Author Topic: Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Hearing on  (Read 26099 times)

Offline Aeroman

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Last Edit: 03/28/2012 06:37 PM by Chris Bergin »

Online Chris Bergin

Thanks for the heads up!

Webcast link:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/streamc.htm

General Bolden on again.
« Last Edit: 03/28/2012 06:44 PM by Chris Bergin »

Online Chris Bergin

Trying to compare STS-1 with the TPS tiles - as he worked on them - with the delays to commercial companies.

Lawmakers again wanting to fund less companies for CCDev :(
« Last Edit: 03/28/2012 06:43 PM by Chris Bergin »

Online Chris Bergin

Shuttle was $2b a year if I used it or not. Under commercial we purchase a service.

SLS and Orion underwent rigorous competition. We didn't just take it.

Lawmaker questioning how Bolden will ensure 10 healthy centers. Bolden doesn't like the term. He prefers a very healthy NASA with 10 centers.

Online Chris Bergin

Senator Brown notes ESA want to use Plum Brook. Bolden not aware, will check into it.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Shuttle was $2b a year if I used it or not. Under commercial we purchase a service.


That is huge spin. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Online Chris Bergin

Senator Hutchison on! Sounds frustrated already. Notes the "cutting" of SLS/Orion for Commercial crew.

"Why do you want to cut the future, SLS/Orion, for commercial crew."

Bolden: Notes the achievements already listed. Some are ahead of where they expected to be. Notes 2014 for EFT-1. Wasn't even in the program before. 2017 - I think - for SLS-1. No later than 2021 for a crewed mission (SLS-2). Additional funds would help the 2021 date. Won't impact 2017.

Commercial Crew and Cargo are not one of the priorities, but they are vital to live up to my promise to you on ISS. Without it the gap would continue to increase/rely on the Russians.

Online Chris Bergin

Senator Hutchison asking about the money spent on studies, after studies, after studies - to the point it was a year late on the report which worked on the figures (Booz Allen?). Yet the next year we have you cutting the budget, stepping back from the study you ordered.

Intimates it's his excuse not to do SLS/Orion.

Good question actually.

Bolden: It is my hope before you leave congress we'll show it will cost less than the estimates. We have to live within the budget you gave us.....

Hutchison stops him. Says he's trying to save money on SLS but yet wants to additional subsidize commercial companies.

Bolden: We are making progress on SLS/Orion (lists the things we know here ;))

Hutchison: Will that save the money cut?

Bolden: No....

Hutchison: That's what we are talking about though.

Bolden: Notes FY12 was more than they needed by the Booz Allen estimates. No change of dates on SLS/Orion, we've improved them (?).

Online Chris Bergin

Senator Mikulski saying there's a lot of skeptisism about his numbers (or what he's saying). Notes Augustine.

Appreciates JWST work. But don't think this is Hubble. If you screw up I can't pull a rabbit out of the hat! (EPIC line! :D)

Notes support for commercial crew and cargo, but concerned it's behind schedule. Not happy about 2017 launch date and ISS to 2020. "Isn't this a hell of a lot of money for a three year effort?"

Bolden: Notes evaluations into extending ISS - to at least 2028. I don't limit to 2020. Notes the need for a US capability asap to make it a true National Lab as Sen Hutchison says, and fly it as long as I can.

Mikulski: Notes the need to use the ISS. We need rockets in the air. When do you think SpaceX will launch cargo.

Bolden: I think they can do April 30. (or the first week in May). Orbital - depending on MARS at Wallops - can't give you hard numbers. Notes the problem is the pad.

Mikulski: I'm very frustrated. Much promised on Wallops. I'm puzzled that for the last eight weeks there's a problem with the launch pad but I don't hear solutions. We need to hear a solution.

Bolden: Will do. Notes he's spoke to Gerst.

Mikulski: But we need to get it going. There's growing frustration. We need to know if this endeavor is a go. The clock is ticking.

Online Chris Bergin

Mikulski on telescopes. Notes this area has shown the true American endevours. But what can we afford? Where are we heading with small, medium, large science missions?

Bolden: We're going to continue those missions. NASA has not given up on flagship missions, but we don't have one in place, but JWST and MSL are flagships. SLS/Orion is a flagship mission (first time he's said that!)

Mikulski: But we're funding Santa María's and not Niña's, Pinta's.

Bolden: Lists the likes of Juno and GRAIL - on cost and on schedule. Maven is in work - on cost and on schedule. JWST is a flagship, started out in bad shape, but since replanning, it's on cost and on schedule.


Online Chris Bergin

Closing remarks from Mikulski notes allied partners such as Canada and Japan.

"We all need to work together to keep those Santa María's funded, but also the Niña's, Pinta's."

Notes something about additional meetings can be called, and the "mark up" of the bill will be in mid to late April.



Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
I just finished watching the hearing. One of the highlights of the hearing was the exchange between Hutchison and Bolden on commercial crew. Hutchison suggested to NASA to limit itself to two commercial crew providers (instead of four). She said that the $406 million and another $500 million for FY 2013 should allow them to fund two commercial crew companies. Bolden replied to her (and to Senator Shelby who later asked a similar question) that CCDev had a different objective than CCiCap. CCiCap is an integrated solution whereas CCDev was more funds in order to advance certain capabilities. He didn't really answer the question as to how many providers they would choose. Personally, I was glad that he did not answer that question as I don't think that Congress should be making these type of decisions.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 12:55 AM by yg1968 »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17825
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 4644
Senator Brown notes ESA want to use Plum Brook. Bolden not aware, will check into it.

Some history on Plum Brook that I found (which relates to ESA):

http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/documents/TOPS/TopPB.pdf
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17825
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 4644
I love this exchange:

Mikulski: "It cost us $50B to build the Space Station..."
Bolden interjects: "It cost us $100B..."
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
Another highlight of the Senate appropriation hearing that I forgot to mention. At one point during the hearing, Mikulski shouted "I want to be pleased now!".

But before you get the wrong idea, the reason that she said that is that she was responding to Bolden who said that both of them were pleased to be at the recent inauguration celebration at Wallops but she interjected with anger that she wanted to be pleased now and that she wanted the work on the pad to be completed at Wallops ASAP so that Orbital could launch cargo to the ISS. Context is everything...
« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 06:36 PM by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
Another highlight of the Senate appropriation hearing that I forgot to mention. At one point during the hearing, Mikulski shouted "I want to be pleased now!".

But before you get the wrong idea, the reason that she said that is that she was responding to Bolden who said that both of them were pleased to be at the recent inauguration celebration at Wallops but she interjected with anger that she wanted to be pleased now and that she wanted the work on the pad to be completed at Wallops ASAP so that Orbital could launch cargo to the ISS. Context is everything...   
Reminds me of something Jeff Greason said about Congress a couple years ago.

I am surprised Bolden was able to keep a straight face when she said that.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.

What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities? That seems to be the important question at the moment, not just the shifting of funds about willy-nilly.

Also, Administrator Bolden seemed quite pleased to be facing Sen. Hutchison for the last time. Will he be so pleased once she is gone, and the pro-NASA forces in Congress lose a senior and influential member? Remember that she is on both the authorizing and the appropriating subcommittees for NASA. Who will step up to take her place? Sure, any replacement Senator from Texas will also be pro-NASA, but as a Washington newbie, they will not have nearly the same clout and influence as KBH. And they will be unlikely to be given the same committee seats. Those come with seniority, not just interest.

