Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 446548 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #660 on: 03/08/2011 06:29 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  The people that need to answer this question, but haven't for several years, are in NASA HQ. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #661 on: 03/08/2011 06:33 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  ...
Hey, why not? We have a Congress that defines rockets, which is even weirder.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2011 06:34 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

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

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10505
  • Liked: 601
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #662 on: 03/08/2011 06:36 pm »
If this passes (and is not soon amended), we will not see SLS launch in this decade.

Unless 51D can provide some extra insight into that specific sentence, insight that can definitely turn it around from saying what it appears to say, I fear that this one sentence risks sinking the whole plan.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2011 06:37 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15310
  • Liked: 5754
  • Likes Given: 2554
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #663 on: 03/08/2011 06:39 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  ...
Hey, why not? We have a Congress that defines rockets.

In any event, I think that your point is that there is no money left for payload regardless who defines them. But I think that Congress expects money to be freed up for payloads once the ISS is deorbited. In an environment where projects often get cancelled, you are better off concentrating on one project before tackling the next one. I think that's the basic idea of flexible path. 

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #664 on: 03/08/2011 06:41 pm »
That assumes the new technologies actually materialize and are effective. NASA has spent endless billions developing technologies that got us nowhere, that didn't help in any future missions. The record since the end of Apollo is actually depressing. We would have done far more exploration by now if we had stuck with a heavy lifter even if it was "old" technology instead of a space plane. Instead we got an entropic bunch of feel good programs based on the vague idea that everything would be better with new futuristic technology.


I think developing technology is very important but for it to be successful, it has to be guided by a concrete goal driven mission. I think we should start with doing missions with the technology we have within this decade, and based on those missions, gradually develop introduce new technologies!!


So for example, start of with an affordable heavy lifter, a lunar lander and crew capsule. Then develop a reusable hypergolic lander that can be refueled. Then develop a base module based on the lander technology. Then do experiments with power and ISRU. Then test cryogenic propellant transfer and a small depot. Then test a ion propulsion to transfer payloads to lunar orbit and transfer to the base........

If some of the technologies fail, you still have your exploration program active. You're not pinning things on the hope that future is better.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #665 on: 03/08/2011 06:44 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  ...
Hey, why not? We have a Congress that defines rockets.

In any event, I think that your point is that there is no money left for payload regardless who defines them. But I think that Congress expects money to be freed up for payloads once the ISS is deorbited. In an environment where projects often get cancelled, you are better off concentrating on one project before tackling the next one. I think that's the basic idea of flexible path. 
Yeah, this has always been the assumption... we'll develop a rocket, THEN A FISCAL MIRACLE HAPPENS and we all of a sudden (after years and years of chronically short budgets) have a ton of money for payloads.... It's a really odd and unrealistic assumption, in my opinion. Look at this old sand chart for CxP from 2008 for just how unrealistic it all seems:

from this thread: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=14486.0
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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #666 on: 03/08/2011 06:46 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  ...
Hey, why not? We have a Congress that defines rockets, which is even weirder.

Ahh.  So now it's back to the Congressional Rocket Design Bureau but convienently letting NASA off the hook.  Is it because:

1.  You know I'm right?

2.  You have no response?
 
3.  It's easier to assume anything but a shuttle-derived will be better even though nobody has been able to sell that outright?

4.  You want to promote the idea that existing parts (which would also include EELV) somehow must advance the state-of-the-art to unprecidented levels?  That we are on the cusp of having these technologies that is somehow fundamentally going to change the way we get to orbit?  That we should be spending all our development know-how (which translates to cost, schedule, a new learning curve, etc), on a rocket that will just take us the first 200 miles instead of saying we know how to do this and let's use proven technology to get us there so we can do things we haven't done before or in a very long time? 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #667 on: 03/08/2011 06:53 pm »
The bill is what the bill says, though.

All the inside information in the world doesn't compensate if Congress passes a bad law. What Congress passed previously was bad.

An SLS without payloads is a waste of money, folks.

Congress does not define payloads.  ...
Hey, why not? We have a Congress that defines rockets, which is even weirder.

Ahh.  So now it's back to the Congressional Rocket Design Bureau but convienently letting NASA off the hook.  Is it because:

1.  You know I'm right?

2.  You have no response?
 
3.  It's easier to assume anything but a shuttle-derived will be better even though nobody has been able to sell that outright?

4.  You want to promote the idea that existing parts (which would also include EELV) somehow must advance the state-of-the-art to unprecidented levels?  That we are on the cusp of having these technologies that is somehow fundamentally going to change the way we get to orbit?  That we should be spending all our development know-how (which translates to cost, schedule, a new learning curve, etc), on a rocket that will just take us the first 200 miles instead of saying we know how to do this and let's use proven technology to get us there so we can do things we haven't done before or in a very long time? 
I'm saying that a new rocket without a payload is completely useless, while at least a payload without a new rocket isn't.

As you say, there is more to flying in space than just the launch. I just see this idea of Congress pushing the requirements of a rocket with no payload so high that it can't be developed with the budgeted amount as just incredibly ridiculous. A small, Jupiter-130 or Sidemount rocket would be just fine as long as there's money for payloads.

And I'm sure there's plenty of blame to go to NASA.
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 Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #668 on: 03/08/2011 07:10 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #669 on: 03/08/2011 07:12 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.
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 Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 675
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #670 on: 03/08/2011 07:21 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.

But we do have launchers. Not as big as you might like, but we do have alternatives. And they are certainly large enough for proving spaceflight experience for experimental technologies.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 21
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #671 on: 03/08/2011 08:06 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
We have plenty of launchers.  Our issue is more a case of lack of payloads, and of willingness to actually fully utilize the launchers we have already.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #672 on: 03/08/2011 08:13 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.

Of course the problem there is there are no prop depots. 

The other problem I see is people feel they need to assume that if there is an HLV nothing would ever launch on a smaller rocket.  There is a middle ground. 

The final problem is that people seemingly want to ignore that at some point, depending on the mission requirements, it will cost more to purchase these smaller rockets, integrate on orbit, baby sit the systems as necessary, etc than it would be to use a larger vehicle. 

Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #673 on: 03/08/2011 08:27 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.

Of course the problem there is there are no prop depots. 

The other problem I see is people feel they need to assume that if there is an HLV nothing would ever launch on a smaller rocket.  There is a middle ground. 

The final problem is that people seemingly want to ignore that at some point, depending on the mission requirements, it will cost more to purchase these smaller rockets, integrate on orbit, baby sit the systems as necessary, etc than it would be to use a larger vehicle. 
Sure, I agree that it'd be worth it at some point... But the larger the HLV, the further out that point would be... If we can't even properly fund our HLV, what hope is there for any kind of hardware other than maybe Orion?

And ISS is living, breathing proof that on-orbit refueling works and is done routinely.
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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #674 on: 03/08/2011 08:38 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.

Of course the problem there is there are no prop depots. 

The other problem I see is people feel they need to assume that if there is an HLV nothing would ever launch on a smaller rocket.  There is a middle ground. 

The final problem is that people seemingly want to ignore that at some point, depending on the mission requirements, it will cost more to purchase these smaller rockets, integrate on orbit, baby sit the systems as necessary, etc than it would be to use a larger vehicle. 
Sure, I agree that it'd be worth it at some point... But the larger the HLV, the further out that point would be... If we can't even properly fund our HLV, what hope is there for any kind of hardware other than maybe Orion?

And ISS is living, breathing proof that on-orbit refueling works and is done routinely.

I'm not sure how many times it has to be said but it seems that the 130 ton wording is exactly that.  Doesn't mean we start out that way. 

Not sure anyone ever said it doesn't work but the relatively small amount of hypergolics transferred to ISS is not equivalent to a depot-centric architecture in my opinion. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10505
  • Liked: 601
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #675 on: 03/08/2011 09:12 pm »
OV,
The issue boils down to the interpretation of the words by NASA -- and that all depends on whether the NASA leaderships wants to help, or hinder, the project.

The specific words "which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously." is the key phrase in question.

A J-130 vehicle could certainly be developed by 2016, but that schedule becomes much less likely, if the budget has to be divided up further, in order to continue to fund 5-seg, J-2X, a new Upper Stage and a Core Stretch all at the same time -- as the language actually states.

I trust 51D's perspective that Congress ultimately expects this to be an evolutionary development process, but Congress won't be the ones actually implementing it.

How it actually happens will depend largely on how receptive NASA Sr. Management is.   Unless Congress specifies every last procedure, it will be NASA Management who will be responsible for the actual implementation of these plans 00 and they can effectively interpret those words any way they choose to.

If NASA Management do not want this to happen, they would prefer to have the project stretch late and risk cancellation.   All they have to do to accomplish that, is to bundle all the development together -- as the language actually tells them to do, if interpreted literally -- and bust the budget entirely within a few years, exactly like CxP.

So the best question now, is just how responsive are Bolden and Garver going to be to this?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2011 09:21 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #676 on: 03/08/2011 09:37 pm »
Yup, no new technology. Great. Now, we'll still be circling in LEO but now with a bigger rocket!

It is worse than that.  We will still be circling in LEO but with a bigger rocket acting as a lawn decoration.  Mars rockets will be far too expensive for LEO operations.

The worst effected areas will be those with manufacturing plants that make parts for and assemble the SLS.  Without any sales the production workers will be fired by the aerospace companies.

Offline Gregori

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 195
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #677 on: 03/08/2011 11:30 pm »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.

Kinda puts everything on the hope that we will have propellant depots that will be cheaper, arrive on time, will work, won't be burdensome. Its betting everything on one horse. Wishful thinking shouldn't be the basis of Space policy. It also restricts the volume of payload we can send, which is important for Mars missions and Lunar bases.

We already have been down this road with the Shuttle. It was to promise affordable, regular space transport. Look how that turned out!!

We have an idea of how to operate a heavy lift vehicle, how much it will cost, how often it can fly....etc. We've never tried using propellant depots or flown dozens of EELV's per year.

A more balanced approach would be to develop a HLV first, then try out propellant depot later.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35722
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19886
  • Likes Given: 10362
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #678 on: 03/09/2011 12:17 am »
No use having a payload if you don't have anything capable of launching it.
Almost all of the proposed payloads I've seen (Orion, Altair, hab module, etc) can be put into orbit dry with an EELV-class launch vehicle.

Kinda puts everything on the hope that we will have propellant depots that will be cheaper, arrive on time, will work, won't be burdensome. Its betting everything on one horse. Wishful thinking shouldn't be the basis of Space policy. It also restricts the volume of payload we can send, which is important for Mars missions and Lunar bases.

We already have been down this road with the Shuttle. It was to promise affordable, regular space transport. Look how that turned out!!

We have an idea of how to operate a heavy lift vehicle, how much it will cost, how often it can fly....etc. We've never tried using propellant depots or flown dozens of EELV's per year.

A more balanced approach would be to develop a HLV first, then try out propellant depot later.


Prop depots are not Shuttle. Prop depots would be far less expensive, and you don't really need a depot at all if you're just doing on-orbit refueling. We have a ceiling for on-orbit costs: Progress.

And actually, there were about 62 R-7 rocket launches in 1981 alone. Far more than the number of EELV launches needed for on-orbit refueling.
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 nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #679 on: 03/09/2011 12:26 am »
A J-130 vehicle could certainly be developed by 2016, but that schedule becomes much less likely, if the budget has to be divided up further, in order to continue to fund 5-seg, J-2X, a new Upper Stage and a Core Stretch all at the same time -- as the language actually states.
Correct.

A case of overreach. Overreach doomed Ares and Griffin.

Another few billion will join the past several billion where this is headed. As I said before, the "optimism" fails me. 
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Tags:
 

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