Just a quick aside. The issue of short tons versus metric tons, as it pertains to SLS,. keeps coming up again and again, causing confusion. I believe it has been referred to in the legislation as short tons.... 2000 pounds of 'em.Chris: Maybe you could post a sticky at the top of this section: SLS is in short tons? Just to keep from having to rehash this particular issue.
... Where minimal language is included in a CR to underscore or refine intent or direct specific funding floors, it is generally done in response to a felt need for clarification or direction. ...
http://twitter.com/#!/jeff_foust/status/58575672788004864Quotejeff_foust Jeff FoustThe provision in NASA FY11 approps bill calling for 130-ton SLS reportedly added at request of Rep. Aderholt (R-AL): http://bit.ly/h6YMLlEdit: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/04/14/the-source-of-the-130-ton-sls-provision/
jeff_foust Jeff FoustThe provision in NASA FY11 approps bill calling for 130-ton SLS reportedly added at request of Rep. Aderholt (R-AL): http://bit.ly/h6YMLl
"The budget deal is a good one for Marshall, for NASA, and for the space community at large," agreed former NASA administrator Michael Griffin. Griffin and others like it that the agreement specifies a rocket with "a lift capability not less than 130 tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously."Now an eminent scholar at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Griffin said wherever America goes next in space, "and in the final analysis it is not a choice that the present administration will be able to make, we will need heavy-lift launch capability. Study after study has shown that 130 metric tons is the lower useful limit for such a vehicle."The 130-ton language was added to the deal by Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., chairman of the House NASA appropriations subcommittee, at the urging of Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Haleyville. Aderholt, who also sits on the NASA appropriations subcommittee, is one many in Congress skeptical that President Barack Obama's administration is really committed to a new NASA rocket.
Study after study has shown that 130 metric tons is the lower useful limit for such a vehicle.
Quote from: GriffinStudy after study has shown that 130 metric tons is the lower useful limit for such a vehicle.Alright, I'm getting confused. If SLS is supposed to be short tons, why is Griffin saying metric? Was he misquoted or is he so out of the loop that he's doesn't know what he's talking about?
House just passed full-year CR 260 to 167.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53204.html
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/14/2011 06:55 pmQuote from: GriffinStudy after study has shown that 130 metric tons is the lower useful limit for such a vehicle.Alright, I'm getting confused. If SLS is supposed to be short tons, why is Griffin saying metric? Was he misquoted or is he so out of the loop that he's doesn't know what he's talking about?Mr. Bolden said at the Apr 11, 2011 hearing by the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, that NASA uses metric tons - as a clarification to the confusion.Mr. Bolden is not "out of the loop".
I'm aware NASA assumed the 130 ton requirement was in metric tons initially, but I thought congress already clarified they meant short tons, so I thought it's peculiar.
Quote from: renclod on 04/14/2011 07:02 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/14/2011 06:55 pmQuote from: GriffinStudy after study has shown that 130 metric tons is the lower useful limit for such a vehicle.Alright, I'm getting confused. If SLS is supposed to be short tons, why is Griffin saying metric? Was he misquoted or is he so out of the loop that he's doesn't know what he's talking about?Mr. Bolden said at the Apr 11, 2011 hearing by the Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, that NASA uses metric tons - as a clarification to the confusion.Mr. Bolden is not "out of the loop".They are using the "metric ton" interpretation in order to justify various aspects of CxP, a la HEFT 5/5, nee Ares-V Classic: 5-segment boosters, J2X upper stage engine, etc.Remember, CxP was Apollo-on-Steroids, and the Saturn-V could lift 130 metric tons to LEO, so there's no way any new HLV, CxP/Shuttle derived or not, is going to be smaller than Saturn-V. Otherwise, NASA might as well have gone with DIRECT four years ago. Can't have that! The J-241H (5/4 with upper stage) was specced at 130 short tons, which would also utilize the 5-segment boosters and J2X, but they just really really want that extra 10% that the "metric" interpretation gives them.
I personally prefer the use of metric tons, but that's another discussion; I will just say the authors of the law did not intend to mandate "short tons" on NASA, so would have no issue with the design being developed using the generally-used measure of "metric tons." That's my assertion and if you can find one of them to say differently, please quote them directly.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/14/2011 07:07 pmI'm aware NASA assumed the 130 ton requirement was in metric tons initially, but I thought congress already clarified they meant short tons, so I thought it's peculiar."Congress" has never "clarified" that it meant "short tons." I have repeatedly commented that I believe it should be considered "metric tons," since that IS the terminology normally associated with space vehicle lift capability. The fact it is not specifically spelled out that way in the 2010 Authorization Act is unfortunate, but in the end, insignificant in that NASA's assumption of the capability requirement as being expressed in metric tons is not going to be challenged by anyone in the Congress that I am aware of, as yg1968 suggested in a previous post.
They are using the "metric ton" interpretation in order to justify various aspects of CxP, a la HEFT 5/5, nee Ares-V Classic: 5-segment boosters, J2X upper stage engine, etc.Remember, CxP was Apollo-on-Steroids, and the Saturn-V could lift 130 metric tons to LEO, so there's no way any new HLV, CxP/Shuttle derived or not, is going to be smaller than Saturn-V. Otherwise, NASA might as well have gone with DIRECT four years ago. Can't have that! The J-241H (5/4 with upper stage) was specced at 130 short tons, which would also utilize the 5-segment boosters and J2X, but they just really really want that extra 10% that the "metric" interpretation gives them.
Quote from: 51D Mascot on 04/14/2011 07:22 pmQuote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 04/14/2011 07:07 pmI'm aware NASA assumed the 130 ton requirement was in metric tons initially, but I thought congress already clarified they meant short tons, so I thought it's peculiar."Congress" has never "clarified" that it meant "short tons." I have repeatedly commented that I believe it should be considered "metric tons," since that IS the terminology normally associated with space vehicle lift capability. The fact it is not specifically spelled out that way in the 2010 Authorization Act is unfortunate, but in the end, insignificant in that NASA's assumption of the capability requirement as being expressed in metric tons is not going to be challenged by anyone in the Congress that I am aware of, as yg1968 suggested in a previous post. Thank you. Perhaps I was under that impression because of posts like this:Quote from: Mark S on 04/14/2011 07:19 pmThey are using the "metric ton" interpretation in order to justify various aspects of CxP, a la HEFT 5/5, nee Ares-V Classic: 5-segment boosters, J2X upper stage engine, etc.Remember, CxP was Apollo-on-Steroids, and the Saturn-V could lift 130 metric tons to LEO, so there's no way any new HLV, CxP/Shuttle derived or not, is going to be smaller than Saturn-V. Otherwise, NASA might as well have gone with DIRECT four years ago. Can't have that! The J-241H (5/4 with upper stage) was specced at 130 short tons, which would also utilize the 5-segment boosters and J2X, but they just really really want that extra 10% that the "metric" interpretation gives them.So just to be sure, are you saying NASA was completely justified in using the "metric interpretation" 51D and that congress has no problem with that?
...... Can't have that! The ...5/4 with [J-2X] upper stage...
Frankly, I am waiting to see what NASA does once the CR is finally passed and the prohibition against CxP contract cancellations is revoked. I expect the first contract cancellation with a few weeks, if not sooner, and with no modifications or novations to support SLS in sight.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 04/14/2011 06:08 pmJust a quick aside. The issue of short tons versus metric tons, as it pertains to SLS,. keeps coming up again and again, causing confusion. I believe it has been referred to in the legislation as short tons.... 2000 pounds of 'em.NASA considers it to be metric tonnes and nobody in Congress intends to contradict NASA on this issue. So what it says doesn't matter a whole lot, if both parties construe it the same way.
Just a quick aside. The issue of short tons versus metric tons, as it pertains to SLS,. keeps coming up again and again, causing confusion. I believe it has been referred to in the legislation as short tons.... 2000 pounds of 'em.
The fact it is not specifically spelled out that way in the 2010 Authorization Act is unfortunate, but in the end, insignificant in that NASA's assumption of the capability requirement as being expressed in metric tons is not going to be challenged by anyone in the Congress that I am aware of...
Sure. I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX.