LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2

[yg1968]

...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). 

[mmeijeri]

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.

[SpacexULA]

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.

[marsavian]

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

[yg1968]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[Lee Jay]

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.

[mmeijeri]

How does this work with Continuing Resolutions?

[kraisee]

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.

[kraisee]

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.

[Namechange User]

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. 

[mmeijeri]

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.

[Lee Jay]

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.

[mmeijeri]

Yeah, okay, I meant appropriation.  My mistake but the appropriation is the one that matters.

How so? Don't you need both?

[psloss]

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).

[kraisee]

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.

[Namechange User]

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. 

[Namechange User]

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.

[robertross]

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.

[kraisee]

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.