Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[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.

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.

They did, but I view a slight "softening" in their stance that's applicable to flying the last launch hardware set.  The 2008 report (released in Spring 2009) and Admiral Dyer's testimony last September was unequivocal:

As it is directly related, I want to share the ASAP’s strongly held position regarding the Shuttle:  ASAP does not support extending the shuttle beyond the current manifest.

(The emphasis was Admiral Dyer's, I believe.)

The 2009 report, though, adds a qualifier to that statement and goes on to further qualify things:

The Panel does not support extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest.  We are especially concerned over any kind of "serial extension" where a few flights at a time might be added.

(My emphasis.)

I think the ASAP equivocated a little bit and I think 2009 report statement provides much more political latitude for flying an additional mission with the left-over LON hardware.  Beyond that, not as much.

[Chris Bergin]

Writing up notes on STS-135 news, article will be today.

Notably, "All feedback indicates that both informally and formally, they approve" - via meeting with ASAP, so they shouldn't be an issue for this imminent decision.

[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

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

It's the latest bill. It wasn't passed before recess because some Representatives from Ohio and California wanted to amend it further for the reasons that you have mentionned.

P.S. For more on this, see the previous posts on the House bill (and on the Politico article) here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.msg623643#msg623643

[KelvinZero]

Thanks for that yg1986. I hope these do get at least the senate's proposed level of funding. 0.25-0.4 billion is not chickenfeed. We should expect results whenever we spend that sort of money.

[Chris Bergin]

Writing up notes on STS-135 news, article will be today.

Notably, "All feedback indicates that both informally and formally, they approve" - via meeting with ASAP, so they shouldn't be an issue for this imminent decision.

And the article is published:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/planning-pre-empts-imminent-decision-sts-135/

[JohnFornaro]

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.

True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

[FinalFrontier]

Exactly right. I would also state the following: If ethier Bolden or Garver attempts to undermine or otherwise delay/disrupt the compromise plan after it has been implement, they will be fired without hesitation.

Recall that Bolden hasn't been seen since that PR disaster and that apparently the WH approves of the Senate bill (which is counter to everything Bolden/Garver were out "campaigning" for)

Once implemented it will go as planned, with or without those two.

[kirghizstan]

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.

True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?

[psloss]

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

ASAP defined what they meant, and your definition would qualify as "significant."  Nevertheless, the provision in the Senate authorization bill leaves the door open (at least a little bit and for a little longer) to the kind of "serial extension" that ASAP defined.  (STS-135 is an exception.)

But this just doubles back on 3+ years of discussion on this -- there's still no budget relief to continue funding Shuttle operations, so if one is going to do that, what other NASA program(s) get cut?

[FinalFrontier]

To be blunt, we know Bolden and Garver want shuttle to go away.

True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?

There are other fully completed tanks.

[psloss]

There are other fully completed tanks.

The parts for a few more tanks have been manufactured, but there are no other tanks close to being ready for delivery except for ET-122.  (And no money has been set aside to finish assembly -- with the exception of ET-94 in the Senate authorization bill.)

[yg1968]

Exactly right. I would also state the following: If ethier Bolden or Garver attempts to undermine or otherwise delay/disrupt the compromise plan after it has been implement, they will be fired without hesitation.

Recall that Bolden hasn't been seen since that PR disaster and that apparently the WH approves of the Senate bill (which is counter to everything Bolden/Garver were out "campaigning" for)

Once implemented it will go as planned, with or without those two.

Why would they be fired? It was their job to defend the FY2011 NASA Budget whether they agreed with it or not. Likewise, it will be their job to implement this compromise.

[zerm]

Actually most of this will simply be fun to watch. Bolden has stated publically that flying the shuttle is "like playing Russian roulette." Now, if the Congress directs that more shuttle flights should be made, he will have to send his crews out with that statement on the record. Additionally, both Bolden and Garver, are political anmials, yet serve at the pleasure of the president. So, if Obama goes along with what the Congress is poised to direct, they will be forced to eat a lot of their words in order to keep in line with both politics and their boss. Thus if the Congress goes in the current direction, it will be interesting to see just how dedicated the two administrators are to that direction.

My bet is on Bolden being a good Marine- he'll say "Yes sir" and move out. (Either that or his will explode like a muppet).

[Robotbeat]

Shuttle is the "safest its ever been," but it still doesn't have a proper LAS, and adding one would greatly reduce the payload of the Shuttle to almost nothing.

Bolden's statement is true. It's something that all astronauts have to face, and if his saying it unnerves some astronauts, then they have not chosen the right career. He was only stating the obvious to Congresscritters who sometimes don't have a heck of a lot of commonsense (or at least ignore it). The statement wasn't made in a vacuum, either... You can't disregard the context.

EDIT:That said, I still think STS-135 makes sense.

[gladiator1332]

Glad to hear things are continuing to move forward. Was out of the loop for the past week or so. Thanks for all the updates Chris and 51D!

[clongton]

Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".

[gladiator1332]

Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".

Agreed. While some have made poor decisions in the past, and there are some who are there for the title (had a Representative come into one of my classes and talked to us about that issue), the majority of Congressmen (another acceptable term in my book) are doing a great service to our country, and I am sure it is a VERY stressful job.

[Robotbeat]

Congresscritters

I really dislike that term - it is *SO* disrespectful.
Please people. Show a little respect.
They are either "Representatives" (House), "Senators" (Senate) or "Legislators" (Either).
They are *not* "critters".

They are citizens just like me. They deserve no more respect than anyone else. Respect can be earned or lost.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

Current Congressional disapproval rating: 72.2%

Is anyone allowed a little freedom of expression, anymore?

There are all manner of populist arguments I could make right now, but this is not the thread for it.

[clongton]

It's still disrespectful of those who honestly do work hard.

[Robotbeat]

It's still disrespectful of those who honestly do work hard.

I'm just going on what I saw in the various hearings.

It's a generalization, and I'm sure that the nobler members of Congress aren't affected by it. Consider it motivation to change for the less nobler members!