NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:24 pm

Title: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:24 pm
2:30 p.m. - Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on Science and Space Hearing regarding NASA’s FY 2011 Budget Request - HQ (Public Channel)

www.nasa.gov/ntv

Only post if it's relevant to the hearing and the comments made in the hearing. Any "OMG, why won't they just do Direct" or "Commercial is the savior of all things Human Space Flight" comments will be deleted and the poster will lose their posting privilages.

This is a very important segment of the hearing coming up. Let's concentrate on it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 06:26 pm
Direct Webcast Link

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010

Main Page

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 06:28 pm
FWIW, regarding Senator Hutchison, I should have looked at the subcommittee's website -- it doesn't reflect her interest necessarily, but she is not a member of this subcommittee and so won't be appearing at this hearing.  (She is the ranking member of the full Commerce, Science, and Transportation committee.)
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=ScienceandSpace
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:30 pm
Witness Panel 1

The Honorable Charles F. Bolden Jr.
Administrator National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Witness Panel 2
Mr. Robert “Hoot” Gibson Astronaut (Ret.)

Mr. Michael J. Snyder Aerospace Engineer

Mr. Miles O’Brien Journalist and Host

Mr. A. Thomas Young Lockheed Martin Corporation (Ret.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: bad_astra on 02/24/2010 06:35 pm
Is the feed working? Mine is still stalled.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 06:37 pm
Is the feed working? Mine is still stalled.
Hasn't started yet; I assume they're keeping the graphic up until then.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 06:37 pm
The direct link is working.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:37 pm
It's still on the title page - found it was freezing in VLC, but works good on this link:

http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1369081
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:38 pm
And we're live. Lots of empty seats :( If anyone can take screenshots?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 06:41 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:45 pm
Sen Nelson with opening comments.

"If you wanted to have a robust space program, you would need a significant increase in funding.

"They gave six billion dollars over five years - which is no small matter - but only half what Augustine was reccomending.

"There's only one person who can lead the space program and that's the president - who I know to be a space plan. He needed to make that declaration of support. What happened was the NASA budget - which has a lot of forward thinking and cutting edge stuff in this budget - was rolled out as part of the regular budget process and was misinterpretated and a false impressions.

"Other parts have been completely overlooked. A lot is good from this Senator's perspective. The extension of the ISS to at least to 2020 was an obvious one, but previous funding was for 2015.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:46 pm
"Here's the problem. Because the president did not make the declaration himself, and with the declaration that CxP was going to be terminated, and with the angst that is already out there with the NASA family because of the layoffs - based on a new rocket not being ready to replace shuttle - it gave the message the president is killing the space program.

"We've got to straigthen out the perception. If we disagree with the substance, we have to change it. The president proposes, congress disposes. So we're going to start the process of understanding the NASA budget. THis is just a first step to clear up the perception, so the clear declaration is there and the American people understand it.

"We need to clearly state what the goal is. We need to arrange the benchmarks to go to Mars. We should dev the tech to go to Mars, and not the other way around.

"You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, or you're not going to get there."
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 06:50 pm
Nelson basically says "I support the new budget, but it needs a better defined goal and development of an HLV."

He also supports the development of a new kerolox engine.

Supports commercial, but wants both established and entrepreneurial companies to compete. Says the transition to commercial should not compromise astronaut safety.

Tells the commercial operators not to forget the talented workforce that may be out of a job.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:51 pm
"This budget doesn't hold up the second half of the bargin (LEO, Asteriods, Mars). This senator fears the US will be left on the sidelines without a HLV.

"I hope we're going to get a bold statement and vision for our space program - that is Mars, a declaration that supports HSF beyond LEO and then we can dev the tech for that destination.

"The NASA admin - working with Congress - should make the technical decision, to allow us to assist NASA by appropiating that decision. We need the continued testing of a booster for a tech testbed. A robust HLV program and the continues dev of the spacecraft for beyond LEO - in consert with the other positive items in the budget.

(Likes Aerocapture, On Orbit deports, advanced propulsion) - "the effort should focus on technologies on getting off the pad safer.

Notes there's only a small amount of monies for HLV. Wants Bolden to explain.

"If you recall the giant Saturn V, you will remember those massive F1 engines. We've not had an engine of that capability in nearly four decades. It's time to dev a new hydrocarbon engine that can power future vehicles.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:54 pm
Supports commercial to LEO, but have three concerned.

1) All the eggs in one basket. Wants multiple competitors from establed and SpaceX type companies. When problems arise, we will have some solid winners.

2) Shift to commercial should not be at the expense of astro safety - big issue with the Senators. Should be held to government standards for safety - HR standards they must adhere to.

3) We must do right by the men and woman that made this space agency great. We're in transition and a great deal of angst. We're going to lose experience and skills. If commercial get billions they must remember their responsibilities. I'm putting you on notice about this incredible workforce.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 06:56 pm
This budget retires the shuttle, a decision made previously - the massive loss of jobs is added to by the loss of CxP.

HLV and deep space vehicles will put the workforce to greater use during this transition.

Today we start a critical examination of this budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 06:58 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 06:58 pm
Vitter believes the budget means the end of HSF in the US.

Says the commercial providers aren't going to be ready with LEO access soon enough.

"This new budget is a budget without a mission" - dissatisfied with the lack of a defined goal.

The budget expands the gap more than Constellation. "...grows the gap to infinity. We just fall off a cliff"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:00 pm
Sen Vitter:

"I'm just sorry that we are not going to hear from the true architects of this plan, specifically Ms Garver. Want to question them directly.

Will strongly oppose Garver ever becoming NASA admin?

"This budget would end our Human Space Flight program for ever. It cancells all major existing space flight programs. Ends shuttle and ends CxP. Replaces it with a hope and a prayer the commercial providers will pick up the slow. Do not expect that will happen on a reasonable timeline. This plan bares no relation to anything in the Augustine Commission.

"I believe this budget is without a mission. Our greatest accomplishments were gained by JFK's (moon speech). He didn't say we're going to do some cool R&D, he said we're going to the moon.

"You don't accomplish great things without a clearly defined mission."

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:00 pm
No, he calls the untargeted R&D effort to make game changing technologies "little more than a hope and a prayer"

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:02 pm
Vitter said "radical" several times: radical program, "radical departure".
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:02 pm
"What does this do to the gap?

"Do not believe commercial will beat the CxP timeline, it increases the gap. It grows the gap to infinity, we just fall of a cliff.

"The workforce has been very patient to wait for next generation and the gap. They got it, but the message they got is their gap didn't just expand, it expands to infinity. I want to offer a completely different message. I will fight to end this budget and change it. I believe there is great bi-partisan support for that.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:03 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:03 pm
Nelson introducing Bolden.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 07:04 pm
Sen Vitter:

"I'm just sorry that we are not going to hear from the true architects of this plan, specifically Ms Garver. Want to question them directly.

Will strongly oppose Garver ever becoming NASA admin?
While not necessarily surprising, that was pretty harsh for a hearing like this.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:04 pm
Senator Nelson praising Bolden's career.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:04 pm
Bolden making opening statement.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:05 pm
Extends the ISS to 2020, how is that canceling all human spaceflight, Mr. Vitter?

BTW, Senator Nelson really strikes me as a class act. I like his style of buttering you up before he lays down his concerns. Much nobler.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:06 pm
Bolden begins (defends Garver).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 07:06 pm
Bolden apologizes, because the details about the budget aren't finalized. The plan seeks to make the right investments in technology to enable a realistic path to Mars.

Funding R&D will foster next generation spaceflight and enable the commercial sector to develop the LEO market.

The US will pursue a more sustainable path

Gives thanks to the contractors who worked on Constellation

Talks about in orbit prop transfer, inflatable modules, robotic precocious, developing commercial crew and cargo delivery, climate change observation etc.

"When we take on Mars it's a radically different set of challenges."
Paraphrasing: I can't provide a date for the first landing because we lack the technology presently in our kit.

Not going to develop HLV at this time. Falcon 9 and other commercial rockets will do for the future technology demonstrators.

Nelson proposes not shutting down the Constellation program so they can use the 2 billion $ for HLV development. Nelson called Ares I "rocket X" (LOL)

Bolden said he'd like to R&D a HLV soon, but it can't fit in the budget.

Vitter wants to know who was the original mind behind the new budget (he's really insistent and thinks it's Lori Carver)

Bolden tries to dodge the accusation and says that there were more people involved.
Regarding Carvers' role - (paraphrasing): "Lori provides me with insight into the private sector"

Bolden: it doesn't matter if it's a private spaceship that gets people to LEO "No one will know how an astronaut got to ISS in the future. No one will care".

Taking about how kids become astronauts right now.

Bolden: "The new budget is not a departure from the VSE"

Vitter disagrees - "A vision without resources is a hallucination and that's what I think this budget represents". What are you going to tell the NASA family about canceling NASAs' budget and stretching the gap to infinity?

Bolden: I'll do everything in my power so we can achieve our goals. We'll get to the Moon and Mars much quicker. I'd like to develop a space technology that will enable us to go to Mars in days, because we don't know how radiation will affect the crew.

Vitter believes the previous budget was inadequate, but thinks the new one is a step back.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:08 pm
Backs up his deputy Ms Garver, saying it was unfair.

Understands the justification documents haven't arrived in a timely manner. Still working on them.

Notes tech dev. Reckon's it will inspire children, like he was by Buck Rogers.

"NASA's bold new direction". "Sustained private sector job creation"

Goodness me, this is full of soundbytes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:09 pm
from NASA:
http://twitter.com/NASA/status/9590458195
NASA's new budget will make the agency "an engine of innovation," Administrator Bolden. See his testimony online at http://bit.ly/cgj4AR
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:10 pm
This is a very close re-write of his budget statement.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:13 pm
Sir, you've made some news. Yup, going to Mars is kinda radical.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:13 pm
Questions!

"You stated the destination is Mars. Do you have the approval of your superiors?" Sen Nelson.

Bolden pretty much says yes.

"The moon is a few days away. Mars is radically different. I can not give you a JFK type speech from Obama, because I can't give a date when we have technologies outstanding (paraphrased). Hope it would be quicker than it would have been before.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:14 pm
Bolden: Mars is the destination, will be the focus of reference design missions.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:15 pm
"technology demonstrators" repeated over and over. [Bolden saying he doesn't need heavy lift to get these to LEO, waste of taxpayer money, mentioned different vehicles to get to LEO]
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 07:17 pm
Did Bolden just say that when he visited SpaceX they said they were working on a pusher-style escape system? Hmm...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:17 pm
The president has decided to dev those technologies to achieve Mars. The difference between tech and HLV - I can use any vehicle to get anything to LEO. I don't need a HLV, nor would I want to use a HLV to put a prop storage in orbit. I can use a Falcon, a Taurus a Delta to get me there.

Need to spend more on tech than the HLV. There will come a time where I ask some money for HLV.

Sen Nelson: I've found you some money. We've spent 9 billion on CxP and another 2.5 billion to shut it down. If we don't shut it down, how can we spend the 2.5 billion?

Bolden: We're looking at what CxP elements we can maintain. CxP TPS study will go to SpaceX. SpaceX intend to use a pusher system LAS. Asked about MLAS - they didn't know about it, so I encouraged them to look at MLAS and talk to LaRC. (MLAS on Falcon 9!?!)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Stephan on 02/24/2010 07:17 pm
Did he say pusher LAS for Falcon 9 ?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:19 pm
Any testing I can do on a new HLV would be fantastic - Bolden.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:20 pm
Space-X won't touch MLAS.   Three or four times the cost of what they can develop in-house.

I would actually be quite be shocked if they even talked seriously to Blue Origin about using their LAS system.

Space-X want the tech done in-house wherever possible -- that's how they plan to make more money.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:20 pm
Vitter: Who was the prime originator of the this radical plan?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:20 pm
Vitter agrees w/ Nelson, you're a great fellow, but wants to know who wrote this radical budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:22 pm
Sen Vitter on Garver :o Who was the prime architect of this plan? I don't think it was you.

"If you're looking at someone to blame, I represent the inputs we made the budget" - Bolden.

Sen Vitter is going after him big time on Garver.

"I'm not refuting anything (Garver being the main architect). She is not an enemy of HSF or NASA We come from different backgrounds. Lori is tremendous about insights I don't have about commercial space."

Sen Vitter "are you refuting what I think about Garver's input."

Bolden does well to back her up.

Whoa, that got tasty!

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:22 pm
Bolden reminds Vitter he told him about two radical groups -- he strives for the middle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:24 pm
Senator Vitter is pulling no punches. This is real strong.

Bolden's talking about inspired kids too much. "It doesn't make any difference on how astros get into orbit."

"I want redundant, reliable access to space. If get there there on a (lists all the vehicles) - it's important we have an American made capability to get astros to the ISS and make it possible to go to Mars."
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:24 pm
Bolden reminds Vitter he told him about two radical groups -- he strives for the middle.

Great screenshots ;D
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:26 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Seems to intimate NASA doesn't need pilots, they want scientists.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:26 pm
Vitter's 7th graders want to go to Mars. [Anything else is so last week].
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/24/2010 07:26 pm
Whoa, that got tasty!

Yep, it looks like it is going to be a fight.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 07:26 pm
Bolden reminds Vitter he told him about two radical groups -- he strives for the middle.

Cx and Commercial and each group tells you not to listen to the other.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: KSC Sage on 02/24/2010 07:27 pm
Senator Vitter is pulling no punches. This is real strong.

All Senator Vitter cares about is his rockets.  He is clueless!

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:27 pm
No radical departure from Vision for Space Exploration?

Jeez, what would he call 'radical' then?

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 07:27 pm
Whoa, that got tasty!

Yep, it looks like it is going to be a fight.

As some of us predicted.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 07:27 pm
Sen. Vitter:  Resources without vision is a waste of time and money.

!!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:28 pm
Show us a page in the Augustine report that mirrors the budget - Vitter.

Bolden disagrees that it's a radical departure. What is different is it funds that vision.

We had a vision for going to the Moon and Mars, but didn't have the funds to do it. We now have the assets.

Vitter disagrees. "Resources without vision is a waste of money, this is what the budget represents."
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:29 pm
Bolden says that the previous vision couldn't happen without more budget, which it didn't get.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:29 pm
Bolden admits he doesn't know how the workforce feel. Starts crying.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:30 pm
"Vision without resources is an hallucination".

"Resources without a vision is a waste of money".

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:31 pm
Bolden: PoR would've ended the ISS in 2015 and Ares would've had nowhere to go.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:31 pm
(Did Bolden get emotional here?) My kids are 38/39 (?) so I don't know what it feels like with a 15-year-old who wants to be an engineer... just recently spoke to young woman at JSC who said -- "I don't want a JOB".
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:32 pm
"I don't think we would have ever gotten there with Constellation. But I don't think Constellation was a bad program. We are going to go back to the moon and get to Mars before the POR timeline.

"If we developed Ares, it would have had no where to go."

"Extending ISS to 2020, it gives us hope that we will fill the gap on some technologies to go to Mars. If you gave me unlimited money we could still not get to Mars within the next 10 years.

"I want to dev a technology that gets us to Mars in days. At least half the time it would take now."
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:32 pm
Vitter: Doesn't support the PoR WITH the old budget together... Acknowledges it wasn't adequate budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 07:33 pm
Whoa, that got tasty!

Yep, it looks like it is going to be a fight.

As some of us predicted.

Yep. I was among them.
Bolden is losing ground that is for sure.
Obama himself does not seem to have his back on this either.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:34 pm
Nelson: Calling Obama to come out and lead with the new goal of Mars that Bolden just mentioned.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:34 pm
Vitter, I believe this budget is a step backwards.

Nelson asking questions now. Notes he had a private conversation with him over the architect of the budget. OMB is running the space program.

The president needs to step out and take control. If you leave Mars to OMB, it's going to be a long time coming. If you have a presidential decision, and he turns to his marine general, and says make it happen, then we can start popping.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:34 pm
hmm. Nelson wants Obama to give the "order" for Mars.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 07:35 pm
Vitter - "This budget has some significant amount of money, but it's accompanied by radical change in vision and approach"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:35 pm
Sen Vitter: There's new money, but a dramatic change of vision, which does not suggest OMB counting beans.

Sen Nelson: Since there is new money here, we can "perfect"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 07:35 pm
Vitter, I believe this budget is a step backwards.

Nelson asking questions now. Notes he had a private conversation with him over the architect of the budget. OMB is running the space program.

The president needs to step out and take control. If you leave Mars to OMB, it's going to be a long time coming. If you have a presidential decision, and he turns to his marine general, and says make it happen, then we can start popping.
Good call, Nelson.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:37 pm
Senator LeMieux, junior Senator from Florida.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 07:37 pm
LeMieux: "Without a goal next year the situation will be worse."

LeMieux: Again asking who made the decision to cancel Constellation.

Bolden: dodging bullets - (paraphrasing) "I don't know what the input was from the others that were involved"

Bolden: We need to determine the steps that eventually get us to Mars and any other destination. Also talks about defending against possible asteroid impacts on Earth.

LeMieux: Where are we going and when will we get there?

Bolden: We'll develop a plan in a few months. We need more time since the budget was formed only a couple of months ago.

LeMieux: "Plans go along with funding" i.e. we need a goal

Bolden talking about a robot capable of doing missions like the Hubble repair mission (i.e. comparable capability to a human)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 07:38 pm
Bolden: Steps to go to Mars are complex and complicated.

No! Really?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:38 pm
Another Senator, can't see the name.

Isn't happy with the plan either. No goal, cancelling the programs that take us there. Without a goal, the situation will be even worse next year. We're certainly going to look more at this budget.

It's not a question of money, it's a question of priorities.

We have to have a goal to remain the leader in spaceflight. I have great concern in getting there someday (no goal).

Who made the call to cancel CxP?

Bolden: Not at liberty to discuss predecisional information.

What it unanimous?

Bolden: Not at liberty to discuss.

Interesting!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 07:40 pm
The implication is that it was dropped on his lap by Presidential Advisors.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:43 pm
Aren't these guys NASA's oversight?

Why aren't they permitted to know?

*THAT* answer might bite him in his butt if he isn't careful.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 07:43 pm

He's protecting someone.

Why?

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:44 pm
Another Senator, can't see the name.

Senator LeMieux, FL
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:44 pm
Bolden repeats saving some parts of CxP, not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Mars is the ultimate destination.

Q) Are we going to the moon first?

Bolden: We will at some point. (Doesn't seem positive about it). But this is one person's thinking.

Q) But you're the admin?

Bolden: Yes but there's a lot of work to be done by the team. Goes on to asteriods and their threats. Part of my job is defence of the planet, from things, not from people. We need to study asteriods.

One of the earlier human missions would be to go to an asteriod. How would we get there, we don't know yet?

Q) When will you have a plan?

Bolden: Over the coming months. Two weeks after the budget rollout, I'm not capable of a complete plan on something as important as getting into deep solar system.

Q) Plans and money go together. Funding (six billion) without a plan concerns me.

Bolden: Let me use CxP as an example. CxP at the time I came into the office was a lunar-centric program. We kinda drifted to the moon via a lack of a Mars plan. There was nothing there as there wasn't any funding for landers etc.

I'm not sure we need habitats on the lunar surface. I would never send a human into space when I'm confident a robot could do it.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:45 pm
This sounds more and more like a plan which hasn't had any real thinking behind it yet.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:45 pm
Talks about STS-125, how it had to be a human mission. If it was today, we could do it with robots. Cites R2 robot (General Motors).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:46 pm
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Capt. Nemo on 02/24/2010 07:47 pm
1 - I think Bolden is a terrible communicator.
2 - Lori Garver probably did write the budget.
3 - The Augustine commission was apparently just a stalling tactic so the Democrats could cancel CXP.
4 - I'm dismayed by his statement that he doesn't need a heavy lift launch vehicle.
 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 07:47 pm
"Vision without resources is an hallucination".

"Resources without a vision is a waste of money".

Ross.

... and everyone wonders why we are going in circles?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: briguy700 on 02/24/2010 07:48 pm
I'd like to throw Bolden and Garver out with the bathwater......
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:49 pm
LeMieux: When JFK challenges us to go to the moon, we didn't have the technology either, but we had a plan.

How are we going to get to the ISS?

Bolden: Soyuz for the next three years. Seems to praise Soyuz.

LeMieux: What about extending shuttle?

Bolden: That is not something I'd reccomend. Funding. It costs 2.something billion a year for shuttle. I would like to get out of that. Potentially recertifying, starting up production lines (FFS, check your own documentation!)

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 07:50 pm
Hrm, I'm not so sure what I think about Bolden's discussion of, um, strongly suggesting, that commercial companies have employees in certain states.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:51 pm
On jobs: Bolden: Will hold commercial companies feet to the fire. I will hold them responsible. But I can't make them do anything, but I can encourage them (heh, good luck with that).

Testimony over. Second panel time.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 07:52 pm
After weeks of frustration and disappointment at this "plan", I feel better that these hard questions are finally being asked!

It's becoming obvious there isn't much plan and as a former insider told me recently... " Who ever came up with it has zero experience with project management."

It sure is looking like Garver isn't it?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:52 pm
Nelson reminds LeMieux: Space is a bipartisanship issue.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:53 pm
Super impressed with Senator Vitter so far. Senator Nelson's always a good communicator, but Vitter has fight.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 07:53 pm
Nelson - emphasis again that the budget will be perfected.

I believe that is the key point here, there will be some shifts.

Personal comment: Bolden stood up really well to the (in my opinion absolutely unsubstantiated) criticism by Vitter, very good answers and explanation on everything, also on the problems with Shuttle extension and Cx in general.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/24/2010 07:53 pm
Isn't NASA an executive branch agency?  Revealing pre-decisional processes and discussions isn't going to happen.


He's protecting someone.

Why?


Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:54 pm
Charlie says we'll get it right & 2nd panel up to bat.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 07:54 pm
Super impressed with Senator Vitter so far. Senator Nelson's always a good communicator, but Vitter has fight.

Agreed.

No matter where you are on this issue, Vitter is asking the hard questions the taxpayers deserve.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:55 pm
Smackdown time coming folks :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/24/2010 07:56 pm
His suggestion HSF was being terminated made it clear to me he has no idea what he's talking about. 

Super impressed with Senator Vitter so far. Senator Nelson's always a good communicator, but Vitter has fight.

Agreed.

No matter where you are on this issue, Vitter is asking the hard questions the taxpayers deserve.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/24/2010 07:58 pm
Sen. Nelson seems to be happy.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 07:58 pm
No matter where you are on this issue, Vitter is asking the hard questions the taxpayers deserve.

Nelson isn't.

I'm not happy with Nelson so far.   He's walking a tight-rope between supporting his party leadership (Obama) vs. fighting for workforce in his district.

Problem is that it is the electorship who put him in his job and he needs to fight harder for them.   His junior Senate colleague, George LeMieux, is doing a much, much better job of representing the Florida workforce right now.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 07:58 pm
Sen Nelson introducing the second panel.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 07:58 pm
Getting beyond the "just jobs program" and "pretend moon' mentalities here.

He forced the situation that we don't have what it takes for Mars yet.

He's right.

Go Bolden!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/24/2010 07:59 pm
1 - I think Bolden is a terrible communicator.
2 - Lori Garver probably did write the budget.
3 - The Augustine commission was apparently just a stalling tactic so the Democrats could cancel CXP.
4 - I'm dismayed by his statement that he doesn't need a heavy lift launch vehicle.

I thought Bolden did a very good job. He had a tough message to deliver and did a good delivering it despite being grilled by a number of Senators.

Bolden said that the didn't heavy lift for testing propellant depots. He didn't say that he didn't need heavy lift.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 07:59 pm
Nelson introducing panel.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:00 pm
Hoot on first.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:01 pm
His suggestion HSF was being terminated made it clear to me he has no idea what he's talking about. 

I LOLed at that. For Vitter, the ISS isn't HSF...

Now to the panel - Mr. Gibson first to address the committee. Asked to talk about Cx cancellation and reliance on commerical spacecraft, testing "Rocket X" and safety.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:01 pm
Robert Lee "Hoot" Gibson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_L._Gibson
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/24/2010 08:01 pm
Super impressed with Senator Vitter so far. Senator Nelson's always a good communicator, but Vitter has fight.
Would that he had fought for constellation's budget from the beginning.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 08:01 pm
No matter where you are on this issue, Vitter is asking the hard questions the taxpayers deserve.

Nelson isn't.

I'm not happy with Nelson so far.   He's walking a tight-rope between supporting his party leadership (Obama) vs. fighting for workforce in his district.

Problem is that it is the electorship who put him in his job and he needs to fight harder for them.   His junior Senate colleague, George LeMieux, is doing a much, much better job of representing the Florida workforce right now.

Ross.

Of note:

George LeMieux is a placeholder for Crist or Rubio versus whoever the Democrats come up with. Maybe Crist versus Rubio if Crist changes parties.

The 2010 Florida Senate race could be a venue to fight this out, a venue that WILL receive attention from the Oval Office.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mjcrsmith on 02/24/2010 08:02 pm
Maybe this is naïve, but since taking the position, should not the Administrator have been working on a plan for NASA and getting the budget to implement that plan?

It seems that he has waited for a budget and now is going to develop the plan.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/24/2010 08:02 pm
I thought Nelson was quite good.  He's looking for specific concessions (more HLV money).  A stark contrast to Vitter, who proposes nothing but vague unease.   There is nothing constructive in his comments.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/24/2010 08:03 pm
No matter where you are on this issue, Vitter is asking the hard questions the taxpayers deserve.

Nelson isn't.

I'm not happy with Nelson so far.   He's walking a tight-rope between supporting his party leadership (Obama) vs. fighting for workforce in his district.

Problem is that it is the electorship who put him in his job and he needs to fight harder for them.   His junior Senate colleague, George LeMieux, is doing a much, much better job of representing the Florida workforce right now.

Ross,

I think it was you who pointed this out to me, but Nelson loss the Space Coast handily--it's a very strongly republican area.  The electorship that does care directly about keeping the Shuttle or Shuttle Derived vehicles going voted against Nelson for the most part.  Why do you expect he would expend political capital for people who voted against him?

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:03 pm
Gibson says NASA needs to define a goal (this really is what the discussion is about now) + he thinks an HLV is needed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 08:04 pm
Gibson is pushing for a Shuttle extension.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:05 pm
Hoot doesn't like the plan due to lack of goals, believes it could lead to a path that will result in no HSF program.

Cites the Augustine Committee on ultimate goals on exploration.

"NASA needs a destination and a goal. This becomes the flexible path, needs a HLV to achieve the goals.

Safety of astros a priority.

Cities shuttle's flight history, and how successful it is. We have flown 130 missions now. Compare that to the 31 launches that preceeded shuttle. It has been a great accomplishment.

Makes no sense to turn everything over to an unproven vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:05 pm
Says Shuttle has flown 130 times vs. 31 crewed flights before then all together. Wants Shuttle extension, is skeptical about commercial.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 08:05 pm
Regarding Bolden's responses, I thought it was nice how he mentioned how the new plan's goals aren't too dissimilar from those of the Vision for Space Exploration. I wish he could've actually listed out some of the VSE goals though to show just how in line they are with the new plans.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 08:07 pm
Maybe this is naïve, but since taking the position, should not the Administrator have been working on a plan for NASA and getting the budget to implement that plan?

It seems that he has waited for a budget and now is going to develop the plan.


The plan is only coming now because the architects of this strategy (not Bolden who was being converted to DIRECT as shown by the last MSFC studies) didn't think anyone would ask for one ! They just thought everyone would be dazzled by the sheer brilliance of it that everyone would just tell them fine, fantastic, off you go and have fun tinkering ... seriously, that's the kind of intellects we are dealing with here.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:07 pm
Regarding Bolden's responses, I thought it was nice how he mentioned how the new plan's goals aren't too dissimilar from those of the Vision for Space Exploration. I wish he could've actually listed out some of the VSE goals though to show just how in line they are with the new plans.

He should have said he could have avoided the whole discussion by just keep the dates (2020 date for Moon) and set a 2030 date for Mars. That would be dishonest, but hey, at least Congress and the public would be fine with it, no matter if the dates are realistic or not.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:08 pm
The term "Rocket-X" keeps coming up in the context of heavy lift.  Is this a code word for inline-SDLV?  (You know, the D word...)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/24/2010 08:09 pm

He should have said he could have avoided the whole discussion by just keep the dates (2020 date for Moon) and set a 2030 date for Mars. That would be dishonest, but hey, at least Congress and the public would be fine with it, no matter if the dates are realistic or not.
He'd have Vitter's support all day long on that one.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:09 pm
Gibson wants to continue developing "rocket X" as he said (Ares I probably) so they can eventually build a HLV (probably Ares V)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:09 pm
More than a third of NASA's professionals jobs are at threat of being lost. NASA should remain vitally involved.

Doesn't like the Russians being involved as a monopoly. They are new to capitalism, but they are not going to avoid it.

Wants Five seg SRB dev to continue, along with J-2X.

With the retirement of the shuttle and the current plan, we lose our leadership in space. We will have ceased exploration and many years of regaining of what we had.

I hope you can alter the course we are on.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:10 pm
Miles O'Brien
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_O%27Brien_%28journalist%29
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 08:11 pm
Miles: I'm now a freelance journalist, but worked for a number of years with a, um, large cable news network... lowercase.

;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:12 pm
O'Brien talks about media reaction, says many people even didn't know we were going to the Moon. Says Cx was uninspired.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:13 pm
Miles: Defends the new budget and says "Apollo on steroids" turned out to be a ninety pound weakling.

"Constellation was a dead man walking", " an attempt to capture the magic of the 60s", "Trying to recreate the past is not the path to follow"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:14 pm
O'Brien loves the new plan, but says the administration did a horrible job to communicate the message to the public. Says the reason was because the decision was made in the WH science department.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:14 pm
Heh, Miles opens with a joke about Hoot being his copilot cause he's sat next to him ;D

"We have a problem, there is an uproar about this budget".

"The headlines were NASA cancels its moon program. Most people didnt know we were going to the moon and to be honest we weren't. Apollo on steriods, but turned out to be a 90lbs weakline."

It's time for NASA to get off the barstool. There's a lot of optimism in the budget, I'd love it if we could do it all, I'd love to go to the moon. Change is never easy, but NASA is supposed to be all about change, but there's more to this, there's a failure to communicate. NASA did a horrible job with communicating.

Most people know CxP was a dead man walking.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:14 pm
OK Miles (professional communicator), I'll buy that: We have a failure of communication  --  failing to communicating the nuances of this program (which he thinks is good). But it's a perfect storm here.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Gene DiGennaro on 02/24/2010 08:15 pm
O'Brien loves the new plan, but says the administration did a horrible job to communicate the message to the public. Says the reason was because the decision was made in the WH science department.

A ha so it was Holdren...it figures.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/24/2010 08:15 pm
Well, I guess Miles O'Brien will have a tougher time getting Mike Griffin interviews. heh.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:16 pm
Mike Synder on. Go on Mike!!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:16 pm
Michael J. Snyder, Aerospace Engineer
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:17 pm
Today, I must inform you that morale across the entire space related workforce, civil servant and contractor, is at an all time low. The lowest I have seen it in all my years of service.

Perhaps the single biggest contributor to the low morale is lack of any vision, purpose or detailed plans with clearly defined goals, objectives and timetables for the future of human spaceflight.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: ugordan on 02/24/2010 08:17 pm
Well, I guess Miles O'Brien will have a tougher time getting Mike Griffin interviews. heh.

Such a horrible loss.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:17 pm
Snyder: "If you aim at nothing, you are certain to hit it".

Pushing for shuttle extension and mentioned that eventually they could build a SDHLV.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:18 pm
It would be easier to standdown shuttle if there was a follow on vehicle. We could pass on the torch, but right now it will be put out.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:20 pm
Irrelevant of where Mr. Snyder's comments ultimately go, he's making the best argument I've heard to date from any quarter.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:20 pm
We have choosen to rely on a foriegn nation to a station that has been funded by the US.

We are giving up the most capable vehicle to fly into LEO.

We can only accomplish the transition via the extension of the shuttle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:20 pm
Okay, SDLV.   Now he's on my Christmas list...

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:21 pm
Supports an Inline SDHLV. Natural synergies from shuttle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 08:21 pm
Mr. Snyder is making an excellent statement, imo...spot-on!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:21 pm
Doesn't wants his girls to grow up in a nation that has to look into history books to know what we accomplished in space.

"my real concern with the current proposal is that my girls will grow up in a country when they too have to look to the history books to see what this Nation used to be capable of achieving."

Awesome work!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:22 pm
A. Thomas Young
http://www.nndb.com/people/891/000170381/
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: STS Tony on 02/24/2010 08:22 pm
Mike S was awesome.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:23 pm
Mr Young talking about science things.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:24 pm
Mike Snyder for President!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:25 pm
Mr Young sounds like he likes the plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:25 pm
MR. Young: Budget fails the test of "an HSF program worthy of a great nation".

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:25 pm
Mike Snyder for President!

NASA Administrator will do :)

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:26 pm
Maybe not!

Mr Young: "A human space flight program worthy of this nation - Augustine." This plan does not achieve this.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:27 pm
Young: "Much can be accomplished in the proposed budget", the growth in aeronautics is positive and should be supported strongly. The lack of focus can result in wasteful activity. He's against the new programs' HSF plan because it lacks defined goals and he doesn't think commercial can handle the task ahead.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 08:27 pm
Doesn't wants his girls to grow up in a nation that has to look into history books to know what we accomplished in space.

"my real concern with the current proposal is that my girls will grow up in a country when they too have to look to the history books to see what this Nation used to be capable of achieving."

Awesome work!

AMEN!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:28 pm
Snyder mentioned passing the torch, Young the Olympics. Reminds me of the malfunction during Olympic cauldron lighting in Vancouver. [Meaning that I admire Nelson's leadership here: proposing vs. disposing, perfecting -- I think he's committed to keeping that "flame" going but recognizes technical & other challenges to avoid "malfunctions"]
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:29 pm
Questions.

Mr Nelson: You are an excellent panel. Will dig into commercial plans over the next few weeks at another hearing.

For Hoot - how will NASA certify safety on commercial crewed vehicles?

A) Should be aligned with the HR standard at NASA.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:29 pm
Gibson says HLV is a priority for going BEO and the most obvious path to him is to continue to develop the hardware from Ares I to build a HLV using said hardware.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:30 pm
Nelson asks about HLV - Mr. Gibson says HLV is a priority, references Augustine - says he wants the Cx program elements for HLV.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:31 pm
Well said Hoot.

$$$ for cancellation fees and unfocused R&D or $$$ for an actual working product.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:31 pm
Hoot: HLV is a priority. We need to branch out beyond LEO and that requires HLV. The obvious path is to leverage the 9 billion investment in CxP and use for HLV.

Otherwise end up with a price with nothing to show for it. We could end up with something (2.5 cancellation fee) if we use that.

Human rated Ares V or SDLV is what he wants (my assumption).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:32 pm
Gibson says 2.5 billion should be for some HLV  + capsule on top of it.

Comment: that of course doesn't work out, for 5 years HLV and Orion development we are at 20billion+.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:33 pm
Miles absolutely loves the Obama plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 08:33 pm
How's that rubber-stamping going ? ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 08:34 pm
Miles mentions the X-Prize and the enthusiasm it inspired, though it was only suborbital.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:34 pm
Take Us Along For The Ride!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 08:34 pm
Why isn't Miles O'Brien PAO?!? He's great.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:35 pm
Miles is Obama's spokesperson here.  He's really bought into the whole shebang.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:35 pm
How's that rubber-stamping going ? ;)

It progresses just as planned. Look at what Nelson says, that's going to happen - they will set a goal (Mars) and refine the plan. Nelson speaks for the majority in Congress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:35 pm
clb22,
That sort of money is only applicable to Ares cost profiles where you had to develop two wholly-new launch vehicles.

You can significantly cut those HLV development costs if you simply choose not to change the boosters, don't change the main engines and minimize the necessary changes to existing tankage.

You can cut even more of the costs if a government bureaucracy isn't directly in charge of the design efforts too.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 08:35 pm
Miles absolutely loves the Obama plan.

I wish I could refute his point in person! ;)  Big difference between bringing lots of people to orbit for a joyride, and doing real space exploration.  The former is not a replacement for the latter.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:35 pm
Miles advocates commercial space because it has the potential to allow more people to go to space. He says we should be launching 500 people a month. (he used that more as a metaphor)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:36 pm
O'Brien says the budget is all about change, says there are pitfalls but this is the first time he has seen NASA make investments to open up the space frontier.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marshallsplace on 02/24/2010 08:36 pm
Why isn't Miles O'Brien PAO?!? He's great.

Hey, you're right! - he talks fudge!  ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:37 pm
Sen. Nelson sure is pitching a bunch of softballs at Obrien.  Giving him a great deal of time to defend the budget without asking how it will all work.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:37 pm
Big difference between bringing lots of people to orbit for a joyride, and doing real space exploration. 

You put words in his mouth. He was not saying anything about joyride.

He just now says NASA should be at Mars, he says NASA should be enabling the technology to get to Mars. I fully agree, that's exactly what should happen right now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:37 pm
Even at the best-case low-point of $3,000 per kg to LEO, even Space-X are not going to be launching you or me to LEO any time soon, Miles.

You're smoking something a little too strong if you think anyone is going to get costs significantly lower than current Russian levels.

And I ain't got $20m in my back pocket to pay for a flight with them.   But perhaps your oft-mentioned webcasts will earn you enough to do it if you plug them often enough...

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 08:37 pm
Miles advocates commercial space because it has the potential to allow more people to go to space. He says we should be launching 500 people a month.

Can Miles O'Brien explain how this new plan will accomplish that?

1.  Adopt new plan

2.  ? ? ? ? ?

3.  500 people per month in orbit.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 08:38 pm
Miles is Obama's spokesperson here.  He's really bought into the whole shebang.

Disappointing, I thought he was more of a free thinker.
I'll say he was a good journalist, because I didn't expect him to
be such a huge Obama plan hugger.

Though if you hug it much it will fall apart.

He won't carry much weight compared to the others.


Did he annouce the results of his online poll?

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:38 pm
clb22,
That sort of money is only applicable to Ares cost profiles where you had to develop two wholly-new launch vehicles.

5 years of Orion was planned to be 10bn. I assumed a pretty moderate low cost development and operations budget for an HLV at another 10bn over 5 years. I think you can agree with me that this is a reasonable (while low) budget for an HLV over 5 years.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:39 pm
Miles absolutely loves the Obama plan.

I wish I could refute his point in person! ;)  Big difference between bringing lots of people to orbit for a joyride, and doing real space exploration.  The former is not a replacement for the latter.

I think that's the disconnect: for some it's a "joyride" & for others it's "space exploration". We need to realize that going to space is a human desire, however expressed. However, political, financial & other considerations limit that desire.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:40 pm
Miles advocates commercial space because it has the potential to allow more people to go to space. He says we should be launching 500 people a month.

Can Miles O'Brien explain how this new plan will accomplish that?

1.  Adopt new plan

2.  ? ? ? ? ?

3.  500 people per month in orbit.


I think it was a metaphor.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:40 pm
Mike being asked about workforce. Tough question for an engineer!

"Notes about how they change contracts. Many of the workforce will have to go to other companies, to do what they need to do to support their familes.

Would people want to jump ship back to NASA? I don't think so, they have a feeling that they were burned, that NASA is unstable. A net loss of experience."

But he dealt with it!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:40 pm
Snyder talking about the net loss of talent.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/24/2010 08:41 pm
5 years of Orion was planned to be 10bn. I assumed a pretty moderate low cost development and operations budget for an HLV at another 10bn over 5 years. I think you can agree with me that this is a reasonable (while low) budget for an HLV over 5 years.

NASA derived, including Orion, yes, I'll agree.

Commercially derived identical system can be done cheaper still.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:42 pm
Nelson talks about workforce. He hopes that in the workforce transition a specific plan is put in place so that the hard hit areas of Cx cancellation and Shuttle would have a softer landing.

Nelson seems very confident that Cx will be cancelled and Shuttle retired on plan this year.

Emphasis by Nelson again to a HLV program. I think that's what he will aim at, get the 3.1bn HLV R&D line-item into a full-blown HLV development program.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 08:42 pm
Miles absolutely loves the Obama plan.

I wish I could refute his point in person! ;)  Big difference between bringing lots of people to orbit for a joyride, and doing real space exploration.  The former is not a replacement for the latter.

I think that's the disconnect: for some it's a "joyride" & for others it's "space exploration". We need to realize that going to space is a human desire, however expressed. However, political, financial & other considerations limit that desire.

I fully support relaxing ITAR to help folks build LEO hotels to give Miles O'Brien a chance to experience space. NASA can and should encourage a private LEO taxi service to private LEO destinations.

However I am far less persuaded that NASA's primary mission should be to facilitate LEO tourism on the taxpayer's dime.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marshallsplace on 02/24/2010 08:43 pm
Mike Snyder is telling as it is.

Once job positions go, the workers go - they don't have any luxury to wait for any job that may happen in an un-guaranteed future.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:43 pm
Snyder: The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we've ever had.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:43 pm
5 years of Orion was planned to be 10bn. I assumed a pretty moderate low cost development and operations budget for an HLV at another 10bn over 5 years. I think you can agree with me that this is a reasonable (while low) budget for an HLV over 5 years.

NASA derived, yes, I'll agree.

Commercially derived identical system can be done cheaper still.

Ross.

Agreed, they can be done cheaper, but I believe Mr. Gibson wasn't talking about that, he was talking about continuing Cx as it worked in the past with some sort of SD-HLV which he calls Rocket X as well as continue work on Orion.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 08:43 pm
Even at the best-case low-point of $3,000 per kg to LEO, even Space-X are not going to be launching you or me to LEO any time soon, Miles.

Musk has actually stated on a number of occasions that the goal of "$500 per pound ($1100/kg) or less is very achievable." And of course, going by the comments of many in this forum, goals are all-important.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:45 pm
Question about CxP, brilliantly turned around to be about shuttle by Mike:

"Even if we continued the POR, we are still looking at a significant mistake of shuting down the shuttle before we need to.

"We need redundant access, as soon as we stand down the fleet, we turn over to a monopoly with the Russians.

"The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we have, I challenge anyone who says it's unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do to keep the fleet safe, day in day out.

"For the sake of the ISS, all that money we have spent, we can't just walk away from it. If you look at the ISS during RTF, we went to two crew, mainly maintainence. Today that station has five or six onboad. The HTV ATVs are in support of shuttle. If we take shuttle out of the loop, I don't know how everything is going to be fine.

"It does not make sense to retire shuttle, especially before commercial is online."

Amazing, want to get all of that comment on quote, was brilliant, the above is just some soundbytes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 08:47 pm
Miles absolutely loves the Obama plan.

I wish I could refute his point in person! ;)  Big difference between bringing lots of people to orbit for a joyride, and doing real space exploration.  The former is not a replacement for the latter.

I think that's the disconnect: for some it's a "joyride" & for others it's "space exploration". We need to realize that going to space is a human desire, however expressed. However, political, financial & other considerations limit that desire.

I fully support relaxing ITAR to help folks build LEO hotels to give Miles O'Brien a chance to experience space. NASA can and should encourage a private LEO taxi service to private LEO destinations.

However I am far less persuaded that NASA's primary mission should be to facilitate LEO tourism on the taxpayer's dime.

I agree. But if you want a vision where is it anchored? Nelson began today with: "No wind is a good wind if you don't know where the harbor is." What role does the public play in NASA's primary mission? Miles says take us along for the ride, which can be achieved in different ways.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marshallsplace on 02/24/2010 08:48 pm
Question about CxP, brilliantly turned around to be about shuttle by Mike:

"Even if we continued the POR, we are still looking at a significant mistake of shuting down the shuttle before we need to.

"We need redundant access, as soon as we stand down the fleet, we turn over to a monopoly with the Russians.

"The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we have, I challenge anyone who says it's unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do to keep the fleet safe, day in day out.

"For the sake of the ISS, all that money we have spent, we can't just walk away from it. If you look at the ISS during RTF, we went to two crew, mainly maintainence. Today that station has five or six onboad. The HTV ATVs are in support of shuttle. If we take shuttle out of the loop, I don't know how everything is going to be fine.

"It does not make sense to retire shuttle, especially before commercial is online."

Amazing, want to get all of that comment on quote, was brilliant, the above is just some soundbytes.

Totally agree with all the above.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:49 pm
Hearing closing. Wow, that did not disapoint.

Thought everyone did well. Bolden was right to defend Lori, and seemed a lot better when not reading off a statement (which is better than the other way around).

The Senators were good, Vitter was best.

Hoot was solid and a rockstar astro as he is. Miles kept to his side of the fence, as he had to, suprised he was so supportive of Obama's plan, but that's his call.

Mike was frakking outstanding!!

Sorry for spelling mistakes. Live transcribing does that to you ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/24/2010 08:49 pm
Gibson and Snyder were the stars of the show.  Young was also good because even though he was science-centered, he stated that the proposed budget fails to support HSF properly.

Miles was giddy just to be there, I think he went overboard trying to sell the Obama budget.  Sen. Nelson sure gave him a platform though.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:51 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side (majority after all) has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get there and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

So, it appears that's where it all is heading. Some announcement by the WH and/or NASA on a revised vision and a focus on Mars and some shifting of funds within the budget to bolster HLV development sooner.

Clearest and best answers and questions on both panels in my view: Nelson, Bolden and O'Brien. They really talked about the key issues and a plan going forward with this budget. Worst participant: Vitter, the guy who says HSF would be ended, completely ignoring the 16bn to a national space laboratory in the next 5 years, which is more than practically all other countries in the world spend on HSF combined.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 08:52 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 08:52 pm
There's another hearing tomorrow. Any idea when they'll finally decide?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:53 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 08:53 pm
There's another hearing tomorrow. Any idea when they'll finally decide?
Long ways to go.  The "decision" will be a vote on a bill.

It's hard to see the authorization bill coming out of the Senate not being conflicting with the administration's proposal.  Since we've still only heard from parties directly affected, it's still pretty hard to see what the outcome will be.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 08:55 pm
There's another hearing tomorrow. Any idea when they'll finally decide?
Long ways to go.  The "decision" will be a vote on a bill.


Rather a vote in the appropriations committee. The vote on the bill (probably an omnibus bill) will be more or less something you negotiate before getting the whole thing out of the appropriations committee.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: STS Tony on 02/24/2010 08:56 pm
Funny how we all agree on those that commented on what we all personally prefer.  Clb22 being an example. I thought the complete opposite, but I don't like fluff.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marshallsplace on 02/24/2010 08:56 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.

Nelson has stated his view as such.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/24/2010 08:56 pm
Miles is Obama's spokesperson here.  He's really bought into the whole shebang.

Disappointing, I thought he was more of a free thinker.

Ironic that you're arguing the only way to do space exploration is via CX or Cx-style programs but he's the one who is not a free thinker.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Jason Davies on 02/24/2010 08:57 pm
Mike S was amazingly good. Won the hearing, hands down.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 08:58 pm
There's another hearing tomorrow. Any idea when they'll finally decide?
Long ways to go.  The "decision" will be a vote on a bill.


Rather a vote in the appropriations committee. The vote on the bill (probably an omnibus bill) will be more or less something you negotiate before getting the whole thing out of the appropriations committee.
No, the major negotiations will be done in conference, after the bills are voted out of both sides of the Hill.  But I agree you're correct that we may know the "outcome" before the vote on a conference bill.

Don't forget the authorization bill -- that's first, and it will be specific to NASA.  Won't be surprised if it's like the 2008 bill and goes to conference, too.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 08:59 pm
If someone could keep an eye on when this hearing makes video, please post asap. Thanks.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/24/2010 09:01 pm
If someone could keep an eye on when this hearing makes video, please post asap. Thanks.

I refreshed the page by accident and the video turned to "live webcast" to "archived webcast". It appears to already be there

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 09:01 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.

He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 09:02 pm
Seems Mike was pushing for an extension, with the possibility of an SDHLV down the line.

Nelson and Gibson pushed for continuing the testing of Ares I components (5 segment booster and J2-X) so they could eventually be used in a HLV. Gibson also pushed for shuttle extension.

Young thinks the new plan will be detrimental to HSF

Miles likes the plan as is.

Way I see it there is gong to be a compromise and it'll most likely be a shuttle extension.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/24/2010 09:03 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.

He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.

Why not? It's quite affordable, especially if the cost is split with the DOD.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 09:05 pm
He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.

Sorry, but "building on Cx work" was in reference to other things. And no, building on Cx's work doesn't mean an SD-HLV will be developed, it just means you can smaller projects from Cx and apply them in the future development of an HLV.

Also, I have never advocated a 50mt EELV. You seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I have said that a commercial vehicle in the 35-50mt range could be developed in conjunction with NASA, maybe through a COTS-style effort, and this could be the ACES upper stage OR it could be a SpaceX-NASA collaboration effort on F9H.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 09:05 pm
If someone could keep an eye on when this hearing makes video, please post asap. Thanks.

I refreshed the page by accident and the video turned to "live webcast" to "archived webcast". It appears to already be there

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010

Super! Thanks :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 09:06 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.

He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.

Why not? It's quite affordable, especially if the cost is split with the DOD.

Current Workforce ... which is what the DIRECT people have been saying all along.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 09:07 pm
Rather a vote in the appropriations committee. The vote on the bill (probably an omnibus bill) will be more or less something you negotiate before getting the whole thing out of the appropriations committee.
No, the major negotiations will be done in conference, after the bills are voted out of both sides of the Hill.  But I agree you're correct that we may know the "outcome" before the vote on a conference bill.
Well, let me agree with clb22 and dilute what I wrote a little bit -- I do think the negotiations within the authorizing and appropriations committees will be important this year for both bills (the NASA-specific authorization and the appropriations bill that NASA is one part of) as they go to the floors of both houses.  They may not be as decisive as the conference negotiations, but still very important.

Given what I've heard so far, it sure seems like there's going to be a showdown with the President on at least parts of the authorization.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 09:09 pm
My take from all this, Nelson as a representative of the Democratic side has no real problem with the new plan, just wants a. a clear announcement of Mars as the goal and a more detailed plan to get their and b. more money for the HLV line-item, potential with more tests on it.

My sense is Nelson wants an SDLV HLV, now.

My sense is, Nelson wants at least an HLV testing program with an HLV being development. He hasn't said anything about SD-HLV which I take aways as him being open to suggestions.

He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.

Why not? It's quite affordable, especially if the cost is split with the DOD.

Current Workforce ... which is what the DIRECT people have been saying all along.

And, current workforce is a potential issue in the 2010 Florida Senate race, something the White House very much cares about.

George LeMieux is close to Governor Crist (Crist's hand chosen placeholder) and therefore what LeMieux thinks could matter more than what Bill Nelson thinks. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 09:09 pm
This helped me get a better idea of why the shuttle needs extending. I believe the shuttle is safe to fly a few more years, but because of its history there was hesitation about putting lives on the line to save jobs or close a gap. But, if extending the shuttle helps sort out technical details of BEO unknowns then I'm 100% GO.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 09:09 pm
He clearly mentioned building on the Cx work, your 50mT EELV HLV is just not going to happen on NASA's funding.

Sorry, but "building on Cx work" was in reference to other things. And no, building on Cx's work doesn't mean an SD-HLV will be developed, it just means you can smaller projects from Cx and apply them in the future development of an HLV.

Also, I have never advocated a 50mt EELV. You seem to be mistaking me for someone else. I have said that a commercial vehicle in the 35-50mt range could be developed in conjunction with NASA, maybe through a COTS-style effort, and this could be the ACES upper stage OR it could be a SpaceX-NASA collaboration effort on F9H.

No it wasn't. He mentioned not canceling the current Cx contracts and continuing testing with the parts. You are grasping at straws, there will be no rubber stamping here ! ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Orbiter on 02/24/2010 09:11 pm
Anyone else notice that the CDR (Hoot), PLT (Bolden), and PS2 (Nelson) of STS-61-C were all present?
Funny to think, they all trained together and now the future of American Space flight rests on their hands as well as Congress.

Orbiter
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 09:12 pm
So, was anyone in favor of the PoR? It seems to me that everyone was upset that the new plan wasn't their new plan. Good call, Mike. Miles was good, too. Nelson was good. Does Mike have an account on NSF?

Whatever gets us to Mars soonest and out to stay in deep space while lowering costs to allow real industrial space access while allowing those who want to to go to space. Of course there will be no lowering of the cost to orbit to $500/kg right away. First we have to get it down to $3000/kg, and then to $1000/kg.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 09:12 pm
No it wasn't. He mentioned not canceling the current Cx contracts and continuing testing with the parts. You are grasping at straws, there will be no rubber stamping here ! ;)

Just wait and see.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/24/2010 09:14 pm
So, was anyone in favor of the PoR?
No, and that's a key point, even Vitter agreed the PoR was a bad plan and the funding wasn't enough. Nobody wants to continue the PoR which means there needs to be an alternative. As noone in the decision making process in Congress except the WH and NASA have come up with one (and noone will) the new direction will move forward, with some changes of course but within the new framework. Cx is dead.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/24/2010 09:16 pm
Lots of people confidently state all the signs point to their concept winning. They can't all be right and it looks like posturing to me. I'm really happy with Obama's proposals, but I'm not at all confident about what Congress will do. I don't think anyone can be certain.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Davie OPF on 02/24/2010 09:17 pm
Twitter comment about Snyder's appearance.

@NASASpaceflight: Shuttle has a new hero, his name, Mr. Michael J. Snyder - he was awesome at the Senate hearing.

I totally agree with that Twitter.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 09:17 pm
No it wasn't. He mentioned not canceling the current Cx contracts and continuing testing with the parts. You are grasping at straws, there will be no rubber stamping here ! ;)

Just wait and see.

Yes we will.  ;)

Further commentary prior to new news would be idle cheerleading. Fun, perhaps, but unproductive.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 09:17 pm
Lots of people confidently state all the signs point to their concept winning. They can't all be right and it looks like posturing to me. I'm really happy with Obama's proposals, but I'm not at all confident about what Congress will do. I don't think anyone can be certain.

Concur completely.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/24/2010 09:18 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 09:20 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

Doesn't help, but Bolden is simply a mouthpiece for Obama's plan and Obama's plan kills shuttle. He was never going to go against Obama's plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: fajitapita on 02/24/2010 09:22 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

If it does not happen then what??? Hope commercial comes through. Just cant see putting all cards in one basket. Would seem Orion would continue either way.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/24/2010 09:23 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

This is what I thought. I applaud Mike Snyder's talks, probably the best out of today's, but Bolden seems really against extending shuttle.  Didn't he call it "Russian Roulette" or something before? I thought Snyder's rebuttal of "other colorful language" used to describe SSP could have been about that comment.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 09:23 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

Doesn't help, but Bolden is simply a mouthpiece for Obama's plan and Obama's plan kills shuttle. He was never going to go against Obama's plan.

Chris you know better! VSE ended shuttle at 2010.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/24/2010 09:23 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

I actually felt really sorry for Charlie Bolden. For a second - just a second - I thought he was going to finally give in to his true feelings but composed himself well. By his refusal to answer a straight question, it is clear he knew the answer to Sen. Vitter's question about the prime architect. That's just sheer common sense.

When 3/4 of the panel and interviewees (of which many were of great standing) politely slammed the budget proposal, plus all the general furore about it everywhere else - how can you possibly defend it?

I thought Robert 'Hoot' Gibson and Mike Snyder were so detailed and truthful that they made Charlie Bolden look, simply but sadly, highly inadequate. Poor Charlie seems to have had both his hands tied behind his back with a tape recorder on loop for a voice.

Things are most definitely going to change - that is the one overriding impression I got from the entire day's proceedings. Hopefully with a much needed shuttle extension. When such an engineer of Mike Snyder's standing stands up to say why we need it, I'd believe him over any of the naysayers despite all their expected protestations to the contrary.

It was all very neatly tied in to all the other howling errors on offer by this new budget and I for one, greatly look forward to the coming months.

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 09:24 pm
Lots of people confidently state all the signs point to their concept winning. They can't all be right and it looks like posturing to me. I'm really happy with Obama's proposals, but I'm not at all confident about what Congress will do. I don't think anyone can be certain.

Concur completely.
I agree about the uncertainty.  We'll start to see what they want to do with the language in the authorization bills that come out of committee.  At that point, we'll see what kind of confrontation there could be.  (And still not know the outcome.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/24/2010 09:24 pm
So, was anyone in favor of the PoR?
No, and that's a key point, even Vitter agreed the PoR was a bad plan and the funding wasn't enough. Nobody wants to continue the PoR which means there needs to be an alternative. As noone in the decision making process in Congress except the WH and NASA have come up with one (and noone will) the new direction will move forward, with some changes of course but within the new framework. Cx is dead.

Did Vitter say it was a bad plan or just underfunded?

I didnt really get what he wanted.  He just seemed "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore".
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 09:25 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most likely)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: cozmicray on 02/24/2010 09:27 pm
I think I heard a good point.
This "Plan" was created by OMB.
Accepted by Obama.
Forced on NASA.

Now OMB  system engineering our HSF ????

???? Lets develop VentureStar
          oops to hard   cancel it
       Lets develop CRV
          oops to hard   cancel it
       Lets develop ISS
          not really use it for much
            oops  de-orbit it
       Lets develop Constellation
          oops not enough money -- cancel it

When is NASA going to system engineer a "plan",
       a vision,  and ask  "We need this $$$ to do this"

 :o
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/24/2010 09:29 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most realistically)
I don't think that's the right word there.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 09:31 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most realistically)
I don't think that's the right word there.

I changed it. Are you happy?

And yeah it seems like that's the easiest way to go if you want to keep the workforce happy, retain the capability to service the ISS properly and not have to do any R&D.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/24/2010 09:32 pm
After watching the earlier House hearings, I expected some fire here, but... wow! This was quite a day.

My bet is that this is going to come out in a way that no one who is firmly dug in on any one program (i.e. Direct, or POR, or pure commercial, or Falcon 9 etc.) expects. I was also a bit suprised by Nelson's hard line toward a LOX/RP1 F-1 styled engine.. that was somewhat unexpected.

I'd say look for it all to morph into something such as- restored and protected NASA HSF plus a very few Ares I-X style test flights followed by some in-line HLV development launches all with the BEO goal, added to it could be a Shuttle extension (Long enough to see if those "commercial" operators can actually come up to the task of LEO ISS taxies in the timeframe they claim). Of course, if a Falcon 9 blows up a lot of bets will be off- even if the other newspace operations are running smoothly- Congressional perception of such an event would be really bad.

No matter what- the Obama budget for NASA will not stand as-is. NASA HSF will have to be restored and a firm goal set before the Congress will allow it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/24/2010 09:35 pm
I think I heard a good point.
This "Plan" was created by OMB.
Accepted by Obama.
Forced on NASA.

Now OMB  system engineering our HSF ????

???? Lets develop VentureStar
          oops to hard   cancel it
       Lets develop CRV
          oops to hard   cancel it
       Lets develop ISS
          not really use it for much
            oops  de-orbit it
       Lets develop Constellation
          oops not enough money -- cancel it

When is NASA going to system engineer a "plan",
       a vision,  and ask  "We need this $$$ to do this"

 :o
ISS is no longer being deorbited in five years. It has been extended (in this current budget) to 2020. There's talk of extending it further. Lots of NASA's canceled projects have been reborn in commercial companies (VASIMR, Transhab now Bigelow modules, SLI engines like the RS-84 and RS-83 have been licensed by SpaceX, an Orion-derivative is going to be one or two of the commercial crew bids, etc.).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/24/2010 09:42 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most likely)

The whole budget is a massive mistake - what do you think all the upset has been about since 1st February? The sheer level of consequence proves this. Just how many more people have to come out and slam this budget until people accept that? 10, 1000, 100,000 etc?

But one point to remember here folks, it isn't simply a case of those wanting to keep CxP vs those wanting pure commercial. There are elements of both that are needed to co-exist. But until the commercial sector has maturity of its own, it does need Government's hand to hold. How many more people who know their stuff have to say this until it's accepted?

People here are arguing here amongst themselves - why? I'd rather listen to the likes of the panel that have just appeared to get the truth of the matter. Would you disagree with them and the others that will no doubt follow them too?

Roo.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: tminus9 on 02/24/2010 09:48 pm
Bolden is simply a mouthpiece for Obama's plan and Obama's plan kills shuttle. He was never going to go against Obama's plan.

Chris you know better! VSE ended shuttle at 2010.

Agreed.

Too much grandstanding (all around) in the hearings, as usual for Congress. I heard a lot of quoting JFK without suggesting that we spend 4% of the budget as was done at the peak of Apollo.

It's constantly mentioned that a large impediment to shuttle extension is the cost of restarting many of the assembly lines that have been shut down. I don't recall seeing specific numbers - are we talking $10M? $100M? More? Any links (public or L2) would be appreciated.

Extending shuttle to meet commercial at the other side is great in principle, but as always money matters.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 09:50 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most likely)

The whole budget is a massive mistake - what do you think all the upset has been about since 1st February? The sheer level of consequence proves this. Just how many more people have to come out and slam this budget until people accept that? 10, 1000, 100,000 etc?

But one point to remember here folks, it isn't simply a case of those wanting to keep CxP vs those wanting pure commercial. There are elements of both that are needed to co-exist. But until the commercial sector has maturity of its own, it does need Government's hand to hold. How many more people who know their stuff have to say this until it's accepted?

People here are arguing here amongst themselves - why? I'd rather listen to the likes of the panel that have just appeared to get the truth of the matter. Would you disagree with them and the others that will no doubt follow them too?

Roo.


I agree that the transition needs to be smoother. What I don't agree with is that the entire budget is a mistake. Nelson said the main problem he had with it was the lack of HLV R&D, Young said it was detrimental to HSF, but liked the rest of it. The main criticism of the budget is that there hasn't been a well defined goal behind it so far and the transition from Shuttle to commercial is too rapid and would leave many people jobless. That's why I'm saying they need to make a compromise to mitigate job loses. And as for the goals I expect they'll be pretty much the same as before. The fact that they aren't making promises as to when exactly they'll get to the Moon or Mars is understandable since there's a lot of R&D that they can't predict the results of. And as Bolden said they haven't had time to work out the details yet since the budget was proposed so suddenly.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: rfoshaug on 02/24/2010 09:58 pm
Isn't it already too late to extend the shuttle due to ET/SSME production/refurbishment being shut down?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/24/2010 10:04 pm
What I found surprising was that when asked by the Senators present, what I deem to have been simple and straight forward questions, Charlie Bolden found it extremely difficult to answer.

There has to be much mileage on exactly why he couldn't answer? There was just no real conviction to Bolden's answers - it left you feeling hollow, with no substance to grab onto. Had someone else sat there, but genuinely believed in what they were doing and knowing that details were thin on the ground, they still would have given a strong performance based solely on their belief in their own views.

Bolden simply lacks the courage of his convictions - and has done so ever since 1st Feb.

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 10:05 pm
That's because they are not his convictions ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/24/2010 10:06 pm
There are 4 baskets as it is clearly detailed in the budget, so probabilities one or more of them will succeed is much greater. 

I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

If it does not happen then what??? Hope commercial comes through. Just cant see putting all cards in one basket. Would seem Orion would continue either way.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 10:10 pm
Isn't it already too late to extend the shuttle due to ET/SSME production/refurbishment being shut down?

No. Not sure how you came to that conclusion, unless you missed all the NASA documentation on L2 and the several articles I've written about this.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 10:11 pm
You're smoking something a little too strong if you think anyone is going to get costs significantly lower than current Russian levels.
on SDLV one is lucky to get to 4x Russian levels. Not a good argument for doing SDLV. So Ross - have them do Jupiter to compete with ULA?  ;D

Seriously yes you can do a lot better than Russia/China, but only if you challenge structural issues. You are not going to do that with a govt program.

You got to be a fool to believe that anyone is going to use DIRECT as anything other than an argument to get back to funding POR - bait and switch. Let's not go down the Ares road again.

Vitter is bitter about not doing so.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 10:13 pm
I thought shuttle extension was dealt a blow with Bolden coming out against it.  I think they would have to have more talks about it and if he really doesnt want it,  it won't happen.

Doesn't help, but Bolden is simply a mouthpiece for Obama's plan and Obama's plan kills shuttle. He was never going to go against Obama's plan.

Chris you know better! VSE ended shuttle at 2010.

The VSE's long gone!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/24/2010 10:13 pm
This budget immediately starts work on all the critical elements we need to get BEO to stay and to start commercial capabilities for LEO.  Additionally it will position the US recapture some of the commercial market that it has lost to foreign competition.  You have it completely backwards in your analysis. 

It is the perception of the budget that is a mistake.

If you want flags and footprints (eventually) then keep supporting the current plan.

What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

It's not a mistake. It needs some sort of compromise though (shuttle extension most likely)

The whole budget is a massive mistake - what do you think all the upset has been about since 1st February? The sheer level of consequence proves this. Just how many more people have to come out and slam this budget until people accept that? 10, 1000, 100,000 etc?

But one point to remember here folks, it isn't simply a case of those wanting to keep CxP vs those wanting pure commercial. There are elements of both that are needed to co-exist. But until the commercial sector has maturity of its own, it does need Government's hand to hold. How many more people who know their stuff have to say this until it's accepted?

People here are arguing here amongst themselves - why? I'd rather listen to the likes of the panel that have just appeared to get the truth of the matter. Would you disagree with them and the others that will no doubt follow them too?

Roo.


Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 10:14 pm
I think that's the disconnect: for some it's a "joyride" & for others it's "space exploration". We need to realize that going to space is a human desire, however expressed. However, political, financial & other considerations limit that desire.
Look for the bad in someone's unspoken words and you'll find them for sure.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 10:15 pm
More on the whole lack of direction topic - setting a date for the completion of a milestone or goal, doesn't magically make it happen on time. Constellation had defined dates for the completion of key aspects of the program, but they got pushed back as time went on. The fact is it doesn't matter if you say you're going to do X by the date Y, if technical or financial issues arise you won't be able to. It's a symbol of commitment at best and that's what this new program lacks. It fails to show strong commitment to the cause of BEO exploration by humans.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 10:16 pm
If you want flags and footprints (eventually) then keep supporting the current plan.


At this point there is no reason to believe the new plan will get us flags and footprints on the moon or any other destination in our lifetimes. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 10:17 pm
If you want flags and footprints (eventually) then keep supporting the current plan.


At this point there is no reason to believe the new plan will get us flags and footprints on the moon or any other destination in our lifetimes. 

Hopefully it will get us more than mere flags and footprints.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 10:19 pm
Totally get "russian roulette" Mr. Bolden. But from an ex Quality Assurance Engineer (Software) I can tell you SSP is not that.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 10:21 pm
More on the whole lack of direction topic - setting a date for the completion of a milestone or goal, doesn't magically make it happen on time. Constellation had defined dates for the completion of key aspects of the program, but they got pushed back as time went on. The fact is it doesn't matter if you say you're going to do X by the date Y, if technical or financial issues arise you won't be able to. It's a symbol of commitment at best and that's what this new program lacks. It fails to show strong commitment to the cause of BEO exploration by humans.

When President Reagan first announced Space Station Freedom, it was supposed to be completed sometime during the 1990's, correct?  As is usually the case, we didn't meet the initial target date, and the program was completely reconfigured to become ISS.  But what if Reagan had instead announced, "Rather than commit to building a space station, we're going to perform the R&D into new technologies that might allow us to build a space station more easily at some future date" - does anyone here think we'd have a space station in LEO today?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: rfoshaug on 02/24/2010 10:22 pm
Isn't it already too late to extend the shuttle due to ET/SSME production/refurbishment being shut down?

No. Not sure how you came to that conclusion, unless you missed all the NASA documentation on L2 and the several articles I've written about this.

Sorry... I guess the sheer volume of information on this site is sometimes a bit much to be able to digest it all. ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 10:24 pm

Hopefully it will get us more than mere flags and footprints.

But thus far there's nothing to back that up.  It's nothing more than hope...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/24/2010 10:24 pm
What a show. Even the most pro current budget supporters could not in their heart, fail to realise the awful mistake this budget is.

I actually felt really sorry for Charlie Bolden. For a second - just a second - I thought he was going to finally give in to his true feelings but composed himself well. By his refusal to answer a straight question, it is clear he knew the answer to Sen. Vitter's question about the prime architect. That's just sheer common sense.

When 3/4 of the panel and interviewees (of which many were of great standing) politely slammed the budget proposal, plus all the general furore about it everywhere else - how can you possibly defend it?

I thought Robert 'Hoot' Gibson and Mike Snyder were so detailed and truthful that they made Charlie Bolden look, simply but sadly, highly inadequate. Poor Charlie seems to have had both his hands tied behind his back with a tape recorder on loop for a voice.

Things are most definitely going to change - that is the one overriding impression I got from the entire day's proceedings. Hopefully with a much needed shuttle extension. When such an engineer of Mike Snyder's standing stands up to say why we need it, I'd believe him over any of the naysayers despite all their expected protestations to the contrary.

It was all very neatly tied in to all the other howling errors on offer by this new budget and I for one, greatly look forward to the coming months.

Roo.


Agreed.

That 3/4 is impossible to ignore.
And that consensus is only going to grow!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/24/2010 10:26 pm
Anyone else spot Jeff Bingham behind Vitter ?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/24/2010 10:27 pm
When President Reagan first announced Space Station Freedom, it was supposed to be completed sometime during the 1990's, correct?  As is usually the case, we didn't meet the initial target date, and the program was completely reconfigured to become ISS.  But what if Reagan had instead announced, "Rather than commit to building a space station, we're going to perform the R&D into new technologies that might allow us to build a space station more easily at some future date" - does anyone here think we'd have a space station in LEO today?

I see your point, but if they're going to come up with a date for a Moon landing for example, they need to know what parts of the budget will be approved and then estimate what will happen with all the R&D in the coming years so they can come up with a date that has a chance of being even slightly accurate. That takes time and the budget proposal as Bolden said was rushed. They can't just pull a number out of the air. Remember Bolden said that even if Obama ordered NASA to go to Mars by the end of the decade, he's not sure he can make that happen. Granted it doesn't have to be exactly that goal in that time frame, but without knowing what tech will be available it doesn't matter what date you target, it will most likely slip.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 10:28 pm
Isn't it already too late to extend the shuttle due to ET/SSME production/refurbishment being shut down?

No. Not sure how you came to that conclusion, unless you missed all the NASA documentation on L2 and the several articles I've written about this.

Sorry... I guess the sheer volume of information on this site is sometimes a bit much to be able to digest it all. ;)

My fault actually, as I always overreact to that "it's too late" comment from everyone ;D I wasn't being objective.

In summary, it's not too late, but you'd need to stretch the manifest to four (current), 135 (ET-122) and then three more via spare tanks. Additional flight tanks will not be ready until mid 2012 (right now). SSMEs - no problem there at all. SRBs, probably the main problem, but ATK aren't shut down on the hardware, they were just moving to five seg.

So yes, we're in a potential small gap between additional flights past around STS-137/138. That's why 2012 with seven to eight flights from now is most viable.

Oh and money, but if they can find 2.5 billion just to shut CxP down and another six billion for Commercial, not to mention the money it's going to cost to hire Soyuz seats....
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: spacedem on 02/24/2010 10:29 pm
But what if Reagan had instead announced, "Rather than commit to building a space station, we're going to perform the R&D into new technologies that might allow us to build a space station more easily at some future date" - does anyone here think we'd have a space station in LEO today?

Not sure I get you.  When did Obama make an announcement to that effect?  I must have missed it. :-)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/24/2010 10:37 pm
Interesting choice of comments in the press release from the committee:
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=fdff3de6-3eec-4674-9239-34b8db5969f2
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 10:38 pm

Hopefully it will get us more than mere flags and footprints.

But thus far there's nothing to back that up.  It's nothing more than hope...

imho, NASA corners the market on hope, now it needs to do the same with change (literally & figuratively). And they can back up both with confidence.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/24/2010 10:45 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 10:46 pm
Isn't it already too late to extend the shuttle due to ET/SSME production/refurbishment being shut down?

No. Not sure how you came to that conclusion, unless you missed all the NASA documentation on L2 and the several articles I've written about this.

Sorry... I guess the sheer volume of information on this site is sometimes a bit much to be able to digest it all. ;)

My fault actually, as I always overreact to that "it's too late" comment from everyone ;D I wasn't being objective.

In summary, it's not too late, but you'd need to stretch the manifest to four (current), 135 (ET-122) and then three more via spare tanks. Additional flight tanks will not be ready until mid 2012 (right now). SSMEs - no problem there at all. SRBs, probably the main problem, but ATK aren't shut down on the hardware, they were just moving to five seg.

So yes, we're in a potential small gap between additional flights past around STS-137/138. That's why 2012 with seven to eight flights from now is most viable.

Oh and money, but if they can find 2.5 billion just to shut CxP down and another six billion for Commercial, not to mention the money it's going to cost to hire Soyuz seats....

Seems kind of fitting to end Return to Flight, extending SSP with ____________ (fill in the blank). ;D
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 11:16 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/24/2010 11:22 pm
So yes, we're in a potential small gap between additional flights past around STS-137/138. That's why 2012 with seven to eight flights from now is most viable.

Oh and money, but if they can find 2.5 billion just to shut CxP down and another six billion for Commercial, not to mention the money it's going to cost to hire Soyuz seats....

Not sure if I'm mis-reading that. Is the money committed to Soyuz (ie contract signed)?

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: imcub on 02/24/2010 11:24 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.


Ya know ... I remember watching a big rocket launch a couple guys towards the moon on TV a few decade ago.  But the name of that rocket and the names of the spacecraft that took them to/from the moon seems to escape me at the moment.  I guess I don't care ... the important thing is that Neal somebody, Buzz what's his face, and Michael in the command thingy made history. ;D

Edit for grammar.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 11:27 pm
So yes, we're in a potential small gap between additional flights past around STS-137/138. That's why 2012 with seven to eight flights from now is most viable.

Oh and money, but if they can find 2.5 billion just to shut CxP down and another six billion for Commercial, not to mention the money it's going to cost to hire Soyuz seats....

Not sure if I'm mis-reading that. Is the money committed to Soyuz (ie contract signed)?

Martin

Executable contract, so the deal is in place, but a check to Russia hasn't been posted, as far as I know. Will be on execution.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/24/2010 11:29 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.


Ya know ... I remember watching a big rocket launch a couple guys towards the moon on TV a few decade ago.  But the name of that rocket and the names of the spacecraft that took them to/from the moon seems to escape me at the moment.  I guess I don't care ... the important thing is that Neal somebody, Buzz what's his face, and Michael in the command thingy made history. ;D

Edit for grammar.

I tried to find an excuse for his comment, such as Joe Public, but even Joe Public tend to know what a shuttle is.

Those exhibitions with retired orbiters are going to be in trouble by 2020, with masses of people asking "what's that?"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/24/2010 11:30 pm
Bolden reminds Vitter he told him about two radical groups -- he strives for the middle.

Great screenshots ;D

oh hai! thanx :D that was fun!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 11:31 pm
Oh and money, but if they can find 2.5 billion just to shut CxP down and another six billion for Commercial, not to mention the money it's going to cost to hire Soyuz seats....
This is all about the money and the future.

What I'd like to see is not blowing more $ done the hole. Cx impressed me with nothing so much as the ability to demonstrate the inability to get acceptable results with an acceptable plan with acceptable review.

If you publish a plan, or leave a opening for a govt launcher/RV ... it will be used to extract budget from science/commercial/other. So this is the right approach to changing the game.

If you want Shuttle extension or HLV experimentation program, you'll have to get fresh budget from somewhere other than NASA. Unlike Challenger RTF, where all the programs were raided to get another Shuttle operational.

The problem with funding any HLV now is that it defacto overtly defines a plan ... one where all the Cx projects now can be argued back into existence again. Much as I've appreciated Jupiter and wished for it's alternate instead of Ares, the risk of reviving Cx is not worth it.

Shuttle is a similar story - much as I'd like to see Shuttle run until a qualified replacement (or three) has proven itself, that does not seem possible given budget constraints. Much as I'd prefer than sanity would have governed NASA HSF post Saturn V, it never has and likely never will. Including now.

The game of "launch vehicle chicken", where we kill off one before starting another is standard fair - many administrations have done this to force a direction.

It is very reasonable to doubt the current admin bringing off commercial space. Or even that could be a "head fake" with R&D projects.

But what I like from today is Bolden talking of Mars as a true goal, and Nelson goading Obama to do same.

Second best is Bolden genuinely sharing that why Obama doesn't is because there are too many missing parts for him to do so.

Unlike JFK , Obama doesn't have the go-go 60's economy and the Soviet Union threat to motivate an Apollo program to fill in the blanks as we go along.

He has a cranky public who want's a detailed plan with an organization who hasn't done squat with a post Shuttle future given more than 9B.

Going commercial is long overdue.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/24/2010 11:36 pm
Worst participant: Vitter, the guy who says HSF would be ended, completely ignoring the 16bn to a national space laboratory in the next 5 years

And after that? For me, the question is "to where will they be flying in 2021, 2022, 2023...?"

If the answer to "why no HLV" today is "no payloads", then surely the answer to "why no HSF" in 2021 is "no destination".

If NASA has to bankroll the taxi providers to get that service running, might they also need to bankroll Bigelow just to provide a replacement destination? (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20214.msg530315;topicseen#msg530315 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20214.msg530315;topicseen#msg530315)).

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/24/2010 11:39 pm

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.
Disagree - NASA is about science not capsules.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/24/2010 11:46 pm
If NASA is about science, then robots only offer a much better value.

I happen to believe NASA should be about more than science even if science is part of the mix and launchers do matter.

United States needs a prestigious launcher AND we need robust commercial as well.

It's not "either / or" rather it's "both"




This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.
Disagree - NASA is about science not capsules.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/24/2010 11:47 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

So, what do you think people will be flying on if we use commercial LEO taxis?  Giant balloons?  Huge rubber bands?  No it'll be rockets just the same.  Sure, DIRECT is bigger than Falcon 9 or Atlas V, but quite frankly I doubt most people outside of the hard core rocket nerds give a darn what shape the rocket is in that puts the people up.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/24/2010 11:49 pm
Sure, DIRECT is bigger than Falcon 9 or Atlas V, but quite frankly I doubt most people outside of the hard core rocket nerds give a darn what shape the rocket is in that puts the people up.

They might care about the crew vehicle though. The Orbiter is easily the most lovable part of the Shuttle stack. And the Dream Chaser looks much cooler than a boring old capsule. The little spaceplane that could. It even has a lot of NASA and even some Shuttle heritage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/24/2010 11:52 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.

I disagree.  I think that trying to change the paradigm so that it isn't exploration until you're *leaving* LEO is a good move.  NASA and Russia have been putting people up into LEO for decades now, and soon commercial companies will be too.  Saying that getting astronauts to LEO is "exploration" at this point is a bit of a stretch.  I think that's what Bolden was hinting at.  When you read about pioneering the American West, most stories don't focus too hard on the trip from out East to Independence, Missouri.  It's when you've actually crossed the frontier into Indian Territory that the real adventure began. 

You see this dynamic a lot when people talk about Ares-I as a "moon rocket".  No, it's not a moon rocket.  It never leaves LEO.  It's yet another medium-lift to LEO rocket that delivers a package to a stack that leaves LEO.

I'm as huge a fan of rockets as the next guy (or I would take a safer, higher paying job), but I'd love to get to the point where people weren't focusing so much on the very tiniest fraction of the first 1% of the trip...

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/24/2010 11:53 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.

Isn't that a transition that has to happen if we're really to become a "spacefaring" civilization?

All of us on this site are such space-geeks that we are completely blinded to the fact that most people don't care at all.

Chuck's right that no one cares about ISS videos.  What he's wrong about is that no one cares about the launch event, either.  The average American hasn't tuned in for a shuttle launch in twenty years, if ever.  I would wager that 99% of people who've seen a shuttle launch on TV recently saw it on a cable news channel and didn't even know it was going to happen that day.  Afterward they went back to their regularly scheduled programming and didn't think about it again.

Does anyone think the public would be more enamored by a Jupiter or Ares launch than an Atlas V launch?  If human spaceflight has a future it has to be about destinations.  Chuck's right that no one cares about ISS videos because ISS is pretty boring to most people.  I bet they will be interested if there's a video of people on an asteroid, or Phobos, flying by Venus or building that big silly telescope described in the article a while back.

Now, argue all you want about whether it's best for NASA to build the rocket or not, it's a discussion worth having.  But this site is quickly filling up with these elaborate sophistries that defy common sense.  Yeah, kids are going to stop launching model rockets if the astronauts going to the asteroid are launched on an EELV.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/24/2010 11:54 pm
One question I have is how long will those rockets be designed and built in the United States?  It'll be a shame if this new commercialization plan results in us outsourcing to foreign providers at the expense of engineering and manufacturing capability, expertise, and jobs at home. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Jim on 02/24/2010 11:58 pm
One question I have is how long will those rockets be designed and built in the United States?  It'll be a shame if this new commercialization plan results in us outsourcing to foreign providers at the expense of engineering and manufacturing capability, expertise, and jobs at home. 

Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Tim S on 02/25/2010 12:00 am
One question I have is how long will those rockets be designed and built in the United States?  It'll be a shame if this new commercialization plan results in us outsourcing to foreign providers at the expense of engineering and manufacturing capability, expertise, and jobs at home. 

Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.

Atlas wouldn't get off the ground without its RUSSIAN engines.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 12:03 am

I disagree.  I think that trying to change the paradigm so that it isn't exploration until you're *leaving* LEO is a good move.  NASA and Russia have been putting people up into LEO for decades now, and soon commercial companies will be too.  Saying that getting astronauts to LEO is "exploration" at this point is a bit of a stretch.  I think that's what Bolden was hinting at.  When you read about pioneering the American West, most stories don't focus too hard on the trip from out East to Independence, Missouri.  It's when you've actually crossed the frontier into Indian Territory that the real adventure began. 

You see this dynamic a lot when people talk about Ares-I as a "moon rocket".  No, it's not a moon rocket.  It never leaves LEO.  It's yet another medium-lift to LEO rocket that delivers a package to a stack that leaves LEO.

I'm as huge a fan of rockets as the next guy (or I would take a safer, higher paying job), but I'd love to get to the point where people weren't focusing so much on the very tiniest fraction of the first 1% of the trip...

~Jon

I think some of us who are skeptical feel that Obama isn't really interested in making sure the exploration part ever happens.  Maybe if we had a plan that gave as much commitment to beyond-LEO flights as it does to commercial LEO taxis, we'd feel differently.  The "HLV R&D" portion of the budget, with its modest funding and lack of clear goals, feels like lip service designed to cover the killing of human space exploration beyond ISS.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 12:06 am

Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.

I hope you're right and that remains the case.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:10 am
I think some of us who are skeptical feel that Obama isn't really interested in making sure the exploration part ever happens.  Maybe if we had a plan that gave as much commitment to beyond-LEO flights as it does to commercial LEO taxis, we'd feel differently.  The "HLV R&D" portion of the budget, with its modest funding and lack of clear goals, feels like lip service designed to cover the killing of human space exploration beyond ISS.

It's not just skeptics who feel Obama isn't really interested in making sure exploration ever happens. But some of us feel what he is doing is close to optimal if you want to see both exploration and commercial development of space. He's doing things we agree with even though we may not agree with his reasons.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:11 am
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

So, what do you think people will be flying on if we use commercial LEO taxis?  Giant balloons?  Huge rubber bands?  No it'll be rockets just the same.  Sure, DIRECT is bigger than Falcon 9 or Atlas V, but quite frankly I doubt most people outside of the hard core rocket nerds give a darn what shape the rocket is in that puts the people up.

~Jon

It's not the size of the rockets that I was addressing Jon, it's his off-the-wall view that *the kids* don't care about the rockets. That was about as unimaginative and uninformed a comment as could possibly have been made by the head of NASA. Whether it's a Jupiter, an Atlas, a Delta, a Soyuz, a Falcon, an Ariane, a Long March or an Honest John SAM, the point is that kids are fascinated by the *rockets*. They get just as big a kick out of watching an Atlas send a probe to Mars as they do watching a Saturn send astronauts to the moon. Give a kid a plastic model of Cassini and it will never get built. Give a kid a model rocket kit and he or she will be pestering you in no time to take them out to fly it.

You and I are much more focused on the missions that the rockets enable, but the kids are excited by the rockets, not the science. Most of them completely loose interest when you tell them about Cassini or Galleleo or any of the other science missions. It's the launch vehicles, not the math and science that excites the kids. It's the launch vehicles that grab and hold their attention and it's the launch vehicles that gradually, over time, turn them to math and science by the time they are in high school or college. To say on national television that kids are not excited by the launch vehicles just tells me that the man is totally out of touch with reality. This is a guy who is interested in exciting kids to pursue math and science? He doesn't want 7th graders to be thinking about Mars? What does he want them to think about instead? Calculus? Give me a break.

My observation was not about government HLV vs. Commercial CCDev. It was about the kids and his wrong-headed view of what will inspire them. Doing it his way will turn off an entire generation of kids, not inspire them.

The picture below says it all.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/25/2010 12:14 am
Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.
I hope you're right and that remains the case.

It's been true since the Buy American Act of 1933; procurements by the Federal Government must be made of 51% American parts.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:18 am
Chuck's right that no one cares about ISS videos.  What he's wrong about is that no one cares about the launch event, either. 

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: rsnellenberger on 02/25/2010 12:19 am
Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.

It's just lower-case "a" American because you're counting the engine source. 

Any truth to the rumors that they're looking to NPO Saturn to provide second-source engines for the all-American F-35 fighter so that it can be all-american, too.  :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 12:21 am
If NASA is about science, then robots only offer a much better value.
Steve Squires would say you are wrong - need both.
Quote

I happen to believe NASA should be about more than science even if science is part of the mix and launchers do matter.

United States needs a prestigious launcher AND we need robust commercial as well.

It's not "either / or" rather it's "both"


Having watched Ares I suspend reality and call DIRECT violating the laws of physics ... should illustrate that govt projects don't have to "fight fair".

You may not be able to have both if one eats the other.

Because of this, one wants MULTIPLE commercial and zero govt so that its a lot harder for misuse of 'pork' to dominate ...

Never underestimate the effect of "bad habits" - the same who did Ares, if given the chance to do Jupiter ... would become the same arrogant ======, given the chance. And bring back in all the same nonsense.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 12:25 am
It's pretty interesting that there's a wide difference of opinion. Kinda helps the debate, and helps us lose the tag of being a site full of shuttle huggers (not that there's anything wrong with that!! *looks in the mirror* ;))
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: sandrot on 02/25/2010 12:25 am
Any testing I can do on a new HLV would be fantastic - Bolden.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Longhorn John on 02/25/2010 12:27 am


Isn't that a transition that has to happen if we're really to become a "spacefaring" civilization?


Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:30 am
Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!

Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 12:30 am
All of us on this site are such space-geeks that we are completely blinded to the fact that most people don't care at all.



That's incorrect. Most of our new members are people drawn in by the Q&A section and most of the questions from new members relate to basic questions that have been provoked by their opening experience of seeing a shuttle launch on TV etc.

"A lot of us" would be more accurate, not "All of us".

And most people don't care about our troops overseas. Most people care about what long haired fool is getting praise from Simon Cowell on American Idol. So it's a bit of a moot point, as that's a problem with the people, not the space program.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 12:32 am
The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.
It may now be about rovers or scientists - given kids I speak to.

They don't bring up the Shuttle. They do ask about launch/reentry/spaceflight ...

Times change.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Longhorn John on 02/25/2010 12:32 am
Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!

Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/25/2010 12:34 am
Quote

Chuck's right that no one cares about ISS videos.  What he's wrong about is that no one cares about the launch event, either.  The average American hasn't tuned in for a shuttle launch in twenty years, if ever.  I would wager that 99% of people who've seen a shuttle launch on TV recently saw it on a cable news channel and didn't even know it was going to happen that day.  Afterward they went back to their regularly scheduled programming and didn't think about it again.

Unquote

I would just like to make a little comment; most people don't know or couldn't care less, because the media networks don't care or cater to the Space NEWS, like they did in the 60's; why, well, I could think of a number of reasons, but the last one would be that people are NOT interested; if I hadn't been on this website and others, I wouldn't know from the TV or Paper Media that there were 3 astronauts in attendance at that meeting today; and I have had complaints from friends who I have told about what I have learnt here about what is going on with regards to space, that the News is not readily available other than on the Internet; Space has become a Niche market for spreading news, and it didn't have to; I believe that while there is Space Geekdom, there is still a solid majority that are interested, but not being served; not everyone is interested in trying to access the news from the web; if there were we would be innundated with people here and else where to the point that the web infrastructure would all be fibre optic from back bone to the PC;
     as well, Jon, it will be at least another generation before people get tired of seeing rockets with men lifting off;
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:35 am
Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Some of us consider that an improvement, even if Ares had delivered. And we may still have a 40-50mT HLV by 2020 if the DoD wants ACES as it might.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:35 am
Quote from: clongton link=topic=20649.msg552013#msg552013 date=1267060734
The context of the post was [b
7th grade school kids[/b], not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.
It may now be about rovers or scientists - given kids I speak to.

They don't bring up the Shuttle. They do ask about launch/reentry/spaceflight ...

Times change.

The poster below says it all. Can you even picture the adventure going on in his head? Calculus will never grip him like that.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 12:42 am
With regard to general public opinion, I've spoken to people who mistakenly believe that commercial providers are closer to matching the capabilities that we're losing with STS than they in fact are.  I've run into folks who have bought into the Virgin Galactic hype, without understanding the difference between achieving orbit and flying a Mach 3 stunt plane.  Even my mom asked me recently how the Obama budget would affect the "New Mexico spaceport" that she had read about, and of course I had to explain what that really was. 

I think a lot of people could be fooled by a proposal that is more hype than substance, sadly without realizing what it is our nation is throwing away. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 12:43 am
Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Some of us consider that an improvement, even if Ares had delivered. And we may still have a 40-50mT HLV by 2020 if the DoD wants ACES as it might.

I'd add to this that Ares V by 2020 was already not going to happen over a year ago. And Bolden at the KSC presser was citing sometime in the 2030s, so both worse unfortunately.

Now, if this plan gets refined, and I suspect it will be, HLV is going to be central to changes. If we get a push on HLV timelines, that'll appease some people.

I was going to write up some of the Senate comments into an article, but I'd have a real problem writing it up objectively, as after all, I do think shuttle extension and SD HLV is the way to go.....but that's not "news" and risks some opinion, which I really want to avoid in news articles. Forum, sure, but news content, nooooo.

So I'll write up some L2 memos already noting HLV work, another noting Commercial HR work and some of Mike's comments, which should be a nice balance and give you all some actual news :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 12:47 am

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket.

My read of this situation is that he said it poorly and people are hyperbolizing it into something silly in order to mock it, because it's easier than making a thoughtful argument about what he was actually trying to say.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 12:52 am

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

Expendable rockets and capsules....just as I feared when NASA gave up on RLV development with the justification that capsules would allow us to return to the moon.  Now, looks like we have the worst of both worlds - still stuck in Low Earth Orbit and regressing from reusable spaceplanes to expendable capsules.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:53 am

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.
...<snip> I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket <snip>....

Nice side-step :)
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets.
He said:
Quote
they don't care about the launch vehicles
He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:56 am
Now, looks like we have the worst of both worlds - still stuck in Low Earth Orbit and regressing from reusable spaceplanes to expendable capsules.

Dream Chaser would be a reusable spaceplane. Commercial launch vehicles and crew vehicles and a reusable spaceplane sound like the best of both worlds to me.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: svenge on 02/25/2010 12:58 am

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.
...<snip> I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket <snip>....

Nice side-step :)
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets. He said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

In Bolden's defense, it's hard not to have verbal gaffes when Garver's arm is up your back... I'm definately loving the schadenfreude :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/25/2010 12:59 am
Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!

Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

Actually, the Augustine Committee found that the old plan wouldn't have an HLV until the late 2020s, while the new plan is likely to have an HLV quite a bit sooner than that. Additionally, there's quite a bit of beyond-LEO exploration you can do without HLV, if you don't use an architecture which is explicitly biased to require use of a specific HLV design (cough, cough, ESAS).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/25/2010 01:00 am

The context of the post was 7th grade school kids, not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.

It's different with adults, about whom you are speaking. If I had been speaking about adults I would agree with your observation. But I wasn't. It's all about the kids and what does and doesn't interest them.

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

I don't think that Bolden was trying to say that kids don't care about rockets.  I think he was saying that if we send people to Mars it will somehow involve rockets either way and the kids will probably be inspired regardless of the political details of who is issuing the pay stubs to the people designing and assembling the rocket.

My read of this situation is that he said it poorly and people are hyperbolizing it into something silly in order to mock it, because it's easier than making a thoughtful argument about what he was actually trying to say.
Bingo
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 01:02 am
Dream Chaser would be a reusable spaceplane. Commercial launch vehicles and crew vehicles and a reusable spaceplane sound like the best of both world to me.

I think the odds of DreamChaser becoming reality within the next decade are less than 50/50.  I'd love to see it, as it's the type of vehicle we should have had 10 years ago, but I'm not holding my breath.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/25/2010 01:05 am

Quote
they don't care about the launch vehicles
He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

Were you listening to a different session? He was quite obviously talking about how kids won't care about what specific rocket an astronaut takes to get to LEO, sort of like how they don't even know how many US astronauts ride a Soyuz to the Space Station now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/25/2010 01:16 am
Anyone else spot Jeff Bingham behind Vitter ?

Aww...you spoiled the show for me  ...lol

I'll have to check when I watch it tomorrow (important hockey game on)  ;)

Way to go Jeff!  :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/25/2010 01:18 am
Question about CxP, brilliantly turned around to be about shuttle by Mike:

"Even if we continued the POR, we are still looking at a significant mistake of shuting down the shuttle before we need to.

"We need redundant access, as soon as we stand down the fleet, we turn over to a monopoly with the Russians.

"The shuttle is the most capable vehicle we have, I challenge anyone who says it's unsafe. Clearly they do not know what we do to keep the fleet safe, day in day out.

"For the sake of the ISS, all that money we have spent, we can't just walk away from it. If you look at the ISS during RTF, we went to two crew, mainly maintainence. Today that station has five or six onboad. The HTV ATVs are in support of shuttle. If we take shuttle out of the loop, I don't know how everything is going to be fine.

"It does not make sense to retire shuttle, especially before commercial is online."

Amazing, want to get all of that comment on quote, was brilliant, the above is just some soundbytes.

Great job Mike!!  ;)

Really glad to see you putting some truth & common sense out there!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/25/2010 01:25 am
Well I haven't watched it yet, but I've gone through all the posts.

It seems reasonable that Holdren is pushing much of this, along with Garver.
Bolden seems like he's doing a fine job as the soldier that he is, with a bit of emotion thrown in.

I've said it before, and people discounted it. They need more money, and they way this (budget) was presented, it was to get congress to come out with some additional money.

I'm more hopeful now that

A) A HLV will get funding sooner, rather than later
B) A shuttle extension will come into play to save jobs, preserve infrastructure & skill base, be less reliant on Soyuz for US crew to space, and ISS support.

It's also great to finally see Mars announced, even if it was in a round-about way. I'm still thinking 2030-2035. At least Bolden was 100% honest about the realities of the situation on this: timeframe hard to nail down based on current technologies & future development. The problem is that they are reliant on future technologies & funding to develop all they are promising, and there are no guarantees.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: KSC Engineer on 02/25/2010 01:26 am
 What I find fascinating about this entire ordeal is that it is one of the only issues on The Hill today that both sides of the isle agree on for the most part.  In other words all of the energy was from one team (Congress) being directed on others.  I enjoying seeing WDC in agreement for once.  Granted its a small room of congressmen and women but they are on one team which is rare these days.   
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 01:30 am
Mike was frakking outstanding!!

Yeah, I think there'll be a few guys raising a beer to his testimony.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 01:31 am

That's incorrect. Most of our new members are people drawn in by the Q&A section and most of the questions from new members relate to basic questions that have been provoked by their opening experience of seeing a shuttle launch on TV etc.

"A lot of us" would be more accurate, not "All of us".


It certainly was an exaggeration, but milder than many in this thread and others.

Quote

And most people don't care about our troops overseas. Most people care about what long haired fool is getting praise from Simon Cowell on American Idol. So it's a bit of a moot point, as that's a problem with the people, not the space program.

I agree with the sentiment, but if we want our space program to succeed it needs to make itself relevant to the culture.  If we stick our fingers in our ears and say "that's a problem with the people not us" then our programs will get canceled.  End of story.

To make people interested there needs to be novelty involved.  Manned spaceflight can't be the same mission over and over again.

This phenomenon isn't unique to today, this was also true 40 years ago.  I'm always hearing people here talk about how things need to be like Apollo again.  Apollo had public support because it was relevant to society's desires at the time.  People weren't different in those days and so after a handful of landings the novelty wore off, we'd beat the Russians and it was no longer relevant to people.  The program was canceled.  This isn't what we want to model our future after.

When Bush announced the VSE there wasn't any relevance at all.  It never had all that much public interest.  Even if O'Brien was a shill up there today he sure nailed that.  If the program had no technical issues and made it to successful landings it still would be canceled when people lost interest.

You can agree or disagree about the priorities of the American people.  But the fact of the matter is if you want continuing human spaceflight, you need to find a way to engage them.  Right or wrong, it's a fact.

Even if you had a national pride goal of sorties or outpost on Mars people would get bored after a few years, and the price tag would be too high next to public indifference.

Honestly, looking at this I'm coming to believe that Flexible Path is the only way to have a vibrant spaceflight future.  Take some people off the street, describe to them a series of manned missions that include trips to asteroids, moons of Mars, flyby of Venus; they could get really into it.  The destinations are always new and interesting and will keep public support for much longer.  Eventually you run out of things to do, but the game plan is that during the whole time you were doing the tech demonstrations and investing in the commercial sector so that Lunar or Martian outposts are inexpensive enough to survive public indifference the way Antarctic ones do.

Maybe thirty years from now, when no one watches the fourth Mars landing, hopefully there will be an economic incentive for a commercial firm to run the colony and NASA can start planning the missions to the Galilean moons to keep the public's attention.

Apollo succeeded in landing people on the moon, but that wasn't enough to keep public support for the program.  Yet for the last 40 years we've been trying to emulate this approach over and over and failing and failing.  We need a seachange.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 01:31 am
Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!

Oh, like everyone thought that was OK before.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 01:32 am
I would just like to make a little comment; most people don't know or couldn't care less, because the media networks don't care or cater to the Space NEWS, like they did in the 60's; why, well, I could think of a number of reasons, but the last one would be that people are NOT interested
Miles O'Brien made a very interesting (at least to me) comment in his opening statement:

Quote
And let's face it, the mainstream media doesn't have a clue, either.  Reporters who know some things about this beat have been unceremoniously dumped by the big papers and networks right and left and many of them are well, they're webcasting, I guess.  So I guess you could say it's the 'perfect storm': the agency is really not sold on the change internally, the communication plan was non-existent, and the reporters are not well-informed, and the public is disengaged.

The public may still have some interest, but broadly speaking I think that interest is mostly disengaged, as Mr. O'Brien put it.  (NASA is hardly the only institution the public is disengaged from now, the mainstream media that Mr. O'Brien was kicked out of is headed that way, too.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/25/2010 01:36 am
What I find fascinating about this entire ordeal is that it is one of the only issues on The Hill today that both sides of the isle agree on for the most part.  In other words all of the energy was from one team (Congress) being directed on others.  I enjoying seeing WDC in agreement for once.  Granted its a small room of congressmen and women but they are on one team which is rare these days.   

And it gives hope that they will support funding manned spaceflight in the years to come. The path & the way they will make that happen will be the harder parts to figure out.

Again, I'm still upset Obama didn't announce this himself (at the SOTU or later), but I'm confortable in a way in the approach now. You can't go out and say: "We will go to Mars and spend much more getting there than the moon for the near term". Think of the backlash, especially with the economy. Now he gets Congress to do the sales pitch (and funding drive) for him. If he can't fit HLV into the budget, let Congress fund it.

Maybe it also plays into the Health Care issue, maybe not. But I still think this is about horse trading, but this time it's on the public record, not behind closed doors (or at least this part is).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 01:38 am
One question I have is how long will those rockets be designed and built in the United States?  It'll be a shame if this new commercialization plan results in us outsourcing to foreign providers at the expense of engineering and manufacturing capability, expertise, and jobs at home. 

Infinitely.  The US gov't has "Buy American" clauses in its contracts.  Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc are all american.

Atlas wouldn't get off the ground without its RUSSIAN engines.

And Taurus II, of course. I know it's also at least 51% American, but...

NK-33 based engines.
Yuzhnoye SDO working on the first stage.

Pressurised modules for Cygnus produced in Italy.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/25/2010 01:39 am
Miles O'Brien made a very interesting (at least to me) comment in his opening statement:

Quote
And let's face it, the mainstream media doesn't have a clue, either.  Reporters who know some things about this beat have been unceremoniously dumped by the big papers and networks right and left and many of them are well, they're webcasting, I guess.  So I guess you could say it's the 'perfect storm': the agency is really not sold on the change internally, the communication plan was non-existent, and the reporters are not well-informed, and the public is disengaged.

The public may still have some interest, but broadly speaking I think that interest is mostly disengaged, as Mr. O'Brien put it.  (NASA is hardly the only institution the public is disengaged from now, the mainstream media that Mr. O'Brien was kicked out of is headed that way, too.)


Yeah, that's a very good point by Miles as you indicate.

We saw them dropped left and right at one point. It's heading in a dangerous direction.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 01:45 am
I would just like to make a little comment; most people don't know or couldn't care less, because the media networks don't care or cater to the Space NEWS, like they did in the 60's; why, well, I could think of a number of reasons, but the last one would be that people are NOT interested; if I hadn't been on this website and others, I wouldn't know from the TV or Paper Media that there were 3 astronauts in attendance at that meeting today

And it will stay that way whilst NASA stays stuck in LEO.

Get people back on the surface of the Moon, and the media will have something they can report, multiple documentaries on the National Geographic channel, people's interest will be re-invigorated.

But NASA can't put that off to the end of the 2020's and expect to retain even current low levels of public support, especially with a uge gap after ISS. With that will go useful budgets.

It's a simple matter of cost / benefit, and public see zero benefit in LEO.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 01:58 am

Nice side-step :)
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets.
He said:
Quote
they don't care about the launch vehicles
He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

Chuck!!  I absolutely agree he said a stupid thing.  What I'm saying is that if he were in the room he'd agree he said a stupid thing, too and admit he meant to say what I said, precisely because it would be the most sensible thing for a person in his position to say.

Do you believe in your heart that Bolden doesn't think that 7th graders like rocket ships?  If there's one thing that people of every nationality and creed on this Earth can probably agree to, it's that 7th graders like rocket ships.  It would be utterly bizarre for someone who commanded a rocket ship to think otherwise, but it would be slightly less bizarre if he said something silly to the contrary under pressure.  Am I interpreting what he said in this situation--sure, but I think it makes sense given the context.

Dan
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:03 am
To make people interested there needs to be novelty involved.  Manned spaceflight can't be the same mission over and over again.
I think I see the point you're trying to make, but Shuttle -- which looks like the same mission over and over in the mainstream media, going on 30 years -- isn't being retired because the novelty wore off.

Public interest is a good thing, but I'm not sure it's been vital to sticking with one space policy or another for a while.  I think you can add policy making to the list of things the public is disengaged from and the space policy decision this year and for the next few years are likely to made in Washington without much input from outside of it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Jamie Young on 02/25/2010 02:22 am
So the NASA boss doesn't even agree with the SSP manager over recertification. Wasn't poor communication the problem NASA said it had solved.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 02:25 am

I think I see the point you're trying to make, but Shuttle -- which looks like the same mission over and over in the mainstream media, going on 30 years -- isn't being retired because the novelty wore off.

You're absolutely right, but I don't think the answer defies my hypothesis.

Why despite public indifference, wasn't shuttle canceled a long time ago?  The answer is it that it has broad bipartisan support in congress despite national apathy.  Jobs in Utah.  Jobs in Florida.  Jobs in Alabama.  Jobs in Louisiana.  Jobs in Texas.

As a casual industry observer, I notice defense contractors doing the same thing--got a contract for a fighter but worried it will be canceled in ten years?  Build parts in 20 different states.

Plus, once we committed to ISS with international governments, it was more or less impossible to cancel shuttle (Thought experiment: in an alternate universe without ISS, would there have been a RTF after Columbia?)

Now, I don't want people reading this to think that I don't love the shuttle and everything about it.  I do.  I think each and every flight is a small miracle and it makes my heart glow to know that some little bit of the tax I pay facilitates this mighty machine. 

But I also know that most Americans don't share my views, and if I want my son to see a similar mighty machine we need a very smart and nuanced space policy that is hard to kill.  In doing so we need to take a critical look at all our of sacred cows.  And here on NSF we do have many :)

Dan
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 02:28 am
Because we aren't right now, and we're not about to give up the only vehicle that allows us to be, right? Wow!

Old plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building one replacement vehicle. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches.

New plan: retire the shuttle and have a gap while you are building two or more replacement vehicles. Fill said gap with Soyuz launches. Oh no, the sky is falling!

Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

The gap has nothing to do with HLVs.  You can get to orbit quite well with vehicles a lot smaller than HLVs.  You can even do exploration this side of Phobos without HLVs.  HLVs are at best a means to an end, not an end in itself.  What I care about are the ends: space settlement, exploration, and space commercialization.  If an HLV has a part to play in reaching those ends at some point down the road, that's fine, and in fact this plan allows you to retain the capability you need to turn that option on when you're actually closer to needing it.

But this HLV fetish so many have here seems to border on a cargo cult mentality.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:39 am
But I also know that most Americans don't share my views, and if I want my son to see a similar mighty machine we need a very smart and nuanced space policy that is hard to kill.  In doing so we need to take a critical look at all our of sacred cows.  And here on NSF we do have many :)
We'd probably also disagree on the outcome of that strategy; on the cunning plan, my money would still be on the apathy + jobs formula.  (It's not like that's no longer working for those defense contractors you noted.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 02:39 am

I'm not denying that kids love rockets.  I'm not an engineer like many people here, but it's my understanding that any plan under consideration to put astronauts in space, will in fact continue to utilize rockets.

Expendable rockets and capsules....just as I feared when NASA gave up on RLV development with the justification that capsules would allow us to return to the moon.  Now, looks like we have the worst of both worlds - still stuck in Low Earth Orbit and regressing from reusable spaceplanes to expendable capsules.

Umm...and the Program of Record or DIRECT would've given us RLVs?  More to the point, one of the specific areas of research that I've been hearing is being discussed for the new technology programs (if they get funded) is RLV technologies.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 02:50 am

Umm...and the Program of Record or DIRECT would've given us RLVs? 

At least that program was designed to get us out of Low Earth Orbit.  Let's have one or the other - a return to the moon (and hopefully missions beyond) or a return to advancing the state of the art, and pushing for routine access to space with reusable spaceplanes. 

Having nothing but Soyuz and Dragon capsules ferrying crew to/from ISS for the next decade is such a letdown!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/25/2010 02:53 am
But this HLV fetish so many have here seems to border on a cargo cult mentality.

~Jon

I think that's unfair and incorrect.  It's my opinion that most of the people that want HLVs want it because they feel it's the best (in one way or another) way to get humans to other planetary bodies and back safely with meaningful work to do at their destination.  There might be a few Tim Taylor's but that's not the majority.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cinder on 02/25/2010 02:58 am
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.
Non sequitur.  Going to Mars, not the ISS.  Mars is what blows kids minds, not what particular rocket was used to get there.  Unless the rocket's even more extraordinary than going to a faraway planet for the first time.  There's no hints that this'll be the case.. It's going to be just another chemical rocket, just like the one that went to the Moon decades ago. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cinder on 02/25/2010 03:01 am
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

Rewatching the event and Bolden made some very poor remarks at times.

This one is amazing:

"No one will know how an astronaut got to the ISS 10 years from now. No one will know what vehicle they went on. Nor will they care."

And this is the guy that wants kids to be inspired....just don't give a crap about the engineering, the processing, the launch vehicle, the launch event etc. And I suppose we can include the testing, the test flights.

Very poor remark from the head of NASA.


Ya know ... I remember watching a big rocket launch a couple guys towards the moon on TV a few decade ago.  But the name of that rocket and the names of the spacecraft that took them to/from the moon seems to escape me at the moment.  I guess I don't care ... the important thing is that Neal somebody, Buzz what's his face, and Michael in the command thingy made history. ;D

Edit for grammar.

I tried to find an excuse for his comment, such as Joe Public, but even Joe Public tend to know what a shuttle is.

Those exhibitions with retired orbiters are going to be in trouble by 2020, with masses of people asking "what's that?"
The Shuttle's exceptional.  It's easy to recall because it stands out.  Most people couldn't tell an Atlas from an Ares I from a Titan from a Falcon 1, given a picture of each without explicit scale. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 03:04 am
What I find fascinating about this entire ordeal is that it is one of the only issues on The Hill today that both sides of the isle agree on for the most part.  In other words all of the energy was from one team (Congress) being directed on others.  I enjoying seeing WDC in agreement for once.  Granted its a small room of congressmen and women but they are on one team which is rare these days.   

Congressmen and Senators from districts with large NASA centers agree that the rest of the country should spend more money on projects that benefit their districts?  Amazing!  Would've never suspected....  ;-)

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 03:10 am
But this HLV fetish so many have here seems to border on a cargo cult mentality.

~Jon

I think that's unfair and incorrect.  It's my opinion that most of the people that want HLVs want it because they feel it's the best (in one way or another) way to get humans to other planetary bodies and back safely with meaningful work to do at their destination.  There might be a few Tim Taylor's but that's not the majority.

I guess my point was that even among non-fanboy supporters of HLVs, the usual jist of their rationale is "it worked for Apollo".  Ignoring all the other things that made Apollo possible that just don't exist anymore.  Most of the time I try to discuss the technical side of whether HLVs are really needed or not, I get accused of either "arrogantly thinking I know everything we'll need in the future" or someone uses an appeal to authority (usually glossing over any nuance in said authority).

I wasn't saying people didn't honestly believe HLVs were needed.  Just saying that a lot of people think they're needed for reasons that aren't much better than a cargo cult mentality.  Those Pacific Islanders also really believed that if they rebuilt those long dirt strips, those big noisy bird looking things, and tall tower like things that it would somehow magically lead to the cargo and goods coming back to their islands.  That doesn't mean that they were somehow dishonest, or didn't really believe what they said they did. 

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 03:11 am

At least that program was designed to get us out of Low Earth Orbit.  Let's have one or the other - a return to the moon (and hopefully missions beyond) or a return to advancing the state of the art, and pushing for routine access to space with reusable spaceplanes. 

Having nothing but Soyuz and Dragon capsules ferrying crew to/from ISS for the next decade is such a letdown!

Under the new plan hasn't NASA given money already this month to a winged RLV project?  I know from many of your posts that you very much like winged vehicles--I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy about this.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 03:20 am

Under the new plan hasn't NASA given money already this month to a winged RLV project?  I know from many of your posts that you very much like winged vehicles--I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy about this.

Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser is getting $20 million for the next fiscal year as I recall.  Obviously, that's peanuts in terms of s/c development money - enough to do some preliminary design work I guess.  So, realistically, what are we looking at?  At least a couple of years of design work, followed by several more years of development and testing, assuming much higher funding becomes available?  Assuming that everything goes smoothly, and for the first time in history a new spacecraft development program doesn't hit any snags, delays, or cost overruns, how soon could DreamChaser be operational?  5 years?  And what are the odds of an upstart company successfully developing such a vehicle - even one based on the HL-20 - with no significant problems along the way? 

And where is the money to man-rate the Atlas V, which DreamChaser is counting on if it's ever to make it into orbit?

Now, if DreamChaser had been awarded $200 million rather than $20 million, maybe I'd be a little more optimistic about it being a serious program.  Heck, even that would be peanuts!  Taxpayers spent, what, $1.2 billion on the suborbital X-33 demonstrator that never even got near completion?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 03:36 am
@ Jon Goff

I believe Ross Tierney when he posts that above a certain level of mass launched through TLI, a Jupiter based lunar campaign can be done at a lower cost per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than can be achieved using Atlas V or Delta IVH.

Ross also writes that below that same threshold, EELV is less expensive per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than with EELV. Therefore this is a bean counting conclusion, not an ideological conclusion.

He has asserted that these numbers have been documented by state of the art engineering cost analysis tools.

I believe Ross and I assert there is nothing "cargo cultish" about it.

Not to mention payload fairing concerns and my belief that Holdren's plan will result in all this nice new proposed R&D being stripped from NASA's future budget as soon as the workforce is let go and the infrastructure dismantled.

As in "bait & switch"

Anyway, one recent example here:

Quote
Re: DIRECT best Political compromise
« Reply #246 on: 02/24/2010 04:17 PM »
   
Reply with quote
clb22,
Understood, and I agree completely with the principle of what your saying.   My point of contention is really that I believe you are drawing the line too high.   So let me try to define that as simply as I can:

This is all about Lifecycle Costs.   Lifecycle Costs are dominated (about 80:20 ratio) by Annual Recurring Operational Costs.   Operationally, the cross-over point where Jupiter becomes lower cost compared to EELV comes at a launch rate of approximately ~300mT per year (+/- 15mT).   Thus...

If your mission requirements are above that point, then SD-HLV is the more cost effective option.

If your mission requirements are lower, then EELV is your better option.

The only remaining question is "how much do we need?"

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 03:42 am
Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser is getting $20 million for the next fiscal year as I recall.  Obviously, that's peanuts in terms of s/c development money - enough to do some preliminary design work I guess.  So, realistically, what are we looking at?  At least a couple of years of design work, followed by several more years of development and testing, assuming much higher funding becomes available?  Assuming that everything goes smoothly, and for the first time in history a new spacecraft development program doesn't hit any snags, delays, or cost overruns, how soon could DreamChaser be operational?  5 years?  And what are the odds of an upstart company successfully developing such a vehicle - even one based on the HL-20 - with no significant problems along the way? 

And where is the money to man-rate the Atlas V, which DreamChaser is counting on if it's ever to make it into orbit?

Now, if DreamChaser had been awarded $200 million rather than $20 million, maybe I'd be a little more optimistic about it being a serious program.

It won more of the CCDEV money than Boeing did.  If they meet the milestones I'm sure there's a lot more to come.  NASA couldn't really award $200m on the day they announced their radical new budget, even if they wanted to.

I think you have to admit a winged spaceplane is a lot more realistic now than it was under POR or any other Orion-based future.

I'm not worried about anyone forgetting to man-rate Atlas V since it seems like everyone and their brother is now trying to build a manned payload for it.


Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 03:46 am
Quote from: clongton link=topic=20649.msg552013#msg552013 date=1267060734
The context of the post was [b
7th grade school kids[/b], not adults.
Bolden' remark was that he didn't want 7th graders thinking about Mars and that kids that age are not interested in the rockets. He's wrong! For kids that age it is literally *all about the rocket*.
It may now be about rovers or scientists - given kids I speak to.

They don't bring up the Shuttle. They do ask about launch/reentry/spaceflight ...

Times change.

The poster below says it all. Can you even picture the adventure going on in his head? Calculus will never grip him like that.
The images change. The vehicles change. The motivations stay the same.

Right now the metaphor for connecting with average kids is video games.
The metaphor is fighters, not LV's, or trucks (Shuttles).

My interactions with secondary school kids tell me that NASA affects them more broadly than before - the LV is not the focus. Other things are.

And with advanced interest ones, intern programs, science fairs, competitions, special interest groups ...  kids here are more driven than ever into science and engineering about space. The inspiration they desire is grounded in the reality of HSF that will be around by the time they can get their hands on it.

Some I've met at the Mars Society are remarkable in that they understand how immature we are in spaceflight capability. They are savvy enough to be afraid of a technology roadmap to nowhere.

Irregardless of your opinion of what future you'd most like, these kids would most desire everyone to keep from dead ends in any plan that goes forward.

Be advised that 9B of Cx resulting in one very limited test did not inspire these kids - many told me they saw it as a meaningless diversion.

Unsurprisingly, they are all interested in Mars as the true objective as its another world. They worry that, like ISS going in LEO circles, we could end up in endless diversions.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/25/2010 03:48 am

Nice side-step :)
No, he *absolutely* was talking about 7th grade kids not caring about the rockets.
He said:
Quote
they don't care about the launch vehicles
He was talking about the kids and he said it in the context of what does and does not inspire kids. There is no mistaking what he said. It was so clearly stated that it's not even open to misinterpretation. You might want to "spin" it, the same way politicians spin an unpleasant truth, but that would be beneath you; and you're better than that.

Face it; he said a stupid thing.

Chuck!!  I absolutely agree he said a stupid thing.  What I'm saying is that if he were in the room he'd agree he said a stupid thing, too and admit he meant to say what I said, precisely because it would be the most sensible thing for a person in his position to say.

Do you believe in your heart that Bolden doesn't think that 7th graders like rocket ships?  If there's one thing that people of every nationality and creed on this Earth can probably agree to, it's that 7th graders like rocket ships.  It would be utterly bizarre for someone who commanded a rocket ship to think otherwise, but it would be slightly less bizarre if he said something silly to the contrary under pressure.  Am I interpreting what he said in this situation--sure, but I think it makes sense given the context.

Dan

I understood it the same way you did. You have to put the sentence in the context of what Bolden was saying. A rocket is cool whether it's commercial or NASA's. Bolden speaks quickly and will sometimes fumble some of his words. I wouldn't read anything else into it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 04:08 am

The gap has nothing to do with HLVs.  You can get to orbit quite well with vehicles a lot smaller than HLVs.  You can even do exploration this side of Phobos without HLVs.  HLVs are at best a means to an end, not an end in itself.  What I care about are the ends: space settlement, exploration, and space commercialization.  If an HLV has a part to play in reaching those ends at some point down the road, that's fine, and in fact this plan allows you to retain the capability you need to turn that option on when you're actually closer to needing it.

But this HLV fetish so many have here seems to border on a cargo cult mentality.

~Jon

And what are we to get to orbit on?  Soyuz...sure that's the right strategy. 

What are we to do exploration with?  Last I checked there is no plan for that.....just R&D, which is ironic given the person I'm replying to.

This "plan" allows for anything and everything, because there is absolutely no definition to it. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 04:18 am
The "plan" is fatal. It is beyond obvious that the testimony today was extremely critical from the experts up there today.

Only the former CNN journalist was glowing.
Sorry Miles, but you were way out of your league up there.


It's not going to get any better. The consensus is only going to grow against it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 04:21 am
Mike Snyder for President!


Concur!!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 04:40 am
And what are we to get to orbit on?  Soyuz...sure that's the right strategy.

Well, there's also that whole commercial crew investment that the Obama budget proposal was going to put $6B on.  But really, I don't see any realistic plan that doesn't involve at least some gap where American astronauts are flying on Soyuz for a few years while a new system (public or private) hopefully comes on line.  This could've been avoided by funding commercial crew and cargo sooner and more aggressively, but unfortunately we didn't make that choice then so we're stuck with the reality we live in now.

Quote
What are we to do exploration with?  Last I checked there is no plan for that.....just R&D, which is ironic given the person I'm replying to.

It depends a lot on what your initial exploration targets are, and how you're willing to go about them.  There *are* ways to do realistic and useful exploration in cislunar space and even out to some of the nearer NEOs based on the tools that the commercial crew and cargo efforts and the technology demonstration efforts will likely have online in the next five years if the funding actually occurs.

HLVs *might* be needed down the road, but there's a ton you can do just as well without them.

Quote
This "plan" allows for anything and everything, because there is absolutely no definition to it. 

There's actually a lot of details in it, if you're willing to look.  Sure, it doesn't say "Go to destination X by date Y", but it does give details like:

1. Specific lists of technologies and technology areas they would like to see demonstrated.
2. Rough timelines for when they would like to see those demonstrated by (all the tech demo stuff is explicitly targeting demonstration within 5 years according to several of the budget documents).
3. Budget guidelines for the size range of these demonstration missions at various maturity levels
4. Rough timelines for when commercial crew capabilities are targetted for coming online

etc.

And there are efforts underway throughout the research side of NASA to put even more specifics to each of these technology dev/demo focuses, providing more details on whats, whens, and hows.

Absolutely no details there.  Absolutely vague.  Nothing but flying on Soyuzes as far as the eye can see...

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 04:42 am
on SDLV one is lucky to get to 4x Russian levels. Not a good argument for doing SDLV. So Ross - have them do Jupiter to compete with ULA?  ;D

Seriously yes you can do a lot better than Russia/China, but only if you challenge structural issues. You are not going to do that with a govt program.

You got to be a fool to believe that anyone is going to use DIRECT as anything other than an argument to get back to funding POR - bait and switch. Let's not go down the Ares road again.

Vitter is bitter about not doing so.

That arguement is silly and someone who does not understand the bigger picture and assumes because someone arbitrarily calls it "commercial" that it is better and cheaper. 

Fact:  government is mainly an oversight function in Shuttle today and does not "turn wrenches", etc in that world.  While NASA is present, if you eliminated them, it would not make that big of a difference.  There are other ways to reduce costs through other efficienties.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 04:50 am
And what are we to get to orbit on?  Soyuz...sure that's the right strategy.

Well, there's also that whole commercial crew investment that the Obama budget proposal was going to put $6B on.  But really, I don't see any realistic plan that doesn't involve at least some gap where American astronauts are flying on Soyuz for a few years while a new system (public or private) hopefully comes on line.  This could've been avoided by funding commercial crew and cargo sooner and more aggressively, but unfortunately we didn't make that choice then so we're stuck with the reality we live in now.

Quote
What are we to do exploration with?  Last I checked there is no plan for that.....just R&D, which is ironic given the person I'm replying to.

It depends a lot on what your initial exploration targets are, and how you're willing to go about them.  There *are* ways to do realistic and useful exploration in cislunar space and even out to some of the nearer NEOs based on the tools that the commercial crew and cargo efforts and the technology demonstration efforts will likely have online in the next five years if the funding actually occurs.

HLVs *might* be needed down the road, but there's a ton you can do just as well without them.

Quote
This "plan" allows for anything and everything, because there is absolutely no definition to it. 

There's actually a lot of details in it, if you're willing to look.  Sure, it doesn't say "Go to destination X by date Y", but it does give details like:

1. Specific lists of technologies and technology areas they would like to see demonstrated.
2. Rough timelines for when they would like to see those demonstrated by (all the tech demo stuff is explicitly targeting demonstration within 5 years according to several of the budget documents).
3. Budget guidelines for the size range of these demonstration missions at various maturity levels
4. Rough timelines for when commercial crew capabilities are targetted for coming online

etc.

And there are efforts underway throughout the research side of NASA to put even more specifics to each of these technology dev/demo focuses, providing more details on whats, whens, and hows.

Absolutely no details there.  Absolutely vague.  Nothing but flying on Soyuzes as far as the eye can see...

~Jon

No, we are not stuck.  We have a vehicle.

Commercial, at best, is 3-4 years away for crew.  The current "plan" is not a plan and hopes and assumes with zero contingency.

As for the rest, I hate to say this Jon but that is simply looking through rose colored glasses.  General lists, not really what I would call specific, of when maybe we would like to see technologies developed but then having no definitive plan to use them is a strategic mistake.  Does Microsoft just research how to make Windows better or do they plan to actually use it in there next version?  Take your pick of any company and feel free to use the same analogy. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: DigitalMan on 02/25/2010 05:05 am
They got money NOW that has to be spent by this coming October.  (the funds were from the $50 million stimulus).


Under the new plan hasn't NASA given money already this month to a winged RLV project?  I know from many of your posts that you very much like winged vehicles--I'm surprised you're not jumping for joy about this.

Sierra Nevada's DreamChaser is getting $20 million for the next fiscal year as I recall.  Obviously, that's peanuts in terms of s/c development money - enough to do some preliminary design work I guess.  So, realistically, what are we looking at?  At least a couple of years of design work, followed by several more years of development and testing, assuming much higher funding becomes available?  Assuming that everything goes smoothly, and for the first time in history a new spacecraft development program doesn't hit any snags, delays, or cost overruns, how soon could DreamChaser be operational?  5 years?  And what are the odds of an upstart company successfully developing such a vehicle - even one based on the HL-20 - with no significant problems along the way? 

And where is the money to man-rate the Atlas V, which DreamChaser is counting on if it's ever to make it into orbit?

Now, if DreamChaser had been awarded $200 million rather than $20 million, maybe I'd be a little more optimistic about it being a serious program.  Heck, even that would be peanuts!  Taxpayers spent, what, $1.2 billion on the suborbital X-33 demonstrator that never even got near completion?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jkumpire on 02/25/2010 05:12 am
Bolden is simply a mouthpiece for Obama's plan and Obama's plan kills shuttle. He was never going to go against Obama's plan.

Chris you know better! VSE ended shuttle at 2010.

Agreed.

Too much grandstanding (all around) in the hearings, as usual for Congress. I heard a lot of quoting JFK without suggesting that we spend 4% of the budget as was done at the peak of Apollo.

It's constantly mentioned that a large impediment to shuttle extension is the cost of restarting many of the assembly lines that have been shut down. I don't recall seeing specific numbers - are we talking $10M? $100M? More? Any links (public or L2) would be appreciated.

Extending shuttle to meet commercial at the other side is great in principle, but as always money matters.

The 4% quote is meaningless. The Federal budget is so many times larger as a percentage of GDP now than it was then that number has no meaning. The pie is so much bigger now than it once was that money is not really the issue, it is one's vision of the future that matters.

This is a decision based first on the political will of the leadership to do something. Or do nothing of any significance. Or end something of significance.

 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/25/2010 05:30 am
You guys, we _need_ this new technology R&D. No matter if you support Constellation, Shuttle extension, whatever. These new tech demos are absolutely essential for us really doing solid exploration work. And NO, it is not just "pie-in-the-sky." Remember ion propulsion? Really pie in the sky? Well, Deep Space-1 demonstrated that it works. That made the Dawn mission possible, a probe which will orbit two different dwarf planets (which we've never seen up close before and could be the targets of future manned missions after Mars) and is on its way right now.

A large-scale electric propulsion demonstrator could do the same thing for manned deep space missions. Same for propellant depots, large ultralight structures (for large radiators for nuclear electric power or for large solar arrays), advanced closed-loop life support, etc. These would be demonstrated very quickly, within 5 years, allowing them to basically be used for any new PoR having graduated many technology readiness levels (TRLs). These sorts of tech demos are even bigger scale and more applicable to manned spaceflight than the New Millennium space tech demo missions that were canceled for the sake of Constellation funding.

How can you denigrate tech development like this? Bolden is right that we need to develop this technology before we can go to Mars. If setting a firm goal means we avoid any technologies that aren't at TRL 9, then we shouldn't set a firm goal.*

*I think that we CAN set a firm goal while still waiting for development of technologies to be matured. I'd love Obama and Congress to come out and say: "We are going to Mars by 2025 and this is the way we are going to do it, the three parallel tech development paths we must take, and the $15 billion extra annual funding. By extending the Shuttle until 2015, any Shuttle jobs will remain intact as we transition to full commercial-to-LEO." But this is not likely to happen "in this economy."
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 05:31 am
No, we are not stuck.  We have a vehicle.

True, but a vehicle that at best can be strung out for another few years max, and only at extreme expense.  If you stretched it out to the max you could do without restarting the production lines all the way, you'd be talking about 3-4 extra flights over 5 years at the cost of around $12-13B.  Ie about $2B/flight.  And that isn't without risk.

I honestly think there are better balances of cost vs. risk that could be done than trying to keep Shuttle limping along for another five years.  For instance, if shuttle-class upmass is the big concern, my favorite proposed solution was the ULA Payload Bay Fairing.  The system is pretty low technical risk, with almost all of the technolgies at TRL 9, could provide shuttle-class upmass, and could probably be flying within a short period of time (since it doesn't need a new launcher, and can reuse a lot of systems from other projects).  I'd rather see a slight 1-2 flight shuttle stretchout and extra funding for something like this than trying to keep Shuttle going for another several years at such high costs.

Quote
Commercial, at best, is 3-4 years away for crew.  The current "plan" is not a plan and hopes and assumes with zero contingency.

It has a lot more contingency than the old plan did.  If it got funded, you would likely have at least three or four potential crew and cargo launch systems, on at least three different launchers (Boeing capsule and/or Dreamchaser on Atlas V, Cygnus on Taurus II, Dragon on Falcon 9).  Sure, it's possible that every single one of those could fail, but even if you assign a low success rate for each of them once you start talking that level of redundancy, the odds of them all failing seems pretty low.

Quote
As for the rest, I hate to say this Jon but that is simply looking through rose colored glasses.  General lists, not really what I would call specific, of when maybe we would like to see technologies developed but then having no definitive plan to use them is a strategic mistake.

Believe what you will.  From the limited amount I've seen of the various roadmapping activities going on at NASA it's getting a lot more thought than you seem to think. 

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 05:40 am
The 4% quote is meaningless. The Federal budget is so many times larger as a percentage of GDP now than it was then that number has no meaning. The pie is so much bigger now than it once was that money is not really the issue, it is one's vision of the future that matters.

This is a decision based first on the political will of the leadership to do something. Or do nothing of any significance. Or end something of significance.

I've been hearing this line of thought (that NASA's budget is such a small part of the overall federal pie that adding huge amounts to it shouldn't be a problem) for literally half of my life.  I even remember writing a "persuasive writing" paper on just this topic for my freshman English class back in 96.  Between this argument and $5 you *might* be able to get lunch somewhere.

Even though NASA is only 0.6% or whatever of the federal budget, the problem is that most people still think it's 10-20% or more of the budget.  And that in spite of over a decade and a half of space people trying to "educate" the public on this matter.  If Obama tried to boost the NASA budget anywhere near the amount that would be necessary to recreate the situation that enabled Apollo, he'd be politically crucified by his enemies in Congress.  Even a $3B increase like what the A-com wanted would've exposed him (and by extension NASA) to all sorts of political attacks at a time when he couldn't afford it.  No, he's not going to sacrifice himself to enable aerospace engineers to relive their 1960s glory days.  If people heard that Obama was going to say double the HSF budget (about what would be required to enable a "within this decade" return to the Moon), they would think he was increasing the federal budget by 10, 20 or more.

Even if they're dead wrong, that doesn't really matter.  The damage can easily be done long before the truth has a chance to even put on its shoes.

People who think Obama could've just added $3B to the NASA budget without repercussions are living in a fantasy world.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 06:17 am
on SDLV one is lucky to get to 4x Russian levels. Not a good argument for doing SDLV. So Ross - have them do Jupiter to compete with ULA?  ;D

Seriously yes you can do a lot better than Russia/China, but only if you challenge structural issues. You are not going to do that with a govt program.

You got to be a fool to believe that anyone is going to use DIRECT as anything other than an argument to get back to funding POR - bait and switch. Let's not go down the Ares road again.

Vitter is bitter about not doing so.

That arguement is silly and someone who does not understand the bigger picture and assumes because someone arbitrarily calls it "commercial" that it is better and cheaper. 

Fact:  government is mainly an oversight function in Shuttle today and does not "turn wrenches", etc in that world.  While NASA is present, if you eliminated them, it would not make that big of a difference.  There are other ways to reduce costs through other efficienties.
Your putting your words in my mouth - yuck! Tastes awful.

Has nothing to do with "commercial being better" or "wrenches".

I can't believe you are this experienced and yet naive as to the difference between competitively bid multiple commercial and govt developed. It is more likely this is merely slander to cloud the issue.
Hope it makes you feel good.

Govt bid/management/development can deny realities and lock out competition - Ares I project kept an operational Delta IVH from being considered for a similar role. 

Paying 9B for a capability you've had for years is an incredible waste.

Multiple commercial can keep each other in check.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 08:12 am
Ross also writes that below that same threshold, EELV is less expensive per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than with EELV. Therefore this is a bean counting conclusion, not an ideological conclusion.

It's ridiculous not to compare to EELV Phase 1.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: William Barton on 02/25/2010 08:16 am
The 4% quote is meaningless. The Federal budget is so many times larger as a percentage of GDP now than it was then that number has no meaning. The pie is so much bigger now than it once was that money is not really the issue, it is one's vision of the future that matters.

This is a decision based first on the political will of the leadership to do something. Or do nothing of any significance. Or end something of significance.

I've been hearing this line of thought (that NASA's budget is such a small part of the overall federal pie that adding huge amounts to it shouldn't be a problem) for literally half of my life.  I even remember writing a "persuasive writing" paper on just this topic for my freshman English class back in 96.  Between this argument and $5 you *might* be able to get lunch somewhere.

Even though NASA is only 0.6% or whatever of the federal budget, the problem is that most people still think it's 10-20% or more of the budget.  And that in spite of over a decade and a half of space people trying to "educate" the public on this matter.  If Obama tried to boost the NASA budget anywhere near the amount that would be necessary to recreate the situation that enabled Apollo, he'd be politically crucified by his enemies in Congress.  Even a $3B increase like what the A-com wanted would've exposed him (and by extension NASA) to all sorts of political attacks at a time when he couldn't afford it.  No, he's not going to sacrifice himself to enable aerospace engineers to relive their 1960s glory days.  If people heard that Obama was going to say double the HSF budget (about what would be required to enable a "within this decade" return to the Moon), they would think he was increasing the federal budget by 10, 20 or more.

Even if they're dead wrong, that doesn't really matter.  The damage can easily be done long before the truth has a chance to even put on its shoes.

People who think Obama could've just added $3B to the NASA budget without repercussions are living in a fantasy world.

~Jon

For whatever reason, people can't get the real budget numbers through there heads. I suspect it's because of a feature I've seen in many people: when you confront them with facts that run counter to whatever fantasy most appeals to them, they say, "That doesn't make sense!" And then, even in the face of proof, they go back to believing in their fantasy.

Here and elsewhere, recently, I've gone through the exercise of demonstrating the US education budget is over 50 times larger than the NASA budget (over $1trl vs. less than $20bln) and it never penetrates. People just start making up excuses for why that should be so. But it was always true. As far back as 1970, I was encountering people who would not believe NASA wasn't consuming more money than healthcare, education, and all entitlement programs combined. When I demonstrated, with a real budget document provided by a then-trusted source (the Washington Post) that the DoD budget and the HEW* budget were about equal, and that both were many, many times NASA's budget, the puzzled response was, "No, there's obviously something wrong here. We must be missing something, because that can't be right." In other words, their desired outcome trumped reality. That may simply be human nature.

My favorite Pushkin quote, as always: "The falsehood that exalts we cherish more than meaner truths that are a thousand strong."

* HEW was an old cabinet post, now broken to multiple departments, that stood for Health, Education, and Welfare. I was sorry to see it go, because I thought it helped to see all the money for it piled in one place.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/25/2010 08:28 am
Old plan: HLV by 2020.
New plan: HLV by 2030.

En contraire:
Old plan: no funding at all for HLV until 2015, HLV ready in the 2020s
New plan: up to 3bn funding for an HLV to 2015, HLV maybe before 2020
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/25/2010 10:20 am
Purely IMHO and FWIW.

I agree that a compromise of some kind will emerge.  Whilst I think that the basic apparent intent of the plan (to pave the way for sustained human BEO exploration by way of developing needed technologies), I think that other things that, frankly, are best listed as "nice but non-critical" won't make it.  Research for an advanced technology HLV will probably be one of them.

There is such apparent lack of confidence in Congress regarding the commercial option that I cannot see it remaining as the near-term solution to US-indigenous human space flight needs.  There is also clearly a lot of disquiet at the current intent to have NASA, via commercial providers, developing... er... something to go... er... somewhere by... er... sometime.

I thus expect Congress to decide on something like this:

1. Shuttle extension until ~2015 or Orion on EELV until commercial crew launch is in place and, more importantly, as a back-up to commercial options until they are fully reliable;

   a) If they go for SSP extension, "Recertification" is quietly forgotten when the SSP guys point out that they do it anyway;

   b) If Orion becomes the back-up ISS crew access, look for a lot of pressure to have something like the DIRECT team's "Apollo 8 Redux" idea written into law;

2. Development of follow-on HLV-M to take over high-volume support of ISS to begin immediately.  By force of necessity, this will either be some flavour of SDHLV or something like the EELV Phase 1, but very severely cost-limited;

3. Nothing will be set in stone about the post-ISS heavy lift.  Will it be SDLV? Will it be EELV-derived? Will they use HLV-Ms (one or more of J-130-style SDLVs, EELV+ACES and F9+Raptor) and depots? Will it be something completely new? That will remain to be seen based on determination of mission to be made when R&D will begin (~2015/16);

4. NASA will be told to have a series of 'Presidential Cycle Goals' - Something that will drive NASA HSF activities for 3- to 4-year cycles.  The first one, IMHO, will be to get Orion flying OR to get the post-shuttle HLV-M to initial flight test status by 2012/13.  The next will be to have post-ISS thinking set to the point where decisions as to HLV and exploration archetecture can be made and to have HLV-M and its crew vehicle at FOC by 2015/16.  Finally, to have the first BEO mission flown by the end of 2020.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 11:18 am
Purely IMHO and FWIW.

I agree that a compromise of some kind will emerge.  Whilst I think that the basic apparent intent of the plan (to pave the way for sustained human BEO exploration by way of developing needed technologies), I think that other things that, frankly, are best listed as "nice but non-critical" won't make it.  Research for an advanced technology HLV will probably be one of them.

There is such apparent lack of confidence in Congress regarding the commercial option that I cannot see it remaining as the near-term solution to US-indigenous human space flight needs.  There is also clearly a lot of disquiet at the current intent to have NASA, via commercial providers, developing... er... something to go... er... somewhere by... er... sometime.

I thus expect Congress to decide on something like this:

1. Shuttle extension until ~2015 or Orion on EELV until commercial crew launch is in place and, more importantly, as a back-up to commercial options until they are fully reliable;

   a) If they go for SSP extension, "Recertification" is quietly forgotten when the SSP guys point out that they do it anyway;

   b) If Orion becomes the back-up ISS crew access, look for a lot of pressure to have something like the DIRECT team's "Apollo 8 Redux" idea written into law;

2. Development of follow-on HLV-M to take over high-volume support of ISS to begin immediately.  By force of necessity, this will either be some flavour of SDHLV or something like the EELV Phase 1, but very severely cost-limited;

3. Nothing will be set in stone about the post-ISS heavy lift.  Will it be SDLV? Will it be EELV-derived? Will they use HLV-Ms (one or more of J-130-style SDLVs, EELV+ACES and F9+Raptor) and depots? Will it be something completely new? That will remain to be seen based on determination of mission to be made when R&D will begin (~2015/16);

4. NASA will be told to have a series of 'Presidential Cycle Goals' - Something that will drive NASA HSF activities for 3- to 4-year cycles.  The first one, IMHO, will be to get Orion flying OR to get the post-shuttle HLV-M to initial flight test status by 2012/13.  The next will be to have post-ISS thinking set to the point where decisions as to HLV and exploration archetecture can be made and to have HLV-M and its crew vehicle at FOC by 2015/16.  Finally, to have the first BEO mission flown by the end of 2020.

