FY2011 Senate and House (Compromise) Thread (2) - Sept. 23 onwards

[Chris Bergin]

Follow on from the Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards thread ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.0 )

Documents on the compromise below. If some don't open on your particular computer set up, try and alternative reader. Things like XLS are not cross-platform friendly. So avoid clogging up the thread with "I've got a Mac, why won't this PC created document open on my computer"

[Chris Bergin]

Over 12 billion for a HLV and STS-135 are music to my ears.

[jongoff]

One thing I like is that it reaffirms that the SLS and the MPCV are not allowed to compete with commercial providers once they are available.

How does the total space technology funding look compared to the Senate bill?  It looked at first-blush like by transferring the Exploration Technology Development stuff over to the Aeronautics and Space Technology side, they actually decreased things a bit.  Though to be honest, it's still a respectable sum, so long as it doesn't get raided.

~Jon

[yg1968]

Follow on from the Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards thread ( http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22270.0 )

Documents on the compromise below.

Here is a copy of the compromise 2010 NASA Authorization bill:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

See also the statement by Gordon:
 

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/NASACompromiseText.pdf

Press release has comments from Chairman Gordon:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2921

[simonbp]

Increase in suborbital and Explorer-level science programs is a welcome surprise; these are the cheapest end of missions, and often do work that otherwise wouldn't happen on the big missions, while giving experience to the people who will latter run those big missions. Also, the restoration of funding to Space Grant means more future NASA future employees/contractors in the pipeline. Someone clearly was thinking of the long-term future of NASA here...

[Namechange User]

I'm a bit disappointed the House bill removed Section 203 from the Senate bill, where the Senate version referenced ET-94.  While the House version has good words, very similar to the Senate, about using existing infrastructure (with modernization), contracts, workforce, etc - as did the Senate - Section 203 I saw as somewhat of a legislative bridge. 

Given we are heading into a CR, and hopefully a final and signed aurhtoization bill to guide that CR allocation, that section could have restarted ET-94 production for use on STS or SLS and those synergies between the two would have been stronger I think. 

Overall, from what I have seen thus far, I am much happier with the House bill than I was previously. 

[psloss]

The way this proposed bill looks to me at a high-level is that it's based on the Senate bill.  The main differences and most of the disagreement this year has been over the Exploration and Space Operations elements, so setting aside the other areas, it appears that the differences in this bill are:

* provides less for CCDev than the Senate bill (I haven't accounted for where that goes, but I would guess SLS and/or MPCV)

* effectively defines STS-135 as the last Shuttle flight (i.e., it eliminates the idea of extending beyond that, although the Senate bill's capability assurance clauses weren't necessarily mandates)

But there are still the details to go through -- such as the one that Jon has already noted.

[Warren Platts]

One thing I like is that it reaffirms that the SLS and the MPCV are not allowed to compete with commercial providers once they are available.

~Jon

So let's say that ULA was to produce a human-rated, 70-ton Phase 2 EELV with $2.5 billion of its own USD and offer launches to whomever at reasonable rates. Would SLS then be in direct competition with a commercial provider no matter what it launched?

[psloss]

I misread the Senate number for Exploration Tech Development for FY 2011.

It looks like this new proposed bill has $50M more ($300M vs. $250M) in FY 2011.

The top-line numbers are then identical in FY 2012 and FY 2013, although they are book-kept under different areas.
 

[Ben the Space Brit]

One thing I like is that it reaffirms that the SLS and the MPCV are not allowed to compete with commercial providers once they are available.

~Jon

So let's say that ULA was to produce a human-rated, 70-ton Phase 2 EELV with $2.5 billion of its own USD and offer launches to whomever at reasonable rates. Would SLS then be in direct competition with a commercial provider no matter what it launched?

That's an awfully big 'what if' and borders on the highly unlikely.  However, I would suspect that NASA would initially plan all payloads to fly on SLS and only reconsider for later ones if the commercial HLV is on a reasonable time-line and meets their reliability requirements.

[yg1968]

One thing I like is that it reaffirms that the SLS and the MPCV are not allowed to compete with commercial providers once they are available.

~Jon

So let's say that ULA was to produce a human-rated, 70-ton Phase 2 EELV with $2.5 billion of its own USD and offer launches to whomever at reasonable rates. Would SLS then be in direct competition with a commercial provider no matter what it launched?

That will not happen. In any event, this principle isn't new, it's also in subsection 102(c) of the NASA Act.

(c) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ogc/about/space_act1.html

[sdsds]

At first read the only explicit reference to upper stage propulsion I found was:

* shall complete construction and activation of the A–3 test stand

No explicit mention of J-2X.

Regarding booster propulsion (p. 25):

* extend or modify existing contracts including contracts for flight and ground testing of solid rocket motors

Does that wording imply Ares I-Y?

[marsavian]

One thing is for sure, Ares I unofficially but effectively died today with its last political support gone.

[Lars_J]

* extend or modify existing contracts including contracts for flight and ground testing of solid rocket motors

Does that wording imply Ares I-Y?

Not necessarily - SLS would/will use SRBs.

[mr_magoo]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

[cro-magnon gramps]

* extend or modify existing contracts including contracts for flight and ground testing of solid rocket motors

Does that wording imply Ares I-Y?

Not necessarily - SLS would/will use SRBs.

The Senate bill uses this wording:
       (2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.— 4
In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs 5
and support critical capabilities, the Administrator 6
shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify ex- 7
isting vehicle development and associated contracts 8
necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph 9
(1), including contracts for ground testing of solid 10
rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their avail- 11
ability for development of the Space Launch System. 12

[yg1968]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

The minimum requirement is 130 mT with the upper stage. But the upper stage doesn't have to be ready for December 2016.

[sdsds]

13 August 2007, http://www.space.com/news/070814_nasa_ares1_firststage.html

The cost-plus contract runs through 2013 and calls for ATK Launch Systems of Brigham City, Utah, to build eight boosters: five that will be used in ground tests starting in 2009 and three that will be used in flight tests beginning in 2012, according to Tom Williams, NASA's deputy program manager for the Ares I main stage.

Of course they had to choose an odd number of flight test motors!  It would be really fun to see an SLS launch that used all three....

[mr_magoo]

I read that it's 130 metric tons for SLS and no mention of the lower limit.  Does that sound right?   That's bigger than Direct, right?

The minimum requirement is 130 mT with the upper stage. But the upper stage doesn't have to be ready for December 2016.

Is there a version of Direct that does 130mt with the upper stage?   The charts show Direct topping out at 118mt with the J-2x in J241 cargo configuration.

It just caught my eye.  It sounds like a somewhat fancy, non-straightforward evolution.

[Mark Max Q]

So SRBs for the SLS means it's SD HLV, or can it still be something else?

Things that are not SD HLVs tend to be liquid boosters, right?