NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview

[Jim]

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.

Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Believe it or not Congress has a lot more to deal with than NASA and the SLS will just have to find its place in the process.

Precisely why I think they'll botch it in the end.

As important as we all know it is, so are a lot of other things and if SLS is important to you then you and your friends and family should be calling your Legislators to register that fact. That's how its importance to your Legislators gets noticed and hopefully influenced. That's how the sausage is made.

Chuck, my parents don't give a %&#* about SLS or spaceflight at all. My friends would mock the everloving crap out of me, if they knew how interested in space I am. My voice means jack, even on this forum where it's more likely some legislator might actually notice it. And how can it really? Different people constantly squeal for different things and they're left wondering which one of the crowd to appease, because make no mistake, someone is going to be disappointed in the end no matter what happens.
I'd feel more optimistic, if I saw a serious effort to reform the way NASA manages requirements and policy makers understood, that if they want big goals met in a timely manner, they have to cough up the money for them. Currently NASA is expected to meet a target date, do it on budget and not compromise design integrity and safety. This is impossible. It ignores the tradeoffs that have to be made between cost, performance and schedule in any engineering undertaking. As I brought up, the requirements management stricture isn't helping any and one has to wonder, if what NASA is directed to do is even achievable in the first place. Seems there have been one too many instances where it hasn't.
All and all, this is hardly me "not wanting a base on the Moon", "wanting NASA HSF decimated" or other strawmen.
This is just me saying, the way things are going, I don't expect a positive outcome. Cross fingers and believe in whatever you wish. It's a free country.

[HappyMartian]

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.

Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

And I have seen nothing that convinces me that the EELV can do it cheaper and more safely than Direct's J-246. You don't like sausage. OK. I can understand that. But the RD-180 on the Atlas was a sausage deal too, whether you admit to that or not. Jim, you're smarter than me, but this isn't an issue of smarts, it is an issue of making sausage. You ignore sausage making when it suits your ideals and attack it when the sausage product isn't what you want. Sausage is sausage, and most folks consume it with a smile. EELV subsidies are subsidies, and overlook them as you selectively do, but nonetheless, Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.

Cheers! 

Edited.

[robertross]

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.

Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

And I have seen nothing that convinces me that the EELV can do it cheaper and more safely than Direct's J-146. You don't like sausage. OK. I can understand that. But the RD-180 on the Atlas was a sausage deal too, whether you admit to that or not. Jim, you're smarter than me, but this isn't an issue of smarts, it is an issue of making sausage. You ignore sausage making when it suits your ideals and attack it when the sausage product isn't what you want. Sausage is sausage, and most folks consume it with a smile. EELV subsidies are subsidies, and overlook them as you selectively do, but nonetheless, Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.

Cheers! 

I guess 'sausage' is the catch phrase of the day?

Look, it's quite simple. Prove to me that Congress & NASA can manage a space station with full support, and I could then begin to believe it could handle a lunar base. But as it stands now, ISS is on shaky ground (?) and it has no right to be.

A lunar base, or a trip to Venus, or a landing on Mars, are infinitely more costly & complex than simple cargo re-supply, or crew rotation, or logistics support. We nail those down in a cost effective & timely manner, let me know.

Congress needs to wake up to that fact. NASA does too, because right now the language is (to me) wavering on its intent due to outside influences (in a negative way).

[Periander]

Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.

This is a plan for getting us to the moon:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/09/ula-claim-gap-reducing-solution-via-eelv-exploration-master-plan/

Where is the plan with SLS? Where is the lander? All I see is a lot of this:

http://bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=f18bc5f4-bce3-4bec-b66d-f788b1eb42bf&ContentType_id=1faead15-454a-4bbc-b5a7-4cb518dd4b7c

The sausage is rotten.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

The sausage is rotten.

+1

[JohnFornaro]

I find the current spectacle of politicians designing NASA launch vehicles to insure their states get a cut of the action revolting and disheartening.

Absolutely.  And worse, doing the same type of thing again in the same type of way, indicates to me that there is a good liklihood of getting the same type of failure as a result.  The "same type of way" would be this notion of a "cut" for this state or another, selected only on the basis of previous "cuts", not on the merits of a state's contribution to the effort at hand.  And even worse is the idea of a "jobs program" as a way to keep the state's natives from getting restless.  That states should share in the process, and that jobs should be preserved is not inconsistent with my view.  It should be done logically and based on necessity and merit.

