Author Topic: NASA FY 2015 Budget  (Read 62146 times)

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
NASA FY 2015 Budget
« on: 03/04/2014 02:17 pm »
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 03:30 pm by yg1968 »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #1 on: 03/04/2014 02:32 pm »
If you guys can keep a good eye on this, it'll be appreciated. I'm busy with the day job for a good number of hours yet, but I'm pretty useless with these budgets until someone summarizes what it means for the main programs.

You guys always do a better job.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #2 on: 03/04/2014 03:36 pm »
Budget documents have been posted:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #4 on: 03/04/2014 03:48 pm »
NASA Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/nsa.pdf

That's unfortunately a sales brochure for the budget, not the budget itself. It mentions a $17.5 billion top line budget but not the budget for individual directorates or programs. [Edit: the above is wrong. I confused the budget nsa.pdf with the sales brochure nasa.pdf.] IIRC from previous years the detailed budget will be posted on http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/ at around the time of the 2 pm news conference.

« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:30 pm by deltaV »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #5 on: 03/04/2014 03:55 pm »
I am not sure what you mean by sales brochure, it's a document that is part of the Budget. It's not as detailed as the NASA budget that will be released at 2 pm but it is still part of the budget.

In any event, here are some information from that Appendix.

Quote
Provided further, That $696,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activities, of which $171,000,000 shall be made available after the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has certified that the commercial crew program has undergone an independent benefit-cost analysis that takes into consideration the total Federal investment in the commercial crew program and the expected operational life of the International Space Station as described in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act):
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 03:58 pm by yg1968 »

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #6 on: 03/04/2014 04:01 pm »
Those numbers seem copy pasted from the FY14 budget approved by Congress, not like Obama's budget.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #7 on: 03/04/2014 04:05 pm »
I am not sure what you mean by sales brochure, it's a document that is part of the Budget. It's not as detailed as the NASA budget that will be released at 2 pm but it is still part of the budget.
Oops, the sales brochure I was referring to is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/nasa.pdf . The URLs differ by only 1 character (nsa.pdf vs nasa.pdf).
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:08 pm by deltaV »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #8 on: 03/04/2014 04:18 pm »
I am not sure what you mean by sales brochure, it's a document that is part of the Budget. It's not as detailed as the NASA budget that will be released at 2 pm but it is still part of the budget.
Oops, the sales brochure I was referring to is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/nasa.pdf . The URLs differ by only 1 character (nsa.pdf vs nasa.pdf).

That fact sheet has some aditionnal information on commercial crew:

Quote
The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative provides an additional $250 million to speed development and certification of these systems.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #9 on: 03/04/2014 04:19 pm »
Those numbers seem copy pasted from the FY14 budget approved by Congress, not like Obama's budget.

I admit that I am a bit confused by the document. Some stuff is in bracket as if it was still in draft form.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #10 on: 03/04/2014 04:21 pm »
The NASA budget will be posted on here by 1 pm EST, or about 40 minutes from now if my top of the head time converting is right.

I admit that I am a bit confused by the document. Some stuff is in bracket as if it was still in draft form.
So am I. It seems like they copied the budgets from the recent omnibus bill as placeholders and forgot to change it when they released it.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #11 on: 03/04/2014 04:25 pm »
Those numbers seem copy pasted from the FY14 budget approved by Congress, not like Obama's budget.

The text in question is enclosed in brackets []. I'm guessing that text in brackets is the current FY2014 language, text in italics is the proposed FY2015 language, and other text is common to both.

Offline Galactic Penguin SST

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #12 on: 03/04/2014 04:37 pm »
First victim of the budget goes to...............




.................. SOFIA - apparently it will go into storage in FY2015.  ???

https://twitter.com/CaseyDreier/status/440900255219859456
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:38 pm by Galactic Penguin SST »
Chinese spaceflight is a cosmic riddle wrapped in a galactic mystery inside an orbital enigma... - (not) Winston Churchill

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #13 on: 03/04/2014 04:41 pm »
The NASA budget will be posted on here by 1 pm EST, or about 40 minutes from now if my top of the head time converting is right.

I admit that I am a bit confused by the document. Some stuff is in bracket as if it was still in draft form.
So am I. It seems like they copied the budgets from the recent omnibus bill as placeholders and forgot to change it when they released it.

Here is one section that has brackets around it:

Quote from: draftbudget
[  2015:Provided, That not less than $1,197,000,000 shallbe for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle:
Provided further, That notless than $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, whichshall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously:Provided further , That of the funds made available for the Space Launch System, $1,600,000,000 shall be for launch vehicle development and $318,200,000 shall be for exploration ground systems: Provided further, That funds made available for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle and Space Launch System are in addition to funds provided for these programs under the "Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration'' heading: Provided further, That $696,000,000 shall be for commercial spaceflight activities, of which $171,000,000 shall be made available after the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has certified that the commercial crew program has un-dergone an independent benefit-cost analysis that takes into consideration the total Federal investment in the commercial crew program and the expected operational life of the International Space Station as described in the explanatory statement described in section 4 (in the matter preced-ing division A of this consolidated Act):Provided further, That$302,000,000 shall be for exploration research and development ]
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 04:41 pm by muomega0 »

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #14 on: 03/04/2014 04:45 pm »
Yup. Those are exactly the same budget figures as from Congress. Would Obama propose 696 million for Com Crew, with a large part only after a study showing its usefulness? Seems fishy to me. I think we're going to get clearer figures within a few minutes.