Mark S.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
I suppose that Senator Hutchison will be replaced by Senator Shelby who will become either Chairman or Ranking member on the CJS Appropriation side. Not good.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 02:01 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.

What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?


USA access to space is the priority and commercial crew is way to do.

KBH priorities are not the nation's but pork for her area.    It will be good for NASA when she is gone.
« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 07:29 PM by Jim »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.

What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?


USA access to space is the priority and commercial crew is way to do.

KBH priorities are not the nation's but pork for her area.    It will be good for NASA when she is gone.

Senator Shelby is a lot worse than her. Be careful what you wish for.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I just finished watching the archived web cast. It seems like once again we have the Administration going off on a tangent regarding SLS/MPCV funding, and once again Congress will be more than willing to put them back on course, the course they all agreed to two years ago.

What will it take to get the Administration to quit tweaking Congress's nose when it comes to NASA's priorities?


USA access to space is the priority and commercial crew is way to do.

KBH priorities are not the nation's but pork for her area.    It will be good for NASA when she is gone.

Don't make ignorant statements.  Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area.  In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork".  Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. 

If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333

Don't make ignorant statements.  Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area.  In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork".  Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. 

If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. 

That is water under the bridge and it is not relevant and bringing it up now is just as ignorant.  Same goes for ignoring what KBH real priorities are.

As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County
« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 08:30 PM by Jim »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Don't make ignorant statements.  Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area.  In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork".  Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. 

If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. 

That is water under the bridge and bringing it up now is just as ignorant.  Same as ignoring KBH priorities.

As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County

No, it is not.  It is a statement illustrating why it is important to have an integrated strategy. 

So Jim, as a NASA employee whose livihood comes from said government "pork", what precisely are KBH's priorities?  Please square those with the statements I made above.

And you can't have it both ways.  You can't make the claims you did and then whine about how hard the KSC area has been hit. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36

Don't make ignorant statements.  Boeing is in Houston and CST efforts likely employ more than the handful working SLS in this area.  In fact "her area" has been hit pretty hard relative to aerospace funded by "pork".  Orion efforts are mainly in Colorado, Louisiana and Florida. 

If "USA access" was such the priority, then perhaps we should not have done what we did until we had a better footing. 

That is water under the bridge and it is not relevant and bringing it up now is just as ignorant.  Same goes for ignoring what KBH real priorities are.

As for areas hit hard, Houston pales compared to Brevard County

You're slinging a lot of mud there, Jim. Because she is a retiring politician with no reason to pander to her constituency, her motives are more likely to be out of genuine concern for NASA and our space program than for "pork". And since she announced her impending retirement over a year ago, that would seem to have been the case for quite a while now.

And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".

Mark S.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".


wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.
Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination.  It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP.  It was the current Admin that started commercial crew.  So your contempt for this administration is without merit.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
her motives are more likely to be out of genuine concern for NASA and our space program than for "pork".

Tell me another fairy tale.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".


wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.
Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination.  It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP.  It was the current Admin that started commercial crew.  So your contempt for this administration is without merit.


Who are you to decide what is "not relevant"?  The importance of having an integrated strategy is more clear now than ever.  In addition, discussing and learning from the past is supposed to be how we, as a people, learn.

Your attempt to "sweep it under the rug" because it is not convienent for you to discuss with the ideology you are trying to push is nobody's problem but your own. 

This is even more evident when you choose to only highlight certain information.  Here's some info:

- The current administration was elected in November 2008, STS formally stood down major operations in August 2011. 

- The GAO listed shuttle-termination as a "urgent issue" for President-elect Obama and that this administration would need to decide to retire or extend the Program. 
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn15145-space-shuttle-is-key-issue-for-obama-agency-says.html

- The groundwork for Commercial Crew was actually set in the previous administration.  This Administration via propoganda from the CSF and other sources labeled and branded it something it was clearly yet not able to become, making promises that are far from being fulfilled and setting us up for failure, in multiple ways.

- Previous policy and execution was by no means perfect and had its problems by all counts.  However, this Administration cleaned it all away and replaced it with nothing but rhetoric.  And given the "rationale" for STS termination was to pay for Constellation, CxP's termination took away the rationale for terminating STS immediately. 

So NOBODY is suggesting that somehow the we "change the past" but instead reference it and learn from it. 
« Last Edit: 03/29/2012 11:07 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333

Who are you to decide what is "not relevant"?   

 There is no decision involved.  Because isn't relevant any.  Plain and simple.  Going forward with crew access is not based on why or how the shuttle program ended.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 02:39 AM by Jim »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Short-sighted and wrong.

Quote
    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
Short-sighted and wrong.

Quote
    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.


Applicable to SLS

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
Short-sighted and wrong.

Quote
    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.


Applicable to SLS

Yup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.

~Jon

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Charlie has done the dirty thing here and asked for extra for SLS and given that money to commercial crew.

KBH trusted Charlie not to do something like this.

A punishment will be enacted on the commercial jobs he's trying to protect in way of a down select.

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Short-sighted and wrong.

Quote
    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.


Applicable to SLS

Yup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.

~Jon

The past that I learn from is that HSF missions are accomplished by NASA owned systems. Every manned launch from the beginning of American space flight, heck even all non-American space flight since the dawn of the space age, has taken place on government owned systems.

It is the "commercial" proponents who need to prove their case that a market will magically develop and be sustainable if NASA would just throw away all their experience, expertise, and processes, and not just rely on, but become 100% dependent on, these "commercial" providers. It is an extraordinary leap of faith that deserves full scrutiny and is justifiably the subject of skepticism and demands for proof.

Mark S.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
experience, expertise, and processes,


Who do you think has these?  The contractors, the same people that will operate commercial systems.  Boeing (and its legacy companies) provided each one of the NASA "owned" systems and operated them for NASA.

It was NASA management of these NASA owned systems that lead to Challenger and Columbia.

So it doesn't require an extraordinary leap of faith nor does it does it require full scrutiny and is not justifiably the subject of skepticism and  demands for proof because NASA has set the bar low.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".


wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.
Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination.  It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP.  It was the current Admin that started commercial crew.  So your contempt for this administration is without merit.


Just a another pertinent fact you will likely consider irrelevant, but for those interested in historical details, I'll throw it into the mix here anyway.

This is from the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. It specifically preserved the option for continuing shuttle beyond 2010 for the incoming Administration--which was of course unknown when the legislation was drafted and even when enacted on October 15, 2008. Subsequent to the election, this provision was very clearly pointed out to the Obama Transition Team for NASA (headed by Lori Garver) and they clearly understood they had the option to continue--and that the Congress would likely support that move, given its history, since 2005, of concern about "The Gap," especially with respect to the ability to support and sustain ISS. They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. The FY 2011 Budget Request the following year demonstrated THIS Administration's DECISION:

Section 611

(d) TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD PRECLUDE CONTINUED FLIGHT OF SPACE SHUTTLE PRIOR TO REVIEW BY THE INCOMING 2009 PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.—
 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued between the date of enactment of this Act and April 30, 2009, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle after fiscal year 2010 if the President inaugurated on January 20, 2009, were to make a determination to delay the Space Shuttle’s scheduled retirement.
(2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF COMPLIANCE.—Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall provide a report to the Congress describing the expected budgetary and programmatic impacts from compliance with paragraph (1). The report shall include—
(A) a summary of the actions taken to ensure the option to continue space shuttle flights beyond the end
of fiscal year 2010 is not precluded before April 30, 2009;
(B) an estimate of additional costs incurred by each specific action identified in the summary provided under
subparagraph (A);
(C) a description of the proposed plan for allocating those costs among anticipated fiscal year 2009 appropriations
or existing budget authority;
(D) a description of any programmatic impacts within the Space Operations Mission Directorate that would result
from reallocations of funds to meet the requirements of paragraph (1);
(E) a description of any additional authority needed to enable compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(1); and
(F) a description of any potential disruption to the timely progress of development milestones in the preparation
of infrastructure or work-force requirements for shuttle follow-on launch systems.

