Author Topic: Is A Human Space Flight Compromise Emerging? (STS Extension/SD HLV etc)  (Read 139153 times)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
But what compromise would bring us closer to a permanent base on the moon? Who is pushing for it? As far as I can see, a SHLV without Orion and Altair puts us further from the moon, because we will be eating money just standing still. Im not the brightest guy here. There seem to be actual NASA people here who think a SHLV is a good compromise. What am I missing?

You are missing that Orion would be re-funded and completed as the default US human crew transfer vehicle.  Because a pure-SDHLV is cheaper (by at least an order of magnitude) than the Ares Launch System, it leaves funding for mission modules that CxP could not because it was committed to launch vehicle development.  Because the SDHLV is not so extreme in its costs and performance, it can be used for LEO-only missions and early Orion-only pathfinder missions. 

CxP called for two distinct LVs (debate the exact requirements but this is indisputible).  One was only good for launching crew to LEO and could do nothing else.  The other could not go into serious development after ISS retirement.  This is not the case for the SDHLV.  Its core is common between LEO and BEO versions, and requires a far less costly development program to gain BEO capability (only the upper stage rather than a whole different core, upper stage and engine development program).  The major advantage over Ares-V (IMHO at least) is that it does not have to wait until the BEO elements are complete to have a useful purpose.  It can assist in ISS support and even carry out other LEO and even possibly GEO missions.

An SDHLV would allow a phased return to the Moon, starting with orbital missions, then excursion landings and later going on to long-duration survey stays.  It is also adaptable for exploration of the rest of the Inner Solar System.  The lunar outpost is still too early in conception to be certain of its requirements, but the basic SDHLV concept is flexible enough to handle most reasonable requirements for that application too.

Ok.. so this isnt a compromise is it. Its a do over. But fair enough.

I guess I just cant believe the same organisation can do it ten times cheaper this time.

I know my opinion is not based on an understanding of the rockets, but then neither can the opinons the president or congress be. The point is NASA did the other plan. Sure, dissenting voices and all that, but as an organisation it did it and would not have stopped taking money for it.

How could the President or Congress take NASA's word this time?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10506
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 26
Ok.. so this isnt a compromise is it. Its a do over. But fair enough.

I think it was shaping up to be a "compromise".

But last week Administrator Bolden kicked the ADA boot into everyone's guts.

Now it is going to be a straight fight.

Unfortunately for the President, he doesn't actually control any of the money.   So this is going to be very-much a one-sided fight:   533 vs 1.

That's why some folk are describing this as a "backfire".

Using ADA, when the Supreme Court has ruled against it, was simply a brutal move -- in the best traditions of Chicago politics -- designed simply to try to scare-off the contractors (Lockheed Martin appears to be the only ones who have partially "caved").


Quote
I guess I just cant believe the same organisation can do it ten times cheaper this time.

They certainly can't do the same thing 10 times cheaper.   Ares-I is dead.   And Ares-V is unaffordable without Ares-I.   So those plans are gone.

But there are plenty of different things which can be done instead.   Almost all of which which require much less work, in order to achieve the same basic results.

The problem with the old ESAS plan was that it was never supported by the data -- merely unsupported opinions from its originators, who were unfortunately put in charge.

The data actually pointed a different way and they ignored it, decried it and fought it tooth and nail to get their own pet project in place instead.

Remove all the B.S., and you can start to make much better decisions based on real, substantiated data.   That's how you can identify all the savings you need.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2010 12:58 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10506
  • Liked: 628
  • Likes Given: 26
[Edit: I should be clear--when I say contact with reality, I mean that while I think you guys have done a great job of fleshing the idea out, and it's technically feasible, that political and bureaucratic forces are going to make you cry by the time they're done with your idea.]
~Jon

From closely studying the activities and decision-making skills of the political world and the senior management of the agency over the last half-decade, I have remarkably little confidence that they can get any effort right any longer.

But I have far too many friends who's careers are on the line to back down now.   The words of John F Kennedy come to mind:-

"For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last."

The same principle applies here, IMHO.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 06/17/2010 01:06 am by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15944
  • Liked: 6164
  • Likes Given: 2693
Now, I support DIRECT over CxP anytime.

And Obama's plant is bad, not in the "killing the HSF" but in like past 30 years of USA presidents "I have nothing against space exploration but I certainly don't want to pay for it so you can only draw nice pictures while I'm in office".

Still, I looked at good ol' DIRECT 2 x J-246 Lunar mission. And kept remembering ULA ACES idea. Depots in LEO and L1, reusing everything that can be... Its how space exploration should be done. DIRECT is certainly cheaper and easier to do than CxP, but it still has the terrible concern of all proposed HLVs... you spend so much for vehicle you can't afford the missions.

You haven't paid close enough attention to the costing profiles of the DIRECT architecture. DIRECT actually made *ALL* the mission goals of the ESAS possible within the existing budget - and more!

DIRECT in it's Platonically ideal form, pre-contact-with-reality form sure.  But when reality (in the form of NASA execution) actually kicks in, I doubt it will actually allow exploration worthy of the name under the existing budget. 

[Edit: I should be clear--when I say contact with reality, I mean that while I think you guys have done a great job of fleshing the idea out, and it's technically feasible, that political and bureaucratic forces are going to make you cry by the time they're done with your idea.]
~Jon

Jon,

Do you think that some of these issues could be resolved if Direct were to be a commercial endeavor that is managed by Boeing (instead of NASA)?

Offline rjholling

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 224
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Now, I support DIRECT over CxP anytime.

And Obama's plant is bad, not in the "killing the HSF" but in like past 30 years of USA presidents "I have nothing against space exploration but I certainly don't want to pay for it so you can only draw nice pictures while I'm in office".

Still, I looked at good ol' DIRECT 2 x J-246 Lunar mission. And kept remembering ULA ACES idea. Depots in LEO and L1, reusing everything that can be... Its how space exploration should be done. DIRECT is certainly cheaper and easier to do than CxP, but it still has the terrible concern of all proposed HLVs... you spend so much for vehicle you can't afford the missions.

You haven't paid close enough attention to the costing profiles of the DIRECT architecture. DIRECT actually made *ALL* the mission goals of the ESAS possible within the existing budget - and more!

DIRECT in it's Platonically ideal form, pre-contact-with-reality form sure.  But when reality (in the form of NASA execution) actually kicks in, I doubt it will actually allow exploration worthy of the name under the existing budget. 

[Edit: I should be clear--when I say contact with reality, I mean that while I think you guys have done a great job of fleshing the idea out, and it's technically feasible, that political and bureaucratic forces are going to make you cry by the time they're done with your idea.]
~Jon

Jon,

Do you think that some of these issues could be resolved if Direct were to be a commercial endeavor that is managed by Boeing (instead of NASA)?
Such dreams.  You really think you can just steal the sausage right from Senator Shelby's plate like that?  I think MSFC will take the lead on the design on whatever comes out of this mess bar FY2011 only.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15944
  • Liked: 6164
  • Likes Given: 2693
I could be wrong but I think that most of this can be resolve through the 2010 Authorization Act. A continuing resolution would maintain the funding from FY2010 in FY2011 but I don't think that means that you have to spend the money on exactly the same things as you did the year before.

Offline mr_magoo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 424
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 21
Quote
Unfortunately for the President, he doesn't actually control any of the money.   So this is going to be very-much a one-sided fight:   533 vs 1.

That's why some folk are describing this as a "backfire".

It's a two way street.  What if they offend the president by ignoring his direction and he starts submitting smaller NASA budgets (as Garver hinted at)?  Then it's up to the pro-NASA wing of congress to restore funding each and every year.  Something they havent been very good at in the past.    What plan get's implemented if NASA goes back to $15 billion budgets?  Extremely flexible path?

What's the old saying?  It's not a deal until both parties are dissatisfied.


Offline SpacexULA

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1756
  • Liked: 53
  • Likes Given: 73
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?
No Bucks no Buck Rogers, but at least Flexible path gets you Twiki.

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Ok.. so this isnt a compromise is it. Its a do over. But fair enough.

I think it was shaping up to be a "compromise".

...

They certainly can't do the same thing 10 times cheaper.   Ares-I is dead.   And Ares-V is unaffordable without Ares-I.   So those plans are gone.

But there are plenty of different things which can be done instead.   Almost all of which which require much less work, in order to achieve the same basic results.

The problem with the old ESAS plan was that it was never supported by the data -- merely unsupported opinions from its originators, who were unfortunately put in charge.

The data actually pointed a different way and they ignored it, decried it and fought it tooth and nail to get their own pet project in place instead.

Remove all the B.S., and you can start to make much better decisions based on real, substantiated data.   That's how you can identify all the savings you need.

Ross.

Ok.. but how was it a compromise? What part of the FY11 was included? How can you build a super heavy lift vehicle to go to the moon without also all the rest of constellation? Wouldnt it have nothing to do except service the ISS, thus destroying the market for commercial?

As to the rest of it, saying the last plan was obviously flawed and this plan is obviously better implies to me that there is some much larger problem that must be addressed. How can an organisation in charge of so much money make such a mistake, if it is so obvious? What has changed that prevents the same thing happening again?


Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Now it is going to be a straight fight.

Unfortunately for the President, he doesn't actually control any of the money.   So this is going to be very-much a one-sided fight:   533 vs 1.

Well, that's certainly big talk.  I suppose we'll have to see what happens, but remember that Obama managed to kill the previously-untouchable F-22, and it looks like he's going to come the closest yet to killing the F136 engine, but putting that in the same bill as the repeal of DADT may keep it alive.