I think you have hit it about as close as anything. A fine example of very clear thinking. I agree and have to add that your outline makes a lot of sense considering how things are going in the Congress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/25/2010 11:24 am
"The Moon is too hard and expensive.  Let's go to Mars!"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/25/2010 11:30 am
Purely IMHO and FWIW.

(snip)

4. NASA will be told to have a series of 'Presidential Cycle Goals' - Something that will drive NASA HSF activities for 3- to 4-year cycles.  The first one, IMHO, will be to get Orion flying OR to get the post-shuttle HLV-M to initial flight test status by 2012/13.  The next will be to have post-ISS thinking set to the point where decisions as to HLV and exploration archetecture can be made and to have HLV-M and its crew vehicle at FOC by 2015/16.  Finally, to have the first BEO mission flown by the end of 2020.

Maybe, maybe not. Predictions are hard. Too much can happen, even if Congress actually decides...

- Ron Paul may become US president in 2013 and dismantle NASA
- Another Shuttle accident may occur
- ISS may break down or be disabled by an OD strike
- The US economy might collapse completely and the Second Great Depression may come (remember, the first one didn't start until around 1931, there was also a "recovery" of sorts after the '29 crash before things went really bad...)
- etc.

All of the above would spell the end of NASA / US manned spaceflight.

As the Chinese would say: We are living in interesting times...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 11:42 am

Be advised that 9B of Cx resulting in one very limited test did not inspire these kids - many told me they saw it as a meaningless diversion.

A 7th grader said that? Amazing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 11:44 am

- Ron Paul may become US president in 2013 and dismantle NASA
- Another Shuttle accident may occur
- ISS may break down or be disabled by an OD strike
- The US economy might collapse completely and the Second Great Depression may come (remember, the first one didn't start until around 1931, there was also a "recovery" of sorts after the '29 crash before things went really bad...)
- etc.

All of the above would spell the end of NASA / US manned spaceflight.

As the Chinese would say: We are living in interesting times...

Nice to see you're thinking positively Chris :)

The first two won't happen imo. I won't talk about Ron Paul, but the reason the shuttles will be fine is because they get such a thorough checkup for damage. After 2 loses already NASA has become very careful while operating them. I think it was Mike who said "I challenge you to tell me the shuttles aren't safe". An extra 3-5 years of shuttle flights won't hurt. (I hope)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 11:57 am
There *are* ways to do realistic and useful exploration in cislunar space ...
HLVs *might* be needed down the road, but there's a ton you can do just as well without them.
~Jon

It seems like you are either not listening to or ignoring us.
We have clearly stated that below 300mT to LEO per year the EELV is the best path forward.
HLV become the best economic path at ~300mT to LEO per year and more.
I just cannot for the life of me see any kind of "exploration" program worthy of the name that uses less lofted mass than that per year.

As for exploring cislunar space well that's just "space" near the moon. There's nothing there - just, well, "space"; it's empty. There is no difference between ciclunar space and cisearth space; they are both just empty space. I can explore ciclunar space in HEO. I don't want to explore cislunar "space". I want to explore the lunar "surface". There is a lot more there than "space".

I'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless. I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/25/2010 11:59 am
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine

Nice to see you're thinking positively Chris :)

The first two won't happen imo. I won't talk about Ron Paul, but the reason the shuttles will be fine is because they get such a thorough checkup for damage. After 2 loses already NASA has become very careful when operating them. I think it was Mike who said "I challenge you to tell me the shuttles aren't safe". An extra 3-5 years of shuttle flights won't hurt. (I hope)

Of course, I'm always positive :D

Actually, I forgot my favorite horror-vision: A rabid (and intelligent) anti-technology, anti-spaceflight, pro-vegan and pro-animal rights girl who looks stunning on TV becomes the next American Idol and uses her fame to sucessfully champion the cause that "manned spaceflight must be stopped"... LOL.

Now, for my personal guess on what will come out of these hearings: Everybody in Congress is opposed to the current NASA budget (but everyone has a different reason). So they can't agree on any alternative, but they all agree to ax the budget.

In the end: NASA does not get the projected budget increase (because the budget is not approved), but there still is no plan and no vision. Meanwhile, Shuttle infrastructure completes dismantlement, and Lori succeeds in burning those bridges down, removing the SDLV option for all time.

Commercial development is further delayed because of lack of budget. Gap is further increased. US Astronauts fly to the ISS (which is extended to 2020) exclusively on Soyuz. And we all pray nothing goes wrong on ISS.

In the end, we got a lot of political bickering and nothing to show for it.

How's that for an optimistic vision?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:00 pm
I'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless. I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?

Jon will speak for himself, but I believe up to at least 1000mT can be done comfortably with EELV Phase 1.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:08 pm
I'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless. I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?

Jon will speak for himself, but I believe up to at least 1000mT can be done comfortably with EELV Phase 1.

You skipped the "why" part. Please supply the data that backs up your position. Without the data it's just an unsubstantiated opinion. We provided the data to show why we hold the position we do. Please do the same. I will not debate opinions because there is no right or wrong opinion. I will debate facts however. They are substantive while opinions are not.

In God we trust. All others bring data.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 12:09 pm
Now, for my personal guess on what will come out of these hearings: Everybody in Congress is opposed to the current NASA budget (but everyone has a different reason). So they can't agree on any alternative, but they all agree to ax the budget.

In the end: NASA does not get the projected budget increase (because the budget is not approved), but there still is no plan and no vision. Meanwhile, Shuttle infrastructure completes dismantlement, and Lori succeeds in burning those bridges down, removing the SDLV option for all time.

Commercial development is further delayed because of lack of budget. Gap is further increased. US Astronauts fly to the ISS (which is extended to 2020) exclusively on Soyuz. And we all pray nothing goes wrong on ISS.

In the end, we got a lot of political bickering and nothing to show for it.

How's that for an optimistic vision?

That's just peachy.

Seriously though my guess is that they'll do a shuttle extension. Nelson and Gibson both said they want an HLV and suggested continuing Constellation so NASA can develop one, but that still results in job losses and time wasted on R&D. If you go for an extension you don't have job loses, you can service ISS properly and you can build a SDHLV later on. That's what I think will happen more or less.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:12 pm
You skipped the "why" part. Please supply the data that backs up your position.

EELV Phase 1 would have a payload capacity of 40-50mT. The EELV infrastructure was originally designed for 20 (maybe even 40) launches a year for Delta and Atlas individually. And Falcon 9 is nearing operational capability.

You might not even need EELV Phase 1 for that. You would still need an EDS, and if it's ACES then EELV Phase 1 would be what rolls out.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/25/2010 12:17 pm
Seriously though my guess is that they'll do a shuttle extension. Nelson and Gibson both said they want an HLV and suggested continuing Constellation so NASA can develop one, but that still results in job losses and time wasted on R&D. If you go for an extension you don't have job loses, you can service ISS properly and you can build a SDHLV later on. That's what I think will happen more or less.

That's what would happen if politicians were intelligent... ;)

Let's not forget that the guys we saw yesterday aren't the only ones who vote in the end. Even if there were a consensus amongst the "space senators" (and we're far from that, currently), there's still the rest of the Senate and the House who would need to be convinced. And most of those guys don't really care about space.

But then, I'm no American, so I may be wrong about that (I'm just extrapolating from my own experience with my country's politicians, who, I'm sure, are just as savvy and capable as US politicians... :D )

The one thing that is true is that time is running out. A decision will have to be taken, and quickly. Otherwise, we risk losing everything (as soon as the next major disaster strikes, space will be forgotten...)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: clongton on 02/25/2010 12:22 pm
You skipped the "why" part. Please supply the data that backs up your position.

EELV Phase 1 would have a payload capacity of 40-50mT. The EELV infrastructure was originally designed for 20 (maybe even 40) launches a year for Delta and Atlas individually. And Falcon 9 is nearing operational capability.

You might not even need EELV Phase 1 for that. You would still need an EDS, and if it's ACES then EELV Phase 1 would be what rolls out.

You're still offering conjecture and opinions. Take the time to go off and get the dollar values; research the capabilitites of the infrastructure; what would it cost to do this or that. Plus the Phase i doesn't exist. What will it cost to create it? Are there infrastructure changes need to buuild and launch them? All that must be amortized over time. There is a lot more than this to come up with a reasoned answer; that's just the beginning. We did the research. Please do the same.

Tell me you'll get back to me with the numbers; that's an acceptable and reasoned response, but don't just shoot back with more of the same. This thread is fact-based, not an opinion poll.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 12:32 pm
Seriously though my guess is that they'll do a shuttle extension. Nelson and Gibson both said they want an HLV and suggested continuing Constellation so NASA can develop one, but that still results in job losses and time wasted on R&D. If you go for an extension you don't have job loses, you can service ISS properly and you can build a SDHLV later on. That's what I think will happen more or less.

That's what would happen if politicians were intelligent... ;)

I can't really argue with that one :)

Let's not forget that the guys we saw yesterday aren't the only ones who vote in the end. Even if there were a consensus amongst the "space senators" (and we're far from that, currently), there's still the rest of the Senate and the House who would need to be convinced. And most of those guys don't really care about space.

If they don't care then they'll likely vote based on numbers and considering Cxp requires a rather substantial budget increase it doesn't look good.

But then, I'm no American, so I may be wrong about that (I'm just extrapolating from my own experience with my country's politicians, who, I'm sure, are just as savvy and capable as US politicians... :D )

For the record, neither am I. Still, they (the politicians) are people too and some part of them probably realizes the importance of this issue so they'll be inclined to think about it a bit imo.

The one thing that is true is that time is running out. A decision will have to be taken, and quickly. Otherwise, we risk losing everything (as soon as the next major disaster strikes, space will be forgotten...)

Perhaps what's needed is a prudent decision and not a fast one.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/25/2010 12:37 pm
Perhaps what's needed is a prudent decision and not a fast one.

A prudent, intelligent descision taken quickly would be even better... There actually was such an option: DIRECT v3.0. Unfortunately, it should have been taken back in 2005. Now, DIRECT isn't so good anymore, and it gets worse every day.

BTW, is that a KOTOR Republic Cruiser in your profile? Looks cool!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 12:38 pm
Tell me you'll get back to me with the numbers; that's an acceptable and reasoned response, but don't just shoot back with more of the same. This thread is fact-based, not an opinion poll.

The data is out there. Phase 1 is the phase that doesn't require major infrastructure changes or new engine development. It's well-documented in various ULA publications. ACES for EELV will cost no more than ACES for SDLV, probably less without the NASA overhead.

Do you doubt the numbers, or do you just want to spread fud?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 12:47 pm
BTW, is that a KOTOR Republic Cruiser in your profile? Looks cool!

It's "The Harbinger" from KOTOR II. Good eye :)

And I still think DIRECT is workable. I wouldn't count it out just yet.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 01:01 pm
Ross also writes that below that same threshold, EELV is less expensive per kilogram delivered to the lunar surface than with EELV. Therefore this is a bean counting conclusion, not an ideological conclusion.

It's ridiculous not to compare to EELV Phase 1.

Yes. And all the spreadsheets should have been evaluated in an open and transparent fashion with everyone showing all their work.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 01:05 pm
Or better yet in an open market with fixed prices, milestone based payments and performance bonds.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 01:20 pm
Or better yet in an open market with fixed prices, milestone based payments and performance bonds.

But that cannot happen until we end NASA's monopsony.

Monopoly = one seller many buyers

Monospony = one buyer many sellers
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 01:22 pm
Of course it can. One buyer, many sellers. We'd still get transparent prices. And I'm all for ending NASA's monopoly.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 01:24 pm
Do you mean having other entities that send not just com. sats, but people and cargo in space like NASA? Would other governments or space tourists count?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 01:26 pm
I can see this edging off topic. Keep it on the main points of yesterday's hearing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/25/2010 01:29 pm
You can "see it edging off topic", now there's some of that famous British understatement. Point taken. :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 01:49 pm
In reading around it appears to me that following yesterday's hearings, a lot of people, aside from my pal Miles, are simply not buying into the Obama budget as is. Most seem to see what I noticed in the first House hearing two weeks ago- the Congress is not favoring this proposal... and there are many more hearings ahead.

Today's hearings should be watched closely.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 01:56 pm
I think the biggest mistake in the new budget was the rapid transition. I'm sure if there wasn't such an abrupt shift from shuttle to commercial outlined in it, it would have gotten very little opposition (if any). Perhaps the lack of goals would have been criticized, but I doubt anyone would have cared much as long as there weren't massive layoffs.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 01:57 pm
I did say it would not survive its first Congress encounter intact ;). Just the start of the rewrite. I don't know whether anyone mentioned it before but Nelson said he has never seen Congressional Authorization and Appropriation Committees so united which is not good news for this budget's proposers. This budget may have done a favor in the long run if it spurs serious thought and funding on HSF direction.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 01:57 pm
You can "see it edging off topic", now there's some of that famous British understatement. Point taken. :)

Heh ;D

In reading around it appears to me that following yesterday's hearings, a lot of people, aside from my pal Miles, are simply not buying into the Obama budget as is. Most seem to see what I noticed in the first House hearing two weeks ago- the Congress is not favoring this proposal... and there are many more hearings ahead.

Today's hearings should be watched closely.

When do they start, and is it worth a new thread (I won't be able to cover due to being in transit).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: bad_astra on 02/25/2010 01:58 pm
I think the good thing that came out of the hearing is that we understand there is still a destination: Mars. In that regard portions of the VSE are still alive.

I think the main problem people, apart from those most ardent adherants to the Cult of Direct, is the gap. There was, and remains only one way to solve that, which is shuttle extension. If Congress is concerned it should fork over the money to maintain a couple of flights a year until 2015 without touching the current budget's allocations. Will it do that?

Instead the congressional troglodytes will use this as an excuse to bemoan global warming, while the supporters of Obama will try to stand firm but find their spines still made of cartillage. As usual in this country Nothing will be done.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 01:59 pm
Today's hearings should be watched closely.

When do they start, and is it worth a new thread (I won't be able to cover due to being in transit).

I think they're going to start any moment now...

EDIT - it is starting now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:05 pm
Will be interested in whether Representative Gordon plays any cards, so to speak, in this hearing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 02:07 pm
Copy. Changed the thread title to include this hearing. Please add notes of interest.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:07 pm
Interesting (sort of) that members outside the committee are going to ask questions.  (But not their purpose -- such as Rep. Posey.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:11 pm
I can't read the name of the guy talking now but he opens the hearing by saying this basically:

NASAs' FY2011 budget has positive features - i.e. the 6bln extra $, increased earth sciences and aeronautics funding, long term tech R&D, extending ISS to 2020.

But the budget is a radical change that has happened under questionable circumstances.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:12 pm
I can't read the name of the guy talking now but he opens the hearing by saying this basically:
Bart Gordon -- the chairman on the committee.  Very important.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:13 pm
Olson is talking now.

Columbia taught us not to do unbound R&D programs and that we need fixed goals. Canceling Constellation would undermine crew safety.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 02:13 pm
Ralph Hall couldn't attend; Pete Olson is the ranking member today.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:15 pm
Gordon questioned the rationality behind relying solely on commercial companies who by virtue of extra COTS funding implication are already struggling with the cargo contracts.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:17 pm
Olson - "NASA is a mission driven organization which works best with clearly defined goals"

Now Boldens' going to talk.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obam's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:19 pm
Olsen complained about lack of consultation and that the Press had more details first.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:20 pm
Bolden

I understand that our justification documents have been slow to reach you and I apologize.

We will focus not just on the Moon, but NEOs and Mars, with Mars as the ultimate goal.

I can't promise a date for a mars landing. We are trying to get there in a sustainable manner and inspire the next generation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/25/2010 02:20 pm
anyone have link for this one?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:21 pm
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/nasa/
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/25/2010 02:23 pm
I should have said a non NASA TV link, sorry.  For some reason NASA TV stream no longer works in my office
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:23 pm
Right now Bolden is basically rehashing what he said yesterday about fuel depots, flagship projects, robotic precursors etc.


Question time :)

Gordon: Will there be other markets for commercial crew aside from NASA?

Bolden: We believe so because the private companies have done research in this area and claim there is.

Gordon says the answer is unsatisfactory.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:29 pm
anyone have link for this one?

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2746
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 02:32 pm
I think the main problem people, apart from those most ardent adherants to the Cult of Direct, is the gap. There was, and remains only one way to solve that, which is shuttle extension.

AFAICT, there will be another major "gap" after ISS termination in 2020, and that won't be "can't get to the station without help", but "not doing anything at all" until exploration gets going.

Not good.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:32 pm
Gordon says letters sent out by NASA, of which has a copy, asked for Cx cancellation costs in FY2010 !
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:33 pm
Gordon: Why did you cancel Constellation when the congress forbade tampering with it's funding?

Bolden: I haven't issued a termination for the constellation program.

Gordon: So why'd you want a termination cost estimate?

Bolden: Because we needed it in the event that the President decided to cancel it in 2011.

BTW if someone would help take notes that'd be great. I can't really do it too well.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:38 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:40 pm
Olsen generally complained about getting away from safe Cx to untried and unproven Commercial. Bolden replied that Commercial will be here quicker and have more redundancy. Olsen at the start also mentioned the hidden cabal behind this policy. Mentioned effect on jobs too.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:41 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 02:46 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/25/2010 02:48 pm
Rohrbacher praises Bolden for canceling CxP.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Herb Schaltegger on 02/25/2010 02:48 pm
Interesting aside here for anyone following the politics at play: Gordon is a (distant) colleague of mine, another attorney from my town and district, as well as being the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.  He has also announced he will not seek reelection, leaving a mad scramble here at home to find a worthwhile candidate from either party.  Now, all that said, knowing he has no reelection at stake (and not being from a state with a terrible big aerospace industry presence) it will be interesting to see how aggressively he questions people today.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:49 pm
Rohrabacher: NASA can't do everything and we can't have 9bln$ programs that are behind schedule and behind schedule.

Rohrabacher commends Boldens' decision and says that the Constellation supporters care more about maintaining the workforce, that isn't meeting it's responsibilities and is holding NASA back, than safety and progress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:50 pm
Rohrabacher says Cx was over budget and late. Also states that preserving workforce that doesn't deliver is not cost-effective. Speaks out in favor of efficient Atlas and Delta.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:50 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.


The way it should work is:
government trailblazes > commercial takes over, NOT government does everything and commercial sits in the background.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:51 pm
Bolden says wants to bring Old Space companies into competitions.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: khallow on 02/25/2010 02:54 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.

Eh, this isn't the thread for it, but NASA has access to a secure cash flow (US tax revenue) that isn't available to the commercial sector. They can throw tens of billions of dollars at a space station or a launch vehicle with no serious need for the project to have value. Commercial needs to make some sort of profit. The "greatness" of the commercial sector isn't in their ability to produce money sinks.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 02:57 pm
Wu wonders about eventual high cost of private man rated vehicles many years down the line. Against privatization, risky he claims. Worried about falling behind China, India. Claims it is premature.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 02:59 pm
Mr. Wu - it might seem good now to privatize, but the commercial companies could run into cost problems in the future similar to Ares I, which could lead to canceling the commercial space program.

He ads that the main mistake with Ares is that it tried to use "off the shelf" hardware which is a mistake since NASA should innovate.

Wu is against commercial, period . He says turning to them will mean the US will lose their leadership to China and other nations in space exploration.

We need to drop Ares and do something else, but there's no workable business plan for privatizing LEO crew delivery he added.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 03:01 pm
Interesting aside here for anyone following the politics at play: Gordon is a (distant) colleague of mine, another attorney from my town and district, as well as being the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.  He has also announced he will not seek reelection, leaving a mad scramble here at home to find a worthwhile candidate from either party.  Now, all that said, knowing he has no reelection at stake (and not being from a state with a terrible big aerospace industry presence) it will be interesting to see how aggressively he questions people today.
You would know better than me, but listening to him today versus previous hearings, I didn't sense any greater "aggression" in his questions.  (At least in the first round.)  I still expect him to be important in crafting the language of the authorization bill coming out of the House, and we'll certainly have a better idea at that point.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:02 pm
McCall questions whether he truly agrees with the decision. Bolden claims he agrees. Says there were plans to privatize Shuttle before Challenger and believes it would have been a success. McCall says there will be a lot of Congress opposition to Cx cancellation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:05 pm
McCall - What will we tell the people that will lose their jobs?

Bolden says they'll do anything in their power to include them in the new R&D programs and within a couple of months we'll have more details on how we'll mitigate job loses.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: KSC Engineer on 02/25/2010 03:06 pm
Sounds like Cx is far from dead. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:07 pm
Giffords speaking in favor of safe Cx. Nothing inherently wrong with it except funding.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:08 pm
Giffords said - We know Cxp will work and that it's the safest path.

She's harping on the job loss.

Claims that solid rocket production is critical to our missile deference.

Scares congress with stories of the shiny new space facilities the Chinese are building
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:10 pm
Giffords states that Gates was not informed of SRB cancellation which is important to national security. Says termination of US national HSF big surprise to Congress and asks who was involved in the decision making. Bolden says its my budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:11 pm
Now she's asking who did Bolden consult to terminate Cxp.

Bolden says that he played an integral part in the decision, but is not at liberty to discuss who were the others that were involved. Bolden says he accepts the blame.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: KSC Engineer on 02/25/2010 03:11 pm
Gifford worries that China is leading the space race and we are losing our lead in space and  national security.  "Who did you consult with for this radical decision?" She said.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:14 pm
Giffords says HSF decisions too hard to stomach without prior agreement/consultation with Congress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 03:16 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.

Eh, this isn't the thread for it, but NASA has access to a secure cash flow (US tax revenue) that isn't available to the commercial sector. They can throw tens of billions of dollars at a space station or a launch vehicle with no serious need for the project to have value. Commercial needs to make some sort of profit. The "greatness" of the commercial sector isn't in their ability to produce money sinks.



Weak defense if you ask me.
But so be it, not the place for it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:16 pm
Fudge dismayed by lack of concrete HSF mission goals. Mentions failure/cancellation of Prometheus as an example of previous technology exercise that led nowhere.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:17 pm
Fudge says the new program fails to inspire students (Oh god, this again)

She thinks R&D without a goal may not be sustainable. Mentioned the cancellation of project Prometheus as an example.

Asks: What's to prevent this from happening to these new tech R&D programs?

Bolden says the A-com said that the planing for a program should start with "why", not "where". We do need a destination and that destination is Mars, but we need a "why"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:22 pm
Edwards 'floored' by this proposal. Wonders about lack of inspiration. Says her district's Goddard will win big but still bemoans about lack of Vision.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/25/2010 03:22 pm
A comet hit Jupiter late last year?  I thought Shoemaker-Levy happened 15 years ago, not last year.  Was there another, or is Bolden confused?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 03:23 pm
Donna Edwards was "floored" by this budget.
And not in the good way.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: cd-slam on 02/25/2010 03:23 pm
There was another.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-112
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:25 pm
Edwards is also talking about the lack of goals and inspiration.

Mentioned Anatoly Permanov (head of Roskosmos) made a remark that they'll raise prices after 2012.

Edwards - The commercial sector can't absorb all the risks and the tax payers will end up paying for it.

Edwards - Commercial is over budget and hasn't delivered anything yet :o (resisting the urge to facpalm)

Bolden pointed out private companies get paid for meeting milestones and since they aren't out of the game they have met all their milestones.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:27 pm
A comet hit Jupiter late last year?  I thought Shoemaker-Levy happened 15 years ago, not last year.  Was there another, or is Bolden confused?

Hubble caught it best after an amateur astronomer found it.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12284.30
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:28 pm
Bolden claims commercial companies meeting milestones.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 03:30 pm
"The Moon is too hard and expensive.  Let's go to Mars!"

Just to let you all know that I'm not a total shill for the Obama approach, I thought this part of Bolden's testimony was kind of goofy.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 03:30 pm
Wow.

Bolden is looking very bad on the next destination question.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:31 pm
Grayson wants to know exactly where we are going next. Bolden says the Moon after a few attempts on the Flexible Path option. Grayson says Flexible Path did not involve canceling Cx, Bolden disagrees.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:32 pm
Grayson is basically yelling at Bolden and asking where's the next destination.

Bolden says that it's the Moon and that the ultimate destination is Mars.

Grayson claims the A-com recommended continuing the Cxp (FACEPALM)

Also said that the flexible path REQUIRED constellation to continue.

Grayson claims commercial entities haven't put people in orbit and Bolden said that the NASA contractors are technically commercial entities aslo.

Grayson says the new program is "faith based"
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/25/2010 03:34 pm
Grayson is not only misinformed, he's smarmy.

He's saying that flexible path was only tied to Constellation.  A straight up misinformed bit of nonsense. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:34 pm
Grayson says what's wrong with extending Shuttle. Says that this commercial path is a step in the dark and faith based. Bolden says all US HSF vehicles are/were ultimately commercial.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/25/2010 03:35 pm
He is wrong in that they recommended continuing CxP as is.  Everyone seems to think that Augustine recommended what they wanted to hear, but they said like 1,000 times that they were not to recommend anything, but to provide options.

However, this plan is not 100% aligned with the flex path as the Augustine laid it out either.  One key difference is that Orion was included in flexible path too, this plan cancels it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:38 pm
Kosmas concerned about ISS access now after Shuttle retires. Wonders why not extend Shuttle if extending ISS, what's the cost and reasons.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:38 pm
Kosmas asks about a shuttle extension.

Bolden said it's too costly.

Kosmas - How will we upgrade the infrastructure and use the money we'll receive efficiently, if we don't know what the new architecture will be?

Bolden basically said it's being discussed currently.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:41 pm
Kosmas says cancellation of Cx contracts premature before Congress approval of plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:42 pm
Kosmas says cancellation of Cx contracts premature before Congress approval of plan.

They haven't been canceled officially though. The budget is still just a proposal.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 03:43 pm
It seems like you are either not listening to or ignoring us.
We have clearly stated that below 300mT to LEO per year the EELV is the best path forward.
HLV become the best economic path at ~300mT to LEO per year and more.

Oh, I know that you guys have clearly stated your opinion in that regard.  I've just never actually believed your analysis.  Sure, if you develop an HLV, sink all the costs from it, and are only looking at marginal costs, and assume that it's impossible for EELVs to do any sort of economic reusability at their higher flight rates, and that there are no cost reductions possible other than just "learning curve" effects, then you get that result.  I don't think any of those assumptions that lead into your analysis are likely to be right. 

I'll state again that the times that HLVs will actually make economic sense are a) when there's no other way to do something, and b) when you can do it often enough that you can at least afford some sort of reusability for the HLV. 

But I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Quote
I just cannot for the life of me see any kind of "exploration" program worthy of the name that uses less lofted mass than that per year.

I can.

Quote
As for exploring cislunar space well that's just "space" near the moon. There's nothing there - just, well, "space"; it's empty. There is no difference between ciclunar space and cisearth space; they are both just empty space. I can explore ciclunar space in HEO. I don't want to explore cislunar "space". I want to explore the lunar "surface". There is a lot more there than "space".

By cislunar space I include the Moon.

Quote
I'm beginning to think that you are just anti-HLV regardless.

No, I just think that HLVs are a means to an end, and that there are better alternatives out there for most of the ends I'm interested (exploration, commerce, and settlement within at least the earth-moon system).  I think there could be situations where heavier lift than we have could be useful (especially just the next step up to a Phase I EELV equivalance).  I just don't think that developing that capability now is in the best interests of our country.  We so much more need to find a way to wedge ourselves out of the low-demand, high-cost corner of the design space we've been stuck in for so long, and HLVs are entirely counterproductive to that goal.  When HLVs do actually make sense you'll see me supporting them.  And this plan would leave in place componens (large LOX/RP FS enginesand large high performance LOX/LH2 US engines) to allow us to turn that capability on *when we needed it*.

Quote
I hope I'm wrong. It would be instructive to me, and probably others, if you would define for us where you think the tipping point is where it makes sense to engage the HLV vs. the EELV system. As already detailed further up, we believe that it is in the area of ~300mT to LEO per year. Where is your tipping point and why?

As I said above, either where a) you really have a component that can't be launched on commercial vehicles or lightly modified commercial vehicles, and b) where there is enough demand for those services to justify a high enough flight rate that you can justify some low level reusability from an economic standpoint (say at least 10-20 HLV flights per year).  In other words, sometime around when we're within 5 years of doing manned Mars landings (if we can't find better ways of doing EDL that fits within the 7.5m fairings or less that EELVs can be modified to fly), or if EDL does improve, possibly when we're talking about traffic models where there are hundreds of people traveling beyond LEO per year.

Why?  Because unlike you guys, I think that if you all of the sudden created solid demand for dozens of EELV class flights per year, that there are plenty of technical solutions that can get EELV and eventually small RLVs *on a completely different curve* of price vs. flight rate.  These solutions have mostly not been explored because at this low flight-rate corner of the design space there hasn't been enough economic justification for the investment yet.  Have a propellant depot or two in orbit, with demand for 300+ mT of launch capacity for year, due to demand for cislunar (and lunar surface) transportation, and within 5 years or so you'll start seeing a lot more innovation in launch.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:44 pm
Kosmas says cancellation of Cx contracts premature before Congress approval of plan.

They haven't been canceled officially though. The budget is still just a proposal.

Kosmas stated this still provided unnecessary worker uncertainty and distress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:44 pm
Davis criticizes the lack of a strong commitment.

He says he's not sure if the new budget is a good or bad idea.

Davis - Will private entrepreneurs be able to meet our objectives better than Constellation?

Bolden said that Cxp is behind in developing the vehicles, said that he hopes that by 2016 they'll have commercial LEO capability (maybe more than one vehicle), 2020-30 possibly going BEO.

Davis - You must convince me the new path is better. I'm concerned and I think we should continue Constellaion.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 03:49 pm
Davis says Cx should continue until convinced of a viable alternative.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: KSC Engineer on 02/25/2010 03:50 pm
Bolden -  "We have a incredible workforce at NASA right now."    That has been my experience as well short of a few individual exceptions. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 03:53 pm
Bolden -  "We have a incredible workforce at NASA right now."

So why is he planning to get rid of most of them?

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:55 pm
Who says he's planning it? He seems like a nice guy and I'm not sure he's happy about this.

Willson - the jobs at NASA Glen Research Center must be protected. How will you do that?

Bolden - since Glen is an R&D center the future is bright foe them

Willson - What about their work on Constellation?

Bolden - That won't impact them and they'll get more aerospace research and ion engine research to work on.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/25/2010 03:57 pm
Davis made a point of comparing 1969 (Moon landing) to 1986 (Challenger disaster) asking which path the current plan was taking us. Thought it was a great question.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 03:58 pm
Who says he's planning it?

He just claimed he did himself:   "...this new plan, which I advised the President to do".   His words.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 03:59 pm
Who says he's planning it?

He'd claiming he did himself:   "...this new plan, which I advised the President to do".   His words.

Ross.

I mean I doubt he's the sole mastermind behind this. Anyway this is off topic.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:00 pm
Who says he's planning it? He seems like a nice guy and I'm not sure he's happy about this.
He might not be happy about it, but he knows that ending Shuttle and CxP in the same year will cause a large "reduction in workforce."  I don't believe Mr. Bolden has disagreed with that assessment.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:02 pm
Bishop worrying about SRB cancellation effect on DoD from this 'catastrophic' decision. Says jobs losses will have a negative effect on inspiring children into space industry.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/25/2010 04:03 pm
A comet hit Jupiter late last year?  I thought Shoemaker-Levy happened 15 years ago, not last year.  Was there another, or is Bolden confused?

There was another.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-112

With SL-9, it was spotted well before the impact.

Concern with the later impact is that it came out of the blue. That's a rationale to increase the pace of discovery of Earth-crossing objects, to avoid the same happening to Earth.

Bolden mentioned this in a press conference in Israel recently, and that it came as a surprise that it's one of his responsibilities.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mr_magoo on 02/25/2010 04:05 pm
I love the very people who underfunded CxP complaining that it didnt work out.  Too much irony.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 04:05 pm
Bishop says that "summers for educating kids" is pointless and is not going to encourage kids to get in aerospace in light of the many other science related fields they can go into. It's not a bold new path.

I can at least agree on the inspiration part.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 04:06 pm
Agree with his comments on the negative message, chaos, lack of commitment discouraging people from pursuing scientific careers...as an unemployed engineer, I'd certainly much rather be collecting a $500,000 bonus as a financial employee of some "too big to fail" banking institution right now! 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:07 pm
Bolden mentioned in discussions with Russians now about future Soyuz prices.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:09 pm
Griffith says US HSF is a national strategic concern and should not be privatized.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:09 pm
Interesting analogy from Representative Griffith that it's like a hostile takeover...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 02/25/2010 04:10 pm
Ross, not sure how you are taking all of this...but as a Direct supporter I want to scream at my computer screen every time they say "If only we had a viable option that uses Shuttle components in a timely and cost effective manner!"

Maybe this is the usual way that congress works, but I feel like this is just going around in circles. Cxp fans are making Ares I sound like gods gift to Earth, commercial guys are saying Ares bad, commercial good. Yet we are getting nowhere. Wake up people.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 04:11 pm
Griffith is fearmongering basically:
The space program is critical to national deference.
Privatizing space is a mistake since it's critical to national deference.
We have to be number one and we mustn't watch the chinese land on the Moon from our living rooms.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:11 pm
Posey says it would take 1% of stimulus money to extend Shuttle for 5 more years. Says BEO gap is now infinite.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:12 pm
Maybe this is the usual way that congress works, but I feel like this is just going around in circles.
Yes, this is the usual way that Congress works.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 04:15 pm
Posey mentions the shuttles have a 99% reliability and were designed for up to 100 flights.

Calls the new plan a giant step toward mediocrity.

Asks what it would take to renew Constellation.

Bolden says that beneficial technology will be saved from Constellation if it's canceled, but doesn't specify what it would take to keep it going. (obviously they're hoping that won't happen)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 04:15 pm
It's the Obama plan that's going around in circles.

It's beyond obvious it's in big trouble.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:16 pm
Posey says giant step backwards from greatness to mediocrity, asks what will it take to renew Bolden's interest in Cx.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 04:17 pm
This plan is already having far greater political problems just one month after announcement, than the Steidle/O'Keefe Spirals plan ever experienced.   And Congress overturned that plan 100%.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 04:19 pm
So is there an afternoon session as well?

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 04:19 pm
No. That was it. No more sessions.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:22 pm
This plan is already having far greater political problems just one month after announcement, than the Steidle/O'Keefe Spirals plan ever experienced.   And Congress overturned that plan 100%.
There's still a long ways to go and we still haven't seen how the representatives outside of the directly affected areas will vote.  Or whether the President might do more than threaten to veto a different plan.  (The threat is probably a given, but whether he would follow through remains to be seen.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 04:24 pm
Is there anyone out there at this moment that thinks this budget for NASA is going to stand as-is?

Constellation sound as if it likely to re-instated into the budget is some form. These Congress members are far more angry than even I expected them to be- and I expected them to be pretty angry.

Interesting the talk of stimulis in small portions beging able to bring Constellation funding up to the levels Augustine stated were needed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/25/2010 04:25 pm
Is there an archive of the session today somewhere? I missed most of it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 04:27 pm
Philip,
True, but Congress clearly won't ratify the plan as it stands -- it won't even get out of the relevant committees.

So if no agreement can be reached, that would mean a CR would be in effect for 2011.    That means POR continues by default.

So Obama loses if it goes down that path.

A veto won't serve to do anything but pi** off a pile of Congress members at a time he's desperately searching for Health Care votes.   Not gonna happen.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:28 pm
Will the other Congress members go against their Authorization and Appropriation Committee deliberations though ?  Wouldn't it then be a question of sticking by Congress bodies rather than voting along party lines ? Only one voice spoke up in favor of this policy, it looks doomed in its present form. Seems to me the only real question to be decided by these committees is whether we get any Shuttle extension to go along with our shiny new SD-HLV ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: gladiator1332 on 02/25/2010 04:28 pm
I expect that Cx will be "reinstated" in the form of some type of Shuttle Derived HLV. The only thing that worries me here is the misinformation that Augustine fully supported program of record. Or the belief that Cx was going perfectly as planned and we just got cold feet.
Anyone who followed the Augustine Commission for five minutes knows that the POR was not very popular during that hearing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 04:30 pm
Before this round of hearings I was told one thing:

Obama has played his first round with a strong hand.   Expect Congress to play an equally strong hand their way.   It is all mostly posturing at this stage.   A sensible compromise will need to be found which enables the bulk of both plans to occur simultaneously.

I think this is true.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:32 pm
Is there anyone out there at this moment that thinks this budget for NASA is going to stand as-is?
In my opinion, depends on whether the President is willing to use his veto power.

Interesting the talk of stimulis in small portions beging able to bring Constellation funding up to the levels Augustine stated were needed.
Kind of.  These committees and their members (with exceptions like Representative Rohrabacher) have generally bemoaned the lack of funding within several parts of NASA -- not just HSF issues (RTF, Katrina costs, CxP), but things like the science and aeronautics cuts.

If it were up to these committees, NASA would have got the money that Griffin asked for.  The fact that many of these initiatives end up being unfunded or underfunded mandates is why I think there's at least another proverbial shoe to drop inside Congress even before they propose substituting their own plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 04:36 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 04:39 pm
Is there an archive of the session today somewhere? I missed most of it.

It will be archived to the webcast link on this page soon.

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2746
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/25/2010 04:43 pm
Is there an archive of the session today somewhere? I missed most of it.

It will be archived to the webcast link on this page soon.

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2746

Ok thanks :-)  Get on it!! LOL :)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 04:46 pm
Right now Bolden is basically rehashing what he said yesterday about fuel depots, flagship projects, robotic precursors etc.


Question time :)

Gordon: Will there be other markets for commercial crew aside from NASA?

Bolden: We believe so because the private companies have done research in this are and claim there is.

Gordon says the answer is unsatisfactory.

Bart Gordon understands the definition of monopsony, it would seem.  ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 04:47 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 04:49 pm
Bart Gordon understands the definition of monopsony, it would seem.  ;)

Don't other governments and space tourists count as customers in the market?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:50 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.
He noted Admiral Dyer and the ASAP during the hearing today in response to a question -- an oblique reference, but I'm not sure his opinion on Shuttle safety has changed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 04:52 pm
I think that we got a confirmation yesterday of what Ross Tierney (kraisee) and some other people were telling us - Obama administration wants to cut NASA budget.

The super strong Congress reaction is a prove. Particularly Nelson talked a lot about that there were now declaration from the President of the new Vision. And what it means that there is an open highway to cut NASA budget next year. Now we all hear it not just from Ross but from Congressmen!

All you "Commercial"+R&D guys please remove you pink glasses!!! There will be no R&D - no Automatic rendezvous, no Propellant Depots, no VASIMR, no nothing. I even doubt that they will fund $6 billions "Commercial" spacecrafts fully.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:54 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 04:54 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.


Interesting and compelling.
But decisions had damn well be made really soon.
I don't think congress can move that fast though.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 04:55 pm
A question for those who watched, did any Democrats defend the proposal?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 04:55 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

Wow! It sounds super cheap! I think that it is something like $3 billions now?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 04:57 pm
A question for those who watched, did any Democrats defend the proposal?
Only defense of the controversial part of the HSF policy I recall was Rohrabacher's.  (Anyone who watched please correct my memory.) 

Representative Gordon endorsed most of the other changes -- ISS extension, increases in science and aeronautics.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: northanger on 02/25/2010 04:58 pm
I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

That's a very interesting game.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: CessnaDriver on 02/25/2010 04:58 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)



I think Garver's role is extremely relavant and does need to be examined.
She has clearly attached her career to democrat politicans in hopes she would be appointed. She did this with Kerry.
Her motivations are not about HSF, and are about pleasing her political masters and her own career.

In other words, Garver put herself and Obama ahead of the good of NASA.

It's like the Augustine commission never happened, so why the radical Obama plan?....  Garver.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 04:59 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

Figures, as you'd be running two orbiters in an extension scenario for starters. Something like 25 percent of the shuttle workforce (mainly KSC) retire in 2010 too.

Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.
He noted Admiral Dyer and the ASAP during the hearing today in response to a question -- an oblique reference, but I'm not sure his opinion on Shuttle safety has changed.


That's annoying, as the ASAP are also deadset against Commercial and heavily pro-Ares - so he's being selective. And on recertification, his own SSP answered that already.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:01 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)



I think Garver's role is extremely relavant and does need to be examined.
She has clearly attached her career to democrat politicans in hopes she would be appointed. She did this with Kerry.
Her motivations are not about HSF, and are about pleasing her political masters and her own career.

In other words, Garver put herself and Obama ahead of the good of NASA.

It's like the Augustine commission never happened, so why the radical Obama plan?....  Garver.
All of that may be true (although it doesn't look like everyone here agrees with you), but the problem is that style matters.  Even if Senator Vitter is correct, the way in which he approached that yesterday may make it more difficult for fence-sitters to support his position.  And it may have frakked off other fence-sitters.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:03 pm
That's annoying, as the ASAP are also deadset against Commercial and heavily pro-Ares - so he's being selective. And on recertification, his own SSP answered that already.
Yeah, I think that's why the cost of extension was emphasized.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 05:06 pm
If funding of two "Commercial" spacecraft is all NASA will get out of this I think that we will not see any space exploration for the next 20 years. If "Commercial" spacecraft will be able to provide trips for the price of $20 millions per seat (and there is no assurance of that) you will get only 10-20 Tourists per year. And there will be two competing companies. They will not have any money left for the new development. Without government funding we will be stuck for the next 20 years.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 05:10 pm
When it comes to the question of the president's "veto" power (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), he does not have a line-item veto. So once the Congress formulates and amends the NASA portion of the budget, if the president does not like it, he must veto the entire FY2011 budget in order to get at this one little item (and to Obama- the NASA component is, I'll bet, pretty little).

I'd think that whatever the Congress changes, he will simply live with as far as NASA is concerned- just to egt his budget passed. Obama (or the 2 or 3 people he assigned to the task of the NASA budget and who cooked up this ill thought out mess) have played their one and only card in this game IMO.

Additionally, (and again someone correct me if I'm wrong,) although these committees and sub committees consist of just a few members of Congress, they are very powerful groups.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/25/2010 05:11 pm
I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.

That sounds sweet :)

That sounds unrealistic, right from fantasyland. And should it be true, you can reduce the cost by this much only by reducing the workforce. Some guys want it both ways: Save the workforce and reduce the costs. Won't work, by definition.

Same with commercial being cheaper: They may be, but because they use less workforce. So what do you want?

As for government (Orion/Ares) as backup to commercial: Who has been backup for Orion/Ares (or Shuttle, or Apollo, or Gemini, or Mercury)? Nonsense argument by politicains who pray to the private sector elsewhere but not when it comes to their district.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 05:12 pm
If funding of two "Commercial" spacecraft is all NASA will get out of this I think that we will not see any space exploration for the next 20 years.

Did you forget all the R&D and science funding boost? And what evidence did you base that estimate on?


If "Commercial" spacecraft will be able to provide trips for the price of $20 millions per seat (and there is no assurance of that) you will get only 10-20 Tourists per year.

So what? It has to start somehow. No one said once commercial takes over we'll be flying thousands of people in space.


And there will be two competing companies.

Competition is a good thing. That's the basic force that drives the economy.


They will not have any money left for the new development. Without government funding we will be stuck for the next 20 years.

The point of commercial is not new developement, it's sustainable and cost effective operations of already developed technology. NASA will help with development, but will not interfere with operations aside from ensuring safety standards are met.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: bad_astra on 02/25/2010 05:12 pm
Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.


http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm


Because Congress Prevented it over twenty-two years ago. Just like they will try to do, again.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: JohnFornaro on 02/25/2010 05:13 pm
"The Moon is too hard and expensive.  Let's go to Mars!"

Grayson is basically yelling at Bolden and asking where's the next destination.
...
Grayson claims commercial entities haven't put people in orbit and Bolden said that the NASA contractors are technically commercial entities aslo.

Grayson says the new program is "faith based"

It was very disappointing to hear Bolden argue the "technicality" of the "next" destination with Grayson.  It began to sound like some of the discussions around here, where itty-bitty refutations are used to deride fairly sensible, albeit non-expert, suggestions about the priorities of the various missions.  Finally, he says the Moon is our "next" destination almost as if it was of no consequence.  It was an agonizing exchange for me to watch, and it was not at all inspirational.  Grayson was speaking for me at that time.

And Mr. Bolden's tortured explanation that the shuttle is a "commercial" undertaking had the flavor of dishonesty, to me.  I can imagine the comments made were I to insist that the shuttle was a commercial space enterprise.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:13 pm
When it comes to the question of the president's "veto" power (and someone correct me if I'm wrong), he does not have a line-item veto. So once the Congress formulates and amends the NASA portion of the budget, if the president does not like it, he must veto the entire FY2011 budget in order to get at this one little item (and to Obama- the NASA component is, I'll bet, pretty little).
No, you're correct, but that's the second fundamental hurdle.  There will be a NASA Authorization Bill for FY 2011 and that will be a standalone bill that the President could veto without directly affecting other agencies.

Congress could authorize essentially continuing the POR, but then on the appropriations side (which will be a broader-in-scope bill), it may collectively choose to provide less funding than is authorized.

And while there's still that unfunded mandate problem, you can't extend Shuttle (for example) without authorizing it and authorizing the money.  Same applies for the President's proposed changes.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/25/2010 05:19 pm
They will do "Shuttle extension talk" until late this years. In the end extension won't be technically or financially possible, so it remains just talk.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:23 pm
They will do "Shuttle extension talk" until late this years. In the end extension won't be technically or financially possible, so it remains just talk.
You may be right, but it would have to be mandated in an authorization bill first.  If an extension isn't authorized, the talk would end sooner than end of the year.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/25/2010 05:25 pm
Is there an archive of the session today somewhere? I missed most of it.

It will be archived to the webcast link on this page soon.

http://science.house.gov/publications/hearings_markups_details.aspx?NewsID=2746

Ok thanks :-)  Get on it!! LOL :)

It's there now

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech10/022510.wvx
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 05:27 pm
Figures, as you'd be running two orbiters in an extension scenario for starters. Something like 25 percent of the shuttle workforce (mainly KSC) retire in 2010 too.

From the small amount I have managed to glean so far, that is really just the "contractors take over, no other changes".   The civil servant workforce goes off to do other things within the agency, and the contractors stay "as is" at that level.   Zero contractor RIF's included.

Again, this is so far only single-source to me right now, but I'm putting my feelers out to get more info about it.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 05:29 pm
PAO are working overtime, surrounding items that Bolden seemed to be pushing on his "student inspiration" repeat-a-thon, etc. Here's the latest bunch:

"NASA HOSTS ROCKON! 2010 UNIVERSITY ROCKET SCIENCE WORKSHOP IN JUNE"

"SCIENCE TEAM FROM AMES RESEARCH CENTER WINS 2009 NASA SOFTWARE OF YEAR AWARD"

NASA GROUND-BREAKING UNEARTHS NEW GENERATION OF DEEP SPACE NETWORK ANTENNAS"

"Kansas Students Connect With International Space Station Crew for Out of This World Conversation"

Seems like a new PAO too, someone called Sonja Alexander - unless I've missed her name from some previous releases. Then again, there seems to be a boatload of PAOers based on the countless names I've seen send out these sort of releases.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bernie Roehl on 02/25/2010 05:30 pm
Sorry if this has already been asked/answered, but this thread has grown faster than I can keep up.

Is there another set of hearings today?  If so, what time and what's the best place (url) to watch them?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 05:30 pm
Thanks ploss- I forgot about the NASA Authorization Bill.

The question remains- does Obama want the political heat from a veto of that bill as a stand-alone act? This plan... as I said would happen a few months ago... takes his decision pn what to do about NASA, Constellation and HSF and simply puts it into the budget then slides it under the door for everyone to figure out. This gives him some political distance for his own comfort. A veto of the NASA Authorization Bill would mean a direct involvement where he has to sit at his desk and, with his own hand, kill NASA (as many will like to portray it).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 05:33 pm
Sorry if this has already been asked/answered, but this thread has grown faster than I can keep up.

Is there another set of hearings today?  If so, what time and what's the best place (url) to watch them?


No more hearings for today. And I have no idea if there will be any in the future.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:35 pm
The question remains- does Obama want the political heat from a veto of that bill as a stand-alone act? This plan... as I said would happen a few months ago... takes his decision pn what to do about NASA, Constellation and HSF and simply puts it into the budget then slides it under the door for everyone to figure out. This gives him some political distance for his own comfort. A veto of the NASA Authorization Bill would mean a direct involvement where he has to sit at his desk and, with his own hand, kill NASA (as many will like to portray it).
Yup, that's why I think the action is still in front of us, after the public hearings.  Still remains to be seen what's in the two bills on the House and Senate sides and still remains to be seen whether the President would veto a bill that mandated something substantially different than his proposal.  It may turn out that a lot of negotiations are in private and all we see (at least at first) is a bill and a signature.  Or maybe there will be a confrontation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 05:38 pm
Does anyone have an idea when the budget will be finalized and approved?
By approved I don't mean necessarily accepted in it's current form.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 05:39 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: svenge on 02/25/2010 05:42 pm
Bolden seems more and more like a puppet after these past 2 days...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 05:42 pm
Does anyone have an idea when the budget will be finalized and approved?
By approved I don't mean necessarily accepted in it's current form.

Could be a long, long time... enough to fly to Mars and back perhaps. There is a lot of other stuff in the overall FY2011 budget that hang it all up and cause a Continuing Resolution. We're under a CR right now because the FY2010 budget has not passed from over a year ago.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:42 pm
Does anyone have an idea when the budget will be finalized and approved?
By approved I don't mean necessarily accepted in it's current form.
To get some idea, you can look back at the time-line for the authorization bill in 2008:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.6063:

For appropriations, you can look at the FY 2010 time-lines:
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/app10.html
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 05:44 pm
And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.
Ouch.

Could be a long, long time... enough to fly to Mars and back perhaps. There is a lot of other stuff in the overall FY2011 budget that hang it all up and cause a Continuing Resolution. We're under a CR right now because the FY2010 budget has not passed from over a year ago.
No, it passed and was signed into law at the end of last year (before Christmas).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: bad_astra on 02/25/2010 05:45 pm
Luxury. We've barred from any social networking sites. Or anything labelled humor/comedy, for that matter, for awhile now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 05:46 pm

Be advised that 9B of Cx resulting in one very limited test did not inspire these kids - many told me they saw it as a meaningless diversion.

A 7th grader said that? Amazing.
No, actually a 6th grader at a regional science fair who did a board on his hybrid launch vehicle concept. Spent 4 hours of him talking at me, letting him lecture me on the subject. About what you'd think in terms of mixture of knowledge, skill and voids.

Blew me away.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 05:46 pm
And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.
Ouch.

Could be a long, long time... enough to fly to Mars and back perhaps. There is a lot of other stuff in the overall FY2011 budget that hang it all up and cause a Continuing Resolution. We're under a CR right now because the FY2010 budget has not passed from over a year ago.
No, it passed and was signed into law at the end of last year (before Christmas).


Whoops, my mistake- just looked at the link you posted... guess I was off planet around Christmas :0
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 05:51 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.

Any idea who's the one who sent the tweet?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/25/2010 06:10 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.

First rule of thumb for any governmental bureaucracy when faced with embarrassing facts & leaks - Witchhunt and kill the messenger.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 06:19 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.

First rule of thumb for any governmental bureaucracy when faced with embarrassing facts & leaks - Witchhunt and kill the messenger.
Well, I haven't seen any public confirmation of this yet, but 'bite me' doesn't really count as a fact or a leak.  (It would be more of a Ron Burgundy moment.)  If it's true (and I would think given the report there's an effort to track it down), it would be another example that style matters.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:21 pm
Olson said (paraphrasing):
"Is that the essence of the new plan for the workforce at NASA?"

Bolden responded that that's unacceptable and he'll find out why that statement was made.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/25/2010 06:26 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.

First rule of thumb for any governmental bureaucracy when faced with embarrassing facts & leaks - Witchhunt and kill the messenger.
Well, I haven't seen any public confirmation of this yet, but 'bite me' doesn't really count as a fact or a leak.  (It would be more of a Ron Burgundy moment.)  If it's true (and I would think given the report there's an effort to track it down), it would be another example that style matters.


FWIW, I was referring to the ban on Twitter rather than the attempt to find the person responsible.  People really need to be more tactful, at least when using company computers. 

However, NASA blocking its staff from using Twitter will only encourage conspiracy theorists to suggest that NASA wants to hide stuff.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 06:30 pm
If they make the worst possible choice and decide to continue Constellation with the same vehicles, I hope they at least have the sense to fund it properly this time.
As I see it the battle right now is to go back to the status quo - poorly funded Ares I.

Its ironic that DIRECT may lead a charge back into that idiotic outcome.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:32 pm
If they make the worst possible choice and decide to continue Constellation with the same vehicles, I hope they at least have the sense to fund it properly this time.
As I see it the battle right now is to go back to the status quo - poorly funded Ares I.

Its ironic that DIRECT may lead a charge back into that incorrect outcome.

If that's so that's truly sad. I'm hoping they'll see the light, cancel Cxp and extend shuttle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 06:32 pm
FWIW, I was referring to the ban on Twitter rather than the attempt to find the person responsible.  People really need to be more tactful, at least when using company computers. 

However, NASA blocking its staff from using Twitter will only encourage conspiracy theorists to suggest that NASA wants to hide stuff.
Well, certainly when they're acting in a capacity that's not just personal.  Watching a recording of the hearing, Representative Olson makes it sound like it was said in a speech rather than posted as a Tweet.  Not sure where the Twitter reference comes in, but perhaps that's the source.  Which would make the Twitter ban more of a head-scratcher.  Guess we'll have to wait to find out more...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/25/2010 06:33 pm
Okay, you guys. I've had enough of the "Obama is just doing this to cancel NASA." Conspiracy theories like that are just stupid. If you say something like "this budget undermines the political support for NASA," that's approaching a valid argument.

If Obama wanted to really cancel NASA's HSF program in a super-tricky, conspiracy-theory way, he would've let Constellation continue but very, very gradually reducing its budget and letting the Shuttle retire in 2010 (like he's doing), letting the ISS splash in 2015 (the opposite of what he's doing), decreasing funding for commercial crew and/or cargo (the complete opposite of what he's doing), and continue to cut advanced technology R&D for propulsion and human spaceflight (the opposite of what he's doing). He'd let Ares-I continue to suck the life out of NASA. Increasing the funding for NASA even by only $6 billion over 5 years is the opposite of what he would do if he was trying to kill NASA, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

What I want to know: If they actually support exploration so much, where the heck were all these angry Congress critters when Altair was being defunded? Why didn't they even mention this in these hearings? Hmmm??? This is ludicrous.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 06:36 pm
All you "Commercial"+R&D guys please remove you pink glasses!!! There will be no R&D - no Automatic rendezvous, no Propellant Depots, no VASIMR, no nothing. I even doubt that they will fund $6 billions "Commercial" spacecrafts fully.
... unless Congress forces a schedule, use of results, and supplies oversight that sees it through.

Take off your own dark glasses - where the restoration of an Ares I *only* program with LESS budget that dribbles on is just as likely as the opposite outcome. With a larger gap.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 06:39 pm
Catching up, great work guys. I'm "happy" Bolden is citing cost and not "safety" as the issue for shuttle extension. That seperates him from Griffin.

I was told last night, that a industry consortium including all the major industry players, has this week informed NASA that they could take over Shuttle operations (including five flights per year) as a commercial operation for a grand-sum total of $1.8bn per year.

Asuming that is correct, as an interim solution to continue Shuttle until its replacement is actually ready, that sounds like a reasonably affordable option to me.

Ross.


Interesting and compelling.
But decisions had damn well be made really soon.
I don't think congress can move that fast though.
my read is this admin would accept this outcome if more budget were to be found *elsewhere*.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/25/2010 06:39 pm
Olson said (paraphrasing):
"Is that the essence of the new plan for the workforce at NASA?"

Bolden responded that that's unacceptable and he'll find out why that statement was made.

One report here:

http://talkradionews.com/2010/02/treatment-of-nasa-employees-a-space-travesty/
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:39 pm
Is there any hope that the other members of Congress will see the conflict of interests of the Congressmen supporting Cxp? I sure hope they do and take that into consideration when they pass judgment.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 06:40 pm
Olson said (paraphrasing):
"Is that the essence of the new plan for the workforce at NASA?"

Bolden responded that that's unacceptable and he'll find out why that statement was made.

One report here:

http://talkradionews.com/2010/02/treatment-of-nasa-employees-a-space-travesty/
Problem is that the report attributes the assertion/question to Representative Gordon, rather than Representative Olson.  Not sure it adds anything beyond that, either.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:42 pm
Typo? I'm pretty sure it was Olson who brought up the whole thing not Gordon.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 06:45 pm
Typo? I'm pretty sure it was Olson who brought up the whole thing not Gordon.
It was Olson.  The report is in error and will probably get fixed, but it doesn't provide additional sources regarding the remark.  I assume Olson's staff has something...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/25/2010 06:46 pm
This second meeting was far more telling than yesterday's - and yesterday's was telling enough.

Of the 20-25 strong committee (including guests), the score was this :-

1 for the Obama budget.
1 for either, as long as his district keeps the NASA workforce - so this counts as a half.
Everyone else was strongly against it.

So out of the 20-25 people there, only 1.5 people were for it.

I think we're seeing where things are heading already.

The sheer and vehement level of anger directed by numerous individuals towards the budget today (and yesterday) must point to this new direction as being a huge slap in the face to America. When you have such a massive and for all intents and purposes, unanimous reaction such as this - you know you've done wrong.

There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 06:51 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)


Wow! What is going on here?

Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:53 pm
There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Yes, and among the "brilliant" counterpoints were things like:
The flexible path requires Constellation
A-com recommended continuing Constellation
Commercial companies are over budget and haven't produced results yet.
Canceling Constellation will make the children of the nation sad.
Constellation is safe (yeah the Ares I is the epitome of safety)
If we cancel Cxp the Chinese win!!!
NASA(a civilian space agency)s ability to launch people in space is critical to national security and privatizing space access for said civilian agency compromises national security somehow.
etc.

They should have pushed for a shuttle extension, not continuing Cxp.

The only legitimate arguments were the lack of a goal and job loses.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 06:56 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)


Wow! What is going on here?

Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.

It hasn't been confirmed that Garver singlehandedly came up with the new budget. That's just a suspicion many hold. Check your facts. The reason they're defending her is because Vitter accused her specifically.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 07:01 pm
This second meeting was far more telling than yesterday's - and yesterday's was telling enough.

Of the 20-25 strong committee (including guests), the score was this :-

1 for the Obama budget.
1 for either, as long as his district keeps the NASA workforce - so this counts as a half.
Everyone else was strongly against it.

So out of the 20-25 people there, only 1.5 people were for it.

I think we're seeing where things are heading already.

The sheer and vehement level of anger directed by numerous individuals towards the  budget today (and yesterday) must point to this new direction as being a huge slap in the face to America. When you have such a massive and for all intents and purposes, unanimous reaction such as this - you know you've done wrong.

There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting.

Nothing of the kind is true outside your personal 'ala cart reality'.

They are screaming to come up with sturm und drang to push back to underfunded Ares I that they don't have to bother oversighting ... and when it goes long and becomes impossible, come up with another like it until one gives up on HSF because you can't argue for more pork ... and its over.

You gotta be nuts to think that's good!

Both sides are hitting each other with Claymores and attempting to whack off limbs. The only loser is NASA, as each side attempts to make impossible the other's vision by cleaving off some critical part. Bolden's approach is to make it hard for them to do so.

What you haven't seen yet is the rivalries between senators when t settles in that they can't fund all of what they want and some get nothing. Then a different set of battles begin.
 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/25/2010 07:06 pm
There is just no defending it anymore. Every argument for it was creditably countered.

Roo.


Yes, and among the "brilliant" counterpoints were things like:
The flexible path requires Constellation
A-com recommended continuing Constellation
Commercial companies are over budget and haven't produced results yet.
Canceling Constellation will make the children of the nation sad.
Constellation is safe (yeah the Ares I is the epitome of safety)
If we cancel Cxp the Chinese win!!!
etc.

They should have pushed for a shuttle extension, not continuing Cxp.

Some of those are indeed the creditable counterpoints stated, but I sense some personal opinions have sneaked in there amongst them!

But don't forget, there were various creditable counterpoints for each single argument for it.

But you know, this 'new' budget has the signs of one in its death throes already - and we're only 3 weeks in. Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/25/2010 07:12 pm
Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.


Hence the whole point of doing a shuttle extension until commercial companies can establish themselves. They should have argued for that instead of defending Constellation in it's present form.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/25/2010 07:16 pm

Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting.


Ha ha - by the way, what's this 'tinfoil hat' comment all about then?

I just see it as it is - lots of people very angry. I know about politics, I'm English - we have it over here too. Quite a bit in fact.

The bottom line is this, the NASA FY2011 budget is a mess. The majority of people know it, the minority don't. There are people who scream from both camps but it's always best to go with the facts you read and the facts from the committee hearings you watch.

In these lies your truth my friend.

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 07:19 pm
Best argument for continuing Shuttle will always be 'that is what's working now'.

Best argument for Soyuz will always be 'it worked when Shuttle couldn't'
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/25/2010 07:19 pm
Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.

Hence the whole point of doing a shuttle extension until commercial companies can establish themselves. They should have done that instead of defending Constellation in it's present form.
Agreed. Stop defending Ares-I or the currently monstrous (and basically non-existent) Ares V. There are realistic ways to do HLV and short-term HSF using Orion on an EELV or heck even something like the Jupiter 130.

Pushing for Ares I/V at this point is just a good way to lose your credibility with those who understand the current status of the program of record.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: bad_astra on 02/25/2010 07:21 pm
I can't believe that Senator's are that stupid. Aloof, pedantic, and out of touch, yes, but they can add up to the number five. There is no way Cx would be ready to end the gap. The only thing that could is Shuttleextension. It's highly unlikely too that Ares I/Orion would be ready before the simplest commercial options.

But Cx a program many of them put their votes towards, and Shuttle is a program many of them put their vote towards cancelling. It's not about paying the Russians inflated fees for seats while giving up the high ground. It's not even about angry jobless voters in one small area of a swing state. It's about pork and personal ambition.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/25/2010 07:21 pm
Commercial to carry all the risk is simply too much of a risk in itself. That's sheer common sense - and obviously agreed by 95% of the committee today and no doubt to be continually agreed as this 'investigation' pans out.

Roo.


Hence the whole point of doing a shuttle extension until commercial companies can establish themselves. They should have argued for that instead of defending Constellation in it's present form.

Yes - that is quite true. This is already gaining its 'logical' legs if you get my drift. I can see the Shuttle being extended, but it clearly needs more investigation. But seeing the bird fly beyond the 1st quarter of 2011 is a vision worth envisaging!

CxP is a strange one though - I for one have sat on the fence about it since watching President Bush announce the VSE. Like many programs, it has good and bad points. The clever part is going to see if any of the good points can be brought to fruition as part of a larger or more comprehensive vision than what is currently on offer.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 07:22 pm
So out of the 20-25 people there, only 1.5 people were for it.

I think we're seeing where things are heading already.
I don't see an outcome yet.  This is only talk at this stage.  Don't forget that these committees have not always been able to convince the rest of Congress to fund the mandates they have passed.  They do have influence over what NASA will do, but not as much influence over how much money NASA will get to do those things.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 07:27 pm

Please remove your tinfoil hat before posting.


Ha ha - by the way, what's this 'tinfoil hat' comment all about then?

I just see it as it is - lots of people very angry. I know about politics, I'm English - we have it over here too. Quite a bit in fact.
Politics isn't always about anger.

When it is, we get multiple cheap wars that become expensive, launchers that never happen, and world financial crisis.
Quote

The bottom line is this, the NASA FY2011 budget is a mess. The majority of people know it, the minority don't. There are people who scream from both camps but it's always best to go with the facts you read and the facts from the committee hearings you watch.
Be sure it is a fact first. Like killing HSF by extending ISS and increasing budget? No way - not even in England with mad dogs n the noon day sun!  :D

Quote
In these lies your truth my friend.
And yours too!

Since you watch politics, you must understand that everyone plays the game in elaborate hyperbole.

They often don't believe what they say themselves.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 07:47 pm
"Senator’s attack on NASA deputy chief Lori Garver backfires"

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/senators-attack-on-nasa-deputy-chief-lori-garver-backfires.html

(Please remove if duplicate.)


Wow! What is going on here?

Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.

It hasn't been confirmed that Carver singlehandedly came up with the new budget. That's just a suspicion many hold. Check your facts. The reason they're defending her is because Vitter accused her specifically.

You missed the point. It does not matter if she has come up with the idea singlehandedly or in a group - she should feel proud to be the part of the idea!!! That is what people feel when they come up with great idea!!!

So why then does she feel offended?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Yegor on 02/25/2010 07:53 pm
One thing I am sure about now - NASA will not get $3 additional billions - this is what seems Augustine commission pushed for.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: renclod on 02/25/2010 08:28 pm
Olson mentioned some guy (I didn't catch his name, but it's probably someone notable in NASA) on twitter that sent out the message "To those that don't like Obamas' new budget - bite me"

:o

Obviously trying to demonize everyone supporting the new budget

And it's had an effect, as an e-mail just went out telling all employees they are barred from using Twitter from this point onwards - based on amendment to "CP-A-33, Basic – SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE".

That'll go down badly with the spacetweeps.

First rule of thumb for any governmental bureaucracy when faced with embarrassing facts & leaks - Witchhunt and kill the messenger.
Well, I haven't seen any public confirmation of this yet, but 'bite me' doesn't really count as a fact or a leak.  (It would be more of a Ron Burgundy moment.)  If it's true (and I would think given the report there's an effort to track it down), it would be another example that style matters.


It is real.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Andy USA on 02/25/2010 08:29 pm
It's a long thread, so avoid the temptation to post, for the sake of posting please.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/25/2010 08:32 pm
Okay, you guys. I've had enough of the "Obama is just doing this to cancel NASA." Conspiracy theories like that are just stupid. If you say something like "this budget undermines the political support for NASA," that's approaching a valid argument.

If Obama wanted to really cancel NASA's HSF program in a super-tricky, conspiracy-theory way, he would've let Constellation continue but very, very gradually reducing its budget and letting the Shuttle retire in 2010 (like he's doing), letting the ISS splash in 2015 (the opposite of what he's doing), decreasing funding for commercial crew and/or cargo (the complete opposite of what he's doing), and continue to cut advanced technology R&D for propulsion and human spaceflight (the opposite of what he's doing). He'd let Ares-I continue to suck the life out of NASA. Increasing the funding for NASA even by only $6 billion over 5 years is the opposite of what he would do if he was trying to kill NASA, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

What I want to know: If they actually support exploration so much, where the heck were all these angry Congress critters when Altair was being defunded? Why didn't they even mention this in these hearings? Hmmm??? This is ludicrous.

well....................
this subcommittee is just that, made up of members of congress who represent districts that have NASA centers.you will hear what you like from them now............the appropriations committee will kill anything that the OMB or OSTP or the white house or congressional leader ship wants or opposes  later.
did anyone listen to republican Rohrabacher in committee today?
http://rohrabacher.house.gov/
no love for constellation here so any idea of some sort of bipartisan republican / blue dog democrat save the POR is, well misguided!
it will be a compromise.............and by the November elections this year what ever has transpired could be overturned by a new congress in Jan 2011 but a hostile president could veto.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/25/2010 08:46 pm
I'm afraid that if this thread is going to degrade into a CxP vs Shuttle extension vs this vs that "is the only way to go" argument, we're gonna miss the bigger point in the hearings- which was correctly stated earlier.

This budget just blew up in two very important Congressional committies. The resistance to this NASA budget is significant, BUT, there is no way to really predict how it exactly will turn out. The only sure thing now appears to be that the void in the Obama budget where NASA HSF used to be WILL be filled.

Oddly, this "radical" budget may be just the Congressional kick in the pants that will do us a lot of real good. It is making the Congress sit up and take notice of what more NASA needs and this time, if they do not come across with the funding a lot will be lost- and they know it. That is probably the most interesting aspect of all of this.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 08:58 pm
What you haven't seen yet is the rivalries between senators when t settles in that they can't fund all of what they want and some get nothing. Then a different set of battles begin.

I think this is the fundamental problem.  Even without the commercial stuff and the R&D, there wasn't enough money being appropriated to give everyone in Congress a pony. 

Yeah, it would be great to live in a world where NASA could be given a budget big enough to:

1-Keep shuttle flying
2-Keep the shuttle workforce in a job
3-Keep flying "test launches" of "Rocket-X" (whatever that actually means)
4-Build an HLV
5-Extend ISS and increase its utilization
6-Have no job losses anywhere evar
7-Fund R&D necessary to move us to a new cost vs. performance curve
8-Fund commercial crew development so we're more than one single point failure away from losing our nation's HSF capability again
9-Restore to the science side all the funding they've lost due to CxP
10-Restore to Aeronautics all the funding it's lost to CxP

The problem is that the people on the appropriations committees (the very people dishonestly moaning about how "Obama doesn't give NASA more money" when it's their own darned job to appropriate money for NASA) have never been able to get NASA anywhere close to the resources it would need to do even a fraction of these well.  Remember, the President proposes, *Congress* disposes. 

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: agman25 on 02/25/2010 09:02 pm
This is really well written.

http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2010/02/24/to-the-moon-i-think-not-alice/

Miles O'Brien really gets it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 09:02 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Also, for our older members, are the current events comparable with anything in the past....I'm thinking Apollo to Shuttle, as much as I know that must have been very different?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 09:05 pm
The bottom line is this, the NASA FY2011 budget is a mess. The majority of people know it, the minority don't. There are people who scream from both camps but it's always best to go with the facts you read and the facts from the committee hearings you watch.

The problem is that the previous plan was also a mess.  They had a plan that *they* were underfunding, and it was already a slow-motion trainwreck.  Sure, most of those Congresspeople who are supposed to be overseeing these programs didn't care so long as money kept flowing into their districts, but that doesn't paper over the fact that CxP was in serious trouble and everyone with eyes to see knew it.

This new plan isn't perfect, but it was at least a workable solution that matched ambitions with funding and provided a way to bump NASA onto a more favorable capability vs. cost curve than its on today.  Unless Congress can step up to its responsibilities and fund everything they want NASA to do, it behooves them to find a plan they are willing to afford.  And you could do far worse than something close to the President's proposal.  The fact that politicians who see NASA as a free way to provide favors to campaign contributors and to get jobs in their districts at the expense of the rest of the nation are not happy with this isn't surprising.

I don't expect this new plan to pass, just because it makes too much sense, and focuses more on giving the nation value than on giving value to the politicians who see NASA as their own plaything.  What I think is most likely to happen is for CxP to keep lurching forward Zombie-like until it's destroyed what's left of NASA's credibility, and even its defenders in Congress can't keep it from being cancelled.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 09:10 pm
The problem is that the people on the appropriations committees (the very people dishonestly moaning about how "Obama doesn't give NASA more money" when it's their own darned job to appropriate money for NASA) have never been able to get NASA anywhere close to the resources it would need to do even a fraction of these well.
Well, just to be clear, the televised hearings we've been arguing about in these threads are from authorizing (sub)committees, not the appropriations counterparts.  (There was an appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday, but I haven't seen a webcast of that made available yet.)  As you note, there's often a big difference between the money authorized and that which is ultimately appropriated.

These folks have moaned about the lack of money across multiple Congresses and Administrations -- it's just that they haven't had enough sway beyond their committees.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 09:11 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Absolutely.

That is what I started calling the "Garver Gambit" last month.

If nothing gets changed within the next 3-4 months, it will be too late to have any chance of saving Shuttle at all.

And all the options like CxP and DIRECT are all relying on that workforce.   Once they're gone, all those options also evaporate.

Congress is soon to go on Easter break.   Their year is also shortened by it being an election year.   The period in which these folk can actually "legislate" a change is rapidly shortening.   There are not very many days left for them to implement any real changes, so they better hurry.

Garver wins by default if they don't move quickly.   It is a brilliant strategic play on her part.   Is her opposition up to the challenge?   Only time will tell...

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/25/2010 09:15 pm
The theme tune for Garver's Plan should be "Road To Nowhere" by Talking Heads. :(
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 09:15 pm
You missed the point. It does not matter if she has come up with the idea singlehandedly or in a group - she should feel proud to be the part of the idea!!! That is what people feel when they come up with great idea!!!

So why then does she feel offended?

I think you're missing the point.  I think that Garver likes the plan (as do I).  But the people like Vitter are trying to make this look like Garver's running the agency like a puppetmaster, which is bogus.  She isn't claiming to have come up with the ideas, because at best she was just one player among many and claiming credit would be dishonest.  But also she doesn't want to give the tinfoil hatters in Congress and the intertubes any more ammunition to fight against the President's proposal.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 09:15 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Absolutely.

That is what I started calling the "Garver Gambit" last month.

If nothing gets changed within the next 3-4 months, it will be too late to have any chance of saving Shuttle at all.

And all the options like CxP and DIRECT are all relying on that workforce.   Once they're gone, all those options also evaporate.

Congress is soon to go on Easter break.   Their year is also shortened by it being an election year.   The period in which these folk can actually "legislate" a change is rapidly shortening.   There are not very many days left for them to implement any real changes, so they better hurry.

Garver wins by default if they don't move quickly.   It is a brilliant strategic play on her part.   Is her opposition up to the challenge?   Only time will tell...

Ross.

Lori Garver? I must have missed the memo, but when did she become the bad person in all of this? That's why I was confused about Senator Vitter's attack on her.....as much as I wouldn't understand politics even if it slapped me in the face.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/25/2010 09:15 pm
I'm afraid that if this thread is going to degrade into a CxP vs Shuttle extension vs this vs that "is the only way to go" argument, we're gonna miss the bigger point in the hearings- which was correctly stated earlier.

This budget just blew up in two very important Congressional committies. The resistance to this NASA budget is significant, BUT, there is no way to really predict how it exactly will turn out. The only sure thing now appears to be that the void in the Obama budget where NASA HSF used to be WILL be filled.

Oddly, this "radical" budget may be just the Congressional kick in the pants that will do us a lot of real good. It is making the Congress sit up and take notice of what more NASA needs and this time, if they do not come across with the funding a lot will be lost- and they know it. That is probably the most interesting aspect of all of this.

agreed!
the new budget proposal has turned my thinking on its head. I thought that fuel depots and advanced upper stages were  really important but where things in the "Critical path" that should continue to be funded at low levels so as not to delay side mount/EELV/Jupiter 130.
now................I say let this proposed budget have its chance,I will give up shuttle extension (ouch)
Orion (ouch)
J2X
5 segment SRB
if you look at the congress you will see that there is not a monolithic block for  any of these things ,what may survive  this subcommittees hearings might be.................a goal!
but by the time anyone in congress who cares succeeds in getting anything into proposed legislation this summer it will be an amendment to the speakers or senate majority leaders language.
and this only after OMB guts it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 09:22 pm
If nothing gets changed within the next 3-4 months, it will be too late to have any chance of saving Shuttle at all.

And all the options like CxP and DIRECT are all relying on that workforce.   Once they're gone, all those options also evaporate.
You may be right, but to go back to Chris's question, there probably won't be very many hearings after the Spring.  There will be a few bills and a few votes in public later in the year and a lot of discussions in private, but we won't see much.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/25/2010 09:23 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Absolutely.

That is what I started calling the "Garver Gambit" last month.

If nothing gets changed within the next 3-4 months, it will be too late to have any chance of saving Shuttle at all.

And all the options like CxP and DIRECT are all relying on that workforce.   Once they're gone, all those options also evaporate.

Congress is soon to go on Easter break.   Their year is also shortened by it being an election year.   The period in which these folk can actually "legislate" a change is rapidly shortening.   There are not very many days left for them to implement any real changes, so they better hurry.

Garver wins by default if they don't move quickly.   It is a brilliant strategic play on her part.   Is her opposition up to the challenge?   Only time will tell...

Ross.

Lori Garver? I must have missed the memo, but when did she become the bad person in all of this? That's why I was confused about Senator Vitter's attack on her.....as much as I wouldn't understand politics even if it slapped me in the face.

Yeah, this conspiracy theory mongering is kind of silly.  It's not like Lori Garver is the only person in NASA who thinks this is a good approach, or who likes R&D and commercial development.  Everyone I've heard of in the Obama administration that has anything to do with space policy (including OMB, OSTP, his political appointees at NASA, etc) has been pushing in this direction, as has large parts of the space-interested parts of the progressive movements (I have friends who fall under that category).  I've coauthored papers with people on the progressive side pushing for just this sort of thing.  Acting as though this is all Lori Garver's brainchild, and if we just kill the messenger this will all go away is naive.  Lori is more or less representative of the opinions I've seen everywhere in Obama's administration when it comes to space policy.  And quite frankly, space policy is probably the only area that I've actually been happy with Obama's performance so far.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 09:26 pm
Lori Garver? I must have missed the memo, but when did she become the bad person in all of this? That's why I was confused about Senator Vitter's attack on her.....as much as I wouldn't understand politics even if it slapped me in the face.

She's only trying to do what she thinks is right.   She doesn't believe in going back to the moon, never did.   And she is not a fan of any of the big defense contractors, even though they are where the wealth of experience is.   She would prefer to throw the whole lot out and replace them with Space-X style small companies and foreign partnerships (recall she is one of the central figures responsible for saving Space Station Freedom by bringing in International Partners).

She has been at the center of the negotiations, and while certainly not the only person in the room, she has been the main character in the evolution of these plans all the way from last year's transition team, through Augustine and to this politically explosive Budget Draft.

She isn't alone.   Alan Ladwig and George Whitesides are both centrally involved (transition team again).

John Holdren over at OSTP has been the senior White House/OMB guy in on this.

And Charlie Bolden seems to be saying all the right things to indicate he believe in this too, although reports vary as far as to say he's considering retiring from NASA already because this isn't what he signed up for.   I don't know which end of that spectrum is true though.   I guess we'll all see if/when he retires early.


President Obama has actually had very little input into this beyond a few high-level instructions.   By the accounts I've heard, he mostly wants increased education spending and to get rid of anything his predecessor started.   The rest is up to his advisers (listed above) to handle as they see fit.   They are the ones writing this, not the Oval.


Outside of that "inner circle" it becomes less clear who is involved.   One notable who I have noticed is all over this locally is Bob Cabana (KSC Director) who seems to be all-for getting rid of most of his own workforce right now.   If you talk to staff down here it almost sounds like there are a couple thousand people at KSC ready to lynch him already!

So no, Lori Garver isn't the only person behind this.   But she is a particularly central figure who has been leading this 'cabal' and crafting these decisions, plus speaking into the President's ear, for roughly a year longer than Bolden has even been in office.

There is no doubt at all that Lori was "in charge" until the Administrator was officially appointed -- she was given the authority of the President to do whatever she wanted until the time Bolden came into the picture   The only remaining question is exactly how much Bolden has taken charge after that point, and how much influence she still has today.   Excepting Bolden, her voice is still undoubtedly the loudest.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/25/2010 09:38 pm
Ross,
a marine would not retire over this not this early...............
he will see this through I think.
he does seem naive when it comes to the legislature.
he will protect his budget and his commander in chief
perhaps a beneficial compromise with the executive and the legislative branch will be his achievement. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/25/2010 09:42 pm
perhaps a beneficial compromise with the executive and the legislative branch will be his achievement. 

I sure hope that is his legacy.

The last Admin was too divisive.   We don't need another like that.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Lampyridae on 02/25/2010 09:51 pm
"You don't want seventh graders thinking about Mars? I don't agree with that." Vitter.

Bolden disagrees. Cites about them not caring about the LV.

Emphasis mine. I don't know many seventh graders who build models of the ISS but I literally know hundreds who build and fly model rockets. It's the rockets that grab their attention, not the photo-ops inside a station.

So, what do you think people will be flying on if we use commercial LEO taxis?  Giant balloons?  Huge rubber bands?  No it'll be rockets just the same.  Sure, DIRECT is bigger than Falcon 9 or Atlas V, but quite frankly I doubt most people outside of the hard core rocket nerds give a darn what shape the rocket is in that puts the people up.

~Jon

It's not the size of the rockets that I was addressing Jon, it's his off-the-wall view that *the kids* don't care about the rockets. That was about as unimaginative and uninformed a comment as could possibly have been made by the head of NASA. Whether it's a Jupiter, an Atlas, a Delta, a Soyuz, a Falcon, an Ariane, a Long March or an Honest John SAM, the point is that kids are fascinated by the *rockets*. They get just as big a kick out of watching an Atlas send a probe to Mars as they do watching a Saturn send astronauts to the moon. Give a kid a plastic model of Cassini and it will never get built. Give a kid a model rocket kit and he or she will be pestering you in no time to take them out to fly it.

You and I are much more focused on the missions that the rockets enable, but the kids are excited by the rockets, not the science. Most of them completely loose interest when you tell them about Cassini or Galleleo or any of the other science missions. It's the launch vehicles, not the math and science that excites the kids. It's the launch vehicles that grab and hold their attention and it's the launch vehicles that gradually, over time, turn them to math and science by the time they are in high school or college. To say on national television that kids are not excited by the launch vehicles just tells me that the man is totally out of touch with reality. This is a guy who is interested in exciting kids to pursue math and science? He doesn't want 7th graders to be thinking about Mars? What does he want them to think about instead? Calculus? Give me a break.

My observation was not about government HLV vs. Commercial CCDev. It was about the kids and his wrong-headed view of what will inspire them. Doing it his way will turn off an entire generation of kids, not inspire them.

The picture below says it all.

When I was a kid, the shuttle inspired me. I wanted the cutaway diagrams, the labels, the articles on silica tiles. I was fascinated by space station Freedom. I made an AG NERV design for a Mars ship and sent it to NASA.

Getting back a bunch of educational pamphlets (more like newsletters, they were quite detailed) and posters was the best thing ever.

Anybody who thinks anything else is just plain "boring" to kids is wrong. However, real space is not as inspiring to the vast majority of kids because there is no Harry Potter of space. Space being cool will only ever be a fad.

I didn't study hard at school because I thought I'd never get to be an astronaut (not being American). Now, with commercial spaceflight, I might actually get my wish, I just have to be insanely rich (for orbital) or just save hard (for suborbital). So, I've decided to make lots of money to go into space. How's that for inspiration?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 09:57 pm
No, we are not stuck.  We have a vehicle.

True, but a vehicle that at best can be strung out for another few years max, and only at extreme expense.  If you stretched it out to the max you could do without restarting the production lines all the way, you'd be talking about 3-4 extra flights over 5 years at the cost of around $12-13B.  Ie about $2B/flight.  And that isn't without risk.

I honestly think there are better balances of cost vs. risk that could be done than trying to keep Shuttle limping along for another five years.  For instance, if shuttle-class upmass is the big concern, my favorite proposed solution was the ULA Payload Bay Fairing.  The system is pretty low technical risk, with almost all of the technolgies at TRL 9, could provide shuttle-class upmass, and could probably be flying within a short period of time (since it doesn't need a new launcher, and can reuse a lot of systems from other projects).  I'd rather see a slight 1-2 flight shuttle stretchout and extra funding for something like this than trying to keep Shuttle going for another several years at such high costs.

Quote
Commercial, at best, is 3-4 years away for crew.  The current "plan" is not a plan and hopes and assumes with zero contingency.

It has a lot more contingency than the old plan did.  If it got funded, you would likely have at least three or four potential crew and cargo launch systems, on at least three different launchers (Boeing capsule and/or Dreamchaser on Atlas V, Cygnus on Taurus II, Dragon on Falcon 9).  Sure, it's possible that every single one of those could fail, but even if you assign a low success rate for each of them once you start talking that level of redundancy, the odds of them all failing seems pretty low.

Quote
As for the rest, I hate to say this Jon but that is simply looking through rose colored glasses.  General lists, not really what I would call specific, of when maybe we would like to see technologies developed but then having no definitive plan to use them is a strategic mistake.

Believe what you will.  From the limited amount I've seen of the various roadmapping activities going on at NASA it's getting a lot more thought than you seem to think. 

~Jon

Jon,

Relative to shuttle extension, thank you for being the expert.  It is not true that there would be massive restarts and clearly "massive expense" is relative.  No big surprise that instead you would terminate Shuttle, and ask ULA to *develop* a capability that duplicates perhaps some of the upmass but then does not account for the other capabilities, including crew.  As for risk, nothing is without risk and unless you can really speak to that, I would suggest you not try to use that as an arguement because it just looks like you're drinking the kool-aid.

As for contingencies, what you describe are multiple developments and it is still unclear how these partnerships will precisely work and how the market will support them *if* they ever make it to operational status and what that means for these companies long-term viability.  That is not a contingency.  There is no contingency for ISS operations, support and utilization and just instead sole sources everything to Russia for an unspecified amount of time and at unknown cost for an unknown amount of science that will be able to be performed. 

As for the final statement, the word *limited* obviously is key.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 10:09 pm
The bottom line is this, the NASA FY2011 budget is a mess. The majority of people know it, the minority don't. There are people who scream from both camps but it's always best to go with the facts you read and the facts from the committee hearings you watch.

The problem is that the previous plan was also a mess.  They had a plan that *they* were underfunding, and it was already a slow-motion trainwreck.  Sure, most of those Congresspeople who are supposed to be overseeing these programs didn't care so long as money kept flowing into their districts, but that doesn't paper over the fact that CxP was in serious trouble and everyone with eyes to see knew it.

This new plan isn't perfect, but it was at least a workable solution that matched ambitions with funding and provided a way to bump NASA onto a more favorable capability vs. cost curve than its on today.  Unless Congress can step up to its responsibilities and fund everything they want NASA to do, it behooves them to find a plan they are willing to afford.  And you could do far worse than something close to the President's proposal.  The fact that politicians who see NASA as a free way to provide favors to campaign contributors and to get jobs in their districts at the expense of the rest of the nation are not happy with this isn't surprising.

I don't expect this new plan to pass, just because it makes too much sense, and focuses more on giving the nation value than on giving value to the politicians who see NASA as their own plaything.  What I think is most likely to happen is for CxP to keep lurching forward Zombie-like until it's destroyed what's left of NASA's credibility, and even its defenders in Congress can't keep it from being cancelled.

~Jon

And a technology program with no planned uses of that technology makes sense?  And the same Congress that didn't fund NASA to what it was authorized when it actually had a mission, is now going to fund this.  That sounds like hope and assumption when in reality we have been down this technology development program road in the past and it failed.  It will be used as a government slush fund in the coming years no doubt.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/25/2010 10:13 pm

Yeah, this conspiracy theory mongering is kind of silly.  It's not like Lori Garver is the only person in NASA who thinks this is a good approach, or who likes R&D and commercial development.  Everyone I've heard of in the Obama administration that has anything to do with space policy (including OMB, OSTP, his political appointees at NASA, etc) has been pushing in this direction, as has large parts of the space-interested parts of the progressive movements (I have friends who fall under that category).  I've coauthored papers with people on the progressive side pushing for just this sort of thing.  Acting as though this is all Lori Garver's brainchild, and if we just kill the messenger this will all go away is naive.  Lori is more or less representative of the opinions I've seen everywhere in Obama's administration when it comes to space policy.  And quite frankly, space policy is probably the only area that I've actually been happy with Obama's performance so far.

~Jon

While it is good you have co-authored more papers, I think suggesting that none of this is true and calling it a conspiracy theory shows your blind trust in this policy.  It just may have more truth to it than you want to believe.....
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 10:18 pm
(There was an appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday, but I haven't seen a webcast of that made available yet.)
No webcast links yet, but there's an article about this hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100225-house-appropriators-grill-obama-science-adviser.html
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 10:20 pm
She's only trying to do what she thinks is right.   She doesn't believe in going back to the moon, never did. 

That is most unfortunate.

Quote
And she is not a fan of any of the big defense contractors, even though they are where the wealth of experience is.   She would prefer to throw the whole lot out and replace them with Space-X style small companies and foreign partnerships

That is also unfortunate, imo.  I'd be a lot more confident in something like DreamChaser if NASA gave one of the "big defense contractors" the contract to build it, rather than some upstart company with a shaky financial footing and zero history or experience in building such vehicles.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jkumpire on 02/25/2010 10:34 pm
Just from what I have heard the last two days and read here, there is a basic question that has never been dealt with by Bolden, Garver, and NASA:

"Does President Obama and his Administration support HSF BEO?"

If he does, then he has to set a goal: Moon by 2020, with Mars to follow (for example). Moon 2030 is absurd, and that is a problem for them.

If he sets the goal, then most disagreements will go away. Because NASA's leadership will have come up with coherent ways to reach this goal, or come close to it. They will also have to show the Congress and other interested parties that the plan is a viable one.

Right now, the NASA plan is a no sale because there is no goal, and there is no commitment to HSF that can be demonstrated by the budget numbers and plans currently out there. Promises that unproven R&D $$ and unproven private enterprise $$ will lead to a new better HSF for all just cannot be sold in this environment. And if it can be sold, then the people who believe in the new direction have not found a way to convince a lot of people (me included fwiw) it's viable. 

In the post-Apollo debacle, when Von Braun and his sales job for NASA went up in smoke courtesy of the Congress, there were several viable options that were part of the picture which showed that HSF was not dead. SSP was the program chosen because it was the cheapest alternative, that pushed the tech envelope, and held the promise of continued civilian HSF. It was a shot in the dark, but solved the money and political problems of the time.

But, in the earliest days of NACA/NASA, it seemed pretty clear that humans could be lifted into space, without a massive new technological jump. The technology jump was largely a case of reliability; making sure that the changes we make to the current tech of the time would work. The other part of the equation was that as NASA and it's industrial/military contractors worked the tech, it would get better. 

We are in a new era, it seems to me. The Obama people want to roll the dice on new, unproven tech, or proven tech in new and untried ways. In reality, they are trying a new direction to use the old 1990's NASA "Faster, Better, Cheaper" idea to solve a new set of problems. They are selling the idea that they have the answers, and in their crystal ball, they will get us where we want to get to, we just are not sure how to get there, or where we want to go.

CxP/Direct and even EELV gets hit because it uses old tech and/or is too expensive, or does not go where we want it to go fast enough. But CxP/Direct is really like the old days of NASA; Believers say we can make this work, if we are willing to risk failure or be a little less cautious using a mix of old and new tech.

The Obama folks hold most of the cards and the high ground at this point, but they are in a mess because they are not really trusted that they care about HSF, unless it deals with AGW. How they sell they still want HSF BEO is the big problem they have to fix before their vision can be sustained. 

 

     
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 10:39 pm
The last Admin was too divisive.   We don't need another like that.
Yes. No one expects Bolden to be - not his style.

But many saw this in Griffin as a driven, decisive manager - good traits. Many still wish to overlook the terrible damage he did.

I'm glad that not everyone subscribes to the notion "the ends justifies the means".

For what its worth, my worries about him was about backbone. I've been pleasantly surprised at its tensile strength.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/25/2010 10:46 pm
Well, I haven't seen any public confirmation of this yet, but 'bite me' doesn't really count as a fact or a leak.  (It would be more of a Ron Burgundy moment.)  If it's true (and I would think given the report there's an effort to track it down), it would be another example that style matters.


It is real.

Thanks for posting that -- the tweet is gone now and I didn't see it when I checked a few hours earlier...out of curiosity when did you screen shot that?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: dbhyslop on 02/25/2010 10:56 pm
We are in a new era, it seems to me. The Obama people want to roll the dice on new, unproven tech, or proven tech in new and untried ways. In reality, they are trying a new direction to use the old 1990's NASA "Faster, Better, Cheaper" idea to solve a new set of problems. They are selling the idea that they have the answers, and in their crystal ball, they will get us where we want to get to, we just are not sure how to get there, or where we want to go.