Some people around here think that Congress is "designing" the launch vehicle, and that is wrong.  Congress is specifying a performance metric.  As a type of customer, that is exactly what they should do.  As part of due diligence, I also think that they should consider the rocket design itself as well.  In their opinion, the DIRECT design appears to be the most viable alternative, which is fine by me. (As if they care about my opinion, but that's another thing.)

As to the idea that Congress, as "the government", "has no regard to the affordability or sustainability" of its programs:  Looking at where the country is financially right now, the hoards of cash that big biz is sitting on ($2T), the plight of ten percent of the working population, and other things; I'd say it's a reasonable conclusion, and quibble with OV on this point.

The notion that "CxP was a bit of a disaster" can only, to maintain sanity, be interpreted as a kind of understatement.  Ya gotta say, that's quite a bit of a "bit", eh?  I mean, I would.

This idea, that the "President's clearly expressed desire to throw out the window" all that HSF stuff, is not quite rightly worded.  The Prez has clearly expressed a desire to shoot hoops with his chums.  FY2011, by some interpretations, would have effectively "thrown our the window" all that stuff, maybe.  I can't call that an expression of desire, however.  Poor leadership, I'd say, by relying on his unknown space policy advisors.  On the other hand, note that he has not said all that much about HSF, just a few casually chosen words here and there. 

He really has neither promoted nor defended his position on this matter.  It's not like he won't talk; he was on NPR the other day, just a yakkin' it up about his latest stimulus plan for the wealthy which also includes payments to the unemployed.  You know, the ones the wealthy won't employ.  It's easy to imagine the Chinese banking lobbyists in on those negotiations, engaged in the arduous task of deciding how many T-bills they'd like to buy this time.  It's easy to imagine the Chinese industrialists engaged with their American counterparts in determining which portions of our manufacturing base should be exported in order to maximize Q1-2011 profits.  But I digress.

Our President's a leader.  Fer shure.

I think this remark is a bit off too: "NASA will inevitably be asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it doesn't have the resources for".  I'd say rather, that NASA is being asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it achieved with slide rules and vacuum tubes.  All this new technology and software these days: does it now cost more per erg to get to the Moon than it did back then?  Maybe Moore's Suggestion is a lotta marketing hooey.  Our bang for the buck factor seems to be going down, in inverse proportion to the coolness factor of the technology.

The gap between development and operations is too wide.

Fixed that for ya.  You've not provided cost estimates.

The nation can not afford a lunar base nor should NASA be the one to manage one.

We can, and it should.  I'm swingin' Prada.  What're you swingin'?

Don't throw the baby out with the watch.

Chuck:  I'm all for mixing metaphors and switching similes.  I've gotta dynamite sense of the paraprosdokian.  But what're you sayin'?  That we could throw out the baby, or the watch, but not to throw out the baby and the watch, while the sausage making is in process?

Just askin'.

Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.

I absolutely agree that it is a political manner.  Chuck and his team insist that it is cost effective, but their data, despite their technical insistance to the contrary, is closely held.  That recent D-4H launch also proves that there's nothing technically wrong about EELV's either.  And just so ya know, I've been reading more on the EELV's and understand your insistance on their capabilities much better than I did a year ago.  There's a "shopped" Orion sitting on top of that rocket in that other thread.  But those boyz are now going to have to compete with SpaceX on price.  Oooo.  They don't think that's "fair", do they?  They, not you.

Look, it's quite simple.

To quote SMAD, 3rd, p.2, first sentence:  "Space is expensive."  So... yeahhhh... it is simple.

Just teasin'.  'Cause I'm only up to p.48.

[JohnFornaro]

This is a plan for getting us to the moon ... Where is the plan with SLS? Where is the lander?

Insufficient analysis.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

I think this remark is a bit off too: "NASA will inevitably be asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it doesn't have the resources for".  I'd say rather, that NASA is being asked, yet again like it has been for 40 years, to achieve a goal which it achieved with slide rules and vacuum tubes.

No, today is different. back then they had breathing room, in the sense that there were no severe funding constraints and the policy, which essentially sets up the general requirements for the mission, was simpler. This meant they could manage the performance and schedule of the project more effectively.
Fast forward to today and they're being asked not only to land on the Moon, but to do it with a constrained budget profile and build up an outpost on the surface to maintain. They essentially mustn't divert from schedule, cost or performance targets and have to meet more requirements at the same time. This kind of pressure didn't work when it was applied to the shuttle program, it didn't work during Constellation and it won't work again, which to me, seems to be what will happen with SLS.
But it gets worse, infighting in the industry is more now than it was during Apollo, because of competing contractor interests. And they are competing in an unproductive way, by lobbying congress, which frankly has enough on their hands as it is without adding this mess to their table.

