Author Topic: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview  (Read 443089 times)

Offline Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1280 on: 04/14/2011 10:06 pm »
Sure.  I mean after all, everything revolves around SpaceX. 

It does so long the probability that Falcon Heavy flies is dramatically higher than anything calling itself "SLS". The most likely scenario right now is that NASA wastes another few billion (just like it did with NLS and Ares) before giving up and buying launch services from SpaceX and ULA.

Direct is dead. SLS is now Ares V-Redux, and likely won't end any differently.

Hey Simon, nice job on taking a post completely out of context, cuting out most of it to fit your needs and then launching into yet another arm-waving rant. 

Weren't you just days ago declaring that an RP-based SLS was the answer?  You even had a nice little tag at the bottom of your posts saying something like "We need a SDLV, A Saturn Derived Launch Vehicle".  Now you have found "religion" supposedly and are preeching.

People like you blow whatever direction the wind is.  Just like the wind, it'll shift again.  At least I stand on my principles.  Go back and look if you wish.  I have been very consistent.  With rationale.  Can you say the same?

I certainly do not want to agree with Simon even a little. But haven't others on here said that you can not evolve from a 4/3 vehicle *if* you design from the start to evolve to the end state of 130mt. It should be clear from my posts where I stand but it has been raised by competent people on this thread.

I did read what 51D has said based on advice from industry and it would seem that if we go SDLV they would prefer to go to Ares-V Classic from the get go, which in a way would mean DIRECT, or a 4/3 start would in fact be off the table correct?

Well, General Bolden has been saying a lot recently "somewhere around 70-75 mT will be the initial capability".  That should imply something.

In addition, given we don't know yet (to my historic frustration) exactly what or how we are going to with all these various capabilities, we may find 70 mT is adequate (depots, upper stages as part of the payload, etc). 

If we need more, the core will be designed to accept more engines.  If we need 5 segment, it's not like ATK will "forget" how to make them, especially given the design will be done and the overhead/sustaining costs are covered by 4 segment. 

So, those are my thoughts....

Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1281 on: 04/14/2011 10:19 pm »
The appropriation is for 130+tons.
4/3 does not qualify.
It is a practical impossibility to novate the 5-seg contract into a 4-seg contract.
(imo)
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 10:20 pm by renclod »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6613
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 3391
  • Likes Given: 1221
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1282 on: 04/14/2011 10:22 pm »
I don't necessarily agree with them, but here's a response from the "Taxpayers Protection Alliance":
$3B NASA Earmark in the CR Provides More Bad News for Taxpayers

They seem upset about this being a violation of a Congressional "no earmarks" pledge.

Not that it'll actually change anything. 

~Jon

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14891
  • Liked: 5501
  • Likes Given: 2411
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1283 on: 04/14/2011 10:23 pm »
Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

You are probably right that the 130mt makes a 100mt SD-HLV more likely. But as Chris mentionned in his article below, one does not preclude the other. The 70mt SD-HLV will be ready for 2016 but will only be a test vehicle. The 100mt and its upper stage should be ready by the time that we start BEO exploration in the 2020s.  Pad 39B will be used for the 100mt SD-HLV. Pad 39A for the 70mt test vehicule. So work on both versions will continue in parallel in a sense but the emphasis would be on the 70mt block 0 SD-HLV at first. I am not expecting either the J-2X or the 5 segment contracts to be terminated.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1284 on: 04/14/2011 10:25 pm »
You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

The word "initial" does not appear in the final adopted bill. There's a reason for that.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 10:26 pm by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1285 on: 04/14/2011 10:25 pm »
Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

You are probably right that the 130mt makes a 100mt SD-HLV more likely. But as Chris mentionned in his article below, one does not preclude the other. The 70mt SD-HLV will be ready for 2016 but will only be a test vehicle. The 100mt and its upper stage should be ready by the time that we start BEO exploration in the 2020s.  Pad 39B will be used for the 100mt SD-HLV. Pad 39A for the 70mt test vehicule. So work on both versions will continue in parallel in a sense but the emphasis would be on the 70mt block 0 SD-HLV at first. I am not expecting either the J-2X or the 5 segment contracts to be terminated.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/

If the 5-seg and J-2X contracts are not terminated, do they keep being developed alongside the 4/3 development? How does that work and still allow 4/3 to be ready by 2016?

Edit: or are they simply novated into 4/3-related items, and later (2016) novated back, or new contracts let/competed for the 130mT upgrade?
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 10:28 pm by 2552 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1286 on: 04/14/2011 10:38 pm »
RELEASE: 11-112

NASA ADMINISTRATOR CHARLES BOLDEN'S STATEMENT ON THE 2011 SPENDING BILL

WASHINGTON -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden issued the following
statement Thursday about the passage of the 2011 spending bill:

"We appreciate the work of Congress to pass a 2011 spending bill. NASA
now has appropriated funds to implement the 2010 Authorization Act,
which gives us a clear path forward to continue America's leadership
in human spaceflight, exploration and scientific discovery. Among
other things, this bill lifts funding restrictions that limited our
flexibility to carry out our shared vision for the future. With this
funding, we will continue to aggressively develop a new heavy lift
rocket, multipurpose crew vehicle and commercial capability to
transport our astronauts and their supplies on American-made and
launched spacecraft. We are committed to living within our means in
these tough fiscal times - and we are committed to carrying out our
ambitious new plans for exploration and discovery."


-end-

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.**

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1287 on: 04/14/2011 10:42 pm »
You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

The word "initial" does not appear in the final adopted bill. There's a reason for that.

Some people are going around in circles. Let's sort this out once and for all :)

1) The law is NASA must have a 130mt SLS by 2016.
2) The law is NASA must eventually have a 130mt SLS, Block 0 70mt by 2016 satisfies this.

Is it 1 or 2? :)

Only 51D can respond to this.
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 Pheogh

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 962
  • Liked: 110
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1288 on: 04/14/2011 10:43 pm »
You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

The word "initial" does not appear in the final adopted bill. There's a reason for that.

I am focusing more on the statement from industry that they prefer to design to the end state of 130mt. If this precludes the 4/3 70mt "initial" configuration than I am having a hard time seeing how the result will be any different than the "initial" language.

Offline Integrator

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 581
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1289 on: 04/14/2011 10:58 pm »
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A BUDGET.

Integrator
"Daddy, does that rocket carry people?"
"No buddy, just satellites."
"Why not?"
   --- 5 year old son of jjnodice,  21.01.2011

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14891
  • Liked: 5501
  • Likes Given: 2411
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1290 on: 04/14/2011 11:17 pm »
Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

You are probably right that the 130mt makes a 100mt SD-HLV more likely. But as Chris mentionned in his article below, one does not preclude the other. The 70mt SD-HLV will be ready for 2016 but will only be a test vehicle. The 100mt and its upper stage should be ready by the time that we start BEO exploration in the 2020s.  Pad 39B will be used for the 100mt SD-HLV. Pad 39A for the 70mt test vehicule. So work on both versions will continue in parallel in a sense but the emphasis would be on the 70mt block 0 SD-HLV at first. I am not expecting either the J-2X or the 5 segment contracts to be terminated.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/

If the 5-seg and J-2X contracts are not terminated, do they keep being developed alongside the 4/3 development? How does that work and still allow 4/3 to be ready by 2016?

Edit: or are they simply novated into 4/3-related items, and later (2016) novated back, or new contracts let/competed for the 130mT upgrade?

The development of the 5 segment booster contract is for $1.8B. The development for the J-2X contract is for $1.2B. Half of those contract have probably already been paid by NASA. I think that both can be afforded.

P.S. By the way I have no inside knowledge. But I like to think that I am good at reading legislation...
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 11:28 pm by yg1968 »

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35032
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19044
  • Likes Given: 10038
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1291 on: 04/14/2011 11:20 pm »
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A BUDGET.

Integrator
About time!
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14891
  • Liked: 5501
  • Likes Given: 2411
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1292 on: 04/14/2011 11:22 pm »
HOUSTON, WE HAVE A BUDGET.

Integrator

Copy that.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 11:23 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2249
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 336
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1293 on: 04/14/2011 11:28 pm »
Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

You are probably right that the 130mt makes a 100mt SD-HLV more likely. But as Chris mentionned in his article below, one does not preclude the other. The 70mt SD-HLV will be ready for 2016 but will only be a test vehicle. The 100mt and its upper stage should be ready by the time that we start BEO exploration in the 2020s.  Pad 39B will be used for the 100mt SD-HLV. Pad 39A for the 70mt test vehicule. So work on both versions will continue in parallel in a sense but the emphasis would be on the 70mt block 0 SD-HLV at first. I am not expecting either the J-2X or the 5 segment contracts to be terminated.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/

The metric interpretation is important because it really does require 5/5 with large upper stage to attain. So the core must be stretched, and you must expend 5 SSME on each launch, and NASA's DRV even calls for three(!) J2X engines on the upper stage. Which also strongly implies that a completely separate in-space stage (CPS) will be needed just to get out of LEO. All of those items drive up costs and push schedule to the right. Even the initial capability variant (without upper stage) will stilll require 5-segment boosters and 5 SSME for the LEO-only variant. Although the RAC-1 talked about a Block-0 as 4/3 and no stretch, the other posters here are correct that that configuration will have nothing in common with Block-2 and Block-3. RAC-1 Block-0 is a dead end and is only proposed in order to make the 2016 IOC requirement. It is a place-holder and nothing else.

Whereas if you take the short ton interpretation, then a 5/4 config with a J2X (single) upper stage and Shuttle-sized tanks would fit the bill. This is the DIRECT J-241H configuration. In that case, a 4/3 Block-0 actually is an evolutionary step towards the final goal. This would also preserve the CxP investments in 5-segment boosters and the J2X engine. And the upper stage could actually function as the "integrated upper Earth departure stage", as required by the authorization act. The RAC-1 Block-2 config would not meet that requirement because it would rely on the CPS instead of using the upper stage as the EDS.

Finally, the 5/4 could be given a tank stretch somewhere down the line if NASA ever needed more than 130 short tons.

I doubt that kind of logic will appeal to NASA mgmt. They want their steroidal Apollo-redux, and Congress seems to be willing to let them have their way in that regard.

Oh well, the die has been cast. Let's see where it gets us.

Online Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35032
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 19044
  • Likes Given: 10038
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1294 on: 04/14/2011 11:30 pm »
Congress has implicitly agreed with the metric ton interpretation. The issue is decided.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7054
  • Liked: 2574
  • Likes Given: 1303
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1295 on: 04/14/2011 11:33 pm »
Some people are going around in circles. Let's sort this out once and for all :)

1) The law is NASA must have a 130mt SLS by 2016.
2) The law is NASA must eventually have a 130mt SLS, Block 0 70mt by 2016 satisfies this.

Is it 1 or 2? :)

Only 51D can respond to this.

At the risk of being presumptuous, let me say that I think 51D Mascot has already answered definitively in favor of option 2 a few posts up:
 
The  absence of the previously-included word "initial" in connection with  the 130-ton lift capability in the current proposed full-year CR, in my  mind, reinforces the meaning and intent previously provided in P.L.  111-267; at the very least, it removes a cause for confusion that the  intent and force of the earlier appropriations language was to change  the requirements of P.L. 111-267. The point is that the SLS is INTENDED  from inception to become a vehicle capable of lifting at least 130 tons  (I personally prefer the use of metric tons, but that's another  discussion; I will just say the authors of the law did not intend to  mandate "short tons" on NASA, so would have no issue with the design  being developed using the generally-used measure of "metric tons."  That's my assertion and if you can find one of them to say differently,  please quote them directly.) The confusion stemmed from those who  thought the targeted launch-to-LEO-capability date of December 31, 2016, meant the vehicle launched by that date would have to have the ability--by that date--to launch 130 tons. That is not--and never has  been--the case.

[Emphasis mine.]
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 11:35 pm by Proponent »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14891
  • Liked: 5501
  • Likes Given: 2411
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1296 on: 04/14/2011 11:44 pm »
Not to belabor the point but I was getting more at the willingness of contractors and MSFC to forgo their BFR in lieu of the 4/3 and not continue to manufacture reasons that we must just must build 5/5 out of the gate.

I digress though, I was simply trying to make the point that Simon might not be totally out to pasture on the notion that the way 51D is clarifying  the 130mt requirement actually makes the 4/3 config (70mt) less likely not more. In some of our opinions therefore drawing SLS short term success into question.

You are probably right that the 130mt makes a 100mt SD-HLV more likely. But as Chris mentionned in his article below, one does not preclude the other. The 70mt SD-HLV will be ready for 2016 but will only be a test vehicle. The 100mt and its upper stage should be ready by the time that we start BEO exploration in the 2020s.  Pad 39B will be used for the 100mt SD-HLV. Pad 39A for the 70mt test vehicule. So work on both versions will continue in parallel in a sense but the emphasis would be on the 70mt block 0 SD-HLV at first. I am not expecting either the J-2X or the 5 segment contracts to be terminated.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/03/sls-studies-focusing-sd-hlv-versus-rp-1-f-1-engines/

The metric interpretation is important because it really does require 5/5 with large upper stage to attain. So the core must be stretched, and you must expend 5 SSME on each launch, and NASA's DRV even calls for three(!) J2X engines on the upper stage. Which also strongly implies that a completely separate in-space stage (CPS) will be needed just to get out of LEO. All of those items drive up costs and push schedule to the right. Even the initial capability variant (without upper stage) will stilll require 5-segment boosters and 5 SSME for the LEO-only variant. Although the RAC-1 talked about a Block-0 as 4/3 and no stretch, the other posters here are correct that that configuration will have nothing in common with Block-2 and Block-3. RAC-1 Block-0 is a dead end and is only proposed in order to make the 2016 IOC requirement. It is a place-holder and nothing else.

Whereas if you take the short ton interpretation, then a 5/4 config with a J2X (single) upper stage and Shuttle-sized tanks would fit the bill. This is the DIRECT J-241H configuration. In that case, a 4/3 Block-0 actually is an evolutionary step towards the final goal. This would also preserve the CxP investments in 5-segment boosters and the J2X engine. And the upper stage could actually function as the "integrated upper Earth departure stage", as required by the authorization act. The RAC-1 Block-2 config would not meet that requirement because it would rely on the CPS instead of using the upper stage as the EDS.

Finally, the 5/4 could be given a tank stretch somewhere down the line if NASA ever needed more than 130 short tons.

I doubt that kind of logic will appeal to NASA mgmt. They want their steroidal Apollo-redux, and Congress seems to be willing to let them have their way in that regard.

Oh well, the die has been cast. Let's see where it gets us.

You have to remember that the NASA Authorization expires after FY2013. We'll see what happens after that time. For the time being the SD-HLV block 0 and the J-130 are very similar.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 11:44 pm by yg1968 »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17910
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 611
  • Likes Given: 7306
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1297 on: 04/14/2011 11:46 pm »

The metric interpretation is important because it really does require 5/5 with large upper stage to attain. So the core must be stretched, and you must expend 5 SSME on each launch, and NASA's DRV even calls for three(!) J2X engines on the upper stage. Which also strongly implies that a completely separate in-space stage (CPS) will be needed just to get out of LEO. All of those items drive up costs and push schedule to the right. Even the initial capability variant (without upper stage) will stilll require 5-segment boosters and 5 SSME for the LEO-only variant. Although the RAC-1 talked about a Block-0 as 4/3 and no stretch, the other posters here are correct that that configuration will have nothing in common with Block-2 and Block-3. RAC-1 Block-0 is a dead end and is only proposed in order to make the 2016 IOC requirement. It is a place-holder and nothing else.

Please, don't get me started.

The whole 'push' of Direct is now lost, IMO - fundamentally gone.

My 'opinion', for whatever that is worth, is that we are right back to where we started - with an Ares V-type vehicle that is completely unaffordable. We should all know the costs now, so I won't go through them YET AGAIN. Suffice to say, I'm losing hope more and more every day.

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1298 on: 04/14/2011 11:47 pm »
You have to remember that the NASA Authorization expires after FY2013. We'll see what happens after that time. For the time being the SD-HLV block 0 and the J-130 are very similar.

Actually, I think just the Authorized spending amounts expire in 2013, but not the policy set in the Act.
« Last Edit: 04/14/2011 11:47 pm by 2552 »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: NASA FY 2011 Appropriations - preview
« Reply #1299 on: 04/14/2011 11:48 pm »
You presume a lot.

I presume nothing. The current Appropriations bill calls for initial capacity of SLS to be 130 tonnes. That rules out anything short of a full-up 5/5 with an upper stage. In other words, the original Ares V. It would be great if they built something smaller, but that simply doesn't fit the bill, literally.

The word "initial" does not appear in the final adopted bill. There's a reason for that.

Some people are going around in circles. Let's sort this out once and for all :)

1) The law is NASA must have a 130mt SLS by 2016.
2) The law is NASA must eventually have a 130mt SLS, Block 0 70mt by 2016 satisfies this.

Is it 1 or 2? :)

Only 51D can respond to this.

2 is the case, at least up to the comma. The actually capability of the "core elements" referenced in the law as being targeted for "contingent use" by the end of 2016, is yet to be seen based on the selected design. That is also the understanding of appropriations staff I have spoken to as late as this evening. There is NO requirement or expectation for a 130-ton capable complete vehicle by the end of 2016. Period. Not now, not in PL 111-267, not in anything I see downstream in finalizing FY 2012 funding.
« Last Edit: 04/15/2011 02:33 am by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement SkyTale Software GmbH
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0