NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[sdsds]

I highly recommend the testimony provided by Mr. Jim Maser.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Maser%20testimony%20for%20March%2030%2C%202011%20Hearing%20NASA%20Exploration%20%28S%26A%29.pdf

[His] main argument boils down to saving the workforce

No.  His main argument is that it takes a talented workforce to provide the nation with an engineering capability.  "Technical experts cannot be grown overnight."  "Young graduates [...] look at the industry now and see no clear future."  Those quotes aren't just about retaining the current workers!

[jongoff]

I highly recommend the testimony provided by Mr. Jim Maser.

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Maser%20testimony%20for%20March%2030%2C%202011%20Hearing%20NASA%20Exploration%20%28S%26A%29.pdf

[His] main argument boils down to saving the workforce

No.  His main argument is that it takes a talented workforce to provide the nation with an engineering capability.  "Technical experts cannot be grown overnight."  "Young graduates [...] look at the industry now and see no clear future."  Those quotes aren't just about retaining the current workers!

Hmm... was just speaking at a grad student seminar at CU Boulder this afternoon.  I should've taken a poll of actual college students in aerospace to see how they felt about it...  Most of the comments I see about inspiring the new workforce come from people who've been out of college longer than I've been alive.

Not actually saying that Jim is wrong here.  Uncertainty is probably a detractor for new kids going into aerospace. But that doesn't guarantee that a politically stable, but unimaginative rehash of Apollo would actually attract more of the kind of talent NASA actually wants. At least from the kids I know (and I almost qualify as one myself), it seems like while stability is valued, being able to work on something really freaking cool is valued even more.

~Jon

[QuantumG]

Jobs Jobs Jobs..

From the first minute to the last, that's all they had to talk about.

At least Fudge didn't hide it.. her questions can be entirely paraphrased as: The Glenn Research Center is in my district, how much money will be directed to it and how many jobs will that result in?  I need these numbers for my reelection campaign.

[padrat]

You want to discuss jobs, here's an example to give you about the mentioned "brain drain". out of the 70-someodd workers out here at the pad, there's been one that I know of that has an offer from a local aerospace company (I should say "had" because he was all set to be hired back in Dec, then the company went on a hiring freeze, most likely due to the budget uncertainty with Congress, yes its one of the commmercial possibles. He's been told that he is first in line whenever they open up hiring again, possibly this summer) Most of us are willing, and pretty much planning, on moving away from here to get jobs, myself included. And we most likely will not come back. The uncertainty of the past 4 or 5 years has soured most of them on working in the spaceflight business and with families to support, it's becoming alot more stress than some can handle. So even if it means pulling up roots, moving away from family after you've lived here for 30-40 or more years, walking away from a house you cant sell, etc., you have to go where the jobs are. And right now, the future around here isn't looking too bright in that aspect. There's guys who were laid off last year that still haven't found a steady job around here. It's just getting too far down the wire to hang around in hope. Especially since the next layoff will probably be the one that gets most of us. There's actually quite a few that are going to self-nominate because they are sick of the uncertainty. Everytime some plan starts to gain momentum and starts looking like a possibility, it gets yanked out from under us. Alot of this planning and budget squabbling should have been figured out a year ago, or more. So unfortunately for those who want to ignore it, jobs are a big part of the picture/arguement, always have been and always will be. The more people you turn your back on, the less support you have for your agenda. Who do you think the majority of the locals here that think spaceflight and NASA are a waste of time and money mostly are? They are former aerospace workers that were fired/laid-off/couldn't find a job/left for whatever reason. Lest anyone forgets, we could use as much support as we can get right now.

[yg1968]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

[2552]

51D Mascot, do you know what was the intent of this language in section 302 of the Authorization Act?:

(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
..
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including
the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele-
ments, and commercial operations.

In light of USA's proposal to commercially operate the Space Shuttle for $1.5 billion/year, could this also be done for a Shuttle-derived SLS? Would that be consistent with this language?

[Mark S]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

[Robotbeat]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

RAC-3 (and by that I mean evolved EELVs) is the most obvious choice, IMHO. But I don't think it will be chosen.

If we aren't planning on finishing the BLEO payloads (other than Orion) until 10 years from now, then we really don't need an HLV until ten years from now, do we? If that upsets you, push for payloads not your own favorite HLV solution. I really don't care what launch vehicle is used, as long as there are good, meaningful payloads developed. However, what good is it building and then maintaining an SDHLV rightsoonnow if we aren't going to be launching anything on it?

No respect, here. No respect.

[SkyKing]

what makes you think that the "moon" or "Mars" is a "cool" mission for the American people? 

I think you're on the wrong site. You should be on "Space flight is boring.com".

I hate to break this to you, but MOST Americans think space is boring.  I dont, I think a Houston Rockets game is boring, but far more Americans sit glued to their "display device" watching the (insert city here) (insert name of professional sports team here) on a day by day basis then with maybe the exception of the Apollo 11 flight or the near disaster of 13 sat watching and listening to what is happening in any sort of spaceflight.

There is a "niche" group that thinks human spaceflight no matter what they are doing in space is "cool" and an even smaller subset of that group that prowls the Messenger or New Horizons or Cassini or whatever web site for the latest bit of information that those probes have sent back ....but I bet you the folks who do that would not even fill Minute Maid Stadium (here in Houston) to capacity.

We can discuss all day long "why" this is so, but it is.  There are people who are simply interested in space...and then there are those who have let that interest become "overwhelming".  Take the person who thinks that a voyage to Mars would be the "greatest thing" to happen to  America (Declaration of Independence, Constitution ratification, ....all slide into the background) clearly has a unique perspective.

MOST Americans dont have that.  And that is why if someone were to propose that we were going to spend 100 billion dollars on a human voyage to the Moon over the next 20 years (the Cx program) or Paul Spudis effort to mine water on the moon (another 100 billion) it is a non starter.

The irony for all of this is that the really amazing discoveries are coming RIGHT NOW from the uncrewed programs. (and if Mars or Mercury looked like the place that Columbus found I am pretty sure there would be more excitement).   I am one who thinks that at some point human spaceflight can become relevant in more then just an excitement "mode" for the American people...but as long as the folks who are excited by human spaceflight are pushing policies that aremore or less designed to solely be about excitement...they are not helping. 

At least for the next 50 years the very best we can hope for in human spaceflight is that it becomes like off shore oil drilling...it pays the bills.

Sky King

[SkyKing]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

"Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? "

no both serve at the pleasure of The President of The United States and as long as he finds pleasure in their service, they have the job. 

You have broken the code though.  With no payloads funded for a HLV and none really on even the planning stage, The Administrator does not in my view (and I think that his actions prove it) sees any value in developing a HLV that has no other place to serve but NASA. 

There is probably going to be a competition enabled for a 70t or so HLV That is an evolution of some existing design.  That way it shares infrastructure with the design that gets the most use and there fore cost.

I am curious about something.  If there was a program that "evolved" an existing commercial (or near in the case of SpaceX...and I dont think that is who is the favored company here) into a 70 ton or so heavy lift...would you support it?

Sky King

[2552]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

Ugh. This is bad regardless of which RAC team's design is chosen.

Section 302 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate
development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum
capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

[SkyKing]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

Ugh. This is bad regardless of which RAC team's design is chosen.

Section 302 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate
development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum
capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

so let me get this...if a heavy lift design is chosen that in itself is not OK...it has to be  a particular design?  Sky King

[Pheogh]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

Ugh. This is bad regardless of which RAC team's design is chosen.

Section 302 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate
development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum
capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

so let me get this...if a heavy lift design is chosen that in itself is not OK...it has to be  a particular design?  Sky King

I think it should be abundant clear that this crew (Bolden, Holdren , and Garver) Have no intention of implementing the law, dare I say in contempt of it. Your move Congress!

Personally I wouldn't wait another minute, I would move for a bipartisan vote of no confidence in the leadership and have them removed. As Jim Maser said yesterday the clock is not ticking anymore, it has run out;  and its clear that this Cabal is only interested in playing games.

[SkyKing]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

Ugh. This is bad regardless of which RAC team's design is chosen.

Section 302 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate
development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum
capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

so let me get this...if a heavy lift design is chosen that in itself is not OK...it has to be  a particular design?  Sky King

I think it should be abundant clear that this crew (Bolden, Holdren , and Garver) Have no intention of implementing the law, dare I say in contempt of it. Your move Congress!

Personally I wouldn't wait another minute, I would move for a bipartisan vote of no confidence in the leadership and have them removed. As Jim Maser said yesterday the clock is not ticking anymore, it has run out;  and its clear that this Cabal is only interested in playing games.

Even if they could get a "bipartisan" vote of "no confidence" and they could not, (they could not even get a partisan one)  it would not make any difference.  The only person who can fire The Administrator is  The President.

Sky King

[pathfinder_01]

Personally I wouldn't wait another minute, I would move for a bipartisan vote of no confidence in the leadership and have them removed. As Jim Maser said yesterday the clock is not ticking anymore, it has run out;  and its clear that this Cabal is only interested in playing games.

Congress can not have a vote of no confidence. The might be able to impeach but that is a very rare event and it takes more than a President vs. Congress thing to cause an impeachment vote..

[Jeff Bingham]

51D Mascot, do you know what was the intent of this language in section 302 of the Authorization Act?:

(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
..
(4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including
the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-ele-
ments, and commercial operations.

In light of USA's proposal to commercially operate the Space Shuttle for $1.5 billion/year, could this also be done for a Shuttle-derived SLS? Would that be consistent with this language?

This language is in reference to the MPCV minimum capability requirements and was included to enable possible commercial roles at some level in the development and/or operations of MPCV. So it really wouldn't apply to the commercial shuttle proposal. Authority to proceed along the lines of considering that would likely be based on the provisions of Title 4 of the Act, having to do with commercial operations. Apart from that, one could probably argue that NASA already has legal authority to modify the existing contract with USA to evolve to the kind of operational model proposed, even outside of a "commercial development" effort; the probable area of "contention" would be the degree of authority to actually "lease" the orbiters and the ground infrastructure and mission support and operations functions to USA. That's my first-blush reaction to the question.

[daveray]

May 25, 2011 is the 50th anniversary of the famous May 25, 1961 President Kennedy moon speech.
 
President Kennedy said, 
"First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

The 50th anniversary of the great moon speech is a great opportunity for President Obama to make a great new announcement to support space exploration!

[Jeff Bingham]

Here is an interview with Holdren and others explaining the reasons behind the NASA FY2012 Budget:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/110331-obama-administration-pushing-back-congressionally-mandated-rocket.html

Surprise surprise. Studies and more studies, and Bolden say that NASA probably won't even start work on SLS in 2012, much less this year! And even when they finally do come up with a (bad) plan, they will pay someone else to evaluate and go back to the drawing board if this third party doesn't give NASA a green light. More delay, more waste, more of the same.

Don't be too surprised if Bolden pulls a rabbit out of his ... hat and selects RAC-3 over the other more obvious choices. Anything to cause more controversy and delay, that seems to be the primary goal for this administration.

And who says we don't need heavy lift until next decade? That's pure policy and totally under the control of the politicians. There is no technical standing to say we don't need heavy lift for another 10-15 more years. Do they think things will be better in 15 years, economically, financially, politically, or technologically? I doubt it.

Is there no way to get Bolden out of office before 2012? And Holdren too? These guys are going to be the death of NASA.

Ugh. This is bad regardless of which RAC team's design is chosen.

Section 302 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as prac-
ticable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate
development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum
capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).

so let me get this...if a heavy lift design is chosen that in itself is not OK...it has to be  a particular design?  Sky King

It means what it says...it has to meet the requirements of the Act; which, despite what so many seem to believe, is NOT a "particular design," but a prescribed set of capabilities deemed to be necessary, and wholly within the purview of the Congress to prescribe, if it so chooses---which in this case it did.

[sdsds]

Holdren: “NASA is determined and the administration is determined to do the best we can to get a heavy-lift vehicle as fast as we can”

Is he just simply lying?  Heavy lift as fast as we can?  Where 70t meets the initial heavy lift requirement?  There are two "fast as we can" choices for that:  a 3 SSME core with 4 segment boosters, and a 3 SSME core with 5 segment boosters.  Either way the core is nearly identical to the STS external tank and can be built at Michoud without substantial retooling.

How is anything else, "As fast as we can?"

[Pheogh]

Holdren: “NASA is determined and the administration is determined to do the best we can to get a heavy-lift vehicle as fast as we can”

Is he just simply lying?  Heavy lift as fast as we can?  Where 70t meets the initial heavy lift requirement?  There are two "fast as we can" choices for that:  a 3 SSME core with 4 segment boosters, and a 3 SSME core with 5 segment boosters.  Either way the core is nearly identical to the STS external tank and can be built at Michoud without substantial retooling.

How is anything else, "As fast as we can?"

Like I said they are simply playing games by continuing to move the excuses and explanations around. Their response would be "Well I wasn't lying, what I said was true *if* i thought we needed Heavy LIft which I don't think we do",.. the next iteration of that conversation then would involve some flowery language about R&D and then I am certain it would turn into a discussion about Commercial providers.

With all due respect to those representatives here, this government is utterly paralyzed and ineffective. It is squandering what little confidence its people have in it. Its methods and process are paralytic and promote this kind of reckless tom foolery  Something or someone needs to change this.

Commercialize the effort entirely! just get NASA and its leadership out of the equation all together.