Author Topic: Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards  (Read 732829 times)

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
True as this may be, they did not conceive of the idea.  Rather, they appear to be briskly finishing off the program that Prez Bush suggested canceling in the 2004 VSE.  It seems to me like this important detail needs to be frequently restated.

As to "extending the Shuttle significantly beyond its current manifest", it is my opinion that extending the manifest by about five or six flights, which would virtually completely use up existing hardware, would not qualify as a "significant" extension, but rather as a "practical" and "cost effective", and "fiscally responsible" limited extension, serving also the valuable interim goal of "minimizing the gap".

Just to be clear, when the current administration took office, or even during the transition, we were quite far from actually terminating the program.  In fact jn late 2008/early 2009 we were still very much in the thick of processing/launches/missions. 

Shuttle retirement and a "go/no-go" decision, for lack of a better word, was listed in the top 10 items needing immediate attention and a decision from the incoming administration by the GAO.  We heard nothing and still to this day have heard nothing.  Nothing was mentioned on April 15 certainly.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?

« Last Edit: 08/13/2010 11:59 pm by 2552 »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7754
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?

ummm...except for the little word 'likely' that's in there. But I'm certainly hoping.  :)

Offline orbitjunkie

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 155
  • Maryland
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 0
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?


Yes, it is:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/R?cp111:FLD010:@1(sr278):
Click one of the "Full Display" links.

A couple other interesting bits not highlighted in the spacenews article:
Quote
Section 302. Space Launch System as follow-on launch vehicle to the Space Shuttle.
<snip>
Should resources and manufacturing capacity be available to permit parallel development of both the core elements of the launch system and an integrated upper stage for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, the Committee believes such concurrent development should be pursued.

In order to meet the mission and cost goals of the vehicle authorized by this section, NASA should focus on designing and building `to cost' versus overall performance. The Committee notes that this requirement represents a fundamental change from NASA's recent history with the Constellation program and a number of previous NASA launch initiatives, and believes it is critical that NASA follow this guidance. In the near-term, NASA should maximize the use of existing assets and capabilities from Shuttle and Ares programs to the extent practicable, while constraining requirements and performance to only those necessary to meet the schedule authorized for early operational capability. Modifications of ground infrastructure and other elements to support the vehicle should be minimized.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
A couple other interesting bits not highlighted in the spacenews article:
Quote
Section 302. Space Launch System as follow-on launch vehicle to the Space Shuttle.
...
In order to meet the mission and cost goals of the vehicle authorized by this section, NASA should focus on designing and building `to cost' versus overall performance. The Committee notes that this requirement represents a fundamental change from NASA's recent history with the Constellation program and a number of previous NASA launch initiatives, and believes it is critical that NASA follow this guidance. In the near-term, NASA should maximize the use of existing assets and capabilities from Shuttle and Ares programs to the extent practicable, while constraining requirements and performance to only those necessary to meet the schedule authorized for early operational capability. Modifications of ground infrastructure and other elements to support the vehicle should be minimized.
     The language about "designing and building to cost vs performance", and "modifications ... should be minimized" would seem to speak more to sidemount. JSC, at least, believes that sidemount is cheaper and faster (and hence cheaper) than inline. Ross maintains that the older studies show that inline is cheaper in production, and now that inline is getting more recent official study within NASA to catch up with not-shuttle-C that may turn out to be the case, but that's not what the official presentations say yet.
    Sounds like sidemount could win on the most short-term perspective.
     -Alex

Offline JohnF

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 120
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Sidemount doesn't go well with the safety requirements ie: "Let your troubles be behind you".

Offline SpaceDave

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • El Segundo, CA
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 37
http://spacenews.com/civil/081310senate-prescribed-heavy-lifter-looks-like-ares.html

Quote
In a report accompanying the S. 3729 issued a few days later, Senate lawmakers state that regarding the heavy-lift rocket, “the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle.”

The report notes that the committee “will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section” of the bill.

Inline it is then 8). Also, is this report available online anywhere?



Reports are generally available on THOMAS.

They are not, however, binding law.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7324
  • Liked: 2812
  • Likes Given: 1477
Ross maintains that the older studies show that inline is cheaper in production, and now that inline is getting more recent official study within NASA to catch up with not-shuttle-C that may turn out to be the case

Does anybody know where these studies are or have any details about them, like authors, dates or titles?

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
More from the Thomas link

Quote
Section 308. Development of technologies and in-space capabilities for beyond near-Earth space missions.

      This section would authorize the Administrator to develop technologies necessary for missions beyond low-Earth orbit. To develop these technologies, this section would allow the Administrator to invest in a space suit, a space-based transfer vehicle, advanced life support capabilities, improved in-space propulsion systems, in-space propellant transfer and storage systems, in situ resource utilization capabilities, and technologies to mitigate of biological impediments to human deep space missions, including radiation challenges. This section would allow the Administrator to utilize the ISS as a test-bed for technologies developed in these areas, where applicable, and require the Administrator to pursue technology development through a coordinated agency technology approach, which includes mission-driven technology developments and risk reduction.
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Another interesting bit from the report:

Quote
Section 1103. NASA capabilities study requirement.
This section would, after the completion of the study described
in section 1102, require the Administrator to contract with an inde-
pendent entity to submit a report to Congress within 1 year from
initiation of this analysis that examines alternative management
models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, including
the potential conversion of NASA centers to federally funded re-
search and development centers
.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7469
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2278
  • Likes Given: 2140
Quote
Section 1103. [...] alternative management
models for NASA’s workforce, centers, and capabilities, including
the potential conversion of NASA centers to federally funded re-
search and development centers
.

Wow!  Thanks for pointing that out!  It could potentially lead, maybe some day, to a more efficient NASA....
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
From the Space News article:

Quote
Jim Muncy, a space policy consultant here, said the $7 billion the bill authorizes over three years for the new rocket may not be enough to undertake a major development program while also sustaining the U.S. solid-rocket motor industrial base, which has more capacity than business.

“If you’ve got to spend $600 million or $700 million a year to keep the base alive, that’s a fairly substantial fraction of your heavy-lift launch development budget keeping that industrial capacity in place,” he said. “It’s very expensive to have those fixed costs while you’re trying to develop something new.”

Do those fixed costs actually come from the SLS development budget, and not the Space Operations budget?

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 56
From the Space News article:

Quote
Jim Muncy, a space policy consultant here, said the $7 billion the bill authorizes over three years for the new rocket may not be enough to undertake a major development program while also sustaining the U.S. solid-rocket motor industrial base, which has more capacity than business.

“If you’ve got to spend $600 million or $700 million a year to keep the base alive, that’s a fairly substantial fraction of your heavy-lift launch development budget keeping that industrial capacity in place,” he said. “It’s very expensive to have those fixed costs while you’re trying to develop something new.”

Do those fixed costs actually come from the SLS development budget, and not the Space Operations budget?

Issue is on assumptions being made regarding the sustainment of the industrial base; there are steps being taken to reduce that industrial capacity requirement which could change the relevant  assumptions. Consideration of the potential for such changes played a role in the general approach to require use of large diameter solids in space launch system architecture development; the prof will be in the "pudding" as the SLS architecture prescribed in the Senate bill is refined and matured into  baseline design. The bill language is intended to set up that trade space but on a somewhat constrained basis, in order to avoid a wide-open "design spree" without any performance and mission constraints.  It is also obvious that the out year projections for development costs will almost certainly need to be revisited in subsequent years and modifications to funding profiles made, as appropriate. But starting with a constrained baseline is felt to be the prudent and responsible approach, in the Senate bill.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Chris Bergin


Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/ - and that is from the absolute master presentation of all things SD HLV, period.

Where things will stand after the inline assessment is brought up to speed is where the interest is, and where people say inline will win through....

....but that's only just started.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MP99


Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/06/sd-hlv-assessment-highlights-post-shuttle-solution/ - and that is from the absolute master presentation of all things SD HLV, period.

Where things will stand after the inline assessment is brought up to speed is where the interest is, and where people say inline will win through....

....but that's only just started.

Presumably JSC have a better understanding of the side-mount config, because that's what they work with now. I do wonder whether MSFC quite share that view, and I believe the Senate bill pushes te work their way.

However, your post raises the question for me whether MSFC might prefer to build an in-line, but the cost constraints force them to go side-mount because it's cheaper to develop.

cheers, Martin

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2486
  • Liked: 142
  • Likes Given: 282
And let's not forget we have a NASA administrator who's against Shuttle and SD HLV, and who's not been seen since the Muslim outreach scandal.

At a time NASA needs a leader, we've got a political yes man.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11007
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1276
  • Likes Given: 734
Quote
Wouldn't this extension use up the available hardware that could be used for Jupiter type test vehicles, thus extending the time till the new rocket is launched?
I don't think so.  The way I look at it, those various tanks and assorted other hardware were made for the shuttle.  The modifications required would be more correctly described as "finishing the job".  To argue too much about the meaning of the word "significant" would not further either viewpoint; one extra flight versus five extra flights.

The diameter of the tank is similar for the Jupiter class vehicle, so this aspect of the tooling will continue to be used.  Obviously tank diameter is not the only aspect of tank manufacture, but the fierce debate between 8.4m and 10m should indicate that this is a significant tooling cost; we have the former, but not the latter, for one thing.  In addition, this size constraint trickles down thru manufacturing, barge transport, cape assembly, and so on, with greater or lesser costs.  I'm thinking that if you had to choose one factor not to change, this would be it.