122 STAT. 4798 PUBLIC LAW 110–422—OCT. 15, 2008

Added Note: Since the above provision expired at the end of April 2009, NASA, knowing of the HSF Review, elected to take only non-irreversible termination activities pending the outcome of that review, and pending the Administration's formal response to that review as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. Thus, the Bush-initiated termination "decision" could have been reversed as late as the Spring (and actually into the summer) of 2010. As added "insurance" for that option, the 2010 Act included language "protecting" ET-94 to enable the shuttle flow to ramp back up. Senator Hutchison also introduced a bill (S. 3068), the ‘‘Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010", which provided for a recertification process for Shuttle, authorized funding for two flights per year for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012, and required a joint determination by the President and the Congress regarding a decision to terminate the shuttle. Rather than pursuing passage of that bill, it became the starting point on the Republican side of negotiations regarding the content of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and the removal of those shuttle provisions became part of the "Compromise" that produced the 2010 Act.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 02:11 PM by 51D Mascot »
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 02:54 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
And since allowing the cancellation of Shuttle to proceed without a replacement is directly due to the Administration's policies, OV's comment regarding how we got where we are today is entirely relevant, not just "water under the bridge".


wrong, how we got here is NOT relevant, the past can't be changed.
Sick and tired of people saying it is this Administration's policy, it was the previous one that initiated it and started the program termination.  It was the past Administration, who put all eggs in the basket with CXP.  It was the current Admin that started commercial crew.  So your contempt for this administration is without merit.


Just a another pertinent fact you will likely consider irrelevant, but for those interested in historical details, I'll throw it into the mix here anyway.

This is from the 2008 NASA Authorization Act. It specifically preserved the option for continuing shuttle beyond 2010 for the incoming Administration--which was of course unknown when the legislation was drafted and even when enacted on October 15, 2008. Subsequent to the election, this provision was very clearly pointed out to the Obama Transition Team for NASA (headed by Lori Garver) and they clearly understood they had the option to continue--and that the Congress would likely support that move, given its history, since 2005, of concern about "The Gap," especially with respect to the ability to support and sustain ISS. They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying. The FY 2011 Budget Request the following year demonstrated THIS Administration's DECISION:

Section 611

(d) TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD PRECLUDE CONTINUED FLIGHT OF SPACE SHUTTLE PRIOR TO REVIEW BY THE INCOMING 2009 PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATION.—
 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued between the date of enactment of this Act and April 30, 2009, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle after fiscal year 2010 if the President inaugurated on January 20, 2009, were to make a determination to delay the Space Shuttle’s scheduled retirement.
(2) REPORT ON IMPACT OF COMPLIANCE.—Within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator
shall provide a report to the Congress describing the expected budgetary and programmatic impacts from compliance with paragraph (1). The report shall include—
(A) a summary of the actions taken to ensure the option to continue space shuttle flights beyond the end
of fiscal year 2010 is not precluded before April 30, 2009;
(B) an estimate of additional costs incurred by each specific action identified in the summary provided under
subparagraph (A);
(C) a description of the proposed plan for allocating those costs among anticipated fiscal year 2009 appropriations
or existing budget authority;
(D) a description of any programmatic impacts within the Space Operations Mission Directorate that would result
from reallocations of funds to meet the requirements of paragraph (1);
(E) a description of any additional authority needed to enable compliance with the requirements of paragraph
(1); and
(F) a description of any potential disruption to the timely progress of development milestones in the preparation
of infrastructure or work-force requirements for shuttle follow-on launch systems.

122 STAT. 4798 PUBLIC LAW 110–422—OCT. 15, 2008

Added Note: Since the above provision expired at the end of April 2009, NASA, knowing of the HSF Review, elected to take only non-irreversible termination activities pending the outcome of that review, and pending the Administration's formal response to that review as part of the FY 2011 Budget Request. Thus, the Bush-initiated termination "decision" could have been reversed as late as the Spring (and actually into the summer) of 2010. As added "insurance" for that option, the 2010 Act included language "protecting" ET-94 to enable the shuttle flow to ramp back up. Senator Hutchison also introduced a bill (S. 3068), the ‘‘Human Space Flight Capability Assurance and Enhancement Act of 2010", which provided for a recertification process for Shuttle, authorized funding for two flights per year for FY 2010, 2011 and 2012, and required a joint determination by the President and the Congress regarding a decision to terminate the shuttle. Rather than pursuing passage of that bill, it became the starting point on the Republican side of negotiations regarding the content of the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, and the removal of those shuttle provisions became part of the "Compromise" that produced the 2010 Act.

Thanks for the correction

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

Who are you to decide what is "not relevant"?   

 There is no decision involved.  Because isn't relevant any.  Plain and simple.  Going forward with crew access is not based on why or how the shuttle program ended.

You are moving and/or dodging the goal posts.  You said "USA access" was a priority.  I agree, and that is something we had 8 months ago and why I spoke at length in many forums about the strategic mistake we were about to make and now have to live with. 

I also do not disagree that in the hear and now that "commercial" crew access is the current priority.  However, when we have "USA access" again is still TBD.  Here I simply said if it was such a priority, as you suggested it was as well, then we should not have done what we did until we had a better understanding of "what" would be online and "when".  Your statement and mine are inter-related and hence why I have said time and time again the importance of an integrated strategy.

Speaking of said integrated strategy, what is it precisely relative to ISS utilization and commercial crew?  You are now guilty of what you accuse so many others of and that is speaking without any true knowledge of the situation.  So I ask again, what is the integrated strategy and please square how KBH is guilty of wanting "pork" for "her area" yet address the points I made about Boeing/CST, SLS work in Texas and Orion work in Texas and how she has advocated for true ISS utilization. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
OV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.

Hold on there.  That is what people like you want to believe because you cannot see the forest for the trees. 

I have NEVER pitted the two against each other and instead time and time again suggested how Shuttle could actually enhance and increase the chances of success for commercial crew and other activities.  The very reason I say what I say is because I want the best chance for commercial and why I use the terms like "value proposition" while people like yourself only moan about how not enough government money is being spent. 

I suggest very strongly you recant that because I will take you on relative to that point time and time again and, in the end, you WILL lose...and badly. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
OV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.

Hold on there.  That is what people like you want to believe because you cannot see the forest for the trees. 

I have NEVER pitted the two against each other and instead time and time again suggested how Shuttle could actually enhance and increase the chances of success for commercial crew and other activities.  The very reason I say what I say is because I want the best chance for commercial and why I use the terms like "value proposition" while people like yourself only moan about how not enough government money is being spent. 

I suggest very strongly you recant that because I will take you on relative to that point time and time again and, in the end, you WILL lose...and badly. 

OK. I stand corrected then (and I am actually glad to know that I was wrong on this point). But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew and cargo proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap.  I am pretty sure that this is also true for most (if not all) of commercial crew proponents.   
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 03:00 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
OK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap.   

yg,

I have no idea who you are and personally do not care.  When I say things about certain groups and/or organizations, you personally are not on the forefront of my mind.  Sorry for the harsh reality. 

There were certain groups and/or organizations that wanted Shuttle out of the way as soon as possible.  You can choose to believe that or not, again, I personally do not care.  The reason was because their interests stood to profit, not the greater good. 

With that, there were all kinds of promises made, branding "commercial" something it was not yet ready to become and, now, many of those "advocates" are not nearly as vocal as they were.  With those promises being made, and if we just look at this forum, do not try to tell me that the more gullible among us did also not jump on the bandwagon suggesting that if shuttle just "got out of the way", we would be in a much better position and on the verge of a utopia.

Reality has not met the hype and rhetoric.  So there you go.  I suggest you leave it at that. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

OV-106 keeps pitting commercial crew against Shuttle but nobody else has ever suggested that there was such a trade-off.

Sally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option.

"• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS.

The impending gap also directly affects the ISS, which was designed and built assuming that the Shuttle was available to carry cargo and crew to it and to bring cargo and crew back to Earth. During the gap, the U.S. will pay for U.S. and international-partner astronauts to be carried to and from the ISS by the Russian Soyuz. Cargo, including supplies, spares, experiments and other hardware, will be carried to the ISS by a complement of international and U.S. commercial cargo vehicles. None of these can carry nearly as much as the Shuttle, and only one is projected to be able to bring anything back to Earth. This could limit the full utilization of the ISS. Further, only two of these vehicles have flown—each one only once. Delays could place ISS utilization further at risk, particularly in the early part of the coming decade. This scenario does not envision replacing any of the planned international or commercial cargo launches with Shuttle flights, but rather, enhancing U.S. and international partner capability to robustly utilize the ISS. All commercial and international cargo flights would remain as planned.

The Committee has concluded that the only way to eliminate or significantly reduce the gap in human spaceflight launch capability is by extending the Shuttle Program. If that is an important
consideration, then this scenario is one to examine. The scenario also minimizes workforce transition problems, and it retains the skills that currently enable the U.S. to enjoy a robust human spaceflight program. Because this scenario extends the Shuttle’s life well beyond 2010, if adopted it should include a thorough review of NASA’s safety certification program by an independent committee to ensure that NASA has met the intent behind recommendation R9.2-1 of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board."

Also, Norm Augustine appeared before the Senate Commerce Committee to describe the HSF Report, at that point undergoing final drafting for publication--but after the Committee's final deliberations. In that testimony he said the following, which elaborates a bit more on both our points:

"The second of the budgetarily less constrained cases is actually a family of variants that would extend ISS operations to 2020, provide funds for its de-orbit, and fund a strong technology program in support of ISS utilization and an eventual human landing on Mars. It would use commercial launch services for new access to low-earth orbit. There are, however, significant differences between the two variants under this option. The first of these variants would develop the Ares V (Lite) to support a human lunar landing in the mid 2020’s—after which focus would turn to a human Mars landing. The second variant would extend the use of the (recertified) Space Shuttle to 2015 and be accompanied by the development of a Shuttle Directly-Derived heavy-lift vehicle in place of the Ares family—with the eventual possibility of in-orbit refueling. This is the only practicable option the Committee could find to close the at least five-year gap during which the U.S. will, as currently planned, rely upon Russian launch services to lift U.S. astronauts to the International Space Station." (Augustine Testimony, September 16, 2009, p. 2)
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
OK. I stand corrected then. But you keep saying that pro-commercial people all wanted Shuttle to end as quickly as possible which isn't true either. I can't speak for all commercial crew proponents but I am very glad that STS-134 and 135 were flown in 2011. I was supportive of adding these flights and of extending Shuttle into 2011 in order to close the cargo gap.   
yg,

I have no idea who you are and personally do not care.  When I say things about certain groups and/or organizations, you personally are not on the forefront of my mind.  Sorry for the harsh reality. 

There were certain groups and/or organizations that wanted Shuttle out of the way as soon as possible.  You can choose to believe that or not, again, I personally do not care.  The reason was because their interests stood to profit, not the greater good. 

With that, there were all kinds of promises made, branding "commercial" something it was not yet ready to become and, now, many of those "advocates" are not nearly as vocal as they were.  With those promises being made, and if we just look at this forum, do not try to tell me that the more gullible among us did also not jump on the bandwagon suggesting that if shuttle just "got out of the way", we would be in a much better position and on the verge of a utopia.

Reality has not met the hype and rhetoric.  So there you go.  I suggest you leave it at that. 

That's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt


Oh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt

Oh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.

OK, I misunderstood then.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
Sally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option.

"• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS.

I guess the Administration went ahead with Scenario 2 then.

Quote
Scenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.

One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
That's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true.

Thankfully that is true, that not everyone thinks the same.  Because, based on posts here, you don't get it because you have done it again. 

I *AM* a commercial advocate and that is why I speak about value propositions, making ISS more user-friendly, etc.  Why I wanted a smoother transition and an integrated strategy.  Do you understand what that means?  My fairly informed presumption based on past conversations is that you do not. 

I can be a true commercial advocate and question why groups like the CSF, TPiS, etc are not saying the same things I am about creating the forces that would generate a more substantial market and just instead wanting government money.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
That's fine. I am happy to leave it at that. But you have a tendancy to lump all commercial crew proponants into one pot assuming we all think the same way which of course isn't true.

Thankfully that is true, that not everyone thinks the same.  Because, based on posts here, you don't get it because you have done it again. 

I *AM* a commercial advocate and that is why I speak about value propositions, making ISS more user-friendly, etc.  Why I wanted a smoother transition and an integrated strategy.  Do you understand what that means?  My fairly informed presumption based on past conversations is that you do not. 

I can be a true commercial advocate and question why groups like the CSF, TPiS, etc are not saying the same things I am about creating the forces that would generate a more substantial market and just instead wanting government money.

I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. 

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
Sally's charts pre-dated the final report. Pertinent language in the final report is at pages 50-51, where three shuttle scenarios were provided. The following is relevant to the third scenario option.

"• Scenario 3: Extend Shuttle to 2015 at Minimum Flight Rate. This scenario would extend the Shuttle at a minimum safe flight rate (nominally two flights per year) into FY 2015. Once the Shuttle is retired, the U.S. itself will no longer have the ability to launch astronauts into space, and will have to rely on the Russian Soyuz vehicle. That gap will persist until a new vehicle becomes available to transport crew to low-Earth orbit. Under the current program, the resulting gap is expected to be seven years or more. This scenario, if combined with a new crew launch capability that will be available by the middle of the 2010s, significantly reduces that gap, and retains U.S. ability to deliver astronauts to the ISS.

I guess the Administration went ahead with Scenario 2 then.

Quote
Scenario 2: Short-Term Support for the ISS. Space Shuttle retirement will have an impact on the ISS (described more fully in a subsequent section). Scenario 2 would add one additional Shuttle flight to provide some additional support for the ISS and ease the transition to commercial and international cargo flights. It could enhance early utilization of the ISS, offer an opportunity for providing more spare parts, and enable scientific experiments to be brought back to Earth. This additional Shuttle flight would not replace any of the planned international or commercial resupply flights.

