Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 535135 times)

Offline MP99

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #880 on: 03/29/2011 09:05 pm »
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.

ISTM this could be restated that it's not a matter of whether there is sufficient demand to support multiple providers, but that the cost of supporting one provider is much less than that of supporting two.

You need two providers - it would be pretty dangerous to rely on any single provider. But if SLS + Orion is providing backup...

With the mandate for SLS-as-backup in the Authorization act, I could see this happening.



Of course, this screws Bigelow's plans, since he's going to be wary of flying unless he has a backup crew service. But, look at the upside for CC providers if Bigelow does get his modules flying:-

Quote
Officials said if the company gets enough customers to lease all or some of the modules, it could mean 25 launches a year from Cape Canaveral, ferrying cargo and crew.

25 launches! 25!!

Those won't all be crew, but that level of demand is exactly what NASA wants to stimulate, and that should be sufficient to support at least two CC providers.

If those are really realistic figures, NASA must be very careful not to close off that fantastic chance of cost sharing and commercial stimulation.

cheers, Martin

Edit to add:
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.

Are these really comparable - chance of losing "T-shirts, toilet roll and tang" vs chance of losing a NASA crew? Could easily see crew being more expensive.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2011 09:10 pm by MP99 »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #881 on: 03/30/2011 01:25 am »
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.

Bill, One significant factor is, I believe, not given adequate consideration in your assessment of ISS utilization potential--and the resulting evolution of the "demand" for ISS access and utilization. Most of the "planning" and "expectations regarding ISS utilization since the announcement of the VSE in 2004 was the re-vectored focus of NASA's intent to use ISS for almost exclusively "exploration-related" research and development and testing and modeling. The 200 NASA Act reflected a concern by the Congress about that narrowing of the planned research scope of ISS--especially when it resulted in some 900-plus principal investigators and associated research projects that had been in planing for years were suddenly and unceremoniously thrown over the side, in the ReMap activity and subsequent adjustments in NASA's planning for ISS use. Under that scenario, NASA's planning accounted for use of only about half of the available U.S. research capability allocations. (As they reported in a formal presentation to the S=Augustine committee, as I recall, and as they further stated to GAO in the course of GAO developing an overview of planned ISS utilization.) On the basis of those statements, the 2010 NASA Authorization Act specifically allocated 50% of the U.S. allocations for research capability to the exclusive use and management of the soon-to-be designated NGO partner.

An in-depth study was commissioned by NASA by a private corporation (ProOrbis) to evaluate the potential level of non-traditional and non-exploration interests for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The result was a stunning discovery of a far wider range of interested entities than had previously been contemplated. The realization and accommodation of that degree of interest promises a far greater and broader-based "utilization community" for ISS and, subsequently, a very different set of assumptions on which to estimate future demand for ISS research capability. It is clear that the ability to provide access and opportunities for ISS-based research and associated ground-support by P.I's and related findings/data analysis and interpretation offers a real potential for expanding the demand for ISS capabilities beyond anything yet contemplated. That, in turn, if realized, will most certainly affect--and expand--the potential "market" for ISS utilization. Previous assumptions and estimates are, therefore, invalid or out of date.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #882 on: 03/30/2011 03:05 am »
...
An in-depth study was commissioned by NASA by a private corporation (ProOrbis) to evaluate the potential level of non-traditional and non-exploration interests for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The result was a stunning discovery of a far wider range of interested entities than had previously been contemplated. The realization and accommodation of that degree of interest promises a far greater and broader-based "utilization community" for ISS and, subsequently, a very different set of assumptions on which to estimate future demand for ISS research capability. ...
Very interesting, 51D Mascot. What is the study's name, by the way? Do you have a link? (If not, I can use the google.)
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 Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #883 on: 03/30/2011 03:50 am »
@ 51D Mascot

Your comments are very interesting, indeed.

Here is a nasaspaceflight comment apparently on the ProOrbis study:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=77223e69477c9b2f45d21f34b5e36964&topic=23236.0

And yet, do you believe the primary purpose of ISS is to:

(a) help facilitate the development of multiple providers of low cost launch services; or

(b) accomplish useful and/or meaningful science?

To what extent are these goals compatible or in conflict? In the event of conflict which deserves priority?

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #884 on: 03/30/2011 05:27 am »
@ 51D Mascot

Your comments are very interesting, indeed.

Here is a nasaspaceflight comment apparently on the ProOrbis study:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=77223e69477c9b2f45d21f34b5e36964&topic=23236.0

And yet, do you believe the primary purpose of ISS is to:

(a) help facilitate the development of multiple providers of low cost launch services; or

(b) accomplish useful and/or meaningful science?

To what extent are these goals compatible or in conflict? In the event of conflict which deserves priority?


