NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[yg1968]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

I know this is a draft, but does this seriously mean core elements AND upper stage should be done by 2016? Won't developing them simultaneously just make both developments take longer than they need to?

I haven't see the language but I am going to guess that this is a way to ensure that the J-2X contract isn't cancelled.

[yg1968]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

No talk of additional shuttle flight,  no KSC upgrade money.

Actually, if I am reading this article properly, the funding just gets lumped together.

Incidentally, it was mentionned at the last Senate hearing that Bolden suggested deffering the KSC upgrades to next year if NASA got less than $19B.

Another $1.8 billion would fund NASA’s space shuttle orbiters in 2011, including $825 million for “additional Space Shuttle costs.” Unlike the NASA authorization act, however, the draft appropriations language does not call for an additional shuttle mission. It also guts the president’s $429 million request to fund a 21st Century Launch Complex initiative to modernize range infrastructure at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.

However, the draft appropriations bill does direct that, in addition to extra expenses associated with the space shuttle program, the $825 million be spent on efforts to improve Kennedy Space Center in Florida related to civil and nondefense purposes only. It also directs the money be applied at other NASA flight facilities “currently scheduled to launch cargo” to the space station, possibly a reference to NASA’s Wallops Island Flight Facility on Virginia’s Eastern Shore

[Jeff Bingham]

http://spacenews.com/policy/101207-draft-increases-nasa-budget.html

Draft of a CR that includes addtional NASA funds is circulating in the House.

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve a heavy-lift capability from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons beyond low Earth orbit to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

Can the appropriators do that?

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; so keep powder dry and don't react, even if you see the actual language; it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes, and will almost certainly be modified before formally proposed.

Doesn't it make more sense to react to a draft, since then the final one can be modified in accordance?

I mean, to whatever extent us blathering about this at NSF (and possibly sending our opinions to Congress, etc) even matters at all, I would expect it would make more difference as soon in the decision process you can.

Sure, anyone can obviously voice views on the draft as and if it is circulated or reported. All I was suggesting that folks not take these reports and descriptions of what the content of the draft is as necessarily representing even a firm starting point for negotiations and discussions within the Congress, much less the final "proposed language." As to how much "input" might progress from this site to the people inside the Congress doing the drafting and negotiating--and eventually those doing the voting--it's hard to say. These things are often done, at this stage at least, pretty much behind closed doors  (the value of and need for "transparency and accountability" notwithstanding).  On the other hand, one never knows who might be "listening."  So I would never suggest anyone not comment or make observations, since they could be--and often are on this site--very insightful and useful!  Sorry if you took that to be my meaning!

[clongton]

A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.

You have got to be kidding me.

[JohnFornaro]

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...

It does seem to me, as written above, that the very first rocket they make will launch 130mt!  Without the actual language of the draft to read, the discussion here is virtually worthless, and we have no chance of influencing the discussion on the Hill.

You let them know that I am throwing myself on the floor in a huge snit, and that I shall hold my breath till I have a say in this!

A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.

A pitiful driveby comment.

[psloss]

The House has narrowly passed a full-year continuing resolution for FY 2011 (212 to 206):
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2010&rollnumber=622

This is the version prepared by the House appropriations committee, chaired by Representative Obey; text here:
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_fullyearcr.pdf

It still remains to be seen what the Senate will do.

[mr_magoo]

Pretty short negotiations.  And no Republicans voted for it.

[Jorge]

Pretty short negotiations.  And no Republicans voted for it.

Most likely unrelated to NASA. It's a 423-page bill, covering the entire government.

[Pheogh]

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...

It does seem to me, as written above, that the very first rocket they make will launch 130mt!  Without the actual language of the draft to read, the discussion here is virtually worthless, and we have no chance of influencing the discussion on the Hill.

You let them know that I am throwing myself on the floor in a huge snit, and that I shall hold my breath till I have a say in this!

A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.

A pitiful driveby comment.

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

[Jeff Bingham]

Pretty short negotiations.  And no Republicans voted for it.

Most likely unrelated to NASA. It's a 423-page bill, covering the entire government.

This is the full-year CR option that is about the same as what was circulated earlier, except that it includes some food safety provisions as an add-on. It does include NASA funding, starting on page 31, at Section 2206. The Senate appropriators still hope to develop an acceptable Omnibus Appropriations, which would be more "fleshed out" than this CR, but that remains to be seen. This CR is different than a "Clean" CR, in that it provides account-level detail in funding in many areas that is different than a simple continuation of FY 2010 funding levels and allocations.

For that reason it is being referred to as a "CRomnibus", hehe....sort of a blend between a straight CR and an Omnibus.  But it could very well be the basis for defining funding levels for the balance of the fiscal year. The degree to which it would be amendable in the Senate is uncertain at this point. There are those in the Senate who have some issues with some of the language in the NASA portion, but if and how that will be resolved is also uncertain, though should be clear before the end of next week, when final action must be taken with the expiration of the current CR on December 17th.

[Jeff Bingham]

while the authorization act would allow NASA to gradually evolve ... from initially delivering 70-100 metric tons ... to eventually launching a minimum of 130 metric tons, the draft continuing resolution would tell NASA to waste no time building the more robust capability. Specifically, it directs that “the initial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system shall be not less than 130 tons” and that “the upper stage and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed.”

This seem to give NASA permission to develop a 4 SSME vehicle that requires an upper stage and cannot be down-rated and flown in a 3 SSME configuration without an upper stage.

FYI: This is still a DRAFT, and discussions are still under way; ... it's being circulated for DISCUSSION purposes...

It does seem to me, as written above, that the very first rocket they make will launch 130mt!  Without the actual language of the draft to read, the discussion here is virtually worthless, and we have no chance of influencing the discussion on the Hill.

You let them know that I am throwing myself on the floor in a huge snit, and that I shall hold my breath till I have a say in this!

A 70 ton to LEO rocket is pretty useless.

A pitiful driveby comment.

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

Yes it is.

[robertross]

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

Yes it is.

I'm totally surprised by this.

So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').

That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)

[2552]

There are those in the Senate who have some issues with some of the language in the NASA portion, but if and how that will be resolved is also uncertain, though should be clear before the end of next week, when final action must be taken with the expiration of the current CR on December 17th.

Is the core elements/upper stage simultaneous development language one of the things some Senators have issues with?

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

Yes it is.

I'm totally surprised by this.

So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').

That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)

The CR language only says tons, not metric tons, so I guess it means short tons by default (which would be 118 metric tons)? It also doesn't say 130 tons by December 31, 2016.

Here is the CR's SLS language and the language to allow NASA to proceed fully on the new programs:

Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:

[Pheogh]

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

Yes it is.

I'm totally surprised by this.

So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').

That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)

It has to be said then, it's a long shot it will be SDLV or Direct like. As Both Steve and Ross have said multiple times, the core vehicle without the upperstage is an absolutely critical step from a time, budgetary, and public perception standpoint.

Hopefully the language will allow for the development of a core vehicle sans Upperstage. Trying my best to reserve judgement based on so little but this is certainly not welcome news for us die hard SDLV folks who fought so hard for fiscal and programmatic common sense. So were net for the day with SpaceX success   

[robertross]

I'm still unclear about what was actually passed in the CR as it relates to NASA and HLV. Is the language calling for a minimum capability at 130mt in the CR that was passed today?

Yes it is.

I'm totally surprised by this.

So that means we are now at 130mT as a 'starting point'? (as per the launguage" 'initial lift capability').

That is one BIG rocket (as a starting point)

It has to be said then, it's a long shot it will be SDLV or Direct like. As Both Steve and Ross have said multiple times, the core vehicle without the upperstage is an absolutely critical step from a time, budgetary, and public perception standpoint.

What it means is:

NO 4-segment SRBs
Longer development time (forget ISS support)
Higher operating costs

(for starters)

(I am SO tempted to do a lash out, but am holding my tongue. Not a happy camper, despite my continued high from today's successful Dragon flight)

[robertross]

The CR language only says tons, not metric tons, so I guess it means short tons by default (which would be 118 metric tons)? It also doesn't say 130 tons by December 31, 2016.

Here is the CR's SLS language and the language to allow NASA to proceed fully on the new programs:

Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:

Theoretically, YES (as per this post from a while back):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg623290#msg623290

But whether it's short/long/or metric, it's a HECK of a lot more lift capability (especially as an initial starting point) than we currently need. This was supposed to be a build-up of lift capability until we are at a point when it is REQUIRED.

We aren't going to Mars in the next 10 years.

[Jeff Bingham]

The CR language only says tons, not metric tons, so I guess it means short tons by default (which would be 118 metric tons)? It also doesn't say 130 tons by December 31, 2016.

Here is the CR's SLS language and the language to allow NASA to proceed fully on the new programs:

Provided further, That within the funds provided for ‘‘Ex-
ploration’’, not less than $1,200,000,000 shall be for the
Orion multipurpose crew vehicle, not less than
$250,000,000 shall be for commercial crew, not less than
$300,000,000 shall be for commercial cargo development,
and not less than $1,800,000,000 shall be for the heavy
lift launch vehicle system: Provided further, That the ini-
tial lift capability for the heavy lift launch vehicle system
shall be not less than 130 tons and that the upper stage
and other core elements shall be simultaneously developed:
Provided further, That the provisos limiting the use of
funds under the heading ‘‘National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Exploration’’ in division B of Public Law
111–117 shall not apply to funds appropriated by this Act:

Theoretically, YES (as per this post from a while back):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg623290#msg623290

But whether it's short/long/or metric, it's a HECK of a lot more lift capability (especially as an initial starting point) than we currently need. This was supposed to be a build-up of lift capability until we are at a point when it is REQUIRED.

We aren't going to Mars in the next 10 years.

On the face of it, this "requirement" is onerous and contradictory to the evolvable approach outlined by P.L. 111-267. So, if it is enacted into law, there could be a "conflict of laws" situation in which both laws have to be read together to bring them into "harmony." Rest assured, those authorizers who developed the SLS language feel very strongly about the evolvable approach. At least "some" of the appropriators do not intend this language to eliminate that, and are focused on underscoring that a minimum 130-ton capability remains the end target of the SLS development. That clearly could be clarified with, for example, removal of the word "initial",  but making even a one-word change in something with as many interests at play as this bill (i.e., basically the ENTIRE federal government) is difficult just because of the number of bases that have to be touched. On the other hand, the fact that this appears to potentially materially modify existing law also raises an issue of a point of order possibly being raised against the provision, as a violation of the restrictions against "legislating" on appropriations.  All that remains to be seen over the next ten days.

The bottom line is that, if this language is enacted as is and in fact appears to re-vector the development approach for the heavy-lift, subsequent legislation can be enacted to rectify that. In the meantime, I believe the internal planning focus at NASA is likely to remain on a course that is very compatible with what P.L. 111-267 provided.
 

[robertross]

The bottom line is that, if this language is enacted as is and in fact appears to re-vector the development approach for the heavy-lift, subsequent legislation can be enacted to rectify that. In the meantime, I believe the internal planning focus at NASA is likely to remain on a course that is very compatible with what P.L. 111-267 provided.
 

Thanks for the response Sir.

I hope they can make any necessary changes.

[Pheogh]

My thanks as well and forgive me for not being as reserve as others. After thinking more about it this evening I might have found a sliver of hope...

I seem to recall that there was language stating that the "core" vehicle and "upperstage" would be developed in tandem. Together these items would get us to that 130 ton minimum.

However it does leave open the possibility that in such austere financial times that a more conservative congress may view 70-100 mt to be more than acceptable to any of the foreseeable missions which the nation can afford and decide to shelve the upper stage for later in favor of completing the Core.

The only wrinkle here is that it would seem from here that the same crew that was involved in the earlier shenanigans (Ares-7? or Dual Ares-V lites) is still at it trying to develop the biggest possible booster regardless of whether the money is there to complete it. This is why we see that 130 number and might also be why the Utah delegation was up in arms.

I think someone out there still wants the Saturn V back and anything Shuttle to go away. My hope is that Congress remains diligent and engaged with what Marshall is actually up to. After Elon's success today even the die hards are beginning to ask, "why again do you need 10 years and 9 billion"?

[Ben the Space Brit]

FWIW, I don't think that the CR is asking for anything different from the Senate re-authorisation bill.  The major change is that, instead of starting with the 70t version and progressing to the 130t version in time, it is calling for the 130t version to be developed immediately.

This would be a lot harder and take a lot longer.  However, it may represent a policy shift where SLS is for only BEO and therefore is not required until that phase starts in around 2020.

Trying to be optimistic here.