Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300166 times)

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.  He didn't make a big deal out of space in the campaign.  Now, I'm guessing it's more important to him as his aides inform him of the deep level of debate going on.  At the same time, maybe this will become an issue which he might be able to work to his polititical advantage.  The NASA budget is so small compared to so many other budgets.  Perhaps the President's advisors will be able to cut here and there, such that NASA gets more money.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight?

I don't think we can get that with an SDLV or another NASA launch vehicle getting in the way. If I did I wouldn't be so worried about this. And about head on fights: I think SDLV proponents are painting a mythological picture of Congress as a whole being strongly opposed to the Obama plan. Lawmakers in districts that are strongly affected by the plan or lawmakers with campaign contributors who will be strongly affected, yes. Congress as a whole, that remains to be seen.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 01:54 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.

A very good point. It seems unlikely Obama shares Garver's passion. He is taking a surprising amount of interest and is willing to be surprisingly radical. But unless his interest goes a lot deeper than seems likely he cannot be counted upon to fight for the current path if another solution that satisfies his real goals emerges.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 02:03 am by mmeijeri »
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
"Obama has chosen to be that someone..."  An interesting observation, but I'm not sure that it's true.  He didn't make a big deal out of space in the campaign.  Now, I'm guessing it's more important to him as his aides inform him of the deep level of debate going on.  At the same time, maybe this will become an issue which he might be able to work to his polititical advantage.  The NASA budget is so small compared to so many other budgets.  Perhaps the President's advisors will be able to cut here and there, such that NASA gets more money.

That letter signed by the entire Florida delegation surely got his attention, or at least Rahm Emmanuel's attention.

Also the Florida 2010 Senate race is very important to Democrats:

Marco Rubio, IMHO the most likely GOP candidate is highly critical of the new plan;

Kendrick Meek, the leading Democratic candidate is highly critical of the new plan;

Governor Charlie Crist (who may switch and run Democratic or run Republican) is highly critical of the new plan.

Which do you think Obama will value more?

Defending each and every detail of his new plan or maybe winning the Florida US Senate seat in 2010?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7691

Why fight Congress head on when you can get what you want without the fight? Unless it's ideologically driven?

Actually I think it's kind of the reverse in this case.

I'm beginning to think he's trying to MAKE congress work together, to fight together (as one).

Or I'm 180 out and he wants congress to fight each other, rather than just Obama all the time...like health care.

Quite an interesting thought. Ah, politics.

Offline libs0n

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 476
  • Ottawa
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 2
Congress is not a unified block.  The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes.  Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?

What fight?

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?

Remember, precedent has been established with Dan Goldin & MirCorp and the rumored smack-down by Mike Griffin of a private crew taxi for Bigelow.

If NASA does not repudiate these past precedents then we cannot assume - as Danderman asserts - that non-NASA LEO destinations are part of the new plan. Danderman and others argue that we should support the new plan because this plan will lead to non-NASA destinations in LEO.

How can we accept Danderman's argument when there is no evidence the U.S. government intends to allow non-NASA destinations in LEO?
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline neilh

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2365
  • Pasadena, CA
  • Liked: 46
  • Likes Given: 149
Remember, precedent has been established with Dan Goldin & MirCorp and the rumored smack-down by Mike Griffin of a private crew taxi for Bigelow.

If NASA does not repudiate these past precedents then we cannot assume - as Danderman asserts - that non-NASA LEO destinations are part of the new plan. Danderman and others argue that we should support the new plan because this plan will lead to non-NASA destinations in LEO.

How can we accept Danderman's argument when there is no evidence the U.S. government intends to allow non-NASA destinations in LEO?

You seem to be the only person arguing that NASA would somehow prevent Bigelow from launching their modules, so I'm not sure why Bolden would make an announcement just to please one internet commenter. Do you think Bolden will ask the AF to shoot down Bigelow's modules or something?

Independent Bigelow modules are part of NASA's plan the same way that, say, JAXA solar sails or Orbcomm's satellite constellation. If they independently work out that's fantastic and NASA may want to leverage them in the future, but NASA has no business dictating what they should or shouldn't be doing. I suppose one could argue that Bolden has authority to make such dictates under NASA's charter to "seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space," but I'm really not sure dictates to industry are the proper way to do that.

That said, it would be neat for NASA to do something like purchase experiment time on a Bigelow in-orbit centrifugal facility or some-such.
Someone is wrong on the Internet.
http://xkcd.com/386/

Offline spacedem

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 14
As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.


How do you square that with the April 15th summit?  Who was the last president that spent that much time and attention on NASA - especially in the midst of a national crisis?

I submit that if Obama really didn't care about NASA and US spaceflight, he simply would have submitted yet another status quo budget that would have kept the impossible goals and underfunded them, leaving the hard work of devising a realistic new direction for another administration - the way a certain previous president did.

There would have been no summit, no new direction, no Augustine Commission, and certainly no additional funding.

Offline Nascent Ascent

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 739
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 106
As for Obama, I believe he desires that NASA not cause him any headaches. Otherwise he doesn't much care.


How do you square that with the April 15th summit?  Who was the last president that spent that much time and attention on NASA - especially in the midst of a national crisis?

I submit that if Obama really didn't care about NASA and US spaceflight, he simply would have submitted yet another status quo budget that would have kept the impossible goals and underfunded them, leaving the hard work of devising a realistic new direction for another administration - the way a certain previous president did.

There would have been no summit, no new direction, no Augustine Commission, and certainly no additional funding.

Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Anyway, aren't you in the Orphans of Apollo video?

Never saw it, can't say I know for sure if I am in it.
 :o :o :o

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.

Given that Obama has significantly increased the NASA budget, the comment about it pretty valueless.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Congress is not a unified block.  The vast majority of Congress appears to hold no strong opinions over the course which NASA takes.  Why would they, a majority, and a democratic majority, choose to go against the President's wishes concerning NASA on the behalf of a small predominantly self interested republican minority?

Actually, some in Congress who ARE opinionated actually support Obama's plan, so the fight will be a lot weaker than many here expect. Of course, any blowback is bad, so its likely Obama will compromise somewhere. Just don't expect YOUR favorite Jupiter 2 Jumbo space rocket to be part of the mix.

Offline spacedem

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 128
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 14

Obama's already on record as "not caring" so your point is moot.

He's already expressed his desires to stop NASA for a period of time in order to use the money for his education plans.

Past words make present actions moot?  What an interesting perspective.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12095
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18198
  • Likes Given: 12158
Somewhat ironic that I, who am often described as being cynical, <snip>

That's funny, I don't think you're cynical.

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

Analyst

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
the only way we can send a bigger succesor of Hubble  to space without bigger rockets  is i think the foldable mirrors or somehing like that.

but for now without Hlv we will not have a visible light telescope to space for the next 10 years at least...

You are wrong: Not the lack of a HLV, but the lack of funding for a telescope (payload) is the reason for not having one.

FWIW, we aren't even at the 'how much would it cost?' stage on such a concept.  As they are currently unlaunchable because of technical limitations, no one has sat down and seriously looked at how much it would cost and what would be the most cost-effective way of doing it.  Why bother? It would make an interesting thought experiment, I'm sure but that's all right now.

[edit]
Just to clarify my point: Funding might become available if someone could come up with a reasonable and non bank-breaking idea of how to do it.  As there isn't even a serious proposal, so there isn't funding.  A major project like that would likely have its own unique budget line outside of the regular NASA & science budgets anyway.
« Last Edit: 03/09/2010 09:44 am 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 MP99

I simply do not believe commercial crew to ISS will transition to non-NASA destinations, not unless Charlie Bolden explicitly states that is the intention of this new plan.

Excuse me? What about Bigelow? Bigelow is working with SpaceX and Boeing and may have been working with LM on crew solutions.

Yes, and if Mike Griffin had not shut it down we would have private taxis to LEO whether or not we get commercial crew to ISS. Commercial crew simply is NOT the linchpin, here.

Once again, until Charlie Bolden explicitly says non-NASA destinations are part of the plan -- soon -- I smell a trap.

You've said this before, and I'll ask the same question I did before: Why should NASA make announcements about something that NASA won't be involved in?

Because sharing the infrastructure costs with fully-commercial space access (tourism), may be expected to reduce the governement's access costs - higher flight rates and removing the need for DOD to pay for upkeep of the EELV infrastructure.

If the WH plan doesn't expect robust non-govt crewed flights on the horizon, then any of their own money that the commercial crew guys invest will just be clawed back by higher flight costs once flights begin.

Martin

Offline MP99

Compare as Bolden's team has a SD-HLV against the other HLV that can happen relatively quickly: the Atlas V Heavy. With a max lift of 140mT, and the added benefit of the ACES flexible Centaur coming along with it, it would not only serve as the platform for a HLV but for orbital tugs, refueling stations and a lunar lander. That's a lot of bang for the buck, which SD-HLV/Direct can't match.
Reminder: DIRECT also has an ACES upper stage.

How does the development cost for a 140mT Atlas compare with J-24x/J-24xSH? Upper stage costs would be the same, I presume.

I presume that not requiring an upper stage helps the costs for LEO SD-HLV launches.

I would love to see a comprehensive comparison of costs of Atlas V Heavy vs. Direct. However, the important point I want to get across is that NASA shouldn't build or operate its own heavy lifter; if it does, then it's impossible for a free market in heavy lift to get established. Rather, the technology should be transferred to a private company that would have incentives to minimize costs that are never present in a Federal program.

AFAIK, the Atlas V Phase 3B (the 8.4m-diameter 140t IMLEO version) would use the ACES-41 common upper stage and would need four twin-engine 5.4m-diameter kerolox strap-ons.

This doesn't seem right?

Even if ACES-41 doesn't burn during ascent (ie pure EDS rather than upper stage) it could launch a max of ~35mT thru TLI, and a bit more to GTO.

The alternative is that this is for purely LEO payloads (fuelling a LEO PD, etc).

Quote
The SDLV-Inline like DIRECT Jupiter would have an "ACES-181" a much larger upper stage.

It's sized this way for 2-launch "DIRECT phase 2" (EOR-LOR). Reduce it somewhat for LOR-LOR (but still needs the same number of engines).

I'm guessing a big Atlas would need at least the same size upper stage for exploration (or a separate development programme for a 70mT (LOR) or >>100mT (EOR) EDS).


Quote
A "free market" in heavy lift isn't going to happen as NASA is a sole customer right now.  The "market" wouldn't support more than one system unless something very launch-intensive and requiring sustained effort over years emerges.

Only SBSP comes to mind for such a market.


Quote
IMHO, commercial launch capability will stall at 25t IMLEO until cryogenic fuel depots are available.  Even after that, there will mostly only the most limited BEO opportunities (unless a Moon Outpost goes ahead).  A truely commercial LV of IMLEO above 50t is unlikely.

SDLV only makes sense if you want to do stuff with it during the last half decade of the ISSP.  If you don't need that capacity before then, then you might as well develop new technologies and try to develop a better 'clean sheet' design.  For what could you need such lift capability? Well, there is still the upmass issue (I'm still not convinced that the ISS will last to 2020 without something to replace the shuttle's lift capability).  I will also admit that I would like to see early BEO missions running in parallel with the ISS (lunar flybys, lunar orbiters and maybe even the earliest lander tests).

Agreed that the issue with SDLV is how you plan to utilise it in the short term. J-120 seems to ease that problem somewhat in the early years.

Also agree re precursor / test flights in parallel with ISS.

Martin

Tags:
 

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