Author Topic: LIVE: Full Committee Hearing - A Review of NASA's Space Launch System  (Read 475716 times)

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
I believe when she says paraffin they mean biofuel. Paraffin for the Brits means something else. Chris can correct this for me :)
Regards
Robert
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paraffin?region=us


Paraffin=any saturated hydrocarbon.

This includes most of RP-1

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I am willing to ask and demand those questions be answered.  I have been saying they need to be answered for a long time, because if we do need an HLV to minimize per mission cost, it makes sense to use what we have now.  I simply do not understand why that question and potential answer is such a threat to some who insist they have the answer without asking the question.

It certainly makes sense to use what we have now. But if we have two systems, one that spreads its fixed costs over a handful of customers, and one that concentrates very high fixed costs solely on NASA, which would be logical to use?

I will let others judge me on the merits of my posts and comments and compare them to yours.  I'm confident in the outcome.

The outcome for me is the opposite of what you expect.

Well, you are the one who goes around claiming I wish commercial to "fail", so it is not the opposite of what I expect.  I guess you are wrong again.  Sorry.

For the first part of your question you assume there is no consequence to other agencies, etc through subtiers, etc.  That would be incorrect assumption based on an ideal world that does not exist. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
I believe when she says paraffin they mean biofuel. Paraffin for the Brits means something else. Chris can correct this for me :)
Regards
Robert
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/paraffin?region=us


Paraffin=any saturated hydrocarbon.

This includes most of RP-1
Yup, I agree... I think she is thinking alternative energy like biofuel. See my later post.
Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
You know, the proposed Appropriations bill doesn't fund SLS/MPCV at nearly the amounts authorized for 2012.  It's better than the President's FY2012 request (in this one area), but that's not saying much.

Could Bolden be attempting to emphasize that cutting NASA is a bad idea?  Whether or not Chicago-style politics are involved, it seems like a great opportunity for that sort of thing, and it did sound like he was trying to get that across...

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Can someone flesh out the difference between an Orion that can re-enter from LEO/ISS and an Orion that can re-enter from BEO? Is the difference the mass of the heat shield and parachutes? Propulsion to decelerate from escape velocity?

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
The bottom line is this as I read the thread:

1. The current Administration is acting the same way it is in other areas, it is going to try to run over the Congress to do what it wants with NASA, no matter what the law says. And they want to kill NASA.

2. Ultimately, the current Administration sees American HSF as beginning and ending with the ISS, and if they could end ISS support before 2020 they would.

3. Commercial HSF is useful only for ISS support. If ISS goes away so will any support for Commercial spaceflight.

4. The current Administration wants no US HSF, and will do what it can to kill it for future Administrations. BEO missions have no interest for them, and they will kill it if they can.

It's hard to see it being any other way. Mr. Obama said as much during the 2008 campaign, and he intends to follow through on his honest view, not the one he took later in the year to get votes in FL. He got elected, FBOW.

Those are awfully strong accusations.

I am not sure they are strong accusations, That's how I see all this playing out. And that is how I see the direction of the Administration. And in spite of the fact that they sent up to the House budget number X, what is in it says they support ISS, commercial, and some non-manned projects. The rest is 'research' without a real purpose.

APolispace, sorry I don't buy your view. I've read that statement before, more than once, and it is a different version of reality from what I see.

The whole point in this discussion is clear, after Augustine the Administration brought out a blueprint for what it wanted in HSF and NASA in the future. That blueprint was rejected by the Congress, and the President signed on to the bill that in essence overturned his proposal.

But the senior NASA leadership is acting like the law that was passed never existed. By what they are doing now they show what they want to do. They want Mr. Obama's 2008 election campaign vision fulfilled, and they want the 2010 post-Augustine proposal as their blueprint.

Please show how this is not the case by analyzing their actions.     
« Last Edit: 07/12/2011 09:23 pm by jkumpire »

Offline JMS

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 124
  • Likes Given: 78
If it's a question of funding ISS/commercial LEO transport or real exploration beyond LEO, I'd sooner scrap the former so that we can start doing something worthwhile again!

And continue the legacy of developing... at massive expense, and throwing away. That will certainly change the public perception that NASA is a wasteful bureaucracy.


If COTS is on schedule and budget, then why are we still waiting for Dragon and Cygnus flights that should have happened by now?   

Surely you can see the importance of getting the next COTS mission done right. Makes prudent sense that, this next flight (or two if not combined) is not going to be fast tracked, or should be.

Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
For me two big deals to come out of this was the admission that 1) the approved SLS design is basically an SD-HLV using ATK solid boosters (with possible competition for said boosters in the evolved SLS - who knows when/if that would ever happen), and 2) they have ignored the 2016/17 deadline for an operational 70-ton LV.

So point blank, wrt #2 above, Admin. Bolden basically said the Senate Compromise language does not work for NASA; NASA will not be working toward that deadline, or anything close.  And let me ask -- what response did this information illicit from the Committee?  Outrage?  Disappointment?

« Last Edit: 07/12/2011 09:25 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline Political Hack Wannabe

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
  • Liked: 84
  • Likes Given: 4
The bottom line is this as I read the thread:

1. The current Administration is acting the same way it is in other areas, it is going to try to run over the Congress to do what it wants with NASA, no matter what the law says. And they want to kill NASA.

2. Ultimately, the current Administration sees American HSF as beginning and ending with the ISS, and if they could end ISS support before 2020 they would.

3. Commercial HSF is useful only for ISS support. If ISS goes away so will any support for Commercial spaceflight.

4. The current Administration wants no US HSF, and will do what it can to kill it for future Administrations. BEO missions have no interest for them, and they will kill it if they can.

It's hard to see it being any other way. Mr. Obama said as much during the 2008 campaign, and he intends to follow through on his honest view, not the one he took later in the year to get votes in FL. He got elected, FBOW.

Those are awfully strong accusations.

I am not sure they are strong accusations, That's how I see all this playing out. And that is how I see the direction of the Administration. And in spite of the fact that they sent up to the House budget number X, what is in it says they support ISS, commercial, and some non-manned projects. The rest is 'research' without a real purpose.

APolispace, sorry I don't buy your view. I've read that statement before, more than once, and it is a different version of reality from what I see.

The whole point in this discussion is clear, after Augustine the Administration brought out a blueprint for what it wanted in HSF and NASA in the future. That blueprint was rejected by the Congress, and the President signed on to the bill that in essence overturned his proposal.

But the senior NASA leadership is acting like the law that was passed never existed. By what they are doing now they show what they want to do. They want Mr. Obama's 2008 election campaign vision fulfilled, and they want the 2010 post-Augustine proposal as their blueprint.

Please show how this is not the case by analyzing their actions.     

You are welcome to your interpenetration of the facts.  But I don't see it, and I would at least ask that you not repeat the claim that it was the brazen flip-flop (the Florida speech)
It's not democrats vs republicans, it's reality vs innumerate space cadet fantasy.

Offline Will

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 1
For me two big deals to come out of this was the admission that 1) the approved SLS design is basically an SD-HLV using ATK solid boosters (with possible competition for said boosters in the evolved SLS - who knows when/if that would ever happen), and 2) they have ignored the 2016/17 deadline for an operational 70-ton LV.

So point blank, wrt #2 above, Admin. Bolden basically said the Senate Compromise language does not work for NASA; NASA will not be working toward that deadline, or anything close.  And let me ask -- what response did this information illicit from the Committee?  Outrage?  Disappointment?



The Senate has directed NASA to get a quart into a pint pot and NASA has informed them that they can't get a quart into a pint pot.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
You know, the proposed Appropriations bill doesn't fund SLS/MPCV at nearly the amounts authorized for 2012.  It's better than the President's FY2012 request (in this one area), but that's not saying much.

Could Bolden be attempting to emphasize that cutting NASA is a bad idea?  Whether or not Chicago-style politics are involved, it seems like a great opportunity for that sort of thing, and it did sound like he was trying to get that across...

Bolden was talking to them as a Politician. While Congress was giving out a message so was Bolden.   

Mrs. Jackson Lee, Houston   she is not happy that Houston didn’t get a shuttle for display and asked the general the question.  He said “ I can’t answer you on this”

Translation:  I can’t do anything about it

Some “I could be home with my grandkids, but love my family”    Translation:  I have to stick around and try and keep the administration from killing off NASA. 

He sent a message at the end about Obama   “that Obama was one of the few presidents he has seen to take an interest in NASA”

Translation:  The White House and Admin is micro managing everything I do, and what goes on at NASA.



« Last Edit: 07/12/2011 09:49 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Can someone flesh out the difference between an Orion that can re-enter from LEO/ISS and an Orion that can re-enter from BEO? Is the difference the mass of the heat shield and parachutes? Propulsion to decelerate from escape velocity?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25939.0

"
• For NEO missions, heating from shock layer radiation dominates both heat rate and heat load

• Radiative heating uncertainty/margin is larger than convective heating uncertainty/margin, and will have a large mass impact on a heatshield sized for a NEO mission "



Offline EE Scott

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 356
For me two big deals to come out of this was the admission that 1) the approved SLS design is basically an SD-HLV using ATK solid boosters (with possible competition for said boosters in the evolved SLS - who knows when/if that would ever happen), and 2) they have ignored the 2016/17 deadline for an operational 70-ton LV.

So point blank, wrt #2 above, Admin. Bolden basically said the Senate Compromise language does not work for NASA; NASA will not be working toward that deadline, or anything close.  And let me ask -- what response did this information illicit from the Committee?  Outrage?  Disappointment?



The Senate has directed NASA to get a quart into a pint pot and NASA has informed them that they can't get a quart into a pint pot.

I agree that the Senate language does direct NASA to put ten pounds of, er, suger, into a five pound bag.  My problem with NASA is they are not being explicit about it (to the extent I would like to hear/see), and just calling a spade a spade.  If NASA believes that SLS is not doable within a certain prescribed budget and/or timeframe, they need to advocate for 1) a better budget, or 2) a different solution.  That's what I'd like to see instead of the current game being played.
« Last Edit: 07/12/2011 09:39 pm by EE Scott »
Scott

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
NASA can't won't deliver manned space until sometime around or after 2020.

There, fixed that for ya. The fact of the matter is that with the existing budget available to NASA a Jupiter-130 "ish" SLS could be in the air in 5-6 years. We have talked to all the major contractors already. We have run all the budget numbers – countless times. The Augustine Commission, thru the analysis provided by the Aerospace Corp, validated all the budgetary numbers we provided. There absolutely is no justifiable reason why Orion cannot be flying on the SLS by 2016 barring deliberate choice to delay to that date (which is a legal thing to do).

This entire issue has been clouded with so much emotion, crap and horsesh*t that it's no wonder so few can see what's going on. If we had not already developed our inside sources back in the DIRECT days even we would not be able to say with certainty what's going on. But thankfully we did and we can and this is what's going on:

It is almost exactly as Final Frontier has stated wrt the Chicago-style politics. The end of US Government-based HSF is being orchestrated from the White House. The OMB is being used as the enforcer in much the same way as Jerry the Bat was used in other days by Chicago family members. Bolden and Garver are the designated prophets of the brave new world of Commercial Space but they have been told to function by subterfuge and misdirection. Now that may be immoral by some standards but that is *NOT* illegal. Administrations have worked the Congress over in this manner for a very long time in order to get their own way and Bolden and Garver do work for the Administration.

Some of you believe that is the way we should go (all commercial) and some of you do not. I count myself among the later because I personally do not believe that American HSF should be held hostage to the wellbeing of the shareholder. National interests should not be considered a profit center. But that's beside the point and off topic so I won't go there.

I believe, as does Ross, that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of NASA as we have known it for over 50 years, UNLESS the leaders in Congress grow some balls. If they did, this then is what should happen next:

But before I say it let me be clear that this is what should happen in *ANY* similar confrontation between the executive and the legislative, NOT just this specific SLS debate. This will very likely become a Constitutional crisis unless Bolden complies or Congress caves.

Because the law already exists, signed by the President, and Bolden has clearly not complied with the law, he *AND* his deputy Garver should be summoned to appear before Congress via subpoena specifically to deliver to the committee the SLS selection that he made in June that was to have been the subject of today's hearing. Their presence should be compelled by escort if necessary. Upon the opening of the hearing, Bolden should be asked if he has the SLS configuration with him to present to the committee. If he does, all is well and the crisis is averted. If he does not, then he should be asked no further questions and he should be *immediately* placed in custody and held for a Contempt of Congress hearing, to be scheduled at a later date. He should be informed that he will remain in custody until such time as the hearing is conducted. If that happens, then Garver should be called next to testimony and asked the same question. If she does not produce the documents then she should also be immediately placed in custody with the same conditions. Before the hearing is adjourned, the 3rd and 4th persons beneath Bolden and Garver should be identified as leadership next in line and the committee should cause them to be similarly subpoenaed for a hearing to be scheduled within 10 days, at which time they will be given the same opportunity to comply, with the same consequences threatened for non-compliance. This should continue down the chain of command until either the White House or Congress caves or some accommodation acceptable to both is reached.

Like I said, this is what should happen when one party (the President) has brought about a Constitutional crisis, which he has by causing the Administrator, thru his OMB enforcers, to be instructed to stall – again. This same procedure should be executed in any such Constitutional crisis, regardless of the names of the players or the issue at hand. That is the way the framers of the Constitution wrote the procedures. It remains to be seen whether or not the current members of Congress have the balls to do it.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline ArbitraryConstant

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 311
Besides, COTS and CCDev are going to keep us stuck in LEO for another decade or more.
COTS and CCDev don't do that, a severely reduced budget does that. CCDev merely offers the hope that we will be in LEO instead of on the ground.

The problem I see going forward is that requiring SLS in particular and HLV in general creates unmet, and potentially unmeetable dependencies for further exploration. There are drawbacks to smaller launch sizes, but I have to question whether the HLV route is any better when the consistent outcome has been for delays and budget overruns to lead to cancellation, with no "gratification" (successes that inspire the public and ultimately reinforce NASA's budget) for the money spent.

As for delivering a vehicle on time - I am entirely optimistic that Boeing & SpaceX can deliver close to on time & on budget.
Even if they can't - and we must entertain this possibility if we are to engage honestly in this discussion - the funds required are relatively small even so, and neither is burdened with the requirement for a new launcher.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
NASA can't won't deliver manned space until sometime around or after 2020.

There, fixed that for ya. The fact of the matter is that with the existing budget available to NASA a Jupiter-130 "ish" SLS could be in the air in 5-6 years. We have talked to all the major contractors already. We have run all the budget numbers – countless times. The Augustine Commission, thru the analysis provided by the Aerospace Corp, validated all the budgetary numbers we provided. There absolutely is no justifiable reason why Orion cannot be flying on the SLS by 2016 barring deliberate choice to delay to that date (which is a legal thing to do).

This entire issue has been clouded with so much emotion, crap and horsesh*t that it's no wonder so few can see what's going on. If we had not already developed our inside sources back in the DIRECT days even we would not be able to say with certainty what's going on. But thankfully we did and we can and this is what's going on:

It is almost exactly as Final Frontier has stated wrt the Chicago-style politics. The end of US Government-based HSF is being orchestrated from the White House. The OMB is being used as the enforcer in much the same way as Jerry the Bat was used in other days by Chicago family members. Bolden and Garver are the designated prophets of the brave new world of Commercial Space but they have been told to function by subterfuge and misdirection. Now that may be immoral by some standards but that is *NOT* illegal. Administrations have worked the Congress over in this manner for a very long time in order to get their own way and Bolden and Garver do work for the Administration.

Some of you believe that is the way we should go (all commercial) and some of you do not. I count myself among the later because I personally do not believe that American HSF should be held hostage to the wellbeing of the shareholder. National interests should not be considered a profit center. But that's beside the point and off topic so I won't go there.

I believe, as does Ross, that we are witnessing the beginning of the end of NASA as we have known it for over 50 years, UNLESS the leaders in Congress grow some balls. If they did, this then is what should happen next:

But before I say it let me be clear that this is what should happen in *ANY* similar confrontation between the executive and the legislative, NOT just this specific SLS debate. This will very likely become a Constitutional crisis unless Bolden complies or Congress caves.

Because the law already exists, signed by the President, and Bolden has clearly not complied with the law, he *AND* his deputy Garver should be summoned to appear before Congress via subpoena specifically to deliver to the committee the SLS selection that he made in June that was to have been the subject of today's hearing. Their presence should be compelled by escort if necessary. Upon the opening of the hearing, Bolden should be asked if he has the SLS configuration with him to present to the committee. If he does, all is well and the crisis is averted. If he does not, then he should be asked no further questions and he should be *immediately* placed in custody and held for a Contempt of Congress hearing, to be scheduled at a later date. He should be informed that he will remain in custody until such time as the hearing is conducted. If that happens, then Garver should be called next to testimony and asked the same question. If she does not produce the documents then she should also be immediately placed in custody with the same conditions. Before the hearing is adjourned, the 3rd and 4th persons beneath Bolden and Garver should be identified as leadership next in line and the committee should cause them to be similarly subpoenaed for a hearing to be scheduled within 10 days, at which time they will be given the same opportunity to comply, with the same consequences threatened for non-compliance. This should continue down the chain of command until either the White House or Congress caves or some accommodation acceptable to both is reached.

Like I said, this is what should happen when one party (the President) has brought about a Constitutional crisis, which he has by causing the Administrator, thru his OMB enforcers, to be instructed to stall – again. This same procedure should be executed in any such Constitutional crisis, regardless of the names of the players or the issue at hand. That is the way the framers of the Constitution wrote the procedures. It remains to be seen whether or not the current members of Congress have the balls to do it.

If that was ever to happen, it should have been today I think. Daylight is the perfect sterilizer…
Regards
Robert
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline jkumpire

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 206
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 7
The bottom line is this as I read the thread:

1. The current Administration is acting the same way it is in other areas, it is going to try to run over the Congress to do what it wants with NASA, no matter what the law says. And they want to kill NASA.

2. Ultimately, the current Administration sees American HSF as beginning and ending with the ISS, and if they could end ISS support before 2020 they would.

3. Commercial HSF is useful only for ISS support. If ISS goes away so will any support for Commercial spaceflight.

4. The current Administration wants no US HSF, and will do what it can to kill it for future Administrations. BEO missions have no interest for them, and they will kill it if they can.

It's hard to see it being any other way. Mr. Obama said as much during the 2008 campaign, and he intends to follow through on his honest view, not the one he took later in the year to get votes in FL. He got elected, FBOW.

Those are awfully strong accusations.

I am not sure they are strong accusations, That's how I see all this playing out. And that is how I see the direction of the Administration. And in spite of the fact that they sent up to the House budget number X, what is in it says they support ISS, commercial, and some non-manned projects. The rest is 'research' without a real purpose.

APolispace, sorry I don't buy your view. I've read that statement before, more than once, and it is a different version of reality from what I see.

The whole point in this discussion is clear, after Augustine the Administration brought out a blueprint for what it wanted in HSF and NASA in the future. That blueprint was rejected by the Congress, and the President signed on to the bill that in essence overturned his proposal.

But the senior NASA leadership is acting like the law that was passed never existed. By what they are doing now they show what they want to do. They want Mr. Obama's 2008 election campaign vision fulfilled, and they want the 2010 post-Augustine proposal as their blueprint.

Please show how this is not the case by analyzing their actions.     

You are welcome to your interpenetration of the facts.  But I don't see it, and I would at least ask that you not repeat the claim that it was the brazen flip-flop (the Florida speech)

Sir,

While I am not sure I would use the term "brazen flip-flop" for what happened, and I have not used that term specifically, I will try and fulfill your request.

I just believe what I saw and read. What is is.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8807
For me two big deals to come out of this was the admission that 1) the approved SLS design is basically an SD-HLV using ATK solid boosters (with possible competition for said boosters in the evolved SLS - who knows when/if that would ever happen), and 2) they have ignored the 2016/17 deadline for an operational 70-ton LV.

So point blank, wrt #2 above, Admin. Bolden basically said the Senate Compromise language does not work for NASA; NASA will not be working toward that deadline, or anything close.  And let me ask -- what response did this information illicit from the Committee?  Outrage?  Disappointment?

Both of those and more, I'd bet.  The next few days (and weeks) may be "interesting times" indeed.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
This was the fatal flaw of the original Obama FY11 proposal.  A small cabal of "experts" decided what would work, and didn't bother to consult the broader community.  It was a recipe for disaster then, and it still is.  What we need as a nation isn't to be told the answer, but to be engaged in the discussion!

we had a broad discussion, with input from the entire space community.  That is what Augustine was.  And FY 2011 was entirely built around Augustine. 

If Augustine was the open discussion preceding FY11, why were many people caught off guard by the cancellation of Orion in the original FY11 proposal?  Why did we subsequently flounder with Orion as merely a lifeboat vehicle?  That was frankly shameful given NASA HQ now characterizes lunar Orion as exactly the vehicle we need as MPCV!

As regards SLS, what did Augustine have to say about the 5 SSME Design Reference Vehicle presented in January?  Didn't the panel's open discussion reach a solid conclusion about that design?  Isn't it only in certain exclusive cabals of "experts" that 5 SSME vehicles can appear to have any sort of consensus support?

The decision was made by Bolden on June 20th as Chris reported. The time for public debate is over. Bolden mentioned that the preliminary comments from the independent study is that NASA's cost estimates were realistic.

Bolden says he cannot yet disclose his plan, even though he was required to do so three months ago by section 309 of the Authorization Act.  Congress wanted his report so there could be time for analysis and review before FY12 deliberations began.  Bolden's extra-legal failure to report made that impossible.

I don't post very often (ever) here on NSF.com

Welcome to the forum!

Quote
If you keep using SRBs and other Shuttle hardware you have to keep all of that infrastructure in place and you share ZERO costs with other users

Absolutely right.  It's too bad about that law, isn't it.  Shall we just ignore it, then?
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
Guys,

   I don't post very often (ever) here on NSF.com   But having run lots of these hearings, I have to say it's about what I expected to see.  A lot of Members who "like" space trying to show they care, but without doing the hard work required to actually solve the problem.  Since Members have to choose among solving 500 such issues, it's no wonder they fall back to empathy and table-thumping. 

   But all of this "oh my God... Charlie said SLS won't carry humans until after 2020"... THIS is news to you?  It wasn't news to Augustine or NASA.  Unless you throw a lot more money at SLS, money which NASA clearly is not going to have -- note for reference that Chairman Wolf plussed up the SLS budget because he LIKES SLS, but he still couldn't fund it more than the FY2012 budget without slashing other things.  And he only got it $180m more.  It needed a billion+ more.  Year after year. 

   The only thing sillier than the surprise that the program DOESN'T FIT in the budget and schedule mandate of the Authorization Act -- it turns out Pi does not equal 3, no matter what Senators claim -- is the notion that Charlie is only saying this because OMB or some other evil White House folks told him to. 

   NO.  These are the numbers.  If NASA's team disgorged a plan that could launch Orion with people by 2015, it would get leaked out.  Mr. Bergrin has already demonstrated his ability to extract this kind of info from the bureaucracy.  But it hasn't.  The best case was launching crew in late 2017, and that's if they got the AUTHORIZATION runout.  Which of course the APPROPRIATORS are ignoring.  Because they can. 

    Perhaps the White House and Congress will come to a debt deal. Perhaps the constraints on domestic discretionary spending will be lifted somewhat.  Perhaps NASA can have the 2010 budget instead of the 2008 budget.  I don't know. 

    But failing a miracle, NASA will not get as much money as the Authorizers hoped, which means SLS won't arrive as early as they hoped.  This has nothing to do with OMB's or anyone's opinions about SLS... it's just math.  If you keep using SRBs and other Shuttle hardware you have to keep all of that infrastructure in place and you share ZERO costs with other users... since no other users exist. 

    NASA-unique launchers will expend the budget sooner than other alternatives, and I see no evidence that they cause the budget to be increased in the first place. 

    Finally, unless you don't care whether exploration missions ever actually happen -- because you're, say, an SLS contractor -- I don't see how you wouldn't want some independent validation that the whole architecture Charlie has just chosen will actually fit into some sort of realistic budget.  Because if it doesn't, then we never get there.  Maybe we finish developing SLS, but we can't afford to fly it very often.  So we don't get to actually explore.

    Which was the whole point, right? 
Hell of a first post.

I usually hate it when people only say +1 in a post but I agree that this first post deserves to be praised with a +1. Keep posting!
« Last Edit: 07/13/2011 05:00 am by yg1968 »

Tags:
 

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