NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[yg1968]

Pace is against extending or commercializing Shuttle because of the CAIB recommendations.

[Robotbeat]

Dr. Pace is of the opinion that we shouldn't continue flying Shuttles (past STS-135) "unless we utterly, utterly have to."

[yg1968]

Cook is asked very specific questions about the SLS. His answers are all based on the reference vehicle. He says that they are looking at some changes to the reference vehicle in the updated report but nothing major. 

[Robotbeat]

Mrs. Adams almost said that Congress poses a great threat to the United States (meant to say China).

[A_M_Swallow]

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).

1) What do members of probably the most motorised nation in the world mean by "... until we can go to the grocery store"?
  Jobs?  Price of fuel?  Availability of fuel?
2) What does Congress think the public means?

[MP99]

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 Previous assumptions and estimates are, therefore, invalid or out of date.

51D, many thanks for that - I finally get why that clause was added to the act. It's very good news for ISS, too.

cheers, Martin

[SkyKing]

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).

1) What do members of probably the most motorised nation in the world mean by "... until we can go to the grocery store"?
  Jobs?  Price of fuel?  Availability of fuel?
2) What does Congress think the public means?

The later is easiest.  There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program to send astronauts to Mars or back to the Moon. ..My Coingressman in TX 22 has found that out pretty loud in his town hall meetings.  Sky King

[Peter NASA]

There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program to send astronauts to Mars or back to the Moon.

Still spreading your poison over the internet Robert? You may be well advised to turn your volume down on here. There's little to no tolerance to people here only to armwave.

[Calorspace]

I think you are slightly wrong SkyKing, there is the desire amongst the general public to go to the Moon and Mars. The problem is that the moment they realise the costs and where those costs would come from they are against it, it's nothing to do with the actual goal itself

[Brian Mc]

I think you are slightly wrong SkyKing, there is the desire amongst the general public to go to the Moon and Mars. The problem is that the moment they realise the costs and where those costs would come from they are against it, it's nothing to do with the actual goal itself

Isn't that exactly what SkyKing is saying?

"There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program "

[Calorspace]

I think you are slightly wrong SkyKing, there is the desire amongst the general public to go to the Moon and Mars. The problem is that the moment they realise the costs and where those costs would come from they are against it, it's nothing to do with the actual goal itself

Isn't that exactly what SkyKing is saying?

"There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program "

Sort of, but I think there is an important difference between them not wanting to do it, and wanting to but not wanting to spend the money in order to do it once they realise the costs

[simonbp]

The approximate total cost of Apollo was $185 billion in 2010 USD, between 1960 (when funding really began) and 1973, giving an average of about $14 billion a year. That's not too different from the current NASA HSF budget...

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Sort of, but I think there is an important difference between them not wanting to do it, and wanting to but not wanting to spend the money in order to do it once they realise the costs.

If we take this to be true, what they want is completely irrelevant for advancing HSF, isn't it? It's like saying "I really want to have a six pack, but I don't want to get off my rear end and do a crunch or two to get it". They just fancy the idea of it, but value the money that would otherwise go to it more.

[A_M_Swallow]

Sort of, but I think there is an important difference between them not wanting to do it, and wanting to but not wanting to spend the money in order to do it once they realise the costs.

If we take this to be true, what they want is completely irrelevant for advancing HSF, isn't it? It's like saying "I really want to have a six pack, but I don't want to get off my rear end and do a crunch or two to get it". They just fancy the idea of it, but value the money that would otherwise go to it more.

If the public can not afford a six pack can they be talked into economising and buying a three pack?

They can buy the rest plus some drinking glasses when they have worked some overtime.

edit:  EML-1 is not the Moon but it is on the way.

[EE Scott]

The approximate total cost of Apollo was $185 billion in 2010 USD, between 1960 (when funding really began) and 1973, giving an average of about $14 billion a year. That's not too different from the current NASA HSF budget...

I think that's why Ex Admin. Griffin wanted so badly to get rid of ISS and STS.  Once those $$ hogs were gone, he could focus all the HSF budget on BEO exploration.  As long as ISS is around there's just not that much $$ left to work with.  Of course the flawed implementation of CxP tripped everything up as we know.

[yg1968]

The approximate total cost of Apollo was $185 billion in 2010 USD, between 1960 (when funding really began) and 1973, giving an average of about $14 billion a year. That's not too different from the current NASA HSF budget...

The current HSF Budget is about half of NASA's total budget.

[SkyKing]

I think you are slightly wrong SkyKing, there is the desire amongst the general public to go to the Moon and Mars. The problem is that the moment they realise the costs and where those costs would come from they are against it, it's nothing to do with the actual goal itself

OK so I wasnt clear.  I dont think that the American people are against going to the Moon or Mars or (insert place here).  I dont think that they want to pay the cost associated with it.

It is clear that the American people are willing to spend some "dollars" on space and human spaceflight in particular...the NASA budgets have been pretty constant over the last bunch of years so that indicates some willingness to spend...and I dont think that changes.

What I dont see is any support for "more" money to be spent in pursuit of some Beyond earth orbit goal...particularly when that "more" money is defined in terms of tens of billions of dollars.

If you see that support I would be curious to know what metric you use

Sky King

[Cog_in_the_machine]

If the public can not afford a six pack can they be talked into economising and buying a three pack?

They can buy the rest plus some drinking glasses when they have worked some overtime.

I was referring to tight abdominal muscles and the effort it takes to attain them. If you're thinking about beer, I assume you're a bit thirsty, eh?

Anyway, my overall point is that what they're talked into supporting has little, if any, relevance to the end outcome, as long as someone high up keeps appropriating money for NASA. I just can't figure out why "the public" factors into the debate as frequently as it does. It's not like there was any widespread opposition (or support for that matter) by the public to Cxp over the past 5 years (the 6 pack in your analogy).

The overall indifference is palpable. Think of it like this, if the shift in direction was a play, a lot of the seats would be empty, the acting would be bad and there would be a few people having a fistfight in the front row over their favourite actor. A sad sight.

[Lars_J]

There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program to send astronauts to Mars or back to the Moon.

Still spreading your poison over the internet Robert? You may be well advised to turn your volume down on here. There's little to no tolerance to people here only to armwave.

What is this, an armwaving contest? Refute him with actual points, not personal attacks. If you think there is more than "almost no support in the US for a massive spending program to send astronauts to Mars or back to the Moon", then show some evidence for it!

[SkyKing]

I think you are slightly wrong SkyKing, there is the desire amongst the general public to go to the Moon and Mars. The problem is that the moment they realise the costs and where those costs would come from they are against it, it's nothing to do with the actual goal itself

Isn't that exactly what SkyKing is saying?

"There is almost no support in the US for a massive spending program "

Sort of, but I think there is an important difference between them not wanting to do it, and wanting to but not wanting to spend the money in order to do it once they realise the costs

there is...and it is the cost. 

This is why in my view some changes to how NASA does business (like commercial ops) are mandatory IF there is going to be some future BEO human exploration of space.

Ignore for a moment some (and in my view they are major) differences between space as a place and the American west that Lewis and Clark were sent to map...but look at what Lewis and Clark had to do to go on their journey.  They did not have to invent or develop almost anything..they did some, but most of it was "off the shelf".  this is more or less the situation with South Pole exploration after WW2...all the parts were more or less hanging around.

Now imagine that going back to the Moon is a oh 10 billion tops affair..and that actually gets some folks on the Moon.  That is probably sustainable...current NASA budgets would seem to indicate that say 2 billion a year (over 5 years that works) or maybe even slightly more is something that is "in the noise" for such a project...meaning it is going to be spent "anyway" (as much as I despise that word in budget context).

could a return to the Moon be done for 10 billion or under?  Yes in my view assuming some other technologies and "things" come to development (SpaceX/Boeing capsules, some inflatables and maybe some of the VTVL technologies that a few folks are working on).  It certainly would be a higher risk effort but if those technologies and companies have proven themselves in other ops, maybe not.

The DC-3's that the Navy used in its post WW2 South Pole work...were not all that special. 

But tell people (or Congressman) one is going to spend 100 billion over 20 years to send 4 people back to the Moon...well that is what the Congressman was saying is a non starter

Sky King