds of things are done on a bipartisan basis, they can be very powerful elements of the "policy process."
51D- Outstanding. Thanks for the info again.
In determining the level of detail in the questions, do you anticipate that the effort will be bipartisan, for example by both the Committee Chair and the ranking minority member? With particular regard to the nitty-gritty details, is that level of granularity exhibited by both parties?
If you listened carefully, you heard Beth Robinson say that it actually was NOT an impediment to the SLS or MPCV--that the issue there was the uncertainty of just how much the eventual funding levels would be.
I thought I heard that, but thanks for making it clear.
It would be worth reading the transcript. I thought that she meant that the amount of spending was a bigger impediment than the language itself (which would make sense). Although, I imagine that there is ways around the language in the sense that you could argue that the SLS is essentially a modified Ares V. You could also try to argue that NASA is not cancelling Ares I but that it is focusing its energy instead on this modified Ares V.
As predicted, a contractor-provided transcript was sent around. It has a copyright notice on it from Congressional Quarterly, who I assume the contractor paid to produce the transcript, which they then gave a broad circulation to, embedded in an email, which their contract presumably allows. Perhaps under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law I can provide, in turn, a small excerpt from the email that was widely distributed. (MODERATOR, take note, and delete if necessary). But I believe this is the relevant portion that I heard, in response to questioning by Senator Lemieux:
"ROBINSON:
Well, we -- we have moved forward in -- in select areas. The -- the real issue is -- is not the -- whether or not a specific activity we can pursue. It's how much we can pursue it.
For example, will we get funding at a specific level for heavy lift? What will that funding level be? You'll have a different program if you start out at a different funding level in the first year and -- and thereabouts.
And so it's not a specific activity; it's more you just can't finalize your plans until you have the overall funding and -- and other terms and conditions set so that you can move forward."
(Excerpt from CQ Transcripts)
The Committee can develop new legislative language to amend the law to both clarify intent, and remove "wiggle room" if needed. It has the authority to enact "if-then" kinds of provisions, prohibit other actions if desired actions aren't taken, etc. In the broader sense, it has the power to subpoena documents; require specific information that enables it to monitor progress and compliance, use the "bully pulpit" of additional hearings, press conferences, speeches, etc., to publicly highlight issues or concerns and bring attention to them, etc., etc. One thing not seen in yesterday's hearing is the fact that very specific and detailed questions will be sent to the witnesses, which will focus on concerns and issues that were referred to in more general terms during the hearing. The importance of getting the assurances of compliance publicly stated on the record yesterday is that it opens the door for that whole range of "tools" to be able to ensure accountability for the subsequent actions--or lack thereof--taken in fulfilling the obligations committed to. When these kinds of things are done on a bipartisan basis, they can be very powerful elements of the "policy process."
Question. if congress amends any of the language, doesn't the president have to sign off on it?
It would seem to run counter to presidential approval of a bill that the president had signed into law if after the fact, congress can go in and make changes that might change the context too far...
Ok, so hypothetically, the folks from Utah jump up and down screaming "the SLS has to use solid rockets" and that's what we voted for. They push for amendments to the Authorization Act that require SLS use solids. Now, NASA comes along and its advisers tell the president that "we don't want solids" and the Act doesn't require us to use solid. If the Utah delegation gets enough support to push the amendment into the act that that would or wouldn't require congress or the president's approval before becoming a change to the Act?Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses and the President's signature.
I think what we should take away is that NASA admin and deputy admin appear to have, at least at one point,actively resisted what the law of the land told them to do.
Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses andthe President's signature.
Well, of course any amendment to existing law has to be passed by the Congress and either approved by the President or enacted over his veto.
Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses andthe President's signature.
If Congress is in session, I think it's more correct to say "the President not vetoing".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).
cheers, Martin
Edit: or maybe I've misunderstood:-Well, of course any amendment to existing law has to be passed by the Congress and either approved by the President or enacted over his veto.
Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses andthe President's signature.
If Congress is in session, I think it's more correct to say "the President not vetoing".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).
cheers, Martin
Edit: or maybe I've misunderstood:-Well, of course any amendment to existing law has to be passed by the Congress and either approved by the President or enacted over his veto.
Congress can't amend legislation that's already been signed into law without doing the whole process, including votes in both houses andthe President's signature.
If Congress is in session, I think it's more correct to say "the President not vetoing".
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto).
cheers, Martin
Edit: or maybe I've misunderstood:-Well, of course any amendment to existing law has to be passed by the Congress and either approved by the President or enacted over his veto.
Getting a law out of congress is not an easy thing and the President can pull favors to either prevent a law he dislikes from getting out or just threaten a veto. In addition a bill can be stop via filabuster in the Senate. In addition the president does have the power of veto and the Republicans lack the votes to over turn his veto.
51D Mascot, I think it can be argued that the NASA Authorization bill was most of what the President wanted.
I agree, though, that you can't necessarily predict ahead of time the outcome.
Interesting... Thanks for the inside scoop!51D Mascot, I think it can be argued that the NASA Authorization bill was most of what the President wanted.
I agree, though, that you can't necessarily predict ahead of time the outcome.
You could argue that in terms of the top-line funding level, the Science portfolio (space and Earth science), some of the space tech and advanced r&d, though at much reduced levels, commercial crew initiation at least, but clearly NOT in the area of government-owned and operated space launch systems, which was where the "battle lines" had been drawn most assiduously within the Congress. Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.
......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.
......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.
And this is precisely the "back-up" that further reinforces my opinion about the view some have about current programs and their place in the go-forward plan.
It seems to me personally that some are dragging their feet intentionally with certain elements of the law and why Orion (MPCV) is in advanced limbo along with STS-135 all as a way to get what they "wanted" all along.
......Up until July 15th, the Administration was very much against the way the Senate bill was shaping up. But, in part because of the above, it became viewed at that point, just as it was to be considered by the Commerce Committee in mark-up, as a reasonable compromise. After that, the official position was not to oppose it and to say nice things about those parts of the FY 2011 Request that were included, but it wasn't until the last two days of consideration by the House that NASA Administrator Bolden or anyone else at NASA was actually permitted to actively argue for passage, and to do so, the Administrator had to make phone calls to House Members from Prague, where he was attending the IAF.
And this is precisely the "back-up" that further reinforces my opinion about the view some have about current programs and their place in the go-forward plan.
It seems to me personally that some are dragging their feet intentionally with certain elements of the law and why Orion (MPCV) is in advanced limbo along with STS-135 all as a way to get what they "wanted" all along.
It also probably explains why they invited Holdren to the meeting...
Yes, and all those reasons were cited as why there was absolutely no way to pass a NASA authorization bill this year that differed substantially from what the President originally proposed in February...yet it was done anyway (same was said regarding NASA Authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, as well, and those bills were also enacted, incidentally).I was on the Hill, in the Senate offices around the end of September, and was amazed at S.3729 passing. Didn't think it would happen. Incredible job.
Trust me, making definitive, conclusive predictions about potential outcomes of the legislative process is not a wise thing to do, hehe.Especially now. All bets are off.
I don't know the right answer to the riddle OV...
There was talk in the Senate hearing today to the understanding (or relief for NASA) that, given lack of resources, they will present partial study results at the term.
I feel pretty good about the hearing... a), b), c), d)... that this was the "opening salvo", if you will...
Now, NASA comes along and its advisers tell the president that "we don't want solids" and the Act doesn't require us to use solid.
Doesn't this strike you as shocking?
The answer is it all goes back to number 2.....
As to the transcript. Does copyright law forbid citizens from receiving timely information from their government? Months down the road is far to late for it to be of any utility whatsoever to any citizen or member of Congress.
Yes, and all those reasons were cited as why there was absolutely no way to pass a NASA authorization bill this year that differed substantially from what the President originally proposed in February...yet it was done anyway (same was said regarding NASA Authorization bills in 2005 and 2008, as well, and those bills were also enacted, incidentally). Trust me, making definitive, conclusive predictions about potential outcomes of the legislative process is not a wise thing to do, hehe.
A lot of the support the Senate bill got was because the House one was a total travesty and many people who normally would've fought such a bill plugged their noses and lobbied for what they saw as a reasonable compromise.
~Jon
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.
while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.
No talk of additional shuttle flight, no KSC upgrade money.
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
Can the appropriators do that?
Doesn't it make more sense to react to a draft, since then the final one can be modified in accordance?http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
Can the appropriators do that?
FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; so keep powder dry and don't react, even if you see the actual language; it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes, and will almost certainly be modified before formally proposed.
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
Can the appropriators do that?
I know this is a draft, but does this seriously mean core elements AND upper stage should be done by 2016? Won't developing them simultaneously just make both developments take longer than they need to?
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
Can the appropriators do that?
I know this is a draft, but does this seriously mean core elements AND upper stage should be done by 2016? Won't developing them simultaneously just make both developments take longer than they need to?
http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.
No talk of additional shuttle flight, no KSC upgrade money.
Another $1.8 billion would fund NASA’s space shuttle orbiters in 2011, including $825 million for “additional Space Shuttle costs.” Unlike the NASA authorization act, however, the draft appropriations language does not call for an additional shuttle mission. It also guts the president’s $429 million request to fund a 21st Century Launch Complex initiative to modernize range infrastructure at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.
However, the draft appropriations bill does direct that, in addition to extra expenses associated with the space shuttle program, the $825 million be spent on efforts to improve Kennedy Space Center in Florida related to civil and nondefense purposes only. It also directs the money be applied at other NASA flight facilities “currently scheduled to launch cargo” to the space station, possibly a reference to NASA’s Wallops Island Flight Facility on Virginia’s Eastern Shore
Doesn't it make more sense to react to a draft, since then the final one can be modified in accordance?http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html
Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”
This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
Can the appropriators do that?
FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; so keep powder dry and don't react, even if you see the actual language; it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes, and will almost certainly be modified before formally proposed.
I mean, to whatever extent us blathering about this at NSF (and possibly sending our opinions to Congress, etc) even matters at all, I would expect it would make more difference as soon in the decision process you can.
A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.
Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...
A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.
Pretty short negotiations. And no Republicans voted for it.
Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...
It does seem to me, as written above, that the very first rocket they make will launch 130mt! Without the actual language of the draft to read, the discussion here is virtually worthless, and we have no chance of influencing the discussion on the Hill.
You let them know that I am throwing myself on the floor in a huge snit, and that I shall hold my breath till I have a say in this!A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.
A pitiful driveby comment.
Pretty short negotiations. And no Republicans voted for it.
Most likely unrelated to NASA. It's a 423-page bill, covering the entire government.
Quote from: spacenewswhile the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.
FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...
It does seem to me, as written above, that the very first rocket they make will launch 130mt! Without the actual language of the draft to read, the discussion here is virtually worthless, and we have no chance of influencing the discussion on the Hill.
You let them know that I am throwing myself on the floor in a huge snit, and that I shall hold my breath till I have a say in this!A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.
A pitiful driveby comment.
I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?
I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?
Yes it is.
There are those in the Senate who have some issues with some of the language in the NASA portion, but if and how that will be resolved is also uncertain, though should be clear before the end of next week, when final action must be taken with the expiration of the current CR on December 17th.
I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?
Yes it is.
I'm totally surprised by this.
So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').
That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)
Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:
I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?
Yes it is.
I'm totally surprised by this.
So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').
That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)
I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?
Yes it is.
I'm totally surprised by this.
So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').
That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)
It has to be said then, it's a long shot it will be SDLV or Direct like. As Both Steve and Ross have said multiple times, the core vehicle without the upperstage is an absolutely critical step from a time, budgetary, and public perception standpoint.
The CR language only says tons, not metric tons, so I guess it means short tons by default (which would be 118 metric tons)? It also doesn't say 130 tons by December 31, 2016.
Here is the CR's SLS language and the language to allow NASA to proceed fully on the new programs:Quote from: 111_fullyearcr.pdf, page 33Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:
The CR language only says tons, not metric tons, so I guess it means short tons by default (which would be 118 metric tons)? It also doesn't say 130 tons by December 31, 2016.
Here is the CR's SLS language and the language to allow NASA to proceed fully on the new programs:Quote from: 111_fullyearcr.pdf, page 33Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:
Theoretically, YES (as per this post from a while back):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg623290#msg623290
But whether it's short/long/or metric, it's a HECK of a lot more lift capability (especially as an initial starting point) than we currently need. This was supposed to be a build-up of lift capability until we are at a point when it is REQUIRED.
We aren't going to Mars in the next 10 years.
The bottom line is that, if this language is enacted as is and in fact appears to re-vector the development approach for the heavy-lift, subsequent legislation can be enacted to rectify that. In the meantime, I believe the internal planning focus at NASA is likely to remain on a course that is very compatible with what P.L. 111-267 provided.
FWIW, I don't think that the CR is asking for anything different from the Senate re-authorisation bill. The major change is that, instead of starting with the 70t version and progressing to the 130t version in time, it is calling for the 130t version to be developed immediately.
FWIW, I don't think that the CR is asking for anything different from the Senate re-authorisation bill. The major change is that, instead of starting with the 70t version and progressing to the 130t version in time, it is calling for the 130t version to be developed immediately.
With sufficient hints, I now read it that way too. In particular, it emphasizes that the initial "core" (to include SRBs) must be flyable without modification in a 130t (118mT) vehicle. DIRECT analysis indicated a J-241H would be required for that. No clustered RL10 upper stage will suffice; no four-segment SRBs will suffice. Starting with RL10 and four-seg and switching later if the performance were actually needed is right out.
Congress is saying to NASA, "The SLS must use J-2X and RSRMV, and implicitly SSME. Live with it, because those are the only propulsion solutions for which we're willing to appropriate funding."
Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?
On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.
Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?
I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.
On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.
Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
The testimony last week in the Senate Commerce committee hearing was a good start.Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?
I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.
That's what I was thinking when it mentioned "addition space shuttle costs," but wasn't exactly sure. Hopefully NASA will shed some light on this soon.
and $825,000,000 shall be for
-- additional Space Shuttle costs,
-- launch complex development only for activities at the Kennedy Space Center related to the civil, nondefense launch complex,
-- use at other National Aeronautics and Space Administration flight facilities that are currently scheduled to launch cargo to the International Space Station,
-- and development of ground operations for the heavy lift launch vehicle and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle
The House resolution contains $1.8 billion for that rocket and nearly $1 billion for the shuttle program, which would have an extra flight in 2011.
The testimony last week in the Senate Commerce committee hearing was a good start.Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?
I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.