All this new technology and software these days: does it now cost more per erg to get to the Moon than it did back then?  Maybe Moore's Suggestion is a lotta marketing hooey.  Our bang for the buck factor seems to be going down, in inverse proportion to the coolness factor of the technology.

There's barely anything new in spaceflight technology. Computing has improved, but it isn't the killer cost reduction app that's needed. It's the other systems that haven't changed all that much since the day of Apollo (some of them frankly are as good as they'll ever be). That combined with more demanding requirements, poorer system to manage said requirements, constrained budget and a plethora of competing architectures, driven by corporate interests, is what's driving up the cost to higher levels and causing delays.

As I said, I have yet to see a light at the end of this tunnel. Only different people pulling the strings.

[Jim]

And I have seen nothing that convinces me that the EELV can do it cheaper and more safely than Direct's J-146.

Actually, there is nothing that says that Direct's J-146 can do it cheaper and more safely.

But wait. 
Ares I vs EELV's.  EELV's won.  Two LV families, two launch sites, 4 pads, 2 factories, etc. and a magnitude less people.  Right there that is cheaper.   Flying nuclear payloads, that is just as safe as flying people.

Same group that did Ares I is doing SLS.  MSFC will lose to ULA everytime.

[robertross]

Some people around here think that Congress is "designing" the launch vehicle, and that is wrong.  Congress is specifying a performance metric.  As a type of customer, that is exactly what they should do.  As part of due diligence, I also think that they should consider the rocket design itself as well.  In their opinion, the DIRECT design appears to be the most viable alternative, which is fine by me. (As if they care about my opinion, but that's another thing.)

Is it wrong? When they are influenced by lobbyists, telling them that it 'NEEDS' to be 130t, THAT is designing the launch vehicle.

To me, Congress' first order is really to debate & then fund what the President requests, for the good of the nation.

There is a catch here, and that is, as we have seen from the Augustine Commitee, there are different ways to implement the plan. And yet what we have seen come out is an inability to persue (perhaps, in their view) a more technically challenging propellant depot-based architecture (and other methods) to keep costs (and vehicle size, which can go hand-in-hand) to build up your capability. Nope, we're goinig straight back to Godzilla again (Ares V/VI). There is no absolute need. Jim is 100% correct, it can be done with EELVs. But when we look back at WHY Direct came out with their proposal, it was to make use of everything we already had (people & infrastructure), to provide for a smoother transition from shuttle to BEO while keeping the ISS fully supported. Well now it seems we are abandonning all reason again, much like with CxP, to go for that pie in the sky of a big shiny rocket, hoping it will solve all our ills.

Too late, too costly to build, too costly to fly, no money for anything else.

Congress should be the ones to recognozie this, and they are either choosing to ignoring it, or being told to ignore it (blind to everything else).

The original language was pretty simple: build a vehicle to take us to (these places), using what we have now (shuttle heritage, in the true sense of the word), and meet the budget targets. It always seems to get twisted and perversed.

[Lars_J]

Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.

Congress will do what it takes to guarantee short-term jobs in their districts. That is all. Nothing more.

Congress (with the exception of a handful of members) doesn't give a crap about going to the Moon, Mars, or any BEO destination. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

[Namechange User]

Congress will do what it can to build an Orion and SLS to take us back to the Moon, a destination you don't really appreciate.

Congress will do what it takes to guarantee short-term jobs in their districts. That is all. Nothing more.

Congress (with the exception of a handful of members) doesn't give a crap about going to the Moon, Mars, or any BEO destination. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.

While I don't have the greatest opinion of Congress as a whole based on performance over the last several years, you really can't say this as an absolute. I mean, it seemingly has just as much foundation as the following: 

Members of Congress go to the bathroom three times a day.  That is all.  Nothing more.

Congress (with the exception of a handful of members) don't like to crap on Capital Hill.  To think otherwise is wishful thinking. 

[Lars_J]

Perhaps it is overly absolute, but I call it as I see it, based on past performance.

But someone is welcome to prove me wrong.

[clongton]

Chuck, my parents don't give a %&#* about SLS or spaceflight at all. My friends would mock the everloving crap out of me, if they knew how interested in space I am.

