Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[robertross]

HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

Woo hoo!!

Finally. Thanks for the info Ross.

Yes, let's get down to the business at hand and get her done.

[HappyMartian]

Let's roll!

Cheers!

[JohnFornaro]

I can't help but think what a total waste of time...

I've been saying this for a while.  Cooperation instead of survival of the fittest bully?

I'm glad to hear about inline.  Does this have the force of law, or are there administrative technicalities which can derail the effects of this decision?  Now, can we extend the shuttle for another five or six flights?  Can we start cracking the lunar ice?  Can we scout the outpost location?  Can we design the martial orbiting ring station?

[yg1968]

HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.

[PahTo]

Yay!  A hearty handshake and "well done" to all who helped common-sense rule the day (and future).

[Drkskywxlt]

There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.

The problem is that the House might consider Ares V to be the inline SD-HLV.  That was the (original) idea for Ares V anyway. 

[robertross]

HQ have weighed-in:   JSC has been instructed to support In-Line and to drop Sidemount.   Also, MSFC will remain the lead LV Development Center and JSC will remain the lead Orion Development Center and the Mission Operations Center.

After months and months of pointless in-fighting, this debate is finally over and the lines are finally set in stone.

Amazingly enough (or should that be predictably enough?) the lines all remain exactly the way they were before.

I can't help but think what a total waste of time and effort this stupid turf-war turned out to be.

I sure hope that both groups now knuckle-down and get on with the real job which they have ahead of them:   Making this new system work, on-time and on-budget.   Just how quickly the two factions can put this aside and really start pulling TOGETHER will, IMHO, become the clearest indication of whether NASA can be successful in this.

Ross.

There is still the issue of the NASA Authorization bill that needs to be resolved. Although if NASA HQ and the Senate are both in favour of an inline SD-HLV, I imagine that it becomes harder for the House to continue pushing for Ares I and V.

Yes, but that in of itself is a separate entity/issue.

Having both JSC & MSFC on the same wavelength wrt/vehicle design is by far one of the biggest moves forward in a LONG time. That will go a long way to a harmoneous solution & architecture.

[zerm]

Not to rain on any of this, but all of this high-5'ing and yeahooing should be placed on hold for a bit folks. You're not "there" until the hardware is rolling out on its way to stacking. There's a long distance to go yet- politically.

I heard Wayne Hale say it best on Space Talk last weekend. He said (paraphrasing) that he hears how NASA is so messed up these days, but in fact NASA only exercises policy, it is those in the White House and the Congress who have things messed up right now. He's correct- this whole comprimise is in a very tender state right now and can easily be messed up.

Remember too all of the up-talk about new boosters, tank sizes, in-line and Direct that went on in the week prior to Obama dumping his budget on the space program.

There's a good direction being leaned toward right now, but we are FAR away from cheering and high-5'ing at this point in time... IMO.

[Chris Bergin]

Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

[robertross]

Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

Nope. it certainly hasn't!! Great find!

But like he said in the editorial, we still need a destination planned out, which we don't have.

But still another great bit of news.

(can hear a champagne cork popping somewhere...)

[HappyMartian]

Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

Thanks again Chris!

Nice line from Mr. Lightfoot!

As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Cheers!

[Lars_J]

As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)

[HappyMartian]

As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)

You should sell your crystal ball! Lots of folks would be willing to pay some big money for it! Mine was a cheap one, and it broke some time ago...  

Goals are good. The smart folks that don't have them seem to get lost a lot and keep going around in circles. Being lost is OK, but it most likely won't get you to a NEO, the Moon, or Mars. Space is too big. That's why you don't want to get lost in space. 

Cheers!

[JohnFornaro]

this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore." 

He's been reading my mind, apparently.

[Bill White]

As for the destinations: Human Spaceflights to everywhere in the Inner Solar System. Start with robust backup support for the International Space Station. Then add exploring a small NEO or two as we get ready to return to the Moon. Send robots to the Moon ASAP. Internationalize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

Nice goals, but the combined international space program spending (of which I'm sure NASA gets at least 50%) will not support it. Not now, not in the next 50 years. Rather, you need to commercialize the exploration efforts as much/soon as possible. Allow corporations to own the resources they explore. That's how the solar system will be opened up. (once we have a good foothold in LEO-lunar space - and by that I mean much more than ISS)

Internationalize and commercialize the exploration efforts as much as possible.

An EML-1 Gateway depot open to do business with almost everyone (pretty much every nation and private company alike - but maybe not North Korea) is one way to move forward towards these twin goals. Think Babylon 5 as a conceptual model.

And this is the goal I would employ the Jupiters rockets to achieve, if I were "Space Tsar"

Also, I believe the word "commercialization" should be used to discuss the source of the revenue streams rather than merely calling certain taxpayer procurement models "commercial"

IMHO (and I accept that others can legitimately disagree) I also see tourism and various forms of advertising & sponsorship revenues plus potential sale of media rights as being the most likely sources of revenue not derived from the taxpayers, for the near to medium future.

But if others have potential revenue streams not derived from tax dollars, tourism and various forms of advertising, sponsorships and sale of media rights, please share those ideas!

= = =

Lunar property rights? Now there is a fascinating topic!

[edkyle99]

Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle

[JosephB]

Not to rain on any of this, but all of this high-5'ing and yeahooing should be placed on hold for a bit folks. You're not "there" until the hardware is rolling out on its way to stacking. There's a long distance to go yet- politically.

I heard Wayne Hale say it best on Space Talk last weekend. He said (paraphrasing) that he hears how NASA is so messed up these days, but in fact NASA only exercises policy, it is those in the White House and the Congress who have things messed up right now. He's correct- this whole comprimise is in a very tender state right now and can easily be messed up.

Remember too all of the up-talk about new boosters, tank sizes, in-line and Direct that went on in the week prior to Obama dumping his budget on the space program.

There's a good direction being leaned toward right now, but we are FAR away from cheering and high-5'ing at this point in time... IMO.

Yes, not to mention the direction a new administration would want to take.

[Jeff Bingham]

Has this been linked yet?

http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html

Good article. I liked this line on HLV from MSFC leader Mr Lightfoot (former Shuttle manager):

""We don't need to study it anymore."

The sound decisions appear to have finally been made, after two years of leaderless decision-making from the White House.  Bolden and Garver were part of this leaderless process.  Now that others have corrected the original bad decisions in which they participated, it is time for them to go. 

NASA needs someone who talks like Mr. Lightfoot at the helm.  His words should be placed in granite somewhere. 

 - Ed Kyle

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

[simonbp]

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

Indeed; especially LM's Orion program, which has gone from full project to no project to half project to full project in the course of six months. Reminiscent (at a much larger scale) of the whole Dawn cancellation affair...

[TexasRED]

Someone should ask if NASA leadership really wants to get started on an HLV development right away, why don't they reverse the arbitrary and questionable termination liability actions they took which have forced the contractors to start laying off the people they will need to WORK on an HLV development, especially since the best way to do that is to novate existing contracts versus going to the time and expense of a new competitive process (which is strongly suggsted and authorized in the Senate bill)?

Indeed; especially LM's Orion program, which has gone from full project to no project to half project to full project in the course of six months. Reminiscent (at a much larger scale) of the whole Dawn cancellation affair...

Heh yeah, and it ain't over yet...