I'd modify this thought a little bit.  There are quite a few companies that seem to have the competence required to make a spacecraft.  Some of them are well established with little risk but perhaps higher cost--Boeing, Lockheed; others are less experienced companies that hope to offer cheaper or more innovative products at the expense of higher programmatic risk--Spacex, SpaceDev, etc.  The new plan seems to be to throw money at ALL of these people and get a few of these flying so that 1) all our eggs aren't in one basket and 2) they can sell their seats cheaper to third parties because NASA helped with dev costs.

You guys might have to help me on the numbers here, but we've spent what, about ten billion dollars on Constellation and we're still a good five or six years from having a simple capsule on a simple rocket to LEO?  That's putting our eggs in one basket.  For that kind of money and time you might have three or four commercial spacecraft flying, but if every single one was to fail I'm sure Orion would have, too.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/25/2010 11:02 pm
Bolden seems more and more like a puppet after these past 2 days...

Did you think he was going to be a strong leader given his resume?

I like the guy, but he's clearly the guy picked to deliver the bad news.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/25/2010 11:12 pm
She's only trying to do what she thinks is right.   She doesn't believe in going back to the moon, never did. 

That is most unfortunate.

Quote
And she is not a fan of any of the big defense contractors, even though they are where the wealth of experience is.   She would prefer to throw the whole lot out and replace them with Space-X style small companies and foreign partnerships

That is also unfortunate, imo.  I'd be a lot more confident in something like DreamChaser if NASA gave one of the "big defense contractors" the contract to build it, rather than some upstart company with a shaky financial footing and zero history or experience in building such vehicles.
Listen. Many experiences good and bad with big and small aerospace companies, with the best/worst management, best/worst financial situation.

You cannot predict levels of success with any of them.

Watched Bernie Schwartz bet the farm on Skynet at Loral - great financials, great management ... suicidal decision. Need I bring up VentureStar.

FWIW, these guys are much better off than Kistler.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/25/2010 11:13 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Also, for our older members, are the current events comparable with anything in the past....I'm thinking Apollo to Shuttle, as much as I know that must have been very different?

Very much so Chris.

That is why it is SO dangerous to open up definitive decisions in a  democracy decisions to scrutiny.  Definitive decisions are so rare, that once the option space is opened up it is not only likely that our representatives may pick a worse alternative, but might posture so long as to make ANY decision irrelevant.

There are those that warned of this.  Policies that result in huge government acquisitions in a political world are incredibly fragile eggs ... they require support from all sides (including those that may not like eggs) or the slightest crack leads to them falling apart to nothing. 

Not a system I'm proud of, but one that repeats itself for NASA and other agencies. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/25/2010 11:15 pm
Here's my article surrounding the Hearings:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/02/ssp-balance-between-shuttle-legacy-hlv-advancement/

Specific thread, given there's info on the new HLV and other elements too:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20657.0
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: vt_hokie on 02/25/2010 11:16 pm

Watched Bernie Schwartz bet the farm on Skynet at Loral - great financials, great management ... suicidal decision. Need I bring up VentureStar.

Not sure what you mean by that...Schwartz certainly bet the farm on Globalstar, and then sold off much of the profitable Skynet business to Intelsat after Loral had amassed a hopeless amount of debt largely from Globalstar as I understood it.

Quote
FWW, these guys are much better off than Kistler.

I sure hope so!  I was actually assigned to work on the Kistler program briefly when I was with AlliedSignal in Teterboro...barely had time to move into my new cubicle before that work ground to a halt, and I got pushed over to another program!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/25/2010 11:30 pm
I'm sorry, but I'm a tad appalled at people who who think they've got Lori Garver pegged as some villainous opponent of HSF because they read her Wikipedia profile and found it wanting. I want to point out that Keith Cowling thinks you're all nuts (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/sen-vitter-has.html), and I'll take his first-hand knowledge over your intuition every day of the millennium.

I really hope Congress calls the CCDev and COTS companies to The Hill before committing themselves. It's somewhat farcical for politicians with no direct knowledge of anything beyond talking points to claim "Commercial won't be ready for decades" without at least talking to Boeing, SpaceX, ULA, Bigelow, etc.


Right now, the NASA plan is a no sale because there is no goal, and there is no commitment to HSF that can be demonstrated by the budget numbers and plans currently out there.


This sort of sentiment amazes me. Committing to extend ISS to at least 2020 and committing to multiple, redundant paths to LEO is not a commitment to HSF? Putting money into advanced propulsion, open-architecture life support, and far-BEO manned mission technologies like Rad shielding means no HSF?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/25/2010 11:38 pm
Lori Garver? I must have missed the memo, but when did she become the bad person in all of this? That's why I was confused about Senator Vitter's attack on her.....as much as I wouldn't understand politics even if it slapped me in the face.

She's only trying to do what she thinks is right.   She doesn't believe in going back to the moon, never did.   And she is not a fan of any of the big defense contractors, even though they are where the wealth of experience is.   She would prefer to throw the whole lot out and replace them with Space-X style small companies and foreign partnerships (recall she is one of the central figures responsible for saving Space Station Freedom by bringing in International Partners).

She has been at the center of the negotiations, and while certainly not the only person in the room, she has been the main character in the evolution of these plans all the way from last year's transition team, through Augustine and to this politically explosive Budget Draft.

She isn't alone.   Alan Ladwig and George Whitesides are both centrally involved (transition team again).

John Holdren over at OSTP has been the senior White House/OMB guy in on this.

And Charlie Bolden seems to be saying all the right things to indicate he believe in this too, although reports vary as far as to say he's considering retiring from NASA already because this isn't what he signed up for.   I don't know which end of that spectrum is true though.   I guess we'll all see if/when he retires early.


President Obama has actually had very little input into this beyond a few high-level instructions.   By the accounts I've heard, he mostly wants increased education spending and to get rid of anything his predecessor started.   The rest is up to his advisers (listed above) to handle as they see fit.   They are the ones writing this, not the Oval.


Outside of that "inner circle" it becomes less clear who is involved.   One notable who I have noticed is all over this locally is Bob Cabana (KSC Director) who seems to be all-for getting rid of most of his own workforce right now.   If you talk to staff down here it almost sounds like there are a couple thousand people at KSC ready to lynch him already!

So no, Lori Garver isn't the only person behind this.   But she is a particularly central figure who has been leading this 'cabal' and crafting these decisions, plus speaking into the President's ear, for roughly a year longer than Bolden has even been in office.

There is no doubt at all that Lori was "in charge" until the Administrator was officially appointed -- she was given the authority of the President to do whatever she wanted until the time Bolden came into the picture   The only remaining question is exactly how much Bolden has taken charge after that point, and how much influence she still has today.   Excepting Bolden, her voice is still undoubtedly the loudest.

Ross.

Trying to target imaginary villains will back fire. First Griffin was a villain. Now Garver is a villian. Who's next on the villain list? This witch hunting serves no prupose. I thought it was classy of Bolden to defend Garver.

I suspect a lot of this new NASA plan actually comes from Obama himself. We haven't heard that much about what Obama thinks. But we have had hints here and there.

1- Months ago, there was an article about Obama wanting DOD and NASA to cooperate more in space. A number of people criticized the article as inaccurate. But there was obviously some truth to it.

2- Obama later mentionned that he thought NASA was adrift and that it didn't inspire any more.

3- Garver was named as part of the transition team by Obama and apparently Obama thinks she would make a good candidate as Administrator. Bolden is clearly Nelson's pick.

4- The Augustine Committee is set up by Obama and it indicates that NASA is not spending enough on R&D (because of Constellation) and that NASA should spend a lot more on R&D in order to enable BEO exploration. They also say that we should opt for commercial crew for LEO.

5- Bolden is nominated and says that the ultimate goal is Mars and talks about Vasmir. He also says that he is pro-commercial sector.

6- A few months ago Obama made a speech where he said that the US should spend 3% of its GDP on R&D and that NASA should be part of that effort.

This all adds up.  Obama is the real architect behind this new effort!

But I agree with Miles O'Brien. This is a good plan. So I am not going to try to turn Obama into a villain.

I am expecting that the plans for the HLV will be changed by Congress but a lot of the Obama plan will still remain: commercial crew to LEO, spending on propellant depots and on R&D for game changing technology.

If you listen to Senator Nelson, his stance on the HLV has soften in recent weeks. He seems on board with most of Obama's plan except the importance of having an HLV sooner rather than later.  Nelson generally gets what he wants when it comes to space policy. He has a good relationship with Obama. In my mind, what he says is more important than anybody else in Congress at this point. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 12:12 am

Watched Bernie Schwartz bet the farm on Skynet at Loral - great financials, great management ... suicidal decision. Need I bring up VentureStar.

Not sure what you mean by that...Schwartz certainly bet the farm on Globalstar, and then sold off much of the profitable Skynet business to Intelsat after Loral had amassed a hopeless amount of debt largely from Globalstar as I understood it.

Quote
FWW, these guys are much better off than Kistler.

I sure hope so!  I was actually assigned to work on the Kistler program briefly when I was with AlliedSignal in Teterboro...barely had time to move into my new cubicle before that work ground to a halt, and I got pushed over to another program!
Originally all just skynet at the beginning. Don't want to do all of this in a post - too much to type! Suffice to say that satellite telcom has lucrative and loser items mixed together that many choked on.

To the point again - you can't presume throwing money (or anything) at it will make it better. Sometimes it makes it worse.

Many of the so-called "new space" firms are well-run in my experience. Unlike Kistler for example.

Where they are weak is lack of experience/resource - they often go the long way round the barn.

If you wish to improve odds here, what would work best would be partial investment by larger aerospace firms in them. Note that Scaled is owned by Northrup Grumman. That's really what you are asking for your comfort.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 12:22 am
(There was an appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday, but I haven't seen a webcast of that made available yet.)
No webcast links yet, but there's an article about this hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100225-house-appropriators-grill-obama-science-adviser.html


Are you sure ? ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20634.msg551584#msg551584

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech10/022410.wvx
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 12:25 am
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

Also, for our older members, are the current events comparable with anything in the past....I'm thinking Apollo to Shuttle, as much as I know that must have been very different?

Very much so Chris.

That is why it is SO dangerous to open up definitive decisions in a  democracy decisions to scrutiny.  Definitive decisions are so rare, that once the option space is opened up it is not only likely that our representatives may pick a worse alternative, but might posture so long as to make ANY decision irrelevant.

There are those that warned of this.  Policies that result in huge government acquisitions in a political world are incredibly fragile eggs ... they require support from all sides (including those that may not like eggs) or the slightest crack leads to them falling apart to nothing. 

Not a system I'm proud of, but one that repeats itself for NASA and other agencies. 

Couldn't agree more.

Many here on this forum misunderstand the fragility of this situation.

They react like rhinos or elephants in musk. They want / think they can get things their way, and are naive enough to press political buttons that actually work backwards of what they think.

Part of the reasons for some of the negative projections some have you have done come true ... is because it is far easier to destroy than to create. So it is easy to help make the worst come true.

Rant away.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 12:39 am
What you haven't seen yet is the rivalries between senators when t settles in that they can't fund all of what they want and some get nothing. Then a different set of battles begin.

I think this is the fundamental problem.  Even without the commercial stuff and the R&D, there wasn't enough money being appropriated to give everyone in Congress a pony. 

Yeah, it would be great to live in a world where NASA could be given a budget big enough to:

1-Keep shuttle flying
2-Keep the shuttle workforce in a job
3-Keep flying "test launches" of "Rocket-X" (whatever that actually means)
4-Build an HLV
5-Extend ISS and increase its utilization
6-Have no job losses anywhere evar
7-Fund R&D necessary to move us to a new cost vs. performance curve
8-Fund commercial crew development so we're more than one single point failure away from losing our nation's HSF capability again
9-Restore to the science side all the funding they've lost due to CxP
10-Restore to Aeronautics all the funding it's lost to CxP

The problem is that the people on the appropriations committees (the very people dishonestly moaning about how "Obama doesn't give NASA more money" when it's their own darned job to appropriate money for NASA) have never been able to get NASA anywhere close to the resources it would need to do even a fraction of these well.  Remember, the President proposes, *Congress* disposes. 

~Jon

51D Mascot :-

Not true, Ross. 2005 and 2008 Authorization Acts provided ALL the funding authority originally projected for Exploration for 2007 through 2009, the three Fiscal Years for which they provided authorizations...but the White House never requested, and thus the appropriators never appropriated. Authorizers asked appropriators to approve above the requested levels, but that would have meant taking money from some other agency within their accounts jurisdiction (Commerce, Justice, other Independent Agencies) and that just wasn't going to happen. It has to begin with the President's request for the maximum authorized levels.

Here are the numbers, followed by what the numbers would be above the FY 2010 requested amount and projections for 2011 and 2012


http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18276.msg458438#msg458438

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/26/2010 12:54 am

Bolden said that Cxp is behind in developing the vehicles, said that he hopes that by 2016 they'll have commercial LEO capability (maybe more than one vehicle), 2020-30 possibly going BEO.

I wanted to reply to this ONE statement by Bolden, because I haven't seen anyone else make any remark on it yet.

He 'hopes'? that by 2016 they'll have Commercial LEO capability??

The first 'hopes' were 2014. This is sounding more and more like an Ares I IOC projection...

So how is this 'better'? I'm not seeing it. Maybe it is realistic. But hey, COTS looks to be getting an additional $300B for one reason or another (propping-up or acceleration, I'll let others determine that one). Who's to say Commercial crew won't fall behind or come back looking for additional funds.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 01:13 am
Trying to target imaginary villains will back fire. First Griffin was a villain. Now Garver is a villian. Who's next on the villain list? This witch hunting serves no prupose. I thought it was classy of Bolden to defend Garver.

If you can't win on merit, blame the officiating!

Doesn't mean that other alternatives weren't superior, they just weren't as clearly superior as others have made them out to be.

Either that or everyone who steps up in a leadership position is a villain.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: khallow on 02/26/2010 01:13 am
I don't see the decision to go with Ares as being "definitive" for a couple of reasons. First, it was not done in a way that would be definitive in a democracy. As I see it, the ESAS was cooked (there's way too many unwarranted assumptions that favor SRM first stage vehicles) to get a predetermined solution that the boss, Mike Griffin wanted. That won't rest well with anyone who has a similar perception of the process, especially if they disagreed with the outcome.

Second, it was a very poorly executed decision. Very poor execution can undo an otherwise definitive decision. In additional to leaving commercial launch in the cold (which in my view was one of the worst mistakes NASA has ever made), they ended up well behind schedule, over budget, and exhibit many other symptoms of a badly executed plan (such as having to redesign the Orion spacecraft numerous times and cutting valuable programs in order to get enough funding).

For what it's worth, I think the Obama administration has at least gotten the first part partly right. The Augustine Committee was pretty open with reputable members, there was no favored conclusion. It is a good contrast to the ESAS.

I think the current mess with the poorly outlined NASA budget request is recoverable, especially since the debate will occur openly. I think there are reasonable concerns about future direction and even whether the Obama administration intends to undermine NASA's role in US space development. I think the aggressive congressional hearings herald a more open and more definitive decision than came with Constellation. A lot depends on whether Bolden can deliver a credible plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jkumpire on 02/26/2010 01:14 am
I'm sorry, but I'm a tad appalled at people who who think they've got Lori Garver pegged as some villainous opponent of HSF because they read her Wikipedia profile and found it wanting. I want to point out that Keith Cowling thinks you're all nuts (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/02/sen-vitter-has.html), and I'll take his first-hand knowledge over your intuition every day of the millennium.

I really hope Congress calls the CCDev and COTS companies to The Hill before committing themselves. It's somewhat farcical for politicians with no direct knowledge of anything beyond talking points to claim "Commercial won't be ready for decades" without at least talking to Boeing, SpaceX, ULA, Bigelow, etc.


Right now, the NASA plan is a no sale because there is no goal, and there is no commitment to HSF that can be demonstrated by the budget numbers and plans currently out there.


This sort of sentiment amazes me. Committing to extend ISS to at least 2020 and committing to multiple, redundant paths to LEO is not a commitment to HSF? Putting money into advanced propulsion, open-architecture life support, and far-BEO manned mission technologies like Rad shielding means no HSF?

Well,

I can understand part of your angst, but if you look at my post I said HSF BEO, Beyond Earth orbit. Frankly, I think you are hoping there is long-term funding for this, where the commitment is lacking on the part of the Administration.

There is supposedly a promise to spend money, but for what? How long is the money going to be budgeted for by the Administration? What happens when some of this, or most of this research ends up at a dead end, or people start saying they need more?

There are no assurances with these guys, since in the current Administration, every promise has an expiration date. Why should NASA be any different? Further, NASA is going all-in on a totally untested series of vehicles and systems that may or may not work.

On top of that, the HSF to LEO commitment is mostly smoke and mirrors anyway, since we do have obligations to ISS to 2020, and I fear that the Administration will decide to just pay other countries to do the work the US is required to do to meet its obligations.   

In short, you hope things work out well. You hope the money commitment is there. I need to see a lot more evidence that these hopes you have are justified.

I hope you are right sir. Right now, I think you are wrong about what you believe.

 

 
 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 01:16 am

Bolden said that Cxp is behind in developing the vehicles, said that he hopes that by 2016 they'll have commercial LEO capability (maybe more than one vehicle), 2020-30 possibly going BEO.

I wanted to reply to this ONE statement by Bolden, because I haven't seen anyone else make any remark on it yet.

He 'hopes'? that by 2016 they'll have Commercial LEO capability??

The first 'hopes' were 2014. This is sounding more and more like an Ares I IOC projection...

So how is this 'better'? I'm not seeing it. Maybe it is realistic. But hey, COTS looks to be getting an additional $300B for one reason or another (propping-up or acceleration, I'll let others determine that one). Who's to say Commercial crew won't fall behind or come back looking for additional funds.

Wow, you mean the contractor proposals of HR Atlas V by 2012 were overstated?  Or is the massive NASA workforce slowing things down?

Contractor Advocates estimates are an ante, not their whole stake.  Just enough to get you to buy in. That's why you need a third party without a stake to adjudicate. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: neilh on 02/26/2010 01:49 am
That is also unfortunate, imo.  I'd be a lot more confident in something like DreamChaser if NASA gave one of the "big defense contractors" the contract to build it, rather than some upstart company with a shaky financial footing and zero history or experience in building such vehicles.

From the C3PO/COTS/CCDev presentation at the FAA Conference last week, here's the list of partners & subs for Sierra Nevada on the Dream Chaser:

http://www.aiaa.org/pdf/industry/presentations/Lindenmoyer_C3PO.pdf
Quote
Partners& Subs
Boeing
Draper Lab
ULA
Aerojet
AdamWorks
MDA
University of Colorado
NASA LaRC
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 01:57 am
(There was an appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday, but I haven't seen a webcast of that made available yet.)
No webcast links yet, but there's an article about this hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100225-house-appropriators-grill-obama-science-adviser.html


Are you sure ? ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20634.msg551584#msg551584

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech10/022410.wvx
Yes, I'm sure -- there were two NASA related House hearings yesterday; we only saw one.  Put another way: there were three NASA related Congressional hearings yesterday, we only saw two of them.  The links above point to the morning hearing that was also televised live on NASA TV.  That was a hearing of the House Science and Technology committee, chaired by Representative Gordon.

The House hearing in the afternoon I'm referring to occurred at the same time as the televised Senate subcommittee hearing chaired by Senator Nelson.  At the same time that Mr. Bolden, et. al. testified in front of Senator Nelson's subcommittee, Dr. Holdren testified in front of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of House Appropriations (http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_cjs.shtml), chaired by Representative Alan Mollohan.  I haven't seen a webcast link for that yet.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearing into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24 Part 2
Post by: Andy Armstrong on 02/26/2010 02:54 am

No, we are not stuck.  We have a vehicle.

Commercial, at best, is 3-4 years away for crew.  The current "plan" is not a plan and hopes and assumes with zero contingency.

General lists, not really what I would call specific, of when maybe we would like to see technologies developed but then having no definitive plan to use them is a strategic mistake.  Does Microsoft just research how to make Windows better or do they plan to actually use it in there next version?  Take your pick of any company and feel free to use the same analogy. 

Agree, we have a vehicle (Shuttle) that can be used as a basis for building blocks.

The Microsoft comment is very germane. From a hardware perspective, how can we forget Intel 8086, 80286, 80386, 80486, ... essentialy x486 family. Innovation has happened in the family continuously that has lead the computer revolution.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2010 03:02 am

1- Months ago, there was an article about Obama wanting DOD and NASA to cooperate more in space. A number of people criticized the article as inaccurate. But there was obviously some truth to it.


There hasn't been any new developments wrt this. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2010 03:07 am
Wow, you mean the contractor proposals of HR Atlas V by 2012 were overstated?  Or is the massive NASA workforce slowing things down?

Contractor Advocates estimates are an ante, not their whole stake.  Just enough to get you to buy in. That's why you need a third party without a stake to adjudicate. 


The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2010 03:32 am

1- Months ago, there was an article about Obama wanting DOD and NASA to cooperate more in space. A number of people criticized the article as inaccurate. But there was obviously some truth to it.


There hasn't been any new developments wrt this. 

The idea of funding R&D for a US version of the RD-180 could be funded by DOD and NASA. I beleive that Bolden specifically mentionned this as a possibility.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jim on 02/26/2010 03:49 am

1- Months ago, there was an article about Obama wanting DOD and NASA to cooperate more in space. A number of people criticized the article as inaccurate. But there was obviously some truth to it.


There hasn't been any new developments wrt this. 

The idea of funding R&D for a US version of the RD-180 could be funded by DOD and NASA. I beleive that Bolden specifically mentionned this as a possibility.


Stuff like this has always been happening.  This isn't new to the Obama administration.  The cooperation that was poo pooed was joint missions or joint development of a new vehicle.


NASA has been working close with the DOD on EELV fleet management and improvements.    The DOD has no problem with this since:
a.  It is their fleet basically
b. they get a benefit at someone else expense.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 06:27 am
(There was an appropriations subcommittee hearing yesterday, but I haven't seen a webcast of that made available yet.)
No webcast links yet, but there's an article about this hearing:
http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100225-house-appropriators-grill-obama-science-adviser.html


Are you sure ? ;)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20634.msg551584#msg551584

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech10/022410.wvx
Yes, I'm sure -- there were two NASA related House hearings yesterday; we only saw one.  Put another way: there were three NASA related Congressional hearings yesterday, we only saw two of them.  The links above point to the morning hearing that was also televised live on NASA TV.  That was a hearing of the House Science and Technology committee, chaired by Representative Gordon.

The House hearing in the afternoon I'm referring to occurred at the same time as the televised Senate subcommittee hearing chaired by Senator Nelson.  At the same time that Mr. Bolden, et. al. testified in front of Senator Nelson's subcommittee, Dr. Holdren testified in front of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of House Appropriations (http://appropriations.house.gov/Subcommittees/sub_cjs.shtml), chaired by Representative Alan Mollohan.  I haven't seen a webcast link for that yet.


Ok, thanks for the correction. FWIW there were 2 pdfs associated with that meeting

http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Mollohan_Opening_Statement-2-24-10.pdf
http://appropriations.house.gov/Witness_testimony/CJS/John_Holdren-2-24-10.pdf

and also this testimony snippet

http://aderholt.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=20&sectiontree=6,20&itemid=1005

“My first question is about the speed with which NASA is shutting down Constellation even though the commercial options for human spaceflight are not ready.  Fixed costs for launching Ares I would be about $1.2 billion a year; any launch system is going to have that high a cost or higher.”

“The marginal cost, or cost per rocket, would be about $120 million for Ares I, plus about $50 million for the Orion capsule. The latest estimate for a completed Falcon 9 is about $130 million.  Meanwhile, we should note that the original March 2006 contracts NASA signed with the two companies which won COTS contracts called for 3 demonstration flights by the fall of 2008, showing the ability to deliver cargo to the International Space Station.   Almost four years later, we are still waiting on that first flight.”
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/26/2010 06:46 am
Bolden seems more and more like a puppet after these past 2 days...

And you come to this conclusion how?

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/26/2010 06:49 am
Okay, you guys. I've had enough of the "Obama is just doing this to cancel NASA." Conspiracy theories like that are just stupid. If you say something like "this budget undermines the political support for NASA," that's approaching a valid argument.

If Obama wanted to really cancel NASA's HSF program in a super-tricky, conspiracy-theory way, he would've let Constellation continue but very, very gradually reducing its budget and letting the Shuttle retire in 2010 (like he's doing), letting the ISS splash in 2015 (the opposite of what he's doing), decreasing funding for commercial crew and/or cargo (the complete opposite of what he's doing), and continue to cut advanced technology R&D for propulsion and human spaceflight (the opposite of what he's doing). He'd let Ares-I continue to suck the life out of NASA. Increasing the funding for NASA even by only $6 billion over 5 years is the opposite of what he would do if he was trying to kill NASA, and no amount of rationalization is going to change that.

What I want to know: If they actually support exploration so much, where the heck were all these angry Congress critters when Altair was being defunded? Why didn't they even mention this in these hearings? Hmmm??? This is ludicrous.

Very good post. Should people get thinking about their thinking. Won't work with everyone.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/26/2010 06:54 am

1) Senator Vitter just asked who is the chief of orchestrating the cancellation of Constellation. What is wrong with this?

2) If this new change is so great why do they suddenly need to protect Lori Garver? If she is so genius to come up with this idea aren't she suppose to be proud with it?

3) It is getting worse and worse. It is just more and more convincing that it is some plan to cut NASA funding.

1) For starters: The way (style) he does the "asking". There are other things.
2) The change is great and there is no need to protect her. This thinking of an evil mastermind is ridicolous.
3) It what usiverse do you live? NASA funding is proposed to increase by $6billion over the next 5 years.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/26/2010 07:00 am
1) One thing I am sure about now - NASA will not get $3 additional billions -

2) this is what seems Augustine commission pushed for.

1) Bingo. Has been sure forever. And even with these magical billions CxP would not deliver, contrary to popular belief. But go on and defend the POR and be against the new budget. People are free to be not rational.

2) It did not push for it.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/26/2010 07:03 am
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

I think you hit it. Shuttle is ending, if only by momentum. Folks did support this for 6 years, now they get results.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/26/2010 07:12 am
What I take out of the hearings is just this: politics is politics and this is an election year. Senators and House Representatives are gearing up to campaign. Opposing radical changes of any kind are always a nice topic to get some media attention and some votes of those who fear change. That's all what is going on.

For an actual way forward people should watch key Democrats and what they say about the plan (not just Democrats with key Florida districts...). Nelson's approach to the new plan is the closest thing that will happen, the plan will be tweaked to include a bigger chunk of the budget to go to HLV development. Is this wise? I don't know, but that is what they apparently want. There will also be some new goodies/pork for Florida in there and some more explicit measures to mitigate the job losses from Shuttle (something they should have actually thought about years ago... because yes, Cx wasn't talking on 90% of the STS guys, more like 10%...).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/26/2010 07:20 am
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

This is unfortunately very likely; I predicted something like this would happen some time ago and was promtly called an incorrigible pessimist... :P

In a way, this is even worse than some "evil conspiracy master-plan to destroy NASA" (by Obama, Graver, Dr. Evil, take your pick). NASA's spaceflight (human and otherwise) being gutted not because someone wants to but because of lack of vision, political bickering and pure spite.

If this happens, it will prove to the whole world in a most graphic way just how much the US political system is broke and how much the USA is in decline.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/26/2010 07:29 am
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/26/2010 07:35 am
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.


Why are you starting points 1 and 2 with a "No"? If you look at the question and your answer, it should be a "Yes"...

1. Shuttle will end
2. CxP will end
3. new NASA budget will be rejected
4. politicians can't agree on an alternative

Results in: NASA basically has nothing left.

Thats what Chris Bergin fears. And thats what may well happen (given that 1 and 2 are almost certain and knowing politicians' stupidity and bickering, 3 and 4 aren't so unlikely anymore...)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/26/2010 09:34 am
3. new NASA budget will be rejected
4. politicians can't agree on an alternative

Results in: NASA basically has nothing left.

50 years of NASA budget processes tell me this is an illusion. It's as likely as that they cancel all military projects and can't agree on what they want to replace them with.

Also, it doesn't work like this from a legislative prospective. Until a new budget is passed, the old one lives on. So, even if a deadlocked Congress wouldn't pass a single budget or law for the next 5 years (which would bankrupt the US and very likely lead to its break-up by the way...), NASA would have a program - the old program that lives on.

That means, there are only two choices, not three as suggested. 1. The old program lives on and 2. an alternative is passed. The third choice that people suggest (Cx cancelled + no alternative) is impossible absent a majority of Congress passing a law that would do so. Yes, you would need a majority in the House and Senate to first cancel Cx, have STS phased out and not implement any alternative program. So your point 4. in connection with point 3. and 1. and 2. is impossible.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 10:38 am
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 10:42 am
3) It what usiverse do you live? NASA funding is proposed to increase by $6billion over the next 5 years.

Analyst

From my experience the budget and public perception game is played at multiple levels.  President cancels Cx, increases the budget, which Congress then cuts.  Not saying it WILL happen or that it is preordained, but it wouldn't surprise me ... especially next year (when the President needs additional cuts to meet his stated 50% deficit reduction goal).

There is also raising the bar so you can say you lowered it further.  Again, no way to know if this is happening without knowing their motives, which I am not clued into.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: clb22 on 02/26/2010 10:45 am
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 10:46 am
5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.

Concur.  Nicely done.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 10:48 am
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.
Just too quick on the draw this morning. I meant "generic unnamed crew launch capability to be launched on a future unnmamed human rated launcher".  My apologies for the imprecision.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/26/2010 11:20 am
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.

Orion is dead.

Unless reviving it and launching it on an alternate LV becomes the compromise solution.  Stranger things have happened.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: renclod on 02/26/2010 01:13 pm
Thanks for posting that -- the tweet is gone now and I didn't see it when I checked a few hours earlier...out of curiosity when did you screen shot that?


I did a google search a few minutes before posting the screenshot, search term  :
twitter alan ladwig bite me
(I knew it was about Alan Ladwig because the name came up in the congressman's question.)
The google cache hold the nugget, and even now there are some, ex:
http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:emhE-FJarQ4J:topsy.com/s%3Ftype%3Dtweet%26q%3D%2523isu10+twitter+alan+ladwig+bite+me&cd=10&hl=ro&ct=clnk

The ISU event / "Bite me !" apparently happend on Feb. 16.


Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 02:03 pm
Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338812/congress-to-dump-obama-nasa-plan.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.

The administrator shall take steps to include options for development by an industry consortium...using existing space shuttle propulsion technologies and related existing infrastructure for defining a cost effective means of obtaining the early development of a crew launch capability to launch a commercially developed multiple-application crew transportation module as well as current payload capabilities approximating those of the space shuttle orbiter. Such development should include evaluation of a variant of the Orion crew exploration vehicle...and an examination of the potential for evolution of such a system to a heavy lift variant using technology developed under a Heavy Lift Vehicle and Propulsion Research and Development Program



Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: zerm on 02/26/2010 02:06 pm
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.

NOTHING "is dead" not until the Congress decides it is. This process is only beginning.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 02:10 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 02:22 pm
There's no way they can do all that without cutting R&D and science money. They're going to get rid of the fuel depot and advanced propulsion research imo. The extension is a good idea, but idk about using Ares I as a technology demonstrator that would somehow lead to the development of a HLV. At least they aren't planing to use it as an actual crew vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/26/2010 02:24 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Downix on 02/26/2010 02:25 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Augustine had multiple Flexible Paths, one with Constellation, one with Shuttle Extention + SDHLV, one with EELV-only.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/26/2010 02:28 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Augustine had multiple Flexible Paths, one with Constellation, one with Shuttle Extention + SDHLV, one with EELV-only.

Okay, so ALL Flexible Paths had a HLV requirement?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 02:30 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Downix on 02/26/2010 02:34 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Augustine had multiple Flexible Paths, one with Constellation, one with Shuttle Extention + SDHLV, one with EELV-only.

Okay, so ALL Flexible Paths had a HLV requirement?
The EELV Flexible Path discussed the Phase I and II growth of the EELV's.  They included the Atlas V Phase II as the example EELV HLV. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 02:42 pm
Thanks for posting that -- the tweet is gone now and I didn't see it when I checked a few hours earlier...out of curiosity when did you screen shot that?


I did a google search a few minutes before posting the screenshot,  term search :
twitter alan ladwig bite be
(I knew it was about Alan Ladwig because the name came up in the congressman's question.)
The google cache hold the nugget, and even now there are some, ex:
http://209.85.135.132/search?q=cache:emhE-FJarQ4J:topsy.com/s%3Ftype%3Dtweet%26q%3D%2523isu10+twitter+alan+ladwig+bite+me&cd=10&hl=ro&ct=clnk

The ISU event / "Bite me !" apparently happend on Feb. 16.



Thanks for the info.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: wholmeswa on 02/26/2010 02:53 pm
Also, for our older members, are the current events comparable with anything in the past....I'm thinking Apollo to Shuttle, as much as I know that must have been very different?

Chris: I was in High School as Apollo wound down. I did kind of look forward to ASTP and Skylab, but was more interested in the Space Shuttle program. When the delays hit Shuttle development I lost interest until Columbia actually was flown to KSC that first time. (I remember the news stories about all the tiles falling off.)

So from the perspective of an "interested observer" living through both times, the Apollo to Shuttle gap didn't seem as big of a deal as the current Shuttle to <a mission/program/system to be named latter> gap.

I don't have a copy handy, but I believe it was Gene Krantz who had a few words on his perception of the Apollo/Shuttle gap in his autobiography. Anyone know if Krantz has offered his opinion on the current situation? It would be interesting to hear an management/engineering "insider" who experienced both offer their thoughts.

Wayne
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Mark S on 02/26/2010 03:09 pm
Anyone know if Krantz has offered his opinion on the current situation? It would be interesting to hear an management/engineering "insider" who experienced both offer their thoughts.

Wayne

I seem to recall that Krantz was critical of the AC and was opposed to any change to the POR.  But I haven't heard anything from him about the Obama anti-plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/26/2010 03:11 pm
Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.
Wow, no kidding about how they pay for all of it.  It does give them more flexibility, but then the Congressional "decision" would fall to appropriations, and they could choose to fund a subset of those projects.


Certainly this proposed Bill gives lots of options and I would applaud the Congress for making their own proposals.   

At minimum Obama and company needs to be slapped and beaten down politically for the way they bungled the communications of the NASA budget request.  One of the Senators or Congress people in the hearings was very upset about the because it was all hush hush, no one new anything, and yet apparently Administration officials were leaking info to the Media the night before.  The politicians read about it in the morning paper and were shocked.

Another one mentioned that Flexible path as described by the Augustine report assumed the continuation of Constellation.  I have to verify that myself though.

And Bolden basically said in yesterday's hearing that they chose the Flexible Path, however the Congressman said Augustine's Flexible Path assumed Constellation would go forward.  Again I have to verify what's in the actual report.
Augustine had multiple Flexible Paths, one with Constellation, one with Shuttle Extention + SDHLV, one with EELV-only.

IIRC, they all had CCDev for LEO\ISS, and all had Orion for BEO. Some had a variant of Ares in there.  I don't think any of them were Ares I\Orion combo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 03:21 pm
Chairman Gordon thinks the budget won't pass as is.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100226/NEWS02/2260327/1006/NEWS01/Budget+plan+may+not+pass+committee+as+is

I'm shocked ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2010 03:34 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 03:49 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 03:52 pm
Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

There would be no need, but there might be a desire, for instance if large heat shields turn out to be practical. The mere desire could arise for other reasons too.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/26/2010 03:54 pm
Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

In my opinion, it's not so much a need as an economic benefit.  We've proven that we can build a gigantic space craft in LEO using 25T launches or less with ISS, but we've also proven that it's horribly expensive and time consuming to do so.  *If* we need a large space craft to take people beyond Earth orbit and have them to significant work once they're there (and I think we do), then it's probably cheaper and more efficient to build that vehicle with a dozen or so HLV launches than with a hundred or so EELV heavy or several hundred EELV launches.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2010 03:58 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.


I believe you might be surprised over the next week or so on some of those points...but one never knows, hehe.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 03:58 pm
We've proven that we can build a gigantic space craft in LEO using 25T launches or less with ISS, but we've also proven that it's horribly expensive and time consuming to do so.

All we've proved is that the way we did it was expensive and time consuming. The Shuttle was part of the problem, if for no other reason than the fact that it was grounded for a while. Also, inflatables may prove to work very well and have superior radiation and MMOD shielding properties too, but it's not a proven fact. It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 04:08 pm
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Roo on 02/26/2010 04:13 pm
During yesterday's hearing, it was mentioned by Chairman Gordon that commercial costs have jumped 62% already (from £500m to £800m). It was then discovered that the information used by NASA to move forward with commercial came from industrial surveys by the commercial sector itself as opposed to in house surveys by NASA.

Isn't this a genuine worry already?

Roo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 04:20 pm
Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

That's what I'm worried about, but that's because I believe a "large" HLV would be harmful in the near term. And if we want early spaceflight beyond LEO we need a spacecraft, not a launch vehicle. The remarks by the commission members indicate that their real desire is at least to preserve the shuttle workforce for a while and perhaps to keep NASA in the launch business.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2010 04:21 pm
Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338812/congress-to-dump-obama-nasa-plan.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.

The administrator shall take steps to include options for development by an industry consortium...using existing space shuttle propulsion technologies and related existing infrastructure for defining a cost effective means of obtaining the early development of a crew launch capability to launch a commercially developed multiple-application crew transportation module as well as current payload capabilities approximating those of the space shuttle orbiter. Such development should include evaluation of a variant of the Orion crew exploration vehicle...and an examination of the potential for evolution of such a system to a heavy lift variant using technology developed under a Heavy Lift Vehicle and Propulsion Research and Development Program





Just a note or two on the "leaked" draft bill:

a) Note that the heading is "Staff Working Draft", so it is not necessarily the current version; in fact, it is dated February 9th, and the most recent draft is dated February 22nd.

b) Changes to such a working draft can--and likely will--be made right up until very shortly before it is introduced, so it should not be considered as a finished product, however closely it may be to what becomes the final version.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2010 04:24 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

Might.  There are several technologies that could enable manned Mars missions without HLVs, but most of them are at low TRL right now.  They *might* pan out, but we won't know until we've tried them.  Things like MHD enhanced aerobraking/aerocapture/reentry TPS, supersonic retropropulsion for EDL, biconic lifting reentry, Solar-electric propulsion, depots, inflatable habitats, Mars surface ISRU, etc.

The good news IMO is that the current budget would put all the pieces in place for an HLV (high thrust booster engines and high thrust/high efficiency upper stage engines) in case you need that capability down the road, without requiring you to do the HLV ASAP, before you really need it. 

If you go the SDLV route, you really do need to do it now, before the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce go away.  I know I'm not going to make any friends by saying this, but that means you have the carrying cost of the HLV standing army from now until the time you actually need it.  Sure, if you have an HLV you can use it for many of the missions that didn't need HLVs, but that comes with at the opportunity cost of making it harder to raise private capital to invest in the capabilities that can drive down launch costs, by removing a large potential market.

If on the other hand, you develop large first stage and upper stage engines, you can turn on the new HLV capability closer to the time when you know if you'll actually need it, giving a window to allow new technologies and market competition for the large exploration propellant market work for a while to see if we can come up with something better.  This way you don't "lose the capability to build an HLV", but you're also not tied to it if it turns out not to be needed.  Also it gives you more time to figure out what your actual requirements for the HLV are.  Depending on the various technologies, the optimal "HLV" might only be 40-50mT, or it might be in the Ares-V size range.  You can go either way if you have the first stage engines and upper stage engines developed. 

Funnily enough this is exactly how it was done in Apollo.  The F-1 engine was actually started long before Kennedy's speech because it was pretty apparent that a large LOX/Kero engine would be useful for exploration.  They had no idea how big the vehicle would be, how many engines there would be per stage, what the mission mode or destination would be, etc.  But they picked something reasonable and got to work on it.

But, as we all know though from all the technology development experts here on NSF, the F-1 was a total failure because it wasn't developed with a firm goal, destination, and timetable in mind when it started....

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2010 04:25 pm
Flight International

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/02/25/338812/congress-to-dump-obama-nasa-plan.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Has a story on an alternate congressional plan (with an authentic looking bill) and support for Ares I-X part II, Shuttle to 2015, Orion, 2x commercial, and SDLV (25kt to GEO????).  How they pay for all this in the budget and still accomplish something (BEO) is beyond me, but I think jobs is their goal.

The administrator shall take steps to include options for development by an industry consortium...using existing space shuttle propulsion technologies and related existing infrastructure for defining a cost effective means of obtaining the early development of a crew launch capability to launch a commercially developed multiple-application crew transportation module as well as current payload capabilities approximating those of the space shuttle orbiter. Such development should include evaluation of a variant of the Orion crew exploration vehicle...and an examination of the potential for evolution of such a system to a heavy lift variant using technology developed under a Heavy Lift Vehicle and Propulsion Research and Development Program





Just a note or two on the "leaked" draft bill:

a) Note that the heading is "Staff Working Draft", so it is not necessarily the current version; in fact, it is dated February 9th, and the most recent draft is dated February 22nd.

b) Changes to such a working draft can--and likely will--be made right up until very shortly before it is introduced, so it should not be considered as a finished product, however closely it may be to what becomes the final version.

Thanks 51D!  It's always good getting insight into how the process works from someone actually in the trenches.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 04:28 pm
During the hearings Nelson and Gibson brought up continuing Ares I development with the goal of using that to develop a HLV down the line, a couple of other senators asked about a shuttle extension, so if this document is genuine it might be the source for those remarks and whatever is in it is likely what congress will be pushing for.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 04:31 pm
Might.  There are several technologies that could enable manned Mars missions without HLVs, but most of them are at low TRL right now.  They *might* pan out, but we won't know until we've tried them.  Things like MHD enhanced aerobraking/aerocapture/reentry TPS, supersonic retropropulsion for EDL, biconic lifting reentry, Solar-electric propulsion, depots, inflatable habitats, Mars surface ISRU, etc.

True, but bear in mind that the same goes for atmospheric deceleration of large and heavy structures. Our friend Braun wrote a paper a while ago that indicated that hypersonic retropropulsion might be crucial, even with large heat shields. It's not as if large heat shields are a safe fallback option. There does not appear to be any proven technology that can do this without enormous cost. Non-hypersonic retropropulsion would work, but would realistically require cryogenic propellant transfer in Mars orbit or NTR.

Agreeing with your larger point of course.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2010 04:56 pm
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 05:01 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MarkWhittington on 02/26/2010 05:07 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

Might.  There are several technologies that could enable manned Mars missions without HLVs, but most of them are at low TRL right now.  They *might* pan out, but we won't know until we've tried them.  Things like MHD enhanced aerobraking/aerocapture/reentry TPS, supersonic retropropulsion for EDL, biconic lifting reentry, Solar-electric propulsion, depots, inflatable habitats, Mars surface ISRU, etc.

The good news IMO is that the current budget would put all the pieces in place for an HLV (high thrust booster engines and high thrust/high efficiency upper stage engines) in case you need that capability down the road, without requiring you to do the HLV ASAP, before you really need it. 

If you go the SDLV route, you really do need to do it now, before the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce go away.  I know I'm not going to make any friends by saying this, but that means you have the carrying cost of the HLV standing army from now until the time you actually need it.  Sure, if you have an HLV you can use it for many of the missions that didn't need HLVs, but that comes with at the opportunity cost of making it harder to raise private capital to invest in the capabilities that can drive down launch costs, by removing a large potential market.

If on the other hand, you develop large first stage and upper stage engines, you can turn on the new HLV capability closer to the time when you know if you'll actually need it, giving a window to allow new technologies and market competition for the large exploration propellant market work for a while to see if we can come up with something better.  This way you don't "lose the capability to build an HLV", but you're also not tied to it if it turns out not to be needed.  Also it gives you more time to figure out what your actual requirements for the HLV are.  Depending on the various technologies, the optimal "HLV" might only be 40-50mT, or it might be in the Ares-V size range.  You can go either way if you have the first stage engines and upper stage engines developed. 

Funnily enough this is exactly how it was done in Apollo.  The F-1 engine was actually started long before Kennedy's speech because it was pretty apparent that a large LOX/Kero engine would be useful for exploration.  They had no idea how big the vehicle would be, how many engines there would be per stage, what the mission mode or destination would be, etc.  But they picked something reasonable and got to work on it.

But, as we all know though from all the technology development experts here on NSF, the F-1 was a total failure because it wasn't developed with a firm goal, destination, and timetable in mind when it started....

~Jon

Actually, Jon, the Moon was envisioned as the first exploration goal even before Kennedy's announcement. You should really study a little history before you make posts like that.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2010 05:10 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

Might.  There are several technologies that could enable manned Mars missions without HLVs, but most of them are at low TRL right now.  They *might* pan out, but we won't know until we've tried them.  Things like MHD enhanced aerobraking/aerocapture/reentry TPS, supersonic retropropulsion for EDL, biconic lifting reentry, Solar-electric propulsion, depots, inflatable habitats, Mars surface ISRU, etc.

The good news IMO is that the current budget would put all the pieces in place for an HLV (high thrust booster engines and high thrust/high efficiency upper stage engines) in case you need that capability down the road, without requiring you to do the HLV ASAP, before you really need it. 

If you go the SDLV route, you really do need to do it now, before the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce go away.  I know I'm not going to make any friends by saying this, but that means you have the carrying cost of the HLV standing army from now until the time you actually need it.  Sure, if you have an HLV you can use it for many of the missions that didn't need HLVs, but that comes with at the opportunity cost of making it harder to raise private capital to invest in the capabilities that can drive down launch costs, by removing a large potential market.

If on the other hand, you develop large first stage and upper stage engines, you can turn on the new HLV capability closer to the time when you know if you'll actually need it, giving a window to allow new technologies and market competition for the large exploration propellant market work for a while to see if we can come up with something better.  This way you don't "lose the capability to build an HLV", but you're also not tied to it if it turns out not to be needed.  Also it gives you more time to figure out what your actual requirements for the HLV are.  Depending on the various technologies, the optimal "HLV" might only be 40-50mT, or it might be in the Ares-V size range.  You can go either way if you have the first stage engines and upper stage engines developed. 

Funnily enough this is exactly how it was done in Apollo.  The F-1 engine was actually started long before Kennedy's speech because it was pretty apparent that a large LOX/Kero engine would be useful for exploration.  They had no idea how big the vehicle would be, how many engines there would be per stage, what the mission mode or destination would be, etc.  But they picked something reasonable and got to work on it.

But, as we all know though from all the technology development experts here on NSF, the F-1 was a total failure because it wasn't developed with a firm goal, destination, and timetable in mind when it started....

~Jon

Actually, Jon, the Moon was envisioned as the first exploration goal even before Kennedy's announcement. You should really study a little history before you make posts like that.
???
You're just making Jon's point for him. Mars is envisioned as our exploration goal, along with going to the Moon. No "plan" or deadline was established before JFK.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2010 05:16 pm
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 05:22 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

Add to that that they are calling Ares I (rocket X) and a couple of congressmen asking what it would take to keep the PoR going and things don't look good  :-\
I get the feeling they're trying not only to keep Constellation alive, but also extend shuttle. I can get behind the second part, but it's impossible to continue Cxp, do an extension and still do all the R&D and science outlined in the 2011 budget proposal. Where's the money going to come from? Something's got to give, question is what?

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

Ok, but I don't like the way this is going.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 05:25 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

Cx may be reinstated in full as a worst case scenario for you commercial fans. Considering the Administration basically declared unilateral 'bite me' war on Congress with their surprise Cx cancel order anything is possible in retaliatory anger given enough votes. If the Administration had been a lot smarter and actually agreed with Congress beforehand say an Augustine SD-HLV/Orion Flexible Path compromise Cx may have been canceled relatively easily. However having got all their backs up with this strident path they may just choose to do the complete opposite now and Obama won't bother to save his advisors pet projects if confronted over this relatively unimportant issue to him. So all bets are off as this is now all out war and very opinionated advisors/strategists will get bitten hard in the process as they have so juvenilely requested ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/26/2010 05:26 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 05:31 pm
How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

He may prefer to keep his job...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 05:36 pm
How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

He may prefer to keep his job...
Yes -- anyone can check out 51D's posts here to get an idea what he does.  The draft version appears to have been leaked; if that's the case, then the committee may (largely, not unanimously) not have wanted to do publicize works in progress and would prefer to release a vetted, final version.  It's the same "pre-decisional" process that Bolden referred to in his testimony that is rarely discussed publicly and even more rarely discussed in public while it is in progress.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: TexasRED on 02/26/2010 05:40 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

Cx may be reinstated in full as a worst case scenario for you commercial fans. Considering the Administration basically declared unilateral 'bite me' war on Congress with their surprise Cx cancel order anything is possible in retaliatory anger given enough votes. If the Administration had been a lot smarter and actually agreed with Congress beforehand say an Augustine SD-HLV/Orion Flexible Path compromise Cx may have been canceled relatively easily. However having got all their backs up with this strident path they may just choose to do the complete opposite now and Obama won't bother to save his advisors pet projects if confronted over this relatively unimportant issue to him. So all bets are off as this is now all out war and very opinionated advisors/strategists will get bitten hard in the process as they have so juvenilely requested ;).

Agreed.  I think most people think that CxP at a minimum needed to be modified (but not the DIE DIE DIE CxP!!! like some people post).  This has started a war, and now congress seems to be fighting for pure CxP instead of the necessary modifications needed for it be successful and more practical.

My question is why did the admin deviate from the Augustine version of flex path?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2010 05:41 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

Why would I post something that I know is not the final...when I'm already cautioning folks not to react to something I know is not final, because I am in a position to know (and that's all YOU need to know, hehe.)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/26/2010 05:46 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.
I can think of a relatively straightforward end-around that. Specify the HLLV as an Atlas-V-B design using the new hydrocarbon engine and advanced upper stage.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: HammerD on 02/26/2010 05:48 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

Why would I post something that I know is not the final...when I'm already cautioning folks not to react to something I know is not final, because I am in a position to know (and that's all YOU need to know, hehe.)

LOL...well the Feb 9th version is even more out of date...so at least we could argue over a newer revision instead of the old one ;-)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 05:53 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

Cx may be reinstated in full as a worst case scenario for you commercial fans. Considering the Administration basically declared unilateral 'bite me' war on Congress with their surprise Cx cancel order anything is possible in retaliatory anger given enough votes. If the Administration had been a lot smarter and actually agreed with Congress beforehand say an Augustine SD-HLV/Orion Flexible Path compromise Cx may have been canceled relatively easily. However having got all their backs up with this strident path they may just choose to do the complete opposite now and Obama won't bother to save his advisors pet projects if confronted over this relatively unimportant issue to him. So all bets are off as this is now all out war and very opinionated advisors/strategists will get bitten hard in the process as they have so juvenilely requested ;).

Agreed.  I think most people think that CxP at a minimum needed to be modified (but not the DIE DIE DIE CxP!!! like some people post).  This has started a war, and now congress seems to be fighting for pure CxP instead of the necessary modifications needed for it be successful and more practical.

My question is why did the admin deviate from the Augustine version of flex path?

Why ? Because Obama basically sees NASA as another STEM branch and his advisors gave him their version of it with zero consideration or appreciation of the great NASA manned spaceflight legacy/personnel or future intentions as bipartisanly passed and authorized by two Congresses. What they all failed to grasp is that Apollo/Shuttle have motivated more STEM interest in youth and pride in older citizens than the rest of NASA put together.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 05:57 pm
Apollo/Shuttle have motivated more STEM interest in youth and pride in older citizens than the rest of NASA put together.

Maybe that's true, but considering how the "inspired" public didn't do anything to keep Apollo going I don't think it counts for much.

P.S.
And presently the majority of the public doesn't care about the mess US HSF is in. Hell, most of them probably don't know about it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2010 05:58 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

Why would I post something that I know is not the final...when I'm already cautioning folks not to react to something I know is not final, because I am in a position to know (and that's all YOU need to know, hehe.)

LOL...well the Feb 9th version is even more out of date...so at least we could argue over a newer revision instead of the old one ;-)

Well, I agree that would be a lot of fun, but......
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/26/2010 06:05 pm
Quote from: marsavian link=topic=20649.msg552958#msg55295
What they all failed to grasp is that Apollo/Shuttle have motivated more STEM interest in youth and pride in older citizens than the rest of NASA put together.

Yes !!!

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Patchouli on 02/26/2010 06:08 pm
Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

I see no reason at all for a NASA program to develop a 25MT booster as this can be bought off the shelf.

Take your pick Delta IV-H,Atlas V phase II,and F9-H.
Two of these are actually 30MT boosters which is what NASA should choose looking at their past history of mass increases.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 06:08 pm
STEM isn't for everybody. Those who have a talent for it will gravitate towards it anyway. Those whose talents lie elsewhere are more useful elsewhere.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2010 06:40 pm
If you want to go BEO, you need HLVs. It's either that or fuel depots, but since using fuel depots has never been done, they'll probably be conservative and go for HLVs. By they I mean the senators pushing this compromise bill.

Even this isn't correct.  There are exploration missions you can do in cislunar space (including the lunar surface) that don't require depots or HLVs.  Depots make it possible to do robust, non-HLV missions throughout cislunar space and most of the way to Mars.  HLVs *might* be needed for manned mars surface missions, and for missions beyond Mars, but that's a bit off.

~Jon

Thanks and if I understand your post correctly, even with fuel depots there might be a need for an HLV for a Mars human mission?

Might.  There are several technologies that could enable manned Mars missions without HLVs, but most of them are at low TRL right now.  They *might* pan out, but we won't know until we've tried them.  Things like MHD enhanced aerobraking/aerocapture/reentry TPS, supersonic retropropulsion for EDL, biconic lifting reentry, Solar-electric propulsion, depots, inflatable habitats, Mars surface ISRU, etc.

The good news IMO is that the current budget would put all the pieces in place for an HLV (high thrust booster engines and high thrust/high efficiency upper stage engines) in case you need that capability down the road, without requiring you to do the HLV ASAP, before you really need it. 

If you go the SDLV route, you really do need to do it now, before the Shuttle infrastructure and workforce go away.  I know I'm not going to make any friends by saying this, but that means you have the carrying cost of the HLV standing army from now until the time you actually need it.  Sure, if you have an HLV you can use it for many of the missions that didn't need HLVs, but that comes with at the opportunity cost of making it harder to raise private capital to invest in the capabilities that can drive down launch costs, by removing a large potential market.

If on the other hand, you develop large first stage and upper stage engines, you can turn on the new HLV capability closer to the time when you know if you'll actually need it, giving a window to allow new technologies and market competition for the large exploration propellant market work for a while to see if we can come up with something better.  This way you don't "lose the capability to build an HLV", but you're also not tied to it if it turns out not to be needed.  Also it gives you more time to figure out what your actual requirements for the HLV are.  Depending on the various technologies, the optimal "HLV" might only be 40-50mT, or it might be in the Ares-V size range.  You can go either way if you have the first stage engines and upper stage engines developed. 

Funnily enough this is exactly how it was done in Apollo.  The F-1 engine was actually started long before Kennedy's speech because it was pretty apparent that a large LOX/Kero engine would be useful for exploration.  They had no idea how big the vehicle would be, how many engines there would be per stage, what the mission mode or destination would be, etc.  But they picked something reasonable and got to work on it.

But, as we all know though from all the technology development experts here on NSF, the F-1 was a total failure because it wasn't developed with a firm goal, destination, and timetable in mind when it started....

~Jon

Actually, Jon, the Moon was envisioned as the first exploration goal even before Kennedy's announcement. You should really study a little history before you make posts like that.

Mark,
You mean, just like Mars, NEOs, and the Moon are all "envisioned" as exploration goals now?  The point was that people have been complaining that without a specific destination and timeline and mission model you can't do R&D successfully.  My point was that the pre-Apollo development that gave us the F-1 and other pieces we needed for Apollo were done in the very sort of way that the current technology development stuff is being proposed.  Just because there isn't an exact date and destination nailed down to three decimal places doesn't get rid of the overall guidance, and the years of studies and trades on how to do these things.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: jongoff on 02/26/2010 06:59 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

Hammer, I'd chill out a bit.  51D Mascot is in a position to know what he's talking about.  If he says those numbers aren't there anymore, I trust him.

~Jon
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 07:04 pm
Thank you for this - you are largely on the mark.
What I take out of the hearings is just this: politics is politics and this is an election year. Senators and House Representatives are gearing up to campaign. Opposing radical changes of any kind are always a nice topic to get some media attention and some votes of those who fear change. That's all what is going on.

For an actual way forward people should watch key Democrats and what they say about the plan (not just Democrats with key Florida districts...). Nelson's approach to the new plan is the closest thing that will happen, the plan will be tweaked to include a bigger chunk of the budget to go to HLV development. Is this wise? I don't know, but that is what they apparently want.
You can answer this by listening to the rationalizations. Please note that  Burt Rutan is supplying one with his view that you need to keep it active as security for sensible commercial transition - see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20353.msg552713#msg552713 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20353.msg552713#msg552713)

Note he's talking doing this for DECADES. One way this might be articulated might be extend Shuttle to allow for transition to a J-120/J-130-like vehicle with potentially a commercially supplied CTV say Orion Lite where the contractor takes responsibility for the entire launch after a handover of an operational Jupiter.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/26/2010 07:09 pm
Thank you for this - you are largely on the mark.
What I take out of the hearings is just this: politics is politics and this is an election year. Senators and House Representatives are gearing up to campaign. Opposing radical changes of any kind are always a nice topic to get some media attention and some votes of those who fear change. That's all what is going on.

For an actual way forward people should watch key Democrats and what they say about the plan (not just Democrats with key Florida districts...). Nelson's approach to the new plan is the closest thing that will happen, the plan will be tweaked to include a bigger chunk of the budget to go to HLV development. Is this wise? I don't know, but that is what they apparently want.
You can answer this by listening to the rationalizations. Please note that  Burt Rutan is supplying one with his view that you need to keep it active as security for sensible commercial transition - see:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20353.msg552713#msg552713 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20353.msg552713#msg552713)

Note he's talking doing this for DECADES. One way this might be articulated might be extend Shuttle to allow for transition to a J-120/J-130-like vehicle with potentially a commercially supplied CTV say Orion Lite where the contractor takes responsibility for the entire launch after a handover of an operational Jupiter.


Something else interesting that Burt said - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20653.msg552976#msg552976
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Robotbeat on 02/26/2010 07:13 pm
...What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!
Fair enough. I am happy with Obama's proposed budget, but I'd also be happy with one that includes a little for a DIRECT-like vehicle, which although I don't think has as much cost-reduction capability as the current budget, would certainly save a lot of jobs (while not be a practically pointless jobs program like Ares-I). But we really need both those tech demos and the commercial crew, very badly, if we want to keep doing this whole exploration thing for more than a handful of missions to the Moon, much more than we need an HLV in my book.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/26/2010 07:26 pm
Yeah, but this is what you get when you let Congress have another bite at the funding apple.

Everyone who has asked for a change from Cx has gotten (and will get) exactly that.  The prior process at least had input from a space architect type (whatever you may think of him). 

By opening it up and not proposing a specific and defensible future path and how every dollar will get spent (and then some), we have all opened ourselves up to a NASA designed by committee.



Yikes, I hadn't noticed the 25mT. In that case the intent is clearly to preserve something like Ares I.

I see no reason at all for a NASA program to develop a 25MT booster as this can be bought off the shelf.

Take your pick Delta IV-H,Atlas V phase II,and F9-H.
Two of these are actually 30MT boosters which is what NASA should choose looking at their past history of mass increases.

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: HammerD on 02/26/2010 07:28 pm
Is there any video available of Holdren's testimony yesterday and/or the day before? I'd really really love to see that.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 07:49 pm
3) It what usiverse do you live? NASA funding is proposed to increase by $6billion over the next 5 years.

Analyst

From my experience the budget and public perception game is played at multiple levels.  President cancels Cx, increases the budget, which Congress then cuts.  Not saying it WILL happen or that it is preordained, but it wouldn't surprise me ... especially next year (when the President needs additional cuts to meet his stated 50% deficit reduction goal).

There is also raising the bar so you can say you lowered it further.  Again, no way to know if this is happening without knowing their motives, which I am not clued into.

Every administration plays this 'budgetary chicken'.

That's why in the end lots of loser rants like Vitter's are stupid and pointless.

The best strategy is to take the oratorical ball of the administration and run with it in the direction that suits your state's interests best.

That is *exactly* what winners such as Nelson are doing. Is anyone here surprised?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 07:52 pm
The long pole will be the spacecraft and not the launch vehicle. 

Agree.  I should have said HR Atlas V crew launch solution ... Orion is most likely the critical path.


Orion is dead.
Just too quick on the draw this morning. I meant "generic unnamed crew launch capability to be launched on a future unnmamed human rated launcher".  My apologies for the imprecision.


Likely candidate is though commercial "Orion lite" derivative.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: tminus9 on 02/26/2010 08:02 pm
Too much grandstanding (all around) in the hearings, as usual for Congress. I heard a lot of quoting JFK without suggesting that we spend 4% of the budget as was done at the peak of Apollo.

The 4% quote is meaningless. The Federal budget is so many times larger as a percentage of GDP now than it was then that number has no meaning. The pie is so much bigger now than it once was that money is not really the issue, it is one's vision of the future that matters.

OK, then here is a chart from the Augustine Commission report based on OMB data of the NASA budget as a percent of GDP and of the total budget. Instead of dropping from 4% of the budget to 0.5%, it goes from 0.8% of the GDP to 0.1%. Same thing.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 08:14 pm
Here's a question. Is there a danger that a political fightback against the FY2011 could result in months and months of hearings etc, which might leave us with a really bad situation of shuttle ending, CxP ending and the future plan bogged down with the lawmakers?

1. No, absent a miracle STS ends this year or early next year (STS-135).

2. No, Cx is definitely ending, the PoR has practically no supporters any more from either side as it is over budget and off schedule.

3. The new plan faces a lot of criticism for the sake of criticism. It's not like anyone provides a viable alternative. The only really viable changes I have heard of was the suggestion by Nelson to shift some line-item funds to HLV development.

4. That tells me, if anything, the new budget will be modified. But one thing is clear, Ares I is dead, it doesn't have support. Orion is dead too, it's just way to expensive. And Exploration, as odd as this sounds, was just made up of Ares I / Orion and a few advanced capabilies programs noone is talking about anyway (Human research program etc.).

5. Senators and House Representatives won't tell NASA to build a DIRECT style rocket. They haven't even asked about the possibility of that, as they are non-experts and NASA could ask them to back up their claim that this would work, as they have their own studies that show it won't work within the budget.


1. 50-50 it gets an extension of some sort for workforce and ISS reasons.

2. Congress doesn't care if it's over budget or over schedule as long as it keeps coming every year in their districts and is eventually finished to do flagship missions. It has plenty of supporters in Congress even if none in the Administration. The passion and maybe the ultimate power in this argument lies in Congress ;).

3. No, the abandonment of structured governmental led exploration with already known to work technologies is a risky strategy if you have any interest in proven BEO exploration ever being restarted and extended.

4.  No, BEO Orion and a government rocket will be the centerpiece of any modification. Funds will be found even if they come out of the rest of the budget. Gloves are off now and no punches will be pulled.

5. You have no idea of Space History or how Congress works, they told Griffin and Horowitz exactly that after hearing their advice in Congressional hearings, to go do a SDLV and Ares I was the result. Nelson already has broached the subject more than once. The process is simple, you just pick your 'experts' like the Administration did with Augustine or Congress did with Griffin/Horowitz and they tell you what you want to hear ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/26/2010 08:21 pm
Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

That's what I'm worried about, but that's because I believe a "large" HLV would be harmful in the near term. And if we want early spaceflight beyond LEO we need a spacecraft, not a launch vehicle. The remarks by the commission members indicate that their real desire is at least to preserve the shuttle workforce for a while and perhaps to keep NASA in the launch business.
Mjartin,
Absolutely - we end up with a loser vehicle to nowhere that eats budget and goes nowhere.

Then everyone laments the stupidity, while people try to gradually induce sensibility while we go nowhere and Congress looks the other way while the piggies feed nicely. As they did past few years. Gotta feed the piggies. :D
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 09:57 pm
NYT notices an important point, it's not just Space District Representatives who are concerned.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/science/space/26nasa.html?ref=science
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 10:07 pm
Roundup and more from Alan Boyle's blog:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/02/26/2213866.aspx
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/26/2010 10:10 pm
...What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!
Fair enough. I am happy with Obama's proposed budget, but I'd also be happy with one that includes a little for a DIRECT-like vehicle, which although I don't think has as much cost-reduction capability as the current budget, would certainly save a lot of jobs (while not be a practically pointless jobs program like Ares-I). But we really need both those tech demos and the commercial crew, very badly, if we want to keep doing this whole exploration thing for more than a handful of missions to the Moon, much more than we need an HLV in my book.

Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

Trust me folks, that is the reality.  It could end up costing quite the chunk of change....but no one really knows yet and that is just as much a part of the problem as anything else. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 10:29 pm
Too much grandstanding (all around) in the hearings, as usual for Congress. I heard a lot of quoting JFK without suggesting that we spend 4% of the budget as was done at the peak of Apollo.

The 4% quote is meaningless. The Federal budget is so many times larger as a percentage of GDP now than it was then that number has no meaning. The pie is so much bigger now than it once was that money is not really the issue, it is one's vision of the future that matters.

OK, then here is a chart from the Augustine Commission report based on OMB data of the NASA budget as a percent of GDP and of the total budget. Instead of dropping from 4% of the budget to 0.5%, it goes from 0.8% of the GDP to 0.1%. Same thing.

US GDP has gone up four times in real terms since then

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=230
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2010 10:39 pm
...What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!
Fair enough. I am happy with Obama's proposed budget, but I'd also be happy with one that includes a little for a DIRECT-like vehicle, which although I don't think has as much cost-reduction capability as the current budget, would certainly save a lot of jobs (while not be a practically pointless jobs program like Ares-I). But we really need both those tech demos and the commercial crew, very badly, if we want to keep doing this whole exploration thing for more than a handful of missions to the Moon, much more than we need an HLV in my book.

Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

Trust me folks, that is the reality.  It could end up costing quite the chunk of change....but no one really knows yet and that is just as much a part of the problem as anything else. 

It's not a matter of being a savior, it's a matter of building an industry. A company like SpaceX or ULA will still have to make most of of their profits from their unmanned launches.

Congress must remember that the President can veto the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill especially if they make no effort to meet him half way (especially on the commercial crew aspects). 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 10:40 pm
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

Saviour may be too strong a word. But here are some reasons:

1. Some commercial players know more about launch vehicle design than NASA
2. Some launch vehicles are already operational
3. Multiple redundant efforts have less risk
4. Commercial vehicles are cheaper

But more importantly, commercialisation is a worthy goal in and of itself. Commercial vehicles can be used by others than just NASA.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: SpacexULA on 02/26/2010 10:44 pm
Trust me folks, that is the reality.  It could end up costing quite the chunk of change....but no one really knows yet and that is just as much a part of the problem as anything else.

Beyond job and political protectionism, why should NASA purchase it's launch services any differently than DOD?

If  the current NASA way of procuring launch services is superior, why is DOD not forced to go back to operating their own launch vehicles to save money?

How does ESA, RSA, and JAXA procure launch services?  Do they purchase launch services form Araiene, Energia, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Like Obama is proposing we do with ULA), or do they own the rockets they use (Like NASA owns the Shuttle)?

Honestly can't find a straight answer to these questions, but the answers would inform this conversation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: marsavian on 02/26/2010 10:44 pm
Is there any video available of Holdren's testimony yesterday and/or the day before? I'd really really love to see that.

http://science.edgeboss.net/wmedia/science/scitech10/022410.wvx
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: yg1968 on 02/26/2010 10:48 pm
The compromise on this issue is fairly obvious. Commercial companies aren't even asking for NASA to stop pursing an HLV for BEO.   The Augustine committee didn't ask for this either. If NASA wants to use its HLV as a back up for ISS. Great but it's not really necessary.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2010 11:02 pm
Congress must remember that the President can veto the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill especially if they make no effort to meet him half way (especially on the commercial crew aspects). 

Correct.

But without a bill, the current law dictates POR continues, not Obama's plans.

So a veto won't get Obama what he wants either.

First Congress has to approve, and then Obama has to sign something new, before things can change away from POR.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/26/2010 11:07 pm
Congress must remember that the President can veto the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill especially if they make no effort to meet him half way (especially on the commercial crew aspects). 

There is no NASA Authorization Bill.  There is just the Commerce, Justice and Science bill if they (Congress) actually get their jobs done for once, and if they don't there will just be an Omnibus bill.  There is no line item veto for the President to use to veto just NASA's portion of the appropriation.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 11:09 pm
How does this work with Continuing Resolutions?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2010 11:11 pm
There is no NASA Authorization Bill.

Yes there actually is.   I've seen it.

"A Bill To reauthorize the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Human Space Flight Activities..."

And someone (not me) has even leaked it to Flight Global.   They've scanned the first page and they quote parts of it here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2010 11:13 pm
How does this work with Continuing Resolutions?

Shuttle still goes away (funding continues though, which I have been told ultimately means it gets returned to the Treasury and doesn't stay in NASA's coffers).

POR funding "continues" at current levels, unchanged.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/26/2010 11:14 pm

Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

Trust me folks, that is the reality.  It could end up costing quite the chunk of change....but no one really knows yet and that is just as much a part of the problem as anything else. 

It's not a matter of being a savior, it's a matter of building an industry. A company like SpaceX or ULA will still have to make most of of their profits from their unmanned launches.

Congress must remember that the President can veto the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill especially if they make no effort to meet him half way (especially on the commercial crew aspects). 

This shows just a lack of understanding.  There is a massive difference between the rockets that launch them and sustainment of the vehicles that fly one them. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 11:16 pm
It would be interesting to know what the Republican and Democratic leadership of both houses think of all this. If it's important enough they can try to get the committees overruled. Space itself is unlikely to be important enough for this, but political games with pretending to be fiscally responsible vs responsible for "shutting down manned spaceflight" might be.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Lee Jay on 02/26/2010 11:16 pm
There is no NASA Authorization Bill.

Yes there actually is.   I've seen it.

Yeah, okay, I meant appropriation.  My mistake but the appropriation is the one that matters.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/26/2010 11:17 pm
Yeah, okay, I meant appropriation.  My mistake but the appropriation is the one that matters.

How so? Don't you need both?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/26/2010 11:19 pm
There is no NASA Authorization Bill.

Yes there actually is.   I've seen it.

Yeah, okay, I meant appropriation.  My mistake but the appropriation is the one that matters.
It's the one that says how much money gets spent, but a new authorization is definitely necessary for the President's new programs or for a Shuttle extension (for example).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/26/2010 11:20 pm
Yeah, okay, I meant appropriation.  My mistake but the appropriation is the one that matters.

How so? Don't you need both?

Yes, but Appropriations is the one which actually defines precisely how much money will be sent where.   So they are more generally considered much more important.

The common phrase in DC is:   "There are Republicans, there are Democrats and then there are Appropriators".

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/26/2010 11:20 pm
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

Saviour may be too strong a word. But here are some reasons:

1. Some commercial players know more about launch vehicle design than NASA
2. Some launch vehicles are already operational
3. Multiple redundant efforts have less risk
4. Commercial vehicles are cheaper

But more importantly, commercialisation is a worthy goal in and of itself. Commercial vehicles can be used by others than just NASA.

1.  Typical aruguement that is uniformed.  All launch vehicles are essentially designed by commercial companies (i.e. contractors) even when the are "NASA" vehicles. 
2.  True, but having a launch vehicle does you no good if you don't have something to fly on it.
3.  But you can in no way quantify what the risk of each is, how it will be funded, how it will be sustained "in the market place, etc"
4.  How so?  You do not know the requirements that will be levied on it.  No one has ever built a true "commercial" orbital vehicle before, etc.  If you want a lot of these vehicles and the market does not support their existance, then that means they have to be subsidized by the government, which is independent of the "service" that is procurred or the cost of that service is artifically inflated to account for this sustainment. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/26/2010 11:22 pm
Trust me folks, that is the reality.  It could end up costing quite the chunk of change....but no one really knows yet and that is just as much a part of the problem as anything else.

Beyond job and political protectionism, why should NASA purchase it's launch services any differently than DOD?

If  the current NASA way of procuring launch services is superior, why is DOD not forced to go back to operating their own launch vehicles to save money?

How does ESA, RSA, and JAXA procure launch services?  Do they purchase launch services form Araiene, Energia, and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Like Obama is proposing we do with ULA), or do they own the rockets they use (Like NASA owns the Shuttle)?

Honestly can't find a straight answer to these questions, but the answers would inform this conversation.

By focusing only on the launch, you continue to miss the main point.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/26/2010 11:24 pm

Quote

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

How do you know it's not in the current version? Have you seen it? Post it!!

Why would I post something that I know is not the final...when I'm already cautioning folks not to react to something I know is not final, because I am in a position to know (and that's all YOU need to know, hehe.)

The thing that 'I' would like to know is how this back room process unfolds. (these are general comments)

We have seen the public hearings.
We know there were two deparate meetings not shown concurrently.

When this bill is being drafted:
1) Who is involved
2) Who gets a say
3) Are there compromises (much like the health care bill) that we, but more importantly the other members of congress, only see AFTER the fact
4) Is teh money issue always at hand, or do they look at all the cards on the table.

I mention these (few) items anticipating certain aspects, and expecting certain others.

My 'point', if it were, is that we keep going on about what 'WE' (the spaceflight community) want to see in a final budget draft, but we know some of it is just hopes and dreams, and also what we see as common sense. The politicians are seeing (or may be seeing) this in a totally different light. I'm sure many (or just some) recognize what's at stake, but they also know the pitfalls, and also the cost implications.

They want it all, seamlessly for the most part, but at the chepeast cost to them (as a whole) but the biggest pieces of the pie in their own districts. Sounds a LOT like commercial enterprise all in of itself!

Congress can easily extend shuttle. Any flavour they want if so desired. But they seem reluctant, even despite the safety aspect. IN the end it may be their only play left, since the cards on the table don't fit into anything they seem to be happy with.

Things like 'secure ISS access', but a domestic gap ensues, potentially to 2017 it seems. 'Redundant capability', but nothing except Soyuz for the foreseeable future. 'Robust utilization', but as yet not ONE COTS flight has flown, and we are in the home stretch for shuttle retirement.

I know commercial crew and cargo to the ISS is 'law', and I do support it. I would also support it if we establish a BEO settlement. But I do not accept the 'hope and belief' being put forward that commercial CAN do it, on time, or on budget. One look at this extra $300M in the budget makes we wonder if we are to face the same issues as NASA does: "Congress, we need more money". Sure they have a contract, but that doesn't guarantee you anything.

We know the two guarantees in life. One costs nothing. They both cost us everything.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: kraisee on 02/27/2010 12:12 am
By focusing only on the launch, you continue to miss the main point.

OV is right.

Throughout the history of the industry, only 20% of the costs are ever spent on the launch vehicles.   The rest is spent on the expensive spacecraft which go on the top of them.

While the dynamic changes a little with HSF Exploration class missions, where you require copious amounts of fuel to be lofted as well, the proportion is still probably going to end up being 2:1 in terms of spacecraft:launcher costs.

That was always the problem with the dual-launcher Ares solution -- it promised to spend everything we had on the launchers and left nothing to spend on the spacecraft which would actually conduct the space missions after the first 8 minutes of the launch.

Ross.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 12:18 am
Throughout the history of the industry, only 20% of the costs are ever spent on the launch vehicles.   The rest is spent on the expensive spacecraft which go on the top of them.

Actually, this is precisely what's wrong with the old Apollo-style approach. With expendable manned spacecraft manned spaceflight will never be anything else than an expensive boondoggle. With reusable spacecraft launch costs suddenly dominate variable costs. Reduce launch costs by a certain percentage and mission costs go down with roughly the same percentage, until you get to the point where other costs (pads, mission control, refurbishment, even propellant) start to dominate.

This didn't work for the shuttle because of the high fixed costs, because it was a crew & cargo vehicle and because it had/was its own dedicated launch system.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2010 12:35 am
How does this work with Continuing Resolutions?

Shuttle still goes away (funding continues though, which I have been told ultimately means it gets returned to the Treasury and doesn't stay in NASA's coffers).
Thanks for noting -- was thinking about asking 51D about this technicality later in the year.  There are probably still some peculiar scenarios that could happen; so not sure this will be going away.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 01:01 am
Throughout the history of the industry, only 20% of the costs are ever spent on the launch vehicles.   The rest is spent on the expensive spacecraft which go on the top of them.

Actually, this is precisely what's wrong with the old Apollo-style approach. With expendable manned spacecraft manned spaceflight will never be anything else than an expensive boondoggle. With reusable spacecraft launch costs suddenly dominate variable costs. Reduce launch costs by a certain percentage and mission costs go down with roughly the same percentage, until you get to the point where other costs (pads, mission control, refurbishment, even propellant) start to dominate.

This didn't work for the shuttle because of the high fixed costs, because it was a crew & cargo vehicle and because it had/was its own dedicated launch system.

My goodness.  Do you think there is a fleet of different reusable spacecraft just ready to fly....but has not for some reason?

Do you think "commercial" means no pads, refurb, mission control, propellant, sustaining engineering, vendor costs, etc.

Man, are you going to be disappointed.....
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/27/2010 01:05 am

1.  Typical aruguement that is uniformed.  All launch vehicles are essentially designed by commercial companies (i.e. contractors) even when the are "NASA" vehicles. 
2.  True, but having a launch vehicle does you no good if you don't have something to fly on it.
3.  But you can in no way quantify what the risk of each is, how it will be funded, how it will be sustained "in the market place, etc"
4.  How so?  You do not know the requirements that will be levied on it.  No one has ever built a true "commercial" orbital vehicle before, etc.  If you want a lot of these vehicles and the market does not support their existance, then that means they have to be subsidized by the government, which is independent of the "service" that is procurred or the cost of that service is artifically inflated to account for this sustainment. 
1. Deceptive - LV's can cost more or less depending on govt processes/specifications. We wasted more than $9B duplicating capability without yielding a useful result. As an example, we could do this again and again 10x following the same course of actions.

There are really only two courses of action - Cx and commercial. Forget DIRECT as its a bait and switch for the stupid to reenable Cx.

2. OSP was an example of something to fly on it. Commercial providers have had the capability for years.

3. Fear mongering as usual. Funded by traditional means as any service. As for larger "market", existence of such proven by Virgin/Bigelow/others.

If you are fearful, add more process to add securitization.

Unfortunately, doing it the "old way" just means more failure - we're on our 6th "Shuttle replacement" - too many times, way too broken - let it die.

4. Like everything you spec in an RFQ - same since first day of US HSF.
You can control the nature of such contracts in the same way and bound them. You  can also penalize. It requires the same oversight as Congress is supposed to provide. Just as other major govt service contracts - no difference.

We don't want to pay for MSFC to "relearn rockets" when we already have commercial vendors who've maintained the skill.

If they didn't think it was worthwhile business, why would they already possess the expertise?

In the end I'm beginning to suspect that why people don't want this budget is that they *can't do any game-changers* - it is way beyond their skill.

They simply can't compete on a global scale - they want to sit on prior glories done by others and be seen as great - while doing nothing and letting the US slip further behind.

They are not as upset as they should be about Cx's faults - they just want a slice of the Cx pie of "non operation".

If they were genuine about HSF wouldn't they want to have the multiple vendor commercial option? And hold feet to a fire? C'mon - get real!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 01:08 am
My goodness.  Do you think there is a fleet of different reusable spacecraft just ready to fly....but has not for some reason?

I wasn't talking about commercial vs government operated, I was talking about reusable vs expendable.

Quote
Do you think "commercial" means no pads, refurb, mission control, propellant, sustaining engineering, vendor costs, etc.

No, just saying a reusable LEO crew vehicle can be done more efficiently than the Shuttle, partly for technical reasons partly through market forces.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 01:11 am
2.  True, but having a launch vehicle does you no good if you don't have something to fly on it.

By focusing only on the launch, you continue to miss the main point.

Are you saying you would be happy with NASA just operating a spacecraft and procuring all launch services commercially?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2010 02:23 am
How does this work with Continuing Resolutions?

Shuttle still goes away (funding continues though, which I have been told ultimately means it gets returned to the Treasury and doesn't stay in NASA's coffers).
Thanks for noting -- was thinking about asking 51D about this technicality later in the year.  There are probably still some peculiar scenarios that could happen; so not sure this will be going away.


There are no simple answers to these questions. While there are various legislative options and tools available to authorizers, and others available to appropriators, they can be mutually off-setting or lead to the hold-up of legislation--which then triggers a continuing resolution, which can be structured in a variety of ways, either pegging funding levels to previous fiscal year levels, or House or Senate-passed levels, whichever is greater, or lower, etc., etc.

The bottom line is that a bill becomes essentially a marker on the playing field, around which all players--republicans, democrats and appropriators, as Ross, I think, said elsewhere (which is all too true in practice)--eventually can hopefully work to reach a consensus. That "work" can be done before either House passes a bill, or after one or the other, or both do, which determines whether the negotiations are done in a conference or in a "pre-conference" process (which was how the 2008 NASA Authorization Bill was handled), or it can also be done to a certain extent before any bill is introduced (which was essentially how the America COMPETES Act was done in 2007).That process can also include the Administration, as you are seeing with Health Care Reform. Hopefully, when all is said and done, there's an agreed-upon plan that a majority--or at the very least the joint leadership of both chambers--can support when it comes down to actually enacting something into law.

Like I said, no easy answers; it "depends" on a whole range of factors, not least of which is the level of interest and concern, both inside the Congress and outside that drives the priority it is given. At the moment, my sense is that the future of US exploration efforts and US human space flight leadership--or lack thereof--is generally being seen more widely now as a set of issues reaching the "tipping point" where it just might get the level of attention it deserves; we will see if that translates eventually into some semblance of a positive future for NASA and those programs. The Budget Request marked the first step, the beginning of the hearing phase, and the drafting of alternative legislation, are all just early steps along a very confusing, difficult, tortured path. So...hang on for the ride!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: robertross on 02/27/2010 02:37 am
At the moment, my sense is that the future of US exploration efforts and US human space flight leadership--or lack thereof--is generally being seen more widely now as a set of issues reaching the "tipping point" where it just might get the level of attention it deserves; we will see if that translates eventually into some semblance of a positive future for NASA and those programs. The Budget Request marked the first step, the beginning of the hearing phase, and the drafting of alternative legislation, are all just early steps along a very confusing, difficult, tortured path. So...hang on for the ride!

Thanks so much for the explanation.

I fear that last part is something we are seeing unfold, and is putting our selfish desires in the crosshairs of disappearing prospects (extension).

Of course you're closer than any of us, so you face the bigger brunt of all this. Hang in there yourself too!
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 03:58 am

1.  Typical aruguement that is uniformed.  All launch vehicles are essentially designed by commercial companies (i.e. contractors) even when the are "NASA" vehicles. 
2.  True, but having a launch vehicle does you no good if you don't have something to fly on it.
3.  But you can in no way quantify what the risk of each is, how it will be funded, how it will be sustained "in the market place, etc"
4.  How so?  You do not know the requirements that will be levied on it.  No one has ever built a true "commercial" orbital vehicle before, etc.  If you want a lot of these vehicles and the market does not support their existance, then that means they have to be subsidized by the government, which is independent of the "service" that is procurred or the cost of that service is artifically inflated to account for this sustainment. 
1. Deceptive - LV's can cost more or less depending on govt processes/specifications. We wasted more than $9B duplicating capability without yielding a useful result. As an example, we could do this again and again 10x following the same course of actions.

There are really only two courses of action - Cx and commercial. Forget DIRECT as its a bait and switch for the stupid to reenable Cx.

2. OSP was an example of something to fly on it. Commercial providers have had the capability for years.

3. Fear mongering as usual. Funded by traditional means as any service. As for larger "market", existence of such proven by Virgin/Bigelow/others.

If you are fearful, add more process to add securitization.

Unfortunately, doing it the "old way" just means more failure - we're on our 6th "Shuttle replacement" - too many times, way too broken - let it die.

4. Like everything you spec in an RFQ - same since first day of US HSF.
You can control the nature of such contracts in the same way and bound them. You  can also penalize. It requires the same oversight as Congress is supposed to provide. Just as other major govt service contracts - no difference.

We don't want to pay for MSFC to "relearn rockets" when we already have commercial vendors who've maintained the skill.

If they didn't think it was worthwhile business, why would they already possess the expertise?

In the end I'm beginning to suspect that why people don't want this budget is that they *can't do any game-changers* - it is way beyond their skill.

They simply can't compete on a global scale - they want to sit on prior glories done by others and be seen as great - while doing nothing and letting the US slip further behind.

They are not as upset as they should be about Cx's faults - they just want a slice of the Cx pie of "non operation".

If they were genuine about HSF wouldn't they want to have the multiple vendor commercial option? And hold feet to a fire? C'mon - get real!

There are litterally so many problems with the above, that I will not even waste my time on answering them.  The above post shows someone who thinks they know everything is wrong but lacks the understanding of this business.  I have tried to explain it to you in the past.  I won't continue because some just like to argue assuming and thinking they are right and nothing anyone can say, no matter how much they know, will change that.

I will site just one example.  Add "process", which clearly you have no idea what that means to enable in order to "secure" it.  Process translates to dollars, just so you know.  While I appreciate your point of view, you come off as a bit over-dramatic for a business you clearly have no *real* insight to.  Enjoy the rest of your day.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 04:04 am
2.  True, but having a launch vehicle does you no good if you don't have something to fly on it.

By focusing only on the launch, you continue to miss the main point.

Are you saying you would be happy with NASA just operating a spacecraft and procuring all launch services commercially?

No....again you keep missing the point of all of this, as do so many.  Everyone thinks that because something is called "commercial" that it will usher in some sort of era....where 500 people a month or whatever will be launched into space.  Until you really start to understand this for what it is, then, unfortunately, you are living in a fantasy and nothing I or anyone else who really does this for a living will make a bit of difference.

I look forward to the day, if this proposal ultimately succeeds, when all the same people who have beat the drum against everything that has come before now, see the reality of this situation proving us, those of us who have called "a spade a spade", right and seeing each and everyone one of you turn against this....just as happened with the rest of history. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 04:57 am
No....again you keep missing the point of all of this, as do so many.  Everyone thinks that because something is called "commercial" that it will usher in some sort of era....where 500 people a month or whatever will be launched into space.  Until you really start to understand this for what it is, then, unfortunately, you are living in a fantasy and nothing I or anyone else who really does this for a living will make a bit of difference.

I look forward to the day, if this proposal ultimately succeeds, when all the same people who have beat the drum against everything that has come before now, see the reality of this situation proving us, those of us who have called "a spade a spade", right and seeing each and everyone one of you turn against this....just as happened with the rest of history. 

I don't think you're giving the random walk of the free market enough credit. An example of what the free market can accomplish that is simply beyond government capabilities is the Iridium satellite network. Currently, 20,000 DoD personnel have the use of a low latency satellite phone network that operates anywhere in the world for the price of $36M/year. Iridium represents $6B of infrastructure that was purchased for pennies on the dollar after their 1999 bankruptcy. Had DoD tried to build that capability themselves, it would have cost far more.

Was the process messy? Absolutely, but look at where we are now. An incredible capability for a pittance. I think we'll see a lot of this with commercial space. There will be winners and losers, but as a whole the American public will come out ahead.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 05:04 am
Like I said, no easy answers; it "depends" on a whole range of factors, not least of which is the level of interest and concern, both inside the Congress and outside that drives the priority it is given. At the moment, my sense is that the future of US exploration efforts and US human space flight leadership--or lack thereof--is generally being seen more widely now as a set of issues reaching the "tipping point" where it just might get the level of attention it deserves; we will see if that translates eventually into some semblance of a positive future for NASA and those programs. The Budget Request marked the first step, the beginning of the hearing phase, and the drafting of alternative legislation, are all just early steps along a very confusing, difficult, tortured path. So...hang on for the ride!

I hope one of the things the politicians are looking at is the privatization of Shuttle and/or its components. While privatization isn't common in America, it has been used successfully around the world when it's been determined that a government program needs to be preserved but it isn't appropriate for the government to be operating it any more.

We're in the same state today with launch to LEO -- it's a commodity, even the HLV capability, and it's always a mistake to have the government in the commodity business. Any attempt to preserve the Shuttle or its components that doesn't address this issue is doomed to be at best inefficient and at worst damaging to any emergent space industry. No matter how many jobs it saves.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: nooneofconsequence on 02/27/2010 05:05 am
There are litterally so many problems with the above, that I will not even waste my time on answering them.  The above post shows someone who thinks they know everything is wrong but lacks the understanding of this business.  I have tried to explain it to you in the past.  I won't continue because some just like to argue assuming and thinking they are right and nothing anyone can say, no matter how much they know, will change that.
Petulant and cheap as usual. Pilots would call it out more directly than the mods would allow me to do. You spend too much time demeaning people that I'm beginning to doubt you know as much - too defensive and not confident enough to communicate your position.

I've had arguments with many on this board, but have come to appreciate them more because they struggle to make their position clear. clongton made such an impression that I did a 180 on an issue and convinced another senior adviser on a major related project to do same. Jim caused me to spend a week and a half examining Atlas/Delta to understand reliability issues for HSF - he's right about Atlas and I understood why and shouldn't have taken certain things for granted.

People make me do the footwork I appreciate - where's yours?

Quote
I will site just one example.  Add "process", which clearly you have no idea what that means to enable in order to "secure" it.  Process translates to dollars, just so you know.
The word is "cite".

Please don't mangle my words.

Quote
  While I appreciate your point of view, you come off as a bit over-dramatic for a business you clearly have no *real* insight to.  Enjoy the rest of your day.
Oh please why don't you cut the dramatics yourself.

I can appreciate the fear you must have of job loss. I've already cut you a lot of slack (as have others). I remember being at a NASA center and watching very unpleasant RIFFs. Not heartless at all. Been there.

But if we are going to debate positions you have to have a better come back than this. If this community/forum is just a bunch of rah rahs ... then get back to singing some stanzas of 'America Pie' and go get blotto on beer about bad times coming.

By the way, legislators have all sorts of ways to insure the deals work with services. In many ways you can have more control than you can with contract procurements for products/development. You can yank the chain sharper/faster.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 06:20 am
No....again you keep missing the point of all of this, as do so many.  Everyone thinks that because something is called "commercial" that it will usher in some sort of era....where 500 people a month or whatever will be launched into space.  Until you really start to understand this for what it is, then, unfortunately, you are living in a fantasy and nothing I or anyone else who really does this for a living will make a bit of difference.

I look forward to the day, if this proposal ultimately succeeds, when all the same people who have beat the drum against everything that has come before now, see the reality of this situation proving us, those of us who have called "a spade a spade", right and seeing each and everyone one of you turn against this....just as happened with the rest of history. 

I don't think you're giving the random walk of the free market enough credit. An example of what the free market can accomplish that is simply beyond government capabilities is the Iridium satellite network. Currently, 20,000 DoD personnel have the use of a low latency satellite phone network that operates anywhere in the world for the price of $36M/year. Iridium represents $6B of infrastructure that was purchased for pennies on the dollar after their 1999 bankruptcy. Had DoD tried to build that capability themselves, it would have cost far more.

Was the process messy? Absolutely, but look at where we are now. An incredible capability for a pittance. I think we'll see a lot of this with commercial space. There will be winners and losers, but as a whole the American public will come out ahead.

LOL, you just proved my point....

You chose a sat system where there was thought to be a market, went bankrupt anyway and then was purchased for "pennies on the dollar".

You compare that to the case where there is as of yet no firm plan on how this public/private partnership will work, but the intent of "multiple providers" to be funded by the government to get to operational status and once there the market cannot support.

All the while, ISS hinges on the balance....and this is the idea everyone thinks is going to "open up" space to everyone?

What happens if ISS fails because we walked away on the hope and assumption these providers come online?  The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo.  Is manned access going to be that much easier?

What happens when we fail to support ISS and then the sliver of a market, ISS - the only current destination for these providers, is no longer capable of supporting the "believed" need?  Will companies still want to invest their own private capital.  Nope....and these efforts fail.

What then do we get out of it?  No capability whatsoever and a "technology development" program with no focus on what those technologies will ever be used for and no firm date if and ever they are used.

Some people need to just open up their eyes here.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 06:26 am
People make me do the footwork I appreciate - where's yours?


Much, much closer than you think. 

You are just an angry person, plain and simple.  Go ahead keep believing everything you want to believe, does not bother me.  However, when you go around just stating opinions, which you believe are facts, without any back-up, people who are in the know will probably call you out, just so you know.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: libs0n on 02/27/2010 08:26 am
The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo.  Is manned access going to be that much easier?

The pursuit of COTS, and this new program, have their own unique circumstances.  A driving factor behind COTS selection was the creation of launch vehicle variety in the medium class.  This both increased the developmental burden on the winners, as well as limited the competitive selection to those who would be able to meet that demand.  Commercial crew providers will not necessarily have to furnish a new launch vehicle as well; the launch vehicle they do furnish can build off the existing level, and be provided by an independent specialized entity in that field.  The funds allocated to commercial crew are also much greater than that which was allocated to COTS, in program total and per winning entry.  The commercial crew program will also have a greater variety of competition selected for development, twice the amount of winners awarded development funds, given a shot at meeting target goals.  Commercial crew can also build on the work done in establishing COTS; by virtue of starting later the natural background it starts off from is superior.

Commercial crew is better funded, and features a better competitive environment, and the other things.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: William Barton on 02/27/2010 09:16 am
By focusing only on the launch, you continue to miss the main point.

OV is right.

Throughout the history of the industry, only 20% of the costs are ever spent on the launch vehicles.   The rest is spent on the expensive spacecraft which go on the top of them.

While the dynamic changes a little with HSF Exploration class missions, where you require copious amounts of fuel to be lofted as well, the proportion is still probably going to end up being 2:1 in terms of spacecraft:launcher costs.

That was always the problem with the dual-launcher Ares solution -- it promised to spend everything we had on the launchers and left nothing to spend on the spacecraft which would actually conduct the space missions after the first 8 minutes of the launch.

Ross.

I got myself to focus more clearly on the launch-cost vs. payload-cost issue through the simple exercise of multiplying the weight of ISS times a typical average launch cost ($10K/kg) and came up with a figure that was, at worst (assuming lowest reasonable cost for ISS) of around 10%. That makes it clear that for HSF, launch costs are probably on the verge of being in the budgetary "noise." Which makes me pretty sure the near term focus of HSF cost reduction should be on the spacecraft end. Only once the cost of spacecraft have been reliably and demonstrably reduced by 10x should we focus on getting launch costs down. A vehicle that could make 10 to 100 round trips between a LEO depot and either a LLO or L-point depot would be a good start for BEO cost reduction. For LEO cost reduction, all that seems to be needed is a fully reusable (10 to 100 flights between major overhaul) capsule or spaceplane that can ride on an existing (or near-term probable) launch vehicle. This is, of course, what the original 1970-era Space Transportation System was all about. Fully reusable TSTO LEO shuttle. LEO space station. Cislunar reusable nuclear shuttle. LLO space station. Reusable lunar lander. Moonbase. Budget certainly killed the plan, where all of the above was supposed to be in place by 1980. Plus, hindsight suggests we weren't quite up to it technologically. But the doing of it, even if it took 30 years instead of 10, would have given us that technology. Not to mention, the end prodoct of all that was to take the bits and pieces built for STS-the-System and assemble a Mars expedition that was going to leave LEO for Mars on November 12, 1984.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/27/2010 10:22 am
This is the closest fit in Augustine (ISS Focused - Commercial crew for LEO - FY10) to what is actually being followed now but more money is being spent on technology development, commercial and science which means the IC of 2028 of the HLV/CEV has no chance of being met as they are not being actively worked on now as the chart suggests. A 25+ year BEO gap is the reality of this Obama budget plan.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/27/2010 10:52 am
Does this correspond to the chart above?

Constrained option number 2 from A-com. - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/4120914207_373772ec43_o.jpg
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/27/2010 10:59 am
Looks like it.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Downix on 02/27/2010 11:02 am
No....again you keep missing the point of all of this, as do so many.  Everyone thinks that because something is called "commercial" that it will usher in some sort of era....where 500 people a month or whatever will be launched into space.  Until you really start to understand this for what it is, then, unfortunately, you are living in a fantasy and nothing I or anyone else who really does this for a living will make a bit of difference.

I look forward to the day, if this proposal ultimately succeeds, when all the same people who have beat the drum against everything that has come before now, see the reality of this situation proving us, those of us who have called "a spade a spade", right and seeing each and everyone one of you turn against this....just as happened with the rest of history. 

I don't think you're giving the random walk of the free market enough credit. An example of what the free market can accomplish that is simply beyond government capabilities is the Iridium satellite network. Currently, 20,000 DoD personnel have the use of a low latency satellite phone network that operates anywhere in the world for the price of $36M/year. Iridium represents $6B of infrastructure that was purchased for pennies on the dollar after their 1999 bankruptcy. Had DoD tried to build that capability themselves, it would have cost far more.

Was the process messy? Absolutely, but look at where we are now. An incredible capability for a pittance. I think we'll see a lot of this with commercial space. There will be winners and losers, but as a whole the American public will come out ahead.
Um, what? Iridium still owns and operates those satellites. 
http://www.iridium.com/
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Cog_in_the_machine on 02/27/2010 11:05 am
If the new budget really does mirror option number 2 of the constrained options, then it is a mistake. I'd much rather see something like Option 5D - Flexible path with shuttle extension and SDHLV - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/4121686600_b890ec9eda_o.jpg

Maybe it wasn't chosen because it requires a 10 billion dollar increase in the budget.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/27/2010 11:11 am
If the new budget really does mirror option number 2 of the constrained options, then it is a mistake. I'd much rather see something like Option 5D - Flexible path with shuttle extension and SDHLV - http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/4121686600_b890ec9eda_o.jpg

Maybe it wasn't chosen because it requires a 10 billion dollar increase in the budget.

So would must of us ;). It wasn't chosen just for the lack of money, it wasn't chosen so this Administration wouldn't have to do any serious BEO work even if it was extended another term. If you don't do anything you can't fail ;). Opposite of what Kennedy said ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: ChrisSpaceCH on 02/27/2010 11:12 am
So there we have it.

No BEO before the 2030s. And that's assuming the budget stays the same (and adjusted for inflation).

Which is of course about as likely as pigs growing wings and flying. As soon as NASA stops doing anything visible (at the latest when ISS ends), the budget will get slashed.

I guess I was right when I claimed the next moon landing might be on Apollo 11's 100th anniversary and no Mars this century...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: marsavian on 02/27/2010 11:17 am
So there we have it.

No BEO before the 2030s. And that's assuming the budget stays the same (and adjusted for inflation).

Which is of course about as likely as pigs growing wings and flying. As soon as NASA stops doing anything visible (at the latest when ISS ends), the budget will get slashed.

I guess I was right when I claimed the next moon landing might be on Apollo 11's 100th anniversary and no Mars this century...

ISS will probably get extended again to 2025-30 so it maybe 2040 for BEO in reality, 2050 for Moon and probably 2080 for Mars if we are lucky ;).
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/27/2010 11:33 am
Which is of course about as likely as pigs growing wings and flying.

Didn't realise that was one of the research projects in the new budget.

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: MP99 on 02/27/2010 11:35 am
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

If a single provider were contracted to provide a crewed service, then NASA's flight rate would probably be sufficient to sustain that service. That would provide incentive for the provider to put their own money into the development, like COTS. The flight rate would keep the service price attractive to other customers.

But even if the development is successful & timely, that still leaves us with Soyuz as the backup. To avoid this, NASA will be funding four different development programmes.

Since they'll share 1/4 of the flight rate each, ISTM per-mission costs will be higher, so less attractive to other customers. The flight rate will also give a low return on investment, and together with the political risk of yet another cancelled NASA programme, I can't see why any of those providers will put any of their own skin in the game.

Won't NASA end up supporting four separate (but smaller) "standing armies", with the higher per-flight costs discouraging private enterprise, so NASA doesn't get the cost-sharing that it might hope for?

I wonder if SpaceX expected this sort of environment when they put together their business plan for crewed Dragon?

Martin
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2010 11:37 am
The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo.  Is manned access going to be that much easier?

The pursuit of COTS, and this new program, have their own unique circumstances.  A driving factor behind COTS selection was the creation of launch vehicle variety in the medium class.  This both increased the developmental burden on the winners, as well as limited the competitive selection to those who would be able to meet that demand.  Commercial crew providers will not necessarily have to furnish a new launch vehicle as well; the launch vehicle they do furnish can build off the existing level, and be provided by an independent specialized entity in that field.  The funds allocated to commercial crew are also much greater than that which was allocated to COTS, in program total and per winning entry.  The commercial crew program will also have a greater variety of competition selected for development, twice the amount of winners awarded development funds, given a shot at meeting target goals.  Commercial crew can also build on the work done in establishing COTS; by virtue of starting later the natural background it starts off from is superior.

Commercial crew is better funded, and features a better competitive environment, and the other things.

I am curious where you are getting even those details you mention regarding commercial crew. So far, no details on the proposed implementation of the initiative have been provided by NASA or the White House, If you're basing that on the recent CCDEV awards/agreements, those are part of what I suppose could be seen as the exploratory stage of the process, but those are taking place under existing programs and authorities, not the new initiative per se.

I think the concern a lot of folks have--at least most of those I've spoken to--with the commercial crew initiative is the fact that such complete reliance for crew access to space is placed on an approach that so far has had no real explanation of how it would be implemented. I know General Bolden testified that folks are working to put those kinds of details together "soon" and the Congress plans to hold hearings to try to get those kinds of details, as Senator Nelson has suggested, but it sounds like you might have some of those insights already or know where one could get them. If so, I'd be interested to hear more.

It is somewhat concerning, though, to be at a point where a complete change of course and the dismantling of current efforts is proposed without there being a clear understanding of how the proposed alternative is planned or expected to function--which is essential for decision-makers (in the Congress, at least) to be able to assess whether it actually has the potential to succeed.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/27/2010 11:41 am
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

And.................
something coming out of a committee (reported out) can suffer many fates.the house and senate leadership could simply never bring this version up for a vote( they have the power to schedule votes).it could pass the chamber it originates from but then the appropriations committee never funds it IE the HLV budget account stay as is.

quote from article
"Running to 29-pages the draft bill is very much a wish list that includes everything all sides on the debate would possibly want but contains clauses that will require action whether or not the appropriations bill mirrors the authorised activities"
end quote
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2010 11:47 am
It it still possible that HLVs will turn out to be super-useful for building large structures but that too is not yet a proven fact.

Well the compromise bill pushes for HLV development and if it passes we might get one, whether it's needed or not.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/02/senator-hutchinsons-wish-list.html

    Quote:
Alternative heavy lift vehicles able to launch 25,000kg (55,000lb) into LEO and 6,800kg into geosynchronous orbit must also form part of this 90-day review. The bill says of this heavy lift evaluation-:

          - the administrator is "directed" to select a heavy lift launch vehicle design concept and to "initiate detailed design activities" within six months after the act's enactment
          - the heavy lift vehicles can be solely government or developed in partnership with commercial organisations
          - an "evolutionary" approach that enables "early" human spaceflight must be considered
          - comparative development and projected operational costs must be supplied
What the heck is the point of this? We already have TWO vehicles which can put more than 25 tons in LEO and 10 tons in GTO (okay, fine, the Atlas V Heavy variant hasn't flown yet, but so what? The Delta IV Heavy has.).

I say AGAIN...you are not looking at the current version of that bill...those numbers are not in the current version. I would hazard a guess that you will likely see the final version posted on this website before it appears anywhere else, so I suggest folks keep their powder dry!

And.................
something coming out of a committee (reported out) can suffer many fates.the house and senate leadership could simply never bring this version up for a vote( they have the power to schedule votes).it could pass the chamber it originates from but then the appropriations committee never funds it IE the HLV budget account stay as is.
quote from article

"Running to 29-pages the draft bill is very much a wish list that includes everything all sides on the debate would possibly want but contains clauses that will require action whether or not the appropriations bill mirrors the authorised activities"
end quote

Correct....all sorts of possible outcomes...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: William Barton on 02/27/2010 11:57 am
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

If a single provider were contracted to provide a crewed service, then NASA's flight rate would probably be sufficient to sustain that service. That would provide incentive for the provider to put their own money into the development, like COTS. The flight rate would keep the service price attractive to other customers.

But even if the development is successful & timely, that still leaves us with Soyuz as the backup. To avoid this, NASA will be funding four different development programmes.

Since they'll share 1/4 of the flight rate each, ISTM per-mission costs will be higher, so less attractive to other customers. The flight rate will also give a low return on investment, and together with the political risk of yet another cancelled NASA programme, I can't see why any of those providers will put any of their own skin in the game.

Won't NASA end up supporting four separate (but smaller) "standing armies", with the higher per-flight costs discouraging private enterprise, so NASA doesn't get the cost-sharing that it might hope for?

I wonder if SpaceX expected this sort of environment when they put together their business plan for crewed Dragon?

Martin

I'd have to see what four providers were chosen before I could speculate properly, but here's a scenario I see. NASA, in the end, funds 3 "successful competitors:" Falcon 9/Dragon, Boeing and/or LM Orion CM OML-based capsule on one or both EELVs, and DreamChaser on Atlas V. First, the odds are high either Dragon or DreamChaser won't make it (I'd say DreamChaser won't, but that's too much a gut feeling to be taken seriously). So lets say all three make it. The path forward then points to a number of synergies, even if NASA is the only customer. Falcon 9 and EELV all have other customers. Dragon comes in three flavors, cargo, DragonLab, and crewed, so it gets an enhanced manufacturing rate that way. Psuedo-Orion finds itself in a path forward to becoming the beyond LEO CEV in a block II form, as well as being a potential ISS cargo vehicle (because it's not a given that Cygnus will work out, either, or even that ATV and/or HTV will continue in use, and it's especially possible if all of the above comes true, Progress will stop flying). DreamChaser is, again, the odd man out because it's particularly oriented to crew in LEO. DreamChaser needs Bigelow.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: William Barton on 02/27/2010 12:02 pm
I'll add a codicil to the above. Assume one of the CCDEV spacecraft is an Orion OML derivitive, and assume ACES proceeds. Then you have a very short path to the original ACES-based lunar program. So assume all this is in place as we proceed through the 2016 elections. Whoever is sworn in come January 2017 can make the decision to "go to the Moon and do the other things," and it suddenly won't look all that hard. That new President might hand NASA marching orders that said, "I want an American walking on the Moon one week before election day 2020." And it won't be impossible, because enough pieces will be in place already. There's a lot of ifs, ands, or buts in that causal chain though.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2010 12:19 pm
Regarding the preliminary draft of HSF-related legislation mentioned earlier in this thread, one can get some insight into some of the thinking behind parts of the bill from the statement submitted for the record of the Senate Subcommittee hearing by Senator Hutchison. Should be available at this location:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&Statement_id=f0457665-7571-4d01-977e-ad3367ce7d05&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/27/2010 01:21 pm
Regarding the preliminary draft of HSF-related legislation mentioned earlier in this thread, one can get some insight into some of the thinking behind parts of the bill from the statement submitted for the record of the Senate Subcommittee hearing by Senator Hutchison. Should be available at this location:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&Statement_id=f0457665-7571-4d01-977e-ad3367ce7d05&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010


she is one of the brighter senators who has APL in her district IE the science budget is her concern.Notice she is open to shuttle derived but would be happy with some sort of commercial buy of a HLV.you can tell by her language that she knows you set a path but let the bidders come up with solutions.
alas there is no money for any HLV :'( in the short term so she should make a deal with yuck senator Shelby! the proposed ET derived core stage with the 6  Delta-IV CBC's is a budget over kill but a shuttle derived HLV with EELV components might make political sense.after all the senator from Alabama has Decatur :P in his state so he wants a deal for Huntsville ::) senator Vitter wants ET tank production to last forever............and senator hatch from Utah wants SRB production to last forever...all of these folks except one are in the minority party.
both  Mikulski  and Shelby are on the senate appropriations science subcommittee ::)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Appropriations_Subcommittee_on_Commerce,_Justice,_Science,_and_Related_Agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Appropriations_Subcommittee_on_Commerce,_Justice,_Science,_and_Related_Agencies)

edit
it appears here statement differs somewhat from the leaked legislative proposal ::)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: infocat13 on 02/27/2010 01:49 pm
Which is of course about as likely as pigs growing wings and flying.

Didn't realise that was one of the research projects in the new budget.

Martin

why don't you know?
the pig with wings is the new engine in the HLV budget line item, it will however be modified with lipstick 8) on its aft skirt
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: psloss on 02/27/2010 02:22 pm
Regarding the preliminary draft of HSF-related legislation mentioned earlier in this thread, one can get some insight into some of the thinking behind parts of the bill from the statement submitted for the record of the Senate Subcommittee hearing by Senator Hutchison. Should be available at this location:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&Statement_id=f0457665-7571-4d01-977e-ad3367ce7d05&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010


With respect to Senator Hutchison, how involved can she be in the process in the near term, given that she's still running for Governor?  That might go into a Spring runoff and a Fall general election.

(I'll understand if you can't answer. :) )
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2010 02:29 pm
Kay Bailey Hutchinson understands the definition of "monopsony"

From her statement, linked by 51 D Mascot, above:

Quote
I have been, and continue to be a supporter of the current COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems) activities being pursued with SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation for cargo delivery services for the Space Station.  But, until those efforts are proven to be successful, we have no business investing large amounts of taxpayers' dollars to begin active development of crew-carrying commercial vehicles, especially when we have no assurance that the government will not end up being the only customer for those launch services.

Sounds like she would be more supportive of commercial crew if Mr. Bigelow had a LEO hotel or private R&D lab already up there.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 02:30 pm
Does she feel the military should develop its own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2010 02:35 pm
I would imagine that Senator Hutchinson will arrange for her space policy staff people to transition to another Senator thereby allowing her space staffers to "stay in the game" so to speak.

Regarding the preliminary draft of HSF-related legislation mentioned earlier in this thread, one can get some insight into some of the thinking behind parts of the bill from the statement submitted for the record of the Senate Subcommittee hearing by Senator Hutchison. Should be available at this location:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=1fe8aef1-3b71-4380-921f-828311451d7e&Statement_id=f0457665-7571-4d01-977e-ad3367ce7d05&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=2&YearDisplay=2010


With respect to Senator Hutchison, how involved can she be in the process in the near term, given that she's still running for Governor?  That might go into a Spring runoff and a Fall general election.

(I'll understand if you can't answer. :) )

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 02:42 pm
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Bill White on 02/27/2010 02:42 pm
Does she feel the military should develop its own fighter jets, aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines etc?

There is more, Martijn, from her statement:

Quote
Unfortunately, the FY 2011 Budget Request does not provide the means to ensure that the extension and full utilization of the space station can be realized. We are already planning to fly 10 fewer missions in completing the space station than had been planned in 2005. As a result, 10 flights' worth of flight-ready payloads--averaging between 40,000 to 50,000 pounds per flight--were essentially relegated to storage warehouses where most of them remain today, ready to fly, ready to use, but with no guaranteed "ticket to ride" to be of any use to the station.  What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

The result of this is that we do not know how many, or which, of those "grounded payload" items might actually be needed in order to ensure the station can be supported and maintained safely and reliably until 2020.  Not only that, we do not know which, or how many, of these payloads are simply too large or too heavy to be carried to orbit by any existing vehicle other than the space shuttle.  And finally, we do not know what additional items might need to be ordered, manufactured and delivered in the future, or what launch vehicle capacity will be needed to deliver them to the station. This is simply not the way a great nation should conduct its civil space program. This is not the way to ensure that a decision and pronouncement to continue operations through 2020 will not become an empty gesture due to the deterioration, damage, or failure of equipment and systems vital to providing the oxygen, water, power to make the ISS habitable and to support scientific research.

A quick key quote:

What is most important to remember, is that the decisions about which instruments and equipment to swap into the remaining flights were based on the internal assumption of the need to support the ISS through 2015--not through 2020.

If ISS cannot be supported until 2020 by these new vehicles then the entire plan collapses. A single point of failure for the entire U.S. space program.

But again, multiple new LEO destinations - other than ISS and non NASA owned or operated - would help offset this dependence on ISS and better facilitate genuine commercial crew and cargo.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 03:34 pm
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?

Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

Everyone tends to forget that.  In any successful business, project...anything, there are near term goals and objectives that are to be realized as well as longer term goals and objectives that are planned for with focused ways to get you there.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 03:35 pm
Someone please convince me why commercial crew is going to be the savior that everyone thinks and hopes. 

It WILL create an aerospace bubble, which means after NASA funds most of the development, it will not only then buy the "services" (plus any additional overhead they create by requirements that are not even going to be released for another 10 months, which will be charged back to the government) but also have to subsidize the companies to keep them in business because the market cannot support all these potential vehicles by itself.

If a single provider were contracted to provide a crewed service, then NASA's flight rate would probably be sufficient to sustain that service. That would provide incentive for the provider to put their own money into the development, like COTS. The flight rate would keep the service price attractive to other customers.

But even if the development is successful & timely, that still leaves us with Soyuz as the backup. To avoid this, NASA will be funding four different development programmes.

Since they'll share 1/4 of the flight rate each, ISTM per-mission costs will be higher, so less attractive to other customers. The flight rate will also give a low return on investment, and together with the political risk of yet another cancelled NASA programme, I can't see why any of those providers will put any of their own skin in the game.

Won't NASA end up supporting four separate (but smaller) "standing armies", with the higher per-flight costs discouraging private enterprise, so NASA doesn't get the cost-sharing that it might hope for?

I wonder if SpaceX expected this sort of environment when they put together their business plan for crewed Dragon?

Martin

Ahh, now someone is finally starting to see the reality!  Excellent job.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 03:36 pm
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/27/2010 03:43 pm
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.

The point is that it probably does.  CRS and IPs cannot lift all of the payloads for a variety of reasons, most of which focus around volume and a lack of a manoeuvreing stage to get them from orbital insertion to the ISS.  This would require not only a new spacecraft of some kind but a new LV that could carry it; It would be at the very top end of the EELV-H's lift capability, maybe higher.

I was led to undestand that some payload also could not endure the higher-gee environment of most commercial launchers compared to the relatively benign 3g-average of the shuttle.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 03:49 pm
Because we have a Space Station that we have assured way to support and use just as we are finishing it up and having spent so much money.

That doesn't require a new launch vehicle.

Ture and that was my point.  If you want to assure the space station is to become all it was promised to be, you need to keep your currently operational vehicle around a little longer.  That is, by my understanding, one of her primary concerns, full utililzation of the ISS.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 03:58 pm
I don't have much of a problem with Shuttle extension, except for the fear it will be abused to develop an SDLV. Contra Ben ISS support can be done with EELVs. Betting the farm on SpaceX was stupid at best, but probably malicious. EELVs should have been involved from the beginning. SpaceX is a great addition, but not proven as a workhorse.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 04:01 pm
Um, what? Iridium still owns and operates those satellites. 
http://www.iridium.com/

They do, and DoD has a $36M/year contract. In 2008 Iridium had 320,000 customers, nearly a 50% growth over 2007, and a total revenue of $77M with a profit of $25M. I don't have later figures.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 04:21 pm
I don't have much of a problem with Shuttle extension, except for the fear it will be abused to develop an SDLV. Contra Ben ISS support can be done with EELVs. Betting the farm on SpaceX was stupid at best, but probably malicious. EELVs should have been involved from the beginning. SpaceX is a great addition, but not proven as a workhorse.

Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 04:25 pm
Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

OK wise guy, what payloads exist for the Shuttle that cannot be flown on EELVs? Flight hardware in parking lots in Japan doesn't count, unless you can tell us where the money to get it operational will come from.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 04:35 pm
Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

OK wise guy, what payloads exist for the Shuttle that cannot be flown on EELVs? Flight hardware in parking lots in Japan doesn't count, unless you can tell us where the money to get it operational will come from.

No need to get defensive.  Simply pointing out the facts, I'm not sure why folks who want to defend this plan so hard get like this when simple statements of truth are made. 

Could a fully stocked MPLM-like vehicle with prop tug/bus-like system attached to it be launched on an EELV?  Maybe, however that requires *development*.  Note I never said anything about hardware sitting in a parking lot in Japan.  Please enjoy the rest of your day. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 04:36 pm
LOL, you just proved my point....

You chose a sat system where there was thought to be a market, went bankrupt anyway and then was purchased for "pennies on the dollar".

Iridium failed for a number of reasons, among them the fact that it was too expensive to ever make a decent return for a $6B investment. However, just because Iridium went bankrupt didn't mean that all the R&D, satellites, and the infrastructure to make them work simply disappeared. No, it lived on in a new recapitalized system that is able to return a profit and deliver an incredible service. As a society we get a $6B infrastructure that we didn't have to pay for.

Without the free market, it would have never happened. That's the point you refuse to see.

You compare that to the case where there is as of yet no firm plan on how this public/private partnership will work, but the intent of "multiple providers" to be funded by the government to get to operational status and once there the market cannot support.

All the while, ISS hinges on the balance....and this is the idea everyone thinks is going to "open up" space to everyone?

What happens if ISS fails because we walked away on the hope and assumption these providers come online?  The current COTS plan is already a year or two behind the original advertised date and yet no one is ready to still deliver cargo.  Is manned access going to be that much easier?

What happens when we fail to support ISS and then the sliver of a market, ISS - the only current destination for these providers, is no longer capable of supporting the "believed" need?  Will companies still want to invest their own private capital.  Nope....and these efforts fail.

What then do we get out of it?  No capability whatsoever and a "technology development" program with no focus on what those technologies will ever be used for and no firm date if and ever they are used.

Some people need to just open up their eyes here.

Again, whether any of the New Space launch providers fail or not has absolutely no bearing on whether the capabilities survive or not. Bankruptcy is not the end of a company or capability; it's merely a reorganization to create an entity that can viably survive.

You paint economic bubbles as something that's inherently evil. Bubbles are bad, if you happen to be inside of one and get taken out in the carnage. Bubbles are good for those who dwell outside of them, as an incredible amount of infrastructure can be built in a very short period of time, with tremendous downward pressure on prices and deep inroads made into a society's culture. Just what access to space needs right now.

Bubbles are why Google was able to grow its infrastructure by orders of magnitude this last decade by simply buying dark, unused fiber on the cheap. Bubbles are why the railroads criss-crossed America in the 19th century. Bubbles are why the average Japanese household has internet access that's two orders of magnitude faster than what you can get in America for half the cost.

As far as the ISS goes, we absolutely should not do anything that can damage its long term viability. We do have redundancy with our international partners; you must remember that. Whatever unique capabilities provided by the Shuttle need to be taken into account and scheduled in to whatever remaining flights we have left. Personally, I would like to see some sort of Shuttle extension, but let's face it: with a 1.5% failure rate, flying the Shuttle is what we call in statistics a "game of short duration." You fly a short manifest, you have a chance of dodging the bullet. You fly a long manifest, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.

The administration isn't willing to take that chance. If Congress is, and is also willing to pony up the extra $2B/year for it, then great. Regardless, the Shuttle is going to end, and for two decades now analysts and committees that have looked at NASA have advocated just the free market approach proposed by the Administration. It's time for us to try. Frankly, it frees NASA up for the far more interesting work of building a planetary spaceship. I don't know about you, but given the choice to work on yet another LEO launcher or building mankind's first planetary spaceship and going down in history, I know what I would chose.

Both Musk and Bigelow have plunked down nine digits of their personal wealth to make their companies a reality. They do this because they feel they can make money; they may or may not, but if they fail you can be sure there will be others of us ready to swoop in, buy their assets at a fire sale, and operate the infrastructure they're building today.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 04:39 pm
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mmeijeri on 02/27/2010 04:44 pm
No need to get defensive.  Simply pointing out the facts, I'm not sure why folks who want to defend this plan so hard get like this when simple statements of truth are made. 

Could a fully stocked MPLM-like vehicle with prop tug/bus-like system attached to it be launched on an EELV?  Maybe, however that requires *development*.  Note I never said anything about hardware sitting in a parking lot in Japan.  Please enjoy the rest of your day. 

Very well, then I confused your argument with Ben's. My bad. ISS resupply and crew rotation will need new spacecraft since the old one is going to be retired, sure. This was the plan all along. If NASA had been wise they would have made sure that at least one of the solutions used both a proven launch vehicle (Atlas/Delta) and a spacecraft built by a proven major aerospace contractor (Boeing, LM, NG). To keep them honest Orbital and SpaceX could also have gotten a piece of the pie, strictly tied to performance. Funding ULA's ISS resupply concepts ASAP would be a good move now.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 04:46 pm
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.

Fine, "privatize" it.  Call it whatever you wish if that will make you feel better.  What is your plan for that to work anyway?

Clearly there is a development costs, these things don't grow on trees.  How much will development of the "commercial industry" cost?  At least 6 billion so far and you don't even know exactly what you are going to get for that.....
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 05:12 pm

As far as the ISS goes, we absolutely should not do anything that can damage its long term viability. We do have redundancy with our international partners; you must remember that. Whatever unique capabilities provided by the Shuttle need to be taken into account and scheduled in to whatever remaining flights we have left. Personally, I would like to see some sort of Shuttle extension, but let's face it: with a 1.5% failure rate, flying the Shuttle is what we call in statistics a "game of short duration." You fly a short manifest, you have a chance of dodging the bullet. You fly a long manifest, sooner or later you're going to get nailed.

The administration isn't willing to take that chance. If Congress is, and is also willing to pony up the extra $2B/year for it, then great. Regardless, the Shuttle is going to end, and for two decades now analysts and committees that have looked at NASA have advocated just the free market approach proposed by the Administration. It's time for us to try. Frankly, it frees NASA up for the far more interesting work of building a planetary spaceship. I don't know about you, but given the choice to work on yet another LEO launcher or building mankind's first planetary spaceship and going down in history, I know what I would chose.


Bubbles are not a good thing...the very definition of them is that they are not sustainable....isn't that what this plan was *supposed* to do?  To make everything "sustainable"?

As for the "high risk" of the shuttle, I suggest you familiarize yourself better if at all possible with the process and procedures.  Quite honestly, that is the political misconception that yu have bought into.  Furhtermore, who is to say anything else will have a better than 98.5% success rate after 130 missions.  One thing is clear, even if that number is matched, it will be less capable. 

As for time to "try", this is a likely result:

1.  ISS goes for years without the resupply that was intended.
2.  Operations are not sustainable.  The crew is reduced, work onboard the ISS is not anywhere near what is advertised because of the short fall in ability to get experiments and spare parts there.
3.  Commercial providers continue to move the schedule to the right until the business case is no longer there.
4.  Congress and the Administration now start playing politics, blaming NASA for this and labeling commercial transport a failure.
5.  We end up with nothing and this is used to target the nebulous "technology development" program that will take us somewhere, someday in the future.
6.  NASA will be admonished by saying they cannot be trusted with the taxpayers money and the agency is a shell.
7.  Original mission complete????
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/27/2010 05:15 pm
1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.

3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

1) This is correct, but only as long as you ignore HTV and ATV, which could be flown on EELVs.

2) 1.5 billion without flying and without payloads. And even this is a maybe.

3) No, it does not exist today, not even essentially. You are (correctly) pointing out the lack of US (!) spacecraft for EELVs (under 1) but you "forget" the lack of spacecraft for a SDHLV, besides the fact a SDHLV is not essentially existing today.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Namechange User on 02/27/2010 05:22 pm
1) Yet, the payloads that would be launched on the EELV's to supply ISS do not exist yet either and would still require development. 

2) I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.

3) Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 

1) This is correct, but only as long as you ignore HTV and ATV, which could be flown on EELVs.

2) 1.5 billion without flying and without payloads. And even this is a maybe.

3) No, it does not exist today, not even essentially. You are (correctly) pointing out the lack of US (!) spacecraft for EELVs (under 1) but you "forget" the lack of spacecraft for a SDHLV, besides the fact a SDHLV is not essentially existing today.

Analyst

1.  I'm not ignoring HTV and ATV.  However, the ISS agreement only calls for a certain flight rate, a flight rate that governs their production capbility.  If we want more is Europe and Japan going to pay for it?  No, the US taxpayer will that will result in even more money going oversees for a foreign country to do what we used to be able to do.

2.  The 1.5 billion is with flying.  Those would essentially be the fixed costs.  Obviously, like all traditional rockets, Atlas, Delta, etc whatever payload is flying is a seperate cost.  This is also how it is in the Shuttle today.

3.  Oh, it's a lot, lot closer than you are giving it credit for.  Certainly much closer than the proposed HLV that we have no idea what it will be, look like, what systems it will have, etc 20 years from now. 
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 05:47 pm
Bubbles are not a good thing...the very definition of them is that they are not sustainable....isn't that what this plan was *supposed* to do?  To make everything "sustainable"?

As I said, whether a bubble is bad or not depends on where you stand. Also, you never know whether a dynamic will evolve into a bubble or not until you try. You might end up with an industry with run-away growth, like semiconductors for over fifty years now.

As an American taxpayer and one standing outside of any potential bubble, I feel it's time to try.

As for the "high risk" of the shuttle, I suggest you familiarize yourself better if at all possible with the process and procedures.  Quite honestly, that is the political misconception that yu have bought into.  Furhtermore, who is to say anything else will have a better than 98.5% success rate after 130 missions.  One thing is clear, even if that number is matched, it will be less capable. 

Track record for shuttle is two catastrophic failures out of 130, and fourteen dead. Soyuz' track record is better, and you can trot out whatever statistical failure analysis you care to, the track record remains the same.

As for time to "try", this is a likely result:

1.  ISS goes for years without the resupply that was intended.
2.  Operations are not sustainable.  The crew is reduced, work onboard the ISS is not anywhere near what is advertised because of the short fall in ability to get experiments and spare parts there.
3.  Commercial providers continue to move the schedule to the right until the business case is no longer there.
4.  Congress and the Administration now start playing politics, blaming NASA for this and labeling commercial transport a failure.
5.  We end up with nothing and this is used to target the nebulous "technology development" program that will take us somewhere, someday in the future.
6.  NASA will be admonished by saying they cannot be trusted with the taxpayers money and the agency is a shell.
7.  Original mission complete????

Forget the others, I have more faith in Boeing/Bigelow than that. You paint an absolute worst case scenario that conveniently forgets our international partners simply for the sake of furthering your own argument. It's not a realistic outcome, and can be easily dismissed.

NASA stand to emerge from this stronger and more capable than ever. For those of who are interested in more than stunts and flags from our elite astronaut core, the commercial path is the only one possible. All we have to have is the courage to try.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Analyst on 02/27/2010 05:49 pm
Soyuz and Shuttle are compareable safety wise. Has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Analyst
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jorge on 02/27/2010 06:15 pm
Soyuz and Shuttle are compareable safety wise. Has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Analyst

That's correct. Equal number of fatal accidents, shuttle has 3.5 times the fatalities but has carried 3.5 times the people so the fatality rates are comparable, number of successful crew returns between accidents is comparable.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/27/2010 06:27 pm
Soyuz and Shuttle are compareable safety wise. Has been discussed here ad infinitum.

Analyst

That's correct. Equal number of fatal accidents, shuttle has 3.5 times the fatalities but has carried 3.5 times the people so the fatality rates are comparable, number of successful crew returns between accidents is comparable.
a

and what are the comparable statistics for LOM when eliminating the Orbiter and just considering the Shuttle Stack and the Soyuz LV?

Optional Answers: Hypothetical, Irrelivant, Nonsensical, let's just ignore the question ;)
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: Ronsmytheiii on 02/27/2010 07:32 pm
Track record for shuttle is two catastrophic failures out of 130, and fourteen dead. Soyuz' track record is better, and you can trot out whatever statistical failure analysis you care to, the track record remains the same.

Soyuz has had two fatal accidents as well out of 104 flights, leading to the numeric conclusion that shuttle is safer.  The only reason there were more deaths on the US side was because of the capacity of the system not a reflection of its safety.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2010 07:35 pm
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?

Yes...something else: the fact that this represents an opening statement for a hearing, and is not intended to be a comprehensive manifesto of belief or viewpoint on every aspect of the space program; it's the tip of an iceberg, so to speak. Such statements are typically "short and sweet" and this one already has more comment on specifics than is the norm. So don't assume that if something's not included that it's not considered important or relevant.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jdhouse4 on 02/27/2010 08:17 pm
I wonder why Hutchinson is more concerned about launch vehicles than spacecraft. Is it because more people in Houston work on SSP than on Orion? Or because she doesn't really believe beyond LEO is going to happen any time soon? Something else?

Yes...something else: the fact that this represents an opening statement for a hearing, and is not intended to be a comprehensive manifesto of belief or viewpoint on every aspect of the space program; it's the tip of an iceberg, so to speak. Such statements are typically "short and sweet" and this one already has more comment on specifics than is the norm. So don't assume that if something's not included that it's not considered important or relevant.

Appreciate your postings that make an opaque realm more clear.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/27/2010 10:25 pm
I'm sorry you live in fear of a SDHLV.  Yearly budget for that could be as low as 1.5 billion.  Not a bad deal for a 70-80 mT capability that you essentially have today. 
Don't forget the estimated $8B for development of a SDLV, if NASA does it. If SDLV is so viable, we should privatize it and let it compete against everyone else.
Fine, "privatize" it.  Call it whatever you wish if that will make you feel better.  What is your plan for that to work anyway?

Clearly there is a development costs, these things don't grow on trees.  How much will development of the "commercial industry" cost?  At least 6 billion so far and you don't even know exactly what you are going to get for that.....

There are a matrix of possibilities on how privatizing the Shuttle and its infrastructure could happen; on one axis would be exactly what you're privatizing: Shuttle as it is, Shuttle and spin-off SDHLV, or SDHLV only. The other axis would be full privatization with a stock market offering, a distribution of shares to every resident of the US, or a partial privatization with government owning a share of the new company. Partial privatization is generally frowned on as when things get rough the new company can always go crying to Uncle Sam for more money (kinda like Freddie Mac, etc.).

I'm not close enough to the day to day operation of the Shuttle to identify the sweet spot in the matrix, but it's clear that while the Shuttle itself is expensive to operate, it does have a present day demand in the form of ISS supply and maintenance. Some sort of sweetheart contract could be cut for ISS supply that terminates within 3-5 years, at which point all the competitors would be expected to compete on price and services.

The big problem with SDHLV, privatized or not, is the lack of demand. There simply aren't any payloads of the 70-80mT size envisioned. Once the issues of in orbit refueling and alternative orbit facilities are identified, this issue may change but you would want a level playing field where ULA's Atlas V Heavy, any future SpaceX  Heavy and any other market competitors would be able to compete against a SDHLV. It's not at all clear to me that a LH2/LOX + ATK solids launcher could compete on a price basis against a robust field of competitors.

At any rate, to initiate a privatization some amount of seed money would need to be injected into the new company by the US either in the form of guaranteed contracts or outright start-up grants. You would need to assemble a sharp team of space and financial types to look at the desired privatization, what facilities would be granted to the new firm, and how the first few years would look. Then you can sit down and make a firm proposal to Congress and to Bolden.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: 93143 on 02/28/2010 03:45 am
I believe the current thrust is to have the current Shuttle contractors form a consortium to take over inline SD-HLV development, sort of like ULA but not.  They claim they could operate Shuttle at $1.8B/year for 5 flights per year, and an inline SD-HLV would probably be significantly cheaper than that.  They're interested in it; there must be a reason for this...

Unless you think Ross is lying or being led down the garden path (and there are some here who do)...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: mars.is.wet on 02/28/2010 04:36 am
I believe the current thrust is to have the current Shuttle contractors form a consortium to take over inline SD-HLV development, sort of like ULA but not.  They claim they could operate Shuttle at $1.8B/year for 5 flights per year, and an inline SD-HLV would probably be significantly cheaper than that.  They're interested in it; there must be a reason for this...

Unless you think Ross is lying or being led down the garden path (and there are some here who do)...

They are contractors.  Their estimates should always be viewed with skepticism.  I say that not out of cynicism, but out of having seen 100's of contractor proposals that were underbid, many that were authorized, and most of which were either a "buy in" or the ravings of a convincing visionary.

I can't think of a single unsolicited contractor proposal (that means, outside of a formal source selection criteria and formality) that was within 50% of what either the independent estimates or final costs ended up being. 

EELV even cost the contractors themselves more than double what they were initially willing to invest, but the USAF contract was written wisely enough to avoid having the government pick up the tab for the overrun.  Of course, instead the per flight cost was simply jacked up by 75% to make up the difference over time.

Why do people continue to believe this stuff?  Is the real world so glum that they prefer the fantasy?

Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Drapper23 on 02/28/2010 02:03 pm
Regarding the Obama Space Plan, it should be noted that the actions of the Senate NASA Authorization Subcommittee & the Senate NASA Appropriations Subcommittee are being coordinated & both Subcommittees have expressed deep concerns about the plan. Senator Mikulski(NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman) has verified this is a letter to Senator Bill Nelson(NASA Authorization Subcommittee Chairman). http://spacenews.com/policy/100217-mikulski-focus-drafting-nasa-bill.html  http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/local.ssf?/base/news/126709304163300.xml&coll=1  In addition Congressman Alan B. Mollohan(NASA Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman) & his subcommittee have also expressed deep misgivings about the Obama Space Plan. http://spacenews.com/policy/100225-house-appropriators-grill-obama-science-adviser.html   Thirdly, the House Authorization Committee has also strongly criticized the Obama Space Plan. http://science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2752  http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100219/NEWS0204/2190314/1007/NEWS02/Shuttle+s+extension+in+works  All this criticism leads to only one conclusion. The Obama Space Plan in its present form is simply not going to be accepted by the US Congress. Thus, the most likely NASA Appropriation bill to be adopted by the Congress will mirror a future NASA Authorization Bill. It will call for Shuttle extension, a commercially operated SD-HLV & a manned spacecraft similiar to the Orion Spacecraft. Anything else is simply not going to be acceptable to the Congress. Obama will get increased commercial funding, increased technology development & increases in unmanned planetary exploration. With the Congress' efforts, the final NASA Appropriations bill will be an excellent compromise between the Constellation POR & the all commercial manned spaceflight Obama proposal.  http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/02/charlie-precourt-atks-astronaut-fights-obama-space-plan.html
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: William Barton on 02/28/2010 02:26 pm
C'mon man, gimme a break. Even if every HSF program was canceled today the world would remain largely the same. ... Canceling HSF gets you nothing (except a bunch of angry space enthusiasts)

Bingo! Although you probably didn't want to say it: HSF means pretty much nothing in this world, it does not matter, does not serve any purpose for the world population. Without it, the world would be the same.

Except for the few who work for it (pretty much noone with respect to the world popultation) and people like us (a very small minority too), noone does care. Be thankful for the budget you get: Cancelling HSF gets you more than $10 billion / year worldwide. I wouldn't call this nothing.

Analyst

Taken in context of worldwide budgets, I'd call it "next to nothing." It's very useful to try spending that $10bln on something "useful," especially if you look for particularly eggregious examples. Hey, we could cancel HSF worldwide and send the entire population of Vanuatu to Harvard for a couple of semesters... On the other hand, the number of people who do care about HSF is close enough to "no one" as doesn't matter. When yo think about it, the number of people who care about unmanned space exploration is probably an order of magnitude smaller still, so the justification for cancelling it (and saving those hundreds of millions of dollars) is probably valid as well. Which leads to an even more important question: How many people actually support the existence of any space activities at all, worldwide? It is almost certainly a small minority, consisting almost entirely of people who perceive themselves as benefiting from the existence of comsats, metsats, and spysats. Esepcially when you consider it's likely a majority of human beings are unaware there are such things, if a democratic vote were held (cancel all space activities and distribute the money proportionately to all human beings), I bet space would lose. What would each human get? Fifty bucks maybe? Chump change to you and me, but food for months in many parts of the world. Be careful how you rationlize. It can be used to eliminate almost anything you could ever want.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Nascent Ascent on 02/28/2010 02:53 pm
http://www.space.com/news/obama-science-advisor-nasa-plan-sn-100225.html

Looks like a lot of members of the House Appropriations committee don't like Obama's plan either.

Lack of information and no real plan...

Why doesn't Obama talk publicly about the program?

Smug, arrogant behaviours...
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Ben the Space Brit on 02/28/2010 04:57 pm
Why doesn't Obama talk publicly about the program?

He probably doesn't care about it one way or the other.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/28/2010 05:52 pm
I always love such 'realism', especially with this poster who stretches his reading of 60 years of HSF and the current mess in the US program to the entire future of humanity.

A lot can happen between Apollo 17 and when Sol dies five billion years from now. The current narcissism is not more than a blink of our eyes.
I'm sorry, but you're in denial. We don't have 5 billion years.

Allow me to repeat: we no longer have the ressources (or the will) to go BEO.

You most assuredly are incorrect here. A friend is a managing partner of one of the VC's behind SpaceX, and he tells me Musk's long term goal is to beat NASA to Mars and land there sometime in the 2020's. I know of a start-up that's working on a lunar lander that requires nothing more than two 25mT launches.

This is why the commercial space is so important. As things stand today, almost the entire world has to channel their dreams of space exploration through a single government organization, NASA, that politely put has some issues. No person's dreams can be adequately expressed or explored. With commercial space anyone with a dream and some resources to put behind it is welcome to make their dreams a reality.

Rest assured: we will go to the planets, and we're not going to stop there.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Chris Bergin on 02/28/2010 05:53 pm
Thread deleted back a bit due to rambling about starving kids in Africa - of all things.

Long thread, keep on topic, don't treat it as a chat room.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Par
Post by: jimgagnon on 02/28/2010 06:10 pm
I believe the current thrust is to have the current Shuttle contractors form a consortium to take over inline SD-HLV development, sort of like ULA but not.  They claim they could operate Shuttle at $1.8B/year for 5 flights per year, and an inline SD-HLV would probably be significantly cheaper than that.  They're interested in it; there must be a reason for this...

Unless you think Ross is lying or being led down the garden path (and there are some here who do)...

I saw a cryptic comment on another forum of $1.5B/year, no mention of flight rate. It's clear someone's floating a trial balloon to see what people think about a privately operated shuttle. At the very least it will take them several years and layoffs/union busting to get down to that burn rate. Still, I have long term sustainability concerns about operating the Shuttle another five or ten years.

However, if they think they can do it and meet all of NASA's safety concerns, then more power to 'em.
Title: Re: LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2
Post by: Halidon on 02/28/2010 06:11 pm