STOP LETTING PEOPLE BEAT YOU UP!!! Time to turn the tables on them. Make THEM feel like THEY are the ones that are out of step because THEY haven't bothered to take the time to educate themselves about something that is vital to their own future. Stand up for what you believe in and if they mock you, turn around and laugh at them and ask them if they enjoy being willfully ignorant. Ask them why they are so lazy in not even bothering to try to understand something so important to the well-being of the nation. Then give them the look of pity, turn and walk away from them in obvious disgust. Then see what they do. I PROMISE you that at least some of them will take up the challenge to at least learn something about it.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Someone should turn the period from 2004 to 2011 into a tragic play or something. Imagine this scene: a big prop of Saturn V, a backdrop consisting of the Earthrise shot and two people in spacesuits exchanging overblown, theatrical, space related, dialogue concerning spaceflight in the grand scheme of things...
I digress, PM coming your way Chuck. This thread is for legislature after all.

[HappyMartian]

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.

Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

Jim, the practical political need that was the basis of the international sausage subsidy deal that created the Atlas RD-180 EELV is no longer valid. SpaceX has figured that out. The Falcon 9, or some variant of it, is likely to end up being a better deal on the political level and several other levels as well. Don't add stress to the position of the Atlas V by claiming it can do everything better. It cannot. America needs the SSME SLS a lot more than it needs the RD-180 Atlas V.

Cheers!

[Jim]

If the President ever gets tired of sitting on his hands and wants to make a serious contribution to getting us back to the Moon, he could hire OV-106, Clongton, or Ross to work in the White House and explain to him and the nation how to do Lunar space Exploration in a cost efficient and practical manner.

Wrong,  Direct/SLS is not a cost efficient and practical manner.  It is a political manner.  And who says they are the experts in this. EELV can do it too.   And what say we should go back to the moon?
 

Jim, the practical political need that was the basis of the international sausage subsidy deal that created the Atlas RD-180 EELV is no longer valid. SpaceX has figured that out. The Falcon 9, or some variant of it, is likely to end up being a better deal on the political level and several other levels as well. Don't add stress to the position of the Atlas V by claiming it can do everything better. It cannot. America needs the SSME SLS a lot more than it needs the RD-180 Atlas V.

Cheers!

Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

[kraisee]

Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

True.

Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.

In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.

They're doing something right.

Ross.

[HappyMartian]

Wrong again.  F9 is not a replacement for Atlas V.   There is no need for the SSME.   And Atlas V CAN do everything better.  That is why NASA has selected it for 6 spacecraft since F9 has been available

True.

Interestingly though, during the same period of time, NASA also bought 12 flights of Falcon-9 for CRS, in addition to the 3 test flights which were already planned for COTS.

In terms of numbers of contracted missions for NASA, Falcon-9 seems to be doing about twice as much business compared to Atlas-V.

They're doing something right.

Ross.

It is good to have 'friends' in high places. Maybe you should explain it to Jim. He doesn't seem to be getting it.

.......

Look, it's quite simple. Prove to me that Congress & NASA can manage a space station with full support, and I could then begin to believe it could handle a lunar base. But as it stands now, ISS is on shaky ground (?) and it has no right to be.

A lunar base, or a trip to Venus, or a landing on Mars, are infinitely more costly & complex than simple cargo re-supply, or crew rotation, or logistics support. We nail those down in a cost effective & timely manner, let me know.

Congress needs to wake up to that fact. NASA does too, because right now the language is (to me) wavering on its intent due to outside influences (in a negative way).

"But as it stands now, ISS is on shaky ground (?) and it has no right to be." You are absolutely correct. The reason is that both the current and previous President had more fun and important things to do, like raising political campaign contributions, than doing a quality job of making sure that NASA was planning well for the long-term future of the International Space Station. Presidents are supposed to wisely lead in setting America and NASA's national space priorities. It aint happening folks. Political spinners of both parties are using their White House days for their own silly gains and games. Congress is trying, but it too can get diverted or waylaid by both parochial and moneyed interests. 

NASA's number 1 priority should be to get an Orion flying to the international Space Station on a J-130. Congress seems to be showing strong bipartisan support for that goal. An Orion flying on a J-130 is quickly doable, but the current President isn't happy about that idea because he seems to be quite enamored with the SpaceX's Dragon, and the longer he can drag out the development of the Orion spacecraft and J-130, the better it is for the chances of his 'friends' at SpaceX getting a crewed Dragon to the ISS first. From the day he took office, the current President has provided zip effective leadership in NASA's ability to get astronauts to the International Space Station on an American Orion spacecraft. The President's heavy foot dragging with both the Orion and SLS is becoming an embarrassment to members of his own party.

Look on the bright side. Things could be much worse. The game goes on. Pray for the Soyuz missions and remaining flights of the Space Shuttles. Pray for the Orion and J-130/246 SLS. Yep, it is fine if you pray for SpaceX and Dragon too!

Cheers!     

Edited.