Quote from: clongton on 04/13/2011 01:29 am{snip}What about Elon's pledge to get a Crewed Dragon operational with or without NASA funding? I've lost track of the number of times he said that.Ah but which space station will the Dragon be compatible with? ISS or Bigelow?Compatibility with both may require the ISS to be enhanced. Elon cannot order that but NASA and Congress do have the power.
{snip}What about Elon's pledge to get a Crewed Dragon operational with or without NASA funding? I've lost track of the number of times he said that.
China is going to have a human spaceflight program whether everyone else likes it or not. They can either work with them, or work against them. Only one of those options is beneficial.
Quote from: joek on 04/13/2011 01:02 amQuote from: jongoff on 04/13/2011 12:10 am---snip---So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?If I'm reading the PBR and CR properly, it appears*:new Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology (CR11 $535.0M) =old Aeronautics Research (FY10 $501.0M) +old Innovative Partnerships Program (FY10 $175.2M)Net between those two programs $-141.2M = $535.0M - $175.2M + $501.0M.What parts of which programs gets raided is unclear.* PBR contains no request explicitly shows $0 for Innovative Partnerships Program for FY11 and beyond, and states: QuoteNASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.The Space Technology funding was derived from moving IPP into that line along with a transfer of funds from Exploration Technology Development as the base, then a bit added to get to the requested total. NASA's op plan after final action is taken on appropriations will be where the "puts and takes" will be proposed.
Quote from: jongoff on 04/13/2011 12:10 am---snip---So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?If I'm reading the PBR and CR properly, it appears*:new Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology (CR11 $535.0M) =old Aeronautics Research (FY10 $501.0M) +old Innovative Partnerships Program (FY10 $175.2M)Net between those two programs $-141.2M = $535.0M - $175.2M + $501.0M.What parts of which programs gets raided is unclear.* PBR contains no request explicitly shows $0 for Innovative Partnerships Program for FY11 and beyond, and states: QuoteNASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.
---snip---So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?
NASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.
Quote from: Space Pete on 04/12/2011 02:27 pmChina is going to have a human spaceflight program whether everyone else likes it or not. They can either work with them, or work against them. Only one of those options is beneficial.The only beneficial option will be the former, without. The US will loose if it "works with" China, and will not due so. See the Russians, they are relatively benign when compared to the Chinese in this situation, but lawmakers and others still take issue. The US will not and should not work with China.Just to be frank to all the international posters out there, I am putting US interest in front of exploration, which I will not admit to any reservation in doing so. There are bigger things than HSF and ISS utilization, which is why the two will not cooperate in a large manner.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 04/13/2011 01:23 amQuote from: joek on 04/13/2011 01:02 amQuote from: jongoff on 04/13/2011 12:10 am---snip---So did the technology funding end up under another line item, or did technology get raided again?If I'm reading the PBR and CR properly, it appears*:new Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology (CR11 $535.0M) =old Aeronautics Research (FY10 $501.0M) +old Innovative Partnerships Program (FY10 $175.2M)Net between those two programs $-141.2M = $535.0M - $175.2M + $501.0M.What parts of which programs gets raided is unclear.* PBR contains no request explicitly shows $0 for Innovative Partnerships Program for FY11 and beyond, and states: QuoteNASA's Space Technology Program builds upon the success of its Innovative Partnerships Program and responds to input from the NRC in establishing an advanced space systems concepts and enabling technology development activity.The Space Technology funding was derived from moving IPP into that line along with a transfer of funds from Exploration Technology Development as the base, then a bit added to get to the requested total. NASA's op plan after final action is taken on appropriations will be where the "puts and takes" will be proposed. Still confused on this. IPP includes things like SBIRs/STTRs, Centennial Challenges, and a few other programs. Is it currently funded in the CR? Or do they have to somehow get funded via "puts and takes"?~Jon
Thanks 51D Mascot for your answers,If prorata is not the rule, am I correct in saying that NASA is allowed to allocate up to $312M (the amount which was authorized for commercial crew in the NASA Authhorization bill) for commercial crew development? Thinking about it some more, I am guessing that CCDev-2 might get delayed again until some of these issues are sorted out. Despite the uncertainty that it creates, I imagine that flexibility in the CR can be a good thing as Mikulski implied during the recent Senate hearing. I suppose that they could have decided to put a minimum amount for commercial crew in the full-year CR (as the House had done previously in its December 8 full-year CR proposal which had a specific minimum of $250M for commercial crew). But not having a minimum amount is not necessarely a bad thing either.
Quote from: robertross on 04/13/2011 02:49 amTell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.
Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.
In other words, by treating NASA as a respectable federal government agency, rather than a Texas/Florida/Alabama jobs program.
By changing how you do business. By not funding NASA to develop a heavy lift vehicle when there are two separate companies that could provide that capability for much cheaper. By finding ways to monetize ISS, to tun it from a liability into an asset. By focusing on doing things that the commercial market won't, rather that trying (and failing) to compete with them.
Heh, it's a bit "funny" when people start talking about how everyone's only interested about their funding, until it becomes an issue about their funding
Building friendship with many nations, including China, is as American as Apple Pie.
Quote from: robertross on 04/13/2011 02:49 amTell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.By changing how you do business. By not funding NASA to develop a heavy lift vehicle when there are two separate companies that could provide that capability for much cheaper. By finding ways to monetize ISS, to tun it from a liability into an asset. By focusing on doing things that the commercial market won't, rather that trying (and failing) to compete with them. In other words, by treating NASA as a respectable federal government agency, rather than a Texas/Florida/Alabama jobs program.
Quote from: HappyMartian on 04/13/2011 06:42 amBuilding friendship with many nations, including China, is as American as Apple Pie. I have no problem with building friendship with other countries with spaceflight and support what was done with Russia Europe and Japan, but I would not allow the Chinese within a thousand yards of my program.
It's just ridiculous that technology development is always being held hostage to the next soon-to-be-canceled megaproject.~Jon
Quote from: robertross on 04/13/2011 02:49 amQuote from: Lurker Steve on 04/13/2011 02:37 amI don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS. Well, they have the resposibility to fund it properly, as per the GAO reports for many years, and they really aren't.The same goes for BEO exploration. The Augustine Committee recommended an unconstrained budget, but now we have reduced funding, and FLAT LINE funding (expected, but it could be less) up until 2016. Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.Speaking of GAO reports on the ISS, here is a recent one:http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11519r.pdfSee also this thread:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=24770.0
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 04/13/2011 02:37 amI don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS. Well, they have the resposibility to fund it properly, as per the GAO reports for many years, and they really aren't.The same goes for BEO exploration. The Augustine Committee recommended an unconstrained budget, but now we have reduced funding, and FLAT LINE funding (expected, but it could be less) up until 2016. Tell me how you get a robust space program if you keep chopping off NASA's ability to do it's intended job.
I don't believe Congress would accept a "degraded" ISS.
With respect to SLS, there are NOT two launch vehicles that could do the job. In fact, devoid of a market where this SLS-class vehicle is privately developed and has a business case beyond NASA, NASA pays for it and NASA owns it. That is how it works and that is how it will work regardless of the design of SLS. That has been stated many times. I suggest that you, and others, put to rest the endless and tiresome arguements that all revolve around the same, shallow, rhetoric. In other words, bring something to the table or just stop showing up at the table.
Simon,It seems to me you have gone off the deep end. NASA is not "competing" with commercial. In fact, it appears to me and most rationale people, that NASA is perhaps over-compensating in how it is treating commercial. After all, nothing is proven. Nothing is concrete yet we are blindly rushing into this still largely based on "hope and assumption" that all will work out just fine from a technical/performance perspective, schedules will be approximately 4-5 years from now and the costs will be "reduced".
With respect to SLS, there are NOT two launch vehicles that could do the job. In fact, devoid of a market where this SLS-class vehicle is privately developed and has a business case beyond NASA, NASA pays for it and NASA owns it. That is how it works and that is how it will work regardless of the design of SLS. That has been stated many times.
If SpaceX wins will ULA stand for that? If ULA wins will SpaceX stand for that? After all, we are trying to foster competition in this class rocket in order to drive down costs, etc. How can NASA speak out of both sides of it's mouth on this point?