That's what I was thinking when it mentioned "addition space shuttle costs," but wasn't exactly sure. Hopefully NASA will shed some light on this soon.
Also duplicating something posted over in the STS-335 thread about the $825 million under Space Operations -- it has to cover more than just Shuttle costs. Reformatting the text:Quoteand $825,000,000 shall be for
-- additional Space Shuttle costs,
-- launch complex development only for activities at the Kennedy Space Center related to the civil, nondefense launch complex,
-- use at other National Aeronautics and Space Administration flight facilities that are currently scheduled to launch cargo to the International Space Station,
-- and development of ground operations for the heavy lift launch vehicle and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle
Besides additional Shuttle costs, the other areas might be partially deferred, but the $825M has to cover spending on all of those, not just Shuttle. It does seem to give NASA latitude to defer work and apply possible savings from one or more of these areas during the fiscal year.
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
Reality will catch up sooner or later, and with the CxP debacle fresh in memory, this will lead to a repeat failure on NASA's part. Not good :(
Ross.
The strategy seems to be to continue with the program that maximizes jobs mainly for Republican districts, and if the program is cancelled, take credit for deficit reduction by eliminating waste (ironic)--they could even bring up the 400t shielding study by MSFC.On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.
Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
The strategy seems to be to continue with the program that maximizes jobs mainly for Republican districts, and if the program is cancelled, take credit for deficit reduction by eliminating waste (ironic)--they could even bring up the 400t shielding study by MSFC.On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.
Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
Yes. That is the plan. "We" are behind all of it. First it required sabotaging the legislative and executive branches and their agenda and the majority control. Secondly, we thought it would nice to throw in a "movement", in order for our plot to not be exposed, and thought Tea Party had a nice ring to it. Once we stacked the votes across the nation accordingly and hacked into all the electronic voting machines to make them count as we wanted, we could see victory in our grasp.
Now with Republican control of the House (we know it is really "us") we can distribute money as we see fit. We now will retain every job, maybe we'll even add some, and have decided to increase our paychecks by at least 50% as well. In addition the plan is to continue Shuttle forever.
This was all rather simple and was clearly just as logical as the above statement. We "can't let Shuttle go", clearly want everything else to fail and see the only way to ever get things done is sabatage everything else and make sure the "Republicans" do our bidding. Or else. <evil laugh>
What an evil plan....I was hoping the Ombama adminstration would restrart CXP and use the technology to build lunar reeducation camps for the republicans....<Evil laugh>
That is the downside to having congress have so much control of NASA. They can create bad policy.
Unless they can pull out a low-cost SDLV option to keep them all funded, between now and then.AJAX? Or a 5 or 6 SSME core, possibly using GEM-60?
I wonder where they might find one of those...
Yes. That is the plan. "We" are behind all of it. ... We "can't let Shuttle go", clearly want everything else to fail and see the only way to ever get things done is sabatage everything else and make sure the "Republicans" do our bidding. Or else. <evil laugh>
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
They didn't. They still refuse to let go of the RSRMV. PWR refuse to let go of J-2X, even though they would actually earn more with human rating of RL-10 and SSME-e. And MSFC still has a strong contingent of "bigger than Saturn-V" Griffinites.
It is MHO, but I'm fairly sure they're about to price themselves out of contention.
Space-X say they can do a similar performance vehicle for a quarter of the money. And they're riding a tide of success right now. However powerful the AL/FL/LA/TX contingent is in Congress, they are ultimately outnumbered by the other 46 states and Space-X can play the deficit reduction card with all of them.
This could turn into a very bitter fight. And ATK, PWR, Boeing and Lockheed could potentially be left (5+ years from now) holding little more in their hands but their family jewels.
This is ultimately going to boil down to affordability. Minimum 130 ton SDLV is *NOT* an affordable option. Reality will catch up sooner or later, and with the CxP debacle fresh in memory, this will lead to a repeat failure on NASA's part. Not good :(
Ross.
Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
They didn't. They still refuse to let go of the RSRMV. PWR refuse to let go of J-2X, even though they would actually earn more with human rating of RL-10 and SSME-e. And MSFC still has a strong contingent of "bigger than Saturn-V" Griffinites.
It is MHO, but I'm fairly sure they're about to price themselves out of contention.
Space-X say they can do a similar performance vehicle for a quarter of the money. And they're riding a tide of success right now. However powerful the AL/FL/LA/TX contingent is in Congress, they are ultimately outnumbered by the other 46 states and Space-X can play the deficit reduction card with all of them.
This could turn into a very bitter fight. And ATK, PWR, Boeing and Lockheed could potentially be left (5+ years from now) holding little more in their hands but their family jewels.
This is ultimately going to boil down to affordability. Minimum 130 ton SDLV is *NOT* an affordable option. Reality will catch up sooner or later, and with the CxP debacle fresh in memory, this will lead to a repeat failure on NASA's part. Not good :(
Ross.
Sounds like our President might at that point want to cancel all of NASA's human spaceflight capabilities and assets... Oh wait a sec, deja vu anyone? ;)
Cheers!
On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.
Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means ... increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.
Someone might want to inform Marshall ... it seems they didn't get the message the first time?
I wonder where they might find one of those...
Yes. That is the plan. "We" are behind all of it. ...
Actually, I think a 130 ton (118 t) HLV is a good option, provided that the mission is to return to the Moon to stay followed by flights to the asteroids and Mars.
You could still potentially design a rocket that is flexible enough to fly without them for smaller missions, if necessary.
I agree, it's not the way I'd do it, but it still gives *some* flexibility.
What an evil plan....I was hoping the Ombama adminstration would restrart CXP and use the technology to build lunar reeducation camps for the republicans....<Evil laugh>
That is the downside to having congress have so much control of NASA. They can create bad policy.
Discounting the minor detail that there is no such thing as the Ombama administration, the current policy is very much bipartison and quite acceptable for a multitude of reasons. So if there were such "re-education camps" I suppose you could not include just one party.
Discounting the minor detail that there is no such thing as "bipartison", I find the current spectacle of politicians designing NASA launch vehicles to insure their states get a cut of the action revolting and disheartening. Doubly so since they apparently have no regard to the affordability or sustainability of said vehicle which to top everything off has no mission and no payloads.Oops, did have a spelling mistake. Thanks for pointing that out! Sarcasm and humor I think can be kind of fun now and then, especially when one does not take posts so seriously. Don’t you?
We're well past the point where sarcasm is in order, we ought to be outraged.
Discounting the minor detail that there is no such thing as "bipartison", I find the current spectacle of politicians designing NASA launch vehicles to insure their states get a cut of the action revolting and disheartening. Doubly so since they apparently have no regard to the affordability or sustainability of said vehicle which to top everything off has no mission and no payloads.Oops, did have a spelling mistake. Thanks for pointing that out! Sarcasm and humor I think can be kind of fun now and then, especially when one does not take posts so seriously. Don’t you?
We're well past the point where sarcasm is in order, we ought to be outraged.
I mean, after all, I have been accused of (paraphrasing because I don't obviously remember the exact quotes) having a "narrow vision of space exploration", a "fat-cat only concerned about protecting my government-provided job", "sucking off the government-welfare state", "unable and afraid to compete", "making a well above average and more than necessary salary" (people who say this would be forced to shut up if they knew the truth) and generally not understanding this or that and the list could go on and on. Of course none of it is true, and is totally inconsequential to me in the grand scheme, but sarcasm can come naturally at times.
Why have I been told this by some people? I think part of the answer is because I work on the Space Shuttle Program and argue certain misconceptions that some just like to post as if they were facts when I know quite different. Is it perfect? No, of course it isn’t. Could it all be more efficient? Yes!! But it is a program that is unlikely to be duplicated in the near-term. Most importantly, it is the program that fundamentally built the majority of ISS, which is the immediate cornerstone for much "commercial" (the more appropriate term is "public/private relationship" or something like that) activity and incentive.
Why else could these things have been said? True, I have made it known I did not believe Shuttle should be retired until another resupply chain was verified as being able to replace some of the orbiter capability. Would it have taken long and resulted in "years" to the manifest? Highly unlikely, and I am on several records saying such, but it would have ensured ISS was exactly what it was intended to be making the business case for this public/private partnership that much stronger. Was it to "protect my job"? Hardly…..
What else could have been behind these comments? I made it known I believed a SDLV was a viable choice for an HLV (and actually believe an HLV could be useful). Others are welcome to disagree but I gave reasons why I believed, if there was going to be an HLV, a shuttle-derived made sense to me. A SDLV is not STS in either function or cost but that is a point often overlooked. Yes, it has SRBs, and at least in my opinion, it seems "fashionable" by many on here right now that anything with those is immediately subject to scorn. Did I ever say anything else could not be used? No, of course I didn’t.
Could anything else lead to some of these comments? Oh yeah! I questioned the root and practicality of the original FY2011 proposal. I thought elements of it were good, investing in the "commercial" sector for example, but did not embrace the whole 2011 package totally. Why? Well, I questioned the "how" it was to be implemented a lot and I truly believed the timing of it would cause a net loss to a lot of valuable experience across what is now CxP and STS where that experience is certainly transferrable to future applications, government or commercial. Of course, that is throughout several threads and I seriously was commenting on what I believed would provide the best health for this knowledge base, wherever it ended up being located, for those who want to stick around in this industry.
So with all that, sarcasm is good every now and then, especially when others accuse others without any real merit. I mean, for example, where is your proof that politicians are "designing" launch vehicles? Do you honestly believe they were running calculations, simulations, etc? Of course they aren’t, especially since NASA believes they can "evaluate the trade space" and multiple study contracts have been issued to companies that are not involved in STS.
Let’s explore your comment further. Do you have any proof that NASA or the government "have no regard to the affordability or sustainability"? Notes on L2 would seem to indicate otherwise. Clearly CxP was a bit of a disaster but no contracts have been issued for SLS showing this, no accounts have been robbed for SLS, etc.
Let’s also discuss "mission and payloads". If the SLS becomes EELV-derived, or even from SpaceX, will payloads and missions suddenly appear instantaneously? Nope. And frankly, the suggestion and assumption that the cost of DDT&E, etc will be cheaper with one of them, allowing for all this money to be freed up, is not known because the exact requirements, how it will be managed and the contracting mechanism for all of these and others are unknown. It "levels the playing field" to a certain extent with all these options. Presumably, those options are being evaluated and perhaps we will know something more concrete soon.
Finally, it is completely illogical to assume that congress will not be interested in their states "getting a cut of the action". Fact is that is part of the reason they are there. Not a perfect system but better than others. I also ask that if EELV becomes SLS, will Colorado's representation be lumped into this category? If SpaceX gets SLS, what about California's representation? With respect to "commercial", there will be others out to protect their "cut of the action". You can already see this with Virginia's reps. It's not a "bad thing", it simply is what it is.
So, I hear what you are saying in the most basic sense, but sarcasm is fine and if one is to be outraged we should make sure we apply that outrage equally and legitimately. In the end, I don't care anymore. I just want to see some positive steps forward, decisions made to finally leave Earth and personally know when I become unemployed for sure and finish the STS Program in a manner it deserves.
Sorry for the lengthy post, have a good weekend everyone.
Maybe some loudly complaining folks don't really want to see America and other nations building bases on the Moon and mining Lunar resources.
The Direct Team came up with a great plan to get us back to the Moon. The President didn't. Congress is trying.
1. As to, "the current spectacle of politicians designing NASA launch vehicles to insure their states get a cut of the action revolting and disheartening", it is far more likely that Congressional debate and action will produce a far more workable space policy than would the President's clearly expressed desire to throw out the window the SSME, Orion, and NASA's experienced launch crews and network of human spaceflight contractors.
2. Jim's continued defense of the President's dismantling attempt and lack of leadership for NASA's LEO and BLEO Orion replacement spacecraft for the Space Shuttles is quite strange. Some folks are happy with the hidden motives and politics of various presidents and their strange nonfunctional leadership provided to NASA, but unhappy about Congressional discussions that are aimed at gettiing NASA a functional and nationally supported SLS to take humans back to the Moon... That is a bit of contradiction. Or maybe it isn't. Maybe some loudly complaining folks don't really want to see America and other nations building bases on the Moon and mining Lunar resources.
Congress is trying. And it's humorous to watch.
Maybe some loudly complaining folks don't really want to see America and other nations building bases on the Moon and mining Lunar resources.
Or maybe what you're defending is a fantasy, the pursuit of which will leave NASA's HSF efforts in an even worse state than they're already in, because NASA will inevitably be asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it doesn't have the resources for. Due to interlinked political, economic and engineering difficulties, that show no signs of improving at all, NASA hasn't even managed to develop a replacement for their LEO crew and cargo capabilities, despite years of trying. Yet people expect them to succeed in planning and executing BEO activities from the get go, when there are no signs that any of the issues that have plagued the agency over decades will be resolved. Maybe the "loudly complaining folks" are of the persuasion that this grandiose vision, that congress is supposedly pushing, will end in tears like so many other projects.
Also, before Obama's administration, the US was following a more exclusionary space policy. So as much as you hate it, you have the administration to thank for changing the National Space Policy of the USA (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf) to include more international cooperation, which seems to be a recurring theme throughout your posts.QuoteThe Direct Team came up with a great plan to get us back to the Moon. The President didn't. Congress is trying.
And it's humorous to watch.
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Believe it or not Congress has a lot more to deal with than NASA and the SLS will just have to find its place in the process.
As important as we all know it is, so are a lot of other things and if SLS is important to you then you and your friends and family should be calling your Legislators to register that fact. That's how its importance to your Legislators gets noticed and hopefully influenced. That's how the sausage is made.
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
And I have seen nothing that convinces me that the EELV can do it cheaper and more safely than Direct's J-146. You don't like sausage. OK. I can understand that. But the RD-180 on the Atlas was a sausage deal too, whether you admit to that or not. Jim, you're smarter than me, but this isn't an issue of smarts, it is an issue of making sausage. You ignore sausage making when it suits your ideals and attack it when the sausage product isn't what you want. Sausage is sausage, and most folks consume it with a smile. EELV subsidies are subsidies, and overlook them as you selectively do, but nonetheless, Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.
Cheers! ;)
Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.
The sausage is rotten.
I find the current spectacle of politicians designing NASA launch vehicles to insure their states get a cut of the action revolting and disheartening.
The gap between development and operations istoowide.
The nation can not afford a lunar base nor should NASA be the one to manage one.
Don't throw the baby out with the watch.
Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.
