Quote from: SpacexULA on 07/16/2010 06:36 amQuote from: Bill White on 07/15/2010 08:26 pmReturning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded. Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table. Am I mistaken? (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now )Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.
Quote from: Bill White on 07/15/2010 08:26 pmReturning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded. Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table. Am I mistaken? (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now )
Returning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.
Quote from: simonth on 07/16/2010 07:00 amQuote from: SpacexULA on 07/16/2010 06:36 amQuote from: Bill White on 07/15/2010 08:26 pmReturning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded. Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table. Am I mistaken? (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now )Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.Yes, the $1.6B figure is for commercial crew for 3 years. But I think that it also includes the extra money for COTS for FY2011 (which was about $144 million in the July 13th bill).
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/16/2010 02:27 pmQuote from: simonth on 07/16/2010 07:00 amQuote from: SpacexULA on 07/16/2010 06:36 amQuote from: Bill White on 07/15/2010 08:26 pmReturning to the named topic, it seems to me that funding at $1.6 billion over three years will be sufficient to remove commercial space from jeopardy even if commercial space advocates might desire more than that.I was under the impression that the 1.6 represented the currently contracted CRS and COTS milestones, and left non/very little for new contracts to be awarded. Basically meaning all possibility of Atlas/Boeing or manned Falcon 9 off the table. Am I mistaken? (Sorry a lot of new info today don't know where I am at right now )Yes, you are mistaken. CRS is funded under the ISS heading. COTS cargo is ending, COTS cargo just needs a bit of additional funding for FY2011 to pay out remaining milestones to Orbital and SpaceX.Yes, the $1.6B figure is for commercial crew for 3 years. But I think that it also includes the extra money for COTS for FY2011 (which was about $144 million in the July 13th bill). It's actually $1.3B over 3 years according to this article:http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100716/NEWS02/7160322/1086/Senators+realign+NASA+s+direction
The money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.
Quote from: telomerase99 on 07/18/2010 07:11 amThe money for commercial crew is gone for 2012. There is a clause saying that NONE can be spent in 2011 and we are talking about the 2011 budget.I agree that this is one of the most puzzling provisions in the compromise bill. It's not just that the money for commercial crew in FY2011 is gone, NASA is mandated to not even think about entering into contracts with industry for commercial crew programs. How does that make any sense? Congress is MANDATING that the gap is widened. Makes no sense to me whatsoever. Why doesn't Congress say "NASA shall enter into a commercial crew contract as soon as possible"? That would make sense, the money could still only start flowing at the end of FY2011/start of FY2012.
Understand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?
SEC. 402. COMMERCIAL CREW DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.19 (a) CONTINUATION OF PROGRAM DURING FISCAL20 YEAR 2011.—The Administrator shall continue, and may21 expand the number of participants and the activities of,22 the Commercial Crew Development (CCDEV) program in23 fiscal year 2011, subject to the provisions of this title.24 (b) CONTINUATION OF ACTIVITIES AND AGREE25MENTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2010.—In carrying out sub-1 section (a), the Administrator may continue or expand ac2 tivities and agreements initiated in fiscal year 2010 that3 reduce risk, develop technologies, and lead to other ad4 vancements that will help determine most effective and ef5 ficient means of advancing the development of commercial6 crew services.7 SEC. 403. REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO DEVELOPMENT8 OF COMMERCIAL CREW TRANSPORTATION9 CAPABILITIES AND SPACE SERVICES.10 (a) PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTS AND PROCURE11 MENT AGREEMENTS DURING FISCAL YEAR 2011.—The12 Administrator may not enter into any contract or procure13 ment agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew14 services during fiscal year 2011.
Quote from: aquanaut99 on 07/19/2010 07:42 amUnderstand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?Yep and yep. So very true. How else could one explain Congress mandating design elements of a HLV? They just care where it gets built/designed. Whether it flies or not is immaterial.
Quote from: Lars_J on 07/19/2010 07:50 amQuote from: aquanaut99 on 07/19/2010 07:42 amUnderstand that Congress doesn't care if anything actually flies into space. Congress doesn't care if US astronauts can reach the ISS or not. Congress doesn't really care if US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Soyuz (all the bluster and outrage about relying on the Russians is just for show).All Congress really cares about is pork money going to contractors spread out across the country. Oh, and job preservation, because angry laid-off people might vote them out of office. Does Congress care if there is actually anything to show for the money they throw at NASA? Naah... They are used to throwing taxpayer money out of the window, so why would they care?Yep and yep. So very true. How else could one explain Congress mandating design elements of a HLV? They just care where it gets built/designed. Whether it flies or not is immaterial.It's likely you can thank 51D for that. I've supported the DIRECT concept but Ross and Chuck, I can't support attempts to write it into the law.If you indeed are the ones pushing for this you should reconsider.