Thanks, Bill!
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 Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #885 on: 03/30/2011 12:21 pm »
...
An in-depth study was commissioned by NASA by a private corporation (ProOrbis) to evaluate the potential level of non-traditional and non-exploration interests for utilization of the ISS National Laboratory. The result was a stunning discovery of a far wider range of interested entities than had previously been contemplated. The realization and accommodation of that degree of interest promises a far greater and broader-based "utilization community" for ISS and, subsequently, a very different set of assumptions on which to estimate future demand for ISS research capability. ...
Very interesting, 51D Mascot. What is the study's name, by the way? Do you have a link? (If not, I can use the google.)

The link is:


www.nasa.gov/pdf/487816main_10_09_22%20ISS%20National%20Lab%20ProOrbis%20Reference%20Model.pdf
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #886 on: 03/30/2011 12:38 pm »
@ 51D Mascot

Your comments are very interesting, indeed.

Here is a nasaspaceflight comment apparently on the ProOrbis study:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=77223e69477c9b2f45d21f34b5e36964&topic=23236.0

And yet, do you believe the primary purpose of ISS is to:

(a) help facilitate the development of multiple providers of low cost launch services; or

(b) accomplish useful and/or meaningful science?

To what extent are these goals compatible or in conflict? In the event of conflict which deserves priority?



The primary goal of ISS is the latter of the two you mention. The former is more a potential means of helping ensure that primary goal is met by enabling the broadest range of access to ISS (and that could be expected to also help stimulate the development of those providers by virtue of an expanded market and demand for the services they could provide).

The ProOrbis model is intended to provide an effective mechanism by which access would be managed and research quality and diversity is maintained and facilitated by the non-governmental entity eventually accepted for the role.

There is also, of course, the remaining 50% of US segment utilization that will initially be still managed by NASA for its own research and technology development/demonstration activities in support of exploration-related goals and requirements. The cooperative agreement between the NGO and NASA will serve to ensure coordination of those two bodies of research activity.

Eventually, the intent of the Congress in making the national lab designation was--and is--that as the partnership evolves, NASA will gradually cede more and more of the ISS research activity management load within the U.S. segment over to the NGO entity, freeing NASA from that "burden" to the extent it is in the Agency's interest to do so.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #887 on: 03/30/2011 01:56 pm »
HSS&T Set To Discuss NASA's Exploration Program Next Week

Quote
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

Reminder. It starts in about 5 minutes.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 02:02 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #888 on: 03/30/2011 02:04 pm »
Hearing has started. Ralph Hall critizes NASA for providing Doug Cook's written testimonee only yesterday. It doesn't give them time to review it. He says that this happens everytime. Other representative says that may be OMB's and the administration's fault.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 02:16 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #889 on: 03/30/2011 02:24 pm »
Doug Cook gave his opining statement. Nothing new. He mentionned that the the SLS would start off with a HLV of between 70mt to 100mt. Scott Pace insists on the importance of a government option.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 02:38 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #890 on: 03/30/2011 02:34 pm »
Mr. Maser is very critical of the delay in implementing the SLS. Transition to SLS isn't being coordinated. It affects the workforce and the industrial base.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 03:17 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #891 on: 03/30/2011 02:43 pm »
Doug Cook mentions Ares I items that are useful for the SLS: J-2X, work on the solid rocket boosters, avionics. 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #892 on: 03/30/2011 02:45 pm »
A Congressman mentions that people are telling him that "we don't want you to go to the Moon or Mars... until we can go to the grocery store" and he says that this will be guiding (Congress).

A sidenote: Vindication (but not happy vindication) for the idea that NASA had better learn how to do more with less. We're not going to see a budget increase anytime soon.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 02:47 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

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #893 on: 03/30/2011 02:46 pm »
Cook says that general counsel has given advice on the Orion contracts. They are compatible with the MPCV requirements. No determination by General Counsel has been made for SLS. 

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #894 on: 03/30/2011 02:58 pm »
Cook says that Glenn is continuing work on the Orion service module.

Offline TexasRED

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 429
  • Houston
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #895 on: 03/30/2011 02:58 pm »
Mr. Maser hits the nail on the head...

(paraphrasing)

All we hear about is what we can't do, what we don't want to do, never on what we can do and what we want to do. Asking where the transparency is.

14 months since the cancellation of CxP, still all wear hear about is vague promises of new tech, education, infrastructure, etc. but still complete lack of any sort of vision or direction.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #896 on: 03/30/2011 03:01 pm »
Mr. Rohrabacher speaking, saying the situation is that Congress and others are trying to design a horse by committee and are ending up with a camel.
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

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18285
  • Liked: 7896
  • Likes Given: 3304
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #897 on: 03/30/2011 03:02 pm »
Rohrabacher says that the space policy is starting to be a camel because of the involvement of Congresionnal committees.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 03:03 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #898 on: 03/30/2011 03:04 pm »
Mr. Rohrabacher is asking about on-orbit refueling. :) :)
EDIT:Now, nuclear propulsion (and the enabling abilities of modern technologies).
« Last Edit: 03/30/2011 03:06 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 Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39464
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25598
  • Likes Given: 12246
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #899 on: 03/30/2011 03:17 pm »
Mazer makes a good point about Appropriation and Authorization (you need both).
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

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0