NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[aquanaut99]

Prepare to wait 10-15 years to see NASA's new movie: "Constellation 2, return of Godzilla"

[sdsds]

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.

With sufficient hints, I now read it that way too.  In particular, it emphasizes that the initial "core" (to include SRBs) must be flyable without modification in a 130t (118mT) vehicle.  DIRECT analysis indicated a J-241H would be required for that.  No clustered RL10 upper stage will suffice; no four-segment SRBs will suffice.  Starting with RL10 and four-seg and switching later if the performance were actually needed is right out.

Congress is saying to NASA, "The SLS must use J-2X and RSRMV, and implicitly SSME.  Live with it, because those are the only propulsion solutions for which we're willing to appropriate funding."

[Lars_J]

Ugh. I'd chuckle if it wasn't so depressing and tragic.

[Periander]

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.

With sufficient hints, I now read it that way too.  In particular, it emphasizes that the initial "core" (to include SRBs) must be flyable without modification in a 130t (118mT) vehicle.  DIRECT analysis indicated a J-241H would be required for that.  No clustered RL10 upper stage will suffice; no four-segment SRBs will suffice.  Starting with RL10 and four-seg and switching later if the performance were actually needed is right out.

Congress is saying to NASA, "The SLS must use J-2X and RSRMV, and implicitly SSME.  Live with it, because those are the only propulsion solutions for which we're willing to appropriate funding."

If the performance were actually needed? No real performance is needed. These "performance requirements" have no connection to any sort of planned mission or payload. They are to simply to make sure that "our" tax dollars continued to be funneled to certain well connected contractors.

[JohnFornaro]

On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.

[nathan.moeller]

Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?

[mr_magoo]

Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?

I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.

[Lars_J]

On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.

Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.

[nathan.moeller]

Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?

I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.

That's what I was thinking when it mentioned "addition space shuttle costs," but wasn't exactly sure.  Hopefully NASA will shed some light on this soon.

[Pheogh]

On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.

Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.

Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?

[kraisee]

Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?

They didn't.   They still refuse to let go of the RSRMV.   PWR refuse to let go of J-2X, even though they would actually earn more with human rating of RL-10 and SSME-e.   And MSFC still has a strong contingent of "bigger than Saturn-V" Griffinites.

It is MHO, but I'm fairly sure they're about to price themselves out of contention.

Space-X say they can do a similar performance vehicle for a quarter of the money.   And they're riding a tide of success right now.   However powerful the AL/FL/LA/TX contingent is in Congress, they are ultimately outnumbered by the other 46 states and Space-X can play the deficit reduction card with all of them.

This could turn into a very bitter fight.   And ATK, PWR, Boeing and Lockheed could potentially be left (5+ years from now) holding little more in their hands but their family jewels.

This is ultimately going to boil down to affordability.   Minimum 130 ton SDLV is *NOT* an affordable option.   Reality will catch up sooner or later, and with the CxP debacle fresh in memory, this will lead to a repeat failure on NASA's part.   Not good

Ross.

[psloss]

Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?

I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.

That's what I was thinking when it mentioned "addition space shuttle costs," but wasn't exactly sure.  Hopefully NASA will shed some light on this soon.

The testimony last week in the Senate Commerce committee hearing was a good start.

Also duplicating something posted over in the STS-335 thread about the $825 million under Space Operations -- it has to cover more than just Shuttle costs.  Reformatting the text:

and $825,000,000 shall be for

-- additional Space Shuttle costs,

-- launch complex development only for activities at the Kennedy Space Center related to the civil, nondefense launch complex,

-- use at other National Aeronautics and Space Administration flight facilities that are currently scheduled to launch cargo to the International Space Station,

-- and development of ground operations for the heavy lift launch vehicle and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle

Besides additional Shuttle costs, the other areas might be partially deferred, but the $825M has to cover spending on all of those, not just Shuttle.  It does seem to give NASA latitude to defer work and apply possible savings from one or more of these areas during the fiscal year.

[Orbiter]

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20101209/NEWS02/12090321
Florida today article.

The House resolution contains $1.8 billion for that rocket and nearly $1 billion for the shuttle program, which would have an extra flight in 2011.

Orbiter

[yg1968]

Here's a question - Do the funds set aside for shuttle cover STS-135?

I think it was answered above that there is $850 million for a shuttle slush fund, which may be interpreted to include an additional flight.

That's what I was thinking when it mentioned "addition space shuttle costs," but wasn't exactly sure.  Hopefully NASA will shed some light on this soon.

The testimony last week in the Senate Commerce committee hearing was a good start.

Also duplicating something posted over in the STS-335 thread about the $825 million under Space Operations -- it has to cover more than just Shuttle costs.  Reformatting the text:

and $825,000,000 shall be for

-- additional Space Shuttle costs,

-- launch complex development only for activities at the Kennedy Space Center related to the civil, nondefense launch complex,

-- use at other National Aeronautics and Space Administration flight facilities that are currently scheduled to launch cargo to the International Space Station,

-- and development of ground operations for the heavy lift launch vehicle and the Orion multipurpose crew vehicle

Besides additional Shuttle costs, the other areas might be partially deferred, but the $825M has to cover spending on all of those, not just Shuttle.  It does seem to give NASA latitude to defer work and apply possible savings from one or more of these areas during the fiscal year.

At the last Senate hearing, it was mentionned that Bolden has suggested delaying the 21st century complex infrastructure money if NASA got less than the requested $19B. I think that this is why these funds got lumped together. NASA is free to cut where it sees fit.

[Pheogh]

Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?

Reality will catch up sooner or later, and with the CxP debacle fresh in memory, this will lead to a repeat failure on NASA's part.   Not good

Ross.

I figure right around May/June next year... COTS success to the station and the new more conservative congress getting feisty and bold leading up to the start of the new election cycle.

[kraisee]

Unless they can pull out a low-cost SDLV option to keep them all funded, between now and then.

I wonder where they might find one of those...

Ross.

[muomega0]

On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.

Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.

Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?

The strategy seems to be to continue with the program that maximizes jobs mainly for Republican districts, and if the program is cancelled, take credit for deficit reduction by eliminating waste (ironic)--they could even bring up the 400t shielding study by MSFC.

[Namechange User]

On the plus side, with SpaceX's success, maybe it is thought that SLS can start out somewhat larger than originally planned.

Unfortunately the larger SLS gets, the more expensive it gets. Which means fewer payloads, fewer missions, and increased risk of cancellation before 1st flight.

Someone might want to inform Marshall of that, if there is any substance to the beef Utah as with what is going on, it seems they didn't get the message the first time?

The strategy seems to be to continue with the program that maximizes jobs mainly for Republican districts, and if the program is cancelled, take credit for deficit reduction by eliminating waste (ironic)--they could even bring up the 400t shielding study by MSFC.

Yes.  That is the plan.  "We" are behind all of it.  First it required sabotaging the legislative and executive branches and their agenda and the majority control.  Secondly, we thought it would nice to throw in a "movement", in order for our plot to not be exposed, and thought Tea Party had a nice ring to it.  Once we stacked the votes across the nation accordingly and hacked into all the electronic voting machines to make them count as we wanted, we could see victory in our grasp.

Now with Republican control of the House (we know it is really "us") we can distribute money as we see fit.  We now will retain every job, maybe we'll even add some, and have decided to increase our paychecks by at least 50% as well.  In addition the plan is to continue Shuttle forever.

This was all rather simple and was clearly just as logical as the above statement.  We "can't let Shuttle go", clearly want everything else to fail and see the only way to ever get things done is sabatage everything else and make sure the "Republicans" do our bidding.  Or else. <evil laugh>

[pathfinder_01]

Yes.  That is the plan.  "We" are behind all of it.  First it required sabotaging the legislative and executive branches and their agenda and the majority control.  Secondly, we thought it would nice to throw in a "movement", in order for our plot to not be exposed, and thought Tea Party had a nice ring to it.  Once we stacked the votes across the nation accordingly and hacked into all the electronic voting machines to make them count as we wanted, we could see victory in our grasp.

Now with Republican control of the House (we know it is really "us") we can distribute money as we see fit.  We now will retain every job, maybe we'll even add some, and have decided to increase our paychecks by at least 50% as well.  In addition the plan is to continue Shuttle forever.

This was all rather simple and was clearly just as logical as the above statement.  We "can't let Shuttle go", clearly want everything else to fail and see the only way to ever get things done is sabatage everything else and make sure the "Republicans" do our bidding.  Or else. <evil laugh>

What an evil plan....I was hoping the Ombama adminstration would restrart CXP and use the technology  to build lunar reeducation camps for the republicans....<Evil laugh>


That is the downside to having congress have so much control of NASA. They can create bad policy.

[Namechange User]

What an evil plan....I was hoping the Ombama adminstration would restrart CXP and use the technology  to build lunar reeducation camps for the republicans....<Evil laugh>


That is the downside to having congress have so much control of NASA. They can create bad policy.

Discounting the minor detail that there is no such thing as the Ombama administration, the current policy is very much bipartison and quite acceptable for a multitude of reasons.  So if there were such "re-education camps" I suppose you could not include just one party.