Author Topic: Comparison of the House and Senate NASA Authorization bills  (Read 9074 times)

Offline phantomdj

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Standing in the Saturn V nozzle
  • Merritt Island, Fl
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 6
The Space Foundation did a very good job of comparing the House and Senate NASA Authorization bills along with the White House proposal.
SpaceX has become what NASA used to be in the '60's, innovative and driven.

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
The House is just living in the past with willful ignorance of their own inadequacies.  They want Constellation but won't fund it to the place where it can actually DO anything.  So, NASA just turns into an employment office for white-collar scientists and engineers (at least in ESMD). 

They don't even MENTION COTS?  Get real...SpaceX is already preparing their demonstration vehicles.  The House will pull the rug out from under the future of US manned spaceflight. 

Offline moose103

  • Member
  • Posts: 89
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The Space Foundation did a very good job of comparing the House and Senate NASA Authorization bills along with the White House proposal.

I find it compares dollars rather than practical things that happen. I don't understand billions of dollars. I understand "when does the first robotic mission happen," "when does the first human mission happen," "when are the first science returns," "when is the first new technology developed," etc.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 396
  • Likes Given: 80
The Space Foundation is full of rocket scientists, but they can't calculate a simple percentage increase?  They claim a 14.7% increase for NASA from FY10 to FY11, but obviously it is only 1.47%.

Sheesh.  And I guess this document was spread as far and wide as possible?

I realize it is just a math "typo", putting the decimal point in the wrong place. But what are they using, a slide rule?  Plus it's a big typo, and right at the top of the document, regarding the top-line budget numbers.

Mark S.

Offline Drkskywxlt

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 152
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 2
I find it compares dollars rather than practical things that happen. I don't understand billions of dollars. I understand "when does the first robotic mission happen," "when does the first human mission happen," "when are the first science returns," "when is the first new technology developed," etc.
1.  (For ESMD Precursors) Probably never if the House has it's way.  Still possibly 2014 (which is Obama's budget timetable) if the Senate's numbers are passed.  But the Senate would probably not have another mission for awhile after that.
2.  After 2020? 
3.  What science returns?  These bills are all about engineering work on the ESMD side.
4.  A long time from now with either bill. 

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11050
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1304
  • Likes Given: 753
Quote
Plus it's a big typo....

To abuse one of the phrases used so often around here:  You still have not proven that we taxpayers have a right to expect correct numbers in any legislation.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11050
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1304
  • Likes Given: 753
Pretty interesting comparison.

From the chart on page 3, and footnote 2:  It seems to me more that a $559M shell game is being played with the Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology line item.  My personal sense is that there should be a four year or so moratorium on this line item, and that the money should be used for the commercial space industry.

The $3.2B (S) for launch systems should be used to extend the shuttle flights to completely use the major spare parts already available.  The one flight called for is simply not enough.  The $450M/flight at +/- 4 flights/yr is currently referenced in the "SHUTTLE DERIVED HEAVY-LIFT LAUNCH VEHICLE ASSESSMENT" document, and should be a trustworthy figure.

I and a lot of Americans don't have a problem with the shuttle being that "government system as back-up for ISS & LEO", such that there should be no US crew launch gap, while commercial space proves its abilities.  Earth Orbit Rendezvous, and LEO prop transfer should be the technique used to access cis-lunar points, unless the particular mission can be launched on one of the several existing launch systems.

I struggle to believe that there is still insufficient information available to determine whether or not a sidemount or inline vehicle is appropriate at this time.  So I don't like this part: "Within this time (180 days), the Administrator should also carry out a review of the heavy lift launch vehicle requirements and select the exploration launch vehicle architecture."  YAR.  More delay.  Legislated non-accountability.  How about a public conference within 30 days, with a binding decision, and I make the tie-breaking vote?

When I see the phrase "a full range of destinations" used, I know that the L-points and the Moon are still relatively easy to get to with human missions, and that Mars is quite difficult to get to with human missions.  The phrase is just a lot of talk.

Quote
The Senate requires the Administrator to report on efforts by NASA to expand and ensure effective international cooperation on the ISS.

If I had been running the show, this kind of reportage would be SOP, in a publicly available database including, without limitation, dates, times, missions, costs, and names of international partners.  I thought we wer pretty much doing this already.  I agree that we should "expand" to some of the poorer nations;  my guess is that if these nations educate their people more, then their national incomes would rise.  I always thought that this kind of leadership, that I'm dreaming of, basically came naturally to Americans.

Quote
The proposed House authorization bill states that the Administrator shall explore potential international collaborations...

If I'm not mistaken, this type of "exploration" is Yet Another Report. (YAR) We already know how to do this, and should concentrate more on the doing rather than the reporting.  To me, this very language call for more government waste.

Quote
prepare infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center
This has the potential to build well before any vehicle is likely to be ready, yet another tower, and perhaps even a crawler.  These items are not specifically excluded from the proposed "improvements".

There are simply too many destinations for a "pay as you go" approach.  For the time being, it should just be the Moon, and the L-point depot.  The more distant destinations should be later in priority, unless, after public proof, there is a compelling martian exobiology argument.  Lichen is not sufficient, in my mind, but animal life would be. 

As far as workforce transition is concerned, perhaps it would be a good idea to test for the acceptance and willingness to design and build multi-function missions and vehicles.  The appropriate training can be offered as required.

The paragraph on all the reports necessary seems to confirm the idea that reports alone seem to be held as the mark of success.

All in all, the Senate version is a good bit better than the House version.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8802
Quote
Plus it's a big typo....

To abuse one of the phrases used so often around here:  You still have not proven that we taxpayers have a right to expect correct numbers in any legislation.

They do "math up" a lot, don't they?  ;)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4310
  • Liked: 888
  • Likes Given: 201
I notice this pdf still just mentions 75 million for the senate proposal on Exploration Technology. Anyone know if that has been increased? I thought someone mentioned it being upped to 250ish million, but perhaps this was a confusion with the space technology value of 225m.

Exploration Technology
-President: 652.4m "Exploration Technology and demonstration"
-Senate:    75m "Exploration Technology Development"
-House:     0.0

Robotic precursor:
-President: 125m "Exploration precursor robotic mission program"
-Senate:    44m "Robotic precurser studies and instruments"
-House:     0.0

The way I see it, if you are doing these things, you are stepping towards actual sustainable presence in space. Otherwise, you aren't. These should be core. Rather than asking if we need closed cycle life support or ISRU for current exploration, the real question should be if current exploration is allowing us to gather the information we need to deliver to the engineers who should be developing this technology.

I could be convinced that an HLV is an effective tool. I was initially enthusiastic about VSE. But if building your big multibillion dollar rocket means you do not have spare even a 1/40th of your budget for learning how to stay there sustainably then I think your HSF strategy is backwards and broken.

Offline MP99

I'm just looking at the House authorization act, as reported on spaceref. Sec 908 (d) says:-

Quote
SEC. 908. AMENDMENT TO THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958.

Section 202 of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2472) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

''(d) The Administrator and the Deputy Administrator may be retired commissioned military personnel.''.

I'd be fascinated to hear if there's any back-story behind this.

I notice from http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf that:-

Quote
8 Pub. L. No. 101-48, 103 Stat. 136, (Jun. 30, 1989) provided that “notwithstanding the provisions of Section 202(a)” the President was authorized to appoint Rear Admiral Richard Truly as Administrator. Although Rear Admiral Truly retired from the Navy before being sworn in as Administrator, the waiver was necessary because he remained an officer on the retired list and was subject to recall.

Presumably something similar was done for Gen Bolden, although it's not mentioned here.

If this is an issue, shouldn't the same clause be in the Senate bill, too?

cheers, Martin

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7387
  • Liked: 2896
  • Likes Given: 1503
Re: Comparison of the House and Senate NASA Authorization bills
« Reply #10 on: 07/24/2010 04:26 pm »
If this is an issue, shouldn't the same clause be in the Senate bill, too?

It is; see Sec. 1204.

Offline MP99

Thanks, I'd searched, but missed that. However, it seems to be equivalent to footnote 8 on http://history.nasa.gov/spaceact-legishistory.pdf:-
Quote
8 Pub. L. No. 101-48, 103 Stat. 136, (Jun. 30, 1989) provided that “notwithstanding the provisions of Section 202(a)” the President was authorized to appoint Rear Admiral Richard Truly as Administrator. Although Rear Admiral Truly retired from the Navy before being sworn in as Administrator, the waiver was necessary because he remained an officer on the retired list and was subject to recall.

...except that it's retrospective. In fact, this implies that without such authorisation, Congress might have grounds to seek Gen Bolden's dismissal - except that this would look very silly, given that they Confirmed him in the first place.

ISTM, the House bill allows that ex-service personnel could become adminstrator at any time in the future, while the Senate bill would still require a waiver for any future ex-service appointees.

cheers, Martin

Tags:
 

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