Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[Chris Bergin]

There's very few changes.

There's an addition of investments to improve launch infrastructure at NASA flight facilities scheduled to launch cargo to the ISS under COTS.

Some protection on against reliance on non-United States systems, including foreign rocket motors and foreign launch vehicles.

The "SEC. 309. REPORT REQUIREMENT" is an addition.

"In general Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Administrator may not execute any contract or procurement agreement with respect to follow-on commercial crew services during fiscal year 2011." - is an amendment, and the follow on para is an addition.

There's an extra line on the disposal (hate that phrase) of orbiters - "or the retrieval of NASA manned space vehicles, or significant contributions to human space flight."

"SEC. 1103. NASA CAPABILITIES STUDY REQUIREMENT" - there's a re-write of that para. Same with "SEC. 1105. WORKFORCE STABILIZATION AND CRITICAL SKILLS PRESERVATION."

"TITLE XIII_COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY PAY-AS-YOU-GO ACT OF 2010 SEC. 1301. COMPLIANCE PROVISION." - is an addition.

Rest is grammatical subediting of the bill.

[EE Scott]

Thanks Chris for bringing out these points!  Interesting stuff.

[yg1968]

There is also the "tons" vs metric "tonnes" issue.

[simonbp]

There is also the "tons" vs metric "tonnes" issue.

There is no issue. The US Congress only uses US units, and so they are US short tons (=2000 pounds). The fact that those numbers converted from short tons to kg almost perfectly match the projected performance of JSC's HLV reinforce the point.

http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Publications/appxc.cfm#5d

[clongton]

WOW! Back from vacation to some REALLY GREAT news!
WONDERFUL way to restart my daily grind!

[psloss]

I heard that the senate added sts 135 to the reauthorization act.

Yes, it's been in the language in publicly released drafts / versions since last month.  The House bill was also amended to include a similar provision and authorize similar money.

[FinalFrontier]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction

[psloss]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Lots and lots of discussion...not really sure the best place to point you, but here's one thread comparing the versions (which are still subject some changes):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22328.0

[yg1968]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

[KelvinZero]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.

[Jeff Bingham]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.

The next step will be for the Senate to ask the House to immediately begin preconference discussions with the Senate, using the Senate-passed bill as the base document, with a view to reaching agreement on a "consensus" draft which marries elements of the two bills, even if the House bill is not passed. Time is running out in the legislative session, and it only makes sense for those discussions to take place in the next several weeks, while the Congress is in recess, so that the consensus language could be amended into the Senate bill (which will be on the House Calendar after Monday), as soon as the House returns from the recess. This would be similar to the process followed in 2008, when the House passed a bill, then the Senate reported a bill, but did not press to pass it and, instead, a preconference series of discussions were held which resulted in a modification to the House bill by the Senate which had been agreed to in advance. The House then simply accepted the Senate amendment to their bill on the last day of the session (September 28th, as I recall) and sent it to the President for signature, which came on October 15th.

[SimonShuttle]

I wonder who is installing the get-out clauses into the House bill.

Sorry about the format...

"The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has re2
viewed the safety issues associated with the additional
3 Shuttle mission as well as NASA’s plans to mitigate
4 any identified risks."

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away. ASAP have always been against Shuttle since Augustine and even before. And NASA have already said they really needed to know by July if they could fly this for planning purposes.

Of course, it's all words. If ASAP are so scared of STS-135, then don't fly STS-133 or STS-134, as they can't go running around saying the risk numbers suddenly go up after those flights.

This is probably the one area where Bolden, Garver (not an engineer, not an astronaut) and Griffin all agree, they want to kill shuttle. They have all the excuses they need in these bills so far, by simply turning around and saying "we don't think it is safe, so we're not doing it."

[DavisSTS]

Understood. I was aware that the Senate already had it (typo in my previous comment i will delete it).

So now the House bill does as well? How about "SLS"?

Sounds like maybe the House bill has moved in the right direction

The House bill was amended to include STS-135 (the Kosmas amendment). See section 221 of the House bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h5781rh.txt.pdf

Is this the latest house version? It still seems to murder the Exploration Technology and Robotic Precursor budgets if I am reading this right.

The latest senate bill does still have at least some money for this area, about 1/4 of Obama's FY2011 I think.

So what happens now anyway? Im wondering how many of these we have to go though before I know if there is anything left of these in the final counting.

The next step will be for the Senate to ask the House to immediately begin preconference discussions with the Senate, using the Senate-passed bill as the base document, with a view to reaching agreement on a "consensus" draft which marries elements of the two bills, even if the House bill is not passed. Time is running out in the legislative session, and it only makes sense for those discussions to take place in the next several weeks, while the Congress is in recess, so that the consensus language could be amended into the Senate bill (which will be on the House Calendar after Monday), as soon as the House returns from the recess. This would be similar to the process followed in 2008, when the House passed a bill, then the Senate reported a bill, but did not press to pass it and, instead, a preconference series of discussions were held which resulted in a modification to the House bill by the Senate which had been agreed to in advance. The House then simply accepted the Senate amendment to their bill on the last day of the session (September 28th, as I recall) and sent it to the President for signature, which came on October 15th.

Thank you for your information, would be amazing if this all gets sorted out before STS-133.

Also, you make politics sound interesting, which is no small task to an Englishman, given our MPs would be more suited to the North Korean regime

It is interesting how they, the Senators especially, actually do fight for things like NASA. Nelson, Hutchison, and some others really do appear to work for supporting NASA and they are from different political parties I think.

[marsavian]

It would be nice if the centrifuge was kept from the House Bill as Low-G long term analysis would be a good thing to do as a heads-up for future exploration requirements. Would kind of make the ISS complete in my opinion.

[DavisSTS]

I wonder who is installing the get-out clauses into the House bill.

Sorry about the format...

"The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has re2
viewed the safety issues associated with the additional
3 Shuttle mission as well as NASA’s plans to mitigate
4 any identified risks."

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away. ASAP have always been against Shuttle since Augustine and even before. And NASA have already said they really needed to know by July if they could fly this for planning purposes.

Of course, it's all words. If ASAP are so scared of STS-135, then don't fly STS-133 or STS-134, as they can't go running around saying the risk numbers suddenly go up after those flights.

This is probably the one area where Bolden, Garver (not an engineer, not an astronaut) and Griffin all agree, they want to kill shuttle. They have all the excuses they need in these bills so far, by simply turning around and saying "we don't think it is safe, so we're not doing it."

Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe

[marsavian]

Retrieval of the failed pump module for analysis would be another good reason for doing STS-135.

[HappyMartian]

It would be nice if the centrifuge was kept from the House Bill as Low-G long term analysis would be a good thing to do as a heads-up for future exploration requirements. Would kind of make the ISS complete in my opinion.

Yep. An ISS centrifuge research capability would be great! Lunar bases would allow for 1/6 G experimental research. You might want to put a centrifuge on the Moon and do a wide range of G research. But Lunar bases may be quite a few years down the road.

Cheers!   

[marsavian]

You could mimic the Martian gravity too as well as trial running artificial gravities of proposed future spaceships/stations. Could provide quite a library of data for future use. Without it the first long-term dwellers on the Moon/Mars are the guinea pigs.

[psloss]

Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe

That might be logical and reasonable, but politically it's debatable.  The ASAP was specifically directed by Congress after the STS-107 accident to report annually on "the Administration's compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board through retirement of the Space Shuttle."
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/charter.html

Their position likely continues to have a good deal of influence inside the Beltway, including opposition to a true Shuttle extension and the skepticism about EELV HR that you noted.

[Jeff Bingham]

Probably answered your own question there. Lawmakers aren't engineers, so they can't tell NASA if it's safe to fly 135. Anyone that follows shuttle knows it's the safest its ever been, and for ASAP to say the risk is too high would be very much open for a backlash from the likes of SSP.

ASAP strike me as a body that justify their own role by saying "not safe". They did the same for EELV HR. I suppose it's bad for business for them to say things are safe

That might be logical and reasonable, but politically it's debatable.  The ASAP was specifically directed by Congress after the STS-107 accident to report annually on "the Administration's compliance with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board through retirement of the Space Shuttle."
http://oiir.hq.nasa.gov/asap/charter.html

Their position likely continues to have a good deal of influence inside the Beltway, including opposition to a true Shuttle extension and the skepticism about EELV HR that you noted.

ASAP opposed adding Launch on Need, yet it's in both bills(though only in the House bill as a result of an amendment during mark-up). The Senate Bill (Section 503(e)(2)) designates the NASA Engineering and Safety Center, NOT ASAP, as the organization to assess the safety issues for 135.