Look, it's quite simple.
This is a plan for getting us to the moon ... Where is the plan with SLS? Where is the lander?
I think this remark is a bit off too: "NASA will inevitably be asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it doesn't have the resources for". I'd say rather, that NASA is being asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it achieved with slide rules and vacuum tubes.
All this new technology and software these days: does it now cost more per erg to get to the Moon than it did back then? Maybe Moore's Suggestion is a lotta marketing hooey. Our bang for the buck factor seems to be going down, in inverse proportion to the coolness factor of the technology.
And I have seen nothing that convinces me that the EELV can do it cheaper and more safely than Direct's J-146.
Some people around here think that Congress is "designing" the launch vehicle, and that is wrong. Congress is specifying a performance metric. As a type of customer, that is exactly what they should do. As part of due diligence, I also think that they should consider the rocket design itself as well. In their opinion, the DIRECT design appears to be the most viable alternative, which is fine by me. (As if they care about my opinion, but that's another thing.)
Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.
Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.
Congress will do what it takes to guarantee short-term jobs in their districts. That is all. Nothing more.
Congress (with the exception of a handful of members) doesn't give a crap about going to the Moon, Mars, or any BEO destination. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.
Chuck, my parents don't give a %&#* about SLS or spaceflight at all. My friends would mock the everloving crap out of me, if they knew how interested in space I am.
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
Jim, the practical political need that was the basis of the international sausage subsidy deal that created the Atlas RD-180 EELV is no longer valid. SpaceX has figured that out. The Falcon 9, or some variant of it, is likely to end up being a better deal on the political level and several other levels as well. Don't add stress to the position of the Atlas V by claiming it can do everything better. It cannot. America needs the SSME SLS a lot more than it needs the RD-180 Atlas V.
Cheers!
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
True.
Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.
In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.
They're doing something right.
Ross.
.......
Look, it's quite simple. Prove to me that Congress & NASA can manage a space station with full support, and I could then begin to believe it could handle a lunar base. But as it stands now, ISS is on shaky ground (?) and it has no right to be.
A lunar base, or a trip to Venus, or a landing on Mars, are infinitely more costly & complex than simple cargo re-supply, or crew rotation, or logistics support. We nail those down in a cost effective & timely manner, let me know.
Congress needs to wake up to that fact. NASA does too, because right now the language is (to me) wavering on its intent due to outside influences (in a negative way).
NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}
NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}
Wrong target. Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS. if used more than once that will kill of SLS.
Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.
NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130.{snip}
Wrong target. Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS. if used more than once that will kill of SLS.
Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.
SLS Block I flight(s) to ISS will be for "shakedown" purposes, and possibly to bring up large items (or a large number of smaller items) that an F9 would be unable to fly. SLS would not be used for normal crew rotation.
ISS will not be the final destination for SLS. ISS will be a proving ground, a waystation, and possibly a staging area for BLEO missions. But access to ISS is not the reason for SLS, just a very nice side benefit.
Mark S.
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
True.
Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.
In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.
They're doing something right.
Ross.
It is good to have 'friends' in high places. Maybe you should explain it to Jim. He doesn't seem to be getting it.
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
True.
Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.
In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.
They're doing something right.
Ross.
It is good to have 'friends' in high places. Maybe you should explain it to Jim. He doesn't seem to be getting it.
Which 'friends' are you referring to? You seem to be implying Obama and/or Garver, I'm guessing. Neither was involed in the SpaceX COTS contract that was signed in 2006. And the CRS contract was awarded in Dec 2008, before Obama became president.
Wrong again. F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V. There is no need for the SSME. And Atlas V CAN do everything better. That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available
True.
Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.
In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.
SLS Block I flight(s) to ISS will be for "shakedown" purposes, and possibly to bring up large items (or a large number of smaller items) that an F9 would be unable to fly. SLS would not be used for normal crew rotation.
Wrong target. Dragon on Falcon 9 will be cheaper than Orion on J-130 for trips to the ISS. if used more than once that will kill of SLS.
Orion to EML1 gateway on J-246 is a better target since it uses the deep space ability of both machines.
Is it wrong? When they are influenced by lobbyists, telling them that it 'NEEDS' to be 130t, THAT is designing the launch vehicle.
To me, Congress' first order is really to debate & then fund what the President requests, for the good of the nation.
SpaceX got the politics right...
Having said that I personally think an EML-1 station is a very good idea as part of a much broader HSF program of BEO exploration. There should be an EML-1 station for human-based missions and a similar station at EML-2 for cargo-based missions. BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.
That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.
From Zubrin's presentation to the Augustine Committee.
If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.
Wrong, Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner. It is a political manner. And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too. And what say we should go back to the moon?
Didn't they all work on constellation? Did you think constellation was cost effective and efficient?
Steven's chart seems to indicate LEO to Mars surface at 3.9 km/sec? What is it that I'm not getting here?
That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.
Part of it is that orbital mechanics is too complex to be expressed as a simple table, and part of it is that neither really define their terms. So, they are likely talking about two very different initial LEO orbits (with different inclinations and/or altitudes), and two different transfer trajectories (with different transfer times)...
That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.
Couldn't a returning trip from Mars also employ an Earth fly-by (combined with a touch of aerobraking?) to slow the transit habitat before arrival at EML-2?
Sure it's slightly more delta-v than from LEO (0.35 km/s), but you get to assemble &/or fuel much closer (in delta-v) to your destination, and have much more frequent departure windows.
Steven's chart seems to indicate LEO to Mars surface at 3.9 km/sec? What is it that I'm not getting here?
To get from EML1 to a circular LEO orbit takes ~4 km/sec. About .7 km/sec to drop and then a 3.2 circularization burn at perigee.
But with no circularization burn, you're moving 10.8 km/sec at perigee, just under escape. From this speed another .5 km/sec suffices for Trans Mars Insertion.
The path from EML1or2 does exploit the Oberth effect and EML1or2 is much, much closer to Mars than LEO.
You're assuming that the Mars hardware appears at EML-1 for free,
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.
That's not what I learnt from orbital mechanics. You want departure and arrival for interplanetary missions to have as low a perigee to Earth as possible, not way up there at EML-1 or EML-2.
BTW, it has been said, and quite correctly, that once you are docked at EML-2, you are literally halfway to nearly any location in the solar system. It is the perfect location for earth departure and arrival spacecraft on interplanetary missions.
From Zubrin's presentation to the Augustine Committee.
The map is wrong. You cannot get from Earth to Luna without going through LEO and near EML1.
LEO to Mars transfer orbit has a delta v requirement of 4.3 km/s.
LEO to EML1 to C3 to Mars transfer orbit has a delta v requirement of 4.51 km/s (3.77+0.14+0.6)
Not that much of a difference.
....
It is also worth noting the possibility an MTV can load up on consumables as well as propellent at EML1. Air to breathe, water to drink as well as water for radiation shielding. This could be 30 tonnes for the MSD (http://www.marsdrive.com/Libraries/Downloads/A_Practical_Architecture_for_Exploration-Focused_Manned_Mars.sflb.ashx) MTV.
Draft of an omnibus appropriations bill released by the Senate Appropriations committee:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=9ac3518e-7e19-4328-bf52-16a6c2a1d333
Summary:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=00058c70-649a-435f-9b73-85832758a0b1
Still waiting to see whether the Senate takes up this bill or the heavily-marked-up continuing resolution bill that the House passed.
1 [...]Provided fur-
2 ther, That the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch
3 vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons and that
4 the upper stage and other core elements shall be developed
5 simultaneously.
See page 187 of the Senate Onibus FY 11 Appropriation bill which indicates the following:Quote1 [...]Provided fur-
2 ther, That the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch
3 vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons and that
4 the upper stage and other core elements shall be developed
5 simultaneously.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
Orbiter
$825 million for an additional Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe, and for launch infrastructure for the heavy lift rocket;
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
Orbiter
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
Orbiter
I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
OrbiterQuote$825 million for an additional Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe, and for launch infrastructure for the heavy lift rocket;
I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
OrbiterQuote$825 million for an additional Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe, and for launch infrastructure for the heavy lift rocket;
Where'd you find that clause? I found something similar in the full-year CR, but not the Omnibus bill.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
No, the extra flight is funded. What is not funded is Shuttle operations for the rest of FY 2011 after STS-135 has flown. But this gives NASA flexibility. Notice that there is no money specifically allocated to the 21st century complex either.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
OrbiterQuote$825 million for an additional Shuttle flight, if determined to be safe, and for launch infrastructure for the heavy lift rocket;
Not saying it isn't funded -- saying it's not called out in the bill language and it doesn't have to be. The House bill doesn't specify it either -- it says "additional Space Shuttle costs."I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
No, the extra flight is funded. What is not funded is Shuttle operations for the rest of FY 2011 after STS-135 has flown. But this gives NASA flexibility. Notice that there is no money specifically allocated to the 21st century complex either.
Provided further, That funds made available under this heading in excess of those specified for Space Shuttle, International Space Station, and Space and Flight support may be transferred to ‘‘Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration’’ for construction activities only at NASA owned facilities: Provided further, That funds so transferred shall not be subject to section 505(a)(1) of this Act or to the transfer limitations described in the Administrative Provisions in this Act for NASA, and shall be available until September 30, 2015, only after notification of such transfers to the Committees on Appropriations.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
No, the extra flight is funded. What is not funded is Shuttle operations for the rest of FY 2011 after STS-135 has flown. But this gives NASA flexibility. Notice that there is no money specifically allocated to the 21st century complex either.
Basically it excludes pretty much of the chances for STS-136 I believe.
Orbiter
I didn't read anything about STS-135.It's not mentioned that way, since the already enacted re-authorization mandates the flight but doesn't fund it. This draft bill and the House bill both fund Space Operations at the same top line of ~$5.2B. While the House bill specifically allocates $825M for additional Shuttle costs, this draft doesn't, even though that $825M is "there." That would presumably give NASA (and specifically SOMD) more discretion in terms of how that money might be spent.
No, the extra flight is funded. What is not funded is Shuttle operations for the rest of FY 2011 after STS-135 has flown. But this gives NASA flexibility. Notice that there is no money specifically allocated to the 21st century complex either.
Basically it excludes pretty much of the chances for STS-136 I believe.
Orbiter
ST-136 was not considered in the 2010 NASA Authorization bill either. But I think that both Appropriation bills would allow NASA to push STS-135 to September if it wanted to do so.
In order to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for passage, Democrats hope to secure the support of a handful of Republican appropriators like Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Kit Bond of Missouri, and Bob Bennett of Utah with earmarks for their states. The three moderate Republicans from New England – Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts – are also viewed as possible votes in favor of the omnibus.
I didn't read anything about STS-135.
Orbiter
We can wait for 51D Mascot's comments on this but I don't think that they need to add any additionnal language as long as the overall funding for Space Operations is sufficient, the LON must be added given the wording of the 2010 NASA Authorization bill.
You seemed to be assuming that interplanetary routes from EML1 would do their perigee burns at EML1.
How you get to EML1 is irrelevant to Clongton's assertion.
Actually Clongton is underestimating the advantage of EML 1 or 2. Earth's surface is 14 km/sec from Trans Mars Insertion. EML1 or 2 is 1.2 km/sec from Trans Mars Insertion. Given that propellent fraction rises exponentially with delta V budget, I would say EML1 or 2 is 95% of the way there.
If propellent and consumables come from the moon, you need only loft the dry mass of the MTV from earth's surface. You wouldn't need a 188 tonne to LEO HLV (Ares V). Nor would you need a 130 tonne to LEO HLV (the current pork frenzy). A 70 tonne to LEO HLV would do quite nicely.
EXPLORATION
For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for,
in the conduct and support of exploration research and
development activities, including research, development,
operations, support, and services; maintenance; space
flight, spacecraft control, and communications activities;
program management, personnel and related costs, includ-
ing uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5
U.S.C. 5901–5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of
passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter,
maintenance, and operation of mission and administrative
aircraft, $3,706,000,000, to remain available until Sep-
tember 30, 2012: Provided, That not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
not less than $250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew,
not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift
launch vehicle system, and not less than $1,200,000,000
shall be for the multipurpose crew vehicle: Provided fur-
ther, That the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch
vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons and that
the upper stage and other core elements shall be developed
simultaneously.
Funding designations and minimum funding require-
ments contained in any other Act shall not be applicable
to funds appropriated by this title for NASA.
FY 2011 Omnibus Appropriations Act Full Text:
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=def76786-2439-4ca2-a914-69e4336dc82e
NASA language is on pages 184-193. Exploration language (page 186-187):The same language that's in the House-passed CR. Also, I don't see the language allowing NASA to proceed fully on new Exploration programs, unless this on page 192 is it?:QuoteFunding designations and minimum funding require-
ments contained in any other Act shall not be applicable
to funds appropriated by this title for NASA.
{snip}
It's about 4 km/sec from LEO to EML1. It's also about 4 km/sec to Mars. So what's the point in stopping at EML1? If your Mars Transfer Vehicle (MTV) is making a one way trip, there is no point.
{snip}
You seemed to be assuming that interplanetary routes from EML1 would do their perigee burns at EML1.
No, I did not make that assumption, as you would see from the calculation I presented previously.
Pretty obvious that the Republicans don't want the Appropriations for 2011 to pass. TBH, if this doesn't pass before the Republicans take control of the HOR the future of NASA's Space Exploration could be in big trouble.
Orbiter
FWIW, story that Senator McConnell has introduced a bill that extends the current clean CR (#2, Public Law 111-290) another two months:
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/appropriations/134009-mcconnell-offers-two-month-extension-of-bill-to-fund-the-government
This is presumably the Republican alternative in the Senate to the omnibus appropriations bill that will reportedly be introduced this week by Senator Inouye.
The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
Clean means no changes. If NASA gets to make changes then all the other programs would want to update their spending guidance. So I would say that is doubtful.The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
Since this "clean" CR isn't the one that passed the House, it will have to go to the House for final passage. Is there a possibility this "clean" CR could be amended with the language allowing NASA to proceed on SLS before passing and going to the House?
Clean means no changes. If NASA gets to make changes then all the other programs would want to update their spending guidance. So I would say that is doubtful.The Senate Majority Leader has just indicated he will not attempt to proceed with consideration of the House-passed CR (nor, with it, the proposed Inouye Omnibus amendment). That leaves ONLY the option for another "clean" CR...basically a continuation of what has been in effect for the past two and a half months. There will be no "corrective" language regarding prior restrictions on program termination, and no certainty as to what the full FY 2011 funding levels will be. This will almost certainly have a ripple effect in slowing down progress in moving forward with the SLS development activities, though what work NASA will feel it is able to will obviously be the subject of subsequent conversations and briefings with Members of Congress and staff.
Since this "clean" CR isn't the one that passed the House, it will have to go to the House for final passage. Is there a possibility this "clean" CR could be amended with the language allowing NASA to proceed on SLS before passing and going to the House?
Correct. It will probably just end up as a simple amendment to change the effective dates for the existing CR.
Correct. It will probably just end up as a simple amendment to change the effective dates for the existing CR.
I wonder though, in the next congress the appropriations process seems very uncertain at this point, no one really knows what is going to happen. There could even be another CR before we get a fully updated set of new bills.
If it's going to take a long time to get an updated NASA appropriation, how hard would it be to pass another simple resolution just striking the restrictive language in last year's bill so at least NASA can move forward with new programs under the CRs? If NASA presses for that in the next Congress I wonder if they could get something. The Senators in the commerce committee hearing seemed very motivated to see something done about that.
Looks like there may be a "mini" CR for just a few days to provide time to see if something can be pulled together for a full-year, so there MAY still be an opportunity to get some clarity for NASA for the balance of FY 2011 after all. If so, it will likely look more like the initial house-passed CR than the Omnibus. Stay tuned; it's a dynamic environment, as always, late in the year and especially in a late in the year "lame duck" session.
Looks like there may be a "mini" CR for just a few days to provide time to see if something can be pulled together for a full-year, so there MAY still be an opportunity to get some clarity for NASA for the balance of FY 2011 after all. If so, it will likely look more like the initial house-passed CR than the Omnibus. Stay tuned; it's a dynamic environment, as always, late in the year and especially in a late in the year "lame duck" session.FWIW, the Library of Congress site has a pointer to HJRes 105 -- as 51D wrote, would extend from Dec. 18 to Dec. 21.
In the current environment, it would likely be difficult to get the Pledge of Allegiance passed as an amendment to something!
WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to take action on a short-term spending measure to continue funding the federal government at 2010 levels through Dec. 21, giving the U.S. Senate time to complete work on a longer-term spending package for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Dec. 17.
In the current environment, it would likely be difficult to get the Pledge of Allegiance passed as an amendment to something!
That does seem to be the general sentiment, however the authorization bill passed the Senate unanimously and the House by a 3/4 majority, so I was hoping there would be room for more broad consensus on NASA items.
Those are just the harsh realities of where we are in the process right now; early next year, however, there will be more of an opportunity to work on focused legislation, where needed, to help NASA move forward.
If NASA presses for that in the next Congress I wonder if they could get something.
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?
Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?
Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?
So just to clarify, 51 is it currently the case that constellation is being funded and not the new HLV and commercial and "the new direction" for NASA?
Or is it simply that the amount of money NASA has to spend is maintained at 2010 levels but they can still change direction internally?
51D can clarify better, but the current law restricts NASA from terminating any PPAs relating to Constellation or creating any new ones until a "subsequent appropriations act" changes their guidance.
So they cannot proceed with any meaningful development effort on SLS until that restriction is lifted.
As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is." The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.
As an attorney noted in a luncheon meeting I attended this week, in the final analysis, "the law is what everybody agrees it is." The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law. There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences, hehe, but I think the meaning is clear.
Well, that would be great news. It seemed like this restriction was a huge deal at the commerce committee hearing. But I guess if it's a situation where everyone agrees that they can just disregard that provision since we know it will be changed anyway, maybe that can work. I wonder if NASA will have reservations about doing that though, given that GAO just investigated them for possibly failing to follow that exact provision in the law (though ultimately found them compliant for now).
Thinking about it a little bit more though, I get the sense that the GAO investigation was motivated by Congress being a little irked that NASA seemed to be taking steps to fulfill the president's budget request without waiting for direction from them (since there was still question as to whether Constellation would be cancelled). Now that Congress has spoken with the authorization act and they want to see it implemented, they would probably not be motivated to initiate any further action of that sort.
"the law is what everybody agrees it is."
There I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
"the law is what everybody agrees it is."
With the important, always active proviso that, some "somebodies" are more equal than other "somebodies". Sometimes this is fair and appropriate. Sometimes it is not.
As an aside, what is the current status of the results of that "termination clause" brouhaha that erupted this last summer?QuoteThere I go with another one of my long, involved sentences ...
Hey. Your sentences are great. The length does require a careful read. I'm gonna paraphrase this one, because I wasn't quite clear on my understanding:QuoteThe fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
The appropriators, who are also the law's authors, placed legislative restrictions on NASA forbidding terminating certain aspects of the Constellation program. Even at that time, there was a large outcry from many of the stakeholders, which include taxpayers as well, that the Constellation program was fatally flawed and should be terminated. Therefore, there was not really any surprise in the idea of termination. Even so, within NASA, the already extant termination clauses were read again with greater attention. It was found, it seems to me, that some types of termination actions were within the law already, and these were enacted, causing a number of layoffs along the way.
In a way, these "overt actions" may be what the more savvy appropriators intended all along. In the CR and Omnibus, the restrictions are more forcibly and directly worded. (I haven't read them personally, and am trusting in 51D's summarization.) Rather than create a huge list of the specific restrictions, it seems more that they're going to allow NASA management to continue this process as they see fit.
Is that an accurate paraphrase?
http://spacenews.com/policy/101217-house-readies-short-cr.htmlFWIW, the CR was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate last night.QuoteWASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives was expected to take action on a short-term spending measure to continue funding the federal government at 2010 levels through Dec. 21, giving the U.S. Senate time to complete work on a longer-term spending package for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Dec. 17.
Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.
Yes, and the full-year CR bill passed by the House was an amendment to a Senate amendment to HR 3082.Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.
It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.
Yes, and the full-year CR bill passed by the House was an amendment to a Senate amendment to HR 3082.Thinking about it, this CR is a Senate Amendment to HR 3082 which was the Omnibus House Bill which contained references to NASA so this may be already covered. 51D will clarify one way or the other in due course I'm sure.
It's unlikely. They are more likely to replace the entire bill from the House through an amendment.
The proposed CR was offered in a series of amendments by Senator Reid to the first CR (PL 111-242); the text is available in the Congressional Record and can be found on Thomas's FY11 appropriations page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app11.html
(The bulk of the proposed CR is in SA 4885.)
The fact that in recent months, the appropriators--who placed those restrictions on NASA at a time when it was unclear what the Congressional consensus would be on a plan for moving forward in human space flight--have taken numerous overt actions to support the new direction outlined in the new law (including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
(including incorporating language in the CR and the proposed Omnibus that would set aside those restrictions), even if those actions have not--yet--reached the level of being enacted into law themselves, appears to me to make it clear that they are not going force NASA to remain constrained by those earlier provisions, despite the fact that they technically have the force of law.
The continuing resolution by design mandates that programs are to be held at the amounts provided last year regardless of merit or need.
My colleagues should be advised that since 2006, the Congress has reduced spending on earmarks by nearly 75%.
Mr. President, this election was about gridlock and partisan gamesmanship. And what we saw in the past 24 hours was more of the same. Endless delaying tactics followed by decision making by partisan point scoring rather than what is good for our nation.
The Omnibus bill included $142 million in vital program increases for the Indian Health Service ... and thereby provide more and better medical care for Native Americans and Alaska Natives. A CR brings this progress to a halt.
Mr. President, I wish there were a better way, but the decisions by our colleagues on the other side who helped craft this bill have left us with no choice.
Was there any NASA-related language in the CR that passed the Senate today?No.
Thanks Freddie! It looks like the gridlock at NASA may finally be busted.
I see they managed to slip in the "initial capability of 130 tons" clause, which will complicate things a bit. But what the hey, at least it gets NASA out of the holding pattern its been in since 2/1/2010 (or actually since President Obama took office).
Cheers!
Mark S.
Authorisation Appropriation Change
Exploration $3,868,000,000 $3,706,000,000 -$162,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPCV $1,120,000,000 $1,200,000,000 +$80,000,000
SLS $1,631,000,000 $1,800,000,000 +$169,000,000
Technology Development $250,000,000 $0 -$250,000,000
Human Research $155,000,000
Commercial Cargo $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $0
Commercial Crew $312,000,000 $250,000,000 -$62,000,000
Robotic Precursor $100,000,000
Space Operations $5,508,500,000 $5,247,900,000 -$260,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISS $2,779,800,000 $2,745,000,000 -$34,800,000
Space & Flight Services $690,400,000 $688,800,000 -$1,600,000
Total Space Shuttle $2,038,300,000 $1,814,100,000 -224,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Shuttle $1,609,700,000 $989,100,000
KSC Modernisation $428,600,000
Additional Space Shuttle $825,000,000
Science $5,005,600,000 $5,005,600,000 $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth $1,801,800,000 $1,801,800,000 $0
Planetary $1,485,700,000 $1,485,700,000 $0
Astrophysics $1,076,300,000 $1,076,300,000 $0
Heliophysics $641,900,000 $641,900,000 $0
Aeronautics $929,600,000 $1,138,600,000 +$209,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research $579,600,000 $579,600,000 $0
Space Technology $350,000,000 $559,000,000 +$209,000,000
Education $145,800,000 $180,000,000 +$34,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Program $25,000,000
Space Grant Program $45,600,000
??? $75,200,000
Cross-Agency Support $3,111,400,000 $3,085,700,000 -$25,700,000
Construction $394,300,000 $528,700,000 +$134,400,000
Inspector General $37,000,000 $37,500,000 +$500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $19,000,000,000 $18,930,000,000 -$70,000,000
Space Tech Development $600,000,000 $559,000,000 -$41,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Development $250,000,000 $0
Space Technology $350,000,000 $559,000,000
I believe this is the final (enrolled) version of the bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/111/h/h3082enr.pdf
No NASA items.
In summary, the overall budget has decreased by $70M to $18,930M. MPCV has increased $80M to$1,200M, SLS has increased by $169M to $1,800M, Commercial Cargo stays the same at $300M, Commercial Crew has decreased by $62M to $250M and Space Technology Development has decreased by $41M to $559M. Space Shuttle and KSC Modernisation has decreased by $224.2M to $1,814.1M which hopefully will be enough to fly STS-135.Authorisation Appropriation Change
Exploration $3,868,000,000 $3,706,000,000 -$162,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MPCV $1,120,000,000 $1,200,000,000 +$80,000,000
SLS $1,631,000,000 $1,800,000,000 +$169,000,000
Technology Development $250,000,000 $0 -$250,000,000
Human Research $155,000,000
Commercial Cargo $300,000,000 $300,000,000 $0
Commercial Crew $312,000,000 $250,000,000 -$62,000,000
Robotic Precursor $100,000,000
Space Operations $5,508,500,000 $5,247,900,000 -$260,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISS $2,779,800,000 $2,745,000,000 -$34,800,000
Space & Flight Services $690,400,000 $688,800,000 -$1,600,000
Total Space Shuttle $2,038,300,000 $1,814,100,000 -224,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Shuttle $1,609,700,000 $989,100,000
KSC Modernisation $428,600,000
Additional Space Shuttle $825,000,000
Science $5,005,600,000 $5,005,600,000 $0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth $1,801,800,000 $1,801,800,000 $0
Planetary $1,485,700,000 $1,485,700,000 $0
Astrophysics $1,076,300,000 $1,076,300,000 $0
Heliophysics $641,900,000 $641,900,000 $0
Aeronautics $929,600,000 $1,138,600,000 +$209,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research $579,600,000 $579,600,000 $0
Space Technology $350,000,000 $559,000,000 +$209,000,000
Education $145,800,000 $180,000,000 +$34,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Program $25,000,000
Space Grant Program $45,600,000
??? $75,200,000
Cross-Agency Support $3,111,400,000 $3,085,700,000 -$25,700,000
Construction $394,300,000 $528,700,000 +$134,400,000
Inspector General $37,000,000 $37,500,000 +$500,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total $19,000,000,000 $18,930,000,000 -$70,000,000
Space Tech Development $600,000,000 $559,000,000 -$41,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Development $250,000,000 $0
Space Technology $350,000,000 $559,000,000
Chris, these numbers are wrong. For the time being, you must rely on the FY 2010 numbers.
[...]
All of this will continue to be monitored carefully by the relevant congressional Members and staff. Hopefully, this provides some information of use and interest.
Sorry for not responding to several questions earlier..have been extremely busy the past week or ten days and just haven't had time to visit the site much, let alone sit down and try to provide some insights into what's been going on, from my perspective. Suffice it to say there has been a GREAT DEAL of internal discussion within the Congress about the meaning and content of the various approaches to FY 2011 appropriations, from the initial 1-year CR as passed by the House and embodied in HR 3082 as it was returned to the Senate, the Omnibus approach, which was proposed as a substitute for that full-year text, and the final version as embodied in the Senate amendment to HR 3082, which stripped out the year-long CR language and included a few "anomalies." There was considerable last-minute discussion about including one or more anomalies relating to NASA in the final CR, but in the end it was just not possible to "open" it up to additional language. (The principle reason for that is that, with the government-wide coverage of the bill, it means that the leadership of all of the appropriations subcommittees, in both the House and Senate, have to be brought into agreement on even a single word change, and that was simply impossible to do, despite best efforts.)
A parenthetical note regarding terminology: I think most folks have come to understand that an "anomaly" in a Continuing Resolution basically means that language is included that modifies something that would otherwise be a simple continuation of whatever funding activities, limitations or restrictions from the Fiscal Year being extended by the CR. Inclusion of "anomalies" makes a CR, by definition, not a "Clean" CR.
With respect to questions about implementation of P.L. 111-267, the NASA Authorization Bill, there has been a lot of confusion as to the impact the appropriations bill, or CR, or the appropriations process, in general, would have on the provisions of that law. Part of that is just the lack of clarity on the congressional "processes" of authorization and appropriations, which are two separate, but obviously related functions of the Congress. Believe me, it's confusing even to those directly involved with it, so pointing out confusion is not meant to be a criticism. In another post, responding to JohnFornaro, I'll review some of the background over the past year to hopefully show how, within those two processes, a general consensus has evolved, at least among those Senators and Representatives who have committee and subcommittee leadership responsibilities within the authorizing committees and appropriating committees, and other Members with direct NASA-related constituent interests. (On that score, I have to note that "my perspective" is better "informed" on the Senate side than the House, so that should be kept in mind.)
Anyway, getting back to the question of implementation of P.L. 111-267, I will say that what is very clear to me is that both the key authorizers AND appropriators--certainly on the Senate side--agree that the path NASA should now be moving forward on is the path outlined in P.L. 111-267, and that they expect NASA to COMPLY with that law, with whatever resources and spending authority it has, whether under a short-term CR or under whatever is determined will replace that CR next March.
There was never a real possibility that the appropriations process would dramatically change or undermine or vitiate the principal terms, conditions, and authority prescribed in P.L. 111-267, as many seem to have believed. In the first place, it is a violation of congressional procedure to "legislate" in an appropriations act. There is, of course, a degree of subjectivism regarding just what it means to "legislate", and over the years, when current authorizing legislation has not been enacted, the appropriators--who have to act on an annual basis--have tended, and in some cases, been forced to, in effect, "legislate" on major policy kinds of issues. But they did so with the tacit acquiescence of the authorizers, who were either unable, or unwilling, to fulfill their part of the "process."
That is not the case in the current Congress. nor has it been for the past five years, with active authorization committees legislating and overseeing NASA, and the enactment of authorization legislation fairly consistently since 2005. The only year NOT covered by the terms of a specific authorization bill in that period was 2010--because the authorizers were awaiting the outcome of the Augustine report, and the Administration's response to that report, both of which were initially expected to be available by late September of that year. (Remember that the FY 2010 Budget Request had an asterisk in the documents showing Exploration funding levels, and a note that the numbers were "subject to change" after the HSF Review, which would be done with an "amended Budget Request." In the end, the Administration chose to make its "response" to Augustine in the form of the FY 2011 Budget submission, so there was no revised Administration FY 2010 Request for the Congress to respond to.)
The key issue now, going forward, is the degree to which NASA is able to apply available funds, which under the CR it can expend at a "rate" equal to the annualized FY 2010 enacted appropriations levels, towards implementation of P.L. 111-267. That, and the question of the degree to which they are hampered in that effort by the previously-enacted (in late 2010) prohibition against termination of the Constellation Program and associated contracts. NASA's Chief Financial Officer testified at the Senate hearing on December 1st:
"And finally, there are specific restrictions in the CR, which we have already discussed. In particular, the CR continues any restrictions that were present in last year’s appropriation including, in NASA’s case, the prohibition on termination of components of the Constellation program. Moreover, the CR requires that work not begin on new starts, which is a legal term of art about which GAO has given us guidance in their May report, and using that guidance, we have been working through what is and is not a new start.
And we have not yet found anything in the authorization act on which we cannot proceed, but we are not done with our analysis, this unfortunately lengthy analysis, and we are working the issue daily.
"However, there are some areas in which we can clearly proceed. For example, planning efforts for the heavy lift and multipurpose crew vehicle activities, both authorized in the act, are proceeding and are assessing the transition from the Constellation efforts to the new programs. Moreover, on November 8th, NASA announced the results of a broad agency announcement under which NASA selected 13 companies to conduct studies on various heavy lift technologies. These studies are focused on achieving affordability, operability, reliability, and commonality at the system and subsystem levels with multiple users, including other government, commercial, science and international partners.
"Further, although requirements for the multipurpose crew vehicle have not yet been fully vetted, NASA expects this vehicle to be based on the existing Orion work. The ground test article for Orion will be completed within the coming months, which is very exciting, and in early 2011, the GTA will be shipped to Denver for performance testing that will help validate the cabin design."
Dr. Robinson was referring to the original CR, but the comments about restrictions are applicable to the new CR just enacted.
In addition, in a meeting at NASA last Friday, Administrator Bolden made it clear he expects the report required by Section 309 of the Authorization Act to be ready for delivery to the Congress by January 10th. In addition, he reportedly made it clear his obligation and intent is to implement and comply with P.L. 111-267.
All of this will continue to be monitored carefully by the relevant congressional Members and staff. Hopefully, this provides some information of use and interest.
What are the overall requirements for the "multipurpose crew vehicle"? Do they include anything like an expanded service module, an add-on mission module (for habitation), refueling capability, or anything like that? Or is the MPCV merely a renaming of Orion?
Agreed, but is there any kind of hint about MPCV would be?What are the overall requirements for the "multipurpose crew vehicle"? Do they include anything like an expanded service module, an add-on mission module (for habitation), refueling capability, or anything like that? Or is the MPCV merely a renaming of Orion?
I am pretty sure that is not the kind of detail that will be resolved by Congress. This is a more of a HEFT recommendation/Bolden decision.
[...]
All of this will continue to be monitored carefully by the relevant congressional Members and staff. Hopefully, this provides some information of use and interest.
Thanks for your post. Very informative.
On a side note, I wished that we had access to the transcript of the December 1, 2010 Senate space and science subcommitteee hearing that you quoted from. I am not sure why they don't always provide access to transcripts. I also wished that we had access to the documents that were submitted for the record relating to the hearing. At these Congressional hearings, often a person will answer a question by saying that they will submit an official answer for the record but we never get to see this official answer. I imagine that there is ways of obtaining these documents (through freedom of information request, etc). But I wished that they would simply provide them on the internet with the rest of the documents from the hearing which for the December 1, 2010 hearing can be found here:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=63c5863f-8419-4aa3-9474-cef769b345f3&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=a06730c4-d875-4fde-97db-9e2be611840e
Agreed, but is there any kind of hint about MPCV would be?What are the overall requirements for the "multipurpose crew vehicle"? Do they include anything like an expanded service module, an add-on mission module (for habitation), refueling capability, or anything like that? Or is the MPCV merely a renaming of Orion?
I am pretty sure that is not the kind of detail that will be resolved by Congress. This is a more of a HEFT recommendation/Bolden decision.
This article is worth reading:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/10122-cogress-approves-cr.html
It says that the commercial crew would be difficult to start under a CR. But the extra Shuttle mission wouldn't be a problem.
This article is worth reading:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/10122-cogress-approves-cr.html
It says that the commercial crew would be difficult to start under a CR. But the extra Shuttle mission wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know about that. I believe commercial initiatives were something the NASA administration had already received "legal clarity" on from their lawyers in regards to how to fund this under a CR and the new 2010 Authorization Law as guide. Makes sense too, since this is seemingly the highest priority with respect to the current NASA admin.
This was discussed at the most recent hearing if I didn't misunderstand. If so, I'm sure 51D can correct me.
the law prohibits actual contracting for commercial crew services until a series of "requirements" are met (Section 403). Even if those requirements are met in FY 2011, the law enables ONLY up to $50m in actual contract authority
This article is worth reading:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/10122-cogress-approves-cr.html
It says that the commercial crew would be difficult to start under a CR. But the extra Shuttle mission wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know about that. I believe commercial initiatives were something the NASA administration had already received "legal clarity" on from their lawyers in regards to how to fund this under a CR and the new 2010 Authorization Law as guide. Makes sense too, since this is seemingly the highest priority with respect to the current NASA admin.
This was discussed at the most recent hearing if I didn't misunderstand. If so, I'm sure 51D can correct me.
You're basically correct on both counts. What should be remembered, however, is that the law prohibits actual contracting for commercial crew services until a series of "requirements" are met (Section 403). Even if those requirements are met in FY 2011, the law enables ONLY up to $50m in actual contract authority for "...a contract or procurement agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew services."
So, any work actually done regarding commercial crew must be within those constraints, regardless of the funding levels provided by a CR or an eventual FY-2011 appropriations act passed next March as a follow-on the the current CR.
The constraint is meant to apply to actual award of a development contract, and should not limit funding for the required preliminary work to support the requirements or pursue supporting technologies, in my view.
This article is worth reading:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/10122-cogress-approves-cr.html
It says that the commercial crew would be difficult to start under a CR. But the extra Shuttle mission wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know about that. I believe commercial initiatives were something the NASA administration had already received "legal clarity" on from their lawyers in regards to how to fund this under a CR and the new 2010 Authorization Law as guide. Makes sense too, since this is seemingly the highest priority with respect to the current NASA admin.
This was discussed at the most recent hearing if I didn't misunderstand. If so, I'm sure 51D can correct me.
You're basically correct on both counts. What should be remembered, however, is that the law prohibits actual contracting for commercial crew services until a series of "requirements" are met (Section 403). Even if those requirements are met in FY 2011, the law enables ONLY up to $50m in actual contract authority for "...a contract or procurement agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew services."
So, any work actually done regarding commercial crew must be within those constraints, regardless of the funding levels provided by a CR or an eventual FY-2011 appropriations act passed next March as a follow-on the the current CR.
The constraint is meant to apply to actual award of a development contract, and should not limit funding for the required preliminary work to support the requirements or pursue supporting technologies, in my view.
Two questions:
1. How does this latest CR affect planning and funding for STS-135? Does it move forward without being officially part of the manifest? Can STS-135 get added to the manifest without specific appropriations?
There are sufficient funds to the Shuttle program to enable 135, and NASA is moving forward under the assumption that the mission will be manifested and flown.
2. Could the DHS (node 4) module begin the funding, planning, and development process for a lift to the ISS on an Atlas V in 2013 under CR funding levels?
Could it? Yes, there's some latitude for "programming" money. But it isn't called out under the Authorization language, and it constitutes a "new start". Finally, the CR only runs until March.
Unlikely. (Unless there's something afoot I don't know about. Which happens. Frequently. ;D )
Two questions:
1. How does this latest CR affect planning and funding for STS-135? Does it move forward without being officially part of the manifest? Can STS-135 get added to the manifest without specific appropriations?
There are sufficient funds to the Shuttle program to enable 135, and NASA is moving forward under the assumption that the mission will be manifested and flown.
2. Could the DHS (node 4) module begin the funding, planning, and development process for a lift to the ISS on an Atlas V in 2013 under CR funding levels?
Could it? Yes, there's some latitude for "programming" money. But it isn't called out under the Authorization language, and it constitutes a "new start". Finally, the CR only runs until March.
Unlikely. (Unless there's something afoot I don't know about. Which happens. Frequently. ;D )
(In response to a PM). Well, OK. Not _that_ frequently. ;)
This article is worth reading:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/10122-cogress-approves-cr.html
It says that the commercial crew would be difficult to start under a CR. But the extra Shuttle mission wouldn't be a problem.
I don't know about that. I believe commercial initiatives were something the NASA administration had already received "legal clarity" on from their lawyers in regards to how to fund this under a CR and the new 2010 Authorization Law as guide. Makes sense too, since this is seemingly the highest priority with respect to the current NASA admin.
This was discussed at the most recent hearing if I didn't misunderstand. If so, I'm sure 51D can correct me.
You're basically correct on both counts. What should be remembered, however, is that the law prohibits actual contracting for commercial crew services until a series of "requirements" are met (Section 403). Even if those requirements are met in FY 2011, the law enables ONLY up to $50m in actual contract authority for "...a contract or procurement agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew services."
So, any work actually done regarding commercial crew must be within those constraints, regardless of the funding levels provided by a CR or an eventual FY-2011 appropriations act passed next March as a follow-on the the current CR.
The constraint is meant to apply to actual award of a development contract, and should not limit funding for the required preliminary work to support the requirements or pursue supporting technologies, in my view.
51D, let me see if I'm understanding this.
Question 1: Are you saying that the law says they can't procure commercial crew services (something analogous to CRS but for crew) until they've met those requirements?
or do you mean that that NASA can't even contract with a specific provider to develop a capsule until those requirements are met (something more like COTS)?
But they are allowed to keep doing CCDEV like activities?
Question 2: the $50M that's available this year, is that $50M for *both* CCDEV and the COTS-like actual development follow-on (assuming NASA meets all the requirements to unlock that)? Or is that $50M just referring to the COTS-like follow-on to CCDEV that may happen if NASA meets the congressional requirements on time?
Just trying to wrap my brain around this. I don't work for a manned spaceflight group, but I'm still trying to make sure I understand what's going on around me.
~Jon
That does help clarify. The legislation wasn't entirely clear on this point. If I understand your post correctly, essentially the $50M requirement means that NASA cannot spend more than $50 million onthe follow-on (long term) program (usually called the Commercial Crew Development Program or CCDP) that will follow CCDev-2 or ona CRS-type commercial crew contract in FY 2011. I don't think that NASA intends to spend any money in FY2011 on either the CCDP or on a CRS-type commercial crew contract. So this is not a big impediment in any event.
This is how I read it...That does help clarify. The legislation wasn't entirely clear on this point. If I understand your post correctly, essentially the $50M requirement means that NASA cannot spend more than $50 million onthe follow-on (long term) program (usually called the Commercial Crew Development Program or CCDP) that will follow CCDev-2 or ona CRS-type commercial crew contract in FY 2011. I don't think that NASA intends to spend any money in FY2011 on either the CCDP or on a CRS-type commercial crew contract. So this is not a big impediment in any event.
cheers, Martin
This is how I read it...That does help clarify. The legislation wasn't entirely clear on this point. If I understand your post correctly, essentially the $50M requirement means that NASA cannot spend more than $50 million onthe follow-on (long term) program (usually called the Commercial Crew Development Program or CCDP) that will follow CCDev-2 or ona CRS-type commercial crew contract in FY 2011. I don't think that NASA intends to spend any money in FY2011 on either the CCDP or on a CRS-type commercial crew contract. So this is not a big impediment in any event.
cheers, Martin
That's how I first read it but according to 51D Mascot, it seems that by "follow-on program", Congress also meant the (long term) Commercial Crew Development Program (not just a CRS commercial crew type contract).
On the SLS front the intent of Congress was also clear from both the Senate and House omnibus appropriations drafts which did not make it due to other concerns unrelated to NASA. A 130 ton initial capability with concurrent and simultaneous development of the upper stage.
Thanks for presenting that, Steven. Helps a lot.
On the SLS front the intent of Congress was also clear from both the Senate and House omnibus appropriations drafts which did not make it due to other concerns unrelated to NASA. A 130 ton initial capability with concurrent and simultaneous development of the upper stage.
The purpose of that language was to ensure that the SLS be designed from its inception to be a 130-ton-plus capability (as provided in P.L. 111-267). The appropriators wanted to insert that 130-ton language to underscore that ultimate objective, in order to avoid any "temptation" for NASA to develop a LEO-capable core element and stop there.
On the SLS front the intent of Congress was also clear from both the Senate and House omnibus appropriations drafts which did not make it due to other concerns unrelated to NASA. A 130 ton initial capability with concurrent and simultaneous development of the upper stage.
The purpose of that language was to ensure that the SLS be designed from its inception to be a 130-ton-plus capability (as provided in P.L. 111-267). The appropriators wanted to insert that 130-ton language to underscore that ultimate objective, in order to avoid any "temptation" for NASA to develop a LEO-capable core element and stop there.
Thank you 51D. It's good to see language directing NASA to develop one (1) launch vehicle, capable of 130 tonnes IMLEO rather than two (2) LV's, one for LEO and one for BLEO. The fact that it *can* be flown without the upper stage and deliver 70 tonnes to LEO is a happy circumstance that will be advantageous to the entire American HSF program. It is the same design approach the DIRECT team took with the Jupiter-246.
I do have a question however. The language requires that the core stage and the upper stage be developed simultaneously. But is there any other link between the two stages? In other words, can development be started simultaneously but proceed at different paces subject to funding availability, and allow the core stage to be test flown, perhaps even operationally, before the upper stage is completed? Is there anything in either P.L. 111-267 or in unpublished understandings that would prevent this? I ask because developing the core stage, the upper stage *and* Orion is going to be expensive and full funding for all three simultaneously could potentially be problematic in these economic times. How much latitude does the Administrator have to determine deployment schedule?
Again, strictly speaking, there is not any new language linking development of the core and upper stages in a concurrent fashion, since that language was never adopted. On the other hand, it's not inconsistent with P.L. 111-267 that there be concurrent development, meaning in the same general time-frame--PROVIDED funds are available. The priority focus must be the core stage and associated elements (without which, of course, an upper stage is not useful). So the latitude is there regarding the deployment schedule.
Link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-ares-rocket-constellation-20101227,0,2096166.story
A liquid fuel heavy lift system would require a complete restart as far as it's development is concerned
Could abandonment of the solid fuel motors for a liquid fueled heavy lift system actually be cheaper
The article says a rocket explosion with a solid rocket motor system would make any crew escape system unable to actually rescue the crew because of the nature of a solid rocket explosion. Is that true?
QuoteA liquid fuel heavy lift system would require a complete restart as far as it's development is concerned
No it wouldn't. An SSME core with Atlas CCBs as LRBs would be an incremental development, not a complete restart. See AJAX.
QuoteThe article says a rocket explosion with a solid rocket motor system would make any crew escape system unable to actually rescue the crew because of the nature of a solid rocket explosion. Is that true?
No, solids aren't quite that bad, unless the first stage is powered solely by solid propulsion as was the case with Ares I. There is no evidence a crewed spacecraft on a DIRECT Jupiter-like vehicle would be unable to successfully escape a launch abort.
I just read the following article in the Orlando Sentinal....We already bought that technology, it flys with every launch of the Atlas V, which derives it's engine from the one Buran used in it's LRBs. The Atlas CCB is a very optimal booster design.
Link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-nasa-ares-rocket-constellation-20101227,0,2096166.story
The article says that it may be cheaper and safer to use a liquid fuel system versus the solid rocket motors as was the plan with Ares. Is that true, considering the shuttle-derived solid motor and the Ares evolution of that has advanced in as far as where it is in the development cycle. A liquid fuel heavy lift system would require a complete restart as far as it's development is concerned and we would be better off buying the technology Energia developed in the late 1980's-early 90's for Buran. Am I wrong?
Could abandonment of the solid fuel motors for a liquid fueled heavy lift system actually be cheaper, considering that no development work had actually begun on a liquid fuel launch system capable of lifting 140 tons to orbit?You are quite wrong about no development work, as the Atlas R&D was finished quite awhile ago, and it is considered a mature system. The main development work would be on the ET, which is considered by NASA a minor project.
Also, the article mentions a $500 million launch complex built for Ares rockets. Has that money actually been wasted? Could it be used for SLS or upgraded for SLS use?That is the launch tower, and as the Saturn V's tower was repurposed for shuttle, there is no reason for the Ares tower to not be repurposed for SLS, and the discussions have been focused on that. AJAX, the LRB shuttle derived concept, would not even need the access tower on the Ares pad removed, as the lighter weight of the AJAX vs the SRB derived designs would mean that we could restore LC-39 to a flat-pad, with the access tower on the MLP again.
No clustered RL10 upper stage will suffice; no four-segment SRBs will suffice. Starting with RL10 and four-seg and switching later if the performance were actually needed is right out.
Congress is saying to NASA, "The SLS must use J-2X and RSRMV, and implicitly SSME. Live with it, because those are the only propulsion solutions for which we're willing to appropriate funding."
If the performance were actually needed? No real performance is needed. These "performance requirements" have no connection to any sort of planned mission or payload. They are to simply to make sure that "our" tax dollars continued to be funneled to certain well connected contractors.
Would not be as efficient in an SSME + SRB basis. You'd be just doing one hydrolox stage with two. Would still work, but would be costly.No clustered RL10 upper stage will suffice; no four-segment SRBs will suffice. Starting with RL10 and four-seg and switching later if the performance were actually needed is right out.
Congress is saying to NASA, "The SLS must use J-2X and RSRMV, and implicitly SSME. Live with it, because those are the only propulsion solutions for which we're willing to appropriate funding."
If the performance were actually needed? No real performance is needed. These "performance requirements" have no connection to any sort of planned mission or payload. They are to simply to make sure that "our" tax dollars continued to be funneled to certain well connected contractors.
Returning to this topic after some thought.... The thinking behind the Congressional view doesn't seem to be solely about funneling dollars to contractors. There also seems to be an authentic desire to see NASA working on achieving a certain level of capability.
Specifically comparing a J-2X stage with an ACES-like stage using four RL10 engines, Jon Barr on behalf of United Launch Alliance subtly suggests an interesting compromise: use both!
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Barr_11-3-10/Barr%2011-3-10.pdf
On page number 2 (the third page of the pdf) Barr shows a vehicle with a J-2X second stage and an ACES third stage. The vehicle is shown as providing 25t to C3=10. (Why 10? Dunno.)
Of course with Barr being from ULA the first stage shown is hydrocarbon. But couldn't the same approach work with SSME+SRB?
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Barr_11-3-10/Barr%2011-3-10.pdf
On page number 2 (the third page of the pdf) Barr shows a vehicle with a J-2X second stage and an ACES third stage. The vehicle is shown as providing 25t to C3=10. (Why 10? Dunno.)
Of course with Barr being from ULA the first stage shown is hydrocarbon.
It is Atlas V Phase II, as it labels at the top, and parenthetically notes at the bottom "(or 2xRD-180)".http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Barr_11-3-10/Barr%2011-3-10.pdfBut NOT RD-180. Rather, it assumes a new hydrocarbon engine on each of the Delta IV-derived cores. This a spiritual successor of Atlas V Phase II, but by this point, the only thing it has in common with Atlas V is the RL-10s!
On page number 2 (the third page of the pdf) Barr shows a vehicle with a J-2X second stage and an ACES third stage. The vehicle is shown as providing 25t to C3=10. (Why 10? Dunno.)
Of course with Barr being from ULA the first stage shown is hydrocarbon.
Still, the evolution on the third slide is very logical, and hopefully one of the eigenstates in HEFT's RP-1 HLV study...
The Baseline EELV Phase 2 is based on a pair of RD-180s, but a new Hydrocarbon Boost Engine could be perfect match with this concept. Performance can scale from near the current HLV performance with 1Mlb thrust, up to the quoted 70 to 80t with a 2Mlb thrust HCB engine (or dual 1Mlb engine installation for better Atlas V compatibility). Phase 2 booster vehicles could even initially incorporate the existing RD-180 with the first flight of the Phase 2 booster in 2017 or 2018. These new boosters could then be matured over several years before they would be evolved to incorporate the HCB engine.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/01/15/congressman-promises-more-oversight-after-urgent-call-to-action-by-nasa/
NASA Inspector General Paul K. Martin wrote letters to Congressman Hall and others on Thursday calling their attention to the unnecessary expenditures, writing that the situation “requires immediate action by Congress.” “Without congressional intervention, by the end of February 2011 NASA anticipates spending up to $215 million on Constellation projects that, absent the restrictive appropriations language, it would have considered canceling or significantly scaling back,” wrote Martin. The continuing resolution funding the government, Martin wrote, “carries over … restrictions and prohibits initiation of new projects, NASA is continuing to spend approximately $200 million each month on the Constellation Program, aspects of which both NASA and Congress have agreed not to build.”
Hall’s statement responded, in part, to Martin’s call for urgent action to prevent wasteful spending. Hall wrote, “NASA should be taking steps to prioritize spending on projects that are likely to have applicability in a future heavy lift vehicle, in an effort to maintain production lines and reduce inefficient use of taxpayer funds.” Hall further stated, “I agree with the NASA OIG that this is an issue that the Appropriators will need to deal with in an expedient manner, in order to avoid wasteful spending.”
Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
If the intention were for it to be RD-180 powered, it wouldn't be parenthetical. And it doesn't say "Atlas Phase 2", it says "EELV Phase 2". It would have a new engine, a new pad/MLP, Delta-derived first stage tanks, an Ares/Saturn-derived second stage, and an optional third stage derived form both Centaur and Delta IV-US (but which is neither). Again, the only thing that it really shares with Atlas is propellant type and upper stage engines...
And if avionics counts as heritage, then Ares I-X was Atlas-derived... ::)
Florida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
Sadly, I can easily see certain legislators embracing that language not to empower NASA to move on with a new program, but as an excuse to remove that funding from NASA entirely.QuoteFlorida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
I think this is very good news also. I'm glad that Senator Nelson is now, in my opinion, becoming more a part of the solution to the thorny problem of these wasteful expenditures on this unnecessary program.
Sadly, I can easily see certain legislators embracing that language not to empower NASA to move on with a new program, but as an excuse to remove that funding from NASA entirely.QuoteFlorida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
I think this is very good news also. I'm glad that Senator Nelson is now, in my opinion, becoming more a part of the solution to the thorny problem of these wasteful expenditures on this unnecessary program.
Sadly, I can easily see certain legislators embracing that language not to empower NASA to move on with a new program, but as an excuse to remove that funding from NASA entirely.QuoteFlorida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
I think this is very good news also. I'm glad that Senator Nelson is now, in my opinion, becoming more a part of the solution to the thorny problem of these wasteful expenditures on this unnecessary program.
These (http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/Solutions/SRA.htm), to start.Sadly, I can easily see certain legislators embracing that language not to empower NASA to move on with a new program, but as an excuse to remove that funding from NASA entirely.QuoteFlorida Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson has reportedly written legislation to repeal the provision that currently mandates spending on the Constellation program.
I think this is very good news also. I'm glad that Senator Nelson is now, in my opinion, becoming more a part of the solution to the thorny problem of these wasteful expenditures on this unnecessary program.
Which ones?
What they need to cut are the things that are really hurting the country... ENTITLEMENTS AND DEFENSE!Technically, we don't need to cut anything. Our issue is with a failure to collect on 1/3rd of our tax revenue in combination with a tax structure which favors harming the economy vs growing it. Our Budget is actually smaller in comparison to GDP growth of the budget in 1955, the issue is our tax collection is only 40% of what we need to function.
What they need to cut are the things that are really hurting the country... ENTITLEMENTS AND DEFENSE!Technically, we don't need to cut anything. Our issue is with a failure to collect on 1/3rd of our tax revenue in combination with a tax structure which favors harming the economy vs growing it. Our Budget is actually smaller in comparison to GDP growth of the budget in 1955, the issue is our tax collection is only 40% of what we need to function.
What they need to cut are the things that are really hurting the country... ENTITLEMENTS AND DEFENSE!
There is plenty of blame to throw around, to both parties. So I say, "Everyone is guilty. Get over it! Now, instead of dwelling on the past, do whats right for the future."What they need to cut are the things that are really hurting the country... ENTITLEMENTS AND DEFENSE!Technically, we don't need to cut anything. Our issue is with a failure to collect on 1/3rd of our tax revenue in combination with a tax structure which favors harming the economy vs growing it. Our Budget is actually smaller in comparison to GDP growth of the budget in 1955, the issue is our tax collection is only 40% of what we need to function.
Completely agree with you, which most it started under Ronald Reagan. Though my only gripe is the massive DOD budget of over $700 billion. The only time in the last 30 years the budget was ever balanced was when we drastically reduced defense spending under Clinton while as the same time increasing taxes in the way you just described.
I have C-SPAN on now. Looks like the House voted on a resolution to reduce spending to 2008 levels. The way they're talking, nothing looks safe from being cut. The even worse news is that they're talking about redoing the not-yet-passed 2011 appropriations to reflect these cuts. And worse than that (if possible) they're promising another CR at 2008 levels in March, if the rewritten 2011 appropriations isn't ready by then. Ironically, the Presidents 2012 budget request is due later this week, while Congress plays games and fails to pass 2011 appropriations!
The good news is whatever harm the House can and will do, we have level-headed lawmakers over in the other chamber of Congress. Hopefully, the Senate will be able to moderate the madness some through the compromise committees. Also, they have not (yet) specifically targeted NASA as an area to cut, so there's still a chance NASA will be immune to this, but its not looking good.
This can, of course, blow up in their faces as well if the Senate puts forth incredibly low numbers....I have C-SPAN on now. Looks like the House voted on a resolution to reduce spending to 2008 levels. The way they're talking, nothing looks safe from being cut. The even worse news is that they're talking about redoing the not-yet-passed 2011 appropriations to reflect these cuts. And worse than that (if possible) they're promising another CR at 2008 levels in March, if the rewritten 2011 appropriations isn't ready by then. Ironically, the Presidents 2012 budget request is due later this week, while Congress plays games and fails to pass 2011 appropriations!
The good news is whatever harm the House can and will do, we have level-headed lawmakers over in the other chamber of Congress. Hopefully, the Senate will be able to moderate the madness some through the compromise committees. Also, they have not (yet) specifically targeted NASA as an area to cut, so there's still a chance NASA will be immune to this, but its not looking good.
You need to look at the rules of the House and Senate. If the House passes it's version of the budget, and a compromise can not be reached with the senate, then the lower numbers of either the House or Senate will prevail in a continuing resolution. I predict this is their plan: pass a much reduced budget with a continuing resolution for the rest of the year, and if they can't reach agreement with the Senate .... too bad ... their numbers prevail for the rest of the year.
Throwing in a question on this, from the position of being politically inept...Short answer: yes.
Is it fair to say there's far more lawmakers who'd openly fight to protect NASA's budget than there are those who'd be happy to see it "lowered" - or even target NASA for such treatment?
And would pro-NASA lawmakers openly involve themselves with a partizan effort, as opposed to following any particular party line?
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:Wonderful! See how much they care about NASA?
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
Considering how much is being proposed being cut elsewhere, this is good news.House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:Wonderful! See how much they care about NASA?
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
Considering how much is being proposed being cut elsewhere, this is good news.House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:Wonderful! See how much they care about NASA?
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
Considering how much is being proposed being cut elsewhere, this is good news.House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:Wonderful! See how much they care about NASA?
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
Agree!
Where would the cuts go? Deferring the operational dates of SLS or MPCV?The House wants to cut earth science.
Where would the cuts go? Deferring the operational dates of SLS or MPCV?
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
NASA -$379M
NSF -$139M
:DHouse appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
Urk, they want to cut Chris' budget, too:-QuoteNASA -$379M
NSF -$139M
:o
cheers, Martin
Where would the cuts go? Deferring the operational dates of SLS or MPCV?
Not ANY chance of that, I think I can safely assure you--it would never get through the Senate with provisions like that--bear in mind, a key author of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 is now the Senior Republican member (Ranking) of the CJS Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over NASA appropriations. She has replaced Senator Richard Shelby in that role, who also remains a member of the subcommittee.
Here is what i want (and due to my job actually need) to know. WHEN are they going to vote on the 2011 budget and when can it be expected to fully pass (and i mean appropriated too). When I say "pass" i mean to the point that the money is actually available and were actually on the budget instead of CRS. Seem to recall budget already passed but then got stuck somewhere, hence everything is on crs atm. Really would like to get a time table on this mess.
I think that Bolden has said that if he had to cut, he would cut in the 21st century century complex funding as the work on this can be deferred without a significant impact.
Here is what i want (and due to my job actually need) to know. WHEN are they going to vote on the 2011 budget and when can it be expected to fully pass (and i mean appropriated too). When I say "pass" i mean to the point that the money is actually available and were actually on the budget instead of CRS. Seem to recall budget already passed but then got stuck somewhere, hence everything is on crs atm. Really would like to get a time table on this mess.
... The amount appropriated is determined by a several factors that are part of a complex process:
...
... The amount appropriated is determined by a several factors that are part of a complex process:
...
I have no idea why people complain about government being ineffcient... ;)
Am I correct that the recent 2010 Authorization act was for the FY 2011 budget which covers the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011?
Edit: Oh, and can the appropriations bill appropriate money for anything that wasn't authorized? Or just alter the amount?
The current Continuing Resolution (CR) funds NASA (and the rest of the government) until March 4th. Before that date, the Congress must pass either an actual appropriations bill (not likely) or another CR, probably for the balance of the FY 2011 fiscal year. What you're seeing in recent posts here are numbers that the House Appropriations leadership are proposing be included in the next CR to govern top-level funding for the agencies listed in their release, which would include NASA. NASA is currently funded by the existing CR at FY 2010 enacted levels, as noted in a previous post by yg. So, the answer to that key question of "when" as best it is possible to answer right now, is "before March 5th."
Am I correct that the recent 2010 Authorization act was for the FY 2011 budget which covers the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011?
Edit: Oh, and can the appropriations bill appropriate money for anything that wasn't authorized?
Or just alter the amount?
The 2010 Act included authorization of amounts that could be appropriated for FY 2011, 2012 and 2013. They are not required to be one-year bills, as are appropriations.
...
So possibly there won't be a NASA Authorization bill this year?
Unless they need to alter or reinforce policy, e.g. if USA's Shuttle extension proposal takes root.
At this point, what can the Senate do to counteract the House' poposed cuts or harm being done by the continuation of CR?
Obviously, NASA has powerful friends in the Senate (Nelson, Reid, etc.). There must be something they could do to neutralize the House!
And they better act quickly by passing preemptive legislation if necessary!
And if the House wants the cuts to be in Earth Sciences, it'll probably happen. After Aeronautics, Earth Science historically has the weakest political support of NASA programs. This is not least because it tends to have considerable overlap with NOAA and USGS, both of which are separately allocated (in the Departments of Commerce and Interior, respectively).
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
Also a good reminder at the bottom of the post with Senator Inouye's statement that this isn't over yet.
The CR does include a section striking the language in the FY2010 appropriations bill that prevents NASA from terminating Constellation projects, no doubt much to the relief of the agency.
SEC. 1334. Notwithstanding section 1105, the pro-
viso limiting the use of funds under the heading ‘‘National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Exploration’’ in
division B of Public Law 111–117 shall not apply to funds
appropriated by this division.
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
| Account | 2011 CR | NASA Authorization Bill | Diff |
| Space Operations | $5,946.80 | $5,508.50 | $438.30 |
| Exploration | $3,746.30 | $3,868.00 | ($121.70) |
| Science | $4,469.00 | $5,005.60 | ($536.60) |
| Aeronautics | $501.00 | $929.60 | ($428.60) |
| Education | $182.50 | $145.80 | $36.70 |
| Construction | $408.30 | $394.30 | $14.00 |
| Cross-Agency Support | $3,131.00 | $3,111.40 | $19.60 |
| Inspector General | $36.40 | $37.00 | ($0.60) |
| TOTAL | $18,421.30 | $19,000.20 | ($578.90) |
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
I have added a comparaison with the NASA Authorization bill:
Account 2011 CR NASA Authorization Bill Diff
Space Operations $5,946.80 $5,508.50 $438.30
Exploration $3,746.30 $3,868.00 ($121.70)
Science $4,469.00 $5,005.60 ($536.60)
Aeronautics $501.00 $929.60 ($428.60)
Education $182.50 $145.80 $36.70
Construction $408.30 $394.30 $14.00
Cross-Agency Support $3,131.00 $3,111.40 $19.60
Inspector General $36.40 $37.00 ($0.60)
TOTAL $18,421.30 $19,000.20 ($578.90)
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
Also a good reminder at the bottom of the post with Senator Inouye's statement that this isn't over yet.
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
Also a good reminder at the bottom of the post with Senator Inouye's statement that this isn't over yet.
Thanks for the link.
Any idea on what this represents? (page 99):
1 SEC. 8094. The Secretary of Defense shall create a major force program category for space for each future years defense program of the Department of Defense submitted to Congress under section 221 of title 10, United States Code, during fiscal year 2011. The Secretary of Defense shall designate an official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide overall supervision of the preparation and justification of program recommendations and budget proposals to be included in such major force program category.
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
I have added a comparaison with the NASA Authorization bill (see attached file):
Account 2011 CR NASA Authorization Bill Diff
Space Operations $5,946.80 $5,508.50 $438.30
Exploration $3,746.30 $3,868.00 ($121.70)
Science $4,469.00 $5,005.60 ($536.60)
Aeronautics $501.00 $929.60 ($428.60)
Education $182.50 $145.80 $36.70
Construction $408.30 $394.30 $14.00
Cross-Agency Support $3,131.00 $3,111.40 $19.60
Inspector General $36.40 $37.00 ($0.60)
TOTAL $18,421.30 $19,000.20 ($578.90)
House appropriations committee is proposing a $379M cut in NASA in the upcoming CR bill:
http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=259
Haven't looked for the bill text yet, but this isn't the end of the discussion on Capitol Hill, just another point in negotiations.
The committee released the text of the bill that is supposed to be introduced next week. SpacePolitics has a nice overview, including links to the text as posted by the committee:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/12/house-appropriators-cut-deeper-at-nasa/
I have added a comparaison with the NASA Authorization bill (see attached file):
Account 2011 CR NASA Authorization Bill Diff Space Operations $5,946.80 $5,508.50 $438.30 Exploration $3,746.30 $3,868.00 ($121.70) Science $4,469.00 $5,005.60 ($536.60) Aeronautics $501.00 $929.60 ($428.60) Education $182.50 $145.80 $36.70 Construction $408.30 $394.30 $14.00 Cross-Agency Support $3,131.00 $3,111.40 $19.60 Inspector General $36.40 $37.00 ($0.60) TOTAL $18,421.30 $19,000.20 ($578.90)
Anyone know what this tweet (from Brett Silcox) means:http://space.flatoday.net/2011/02/house-votes-to-move-money-from-nasa-to.html
Crazy day on the House floor on the FY 11 budget..Weiner amend to move $298 mil from NASA CAS to COPS just passed by a vote of 228 to 203.
Anyone know what this tweet (from Brett Silcox) means:CAS is Cross Agency Support.
Crazy day on the House floor on the FY 11 budget..Weiner amend to move $298 mil from NASA CAS to COPS just passed by a vote of 228 to 203.
AMENDMENT NO. 125 OFFERED BY MR. WEINER , AS MODIFIEDThe page and line numbers correspond to the bill as posted by the House appropriations committee.
Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment, as modified, is as follows:
Page 203, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $298,000,000)''.
Page 204, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert ``(increased by $298,000,000)''.
Page 206, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced by $298,000,000)''.
... those who pretend that all of this is his fault are kidding themselves!
You're wrong.... those who pretend that all of this is his fault are kidding themselves!
It was Obama who led the way, making the initial cuts - canceling Constellation, etc., just like he promised during his Presidential campaign. He cut even more than the Augustine Committee recommended, meaning that the plan was hatched in the Executive Branch. What we are seeing now is merely the feeding frenzy at the bleeding carcass - and this is probably only the first of many cuts.
A few months ago, Congress was fighting *against* the President to keep the Beyond LEO option, SLS, and an extra STS mission. Congress has not led this parade. Obama has.
- Ed Kyle
He's not a Liberal, he's center-left. Classically he'd be called a Rockefeller Republican. His economic model is based more on the work of Hayek than Keynes. (and don't try and tell me Reagan follow Hayek, Reagan followed Friedman, who, despite Friedman's own claims, did not follow nor base his work on Hayek nor the Austrian theory, but instead on older methodologies of the guilded age)You're wrong.... those who pretend that all of this is his fault are kidding themselves!
It was Obama who led the way, making the initial cuts - canceling Constellation, etc., just like he promised during his Presidential campaign. He cut even more than the Augustine Committee recommended, meaning that the plan was hatched in the Executive Branch. What we are seeing now is merely the feeding frenzy at the bleeding carcass - and this is probably only the first of many cuts.
A few months ago, Congress was fighting *against* the President to keep the Beyond LEO option, SLS, and an extra STS mission. Congress has not led this parade. Obama has.
- Ed Kyle
Congress is not some unified entity where a few voices represent the whole. The House of Representatives (especially) are whatever the majority votes say they are. There are still voices in Congress from Space States who want more funding for NASA, but they (according to the votes) do not represent the majority of Congress.
Obama is yielding to the political pressure to keep government spending low (he's a liberal, not generally considered the type to cut government spending). He wants to maintain at previous levels, not cut to 2008 levels like the House wants to. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't have the backbone to try real Keynesian economic strategies for getting us out of our liquidity trap, but he's following the winds of political change while trying to keep the economy afloat.
You're wrong.... those who pretend that all of this is his fault are kidding themselves!
It was Obama who led the way, making the initial cuts - canceling Constellation, etc., just like he promised during his Presidential campaign. He cut even more than the Augustine Committee recommended, meaning that the plan was hatched in the Executive Branch. What we are seeing now is merely the feeding frenzy at the bleeding carcass - and this is probably only the first of many cuts.
A few months ago, Congress was fighting *against* the President to keep the Beyond LEO option, SLS, and an extra STS mission. Congress has not led this parade. Obama has.
- Ed Kyle
Congress is not some unified entity where a few voices represent the whole. The House of Representatives (especially) are whatever the majority votes say they are. There are still voices in Congress from Space States who want more funding for NASA, but they (according to the votes) do not represent the majority of Congress.
Obama is yielding to the political pressure to keep government spending low (he's a liberal, not generally considered the type to cut government spending). He wants to maintain at previous levels, not cut to 2008 levels like the House wants to. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't have the backbone to try real Keynesian economic strategies for getting us out of our liquidity trap, but he's following the winds of political change while trying to keep the economy afloat.
...I disagree. Downix is right. Obama isn't a true Keynesian. I don't think he's an economist, Hayek or otherwise. I think he's a political pragmatist.
He actually did go all "Keynesian" on us
, unfortunately none of that "Keynesian" crap bled over into NASA. What a wasted opportunity to potentially spend some $$ on something exciting and inspirational. Funny how that works, no matter what the shape the budget or Congress is in, year after year, it seems to be all too easy for Congress and the President to cut NASA.I agree. It sucks.
I'm not saying he's an Economist, more what his economic team is. Hayek talked of tax cuts for stimulative effect, and the majority of Obamas attempt to stimulate have been just that, tax cuts....I disagree. Downix is right. Obama isn't a true Keynesian. I don't think he's an economist, Hayek or otherwise. I think he's a political pragmatist.
He actually did go all "Keynesian" on us
Tax cuts (during a recession) are Keynesian as well. So is deficit spending (though when the tax rate is already very low or even practically zero for a lot of people, deficit spending probably has a greater effect in increasing demand and creating jobs for the same amount of money).I'm not saying he's an Economist, more what his economic team is. Hayek talked of tax cuts for stimulative effect, and the majority of Obamas attempt to stimulate have been just that, tax cuts....I disagree. Downix is right. Obama isn't a true Keynesian. I don't think he's an economist, Hayek or otherwise. I think he's a political pragmatist.
He actually did go all "Keynesian" on us
Anyone know what this tweet (from Brett Silcox) means:
Crazy day on the House floor on the FY 11 budget..Weiner amend to move $298 mil from NASA CAS to COPS just passed by a vote of 228 to 203.
Anyone know what this tweet (from Brett Silcox) means:
Crazy day on the House floor on the FY 11 budget..Weiner amend to move $298 mil from NASA CAS to COPS just passed by a vote of 228 to 203.
And Weiner voted for S.3729 (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll561.xml) too.
He actually did go all "Keynesian" on us, unfortunately none of that "Keynesian" crap bled over into NASA. What a wasted opportunity to potentially spend some $$ on something exciting and inspirational. Funny how that works, no matter what the shape the budget or Congress is in, year after year, it seems to be all too easy for Congress and the President to cut NASA.
It's interesting that once again R&D was bumped by the WH even as other things were cut back. It's a bit of a shame that he doesnt count NASA as part of that world but at least they were frozen rather than slashed.
He actually did go all "Keynesian" on us
I disagree. Downix is right. Obama isn't a true Keynesian. I don't think he's an economist, Hayek or otherwise. I think he's a political pragmatist.
It's interesting that once again R&D was bumped by the WH even as other things were cut back. It's a bit of a shame that he doesnt count NASA as part of that world but at least they were frozen rather than slashed.
Actually the WH did bump R&D funding at NASA. The thing is that whether or not you think SLS is a good idea, spending on that is nowhere near as effective R&D-wise as funding for OCT programs are, for instance. The funding only benefits a narrow program, and doesn't really create any new wealth or new industries. The OCT programs are focused on technologies that benefit multiple customers, and could create new capabilities and industries.
Not all NASA spending is R&D. In fact most of it isn't.
~Jon
It's interesting that once again R&D was bumped by the WH even as other things were cut back. It's a bit of a shame that he doesnt count NASA as part of that world but at least they were frozen rather than slashed.
Actually the WH did bump R&D funding at NASA. The thing is that whether or not you think SLS is a good idea, spending on that is nowhere near as effective R&D-wise as funding for OCT programs are, for instance. The funding only benefits a narrow program, and doesn't really create any new wealth or new industries. The OCT programs are focused on technologies that benefit multiple customers, and could create new capabilities and industries.
Not all NASA spending is R&D. In fact most of it isn't.
~Jon
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it.
Amen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?
The problem is that most posters here and most congressmen as well act like they have no clue about the difference between the two. They act like all spending on stuff at NASA is R&D, when in reality only a small fraction of NASA's budget is involved in actual R&D. I do agree that R&D has to be converted into an end product (preferably a wide range of end products with multiple users) in order to be useful to anyone.
Personally, I think the balance at NASA for a long time has been way to much on operations and DDT&E and too little on R&D, and I'm glad that Obama isn't giving up easily on trying to restore a better balance.
~Jon
It's interesting that once again R&D was bumped by the WH even as other things were cut back. It's a bit of a shame that he doesnt count NASA as part of that world but at least they were frozen rather than slashed.
Actually the WH did bump R&D funding at NASA. The thing is that whether or not you think SLS is a good idea, spending on that is nowhere near as effective R&D-wise as funding for OCT programs are, for instance. The funding only benefits a narrow program, and doesn't really create any new wealth or new industries. The OCT programs are focused on technologies that benefit multiple customers, and could create new capabilities and industries.
Not all NASA spending is R&D. In fact most of it isn't.
~Jon
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it.
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize.
He's not a Liberal, he's center-left. Classically he'd be called a Rockefeller Republican. His economic model is based more on the work of Hayek than Keynes. (and don't try and tell me Reagan follow Hayek, Reagan followed Friedman, who, despite Friedman's own claims, did not follow nor base his work on Hayek nor the Austrian theory, but instead on older methodologies of the guilded age)You're wrong.... those who pretend that all of this is his fault are kidding themselves!
It was Obama who led the way, making the initial cuts - canceling Constellation, etc., just like he promised during his Presidential campaign. He cut even more than the Augustine Committee recommended, meaning that the plan was hatched in the Executive Branch. What we are seeing now is merely the feeding frenzy at the bleeding carcass - and this is probably only the first of many cuts.
A few months ago, Congress was fighting *against* the President to keep the Beyond LEO option, SLS, and an extra STS mission. Congress has not led this parade. Obama has.
- Ed Kyle
Congress is not some unified entity where a few voices represent the whole. The House of Representatives (especially) are whatever the majority votes say they are. There are still voices in Congress from Space States who want more funding for NASA, but they (according to the votes) do not represent the majority of Congress.
Obama is yielding to the political pressure to keep government spending low (he's a liberal, not generally considered the type to cut government spending). He wants to maintain at previous levels, not cut to 2008 levels like the House wants to. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed that he doesn't have the backbone to try real Keynesian economic strategies for getting us out of our liquidity trap, but he's following the winds of political change while trying to keep the economy afloat.
And Ed is right, Obama is in charge here. He is playing Congress here like a fiddle. He wanted NASA more scientific focus, and based on what I've heard he even would be ok with something DIRECT-like, but if he proposed such a thing, he'd get Constellation Mark 2. So, if you want to hit a target, you aim far to the other side. To get Congress to hit the target, he aimed beyond the target, to pull them into alignment with his wishes.
He does this, over and over again. Congress is dancing to his fiddle. If you pay attention, it is getting downright hilarious how well he's doing it. For instance, the veto threat on the budget. The Republicans expect him to blink, he won't. Instead, he's positioned the primary military transport system into the combat theatre in Iraq. As it is, he can't withdraw without political fallout. But, in the event of a government shutdown, he must by law engage in a full withdrawal, and put full blame on the House, as the wars have been classified as non-essential by the CBO and GAO.
It is frankly sicking to see Congress failing to see how easily they're being setup.
Actually, what is disturbing--I won't use the more pejorative term "sickening"--is to see so many reactions to one finite action within the framework of a much broader and complex process as if that action somehow was suddenly the "new voice of Congress," or illustrative of a "grand strategy" being wrought by either Obama or NASA OR one or more elements of the Congress. Especially when my guess is many of those same "pronouncers" would have a difficult time even identifying the relevant parts of that process, let alone how they actually function.You are quite insightful there. It is easy to underestimate, and over the years, I go the other way, and try to overestimate.
But it takes a lot less than actual experience or expertise to be an "expert" in these on-line forums, where space is limited and "discussions" are, by nature, disjointed and spread across a number of different subjects. (And this, I believe, is the best collection of well-informed folks I've come across in this subject area.)
But it would just be nice to see more folks demonstrate that they recognize they just "may" not be seeing the whole picture, and just "may" not know all there is to know about what may underlie a single visible action, or how it is likely to "play out" in the end.
Not a response to any particular person, here, just an observation and I suppose a bit of "venting" on my part.
Amen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?
STS-133 is launching Feb 24 or 25..........oh right, you hate shuttle :D
51D, what is your take on this?
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/16/crime-takes-a-bite-out-of-nasa/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll053.xml
That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it.Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
He's right. Which is why I keep pushing for AJAX, a back-door to give us this ability. While we may use the RD-180 (which is just under a million lb thrust engine) there is the ability to develop a replacement, and our idea is to do just that, or to just bring RD-180 production domestic. It can be made to launch soon, be made to launch for less, and would enable us to focus our R&D into a cross-spectrum system, making us more viable.That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it.Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
(It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.)
With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly. Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV.
-Alex
edit: grammar typo
That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D. It is DDT&E. At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it.Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
(It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.)
With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly. Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV.
-Alex
edit: grammar typo
Amen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?
STS-133 is launching Feb 24 or 25..........oh right, you hate shuttle :D
The problem is that most posters here and most congressmen as well act like they have no clue about the difference between the two. They act like all spending on stuff at NASA is R&D, when in reality only a small fraction of NASA's budget is involved in actual R&D. I do agree that R&D has to be converted into an end product (preferably a wide range of end products with multiple users) in order to be useful to anyone.
Personally, I think the balance at NASA for a long time has been way to much on operations and DDT&E and too little on R&D, and I'm glad that Obama isn't giving up easily on trying to restore a better balance.
~Jon
I agree with your second point, but not the first. It would be nice to convert research into something tangible, but research can lead to new discoveries which have no direct tangible benefit, but are clearly important. A new technique is not a product, and yet I have seen a few techniques developed through the reading of technical papers on the technical server, that are of benefit to everyone.
And for something like closed loop recycling techniques, the greatest benefit is exploration for NASA, not the commercial market per-se. Yes, it has terrestrial applications, but not to the level NASA is seeking its use for.
Now back OT...(sorry for the stray)
But I think that's kind of the point. Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently. Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme. Where it does matter is generally in the cost.We don't need rocket technology R&D, we have solid, reliable lift. We need BEO technology.
If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there. That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope.
I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face. I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now.
But I think that's kind of the point. Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently. Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme. Where it does matter is generally in the cost.We don't need rocket technology R&D, we have solid, reliable lift. We need BEO technology.
If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there. That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope.
I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face. I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now.
We also have the ability to go beyond LEO. Let's not pretend otherwise.
I think the context of the sentence ["We also have the ability to go beyond LEO"] can speak for itself and I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out based on the current reality.
And no, it does not need Apollo-level funding.
Among the amendments that have not yet been taken up on the floor of the House is one by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would, in effect, defund NASA’s exploration program:
Amendment No. 96: At the end of the bill, after the short
title, insert the following new section:
Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used for “National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration”.
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.
I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever. What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever. What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever. What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.
With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.
With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 162: November 16, 1995
The closure of significant portions of the federal government this
week has had a varying impact on departments and agencies tracked
by FYI. Here is a brief summary of where things now stand on this,
the third day of shutdown:
...
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and NASA: Funding for these two
agencies is provided in the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill. This bill is one of many Congress has yet to
complete. Next week, Congress may pass a separate appropriation
for some VA programs, which would reduce pressure on the need to
pass the entire bill. Approximately 94% of NASA's 21,000 civil
servants have been affected by the furlough. NSF is now being
staffed by 22 employees.
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.
With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995
Also: http://www.aip.org/fyi/1995/fyi95.162.htmQuoteThe American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 162: November 16, 1995
The closure of significant portions of the federal government this
week has had a varying impact on departments and agencies tracked
by FYI. Here is a brief summary of where things now stand on this,
the third day of shutdown:
...
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION and NASA: Funding for these two
agencies is provided in the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill. This bill is one of many Congress has yet to
complete. Next week, Congress may pass a separate appropriation
for some VA programs, which would reduce pressure on the need to
pass the entire bill. Approximately 94% of NASA's 21,000 civil
servants have been affected by the furlough. NSF is now being
staffed by 22 employees.
The first of the two shutdowns was from November 14 through November 19, 1995. STS-74 was on orbit during this time (November 12 launch through November 20 landing). Anyone know if it was affected in any way by that shutdown?
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.
With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995
Also: http://www.aip.org/fyi/1995/fyi95.162.htmQuoteThe American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 162: November 16, 1995
The closure of significant portions of the federal government this
week has had a varying impact on departments and agencies tracked
by FYI. Here is a brief summary of where things now stand on this,
the third day of shutdown:
...
No, only "nonessential" civil service personnel were affected. Those working STS-74 were unaffected. Contractor personnel (which are the vast majority of shuttle program personnel anyway) were likewise unaffected.I'd forgotten about that coincidence; FWIW, NASA Select continued broadcasting mission coverage, which probably explains why I forgot. Most of the other public affairs apparatus were shutdown. (Historical reference (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4225/sts74/sts-74.htm#flying).) That might be a bit more noticeable today. (And it might affect my plans to visit JSC. :))
No, only "nonessential" civil service personnel were affected. Those working STS-74 were unaffected. Contractor personnel (which are the vast majority of shuttle program personnel anyway) were likewise unaffected.
No, only "nonessential" civil service personnel were affected. Those working STS-74 were unaffected. Contractor personnel (which are the vast majority of shuttle program personnel anyway) were likewise unaffected.
OK, so STS-133, which would still be in orbit on March 4, shouldn't be affected either if there is a shutdown, thanks. But if a shutdown hypothetically lasts until April 19 (unlikely), would STS-134 be prevented/delayed from launching?
I didn't see anyone mention this, but if it was I apologize for the duplicate information...
President Obama said he will veto the proposed House CR, if passed, that would rollback spending to 2010 levels.
I didn't see anyone mention this, but if it was I apologize for the duplicate information...
President Obama said he will veto the proposed House CR, if passed, that would rollback spending to 2010 levels.
He won't see it as the CR as passed by the House will not make it through the Senate.
Calendar watchers are angling for another so-called "clean CR" to keep the machinery of gov't rolling given that an agreement seems unlikely by March 4. So far the House Repubs do not concur. This is going to be interesting...the "mainstream" Republicans certainly remember the consequences of the '94 shutdown - basically it nuked the GOP for a while - but I wonder if the tea party kiddos fully grasp the lessons of history? ...would be ironic if they do not, given their movement moniker.
NASA's numbers and federal space policy are not a big factor in the negotiations that will go on about the next continuing resolution to be passed, but NASA's day-to-day operations would be impacted if nothing is in place by March 5th and there's a federal shutdown.I didn't see anyone mention this, but if it was I apologize for the duplicate information...
President Obama said he will veto the proposed House CR, if passed, that would rollback spending to 2010 levels.
He won't see it as the CR as passed by the House will not make it through the Senate.
Calendar watchers are angling for another so-called "clean CR" to keep the machinery of gov't rolling given that an agreement seems unlikely by March 4. So far the House Repubs do not concur. This is going to be interesting...the "mainstream" Republicans certainly remember the consequences of the '94 shutdown - basically it nuked the GOP for a while - but I wonder if the tea party kiddos fully grasp the lessons of history? ...would be ironic if they do not, given their movement moniker.
I am not sure what you are expecting but given the fact that President Obama has suggested a freeze of the NASA Budget at $18.7B in FY2012, it would be surprising if NASA gets more than $18.7B for FY2011. The $18.4B suggested by the House might be increased by the Senate a little bit but not by much. The fact that the House decided to cut $100B from the FY 2011 Discretionary Budget isn't surprising given the fact that they had promised to do so in their pledge to America. Let's see how this plays out. This is part of the democratic process.
An amendment by Rep. Weiner (D-NY) to transfer $298 million from NASA Cross Agency Support to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program.
I didn't see anyone mention this, but if it was I apologize for the duplicate information...
President Obama said he will veto the proposed House CR, if passed, that would rollback spending to 2010 levels.
He won't see it as the CR as passed by the House will not make it through the Senate.
Calendar watchers are angling for another so-called "clean CR" to keep the machinery of gov't rolling given that an agreement seems unlikely by March 4. So far the House Repubs do not concur. This is going to be interesting...the "mainstream" Republicans certainly remember the consequences of the '94 shutdown - basically it nuked the GOP for a while - but I wonder if the tea party kiddos fully grasp the lessons of history? ...would be ironic if they do not, given their movement moniker.
I am not sure what you are expecting but given the fact that President Obama has suggested a freeze of the NASA Budget at $18.7B in FY2012, it would be surprising if NASA gets more than $18.7B for FY2011. The $18.4B suggested by the House might be increased by the Senate a little bit but not by much. The fact that the House decided to cut $100B from the FY 2011 Discretionary Budget isn't surprising given the fact that they had promised to do so in their pledge to America. Let's see how this plays out. This is part of the democratic process.