COTS D in the On-Deck Circle...

[yg1968]

The Augustine commission will not come to the conclusion that Ares is flawed and pointless. It may come to the conclusion that we don't have enough funds for such a program and that considerations should be given of scaling it back. But I wouldn't expect anything stronger than that.

In any event, ironically, I see COTS-D as the best way of saving the Ares rockets because it accomplishes most of what is wanted in human spaceflight: including space tourism and cheap access to LEO through SpaceX and also getting to the moon through the Ares rockets.  I don't believe that it was an accident that commercial crew was funded right before the Augustine Commission was set up. NASA wanted to show that it had a well-thought out plan which included the commercial space industry. 

[ugordan]

One thing's for sure, that extra 100 million $ sure will boost CxP. It's not like that's a drop in the bucket of what was already spent with very little to show for.

Oh, you're all gonna love that gap when it finally comes.

</sarcasm>

[robertross]

The Augustine commission will not come to the conclusion that Ares is flawed and pointless.

Then what does that say for the continued statements made by NASA as Ares being safe, simple, and soon?

It has become none of these.

Also, by the time all is said and done, it will have the same, if not less, capability than EELV. No, I'm sorry, it is flawed and pointless.

COTS-D gives us that extra advantage to support ISS in the short term, and free NASA from worrying about crew and cargo in the future, especially if ISS is extended. But the biggest advantage of COTS-D is domestic US access to space, at a time when the future of US manned spaceflight is in question. Shelby is being blindsided into believing that NASA will come through in time with a capable rocket, if only more money is thrown at it. He's wrong. Now, if we were talking about a liquid first stage, I may be inclined to give some benefit of doubt because of growth potential, but when you have a fixed-performance solid, your hands are tied.

[Jim]

The Augustine commission will not come to the conclusion that Ares is flawed and pointless.

32 Billion Dollar development for a duplication of existing capabilities is flawed and if the commission doesn't see it as that then the commission is a joke and flawed.  If it comes to another conclusion, then the conclusion is based on politics and the short term and not what is right or good for the nation and NASA and the long term.

Mars and the moon are not valid justification for such waste.  The end does not justify the means.

If dropping Ares I means lunar and Mars missions are pushed out, so what?  What does that really mean?  Just some selfish people that want to see it in their lifetime will miss out on it?  Please, give me a break.   I am in a position where I could work lunar and Mars missions  and I would want to.  But I can put aside my wishes and really make a unbiased judgment that Ares I won't get us there and even would hamper the efforts.  Yes, I do work with ELV's but I support Direct or "Not Shuttle-C" and COTS (EELV's) over Ares I.

[jongoff]

The $150 million for commercial crew would be reduced to $50 million because of Senator Shelby's objections:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-shelby-private-rockets-070309,0,4053077.story

Yeah, happy 4th of July everyone!  Jerk. (him not you)

In Shelby's defense, I don't believe that Congress intended for any of the stimulus money to go to commercial crew efforts. It was given for Ares I in order to bridge the gap (or at least not make it longer). Hopefully, the money for commercial crew will get appropriated later on.   

The problem is that $100M now is going to make less than a week's difference on the delivery time of Ares-I/Orion.  But $100M makes a huge difference for commercial crew.  The problem is that even if you believe that just because it's a government program, Ares-I/Orion is sure to succeed eventually, it's already 100% guaranteed that even if they got several billion dollars extra this year, that it wouldn't be able to appreciably close the gap.  Any "gap reduction" money spent on Ares-I/Orion is wasting taxpayers dollars *by NASA's own admission*.  While COTS-D may be programmatically less likely to succeed, it actually has a better chance of both succeeding and reducing the gap than Ares-I/Orion does.  I'd just like to see say $1B out of the tens of billions they have left before IOC spent on a backup plan that actually has any chance of reducing the gap (and placing the US in a much better position if it does succeed).

There's absolutely nothing honorable about what Senator Shelby did.  It was pure graft, taking money (that he voted against) away from useful ends to make sure they get spent in his district.  Don't give the guy a fig leaf. 

Shelby, NASA != Northern Alabama Space Administration.

~Jon

[yg1968]

32 Billion Dollar development for a duplication of existing capabilities is flawed and if the commission doesn't see it as that then the commission is a joke and flawed.  If it comes to another conclusion, then the conclusion is based on politics and the short term and not what is right or good for the nation and NASA and the long term.

I meant that even if they think that Ares I is flawed and pointless, they would never write this in their report. They would say "we don't have the budget for it" and leave it at that. Writing anything else would be well, "pointless".

[robertross]

The $150 million for commercial crew would be reduced to $50 million because of Senator Shelby's objections:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-shelby-private-rockets-070309,0,4053077.story

Yeah, happy 4th of July everyone!  Jerk. (him not you)

(still wiping away the tears)...oh God that was priceless, thanks, I needed a good laugh.

[mmeijeri]

There's absolutely nothing honorable about what Senator Shelby did.  It was pure graft, taking money (that he voted against) away from useful ends to make sure they get spent in his district.  Don't give the guy a fig leaf. 

I believe it's much worse: it appears designed to make sure COTS-D is not available as an alternative for crew rotation to the ISS, just as the talk of a new upper stage for Delta appears to be meant to diminish the threat from EELV or at least to keep J-2X alive.

Shelby, NASA != Northern Alabama Space Administration.

Or as Ken Murphy said on another blog: the Nelson And Shelby Agency.

[yg1968]

There's absolutely nothing honorable about what Senator Shelby did.  It was pure graft, taking money (that he voted against) away from useful ends to make sure they get spent in his district.  Don't give the guy a fig leaf. 

Shelby, NASA != Northern Alabama Space Administration.

~Jon

All Republicans (except for 2 Senators) voted against the Stimulus bill for reasons that had nothing with Space. I agree that spending money on commercial crew makes sense. But Shelby has a point that the Stimulus money was not supposed to be spent on commercial crew. It was meant to reduce the gap (or ensure that it is not any longer than it is). Senator Nelson fought for this amount and he wasn't fighting for commercial crew. The fact that Shelby fights for his state is to be expected.

[ugordan]

But Shelby has a point that the Stimulus money was not supposed to be spent on commercial crew. It was meant to reduce the gap (or ensure that it is not any longer than it is).

If it was really meant to reduce the gap, it would have funds allocated for commercial crew as well. A relatively high risk, but high gain and relatively inexpensive backup approach.

[mmeijeri]

If it was really meant to reduce the gap, it would have funds allocated for commercial crew as well. A relatively high risk, but high gain and relatively inexpensive backup approach.

Isn't the main risk compared to an SDLV simply the fact that unlike NASA, SpaceX doesn't get any money if it doesn't deliver? Which is more likely to deliver, given proper funding? It's not obvious to me the answer is SDLV.

[Swatch]

If dropping Ares I means lunar and Mars missions are pushed out, so what?  What does that really mean?  Just some selfish people that want to see it in their lifetime will miss out on it?  Please, give me a break.   I am in a position where I could work lunar and Mars missions  and I would want to.  But I can put aside my wishes and really make a unbiased judgment that Ares I won't get us there and even would hamper the efforts.  Yes, I do work with ELV's but I support Direct or "Not Shuttle-C" and COTS (EELV's) over Ares I.

Why did I want to stand up and clap after reading this?   

 

[ugordan]

It doesn't even have to be SpaceX to be commercial, ULA can launch other, lighter spacecraft other than Orion - heck, Dragon which is pretty far along in development could ride an Atlas V easily.

Funding would depend upon actual contractual milestone agreements, but COTS as it is structured now allocates most of the money on earlier milestones. SpaceX would need funding from the start to proceed with COTS-D, so it's not a matter of them not getting paid, it's a matter of NASA/government losing money if they do fail in the end. That's why this is a risk to the government, but the potential benefits are clear if it pans out - manned LEO capability a couple of years before Orion is ready.

[jongoff]

But Shelby has a point that the Stimulus money was not supposed to be spent on commercial crew. It was meant to reduce the gap (or ensure that it is not any longer than it is).

Can you point to even a single sentence in the National Recovery Act or its Joint Explanatory Statement that actually backs that up?  Neither of them say *anything* about how that exploration money is to be spent.  Nada.  Zip. Zilch. Nothing.

Senator Nelson fought for this amount and he wasn't fighting for commercial crew. The fact that Shelby fights for his state is to be expected.

Expected, but not condoned, honored, or respected.  Why the heck to people act like looting public money and squandering it in your state is any more honorable than embezzling your employer's money?

~Jon

[mmeijeri]

There is a risk that getting Dragon operational will take more money than SpaceX thinks or claims. But there's also the tremendous risk that Ares I + Orion will take much more money than NASA says. I don't see how spending money on Dragon is inherently more risky than spending it on Ares I + Orion. If you limit spending on Dragon in advance and don't do the same thing for Ares I + Orion, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

[jongoff]

It doesn't even have to be SpaceX to be commercial, ULA can launch other, lighter spacecraft other than Orion - heck, Dragon which is pretty far along in development could ride an Atlas V easily.

This is a point I notice often doesn't get made.  COTS detractors in congress like acting as though ULA doesn't exist (I know they wish it didn't, even though one of their main plants is in Shelby's district).  Because if you count ULA as commercial, then all of the sudden you can't denigrate commercial providers as a bunch of unproven, wet behind the ears newbs that are obviously so much more risky than spending $34B over 10 years to have a rookie NASA team design their own FrankenRocket.

~Jon

[robertross]

If dropping Ares I means lunar and Mars missions are pushed out, so what?  What does that really mean?  Just some selfish people that want to see it in their lifetime will miss out on it?  Please, give me a break.   I am in a position where I could work lunar and Mars missions  and I would want to.  But I can put aside my wishes and really make a unbiased judgment that Ares I won't get us there and even would hamper the efforts.  Yes, I do work with ELV's but I support Direct or "Not Shuttle-C" and COTS (EELV's) over Ares I.

Why did I want to stand up and clap after reading this?   

 

Because he's right and it's the truth. We no longer want the world, we want the other planets too, and want them now. They will be there in another 25 years, perhaps when we can afford such dreams.

[robertross]

It doesn't even have to be SpaceX to be commercial, ULA can launch other, lighter spacecraft other than Orion - heck, Dragon which is pretty far along in development could ride an Atlas V easily.

This is a point I notice often doesn't get made.  COTS detractors in congress like acting as though ULA doesn't exist (I know they wish it didn't, even though one of their main plants is in Shelby's district).  Because if you count ULA as commercial, then all of the sudden you can't denigrate commercial providers as a bunch of unproven, wet behind the ears newbs that are obviously so much more risky than spending $34B over 10 years to have a rookie NASA team design their own FrankenRocket.

~Jon

There is SO MUCH truth in that it's not funny. ULA can be a serious contributor to solving this problem.

ISS crew and cargo is BIG problem, and they (Congress) better get with the game soon, or risk losing a great research tool and asset.

[yg1968]

But Shelby has a point that the Stimulus money was not supposed to be spent on commercial crew. It was meant to reduce the gap (or ensure that it is not any longer than it is).

Can you point to even a single sentence in the National Recovery Act or its Joint Explanatory Statement that actually backs that up?  Neither of them say *anything* about how that exploration money is to be spent.  Nada.  Zip. Zilch. Nothing.

Senator Nelson fought for this amount and he wasn't fighting for commercial crew. The fact that Shelby fights for his state is to be expected.

Expected, but not condoned, honored, or respected.  Why the heck to people act like looting public money and squandering it in your state is any more honorable than embezzling your employer's money?
~Jon

The Act says "exploration funds". It says nothing about commercial crew. Although Nelson fought for extra money for exploration, he made it clear that his intentions for asking this extra money was for Constellation and for the gap. As far as who gets what, that is part of politics. Each Senator represents his state and each fights for his state. The Presidents represents the entire nation but Senators represent their state. That's just the way it works.

[yg1968]

Actually, I was just watching the May 21st Senate NASA FY 10 Budget Request Hearing where Nelson gave Scolese a hard time over the fact that NASA did not listen to what was being asked in the 2008 NASA Authorization legislation by not funding COTS-D as it was contemplated by Congress. Nelson makes a good point. He said that the $150 million from the Stimulus bill that was being spent by NASA on commercial crew was not being spent in the way that Congress had asked. Congress had asked that commercial crew be funded as a COTS-D program with milestone payments, etc. (see the details in section 902 of the 2008 NASA Authorization Act below).

It's kind of ironic that a few months later, it is now the Senate (through Shelby) that is back tracking on what it's own legislation says by refusing to fund the $150M for commercial crew. (So I take back what I said I don't believe that Shelby's actions are justified; at least not if the 2008 Authorization Act is to be followed).

I am not sure what will happen next (pehaps 51D mascot knows). Congress had directed in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill that $150 million in FY 2009 be used to fund commercial crew. But now it appears that the stimulus money on commercial crew will be reduced to $50M eventhough the 2008 NASA Authorization legislation has not actually been changed.  It's a bit of a legislative mess.

Section 902 had stated the following:

SEC. 902. COMMERCIAL CREW INITIATIVE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—In order to stimulate commercial use of space,
help maximize the utility and productivity of the International
Space Station, and enable a commercial means of providing crew
transfer and crew rescue services for the International Space Station,
NASA shall—
(1) make use of United States commercially provided International
Space Station crew transfer and crew rescue services
to the maximum extent practicable, if those commercial services
have demonstrated the capability to meet NASA-specified
ascent, entry, and International Space Station proximity operations
safety requirements;
(2) limit, to the maximum extent practicable, the use of
the Crew Exploration Vehicle to missions carrying astronauts
beyond low Earth orbit once commercial crew transfer and
crew rescue services that meet safety requirements become
operational;
(3) facilitate, to the maximum extent practicable, the
transfer of NASA-developed technologies to potential United
States commercial crew transfer and rescue service providers,
consistent with United States law; and
(4) issue a notice of intent, not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, to enter into a funded,
competitively awarded Space Act Agreement with 2 or more
commercial entities for a Phase 1 Commercial Orbital Transportation
Services crewed vehicle demonstration program.
(b) CONGRESSIONAL INTENT.—It is the intent of Congress that
funding for the program described in subsection (a)(4) shall not
come at the expense of full funding of the amounts authorized
under section 101(3)(A), and for future fiscal years, for Orion Crew
Exploration Vehicle development, Ares I Crew Launch Vehicle
development, or International Space Station cargo delivery.
(c) ADDITIONAL TECHNOLOGIES.—NASA shall make International
Space Station-compatible docking adaptors and other relevant
technologies available to the commercial crew providers
selected to service the International Space Station.
(d) CREW TRANSFER AND CREW RESCUE SERVICES CONTRACT.—
If a commercial provider demonstrates the capability to provide
International Space Station crew transfer and crew rescue services
and to satisfy NASA ascent, entry, and International Space Station
proximity operations safety requirements, NASA shall enter into
an International Space Station crew transfer and crew rescue services
contract with that commercial provider for a portion of NASA’s
anticipated International Space Station crew transfer and crew
rescue requirements from the time the commercial provider commences
operations under contract with NASA through calendar
year 2016, with an option to extend the period of performance
through calendar year 2020.

Here is the May 21st Senate Hearing where Nelson gives Scolese a hard time over the COTS-D funding:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=0a8cf92a-ccd0-498e-a8fd-509633bf2f0c