Author Topic: Senate CJS Appropriation Bill Full Committee Markup June 5th at 10 AM  (Read 65182 times)

Offline WindnWar

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 515
  • South Carolina
  • Liked: 267
  • Likes Given: 1413
This line bothers me.

 "Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be
submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested
by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter
and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated
with the crew vehicle."

That basically not only extends the FAR reporting requirements to the capsules but also to the rockets as well, such as both Antares and Falcon 9. So SpaceX is supposed to start over and add in millions of overhead in order to compete in the way its competitor is comfortable with?

Offline ThereIWas3

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 884
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 297
These kinds of restrictions may lead in the future to the majority of American astronauts
not being NASA employees.
"If you want to build a ship, don’t drum up people to collect wood and don’t assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea" - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17842
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 505
  • Likes Given: 5215
This line bothers me.

 "Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to be
submitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds invested
by NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarter
and cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integrated
with the crew vehicle."

That basically not only extends the FAR reporting requirements to the capsules but also to the rockets as well, such as both Antares and Falcon 9. So SpaceX is supposed to start over and add in millions of overhead in order to compete in the way its competitor is comfortable with?

All of this bothers me.
The lobyists & the big corporations are pulling the strings (yet again) of these politicians, and may get away with it (yet again).

This is how SLS came to be, and they are working on another program now. Thumbs on the scale yet again.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8830
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3832
  • Likes Given: 917
Orbital sciences (aka ATK) gets cargo and Boeing gets crew. What's the problem?
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5815
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 787
Isn't it at least a little odd that Shelby is so strongly against Commercial Crew, given that two of the three front runners would fly on Atlas Vs, which are assembled in his state.  I wonder whether his recent move is payback for SpaceX's lawsuit.
I see Shelby as moving to slow competition in the USG launch market and minimize the R&D funding available for competitors by adding onerous burdens to the commercial front runners. The ULA family and their politicians including Shelby don't care as much about jobs as they care about protecting the primary USG ULA family revenue stream for as long as possible. Requiring funds for paperwork that would otherwise be used for reinvestment in technology development is a clever ploy, as is a requirement for technology disclosure under FAR rules on the part of competitors.
We'll have to see how Shelby's rules impact NASA's use of Space Act Agreements going forward. See page 134 of draft CJS FY2015 report (attached, sourced upthread).
My opinion; it's all about the money, ISS will starve or burn if it benefits the entrenched USG space monopoly revenue streams to special interests.
Nah, he just seems to prefer Russian Commercial Crew...

I guess the key thing I missed, which has been pointed out in a number of articles, is that it's probably going to be much easier for Boeing to comply than for SpaceX.  Hence, it all makes more political sense than I had thought.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 952
  • Likes Given: 386
Orbital sciences (aka ATK) gets cargo and Boeing gets crew. What's the problem?

Careful, your sarcasm wasn't quite coming through.
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9061
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 6541
  • Likes Given: 2223
These kinds of restrictions may will lead in the future to the majority of American astronauts
not being NASA employees.
There, fixed that for you.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7940
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8996
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down.

I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF.

"Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.

You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling.  :(
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Sean Lynch

Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down.

I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF.

"Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.

You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling.  :(
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
 
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7940
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8996
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?

BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3296
  • Likes Given: 9189
I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
« Last Edit: 06/10/2014 12:56 pm by Rocket Science »
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Sean Lynch

I understand your restarts John.
When I was eight or nine, of course I believed championship wrestling (in B&W) was real...
The eye gouging, biting, hair pulling used to really upset me...how could the ref not see? Of course a lot of times the bad guy knocked the ref out...I feel the same way when Shelby speaks.
I was thinking of a "Meet the Press" with Sen.s Shelby, Boxer, and CEOs M. Gass and E. Musk-
or, maybe Wrestlemania in a Texas open market tag team event. We'd need a Canadian ref, perhaps George St. Pierre is available.


I quit using frowny faces because I didn't want folks to mistake me for John Smith 19.
Well as a non American it can be difficult to tell what's real and what's fantasy in a hearing of your Legislature.

Unfortunately Shelby's amendments are quite real and if carried through will cripple all competitors, except perhaps Boeing.  :(

What I can't figure out was when Shelby asked about soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them (and Bolden sticking to 2017) wheather that was a)Shelby laying a trap so he could complain NASA was dragging its feet (Bolden recognizing it and side stepping it) or
b)Shelby giving Bolden a golden opportunity to let NASA shine by potentially handing off ISS tasks to an American company in less than 2 years (freeing NASA from the rising costs of Soyuz) and Bolden simply not seeing it?
What Rocket Science Said, and Shelby is perpetuating the the nine women and a baby in a month myth for the benefit of his constituent ULA employee audience.
Bolden was simply stating project milestones, he knew based on past history he wouldn't get the full commercial funding requested and that Shelby had already made decisions regardless of what Bolden had to say.
It's important to remember what Bolden said regarding 70% SLS JCL -Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
So what did Shelby do? Added more money to SLS and required a 70% JCL, and still failed to fund commercial programs at the full level-while adding additional requirements. 

Yes indeed, watching the interplay of fantasy and reality in the US Congress (the house and senate), does remind me of championshop wrestling. Especially when it comes to environmental issues and climate change.  It would be a lot more fun watching the maestros of spin if it were another country. In the US we traditionally refer to the national bicameral legislature as Congress, and typically use "legislature" specifically to refer to state legislatures-which vary radically by state according to state constitutions. Legislatures are just as much fun...for example; North Carolina passed a bill limiting the amount of Sea Level rise climate change models used in the state could predict. After public embarrassment the bill went unsigned by the Governor.
« Last Edit: 06/10/2014 01:41 pm by Sean Lynch »
"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Offline notsorandom

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1735
  • Ohio
  • Liked: 431
  • Likes Given: 91
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9446
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 3296
  • Likes Given: 9189
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.
DIRECT was great as a transition vehicle to reduce any gap and who knows could have been developed into what we are seeing being constructed now. That being said we have a Commercial Crew competition program now so the issue is moot.
I totally agree with the underfunding and that it barely keeps up with inflation and new vehicle development which results in shrinking allotment per program.  This is a disservice to the good people working on them...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator, Vintage auto racer

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:
Quote
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."

for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Shelby was doing a CYA for himself and Bolden side stepped him by saying if CC received the President’s original request at the program’s inception we would fly to ISS in 2015...
To add... the whole “fiscally responsible” line Shelby likes to throw around does not match with funding to build the unneeded SLS rocket at this time with such urgency... There was only one SD vehicle that was needed and that was DIRECT and now it's too late for it...
Not sure Direct would have worked out much better. They assumed a launch tempo of 2 lunar missions a year or at least four launches. At half a launch a year the Jupiter rockets wouldn't have looked much better. Just cheaper to develop. At this point the difference in development costs has narrowed. Jupiter just like SLS would have used the 4 RS-25 and 4/5ths of the SRB segments of SLS along with 2 more RL-10's and another launch pad. My point isn't that Direct was a bad idea, just that it assumed a flight rate and funding level which would likely make SLS look better if applied to it now.

The bottom line is that NASA doesn't have the funding to match what it has been tasked with. In this budget environment not a whole lot of NASA's HSF programs make any sense. The budget has forced ISS to be in doubt past 2020. Commercial crew has been delayed to the point where people can legitimately question why we are spending all this for only 6 crew rotation missions to ISS. SLS has been forced into a flat funding profile that is drawing its schedule out and making the development as a whole more expensive and uncertain. Orion was forced to change its service module, a deal which has added a significant amount of time to its IOC.

NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so. When people say we should cancel one of the programs to make room for the rest of them that ignores the dynamics that created this mess in the first place.
DIRECT was great as a transition vehicle to reduce any gap and who knows could have been developed into what we are seeing being constructed now. That being said we have a Commercial Crew competition program now so the issue is moot.
I totally agree with the underfunding and that it barely keeps up with inflation and new vehicle development which results in shrinking allotment per program.  This is a disservice to the good people working on them...

no a sidemount design would have been the excellent transition, with a Direct follow on a maybe.   We would be operational now.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7940
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8996
for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
Good question.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5815
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 787
I don't believe NASA was using JCL budgeting when the Shuttle was in development.  To answer the question, one would probably need to retrospectively construct a 70% JCL.  If I recall correctly, though, cost overruns on the Shuttle's development (though not it operations) were modest, at least by the standards of cutting-edge technology programs.  If that's right, it might tend to suggest that the Shuttle was budgeted at a fairly high JCL.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7940
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1351
  • Likes Given: 8996
What Rocket Science Said, and Shelby is perpetuating the the nine women and a baby in a month myth for the benefit of his constituent ULA employee audience.
That's the thing I keep forgetting. It's not just Marshall he's worried about, it's Decatur (which for some reason I keep thinking is in Georgia). A successful Spacex will impact on Decatur, although it does not necessarily have to impact Marshall. 
Quote
Bolden was simply stating project milestones, he knew based on past history he wouldn't get the full commercial funding requested and that Shelby had already made decisions regardless of what Bolden had to say.
It's important to remember what Bolden said regarding 70% SLS JCL -Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
So what did Shelby do? Added more money to SLS and required a 70% JCL, and still failed to fund commercial programs at the full level-while adding additional requirements. 
I sort of wonder if they did this with Apollo and Shuttle as well or if there's a view that NASA pads it's costs?
Quote
In the US we traditionally refer to the national bicameral legislature as Congress, and typically use "legislature"
Noted. I'll go with Congress in future.
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structure booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Sean Lynch

for sake of argument did the Shuttle meet the 70%?
Good question.
Attached are some NASA publications regarding JCL. The earlier dates back to 2009.
hth


"Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others."
-JFK May 25, 1961

Tags: