Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 493815 times)

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #560 on: 02/17/2011 06:30 am »
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D.  It is DDT&E.  At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. 
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize. 
Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
    That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.

    (It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.)

    With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly.  Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV.
     -Alex


edit: grammar typo
« Last Edit: 02/17/2011 07:27 am by alexw »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #561 on: 02/17/2011 07:40 am »
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D.  It is DDT&E.  At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. 
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize. 
Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
    That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.

    (It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.)

    With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly.  Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV.
     -Alex
edit: grammar typo
He's right.  Which is why I keep pushing for AJAX, a back-door to give us this ability.  While we may use the RD-180 (which is just under a million lb thrust engine) there is the ability to develop a replacement, and our idea is to do just that, or to just bring RD-180 production domestic.  It can be made to launch soon, be made to launch for less, and would enable us to focus our R&D into a cross-spectrum system, making us more viable.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #562 on: 02/17/2011 01:23 pm »
That's because SLS is not meant to be R&D.  It is DDT&E.  At some point you have to take what you know and make something out of it. 
As I have said multiple times, it is about finding the right balance and have an overall strategy to pay accordingly for the "real R&D" in a progressive manner based on when you think you may need some of the benefits assuming they materialize. 
Right on. The ones who want NASA grounded doing nothing but R&D will end up with the scene out of Independence Day where they have been cooked up in an underground bunker spending money on nothing applicable or of interest to the public.
As the Congress and Senate said, we don't need five years of "R&D" to work out what HLV to use. That was defeated, time for some people to get over it.
    That's a nice soundbite, but actually, the Obama FY2011 budget proposal suggested spending a few years -- beginning immediately -- developing a million-lbf-class kerolox engine, probably staged combustion, thereby catching the United States up with the USSR circa 1985. You can belittle that as "R&D" if you like.

    (It's also what the DOD apparently believes they need.)

    With such an engine in hand, either ULA or SpaceX could clearly build a 5-6m core vehicle derived from many of their existing processes and infrastructure, probably fairly quickly.  Alternatively, the 8.4m Michoud tanking (or even 10m, if you want it) could be used for larger monolithic designs. The performance and flexibility of such vehicle families is well known. Augustine observed that the BEO vehicle -- booster + upper stage -- comes online slightly faster for kerolox than for SDHLV.
     -Alex


edit: grammar typo

That would also be DDT&E.  It is a specific LRU.

Moreover, has SpaceX even ever said they want a generic engine like that?  Their track record would seem to indicate they prefer an engine made in-house.  With respect to ULA, if the DoD believes they "need" it, let them fund it. 

NASA does not require this for exploration nor do they need it for CRS or commercial crew.  I don't know what you are saying about what "Augustine observed" but I do not buy, and nobody will convince me otherwise, that a brand new engine, core stage, upper stage, etc will come online faster than something more shuttle-derived. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #563 on: 02/17/2011 02:59 pm »
Amen to that JonGoff, I am headed to cape canaveral March 12-13 if anyone wants to get a drink, watch a launch?

STS-133 is launching Feb 24 or 25..........oh right, you hate shuttle :D

One can actually simultaneously think the STS has been bad policy, while still thinking that it's a damn-cool rocket vehicle, and that the people who make it fly safely are amazing. It's called nuance.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6807
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3987
  • Likes Given: 1684
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #564 on: 02/17/2011 03:02 pm »

The problem is that most posters here and most congressmen as well act like they have no clue about the difference between the two. They act like all spending on stuff at NASA is R&D, when in reality only a small fraction of NASA's budget is involved in actual R&D. I do agree that R&D has to be converted into an end product (preferably a wide range of end products with multiple users) in order to be useful to anyone.

Personally, I think the balance at NASA for a long time has been way to much on operations and DDT&E and too little on R&D, and I'm glad that Obama isn't giving up easily on trying to restore a better balance.

~Jon

I agree with your second point, but not the first. It would be nice to convert research into something tangible, but research can lead to new discoveries which have no direct tangible benefit, but are clearly important. A new technique is not a product, and yet I have seen a few techniques developed through the reading of technical papers on the technical server, that are of benefit to everyone.

And for something like closed loop recycling techniques, the greatest benefit is exploration for NASA, not the commercial market per-se. Yes, it has terrestrial applications, but not to the level NASA is seeking its use for.

Now back OT...(sorry for the stray)

Sorry, I guess my point was that R&D does have to produce something tangible in the end to be useful, but you're right, new techniques are just as tangible as products.  My main point was that a lot of stuff gets labeled as R&D (and sold as R&D) when it isn't.  Like when Utah congresspeople talk about how spending money on SRB-using HLVs is somehow developing cutting-edge technologies. They're politicians, so I don't blame them too much for being either uninformed or blatantly dishonest.  I just worry that a lot of people get fooled by stuff like that.

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #565 on: 02/17/2011 04:11 pm »
But I think that's kind of the point.  Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently.  Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme.  Where it does matter is generally in the cost. 

If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there.  That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope. 

I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face.  I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now. 
« Last Edit: 02/17/2011 04:13 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #566 on: 02/17/2011 09:11 pm »
But I think that's kind of the point.  Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently.  Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme.  Where it does matter is generally in the cost. 

If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there.  That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope. 

I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face.  I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now. 
We don't need rocket technology R&D, we have solid, reliable lift. We need BEO technology.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #567 on: 02/18/2011 12:16 am »
But I think that's kind of the point.  Everything doesn't need to be supposedly cutting-edge technology for it to work efficiently.  Politicians and others can call it what they want, I personally really don't think it matters in the grand scheme.  Where it does matter is generally in the cost. 

If we scrap everything, start over to replace it with supposedly cutting-edge technology, there is a learning curve there.  That learning curve usually shows up in DDT&E and initial ops costs until that learning curve doesn't have such a steep slope. 

I think everyone is aware of the budget issues we face.  I truly believe it is time to start building what we can now, with what we know now, and let the limited dollars that are available for this type thing be used for what we will eventually need and do not have significant experience with now. 
We don't need rocket technology R&D, we have solid, reliable lift. We need BEO technology.

I'm quite aware of that.  We also have the ability to go beyond LEO.  Let's not pretend otherwise. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1963
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #568 on: 02/18/2011 01:26 am »
We also have the ability to go beyond LEO.  Let's not pretend otherwise. 

Who is "we" in that sentence?  The United States?  What vehicle gives us that ability?

Maybe you meant, "The United States aerospace industry knows what it would take to deploy a BLEO capability, given Apollo-like government funding?"
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #569 on: 02/18/2011 01:32 am »
I think the context of the sentance can speak for itself and I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out based on the current reality.  And no, it does not need Apollo-level funding.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 05:44 am by Carl G »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1963
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #570 on: 02/18/2011 04:33 am »
Quote
I think the context of the sentence ["We also have the ability to go beyond LEO"] can speak for itself and I'm sure you are smart enough to figure it out based on the current reality.

Apparently I'm not as smart as you think.  My best guess at the current reality is that there will be no funding that allows human BLEO exploration before 2040.  Thus, we do not have the ability to go beyond LEO.

Quote
And no, it does not need Apollo-level funding.

Only with what that implies does your view begin to come clear.  The implication is that with a sub-Apollo level of funding NASA and its industrial base could develop a CxP-like BLEO exploration capability.

What member of the Augustine Commission was Musk quoting when he wrote, "If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn’t change, our next action would have to be to cancel it?"

I'm sure you're smart enough to connect the dots....
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 05:44 am by Carl G »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #571 on: 02/18/2011 07:25 am »
I think that people often misunderstand what the focus on innovation and 'cutting edge technology' is really about.

I don't think that anyone really seriously believes it is impossible do do things with Apollo and Shuttle legacy technology only.  The driver for innovation is that it requires a new generation of technical professionals - scientists and engineers - to develop and build these technologies.  This, in turn, will (theoretically) encourage kids coming through the school system to study the sciences and engineering and then go on to college to complete their technical education.  This (once again, in theory) will increase the number of children sticking with school rather than dropping out to be Ganstas and will instead become high-earning members of the middle class.  This will achieve the objectives of:

1) Reducing inner-city poverty and social deprivation;
2) Encourage social mobility;
3) Increase tax revenues without changing existing taxation bands.

No where in this, you will note is "build sustainable space technology" mentioned.  That is because it isn't an issue.  Space and other jobs are a means to the economic and sociological ends, not an end in themselves.  I'm quite sure that some of the theorists behind this concept would be content if NASA never flies another thing so long as it provides a large number of subsidized technical jobs which, in turn, will drive increased college recruitment and high-school graduations.

Just how I see it...
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #572 on: 02/18/2011 01:35 pm »
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2011/02/18/another-nasa-funding-amendment-to-watch/

Quote
Among the amendments that have not yet been taken up on the floor of the House is one by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) that would, in effect, defund NASA’s exploration program:

    Amendment No. 96: At the end of the bill, after the short
    title, insert the following new section:
    Sec. 4002. None of the funds made available by this Act
    may be used for “National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration, Exploration”.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #573 on: 02/18/2011 01:50 pm »
The irony is, of course, that with CxP just a ghost program now, HSF wouldn't be greatly affected by this amendment.  What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.  I strongly suspect that this is the exact opposite effect to that intended.

I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever.  What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 01:50 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #574 on: 02/18/2011 02:10 pm »
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.
Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.

I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever.  What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.
I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 02:14 pm by psloss »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #575 on: 02/18/2011 02:27 pm »
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.
Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.

I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever.  What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.
I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.


Have been told that amendment was withdrawn last night but checking....
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #576 on: 02/18/2011 02:54 pm »
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.
Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.

I suspect that Rep DeFazio thought that he was being very clever.  What he has instead shown is that he has no clue how NASA actually works.
I'm skeptical that Representative DeFazio is that naïve about the impact of what he's proposing.


He is playing a game of chicken.

Apparently, DeFazio is a big fan or subsidies for Organic Farming.  It would be a shame if a few hundred frakked-off space fans and a few thousand laid off NASA employees started lobbying their congressmen to stop subsidizing Organic Farming and anything else DeFazio likes wouldn't it?  A couple calls in most districts would be enough to tip a congressman on such a marginal issue.
« Last Edit: 02/18/2011 03:37 pm by M_Puckett »

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 687
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 165
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #577 on: 02/18/2011 08:38 pm »
What it would do is compel the shut-down of all the robot probes like Cassini, New Horizons, Mercury Messenger and the MERs as well as cancelling Juno and MSL.
Those would fall under the Science Mission Directorate, not Exploration.

Additionally, MSL is not really in the same category as Cassini, New Horizons, MERs, etc as far as vulnerability to cancellation. When the hardware has been designed, launched, and is at or on route to the destination, that program is relatively safe if it still has scientific value, since all you need to keep it going is a small human resources cost for the team running it. A project like MSL, with huge cost overruns and the need for major additional outlays before any mission objectives can be realized, is really a completely separate deal.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #578 on: 02/19/2011 12:40 am »
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.

With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?

Offline Starlab90

  • NASA Retired
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
  • Huntsville, AL
  • Liked: 786
  • Likes Given: 314
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #579 on: 02/19/2011 12:53 am »
Forgive me if this was already answered in the myriad of posts, but what happens if this congress is shut down, as something that is being thrown around now (that I'm now hearing on CNN)? Apparently it was done by the Republicans a number of years ago.

With no CR past March 4th, where do things stand for NASA (let alone the rest of government)?

If there is no CR or other appropriations legislation, then all Federal workers considered "non-essential" go home and stay until called back to work.

It happened twice in late 1995 because of a stand-off between the Republican-controlled Congress and President Clinton. The first time was for a couple of days in November, and the second time was for a couple of weeks during the Christmas holiday period, when most people are planning to be off, anyway. Eventually they came to a budget agreement and everybody came back to work without losing pay.

How it plays out this time is anybody's (51D?) guess. I read somewhere that there are 87 (IIRC) Freshmen Congressmen out there who don't feel they need to compromise with anybody

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0