Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 446551 times)

Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2049
  • Liked: 252
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #600 on: 02/25/2011 11:44 pm »
Tough. Bolden can't go against the law. Yet another media mistake by Bolden.

When can he be replaced like his failed plan?


Hate to break it to you, but so far congress has not given NASA  a budget that it could afford an SDHLV on. Bolden or no Bolden Congress is not willing to pay the Piper.

Offline STS Tony

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1673
  • Los Angeles
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 105
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #601 on: 02/25/2011 11:52 pm »
Tough. Bolden can't go against the law. Yet another media mistake by Bolden.

When can he be replaced like his failed plan?


Hate to break it to you, but so far congress has not given NASA  a budget that it could afford an SDHLV on. Bolden or no Bolden Congress is not willing to pay the Piper.

I know you're a big fan of preliminary reports, but that's what is was. Preliminary.

Let's discuss what they can and can't do when the Spring report comes out. No Bolden Bailout billions needed just yet.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #602 on: 02/26/2011 01:16 am »
Bolden might also have meant that we aren't going to build the Mars rocket right out of the shoot, i.e., the 130 ton monster, just in case the journalist or others might be wishing NASA would do that.  He could have been thinking that we'll be making due with 'just' a 70-ish ton starter rocket.  Or he could be thinking of something smaller still.  He didn't really tip his hand either way.  Which leaves folks like me to wonder and speculate until the Spring report comes out.
Scott

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #603 on: 02/26/2011 01:51 am »
Tough. Bolden can't go against the law. Yet another media mistake by Bolden.

When can he be replaced like his failed plan?


Hate to break it to you, but so far congress has not given NASA  a budget that it could afford an SDHLV on. Bolden or no Bolden Congress is not willing to pay the Piper.

The operative words are "so far". The "Congress" has not yet completed its action on final funding for FY 2011--the first fiscal year for which funds were authorized--and direction provided--under the 2010 NASA Authorization bill. Until it does, neither you nor anyone else can say with any precision what "Congress" has done or not done regarding NASA, let alone SLS/MPCV. The reasons for the failure to take final action on the federal budget for FY 2011--including NASA as well as the REST of the government--has absolutely NOTHING to do with questions surrounding NASA, heavy-launch vehicles, commercial vehicles, or anything else. A failure to acknowledge context leads to incomplete--and likely inaccurate--pronouncements.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #604 on: 02/26/2011 02:51 am »
Bolden might also have meant that we aren't going to build the Mars rocket right out of the shoot, i.e., the 130 ton monster, just in case the journalist or others might be wishing NASA would do that.  He could have been thinking that we'll be making due with 'just' a 70-ish ton starter rocket.  Or he could be thinking of something smaller still.  He didn't really tip his hand either way.  Which leaves folks like me to wonder and speculate until the Spring report comes out.

During the FY2012 budget request press briefing, Bolden said it would be "in the neighborhood of 75 to 100 metric tons".

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #605 on: 02/26/2011 04:58 am »
Let's discuss what they can and can't do when the Spring report comes out. No Bolden Bailout billions needed just yet.

Please explain what you mean by "Bolden Bailout billions"...

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 164
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #606 on: 02/26/2011 05:46 am »
for the time being

That immediately stuck out to me as I watched the interview.

I think in general NASA does not like what they are being required to do.

Perhaps that's why they are proposing Ares V lite for SLS, they might feel that is the easiest way to get it cancelled.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2011 05:47 am by spacetraveler »

Offline MP99

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #607 on: 02/26/2011 09:20 am »
Perhaps that's why they are proposing Ares V lite for SLS, they might feel that is the easiest way to get it cancelled.

This config is better known as "Ares V Classic" (ESAS LV27.3) but with only one u/s engine.

"Lite" is much more closely associated with RS-68 & 10m core - a substantially different config. See this.

cheers, Martin

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1229
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #608 on: 02/26/2011 09:46 am »
Tough. Bolden can't go against the law. Yet another media mistake by Bolden.
When can he be replaced like his failed plan?
Hate to break it to you, but so far congress has not given NASA  a budget that it could afford an SDHLV on. Bolden or no Bolden Congress is not willing to pay the Piper.
I know you're a big fan of preliminary reports, but that's what is was. Preliminary.
Let's discuss what they can and can't do when the Spring report comes out. No Bolden Bailout billions needed just yet.
  The cry of "Preliminary!" gets old. We had the Augustine Commission report in October 2009, the HEFT Phase I closeout in September 2010 -- both with cost/expenditure models for the next 20 years -- and NASA's letter to the Congress in January 2011. GAO's in there, too. The data is at least a year and a half old.

   It would be so much easier just to say let's-get-on-with-the-SDHLV-centric-exploration. When completely different groups over a span of years point out that the numbers just don't work without big, ongoing budget boosts, it stinks, but it probably contains more than a grain of truth. The conclusions may have been preliminary to you, but you need to argue with the data.
-Alex

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1166
  • Liked: 56
  • Likes Given: 275
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #609 on: 02/26/2011 12:53 pm »
Bolden might also have meant that we aren't going to build the Mars rocket right out of the shoot, i.e., the 130 ton monster, just in case the journalist or others might be wishing NASA would do that.  He could have been thinking that we'll be making due with 'just' a 70-ish ton starter rocket.  Or he could be thinking of something smaller still.  He didn't really tip his hand either way.  Which leaves folks like me to wonder and speculate until the Spring report comes out.

During the FY2012 budget request press briefing, Bolden said it would be "in the neighborhood of 75 to 100 metric tons".

Good point.  This is another strange comment.  What initial rocket design have they shown or just even talked about that can be ready by the deadline, not bust the budget and lift 75 to 100 metric tons in its initial configuration?  Nothing.  The Preliminary Report said it couldn't be done.  So for NASA to be able to come back and say, OK, here's how it can be done, something big has to change.  It has been discussed that there are two things which could effect NASA's ability to come back with a green light on SLS:

1) Operational efficiencies (change how NASA does things, as touched upon in the Preliminary report)
2) The reports that have been requested and submitted by industry last week may provide ways to save money within various portions of opertaions and development

If there are any othy ways that NASA could change the tune of their Preliminary report than those two above, I would like to know.  March is going to be a long month.
Scott

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #610 on: 02/26/2011 05:53 pm »
Tough. Bolden can't go against the law. Yet another media mistake by Bolden.

When can he be replaced like his failed plan?

I don't care if people disagree with his policies (even though I believe he's not a policy maker, but carries out the policies) - either way, point is, he's a former Shuttle commander/US marine general. That means he's earnt the respect he deserves, so start showing it please.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6616
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3411
  • Likes Given: 1223
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #611 on: 02/26/2011 07:23 pm »
Let's discuss what they can and can't do when the Spring report comes out. No Bolden Bailout billions needed just yet.

Please explain what you mean by "Bolden Bailout billions"...

And Tony, while you're at it, could you explain why giving MSFC another $10-20B to develop another vehicle, after the past $50-100B worth of failed vehicle projects *isn't* a bailout.

~Jon

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #612 on: 02/26/2011 07:45 pm »
Let's discuss what they can and can't do when the Spring report comes out. No Bolden Bailout billions needed just yet.
Please explain what you mean by "Bolden Bailout billions"...
And Tony, while you're at it, could you explain why giving MSFC another $10-20B to develop another vehicle, after the past $50-100B worth of failed vehicle projects *isn't* a bailout.

~Jon
There needs to be consequences for NASA and the Prime Contractor's failures.

Failure to replace the shuttle in a timely manner, while squandering $10 Billion in the process, has to be a low point in the history of American space flight. It's unacceptable that we will soon have to rely on Russia for rides to the ISS.

NASA's budget should be slashed for a few years, some people and contractors should be fired, and some of the newer companies that have proven their merit with deeds, and without cost+ contracts, should be given a piece of the pie. Otherwise the same humiliating failures are going to continue.

There is an often forgotten lesson from the Apollo era; when it was in danger of not making the end-of-decade goal, NASA had to start firing people. This included both NASA personnel as well as Prime contractor personnel identified by NASA. This created a sudden can-do attitude.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2011 07:53 pm by pummuf »

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #613 on: 02/26/2011 09:46 pm »
There needs to be consequences for NASA and the Prime Contractor's failures.

The more you really read about CxP you realize it wasn't the Prime Contractors but NASA Brass.  Contractors were doing fine until requirements change.  Then NASA bureaucracy kicks in which causes over-runs. 

Look how well Orion is doing now as an example.

Failure to replace the shuttle in a timely manner, while squandering $10 Billion in the process, has to be a low point in the history of American space flight. It's unacceptable that we will soon have to rely on Russia for rides to the ISS.

You can blame a multitude of people.  Griffin, Bush, Obama, Boldin, NASA Brass.  Team effort here.

NASA's budget should be slashed for a few years, some people and contractors should be fired, and some of the newer companies that have proven their merit with deeds, and without cost+ contracts, should be given a piece of the pie. Otherwise the same humiliating failures are going to continue.

Should NASA consolidate?  Sure.
Should some programs shut down?  Yes.
Should some people be fired?  Some think so.

However, slashing the budget more than 10% would do more harm to the people who actually know what needs to be done.  New companies who have done AMAZING things "stand on the shoulders of giants".  Let them grow into it.  They are getting there.  So is Biglow, Orbital, and... wait for it... ULA. 

There is an often forgotten lesson from the Apollo era; when it was in danger of not making the end-of-decade goal, NASA had to start firing people. This included both NASA personnel as well as Prime contractor personnel identified by NASA. This created a sudden can-do attitude.
 

Have a link?  I want to read about this.  Never covered this in history class.  Not calling you out, I just want to edify myself.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #614 on: 02/26/2011 09:58 pm »
Have a link?  I want to read about this.  Never covered this in history class.  Not calling you out, I just want to edify myself.

"The Mighty Saturns", DVD, interview with Gen. Sam Phillips at about 20 minutes.

Maybe you can also find the "Phillips Report", 1965. Not sure what's in the report, but he definitely mentioned firing people in the interview.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #615 on: 02/26/2011 10:19 pm »

"The Mighty Saturns", DVD, interview with Gen. Sam Phillips at about 20 minutes.

Maybe you can also find the "Phillips Report", 1965. Not sure what's in the report, but he definitely mentioned firing people in the interview.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/phillip2.html

Quote from: Phillips Report
We consider the program organization structure and assignment of competent people within the organization a prerogative of the manager and his team that have been given the program job to do. However, in view of what we consider to be an extremely critical situation at S&ID, one expected result of the NASA review might be the direction of certain reorganizations and reassignments considered appropriate, by NASA, to improve the situation. While we do have some suggestions for NAA consideration on this subject, they are to be accepted as such and not considered directive in nature. We emphasize that we clearly expect NAA/S&ID to take responsible and thoroughly considered actions on the organization and assignment of people required to accomplish the S-II and CSM Programs. We expect full consideration, in this judgement by NAA, of both near and long term benefits of changes that are made.

Frankly stated--we firmly believe that S&ID is overmaned and that the S-II and CSM Programs can be done, and done better, with fewer people. This is not to suggest that an arbitrary [10] percentage reduction should be applied to each element of S&ID, but we do suggest the need for adjustments, based on a reassessment and clear definition of organizational responsibilities and task assignments.

It is our view that the total Engineering, Manufacturing, Quality, and Program Control functions are too diversely spread and in too many layers throughout the S&ID organization to contribute, in an integrated and effective manner, to the hard core requirements of the programs. The present proliferation of the functions invites non-contributing, "make-work" use of manpower and dollars as well as impediments to program progress.

Looks like it was making a system more efficient.  Which is something we are dealing with in NASA today.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #616 on: 02/26/2011 11:13 pm »

"The Mighty Saturns", DVD, interview with Gen. Sam Phillips at about 20 minutes.

Maybe you can also find the "Phillips Report", 1965. Not sure what's in the report, but he definitely mentioned firing people in the interview.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollo204/phillip2.html

Here's some of the interview;


I think the relevant quote is;
"We fired not just NASA people but had the people that were there at the contractor fired also "

I think that's an important lesson that's been forgotten. Heads should roll for the CxP fiasco. I don't think NASA and the contractors will improve without some serious consequences. I don't think NASA and the contractors even 'get it'. If Apollo was NASA's penultimate achievement of doing what's never been done, then begging rides from the Russians once the Shuttle retires is NASA's greatest failure.
« Last Edit: 02/26/2011 11:58 pm by pummuf »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6436
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 1390
  • Likes Given: 1313
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #617 on: 02/27/2011 12:24 am »
We routinely see examples within NASA of great leaders who pull their teams together to do fantastic work.  Those are tough, tough jobs.  To do them right, those leaders need to both manage "down" to their team members, and manage "up" to the bureaucrats sitting behind the big desks, who often seem more interested in "empire building" than actual accomplishment.  It requires a kind of Orwellian double-think.  (For anyone reading this who actually has a job like that at NASA, let me recommend a coffee mug for your desk:
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_12605_SPM243134999P)

The problem with calling for heads to roll is that as often as not, it is the wrong heads that end up on the chopping block.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 812
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #618 on: 02/27/2011 01:41 am »
We need people to go in to NASA today and do what Phillips did then.  I wonder if we could fire NASA people today?

I ordered this.  It looks awesome..

Thanks for the clip.

VR
RE327
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline pummuf

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 112
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #619 on: 02/27/2011 01:57 am »
I ordered this.  It looks awesome..
I really enjoyed the DVD. It was available on netflicks also, last I looked.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0