The load paths from sidemount are going to be more complicated than inline because of assymetry; same with the assymetrical aerodynamic loading; same with design of an LAS.  So it seems to me that this decision has to be made soon as well.  While the shuttle continues to fly, these decisions will have to be finalized, if I had my way.  Then the next tanks to be made would be for this Jupiter class vehicle.

As to the money for these extra flights, it seems to me like it's already there, at least the gross dollar amount, should the work be prioritized properly.  Again, if I had my way, I would stop further work on the intricacies of side-mount, with that effort to be concentrated on the inline design.  I think it is more important to launch a rocket than to explore the alternate design virtually to the point of completion before making a decision.

True, Joe's Side-Mount Bracket Shop will stand to lose this exact segment of his business.  The issue in this case will be whether Joe refuses to change his business model and adapt, or whether Joe will get his congress critter to sacrifice our nation's dire need for accomplishment in order to save Joe's job, but for no other reason.  I think this is part of the sausage making going on right now.
Quote
And no money has been set aside to finish assembly...
It just can't be cheaper to throw away a tank partially built for the shuttle, and start designing a new tank from scratch.  If no money has ben "set aside", then this points to an accounting prioritization, not to a request for more money, especially considering that no money has been officially disbursed yet for any purpose.
Quote
Bolden has stated publically that flying the shuttle is "like playing Russian roulette."
He did accept that particular job and he had to acknowledge that he would have to follow orders, despite what his prior opinions might have been.  At the same time, I believe that every astro in the program realizes that the Disney Steel Eel ride is a demonstrably safer ride.  That the "safety" issue keeps being raised really irks me to no end, because the pols keep lying about this.  I don't care what the vehicle is, no proponent is arguing to launch an "unsafe" vehicle, purposely meant to be "unsafe".  This is what the pols keep implying, and it is not true.

Critters?  Sorry, Chuck.  Gotta disagree on this one.  They're "critters".  They have played the most influential role in ensuring that: their members get special treatment, our education system is failing, our infrastructure is rotting, our deficits are phenomenal, our social safety nets are nearly gone, our employment is high, our elective wars are out of control, our helath care system is a mess, our financial industry can destabilize the country, our nearly unregulated industries can pollute the gulf, Social Security is constantly in doubt, our immigration policies are simply not enforced, and last, but not least, that we have stayed on planet for forty years, unnecessarily.  And personal favorite: that Chinese honey laundering goes on virtually unabated.  This is a short list.  I may have omitted one or possibly two other items.

Sadly, the few good ones do get painted with this brush.

Quote
At present, inline is deemed more expensive and a long dev cycle...
I understand that to be the case as it stands today.  I have read some of that paper, and I am not convinced of its neutrality, and I understand also that it is not complete.  I will read everything I can.

Quote
Either that or his will explode like a muppet.
That would be a YewToob moment.  Segue to Marlin Perkins: "And if your head is exploding like a muppet, remember your friends at Mutual of Omaha...."
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Presumably JSC have a better understanding of the side-mount config, because that's what they work with now. I do wonder whether MSFC quite share that view, and I believe the Senate bill pushes te work their way.

However, your post raises the question for me whether MSFC might prefer to build an in-line, but the cost constraints force them to go side-mount because it's cheaper to develop.

Marshall does seem to prefer an inline configuration, I can assume at least partially because it's a cleaner design.

And remember, these are the some of the same folks that built a full-scale Shuttle-C back in 1989!
« Last Edit: 08/15/2010 04:34 pm by simonbp »

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522

Inline it is then 8).


Hold your horses. They have completed the assessment on the sidemount. They have only just begun to bring the inline assessment into line. There is no decision on the configuration.

I meant in terms of Congressional preference, since the report specifies inline.

Offline Scotty

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1257
  • Merritt Island, Florida
  • Liked: 1992
  • Likes Given: 0
Marshall does seem to prefer an inline configuration, I can assume at least partially because it's a cleaner design.

And remember, these are the some of the same folks that built a full-scale Shuttle-C back in 1989! 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachments


 shuttle_c_031113a_02.jpg (36.38 KB, 600x400 - viewed 18 times.)
 
 
Back in 1989 (20 plus years ago!), Shuttle C would have been the very best way to go. The Shuttle was still flying and having a cargo vehicle that used exactly the same launch infrastructure as the Shuttle would have been the only way to go.
But we are way past that now, as the Shuttle will be gone for years before the new HLV is ready to fly.
Today Shuttle C or Not Shuttle C have no advantages over an inline vehicle, and have a lot of serious drawbacks.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1