Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 708699 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17209
  • Liked: 7067
  • Likes Given: 3043
The Senate is moving forward in the normal process to pass its bill, without regard to what the House does; that's just the normal course of business, that leads eventually to a conference process between the two bodies to determine the content of a final product.

Does anyone know if there's a published version of the latest draft of the Senate bill, eg including the change to a 130mT upper limit in place of the original 150mT?

Edit: haven't been able to find anything more up-to-date than the Rockefeller PDF.

cheers, Martin

This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 04:10 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

Retention of skilled workforce is a good idea - up to a point. It should not be a primary reason.

Many seem to believe that letting go of skilled workforce will make that knowledge go away forever. Not me. I have faith in american know-how, intelligence, and current/future workforce. They will get it done, if given a chance.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

Retention of skilled workforce is a good idea - up to a point. It should not be a primary reason.

Many seem to believe that letting go of skilled workforce will make that knowledge go away forever. Not me. I have faith in american know-how, intelligence, and current/future workforce. They will get it done, if given a chance.

Quite frankly, that is a ridiculous statement, even if you try to spin it and intentionally remove most of my statement because you probably know you cannot rebuttle it. 

For folks that carry on again and again about cost and schedule to an extrodinary degree it would seem silly to handicap ourselves from the beginning by having to re-learn what we know now. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7203
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 802
  • Likes Given: 896
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

2) Combined lunar spacecraft (with dry EDS);

3) NEO encounter vehicle (split into seperate propulsion and hab/return segments over two launches).
"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!!!

Online Chris Bergin

What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 04:39 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online Chris Bergin

What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

2) Combined lunar spacecraft (with dry EDS);

3) NEO encounter vehicle (split into seperate propulsion and hab/return segments over two launches).

Thanks Ben, that DOES answer the question I asked :)
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MP99

This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf

Many thanks, that is later than I was able to find.

cheers, Martin

Edit: quote.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 04:40 pm by MP99 »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3

This is the latest version of the Senate Bill that I have seen (which includes the 130t requirement):
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

Some of the numbers were later changed during the appropriation process, see here (starts at page 115):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr229.111.pdf


Authorization.

(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.
 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
 (A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
 (B) The capability to carry an integrated upper Earth departure stage bringing the total lift capability of the Space Launch System to 130 tons or more.
 (C) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
 (D) The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
 (2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. The Space Launch System shall, to the extent practicable, incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to carry heavier payloads. Developmental work and testing of the core elements and the upper stage should proceed in parallel subject to appropriations. Priority should be placed on the core elements with the goal for operational capability for the core elements not later than December 31, 2016.
 (3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and developed, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow-on Space Launch System.
 (4) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.




Appropriations.

Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle.—The Committee provides $1,900,000,000 to begin building an integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system. The system shall enable human transportation at the highest possible safety standards and lowest life cycle costs for beyond low Earth orbit and shall be designed, managed, and integrated by the Marshall Space Flight Center. This funding shall be part of a sustained, evolvable effort around a common core to culminate in an initial human capability by 2016. The system shall be evolvable to lift the necessary elements for missions beyond low Earth orbit in order to extend human exploration capabilities. The program shall be managed under a strict cost cap of $11,500,000,000 through fiscal year 2017.

Within 60 days of enactment, NASA shall report to the committee on planned milestones, expected performance of the low Earth orbit and beyond low Earth orbit configurations, planned ground and early flight testing programs and deliverables for the heavy lift launch vehicle program, along with any existing contract vehicles the Agency intends to use for this purpose. As part of this report, NASA shall evaluate the preceding cost cap and validate the cap or provide a viable and validated alternative.
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 04:58 pm by marsavian »

Offline MP99

What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

There are three payloads that I know of that exist for the upper range:

1) Light lunar cargo lander;

Not particularly "light".

Note that Ed's site gives only 120mT to Ares V Classic (LV27.3) with HTPB SRB's, and 145 ton to LEO for Ares V with 6x RS68B & 5.5 seg SRB's. http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/ares5.html

cheers, Martin

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Technically in the bill it is a US short ton unless the word metric or tonne is specifically used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonne

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

Is that your opinion, or do you have clear knowledge of the future?

I think you assume too much about what tomorrow may bring.

You may not like what tomorrow will bring given the current NASA budget and the choice of completing a SDHLV, but this depends on the cost estimates and the available budget.

A better metric is to examine Total LV Cost per Year versus Metric Tons to orbit each year.  Then compare this to the available budget.

It is discussed a bit here:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622563#msg622563


And Augustine said the same thing: (thanks Neilh for this post)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=18752.msg622687#msg622687


To summarize:

So taking Ross's numbers off of the charts:
MT      J-246     Atlas V      J-246    Atlas V
           $B          $B           $/kg      $kg
200     2.3       1.8         11500    9000
400     2.9       3.1          7250     7750
600     3.3       4.0          5500     6667
800     3.8       5.0          4750     6250

From this one could conclude:

Adding a propellant depot that can store fuel for a long period of time allows NASA to loft non-fuel hardware in 1 to 2 flights, regardless of launch vehicle.

1.7B nonrecurring costs/yr of a SDLV could be diverted in a second FY to a payload/mission using Atlas as the primary LV.

With ISS at 2.1B per year, there still is not adequate funding for landers, outposts, and Mars, at the PRESENT time, since the vehicles need development $$ first, which is likely why the flexible path option was presented, not because it was a reason to stop HSF.

At such a low flight rate, NASA must develop a new "duel use" workforce strategy, where experienced, dedicated workers place their talents on other programs besides just HLV operations.

It comes down to how much metric tons to orbit NASA can afford each year.  My guess is that it is no where near 400MT. :-\  YMMV

Then there is political "compromise".

from previous post reference:
 Vehicle.—The Committee provides
$1,900,000,000 to begin building an integrated heavy lift launch vehicle system. The system shall enable human transportation at the highest possible safety standards and lowest life cycle costs for beyond low Earth orbit and shall be designed, managed, and integrated by the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Congress is mandating to NASA managers and engineers to carry a 1.7B/year (?) non-recurring cost for the SDLV, which would only be necessary if NASA launches over 400MT of payload per year, but Congress has not and likely will not provide budget for this 400MT per year.

Given that cost vs MT comparison above does not include the 10B+ development costs of the HLV, you can see how most would reach a conclusion different from Congress.

Offline MP99

What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

The Mars DRA 5.0 architcture requires five launches for a crewed mission, none of is listed as more than 110mT, despite being launched on Ares V's.

Each crewed mission requires two additional cargo missions (one surface hab, one lander), which require a total of seven launches, none of more than 103.6mT.

Most of these are fuelled-up propulsion stages, which are basically a third "in space only" stage on top of the existing Ares V's two stages. However, none of these numbers account for boiloff or LEO station keeping, so there is probably additional mass not accounted for above (ie the figures probably shouldn't be labelled as "launch mass").

NB adding a third stage seem to be the easiest way to really bump up the payload of an SDLV.

cheers, Martin

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 366
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 5
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

While retention of a skilled workforce and understood and proven hardware should seem like an obviously smart thing to do, you and many who spout your uninformed dogma over and over again is boardering on annoyance.

A shuttle derived vehicle in no way will guarantee the workforce transitions in a 1:1 format.  The most significant portion of the STS workfoce, the orbiter - which equates to the highest number of heads from ground operations, engineering and mission operations, will not all transfer to SLS or whatever it ends up being called. 

OV106 is correct but it is worse than he states. The problem is not have actual SDHLV hardware to work on for years to come.

It is too late for a shuttle derived vehicle to guarantee any major workforce transition.  Most will have to be laid-off.  A simple breakdown of the shuttle workforce goes something like this:

1 - Personnel to assemble and test the FWD and AFT skirt assemblies for the SRB’s in the ARF
2 - Personnel to stack the FWD and AFT assemblies with solid rocket motors to make the SRB’s and test in VAB
3 - Personnel to attach ET and shuttle to the stack and test
4 - Personnel to roll out to pad
5 - Personnel to test at the pad
6 - Personnel to launch
7 - Personnel to recover the SRB and disassemble
8 - Personnel for shuttle landing
9 - Personnel to refurbish the shuttle for next launch

There are others but the point is that most of these people will not be needed after the last launch and the gap to SDHLV is too long.

The people working on 8 and 9 will not be needed at all, people doing #1 are already being cut by 50% in October with more to follow.  I don’t think USA and NASA will have the budget to pay these people to sit around like Maytag repairmen waiting the 3 to 4 years it will take to get actual hardware at KSC to assemble, stack and test for the first test flight of a shuttle derived vehicle.

They might be able to hire some back in 2 or 3 years but most will be gone.
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7662
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

The Mars DRA 5.0 architcture requires five launches for a crewed mission, none of is listed as more than 110mT, despite being launched on Ares V's.

Each crewed mission requires two additional cargo missions (one surface hab, one lander), which require a total of seven launches, none of more than 103.6mT.

Most of these are fuelled-up propulsion stages, which are basically a third "in space only" stage on top of the existing Ares V's two stages. However, none of these numbers account for boiloff or LEO station keeping, so there is probably additional mass not accounted for above (ie the figures probably shouldn't be labelled as "launch mass").

NB adding a third stage seem to be the easiest way to really bump up the payload of an SDLV.

cheers, Martin

Note for Mars DRA 5.0: it was tailored around the Ares V, so drwaing specific references from it must be taken with a grain of salt (imo).

Until we get to the point where we know our actual hardware requirements (based on TRL of: ISRU, PD, advanced propulsion,...) we are only putting estimates on these things. So having a growth option is a grand idea, just as long as it doesn't tie you into an unnecessary architecture (which has been the debate among the various groups for so long now on here). So choose a vehicle that can grow to meet your needs (and move over to the Direct threads to find such a vehicle ;) ).

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.

My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 06:40 pm by Lars_J »

Offline nooneofconsequence

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1391
  • no one is playing fair ...
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
In your opinion, is the quick passage of an unamended House bill a good thing or a bad thing?
It is a bad thing. Amendments move things along faster, reduce conference issues. Makes things more predictable.

My worry is that the House fights for more irrational/waste introduced into the Senate, and it kills the compromise in an unpredicted way.

And then everything wanders off into the tuiles for awhile - like earlier this year.

Must be very frustrating.
"Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something" - Plato

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What sort of payloads would we be talking about in those higher ranges? MTV propulsion stages? Someone's going with those numbers for a reason, I'd assume.

To guarantee that a Shuttle-derived solution, and the jobs that go with it. Of course there is no actual need for such lift capacity in the foreseeable future.

That is not the question I asked, and unfortuntely your comment is false. Since the 150 and 130 figures have been mentioned, the charge that it works against the SSP's currently favored SD HLV Sidemount even via Block evolutions has been noted.

My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

There are some words in various pieces of legislation that state it should be *evolvable*, which is very, very key, up to 150 tons and even that upper limit is reported to be reduced. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Spot on.

As someone who has followed the Direct story form the beginning (Ross first suggested it in a thread that I started about a RS-68 Ares I), I have to say that the language of the Senate Bill perfectly corresponds to the original motivation for Direct. It calls for quick development of a very-shuttle-derived HLV using the maximum amount of Shuttle infrastructure and resources. Everything else about Direct (ACES upper stage, EOR-LOR, etc) is tangential and relatively unimportant.

In my mind, the original Direct concept died a year ago when Not-Shuttle-C was presented to Augustine Commission. What had been rantings on web forum before became potential government policy afterwards. If passed, the Senate language would make the motivation behind Direct into official NASA policy. That's a victory Direct supporters should cherish, and leave everything else to professional trade studies...
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 07:13 pm by simonbp »

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 677
  • Likes Given: 195
My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Oh Mike, please stop trying to analyze my "groupthink" and assign whatever motives you think I have.

But if you insist, I have a similar suggestion for you: Please try to see the issues outside of of your USA and Shuttle worker perspective, and as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?

If you think so, then more power to you. But many others (myself included) do not share that opinion. And that is OK.

As for your statement "What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality": Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 07:18 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
My reply was not meant a theoretical statement of truth, just one of practicality. We won't be able to afford those payloads in the *foreseeable future* (this time I emphasize that). So we can draw out plans for 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters all we want, with theoretical payloads (O'neill stattions, BSG ships) - but we can't afford them, so what is the point?

Part of your problem is that you and others are in a "group-think" mode of conjecture and substituting that as some sort of fact.  This "group-think" mentality has collectively branded a group and a particular vehicle as the enemy and one that needs to be blamed for why you and others are not flying around on a spaceship.  What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality.

Oh Mike, please stop trying to analyze my "groupthink" and assign whatever motives you think I have.

But if you insist, I have a similar suggestion for you: Please try to see the issues outside of of your USA and Shuttle worker perspective, and as a generic tax payer and space advocate. What is the best path forward for future manned space exploration/expansion? Is it really holding on to the Shuttle infrastructure?

If you think so, then more power to you. But many others (myself included) do not share that opinion. And that is OK.

As for your statement "What you say above is equally not even grounded in reality": Oh really - What part?
 - That we can't afford 150 mT payloads in the foreseeable future?
 - That we can't build 150 mT, 200mT, or 500mT lifters, *and* afford their payloads?

Hah, that is actually pretty funny.  In reality, you have no idea about anything about me or what I personally believe.  You and others are the one who try to brand me personally as someone who is only trying to defend one thing.

That along with many other "statements" you make with no facts behind them equates to unsubstantiated arm-waving and the superficial nature of some of your comments. 

As to your questions, they are irrelevant.  The reason why is in my previous response. 
« Last Edit: 07/29/2010 07:33 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

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