NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[DARPA-86]

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is.

Oh, so it's the President who is responsible for mandating a path for NASA, and for funding it? I wonder why Cx is still being funded then -- didn't Obama want to cancel that? And why are NASA officials going to all these Congressional hearings if it's really the President they should be talking to?

Because NASA is an Executive Branch Agency of the federal governement, and the Admin., i.e. General Bolden was appointed by and works for the President.  Because the President has more than three issues to deal with in a week, he appoints executive branch offices, like the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is Mr. Holdren, to coordinate various executive branch agencies and clarify Presidential policy and direction.  They also serve as the "gatekeepers" and limit access, and those who want to ask for specific things - like requests for additional funds.  The President often proposes, Congress often disposes.

As for CxP, or at least the base elements of it, like Orion/MPCV, PAS/LAS, J-2X etc.  There are NASA Authorization acts (2005, 2008, & as refined by the 2010 Act) as passed by Congress and signed by the President, that establish policy and direction and authorize those same executive branch agencies, to fullfill those policy directions - things like a BEO capability once again for the United States.

[HappyMartian]

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is. 

Wrong, congress has just as much influence and therefore just as much their fact.

Mars, where did all the Obama pumping go?  You thought he was the next best thing to sliced bread.

I guess I lost my Obama faith sometime after my first post on this website.

   
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #2187 on: 07/11/2009 03:13 AM »
   
To everyone on the Direct Team and all of the Direct/Jupiter fans, Great Job!

SSMEs are an important human asset that have played a major part in getting people into orbit for almost three decades. It would be wise to let the SSMEs continue to perform for at least a few more decades.

Direct/Jupiter makes excellent use of what we have and know and the system can evolve into whatever is needed for the near future. 


When I realized the President wanted to throw out the window the SSME and Orion and our human spaceflight contractors, it dawned on me that he was no real friend of human spaceflight or the ISS. He sure is a slick talker though, isn't he? Three wars and a Nobel Peace Prize. Pure Teflon. I think he might have even gotten Clongton's vote.  Live and learn.

Cheers!   

[clongton]

If NASA fails to promptly build the Orion and SLS, it will be clearly the President who is responsible for that failure. Also, if the International Space Station is underutilized or undercrewed or gets into other problems because of an inadequate supply chain or Soyuz problems, the reality is that the President's heavy footdragging in building the SLS and Orion will be seen as the major political leadership failure that it clearly is. 

Wrong, congress has just as much influence and therefore just as much their fact.

Mars, where did all the Obama pumping go?  You thought he was the next best thing to sliced bread.

I guess I lost my Obama faith sometime after my first post on this website.

   
Re: DIRECT v3.0 - Thread 1
« Reply #2187 on: 07/11/2009 03:13 AM »
   
To everyone on the Direct Team and all of the Direct/Jupiter fans, Great Job!

SSMEs are an important human asset that have played a major part in getting people into orbit for almost three decades. It would be wise to let the SSMEs continue to perform for at least a few more decades.

Direct/Jupiter makes excellent use of what we have and know and the system can evolve into whatever is needed for the near future. 


When I realized the President wanted to throw out the window the SSME and Orion and our human spaceflight contractors, it dawned on me that he was no real friend of human spaceflight or the ISS. He sure is a slick talker though, isn't he? Three wars and a Nobel Peace Prize. Pure Teflon. I think he might have even gotten Clongton's vote.  Live and learn.

Cheers!   

He did, but not next time. Like you said - live and learn.
His space policy paper, released in late summer of 2008 was one of the main drivers for me for my support of his candidacy. His attempted dismantling of the American Human Space Flight program in February of 2010 stripped that support away. It showed that not only is he not a friend of the Space Program but that the policy paper was not even his own. It was a political ploy to get votes. And with people like me it worked.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me. That ain't happening.

[SkyKing]

Unless Congress is very specific about what it wants and mandates the funds in that direction then the executive is free to interpret the law in its own best interest...and has done that since the founding of  The Republic.  The ONLY recourse Congress has is to stop authorizing money.

TR wanted money for a around the world tour of the Navy...The congress wouldnt give it to him...so he just took all the money Congress had allocated for "steaming supplies" and sent the fleet as far as it would go on that.  As he put it to the then Secretary of State "if Congress wants to leave the fleet halfway around the world that is their business" (pretty close doing it from memory).

The politics of today are this.  Outside of the space districts there is no support for a lot of money to keep the shuttles flying or build something new...if there was Nelson would have gotten his 1 billion dollars for the Ares text vehicle that Jeff Hanley was proposing.  Every day less of the shuttle infrastructure remains...Hanley made the mistake of thinking Congress would protect him...

At some point Charlie will roll out his "heavy lift" and if Congress doesnt like it, then they wont fund it...and I suspect that will be OK with Charlie.  I suspect that Congress will end up funding whatever is rolled out...as long as it is not that expensive.

But lets see.  Thats the fun of space politics there is always something new  Sky King

[robertross]

He did, but not next time. Like you said - live and learn.
His space policy paper, released in late summer of 2008 was one of the main drivers for me for my support of his candidacy. His attempted dismantling of the American Human Space Flight program in February of 2010 stripped that support away. It showed that not only is he not a friend of the Space Program but that the policy paper was not even his own. It was a political ploy to get votes. And with people like me it worked.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me. That ain't happening.

Well, not putting a side to this, but to put things in context:

How is that any different compared to how Bush handled CxP?
Both have been abysmal. High hopes, and just as high let-downs.

I don't see the President as the 'fall guy' (person), in this case, but the will of congress to come to any substantive resolution on the matter. Our latest CR extension is proof enough of how disfunctional the whole process is.

[Chris Bergin]

Sky King, and all - point of order. It's Mr or General Bolden, not Charlie. He's a Marine General, he's at least earned the required respect.

It's clear you have an angle, and you're entitled to it, but as always I would urge people to note it's their opinion, given some people's opinions are clearly not based in any documented reality.

Jumping into a 58 page thread with a "controversial" point of view will only be tolerated if you don't bang on about it at every opportunity.

[Robotbeat]

One minor point, everyone:
"The will of Congress" is NOT the same as "the will of the loudest members of Congress." Whatever is passed by the majority of the Congress, as written, is the will of the Congress. Note that some vocal members may claim the will of the Congress is whatever they're saying it is, but unless it's voted on by the majority, it is not actually the will of the Congress.

[clongton]

One minor point, everyone:
"The will of Congress" is NOT the same as "the will of the loudest members of Congress." Whatever is passed by the majority of the Congress, as written, is the will of the Congress. Note that some vocal members may claim the will of the Congress is whatever they're saying it is, but unless it's voted on by the majority, it is not actually the will of the Congress.

That reminds me. I cringe every time I hear the Republicans say "the will of the American people" in support of their agendas, when clearly it isn't. It's the will of the Republican party leadership. And the Democrats pull the same crap. It just makes me sad. If it weren't so serious it might actually be funny. Neither party will admit what the pollsters all confirm; most voters are very close to the center, just a little to the right or left of it, regardless of party. The Truth is that none of the political parties actually represent the views of the people because they all go as far to the right or the left as they can. That leaves the majority of the people without any national organization that actually represents them.

Chris' comment about the "will of Congress" falls right into the same thing.

[nooneofconsequence]

A few points here.

NASA isn't the lead item for Congress. HLV or even HSF isn't the lead item for NASA.

Neither Obama or most of Congress are clear advocates for HLV - concepts for support of HSF each might desire are sufficiently different. That's the honest truth. I could take it down a level but its not necessary.

Last presidential election, the only candidate I thought was strong on HSF/HLV was Clinton - all others had different kinds of evasions. And I did not think it mattered or helped that candidate at all. Perhaps that gives you some hint as to how the priorities are seen in the broader case.

Now, there's a concept from de Tocqueville called "tyranny of the majority" - that sometimes to avoid this over forceful effect of a democracy one respects the minority position to a respectful degree. This subtlety is essential to governing (read why from said author), and in the bullying form of overt partisan politics, we often forget this, and it undermines America over and over again. You have to govern a whole people, not just a majority.

Part of the reason an Obama IMHO  supports  HSF (and HLV to a degree) is this reason. Likewise Congress in reverse for Obama's priorities - which is how we got a compromise position on Authorization. I note that Reid pushed in January to move ahead on Appropriation in same spirit (and got rebuffed in the House). Still, they do respect such positions.

IMHO NASA budgets do best "well distributed and represented", and that is very hard given what Congress has requested NASA to do. Add to that attempting to force what I consider irrational situations by fiat, simply postpone any rational outcome. Also,  policy makers never understand the extent of time consuming options - in some cases it appears to be impossible for them to ever come to terms with them IMHO. Now this is true in the extreme.

Also, old deals that can't *really* be afforded anymore - are really hard to get undone. That also jams things up as they *die slowly* because they can't be abandoned yet they can't go forward either. And as this paralysis draws things out, they become more obvious to the general public as to what they are. Multiple other projects are kept around them, so as to "hide" from the spotlight. IMHO this is what keeps alive J-2x - if it goes others become more obvious. But where do you separate the representations of the minority need among majority will again? Hits both ways.

And you can't have the rational discussions until the irrational leaves the stage. Its like a backed up freeway at rush hour.

[MoonRay]

Sky King, and all - point of order. It's Mr or General Bolden, not Charlie. He's a Marine General, he's at least earned the required respect.

It's clear you have an angle, and you're entitled to it, but as always I would urge people to note it's their opinion, given some people's opinions are clearly not based in any documented reality.

Jumping into a 58 page thread with a "controversial" point of view will only be tolerated if you don't bang on about it at every opportunity.

Charles Frank "Charlie" Bolden, Jr. (born August 19, 1946 in Columbia, South Carolina, United States) is the current Administrator of NASA, a retired United States Marine Corps major general, and former NASA astronaut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_F._Bolden,_Jr

[Chris Bergin]

Not sure what the point is above, MoonRay, as you didn't make one, but for the record, retired or not, one still addresses him Major General, or General.

It's for him and him alone to say "please, call me Charlie".

Anyway....just a point of order

(This is not a debate).

[simonbp]

Yes, Charles Bolden is NASA Administrator, while Charlie is a unicorn.

(Though in the US, ex-military civil servants typically do not use military titles; i.e. Colin Powell never went by "General" when when he was Secretary of State.)

[nooneofconsequence]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-nasa-still-spending-constellation-20110323,0,3593030.story

[2552]

HSS&T Set To Discuss NASA's Exploration Program Next Week

The House Science, Space and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics has announced that a hearing on NASA's exploration program will be held next week.

"A Review of NASA's Exploration Program In Transition: Issues for Congress and Industry" will hear testimony from Doug Cooke, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration, who has announced plans to retire; Scott Pace, Director of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute and NASA Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation during the George W. Bush Administration while Mike Griffin headed the agency;  and James Maser, head of the Corporate Membership Committee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, and President of Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, which builds the J-2X engine that was to be used with the Ares-1 launch vehicle.  Ares-1 is part of the Constellation program, which is being terminated.

The hearing is scheduled for March 30, 2011 at 10:00 in 2318 Rayburn House Office Building.  Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) is the new chairman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee.   He represents the 4th district of Mississippi that includes NASA's Stennis Space Center where rocket engines are tested.  Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) is the ranking member of the subcommittee, but Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) is serving as acting ranking member while Rep. Giffords continues her recovery from being shot in the head during an assassination attempt on January 8.

http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-space-and-aeronautics-hearing-human-space-exploration

[Danny Dot]

Here is a link to an article outlining the current state of NASA's budget.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1810/1

[yg1968]

Some news on Congress' likely response to the NASA FY 2012 Budget request:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/29/congress-to-nasa-follow-the-authorization-act/

One surprising quote:

One panelist said that while there was general suport for commercial crew development, there remained some skepticism that there was a need for multiple providers.

That explains the difference in opinion in how much funding is needed for commercial crew.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Some news on Congress' likely response to the NASA FY 2012 Budget request:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/29/congress-to-nasa-follow-the-authorization-act/

One surprising quote:

One panelist said that while there was general suport for commercial crew development, there remained some skepticism that there was a need for multiple providers.

That explains the difference in opinion in how much funding is needed for commercial crew.

FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers.  There just isn't enough potential work.  Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.

[yg1968]

Some news on Congress' likely response to the NASA FY 2012 Budget request:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/29/congress-to-nasa-follow-the-authorization-act/

One surprising quote:

One panelist said that while there was general suport for commercial crew development, there remained some skepticism that there was a need for multiple providers.

That explains the difference in opinion in how much funding is needed for commercial crew.

FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers.  There just isn't enough potential work.  Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.

Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew. If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.

The other thing is that there may be opportunities for commercial firms to benefit from economies of scale by providing both cargo and crew services (for example, cargo and crewed Dragon). I suspect that Dream Chaser and the CST-100 could also be adapted to provide cargo services. 

[Bill White]

I believe yg1968 is correct:

Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew. If commercial cargo can support 2 providers with about $500-$800 million of total COTS funding, I don't see why commercial crew could not have at least 2 providers for $500-$850 milion of CCDev funding per year.

I agree with this: "Having only one provider would defeat the purpose of commercial crew."

However, I believe Ben the Space Brit also is correct:

FWIW, I suspect that the ISS program won't support multiple crew taxi providers.  There just isn't enough potential work.  Whilst NASA may fund a host of options, only one with get the contract.

IMHO both of you are correct.

The underlying problem is that ISS offers insufficient demand for launch services.

And therefore as long as ISS remains the sole source of demand, commercial crew initiative will likely fail (edited to add the following) and by "fail" I mean fail to achieve the vision of stimulating multiple providers of low cost launch services.

To re-state, I assert ISS cannot - by itself - support multiple low cost US providers of launch services. To achieve that vision humanity will need many destinations in LEO, or an EML Gateway supporting robust beyond LEO exploration.

[2552]

Here is the text of the Senate Appropriation bill (NASA starts at page 198):
http://appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=2a092519-fc3c-491c-866f-613d9745f2ee

See also this link for a table:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/03/08/more-details-about-senates-proposed-fy11-cr-for-nasa/

On page 198 of the Senate Appropriation bill:

(b) Of the amounts appropriated by this division for
10 ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Explo
11 ration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
12 Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, and not less than
13 $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy lift launch vehicle
14 system which shall have a lift capability not less than 130
15 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core
16 elements developed simultaneously.

Yay.

If this passes (and is not soon amended), we will not see SLS launch in this decade.

If I remember 51D post's on similar wording in past proposals, he said that this language was not meant to contradict the 2010 NASA Authorization bill but to simply confirm what they have said previously.  In other words, I wouldn't worry about it too much. The HLV has to be evolvable to 130 tons. That was already the case.

51D Mascot didn't say this but I think that it also means that the J-2X contract should not be terminated. But given that the J-2X contract is for about $1.2 billion and that about half of it has already been paid, this shouldn't make much of a difference.

Correct on both points.

With the plan of NASA's RAC-1 team now to start with the Block 0 SLS (Jupiter-130 analogue, 70mT tons LEO), then upgrade to Block 1 (5/5, 100mT LEO), then Block 2 (J-2X EDS), that means 5-seg SRB and J-2X development would be deferred until Block 0 is done (right?). This language says "other core elements". Could this refer to either the initial 70 ton LEO Block 0, or the 100 ton LEO Block 1? If so, this could just mean Block 1 and Block 2 have to be developed simultaneously, when their development begins. If this language makes it into law, of course. That doesn't mean the J-2X contract would be terminated, it would likely just be novated into an RS-25e contract, since existing contracts should be modified for SLS, right?

Also, when the requirements for the initial core stage capability were being written, were the writers aware of the possibly, as proposed by DIRECT, of using the initial core stage to launch into LEO, the Orion MPCV and an EELV upper stage, like the 5m DIVHUS (or ULA's Common Centaur Upper Stage, Ch.8, Future Enhancements) and use the stage to send Orion to the Moon for a circumlunar test flight, or in general using the stage for an initial BEO capability before the large EDS is ready? Would such a use be consistent with the Authorization Act?