Quote from: alexw on 09/16/2010 05:51 pm Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?That's correct. Of course, the actual vehicle design and development plan, to be put together by NASA under either bill, will refine cost and schedule estimates. The out-year numbers--in either bill, by the way--are essentially notional, since there is no actual program on the table (though to the extent the House reflects a "restructured" Constellation program, as it's been described, one might argue the PoR numbers would have more refinement--but the problem is, remember, PoR runouts in a flat top line budget REQUIRED the cessation of ISS support in 2015, which is not now on the table), those out-year numbers could be modified by subsequent action to reflect refined program requirements. The Congress is not irrevocably bound by authorizing numbers, as we saw over the last five years, when the authorizing numbers far exceeded either the requested or the appropriated amounts. And, in the end, there is the "cardinal rule" that no Congress can bind a future Congress....unless it allows itself to be so bound by inaction or reaffirmation.
Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?
According to this Washington Post article, a stalemate is now a distinct possibility: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/18/AR2010091802567_2.html?hpid=moreheadlinesIf no decision is obtained by 09/30, contractors will start laying off the workforce. Clearly, this will make SLS/DIRECT (and the CxP holdouts) lose. On the other hand, it will also mean no extra money to commercial spaceflight.So everyone loses. Am I missing something here?
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 09/16/2010 07:44 pmQuote from: alexw on 09/16/2010 05:51 pm Jeff, a question: it's been reported elsewhere that the Senate bill commits $11.5 billion for SLS development by 31 Dec 2016, yet the Senate bill on the committee website only authorizes FY2011-2013 for a cumulative $6.921 billion. Could you say how you picture the Senate committee funding profile for SLS to continue for FY2014-FY2017? About the same line, $2.64 billion/yr?That's correct. Of course, the actual vehicle design and development plan, to be put together by NASA under either bill, will refine cost and schedule estimates. The out-year numbers--in either bill, by the way--are essentially notional, since there is no actual program on the table (though to the extent the House reflects a "restructured" Constellation program, as it's been described, one might argue the PoR numbers would have more refinement--but the problem is, remember, PoR runouts in a flat top line budget REQUIRED the cessation of ISS support in 2015, which is not now on the table), those out-year numbers could be modified by subsequent action to reflect refined program requirements. The Congress is not irrevocably bound by authorizing numbers, as we saw over the last five years, when the authorizing numbers far exceeded either the requested or the appropriated amounts. And, in the end, there is the "cardinal rule" that no Congress can bind a future Congress....unless it allows itself to be so bound by inaction or reaffirmation. Thanks for the reply, Jeff. I understand that future authorizations are hypothetical, and that both present and future appropriations committees need not be bound by any of it, but it's helpful to hear that you project that budget line to remain similar -- that the Committee is not under the impression that it would cut back in just a few years. Regarding timelines, the Senate bill specifies 31 Dec 2016, but according to the HEFT presentations -- which you are no doubt well aware of -- one projection for entry into service of the core alone is around 2019. HEFT also figures total development costs of $17.4 billion for the core, and another $7 billion for ground infrastructure -- mods to LC-39, crawlers, crawlerway, etc. -- which are big costs that I haven't seen reported in other small presentations. The total is $24.4 billion ($3 billion less for the "3/4" instead of "5/5" design), which, assuming the Senate budget profile, is finally spent by 2019 or 2020. (That's about the same as HEFT, but HEFT assuming spending at a faster rate, peaking at around $4 billion/yr in 2013.) No doubt you're received your own NASA estimates to bring SLS on line, and they may well be more optimistic. But what happens if either of these cost or time estimates really are correct, and due to either money or technical issues, SLS misses the 2016 deadline? Would NASA technically be in violation of the authorization law, or would future authorization bills likely just push back the clock as the deadline got closer? -Alex
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/9200306/1006/NEWS01/NASA+advocates+pushing+CongressNelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years."He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week. "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, echoed that optimism, saying she hopes "we will have a move-forward plan" by mid-week.
So the argument could be boiling down to whether something DIRECT-like is funded or something more expensive and capable like Ares V.
Quote from: marsavian on 09/20/2010 10:04 amhttp://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100920/NEWS02/9200306/1006/NEWS01/NASA+advocates+pushing+CongressNelson said he met for two hours Wednesday with the House science committee's chairman, Democratic Rep. Bart Gordon of Tennessee, but they weren't able to reach a compromise. A significant dispute focuses on a Senate proposal for a heavy-lift rocket by 2015, which has support from key senators. The House rejected that option because of the projected cost -- $11.5 billion over five years."He doesn't think we can do a heavy-lift rocket for $11.5 billion," Nelson said of Gordon. "If we can't do a rocket for $11.5 billion, we ought to close up shop." Gordon said he hopes to bring a bill to the House floor this week. "We're in discussions. We're making a lot of progress, and I'm very optimistic," Gordon said. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-New Smyrna Beach, echoed that optimism, saying she hopes "we will have a move-forward plan" by mid-week.If cost is the issue, it seems DIRECT would make more sense than an Ares V sized vehicle.
Yep, or even a stage further, Sidemount (noted as cheaper than inline)? (Yes, I know HLV needs missions).I'll be glad when a decision on a forward plan is made, as this is starting to look like a "game" (as Ben said) and people are losing their frakking jobs in the meantime - while the rest worry about their jobs.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 12:18 pmYep, or even a stage further, Sidemount (noted as cheaper than inline)? (Yes, I know HLV needs missions).I'll be glad when a decision on a forward plan is made, as this is starting to look like a "game" (as Ben said) and people are losing their frakking jobs in the meantime - while the rest worry about their jobs. What would you go with if it came down to Ares vs EELV?
The House bill awaiting action would give twice as much money to Russia...
...HEFT is all "pre-decisional:...
Yet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.
Still think a commercial/NASA mix is best. Just my opinion.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 09/20/2010 12:40 pmStill think a commercial/NASA mix is best. Just my opinion. Would you consider something like AJAX to fit that description? Not looking for endorsement, just looking to understand your viewpoint.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 09/20/2010 01:30 pmYet I struggle with the very premise of validity in that report, and continue to whine about it. Its key recommendation, visiting a NEO in the 'near term' of 2025, is ludicrous, as is the requirement for 6 1/2 or 7 new spacecraft which are nothing but pixels on a screen at the moment.Yes, and just consider the complexity & challenges of a Mars landing, and what this would translate into (based on such a HEFT report).Something that is 'slightly' overlooked is that Obama had requested a Mars landing in mid-late 2030s. We would have to start building hardware for that before we even sent our crew module up to begin a NEO mission.
I'm so disgusted right now I'm beginning to hope that the result in Congress will be a complete deadlock that will get nothing done at all. This seems like the least bad of all possible bad outcomes. Because while NASA gets nothing done, SpaceX will be flying astronauts to ISS by 2015.