One obvious question is: “Why add just one flight?” Due to the planned retirement, the Shuttle’s external tank production line has been closed recently, and it is not costeffective to re-open it for a small number of new tanks. However, there is one spare external tank remaining in inventory. This scenario thus envisions using that tank and conducting one additional Shuttle flight in late FY 2011 or early FY 2012. This scenario requires that funds be put in the in FY 2011 and possibly FY 2012 budget for the one additional Shuttle flight. This minimal extension does not mitigate the workforce transition issues; it does extend U.S. human spaceflight capability, but only by a few months; and it does offer some additional short-term logistical support to the ISS.

Yeah, more or less...with more than a little nudge from the Congress in the form of PL 111-267. I can assure you that prior to that law they had no intention of flying STS-135, whatever else anyone might say!
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. 


Again, "commercial" should never have been about just government money.  Given the recent history of NASA-funded projects for anyone to bet that NASA would get more than authorized is naive. 

So, once again, it's about creating the conditions so that corporations and private investment want to invest to augment, and ideally surpass, the limited government money.  While that may take a bit longer, the dividends paid are ultimately more rewarding to NASA, the industry, the economy and the Nation.  That is why it was important to have an integrated strategy and better transition.  See how when one understands the "big picture" it comes full circle?

So we are where we are.  "Commercial" is really a government program because nothing is being done to better the value proposition.  Given the limited funding, and the oft used cry now (ironically) of needing American access and decreased reliance on Russia, it would seem to make sense to downselect to two.

The reason?  Again, nothing has been done to create a value proposition where more than two, maybe no more than one, vehicle is needed.  Since NASA will not require said vehicles, downselect and concentrate on bringing one or two vehicles to the left in order to satisfy the now-required rallying call.

As for DC, it offers something the others don't.  I wouldn't count it out.  Boeing and SNC for crew transport.  SpaceX and Orbital for cargo.  As the lines blur between the two, as they will, SpaceX can eventually compete to carry crew given they will be viable as cargo and have received money for a LAS, etc.

So right there you have 4 government-sponsored-and-subsidized "commercial vehicles", 3 of which could carry cargo and crew, without actually doing anything to justify a need for them beyond NASA. 

See the big picture.  See the reality. 
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 01:40 AM by Chris Bergin »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
Short-sighted and wrong.

Quote
    Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

The Life of Reason (1905-1906) by George Santayana.


Applicable to SLS

Yup, very applicable. The problem is that those who cannot remember the past tend to drag the rest of us along for their remedial lessons.

~Jon

The past that I learn from is that HSF missions are accomplished by NASA owned systems. Every manned launch from the beginning of American space flight, heck even all non-American space flight since the dawn of the space age, has taken place on government owned systems.

It is the "commercial" proponents who need to prove their case that a market will magically develop and be sustainable if NASA would just throw away all their experience, expertise, and processes, and not just rely on, but become 100% dependent on, these "commercial" providers. It is an extraordinary leap of faith that deserves full scrutiny and is justifiably the subject of skepticism and demands for proof.

Mark S.


I was more hinting at NASA's recent (ie past 30 years) inability to complete a new launch vehicle or manned spaceflight vehicle development program...

But you're right Mark, unlike every other transportation form in history, manned spaceflight is obviously something that can only be done by the government. It's obviously incumbent on commercial spaceflight developers to prove that NASA doesn't have some magic pixie dust that only allows government programs to succeed. That's *totally* the right lesson to draw from history...

Sometimes I wonder if we'll actually make any more progress in manned spaceflight before the generation that grew up with Apollo has retired and passed away. Max Plank may have been depressing prescient when he said that, "science progresses one funeral at a time."

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt


Oh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.

It's kind of telling that one year of real time resulted in 4 years of slip in expected availability date...

~Jon

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I was more hinting at NASA's recent (ie past 30 years) inability to complete a new launch vehicle or manned spaceflight vehicle development program...

But you're right Mark, unlike every other transportation form in history, manned spaceflight is obviously something that can only be done by the government. It's obviously incumbent on commercial spaceflight developers to prove that NASA doesn't have some magic pixie dust that only allows government programs to succeed. That's *totally* the right lesson to draw from history...



So is COTS, CRS, CCDev, etc a government program?  Where are the non-NASA customers?  Where are the customers and the investors to provide funding in order to free said "commercial spaceflight developers" from NASA money, requirements, etc.?

It is easy to say something is better, but it can only be better with a certain entity's money that one is also trying to paint as a drag-on-everything.  And say one needs more of it. 

As for schedule slips, "commercial spaceflight developers" are hardly immune to that as well.  Clearly. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
So is COTS, CRS, CCDev, etc a government program?  Where are the non-NASA customers?  Where are the customers and the investors to provide funding in order to free said "commercial spaceflight developers" from NASA money, requirements, etc.?

I don't know about CCDev, but IIRC SpaceX has invested quite a bit of its own money and that of its investors into matching the government COTS investment. And for SpaceX they are trying to market Dragon as DragonLab for independent free flyers, and have actually gotten a significant amount of interest. But a lot of that is waiting on them getting into actual operations.

As for other non-NASA customers for manned flight (such as Bigelow), they're in a catch-22. If they build a station hoping that commercial crew gets there, and then Congress guts the program out of spite, or if Congress/NASA keep bloating the safety requirements to the point where "commercial crew" is commercially useless (a fear I think we both share, if I'm not mistaken), those commercial destination developers will get screwed out of a ton of money. NASA is trying to help break a very tough chicken-and-egg problem that might take a long time to break otherwise. Whether they'll actually succeed at helping commercial developers solve that problem does indeed remain to be seen.

Quote
It is easy to say something is better, but it can only be better with a certain entity's money that one is also trying to paint as a drag-on-everything.  And say one needs more of it.

That wasn't exactly my point. Mark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was. I wasn't trying to say that commercial crew was necessarily better, just that NASA doesn't have such a wonderful recent track record either.

Quote
As for schedule slips, "commercial spaceflight developers" are hardly immune to that as well.  Clearly.

Yeah, unfortunately both the government and commercial sides of human spaceflight have been doing pretty poor at delivering on their promises to-date. This industry as a whole needs to start learning how better to underpromise and overdeliver. My hat goes off to the few examples I know of that are breaking that trend (NanoRacks is one of the only ones that comes to mind).

~Jon

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Mark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.

~Jon

It was not a ridiculous point, it was stating a fact. In the history of space flight, only government programs have launched people into orbit. Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.

We threw away what we had in the hopes that an unproven concept would be a suitable replacement. So far it's not looking so great.

Mark S.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5598
Mark S was making a ridiculous point, and I was just pointing out how ridiculous it was.

~Jon

It was not a ridiculous point, it was stating a fact. In the history of space flight, only government programs have launched people into orbit. Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.

We threw away what we had in the hopes that an unproven concept would be a suitable replacement. So far it's not looking so great.

Mark S.

Not so long ago, you could've said that only government programs have launched anything in orbit (Orbital Sciences), only government programs have launched and recovered a capsule (SpaceX), only government programs have sent people into space (Scaled Composites).

All SpaceX would have to do to prove you wrong on your point would be to put someone in a Dragon capsule with a simple open-loop life support system to make an orbit or two. That'd be pretty easy, actually, compared to all they've already done. Pointless and unsafe (so were the early gov't flights), but easy. The task now is to fit it all to the customer's requirements.
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 Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
Until that changes, the burden is on the commercial providers to prove that they have what it takes to manage a space program, or even just a "simple" LEO launch service.

They have been doing LEO since 1988.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 05:38 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32481
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 11259
  • Likes Given: 333
So far it's not looking so great.


Actually, no.  it is looking good and better than Ares I/Orion.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. 

"Your mind" means absolutely nothing quite honestly.  You have zero credibility to suggest what possible vehicle people say "good bye" to.   

It's not a matter of credibility. If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, they clearly state that Boeing and SpaceX's proposals were a notch above the rest. It's naive to think that you can cut commercial crew funding from the requested $830 M without sacrifying one of the stronger proposal.  In any event, even if I am wrong about Dream Chaser, cutting Boeing or SpaceX's proposal would also be a shame. I don't feel much better about that outcome either.   Cutting funding for commercial crew has consequences.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 05:59 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt


Oh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.

It's kind of telling that one year of real time resulted in 4 years of slip in expected availability date...

~Jon

Yes, it is/was...and was a key factor, aside from cost, in leading to the Senate 2010 language for a government-funded exploration vehicle capability to be a single evolvable vehicle--whatever else folks I know think about the wisdom--or not--of that decision.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
I agree with you on the need to create a market as I have told you previously. But cutting commercial crew from $830 million to $500M probably means down selecting to two providers under CCiCap which in my mind means that we can say good bye to Dream Chaser which would be a shame. 

"Your mind" means absolutely nothing quite honestly.  You have zero credibility to suggest what possible vehicle people say "good bye" to.   

It's not a matter of credibility. If you read the selection statement for CCDev-2, they clearly state that Boeing and SpaceX's proposals were a notch above the rest. It's naive to think that you can cut commercial crew funding from the requested $830 M without sacrifying one of the stronger proposal.  In any event, even if I am wrong about Dream Chaser, cutting Boeing or SpaceX's proposal would also be a shame. I don't feel much better about that outcome either.   Cutting funding for commercial crew has consequences.

Am I typing in English here?  I do not know what else I can say to make you comprehend.

Want more vehicles just so that you don't feel "shame"?  Stop talking about just more damn government funding to have spaceships that have no real purpose and start talking about creating the value proposition and the business case so private and commercial investment for actual commercial spaceships.  That is where it ALL lies. 

Create the need for those vehicles.  That is what you consistently miss.  NASA does not need that many for its purposes alone and it would be grossly irresponsible for the government to bring them all to reality and then subsidize them to keep them viable for something NASA would only use less than once a year for that many at current projections. 

As for the "selection statements" those are a snapshot in time and what you saw publically is not the whole picture.  So you want as many as possible?  You want DC?  You want CST?  You want Dragon?  Given the current climate, I think what I suggested gives at least an opportunity for that.

What you suggest is only who to blame in the hear and now for not getting a bigger government handout and yet calling yourself a commercial proponent while absolutely and totally misrepresenting people like myself time and time again.   
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 06:48 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
Create the need for those vehicles.  That is what you consistently miss.  NASA does not need that many for its purposes alone and it would be grossly irresponsible for the government to bring them all to reality and then subsidize them to keep them viable for something NASA would only use less than once a year for that many at current projections. 

On this specific topic, one of the interesting things that Gerst said at the March 28th House Hearing is that research time on the ISS is not currently maximized because of other tasks that need to be done by astronauts on board the ISS. He added that the additionnal astronaut under commercial crew (commercial crew spacecrafts will have four astronauts instead of three aboard the Soyuz) would be helpful in that respect as the work done by the extra astronaut would free up some additionnal time for research.

Under the same line of reasoning, you could argue that ISS utilization would benefit from having more than 2 commercial crew flights per year to the ISS in order to free up more time for research on the ISS for the astronauts on board. So 3 commercial crew flights per year might be useful after all for the ISS.
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 06:56 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Create the need for those vehicles.  That is what you consistently miss.  NASA does not need that many for its purposes alone and it would be grossly irresponsible for the government to bring them all to reality and then subsidize them to keep them viable for something NASA would only use less than once a year for that many at current projections. 

On this specific topic, one of the interesting things that Gerst said at the March 28th House Hearing is that research time is not currently maximized because of other tasks that need to be done by astronauts on board the ISS. He added that the additionnal astronaut under commercial crew (commercial crew spacecrafts will have four astronauts instead of three aboard the Soyuz) would be helpful in that respect as the work done by the extra astronaut would free up some additionnal time for research.

Under the same line of reasoning, you could argue that ISS utilization would benefit from having more than 2 commercial crew flights per year to the ISS in order to free up more time for research on the ISS for the astronauts on board. So 3 commercial crew flights per year might be useful after all for the ISS.

They also mentioned that the ISS is currently less than 50% utilized.

Also, just recently, NASA also made many public and grand statements about how we are now in the era of "utilization" with respect to ISS and we have turned a corner with 6 crew and all the work that will now be accomplished because construction is complete.  Six crew has also been the baseline crew for quite a number of years so I personally find this "excuse" lacking because there is no way this was a "surprise". 

Either way, it takes away absolutely nothing from what I said, and if nothing else just enhances it.  In contrast, you simply propose NASA just funding another flight a year, which also still gives no rationale for all the spaceships you want to see. 
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 07:02 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).
« Last Edit: 03/30/2012 07:33 PM by yg1968 »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).

CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab.  The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. 

In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive.  If we were really serious. 

That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing".  What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start.  Get potential customers invovled.  This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive.  In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investment

In addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads.  Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down).  Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. 

While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start.  It is more than is happening now.  And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6214
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2355
  • Likes Given: 790
They "punted" that decision to the overall HSF Review Committee (Augustine), who, in the end provided a series of options among which was continuation of Shuttle to 2015, by which time it was expected that Ares 1 would be flying.

Actually, the Augustine option to extend the Shuttle to 2015 would have used a cargo only Directly Shuttle-Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle (not Ares I). This option still would have funded commercial crew (instead of Ares I). Augustine replaced Ares I with commercial crew in almost all of his options.

See slide 33 of the Sally Ride Presentation:
http://www.nasa.gov/ppt/378555main_02%20-%20Sally%20Charts%20v11.ppt


Oh, and just to clarify, my reference to Ares 1 was with respect to the 2008 Act and what was known or anticipated with respect to the Ares 1 schedule at that time--not to be confused with my subsequent reference to Augustine, which was, of course, a year later.

It's kind of telling that one year of real time resulted in 4 years of slip in expected availability date...

~Jon

Yes, it is/was...and was a key factor, aside from cost, in leading to the Senate 2010 language for a government-funded exploration vehicle capability to be a single evolvable vehicle--whatever else folks I know think about the wisdom--or not--of that decision.

I think there are enough smart people on all the various sides of this debate (SLS/DIRECT, Ares-I/Ares-V, and no-HLV at all) that there's room for reasonable people to politely disagree. I probably need to work a lot more on the "politely" part of that last sentence, but I'm glad we at least agree that the old CxP approach needed to be changed. There are a lot of people who still seem to be in denial about that.

~Jon

Offline Andy DC

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 256
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 101
I find it very hard to trust anything Bolden says. When shuttle was still flying he was promising thousands and thousands of jobs. Now he's saying some have got jobs in the oil industry in Texas. So he lied? Was badly informed? Is incapable of sticking to a story?

