Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 452112 times)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #60 on: 11/19/2010 12:51 pm »
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 Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15693
  • Liked: 5989
  • Likes Given: 2637
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #61 on: 11/19/2010 04:18 pm »
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.

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #62 on: 11/19/2010 06:49 pm »
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.

Completely concur.

Also -

Re: political isolation - not happening to POTUS on the basis of what happens with NASA.  NASA doesn't figure into the large political equations, and not into many of the small ones.

And, the story referenced above is all about Utah, and more specifically about ATK and solids.  How broadly the Utah contingent's colleagues share their concern about circumvention is entirely unclear at this point.

And finally, until appropriations (and/or additional deficit reduction decisions) happen, as is pointed out here - their concern is not just unclear but irrelevant, however much they may wish it otherwise.  Even with full funding of the $19B budget request, it is not possible to meet the intent of the Authorization Act to do MPCV, SLS and commercial crew at desired levels, together with all the other cats and dogs.

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".

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 175
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #63 on: 11/19/2010 07:55 pm »
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.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #64 on: 11/20/2010 01:41 am »
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.


Droping to one CRS supplier would create a monopoly and remove the incentive to produce cost effective reliable spacecraft. Not a good idea.

Dropping SLS would be a great idea. It is underdunded and needs more than what you could get by canceling commercial crew. It would free up the most money and get NASA out of its current “pxx” or get off the pot delema(Not enough funding to support payloads, nor upperstage, nor build SLS within that time frame). Additionally a redifinetion of SLS would be great. Less shuttle drevied and smaller capacity.

Droping Orion would be a good idea, but not the greatest. You can find ways to push Orion to BEO without heavy lift.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #65 on: 11/20/2010 02:39 am »
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 indicative of a leader that will have minimal influence on other important issues during the next two years.

Cheers!

Edited.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2010 03:25 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #66 on: 11/20/2010 03:34 am »
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!

Can you name the last President that DIDN"T play this game with NASA?
Obama?
GW Bush?
Clinton?
GHW Bush?
Reagan?
Carter?
Ford?
Nixon?
Maybe LBJ & Kendedy?

Your indictment of Obama would sound pretty true of the last 7 presidents that preceded him.  Politically demand NASA over promise, then underfund, then beat over head when they come in over budget and under performing.

BTW when was the last Non Bi Partisan NASA policy statement?  It's always Bi Partisan because NASA is a regional issue, not a party issue, so the fact that Democrats and Republicans voted for this new statement doesn't make it any more valid that the last one, or the one before that.

It's the same game all over again.
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36050
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 18550
  • Likes Given: 398
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #67 on: 11/20/2010 03:47 am »
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.

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 6

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6117
  • Liked: 4032
  • Likes Given: 3932
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #69 on: 11/20/2010 06:09 am »
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?

I don't mean to impugn anyone, but it is weird that the only "spacey" image (as JohnForano put it) they could find is from a Russian ISS module, which is attached to several US modules.  The staffer probably didn't realize what it was.  I doubt Robotbeat's hypothesis, however facetious, that it is a blatant political statement about outsourcing transport.  It could have been an effort to avoid hardware currently in dispute like Orion, an SRB, or a CRS vehicle.  The Destiny module would seem to fit that bill unless one considers the extension of ISS to be controversial.  Why not Cassini or the New Horizon's spacecraft? 
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36121
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 20465
  • Likes Given: 10619
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #70 on: 11/20/2010 06:53 am »
Just to be clear, I doubt my own hypothesis (I was being facetious, of course). I could imagine Congressman Rohrabacher using it to make a point about the state of NASA HSF (i.e. about to be handed over to the Russians, especially if all commercial crew funding is cut).
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #71 on: 11/20/2010 07:02 am »
Interesting article at space news:

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101119-extra-flights-needed-hedge-cots-delays.html

From the transcript:
Quote from: Charlie Bolden
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,

*facepalm*

Quote
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.

..OK.

Quote
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.

J-241SH then?

Quote
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.

Seems to be downplaying HEFT here?

Quote
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.

How soon will this happen, and who might/should get the job?

Quote
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

Good news, I guess, but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R) is opposed to an omnibus spending bill, meaning it will likely be filibustered in the Senate. In that event, could the NASA Appropriations be easily split out into a separate bill, which likely wouldn't be filibustered?

Quote
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.

*facepalm*

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).

Chris, are you still confident of that now?

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #72 on: 11/20/2010 07:08 am »
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".



Jim, it is politically likely that the MPCV/Orion and SLS are going to have much more support in the House of Representatives than "commercial crew".

Also, the head of NASA can see the potential for delays. See the above article noted by pathfinder_01 and headlined as:
Bolden Says Extra Shuttle Flights Needed As Hedge Against Additional COTS Delays
   At: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101119-extra-flights-needed-hedge-cots-delays.html

And Jim, the President ignored NASA. He did not lay the foundation for a "robust support plan for a fully utilized International Space Station". Instead, he allowed the previous PoR keep on spending money and rolling and taking us nowhere and irritating you. Eventually the President had some unknown group cobble up a strange and unworkable Presidential Proposal to study everything and dismantle NASA as we know it and outsource NASA's human spaceflight for an indefinite period of time. His previous and ongoing slowdown of SLS and MPCV/Orion will continue to create paralysis for NASA. He stalls NASA instead of leading it. He will have much less influence on NASA's "Appropriations" with the incoming Congress. 

And SpacexULA, our current President's stalling style of leadership of NASA took it and its "Appropriations" to Nowheresville while he enjoyed a solid majority in both houses of Congress. His strong political advantage to influence NASA's future and its Congressional "Appropriations" was wasted. If the President's retains his stalling and wasting style, he will end up making the leadership provided to NASA by his predecessors look far wiser than his.

Note also that Charles Bolden is quoted in the article as saying "The J-2X undoubtedly will play a critical role, not just in NASA but probably across the national front in terms of providing an upper-stage capability..." That is interesting.

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!


Edited.





« Last Edit: 11/20/2010 07:16 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2050
  • Liked: 256
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #73 on: 11/20/2010 07:43 am »

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.

Quote
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!

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. 


« Last Edit: 11/20/2010 07:44 am by pathfinder_01 »

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #74 on: 11/20/2010 09:40 am »

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.

Quote
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!

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. 





"This will only happen if both the technology for lunar settlement and the means to do it are privately available." Well that's a fine proclamation of how things must surely be. Tell it to the Russians and all the other folks on the good planet Earth. I'm sure they will all agree with you and spend none of their government 'Appropriations' on anything so foolish as a government HLV or a Lunar settlement until the "the means to do it are privately available." What a fine notion you have. Many folks may even believe it is correct, but I cannot. 

As every Pathfinder knows, the government's initial job is to chart the land. Developing the means to get to the Moon could be done by 'commercial' as long as the government is paying for it... Let's try running that last thought process again. 'Commercial' will get around to the Lunar party when their business cases close. In the meantime it will be government 'Appropriations' and international partners that will make things happen on Luna. One of the reasons that those government 'Appropriations' will be spent is to tap the volatiles that can be used as propellant for NEO exploration missions and defensive systems against NEOs. Propellant from the Moon is also likely to be used for the human exploration of Mars missions. Tourists are also likely to show up on the Moon at some point. That reality should help to close a few business cases. Now that we know that there is a lot of water and other needed resources on the Moon the possibility of living off the land has been greatly improved. NASA was the organization that gathered the information about those valuable Lunar resources. Maybe "NASA's job" is to do what Congress appropriates the money for NASA to do.

See:
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

NASA 'Appropriations' should be seen as priming the pump by doing exploration and building the initial In Situ Resource Utilization, or ISRU, systems. If you've never primed a pump, well let's just note that something has to get the ISRU water flow going. In the case of the Moon colonies, there won't be a need for, "forced labor camps, military bases, or prisons or something else not ideal". Lots of folks would love to live or vacation on the Moon. Some of them wouldn't really care one way or another about who or what built the particular original small habitats at whatever large Lunar colony they are at.

Eventually, the return on the invested 'Appropriations' will be large. Lots of folks once thought the 'Appropriations' spent on Alaska were a folly. But Alaska has turned out to be an excellent investment. There are a lot of folks in Alaska that don't work for the government. The situation will eventually be somewhat similar on the Moon. And the funny thing about 'buying' into the Moon is that we mostly spend the 'Appropriations' for space exploration stuff inside the USA... Maybe the Moon is a much better deal than Alaska.


Cheers!


Edited.
« Last Edit: 11/20/2010 09:48 am by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4284
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #75 on: 11/20/2010 09:52 am »

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.

If we wait for the right guy nothing will happen. I think there are many affordable things we can do right now to bring this towards plausibility.
* Lunar robotic precursor missions to actually handle ice in permanently shadowed craters.
* ISRU demonstrators and all technology related to self sufficiency.
* Getting passed the crippling notions that space is for just for space science, or HSF is about boldly going where no one has gone before.

Space science already has a budget. It is when we start sending multiple missions to the same location, to reuse infrastructure already in place and manipulate resources we did not bring with us that we are actually taking steps towards living there. If we don't have the money for people we can begin this quite cheaply with robots. A small bit of progress today is better than any long term goal relying on waiting.

I like your follow up post. I just think so much progress could be made even with only a little money if it were actually spent attacking these problems of how we could ever live there. There is so much we could have been doing even during all the decades we never went beyond earth orbit.

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #76 on: 11/20/2010 09:57 am »

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1740
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 438
  • Likes Given: 91
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #77 on: 11/20/2010 10:02 am »
When people say that we can not afford SLS, MPCV, Commercial Crew I wonder what those individual components will cost. Can anyone provide a ballpark estimate for those will cost and what the expected budget might be? I know the estimates for Direct and that proposal still seems workable. It would be nice to have more of a handle on what money will be available and what these things will take.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #78 on: 11/20/2010 10:12 am »
"Utah’s congressional leaders sought further assurances that NASA will continue to fund ATK’s research and development work on civilian solid rocket motors until the new Omnibus Appropriations Bill is signed into law. "

This sentence basically sums up what the big fuss was, and still is, all about.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #79 on: 11/20/2010 11:56 am »
Interesting article at space news:

http://www.spacenews.com/civil/101119-extra-flights-needed-hedge-cots-delays.html

From the transcript:
Quote from: Charlie Bolden
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.

J-241SH then?

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.

Quote
Quote
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.

Seems to be downplaying HEFT here?

IMHO, yes.

The preliminary HEFT conclusions are sobering and have given pause to a lot of people.  I suspect it is going to be quietly received and then placed in the circular file, never to be referred to again, because of just how inconvenient and unwelcome its conclusions are.

Quote
Quote
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.

How soon will this happen, and who might/should get the job?

FWIW, I'm not even sure why who has to be an issue.  This seems to be one of NASA's permanent structural faults - how is more important than what.  The program must not be delayed because of internal politicing about which hideous sychophant has abased him or herself sufficiently to get the job.

Quote
Quote
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.

*facepalm*

Interesting that kerolox is still on the table, at least in Charles Bolden's view of matters.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1