And in the battles over those programs I saw much more combative rhetoric out of Congress, including from the heads of the relevant committees, than I am seeing now.

Complaining that Obama is being mean and playing hardball politics is not a sign of strength.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6381
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 56
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?

No, not really. A CR, unless it contains specific language to the contrary, would carry over the FY10 amounts for both shuttle and CxP.
JRF

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15944
  • Liked: 6164
  • Likes Given: 2693
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?

No, not really. A CR, unless it contains specific language to the contrary, would carry over the FY10 amounts for both shuttle and CxP.

I could be wrong but I don't think that appropriation legislations are that specific. They just have headings like space operations or exploration. I would expect that a lot of leeway is allowed under these headings.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23391
  • Liked: 1860
  • Likes Given: 976
The big issue at least for the Obama administration (at least Rahm Emanuel) is to " put points on the board" rather than push the complete budget through. So if a compromise shows aspects that the administration called for while differing in others, the White House will still call it a victory.  So yes, a compromise might work, especially how Senator Nelson has worded himself with respect to the President.

Offline gladiator1332

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2431
  • Fort Myers, FL
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 6
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?

No, not really. A CR, unless it contains specific language to the contrary, would carry over the FY10 amounts for both shuttle and CxP.

It carries over the amounts...but would a CR specifically say NASA must work on Ares I / V and Orion, or is there enough leeway that work on commercial and FY2011-type activities will occur?

« Last Edit: 06/17/2010 03:33 am by gladiator1332 »

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6381
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 56
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?

No, not really. A CR, unless it contains specific language to the contrary, would carry over the FY10 amounts for both shuttle and CxP.

I could be wrong but I don't think that appropriation legislations are that specific. They just have headings like space operations or exploration. I would expect that a lot of leeway is allowed under these headings.

Yes, unless Congress inserts a "provided that..." clauses. Example from 2009 shown:

Quote from: H.R.1105 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 (Enrolled Bill)
space operations

      For necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, in the conduct and support of space operations research and development activities, including research, development, operations, support and services; space flight, spacecraft control and communications activities including operations, production, and services; maintenance; construction of facilities including repair, rehabilitation, revitalization and modification of facilities, construction of new facilities and additions to existing facilities, facility planning and design, and restoration, and acquisition or condemnation of real property, as authorized by law; environmental compliance and restoration; program management; personnel and related costs, including uniforms or allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; travel expenses; purchase and hire of passenger motor vehicles; and purchase, lease, charter, maintenance and operation of mission and administrative aircraft, $5,764,710,000, to remain available until September 30, 2010: Provided, That of the amounts provided under this heading, $2,981,724,000 shall be for Space Shuttle operations, production, research, development, and support, $2,060,162,000 shall be for International Space Station operations, production, research, development, and support, and $722,824,000 shall be for Space and Flight support.
JRF

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1000
  • Likes Given: 342
[Edit: I should be clear--when I say contact with reality, I mean that while I think you guys have done a great job of fleshing the idea out, and it's technically feasible, that political and bureaucratic forces are going to make you cry by the time they're done with your idea.]
~Jon

Yes, as we discovered in another thread, in traditional human spaceflight business this process is called pork-rating your launch vehicle.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15944
  • Liked: 6164
  • Likes Given: 2693
Yes, unless Congress inserts a "provided that..." clauses. Example from 2009 shown:

Thanks. That's explains a lot.

For purposes of this discussion, as (other) examples of what such legislation for FY2011 might look like, I have included the most recent FY2010 appropriation bill (see page 110):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3288enr.txt.pdf

Here is a link to a recent continuing resolution (see sections 101 and 124):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h2638enr.txt.pdf

P.S. This continuing resolution (in section 124) refers to proposed appropriation legislation in S3182 (which wasn't enacted) which can be found here (see page 66):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:s3182pcs.txt.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/20/2010 05:43 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7200
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 801
  • Likes Given: 894
The popular opinion seems to be that all of this is going to end with a CR. Basically passing this whole issue off to the next Congress. However, how does a CR prevent NASA from working on FY2011? Technically the law of the land right now is Cx still, yet that hasn't been followed too closely. With congress more worried with elections in the next few months, who is going to stop NASA from continuing to shut down Cx + Shuttle?

I was under the impression that Shuttle Shutdown was an written part of CX.  It was to pay for Ares 1, so if continuing resolution continues, while the accounting issue continues, it means that Shuttle shuts down while Ares 1 shuts down.

Am I reading this right?

No, not really. A CR, unless it contains specific language to the contrary, would carry over the FY10 amounts for both shuttle and CxP.

Over on NASA Watch, they mentioned that the language of the CR is being crafted very carefully because, in programatic and hardware terms, so much has been changed.  They thus need to be careful that they don't accidentally de-fund stuff that has started since FY2010 was read into law.  Naturally, Congress is using the opportunity to ensure that their preferences are included.
"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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1