How many jobs have been created for the 100s of millions of dollars spent so far? With the only real result so far being the slip to 2017.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2012 01:23 AM by Andy DC »

Offline Rob in KC

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 55
I find it very hard to trust anything Bolden says. When shuttle was still flying he was promising thousands and thousands of jobs. Now he's saying some have got jobs in the oil industry in Texas. So he lied? Was badly informed? Is incapable of sticking to a story?


Doesn't matter now, Congress fell for it, hook line and sinker. Regardless, he was only probably was overselling what his boss, the President, wanted him to say.

Nowadays he seems a lot more confident and probably working off his own understanding. Compare FY2011 rollout with this year, he's got his act together.

Quote
How many jobs have been created for the 100s of millions of dollars spent so far? With the only real result so far being the slip to 2017.

1. Most of commercial isn't about jobs. It's about profit margins for its investors and stock holders. Tax money going to investors, some overseas. You may not like that, but it's a fact. NASA is/was about investing in the country, and you can see what commercial fans think of NASA when they call it a jobs program, and are anti-NASA by default because of it.

Increasing the skill set for Americans is bad in their eyes, because it takes money away from whatever company is creating flashy videos about future statements and "increasing the awesome". Some hate SLS, but I bet some don't even know what it looks like, it's NASA, so it's bad. They always protest that, and claim they love NASA, but read their posts, you can see it. "Never built a successful launch vehicle, etc. etc. etc."

Having said that, Elon is a visionary, that's for sure, he's probably the exception to the profit margin rule.
 
2. All bar SpaceX wouldn't of entered into CCDev without the money upfront in awards. They couldn't afford it.

3. It needs fully funding or those 100s of millions then go to Russia. No one wins, apart from Russia.

4. Not enough to go around? Take it from something other than SLS/Orion. The motives of Bolden is probably obvious. He had a 101 places to find that extra Commercial money, and he took it right out of SLS/Orion, showing he wasted money with his delaying tactic of Booz Allen, because all that work goes down the drain if they don't fully fund SLS.

So, Congress has to be strong and ensure both Commercial and SLS are funded as required. Throw JWST a year down the line to pay for it, another year won't seem like much in it's bigger picture.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8712
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3652
  • Likes Given: 858
2. All bar SpaceX wouldn't of entered into CCDev without the money upfront in awards. They couldn't afford it.

With the possible exception of Sierra Nevada,every CCDev partner has more money than SpaceX.
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22505
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 300
"Selling" Commercial crew to Congress in terms of ISS support and independence from Russia does not seem to be working effectively enough.  Time to change rhetoric.  Everytime the US buys seats from Russia, it must gain an exemption from the Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act.  The White House and by extension NASA leadership should stress that they have to get the exemption, and by extension lessen pressure on Russia financially for support of the Iranian and Syrian regimes.  With the current nuclear proliferation issues of Iran, and the Syrian regime's political crackdown Commercial crew could be sold as another tool in US foreign policy.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2012 02:29 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
And this is a good reminder that just because one of your fellow space enthusiasts occasionally voices doubts about the SpaceX schedule announcements or is cautious about believing SpaceX has licked a problem before actually seeing proof that's true, it doesn't mean they hate SpaceX.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).

CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab.  The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. 

In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive.  If we were really serious. 

That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing".  What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start.  Get potential customers invovled.  This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive.  In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investment

In addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads.  Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down).  Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. 

While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start.  It is more than is happening now.  And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. 

Cautionary note: There is a LOT going on behind the scenes with respect to straightening out the CASIS stand-up and implementation issue that you are not able to be aware of. Remember, CASIS is the product of a direct requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that an independent non-profit entity be established and placed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Administrator to manage the 50% allocation of the U.S. Segment of the ISS that the law designated, effective October 1, 2010, as the exclusive operating/management domain for non-NASA research aboard ISS. That includes other US government, private, commercial, academic, research entities...and opens the door for outside funding to support that research, in both ground and on-orbit components. If you want to see how it is SUPPOSED to function, read the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, which, while not directly endorsed by NASA (for obvious reasons), it was paid for by NASA and posted on the site for all potential competitors for the Cooperative Agreement to use in their proposals; the CASIS proposal and subsequent Cooperative Agreement stipulated much of that content; it just hasn't been followed in the implementation, and THAT has been the hang-up to date. Because this is not just a "normal" solicitation that NASA chose to undertake, but one specifically mandated by Congress, and with specific duties assigned by law, it is the subject of very close oversight by the relevant Committees of jurisdiction.

The Reference Model is at:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/proorbis.html
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
"Selling" Commercial crew to Congress in terms of ISS support and independence from Russia does not seem to be working effectively enough.  Time to change rhetoric.  Everytime the US buys seats from Russia, it must gain an exemption from the Iran-North Korea-Syria Nonproliferation Act.  The White House and by extension NASA leadership should stress that they have to get the exemption, and by extension lessen pressure on Russia financially for support of the Iranian and Syrian regimes.  With the current nuclear proliferation issues of Iran, and the Syrian regime's political crackdown Commercial crew could be sold as another tool in US foreign policy.

According to Bolden, they will need an extension of the exemption for other ISS purposes regardless of what happens to commercial crew.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).

CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab.  The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. 

In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive.  If we were really serious. 

That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing".  What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start.  Get potential customers invovled.  This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive.  In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investment

In addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads.  Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down).  Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. 

While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start.  It is more than is happening now.  And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. 

Cautionary note: There is a LOT going on behind the scenes with respect to straightening out the CASIS stand-up and implementation issue that you are not able to be aware of. Remember, CASIS is the product of a direct requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that an independent non-profit entity be established and placed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Administrator to manage the 50% allocation of the U.S. Segment of the ISS that the law designated, effective October 1, 2010, as the exclusive operating/management domain for non-NASA research aboard ISS. That includes other US government, private, commercial, academic, research entities...and opens the door for outside funding to support that research, in both ground and on-orbit components. If you want to see how it is SUPPOSED to function, read the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, which, while not directly endorsed by NASA (for obvious reasons), it was paid for by NASA and posted on the site for all potential competitors for the Cooperative Agreement to use in their proposals; the CASIS proposal and subsequent Cooperative Agreement stipulated much of that content; it just hasn't been followed in the implementation, and THAT has been the hang-up to date. Because this is not just a "normal" solicitation that NASA chose to undertake, but one specifically mandated by Congress, and with specific duties assigned by law, it is the subject of very close oversight by the relevant Committees of jurisdiction.

The Reference Model is at:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/proorbis.html

Thanks for the info. At the House hearing on March 28, Hall and Rohrabacher said that they were considering asking for a GAO report on CASSIS.

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 38
What you are proposing for the ISS is already being proposed with CASIS. I am not sure what you have added to it other than to say that it is currently a mess (which is true).

CASIS is a disaster and CASIS is a puppet bureaucracy put in place by NASA to run the supposed National Lab.  The very fact that top NASA officials seem disinterested and not up to speed on what is happening with CASIS is evidence of the non-importance it plays in the grand scheme and how NASA really runs it all and the rest is for show. 

In fact, given we speak so much about "commercial", I see no reason why the corporation set to manage the ISS National Lab could not be *for profit* to provide additional incentive.  If we were really serious. 

That said, "CASIS" is not what I am "proposing".  What I have suggested instead is a complete review by NASA to reduce and streamline requirements and regulations required to fly something on ISS as a start.  Get potential customers invovled.  This would be a review that costs little money but *could* have large impacts on future utilization if indeed ISS could be made more user-friendly and attractive.  In turn this could actually help produce true commercial investment

In addition I have suggested small- to medium-prizes for the potential vehicle providers to go out and market the ISS for payloads.  Those who bring in some specified amount get said bonus (and possibly the business to transport it up/down).  Make it a competition and go after business on multiple fronts. 

While there are other potentials and this does not totally solve the "chicken-and-egg" problem it is a start.  It is more than is happening now.  And it is certainly more than you have suggested by just whining that not enough government money is being put at the program. 

Cautionary note: There is a LOT going on behind the scenes with respect to straightening out the CASIS stand-up and implementation issue that you are not able to be aware of. Remember, CASIS is the product of a direct requirement in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act that an independent non-profit entity be established and placed under a Cooperative Agreement by the Administrator to manage the 50% allocation of the U.S. Segment of the ISS that the law designated, effective October 1, 2010, as the exclusive operating/management domain for non-NASA research aboard ISS. That includes other US government, private, commercial, academic, research entities...and opens the door for outside funding to support that research, in both ground and on-orbit components. If you want to see how it is SUPPOSED to function, read the ISS National Laboratory Reference Model, which, while not directly endorsed by NASA (for obvious reasons), it was paid for by NASA and posted on the site for all potential competitors for the Cooperative Agreement to use in their proposals; the CASIS proposal and subsequent Cooperative Agreement stipulated much of that content; it just hasn't been followed in the implementation, and THAT has been the hang-up to date. Because this is not just a "normal" solicitation that NASA chose to undertake, but one specifically mandated by Congress, and with specific duties assigned by law, it is the subject of very close oversight by the relevant Committees of jurisdiction.

The Reference Model is at:

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/nlab/proorbis.html

Thanks for the info. At the House hearing on March 28, Hall and Rohrabacher said that they were considering asking for a GAO report on CASSIS.

I think Donna Edwards also mentioned that...this will likely be a joint House-Senate request, as the Senate had already initiated internal discussions about such a review some time ago, and duplicate requests are generally coordinated between the respective Chambers so as not to dilute or over-burden GAO staffing resources.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
Senate appropriation bill marked up by the CJS subcommittee:

Quote
National Aeronautics and Space Administration

- The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is funded at $19.4 billion, an increase of $1.6 billion over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The large increase results from a reorganization of operational weather satellite procurement from NOAA into NASA. Without the funds for weather satellite procurement, this level represents a $41.5 million cut from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level.

- The bill preserves a NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and human space flight investments.

- Funding for the development of the Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle is $1.2 billion, the same as fiscal year 2012. Heavy lift Space Launch System (SLS) development is funded at $1.5 billion, $21 million less than fiscal year 2012. The bill also provides $244 million for construction needed to build, test, and operate Orion and SLS. Commercial crew development is provided $525 million, an increase of $119 million above fiscal year 2012.

- The bill provides $5 billion for Science which is $69 million less than fiscal year 2012. Within Science, the bill restores $100 million of a proposed cut to robotic Mars science programs, resulting in a total of $461 million for Mars robotic science.

Here is a summary of the bill:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.download&id=e016ad78-5f89-418b-b51a-eebf0eba72b9

Here is the audio from the CJS subcommittee markup of today (NASA starts at 27 minutes and 39 minutes):
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=c458e38e-5688-419c-9d60-08de41bcf0c6
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 01:51 AM by yg1968 »

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Good find yg!

Oh snap! At 45:50 or so, one senator (not sure which one without video) is thanking Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison for their service in restoring funds to SLS. The $1.5 billion markup "a much-needed increase over the Administration's inadequate request". Then he cuts loose with both barrels:

Quote
It seems that no matter how many times we meet with the NASA Administrator, and no matter what commitments he makes in public or in private, it ultimately falls to the Congress, to this Committee, to keep the SLS moving forward. I wish it were not so but it's where we are.

Ouch. That quote shows the depths to which the level of trust between Congress and NASA Administration has fallen. There is absolutely zero confidence or credibility in anything that Administrator Bolden tells Congress. It has gotten that bad.

Mark S.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 03:56 AM by Mark S »

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8712
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3652
  • Likes Given: 858
Yep, cause the opinion of one Senator who you can't even name represents the entire Congress..
I hear those things are awfully loud. It glides as softly as a cloud. What's it called? Monowhale!

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Well for what it's worth I believe Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) was speaking just prior, then another male voice that was not introduced starts speaking. I assume it was someone on the CJS subcommittee, possibly Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) judging by his accent and his strong support for SLS, but maybe not.

Anyway, thanks for your keen insight into the American political process. I'm sure you have a better understanding of US Senate politics than I do.

Update: Yes, the speaker was confirmed as Sen. Shelby at the end of his address to the committee.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 04:36 AM by Mark S »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8686
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5458
  • Likes Given: 1789
Well for what it's worth I believe Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) was speaking just prior, then another male voice that was not introduced starts speaking. I assume it was someone on the CJS subcommittee, possibly Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) judging by his accent and his strong support for SLS, but maybe not.

Anyway, thanks for your keen insight into the American political process. I'm sure you have a better understanding of US Senate politics than I do.

Update: Yes, the speaker was confirmed as Sen. Shelby at the end of his address to the committee.

Shelby has a history of verbally beating up NASA administrators.

Offline spectre9

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2403
  • Australia
  • Liked: 36
  • Likes Given: 67
Taxpayers are to be saved from funding more than 2 companies.

NASA is not directed to down select they're just being given the money and they can decide what they want to do.

Can't wait for the announcement of commercial crew in 2019  ::)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28616
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8585
  • Likes Given: 5598
...
Can't wait for the announcement of commercial crew in 2019  ::)
After all the continuing resolutions from Congress (and a few hearings where they pound their fists on the table demanding more accountability and traditional contracting methods and other concessions and 1000000:1 safety), etc, that sounds about right.
« Last Edit: 04/18/2012 08:16 PM by Robotbeat »
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 spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 22
Glad to see the increase for commercial crew in the draft bill.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8686
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5458
  • Likes Given: 1789
Glad to see the increase for commercial crew in the draft bill.

It is still over US$ 300 million below the requested amount.

Offline spacetraveler

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 641
  • Atlanta, GA
  • Liked: 139
  • Likes Given: 22
Glad to see the increase for commercial crew in the draft bill.

It is still over US$ 300 million below the requested amount.

The requested amount was always a nonstarter.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
The CJS Apropriation bill passed the Senate Full Appropriation Committee:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news.cfm?method=news.view&id=d35e20a5-aee5-4d66-b3fd-107ce746d537

I imagine that the text of the bill will be available in a couple of days.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9712
  • Liked: 1423
  • Likes Given: 881
At 56 minutes of the audio of the full committee markup, Senator Hutchison suggests that NASA down select to two providers and then choose only one provider for a crewed services contract:
http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/webcasts.cfm?method=webcasts.view&id=e9535800-8237-4e29-be6d-0352e3d4874c

She says that some in the House agree with her.

This actually goes against her own statements on the bill:
http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1085
http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1083
Quote
We also provide commercial crew with a $119 million increase over last year to allow NASA to select at least two competitors that could provide access to the International Space Station by 2017.
« Last Edit: 04/24/2012 04:33 PM by yg1968 »

Tags: