NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[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?

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.

That language is there in both the SLS and MPCV sections, so I wondered if it could apply to a USA-operated commercial SLS. For SLS would this just mean NASA could potentially sell launches to commercial customers, or could NASA have SLS be commercially operated? Or since NASA could pursue a USA-operated commercial Shuttle already, could NASA could do the same for SLS, even without this language?

[jkumpire]

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.

Why be surprised? this is exactly how our current President does things. He does what he wants to do, as long as he can get his weekly tee time at the golf course. Laws? Congress? Doesn't matter to him anywhere else, why should it matter to NASA as constituted?

[EE Scott]

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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

[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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

I think Holdren was trying to explain why they needed less money for the SLS in FY2012. I am not sure that he was try to say that they will be dragging their feet as much as possible. Nevertheless, the procurement process can take a while as OV-106 has mentionned in prior posts.

[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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

Talk about a rouge government. Does the rule of law no longer govern?

[kch]

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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

Talk about a rouge government. Does the rule of law no longer govern?

We'll know soon.

[Calorspace]

Pretty sad to see NASA HSF in this state.

Can anyone provide any insight into why NASA might bebehaving like this? Why would they want to stall the process?

[pathfinder_01]

Pretty sad to see NASA HSF in this state.

Can anyone provide any insight into why NASA might bebehaving like this? Why would they want to stall the process?

Congress wants to build an HLV with shuttle parts without giving enough budget or time. It is a move to look like they are saving jobs. The President wants to economize a bit. If an HLV needs to be built it should be EELV derived not shuttle derived but doing so gets rid of many shuttle jobs. Hence dead lock.

[EE Scott]

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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

I think Holdren was trying to explain why they needed less money for the SLS in FY2012. I am not sure that he was try to say that they will be dragging their feet as much as possible. Nevertheless, the procurement process can take a while as OV-106 has mentionned in prior posts.

I think I was more surprised by Admin. Bolden's remarks than Mr. Holdren's.  Here's a quote from the article linked above:

However, Bolden said NASA does not expect to solicit industry proposals for the heavy-lift launch vehicle development for “at least a year.” He said the rocket and crew capsule programs must be “affordable, sustainable and realistic” and that NASA would seek outside cost estimates for the new architecture.

So at least a year away, they will start the RFP process to begin development for the SLS.  What kind of timeline is that?  Shall we speculate on when an SLS would be operational using this initial timeline?

[Mark S]

SkyKing congrats and welcome to my ignore list. It takes a lot to earn a spot there.

Pheogh, yeah we don't have votes of no confidence, all Congress can do is impeach, if it comes to that. And no guarantee that any replacements would be any better.

I agree that the cards are now on the table. NASA has declared that "as soon as practicable" has no effect on their schemes. 2013 before even starting on SLS is a flagrant violation of the authorization act.

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

I want NASA to follow the law that the President signed, with enthusiasm and vigor. Not with "we can't", "we don't want to", "we won't", "we don't need HLV". RAC-1 Block-0 appears to be the first step in the right direction in a long time. Which is why I am pretty sure that NASA will choose something else for their report, or perhaps just throw their hands up and say "its just too darn hard".

Something has to come first, HLV or payload. You can argue chicken or egg all day long. Congress has decided chicken, so get on with it. Once progress has been made on SLS and capabilities have become more well defined, payloads can be designed to take advantage of it. Why design a 70 ton payload when you are not sure that NASA will ever even build a launcher? There needs to be commitment and progress on HLV before plans will be made to fully utilize it.

OSTP, OMB, and NASA HQ are endangering our nation's future in space with their obstructionism. Congress must take the lead once more to ensure that NASA is following its direction, because so far NASA has just been thumbing their nose in Congress's general direction.

[SkyKing]

Pretty sad to see NASA HSF in this state.

Can anyone provide any insight into why NASA might bebehaving like this? Why would they want to stall the process?

IN my view...The Administration (and I believe The NASA Administrator) does not want a HLV that is NASA and NASA's alone (ie no one else will use) and that is based on shuttle parts which are old technology and very expensive to use.

Some members of Congress, enough to get some vague pretty vague language in a bill want a shuttle derived vehicle because they  think that will play well in their districts to the shuttle workforce .  What they also know is that NASA doesnt have a chance of developing a shuttle derived vehicle on the money available period, there is NO more money,  and every day that the shuttle infrastructure "leaves" the cost get higher.

So we are going to play out this "starve the project" game until it becomes clear that its "done" (ie most of the shuttle workforce is laid off and the infrastructure gone) and then we will move on...the politicians will make speeches saying "I tried" and the Administration will try and spend what money it is spending on things which will evolve into whatever actually develops as a "heavier lift version" of one of the things we had now.  But that "heavier lift version" will be something that is rooted with a current more modern launch vehicle...and hopefully other users will "evolve" to. 

IF Congress as a whole was serious about funding a HLV with shuttle derived parts, they would have put specific authorization and money in a bill which would have pushed a shuttle derived vehicle test flight of some kind to keep the entire thing alive.  Nelson wanted that, but couldnt find the 1 billion or so dollars he needed to "Keep a test flight alive".

How to save a program that the Administration doesnt want but enough members of Congress do, is well staked out in how The Congress kept the B1 alive after President Carter more or less killed it hoping for a change of administrations in 80.

There are not enough members of Congress interested in doing that model...so we are left with where we are.

It is kind of like the nuclear reactors in Japan...a slow motion effort at getting to the place we have been going for sometime.  A shuttleless NASA.

Sky King

[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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

I think Holdren was trying to explain why they needed less money for the SLS in FY2012. I am not sure that he was try to say that they will be dragging their feet as much as possible. Nevertheless, the procurement process can take a while as OV-106 has mentionned in prior posts.

I think I was more surprised by Admin. Bolden's remarks than Mr. Holdren's.  Here's a quote from the article linked above:

However, Bolden said NASA does not expect to solicit industry proposals for the heavy-lift launch vehicle development for “at least a year.” He said the rocket and crew capsule programs must be “affordable, sustainable and realistic” and that NASA would seek outside cost estimates for the new architecture.

So at least a year away, they will start the RFP process to begin development for the SLS.  What kind of timeline is that?  Shall we speculate on when an SLS would be operational using this initial timeline?

Yes, I was surprised by that too. I am not sure what to make of it. I suppose that more money could be spent on Orion and the J-2X for the upper stage and less on the core of the HLV for the next year. But it is a surprising statement.

[Halidon]

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

So you'd kill the growth in the nation's Human Spaceflight industry, and further increase NASA's reliance on Soyuz, in order to send a message?

[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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

I think Holdren was trying to explain why they needed less money for the SLS in FY2012. I am not sure that he was try to say that they will be dragging their feet as much as possible. Nevertheless, the procurement process can take a while as OV-106 has mentionned in prior posts.

I think I was more surprised by Admin. Bolden's remarks than Mr. Holdren's.  Here's a quote from the article linked above:

However, Bolden said NASA does not expect to solicit industry proposals for the heavy-lift launch vehicle development for “at least a year.” He said the rocket and crew capsule programs must be “affordable, sustainable and realistic” and that NASA would seek outside cost estimates for the new architecture.

So at least a year away, they will start the RFP process to begin development for the SLS.  What kind of timeline is that?  Shall we speculate on when an SLS would be operational using this initial timeline?

Yes, I was surprised by that too. I am not sure what to make of it. I suppose that more money could be spent on Orion and the J-2X for the upper stage and less on the core of the HLV for the next year. But it is a surprising statement.

I wonder how senator Nelson is feeling right now? His bestest buddy is !@#$%^& all over his bipartisan Authorization.

[TexasRED]

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

Anyone who has followed the SLS epic here on NSF needs to read this article.

The cards are now on the table.  No HLV decision let alone progress anytime soon if NASA has something to say about it.  In my opinion, there is no other way to interpret the information in this article than NASA has no plans to even start on an HLV until at least 2013.  They would take over a billion dollars next year just to plan for a possible HLV.  This amazes me.  The gauntlet has been thrown down by NASA and WH leadership.  There is no 2016 in NASA's mind.  That seems like it is not going to happen, no matter what the law says.  I guess we are in for some extraordinary power struggles over the rest of this year.

edit:  Thanks yg for sharing this

I think Holdren was trying to explain why they needed less money for the SLS in FY2012. I am not sure that he was try to say that they will be dragging their feet as much as possible. Nevertheless, the procurement process can take a while as OV-106 has mentionned in prior posts.

I think I was more surprised by Admin. Bolden's remarks than Mr. Holdren's.  Here's a quote from the article linked above:

However, Bolden said NASA does not expect to solicit industry proposals for the heavy-lift launch vehicle development for “at least a year.” He said the rocket and crew capsule programs must be “affordable, sustainable and realistic” and that NASA would seek outside cost estimates for the new architecture.

So at least a year away, they will start the RFP process to begin development for the SLS.  What kind of timeline is that?  Shall we speculate on when an SLS would be operational using this initial timeline?

Yes, I was surprised by that too. I am not sure what to make of it. I suppose that more money could be spent on Orion and the J-2X for the upper stage and less on the core of the HLV for the next year. But it is a surprising statement.

Which makes me wonder why they proposed spending nearly twice as much on SLS as they are on Orion (1.8B vs 1.0B IIRC) if this was their plan for SLS for 2012. How much do RFI, RFP cost these days?

[Pheogh]

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

So you'd kill the growth in the nation's Human Spaceflight industry, and further increase NASA's reliance on Soyuz, in order to send a message?

Actually I would do the opposite just Zero NASA out of the equation and put it out for bidding by commercial companies. Not sure how you set this up but I would be surprised if Boeing, Lockeed, ATK and others would scoff at a few Billion a year to build the HLV prescribed in the Law.

[2552]

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

Commercial Crew shouldn't be a bargaining chip. A much better idea might possibly be to include in the next Appropriations bill/full-year CR a proviso to this effect after the level of SLS funding:

and which shall begin development, including contract issuance and modification, not later than September 30, 2011.

Basically mandating that development begin this year. Would something like this work?

[Mark S]

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

So you'd kill the growth in the nation's Human Spaceflight industry, and further increase NASA's reliance on Soyuz, in order to send a message?

Not by choice, only by necessity. Besides, the way things are going right now there won't be any place for commercial crew to go to. ISS is going to be in dire straits without Shuttle, as OV-106 has pointed out repeatedly on these threads. Thank goodness for STS-135, which by the way Obama didn't want that either.

Who would have thought that Congress would be the responsible level-headed party? Normally the President champions NASA, but not this time, that's for sure.

[SkyKing]

One thing that Congress can do is to zero out commercial crew and apply all those funds to SLS. And possibly make other adjustments to the appropriations to match the authorization bill more closely than the Presidents FY2012 proposal. I hate to see CCDev as collateral damage in this tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches, but something needs to be done to get the message across.

So you'd kill the growth in the nation's Human Spaceflight industry, and further increase NASA's reliance on Soyuz, in order to send a message?

Not by choice, only by necessity. Besides, the way things are going right now there won't be any place for commercial crew to go to. ISS is going to be in dire straits without Shuttle, as OV-106 has pointed out repeatedly on these threads. Thank goodness for STS-135, which by the way Obama didn't want that either.

Who would have thought that Congress would be the responsible level-headed party? Normally the President champions NASA, but not this time, that's for sure.

SpaceX will be flying to the station with commercial cargo before the end of the year...as it stands now the STS 135 is in financial peril. 

Sky King

[Chris Bergin]

Let's keep the armwaving to a minimum. People throwing their badly assumed opinion around as fact will find their stay on here very short-lived. It's a waste of bandwidth.