Offline deltaV

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1538
  • Change in velocity
  • Liked: 167
  • Likes Given: 480
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #15 on: 03/04/2014 04:48 pm »
If I add up the following FY15 numbers from nsa.pdf 4972+551+706+3976+89+2779+451+3905+38 I get 17467, which fits the $17.5 billion overall budget from the nasa.pdf sales brochure. I haven't added up the FY14 numbers from nsa.pdf but eyeballing it looks like they'd also add up to roughly the same amount (some are up, some are down), not the $16.8 billion FY14 amount mentioned in a previous thread. I wonder why this apparent discrepancy. Maybe the answer has something to do with how sequestration is accounted for?

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #16 on: 03/04/2014 04:50 pm »
If I add up the following FY15 numbers from nsa.pdf 4972+551+706+3976+89+2779+451+3905+38 I get 17467, which fits the $17.5 billion overall budget from the nasa.pdf sales brochure. I haven't added up the FY14 numbers from nsa.pdf but eyeballing it looks like they'd also add up to roughly the same amount (some are up, some are down), not the $16.8 billion FY14 amount mentioned in a previous thread. I wonder why this apparent discrepancy. Maybe the answer has something to do with how sequestration is accounted for?
The 16.8 billion was what the House proposed for FY14, and it accounted for sequestration. FY14's real budget is 17.6 billion.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #17 on: 03/04/2014 05:02 pm »
NASA Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/nsa.pdf

That's unfortunately a sales brochure for the budget, not the budget itself. It mentions a $17.5 billion top line budget but not the budget for individual directorates or programs. [Edit: the above is wrong. I confused the budget nsa.pdf with the sales brochure nasa.pdf.] IIRC from previous years the detailed budget will be posted on http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/ at around the time of the 2 pm news conference.

More documents now posted. See:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 05:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #18 on: 03/04/2014 05:03 pm »
Neat video.


Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #19 on: 03/04/2014 05:04 pm »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #20 on: 03/04/2014 05:09 pm »
Slide 12 is also interesting. It says that there would be 6 cargo flights to the ISS per year starting in FY 2017. That is not consistent with the CRS2 RFI which says 4 to 5 cargo flights per year.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 05:19 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #21 on: 03/04/2014 05:18 pm »
See page 10 of the Robinson slides:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY15_Summary_Brief.pdf

From page 10, commercial crew would get $848M. Exploration Systems Development (which includes SLS and MPCV) would get $2,784.4M.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #22 on: 03/04/2014 05:19 pm »
First victim of the budget goes to...............




.................. SOFIA - apparently it will go into storage in FY2015.  ???

https://twitter.com/CaseyDreier/status/440900255219859456

Confirmed on page 15.  A victim of JWST?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #23 on: 03/04/2014 05:22 pm »
More details on the NASA Budget are provided in this document:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY15_MD_Fact_Sheets.pdf

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #24 on: 03/04/2014 05:27 pm »
Space Technology has a surprisingly big increase, to over 700 million. Anyone know why this is?

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #25 on: 03/04/2014 05:28 pm »
More details on the NASA Budget are provided in this document:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY15_MD_Fact_Sheets.pdf

Quote from: page8-8 of the Mission Directorate detailed fact sheet
The Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative also includes $451 million to support Commercial Crew,  SLS, Orion and ISS activities. For Exploration Systems Development, it provides an additional $100 million to support and address long lead procurement challenges, reduce or retire technical and programmatic risks, and maintain concurrent development between Orion, SLS, and EGS. For Commercial Crew, it provides $250 million to support the Agency’s goal to maintain industry competition and reduce technical and schedule risk. For ISS, it provides an additional $101 million to offset the reduction of planned CRS flights.

This Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative is in addition to the $17.5B NASA budget. See this article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obamas-budget-sets-the-stage-for-2014-midterm-debate/
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 05:37 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #26 on: 03/04/2014 05:41 pm »
Space Technology has a surprisingly big increase, to over 700 million. Anyone know why this is?

Apparently it includes the SEP for ARM.

Offline USFdon

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • SF Bay Area
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #27 on: 03/04/2014 05:45 pm »
Quote from: draftbudget
Provided further, That not less than $1,918,200,000 shall be for the Space Launch System, which shall have a lift capability not less than 130 metric tons and which shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously

Is this new? I don't ever remember NASA being ordered to develop both the core and upper stage simultaneously... unless this is referring to the later evolution of the vehicle.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #28 on: 03/04/2014 05:46 pm »
Space Technology has a surprisingly big increase, to over 700 million. Anyone know why this is?

Because they keep asking for around that level, and Congress keeps gutting the number so they can plus-up SLS/Orion? They've pretty much asked for around that level every year so far since 2011.

~Jon

Offline Space Pete

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #29 on: 03/04/2014 05:48 pm »
First victim of the budget goes to...............

.................. SOFIA - apparently it will go into storage in FY2015.  ???

Utter madness. >:(
NASASpaceflight ISS Editor

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #30 on: 03/04/2014 05:59 pm »
Space Technology has a surprisingly big increase, to over 700 million. Anyone know why this is?

Because they keep asking for around that level, and Congress keeps gutting the number so they can plus-up SLS/Orion? They've pretty much asked for around that level every year so far since 2011.

~Jon

FY 2013  2014  2015  Technology Budget
     615    576    706

2015 706M Breakout:
       257M deep space atomic clock, ground to laser demos, advanced parachutes, new technology starts
       225M SEP for ARM, ECLSS, Batteries, cryogenic storage and transfer, reduce mission risk
       191M SBIRs
          4M Partnerships
Funding EP+ARM effectively halts cryo storage/depots, yet budget retains the number cost driver at NASA:  HLV
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 06:00 pm by muomega0 »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #31 on: 03/04/2014 06:05 pm »
I have to say that I like the fact that they released a budget that fit within the Congress limits, and then put the OGS numbers separate as a "and if we got the budget we wanted, here's how we'd spend it". I wish the Authorizors would do something like that-- "Here's what we'd authorize if we stick with budgets anywhere near where we've been getting, and here's what we'd authorize if we can get a big chunk of new cash to enable our visions". Instead of promising the moon when they know that their compromise fails with realistic budgets.

~Jon

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #32 on: 03/04/2014 06:06 pm »

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #33 on: 03/04/2014 06:06 pm »
Anybody listening in on the telecon? It should've started 5min ago.

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #34 on: 03/04/2014 06:10 pm »
Anybody listening in on the telecon? It should've started 5min ago.
Yes. Works fine for me.

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #35 on: 03/04/2014 06:13 pm »
Anybody listening in on the telecon? It should've started 5min ago.
Yes. Works fine for me.

I meant to ask if anyone was going to take notes for those of us who aren't able to listen in.

~Jon

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #36 on: 03/04/2014 06:15 pm »
Mr. Bolden makes some very feisty opening remarks, with some not too subtle words for congress.

NASA CFO Elizabeth Robinson now speaking.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 06:17 pm by arachnitect »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #37 on: 03/04/2014 06:21 pm »
Want to select mission architecture for Asteroid Redirect Mission in early calender 2015.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #38 on: 03/04/2014 06:29 pm »
Want DLR and others to pony up for SOFIA

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #39 on: 03/04/2014 06:31 pm »
More details on the NASA Budget are provided in this document:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/FY15_MD_Fact_Sheets.pdf

Page 4

(including concepts for astronaut extravehicular activity (EVA) with an asteroid)

can someone please explain this?   Was under the impression this was dead.     

=====================
Also see a few items Congress will just not go for.  ::)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #40 on: 03/04/2014 06:36 pm »
Maybe it refers to the EVA component of ARM?

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #41 on: 03/04/2014 06:37 pm »
Commercial Crew proposals received, communications blackout until August.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #42 on: 03/04/2014 06:38 pm »
Robinson says that $848M for commercial crew would allow them to maintain competition for the next round (CCtCap).

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #43 on: 03/04/2014 06:43 pm »
Robinson says that $848M for commercial crew would allow them to maintain competition for the next round (CCtCap).

My crystal ball says that Congress will move about $200-250M of this over to SLS/Orion, complain about the insistence of continuing competition, continue to insist on using more-traditional (and wasteful) oversight and contracting mechanisms for commercial crew, while at the same time complaining about how Obama's approach is leaving us dependent on the Russians for crew transfer...

~Jon

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #44 on: 03/04/2014 06:48 pm »
Robinson says that $848M for commercial crew would allow them to maintain competition for the next round (CCtCap).
More questions (some up).

Yes, heard that part "maintain competition in this program".     Can't see the increase accepted with Congress. Look for a quick down select pushed by congress.

CctCap is currently in a  Blackout period atm until late summer
----------------------------------
Q Need for the additional 250 million?
A stronger competition, reduce risk. Requests from congress have received lower amounts
---------------------------------
Q is the additional 250 million part of the budget base or on top of it?

A  On top of the base amounts.

Translation (sum up)  This budget is going for over a Billion dollars for Commercial crew.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:26 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #45 on: 03/04/2014 06:49 pm »
Seth Borenstein (AP): Europa Mission mentioned, how big? When? Why Europa? Also, 3rd straight cut to planetary, can you explain?

Bolden: Budget reflects 2010 agreement with congress. Calls $5B "balanced approach" mentions "pathways to mars" Defends science budget as is.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:34 pm by arachnitect »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #46 on: 03/04/2014 06:51 pm »
Ukraine questions (sum up)

How does that affect NASA.      Every thing is normal with the Russians.    Intact and normal.

=========================================
More questions Bolden
"Monitor the situation" on the ground.   dictates atm we don't see any reason to do so.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:20 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #47 on: 03/04/2014 06:51 pm »
Q: Comment on Ukraine, especially RE: commercial crew.

A: Bolden: "partnership in space remains normal" talks about being unenthusiastic about flying with Russians before he met Cosmonauts. edit: I want to get the actual quote in here because I haven't done it justice. Basically, Bolden was talking about being selected for STS-60 and, as a Marine, not being too happy about working with the Russians, but then changing his mind after meeting Sergei Krikalev.

« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:39 pm by arachnitect »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #48 on: 03/04/2014 06:55 pm »
Robinson says that there will be a BAA for a capturing mechanism for the asteroid mission.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #49 on: 03/04/2014 06:56 pm »
Q: What's in budget request that's unique to ARM? (SEP and dection efforts have multiple uses)

Bolden: Everything is in support of pathways to Mars, via ISS, testing SLS/Orion beyond moon, etc. Bolden basically says that this is desirable that the ARM components could have multiple possible applications.

Robinson: There is money for capture mechanism, Cubesat flyby (?), concept studies to select mission architecture.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:40 pm by arachnitect »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #50 on: 03/04/2014 06:58 pm »
Frank from Aviation Week: Is there contingency planning for Antares components?

Bolden: All relations are nominal. Remarks that there was no interruption during Georgia crisis.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #51 on: 03/04/2014 07:01 pm »
Cowing: Inspiration Mars asking for an SLS. "Would you ever approve of such a mission."

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration." Takes a second to plug commercial crew.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #52 on: 03/04/2014 07:07 pm »
Robinson says that the extra $250M for commercial crew from the Opportunity fund would help in maintaining competition in that program even further.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:08 pm by yg1968 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #53 on: 03/04/2014 07:07 pm »
Irene Klotz from Reuters: "how much is being requested for Europa mission?" "explain additional commercial crew funding" "Confirm no contingency planning for Antares"

Robinson: Mission still in pre-formulation, no conclusion on mission size. Targeting launch in 2020s. $250M supplemental for commercial crew would buy competition, reduce risk. Base budget would maintain "some aspects of competition" Been informed by independent cost assessment.

Bolden: "Everything is nominal, continue to monitor the situation."
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:30 pm by arachnitect »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #54 on: 03/04/2014 07:10 pm »
Q from Twitter: "how does NASA plan to involve other nations in ARM or mars missions?"

Bolden (really happy to take this one): International partnerships are critical, talks about global exploration roadmap. Lots of interest from all kinds of countries.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #55 on: 03/04/2014 07:14 pm »
Q: requests clarification of base vs supplemental ("the initiative") request

Robinson: Base budget fits within existing budget caps. "Opportunity Growth Security Initiatve" would be on top of that.

Q: What led to mothballing SOFIA?

Bolden: "We had to make choices" Bolden talks about planetary budget, Hubble, JWST. SOFIA has done very well, but chose to focus on other areas. Looking to get as much science possible in rest of year.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #56 on: 03/04/2014 07:19 pm »
Marcia Smith: Compare proposed vs current ARM funding?

Robinson: FY14: $40M in HEO for new tech, 38M for SEP tech demo. FY15: $40M in HEO, SEP goes up to $93M.

$20M in SMD for detection. $7M in Technology Directorate for grants, etc.


Florida Today: What would be impact on Commercial Crew if budget is not passed in a timely fashion, or if not fully funded?

Bolden: This budget will not affect current selection process (that's in FY2014), execution is impacted by FY2015 budget. Selection will occur before this budget approved.

... telecon went down for me.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 07:29 pm by arachnitect »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #57 on: 03/04/2014 07:27 pm »
This important info will be available for replay in one hour (number given)
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #58 on: 03/04/2014 07:28 pm »
It was almost over. There was another question about Russia. Bolden said that there was no contingency plan for the time being for the reasons that he mentionned before. If a contingency plan is needed in the future, they will make one. But for now the program continues as before.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #59 on: 03/04/2014 07:30 pm »
This important info will be available for replay in one hour (number given)

I recorded it. I will upload the zipped mp3 file on Filefront but it will probably take an hour to upload.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #60 on: 03/04/2014 07:32 pm »
Want DLR and others to pony up for SOFIA

Can address this more in a few notes I took from questions

Bold: He had to "Make choices"  focus on the other efforts.

my take: the SOFIA hw is done but can't pay to hire new people to run the project?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #61 on: 03/04/2014 07:45 pm »
Want DLR and others to pony up for SOFIA

Can address this more in a few notes I took from questions

Bold: He had to "Make choices"  focus on the other efforts.

my take: the SOFIA hw is done but can't pay to hire new people to run the project?

My take: "let's see if we can't get someone else (nudge nudge Germany) to pay for this."

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #62 on: 03/04/2014 08:08 pm »

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #63 on: 03/04/2014 08:15 pm »
Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #64 on: 03/04/2014 08:19 pm »
Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

The most interesting part is the Europa mission. In the past, the President has refused to fund such a mission (although Congress kept including it in its appropriation bills). The rest isn't worth an article in my opinion. 

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #65 on: 03/04/2014 08:27 pm »
Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

The most interesting part is the Europa mission. In the past, the President has refused to fund such a mission (although Congress kept including it in its appropriation bills). The rest isn't worth an article in my opinion. 

At the fear of getting a slap from Blackstar, would it be worth referencing the study SLS recently conducted with JPL?

It seems they weren't specific about what the Europa mission would be (size of it etc.)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #66 on: 03/04/2014 08:37 pm »

Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

The most interesting part is the Europa mission. In the past, the President has refused to fund such a mission (although Congress kept including it in its appropriation bills). The rest isn't worth an article in my opinion. 

At the fear of getting a slap from Blackstar, would it be worth referencing the study SLS recently conducted with JPL?

It seems they weren't specific about what the Europa mission would be (size of it etc.)

I can see it getting stuck on SLS, just to prove, look see SLS does have missions.

Offline simonbp

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #67 on: 03/04/2014 08:40 pm »
I don't know about the recent study, but IIRC the conclusion of the original SLS Europa study was that the vehicle could get to Jupiter quicker, but it wouldn't add too much more science without a radical redesign to a much larger spacecraft.

The Europa Clipper mission concept was designed to be as cheap as possible, so they are really wary of involving SLS. Even if the rocket is "free", there would still be schedule cost/risk to Clipper, as the SLS program would have to design a completely different ascent trajectory, payload faring, etc, etc...

IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 08:43 pm by simonbp »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #68 on: 03/04/2014 08:46 pm »
Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

The most interesting part is the Europa mission. In the past, the President has refused to fund such a mission (although Congress kept including it in its appropriation bills). The rest isn't worth an article in my opinion. 

At the fear of getting a slap from Blackstar, would it be worth referencing the study SLS recently conducted with JPL?

It seems they weren't specific about what the Europa mission would be (size of it etc.)

You are right, they weren't very specific. I am not sure that they would have the budget for an SLS mission. Robinson was talking about looking at the geysers on Europa. There was talk of a Europa Clipper flagship mission. But that might also be too expensive.
« Last Edit: 03/04/2014 08:47 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #69 on: 03/04/2014 08:58 pm »

I don't know about the recent study, but IIRC the conclusion of the original SLS Europa study was that the vehicle could get to Jupiter quicker, but it wouldn't add too much more science without a radical redesign to a much larger spacecraft.

The Europa Clipper mission concept was designed to be as cheap as possible, so they are really wary of involving SLS. Even if the rocket is "free", there would still be schedule cost/risk to Clipper, as the SLS program would have to design a completely different ascent trajectory, payload faring, etc, etc...

IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Wouldn't it at the very least still need an Atlas 551?

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #70 on: 03/04/2014 09:22 pm »
.....Bolden said that there was no contingency plan for the time being for the reasons that he mentionned before. If a contingency plan is needed in the future, they will make one. But for now the program continues as before.

Well this is just a ridiculous statement. You make your contingency plans before you need them, not afterwards.

"Post-incident contingency planning" is equivalent to being unprepared, getting caught flat-footed, lacking foresight, etc. It is not something you should do on purpose.


Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #71 on: 03/04/2014 09:25 pm »
"Post-incident contingency planning"

Fantastic phrase.  Thanks, I'm going to use that!

Offline simonbp

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #72 on: 03/04/2014 09:29 pm »

I don't know about the recent study, but IIRC the conclusion of the original SLS Europa study was that the vehicle could get to Jupiter quicker, but it wouldn't add too much more science without a radical redesign to a much larger spacecraft.

The Europa Clipper mission concept was designed to be as cheap as possible, so they are really wary of involving SLS. Even if the rocket is "free", there would still be schedule cost/risk to Clipper, as the SLS program would have to design a completely different ascent trajectory, payload faring, etc, etc...

IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Wouldn't it at the very least still need an Atlas 551?

Off the top of my head, probably. But the marginal cost/risk for ULA to launch a 551 (or any Atlas) to an escape trajectory is pretty low, as they have already done it several times and know what it costs. Converting SLS to a high velocity/low mass launcher is way riskier and could become a money pit.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1402
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #73 on: 03/04/2014 09:38 pm »
.....Bolden said that there was no contingency plan for the time being for the reasons that he mentionned before. If a contingency plan is needed in the future, they will make one. But for now the program continues as before.

Well this is just a ridiculous statement. You make your contingency plans before you need them, not afterwards.

"Post-incident contingency planning" is equivalent to being unprepared, getting caught flat-footed, lacking foresight, etc. It is not something you should do on purpose.

You also don't talk about very sensitive political topics if there is any way you can get out of them.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #74 on: 03/04/2014 09:55 pm »
Translation (sum up)  This budget is going for over a Billion dollars for Commercial crew.

Which is about 1/3 of what it's giving SLS/Orion, even though Commercial Crew actually has an urgent deadline it has to meet. Perspective matters.

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #75 on: 03/04/2014 09:58 pm »
IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Oh don't worry, Space Tech will never see that $200M. It'll go back to science and/or SLS/Orion. Space Tech has always gotten the short end of the stick, because a lot of the tech it was trying to fund would've made SLS/Orion obsolete. Can't afford to do that before SLS and Orion are "operational" in 2017...

~Jon

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #76 on: 03/04/2014 10:01 pm »
"Post-incident contingency planning"

Fantastic phrase.  Thanks, I'm going to use that!

Yeah, it sounds a lot more scientific/professional than the more colloquial "flying by the seat of the pants" or "making **** up on the fly"...


~Jon

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2120
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #77 on: 03/04/2014 11:28 pm »
"Post-incident contingency planning"

Fantastic phrase.  Thanks, I'm going to use that!

Yeah, it sounds a lot more scientific/professional than the more colloquial "flying by the seat of the pants" or "making **** up on the fly"...


~Jon

Thanks guys, I'm honored.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #78 on: 03/05/2014 12:36 am »
Cowing: Inspiration Mars asking for an SLS. "Would you ever approve of such a mission."

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration." Takes a second to plug commercial crew.

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"

Offline Jason Davies

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 992
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #79 on: 03/05/2014 12:42 am »

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"

I wonder if it keeps him up at night, being a USMC General, having to give non answers like a politician?

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #80 on: 03/05/2014 12:55 am »

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"

I wonder if it keeps him up at night, being a USMC General, having to give non answers like a politician?

He'll probably sleep very easy at night, BECAUSE he is a former USMC General. He's representing and serving his President.

Online Chris Bergin

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #81 on: 03/05/2014 01:06 am »
Fuffy, but nice!

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/440930187996573696/photo/1/large

Any Hi Res versions of that?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #82 on: 03/05/2014 01:18 am »
IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Oh don't worry, Space Tech will never see that $200M. It'll go back to science and/or SLS/Orion. Space Tech has always gotten the short end of the stick, because a lot of the tech it was trying to fund would've made SLS/Orion obsolete. Can't afford to do that before SLS and Orion are "operational" in 2017...

~Jon

Who's says 2017?    Saw a slide in todays presentation of 2018......might be a good question to get answered, confused. :D
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #83 on: 03/05/2014 01:29 am »
IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Oh don't worry, Space Tech will never see that $200M. It'll go back to science and/or SLS/Orion. Space Tech has always gotten the short end of the stick, because a lot of the tech it was trying to fund would've made SLS/Orion obsolete. Can't afford to do that before SLS and Orion are "operational" in 2017...

~Jon

Who's says 2017?    Saw a slide in todays presentation of 2018......might be a good question to get answered, confused. :D


Fiscal 2018 overlaps calendar 2017

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #84 on: 03/05/2014 01:34 am »
The quote is from the audio file.   Others say he did not answer the question.  Perhaps the audio was edited?   I suppose yg1968 could reply.

Cowing: Inspiration Mars asking for an SLS. "Would you ever approve of such a mission."

Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration." Takes a second to plug commercial crew.


Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"

I wonder if it keeps him up at night, being a USMC General, having to give non answers like a politician?

He'll probably sleep very easy at night, BECAUSE he is a former USMC General. He's representing and serving his President.


Here is the zipped mp3 file of the teleconference of today:
http://www.gamefront.com/files/24094042/FY+2015+NASA+Budget+Teleconference+March+4+2014.zip

Online rcoppola

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2080
  • USA
  • Liked: 1438
  • Likes Given: 625
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #85 on: 03/05/2014 01:38 am »
So...no 2021 Mars flyby in these numbers?

How about this, the next time someone asks Bolden about going back to the moon.

"Yes, we've decided to go to the moon...but not Earth's moon, one of Mars'. After all, it's kind of like a big asteroid, so we'll kill 2 birds with one stone...no pun intended"

Sail the oceans of space and set foot upon new lands!
http://www.stormsurgemedia.com

Offline jongoff

  • Recovering Rocket Plumber/Space Entrepreneur
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6262
  • Lafayette/Broomfield, CO
  • Liked: 2430
  • Likes Given: 806
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #86 on: 03/05/2014 02:06 am »
IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Oh don't worry, Space Tech will never see that $200M. It'll go back to science and/or SLS/Orion. Space Tech has always gotten the short end of the stick, because a lot of the tech it was trying to fund would've made SLS/Orion obsolete. Can't afford to do that before SLS and Orion are "operational" in 2017...

~Jon

Who's says 2017?    Saw a slide in todays presentation of 2018......might be a good question to get answered, confused. :D


To be fair, it said FY2018, which starts 1 October 2017. So it's possible to be operational in both calendar year 2017 and fiscal year 2018...

[edit: Just saw that arachnitect beat me to the punch on this one]

~Jon
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 02:07 am by jongoff »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #87 on: 03/05/2014 02:26 am »
The quote is from the audio file.   Others say he did not answer the question.  Perhaps the audio was edited?   I suppose yg1968 could reply.



Bolden: "We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"


Your transcript from the audio file matches my recollection of the question and response as it happened. It starts at 52:08 if anyone is curious.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #88 on: 03/05/2014 02:39 am »
Robinson says that $848M for commercial crew would allow them to maintain competition for the next round (CCtCap).
More questions (some up).

Yes, heard that part "maintain competition in this program".     Can't see the increase accepted with Congress. Look for a quick down select pushed by congress.

CctCap is currently in a  Blackout period atm until late summer
----------------------------------
Q Need for the additional 250 million?
A stronger competition, reduce risk. Requests from congress have received lower amounts
---------------------------------
Q is the additional 250 million part of the budget base or on top of it?

A  On top of the base amounts.

Translation (sum up)  This budget is going for over a Billion dollars for Commercial crew.

The Opportunity initiative (which has the added $250M for commercial crew among other things) has zero chance of being funded by Congress. Republicans have already called it DOA. But just to be clear the opportunity initiative is a program that is separate from the budget. In the budget, commercial crew gets $848M.
« Last Edit: 03/05/2014 02:44 am by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #89 on: 03/05/2014 02:41 am »
The quote is from the audio file.   Others say he did not answer the question.  Perhaps the audio was edited?   I suppose yg1968 could reply.

I didn't edit the audio. But I didn't listen to the recording. I am assuming that my software recorded it properly.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #90 on: 03/05/2014 03:40 am »
Thanks yg1968 for your reply.  Cowing insisted that no reply was given.

The quote is from the audio file.   Others say he did not answer the question.  Perhaps the audio was edited?   I suppose yg1968 could reply.



Bolden: We all agree that SLS is critical for deep space exploration. And i think we all agree that it is the primary vehicle for ascent for humans in our selected pathway to Mars. It allows us to focus our efforts on going to deep space while we here at home focus on enabling our commercial partners to develop a capability to take our astronauts to low earth orbit. It is critical to get full funding for the commercial crew program"


Your transcript from the audio file matches my recollection of the question and response as it happened. It starts at 52:08 if anyone is curious.

It's merely a reflection of the broader, yet pathetic attitude of a community that wants to keep their rattles and keeps lowering the bar and accomplishing so little for billions expended:  Let commercial crew and cargo compete for 1B or less/yr to launch a couple mT to ISS until splashdown, while we develop a 130 mT LV and capsule with no missions at 2.5 2.9B/yr.  While i suppose some folks welcome the opportunity to be paid to do nothing, not many seem to want a challenge either.

Yes, quite the dodgy roll models indeed:  Congress, Industry, and the numerous NASA managers  who must have the ability to assert as fact things one knows or suspects not to be true, and depth of knowledge has been tossed out the window.

Why would anyone develop commercial crew when it will only be around for less than a decade (2018 to 2024), the have SLS be the ascent LV for all BEO thereafter?

20mT of additional GCR shielding, 10s of billions more expensive than depots, 12.9 km/s heat shield still required, still $B/yr for missions, habitats, landers, staging at L2 to substantially reduce the energy required, to service and assemble satellites, and provide a safe haven for lunar ops all so that SLS/Orion cannot fail

So are these omissions going to be addressed with "Post-incident contingency planning

To infinity and beyond, and it  does appear infinity is the time scale.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #91 on: 03/05/2014 08:59 am »
First victim of the budget goes to...............

.................. SOFIA - apparently it will go into storage in FY2015.  ???

Utter madness. >:(
Being a big fan of infrared astronomy I still have to say that your assessment is incorrect. The USA has Spitzer still operational in the Spitzer warm mission, with JWST coming into play within the next half-decade and a new IR mission in early stages of planning (WFIRST - Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope). Hubble is still doing great things in visible light.
There is a limited budget and SOFIA costs a lot to maintain and fly, but can only do so much (just a bit too much turbulence on a flight or just a bit too much moisture in the atmosphere or just a bit too much static electricity and SOFIA is pretty much useless). Plus that observation time on SOFIA is limited. That jet cannot stay in the air forever.
Routing funding away from SOFIA to benefit a much more capable asset (both in performance and capabilities) such as WFIRST or JWST is the obvious and logical thing to do given the limited funding.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 10:27 am by woods170 »

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #92 on: 03/05/2014 09:18 am »
It's merely a reflection of the broader, yet pathetic attitude of a community that wants to keep their rattles and keeps lowering the bar and accomplishing so little for billions expended:  Let commercial crew and cargo compete for 1B or less/yr to launch a couple mT to ISS until splashdown, while we develop a 130 mT LV and capsule with no missions at 2.5 2.9B/yr.  While i suppose some folks welcome the opportunity to be paid to do nothing, not many seem to want a challenge either.
By lowering the price/lb to LEO and demonstrating that in fact a crew launch system that is not owned, designed and operated for NASA's exclusive use can be built at must lower cost than a cost plus FAR25 programme they provide an existence proof that better ways are possible and a government is not essential to provide space access.

If, as is hoped, this is also the enabling technology to allow Bigelow's business case for a "space hotel" to close that may expand the number of people in space orders of magnitude. 
Quote
Yes, quite the dodgy roll models indeed:  Congress, Industry, and the numerous NASA managers  who must have the ability to assert as fact things one knows or suspects not to be true, and depth of knowledge has been tossed out the window.

Why would anyone develop commercial crew when it will only be around for less than a decade (2018 to 2024), the have SLS be the ascent LV for all BEO thereafter?
From the companies PoV the size of the transport contract that NASA will award? The other business they could get in on the back of it (except Boeing. They aren't planning on looking for any other business). The chance to open up new markets, like satellite servicing, for real.
Quote

20mT of additional GCR shielding, 10s of billions more expensive than depots, 12.9 km/s heat shield still required, still $B/yr for missions, habitats, landers, staging at L2 to substantially reduce the energy required, to service and assemble satellites, and provide a safe haven for lunar ops all so that SLS/Orion cannot fail

So are these omissions going to be addressed with "Post-incident contingency planning

To infinity and beyond, and it  does appear infinity is the time scale.
How NASA is going to fund the payloads on it's $1Bn/launch vehicle is a question I think we are all wondering about.  :( :(
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #93 on: 03/05/2014 09:32 am »


I don't know about the recent study, but IIRC the conclusion of the original SLS Europa study was that the vehicle could get to Jupiter quicker, but it wouldn't add too much more science without a radical redesign to a much larger spacecraft.

The Europa Clipper mission concept was designed to be as cheap as possible, so they are really wary of involving SLS. Even if the rocket is "free", there would still be schedule cost/risk to Clipper, as the SLS program would have to design a completely different ascent trajectory, payload faring, etc, etc...

IMHO the take-home of the budget overall is that space technology "won" by taking $200 million from science...

Wouldn't it at the very least still need an Atlas 551?

Off the top of my head, probably. But the marginal cost/risk for ULA to launch a 551 (or any Atlas) to an escape trajectory is pretty low, as they have already done it several times and know what it costs. Converting SLS to a high velocity/low mass launcher is way riskier and could become a money pit.

I would hope that by the timeframe we are talking of here that some version of the Falcon Heavy could also be considered as a possible launcher.

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #94 on: 03/06/2014 08:24 am »
Is there a breakdown of the Exploration Systems Development (ESD) budget giving separate SLS, Orion and ground development costs? They had that in previous years. The ESD budget is cut 11% or $331M to $2.8B while commercial crew is increased by 22% or $152M to $848M. Considering how Congress has reacted to similar cuts and increases in previous years, these numbers are likely to change in appropriations.

I noticed that the ISS budget goes up from $3.3B in FY18 to $3.8B in FY19 when commercial crew becomes operational. If NASA is paying $70M per crew member for six crew a year to Russia, that looks like NASA is expecting to pay $6x70M+$500 = $920M per year for commercial crew. For eight crew a year, that works out to $115M per crew member.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2014 08:28 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #95 on: 03/06/2014 08:32 am »
Is there a breakdown of the Exploration Systems Development (ESD) budget giving separate SLS, Orion and ground development costs? They had that in previous years. The ESD budget is cut 11% or $331M to $2.8B while commercial crew is increased by 22% or $152M to $848M. Considering how Congress has reacted to similar cuts and increases in previous years, these numbers are likely to change in appropriations.

I noticed that the ISS budget goes up from $3.3B in FY18 to $3.8B in FY19 when commercial crew becomes operational. If NASA is paying $70M for six crew a year to Russia, that looks like NASA is expecting to pay $6x70M+$500 = $920M per year for commercial crew. For eight crew a year, that works out to $115M per crew member.

A more detailed breakdown should come out soon, probably early next week they said. Keep in mind this is still just the administration's request, not even a bill before congress yet.

The increase in ISS $ probably includes more than just commercial crew payments, they want an increase in science, for example.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #96 on: 03/06/2014 03:07 pm »
I noticed that the ISS budget goes up from $3.3B in FY18 to $3.8B in FY19 when commercial crew becomes operational. If NASA is paying $70M per crew member for six crew a year to Russia, that looks like NASA is expecting to pay $6x70M+$500 = $920M per year for commercial crew. For eight crew a year, that works out to $115M per crew member.

If you carry the maximum of 7 astronauts per flight, it would amount to $65M per crew member. If you replace a crew member with cargo, you have to factor in the extra cargo (about 100kg per empty seat) that you gain by doing that.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2014 03:09 pm by yg1968 »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #97 on: 03/06/2014 08:00 pm »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #98 on: 03/06/2014 09:00 pm »
Some details on the reasons for cancelling SOFIA:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39739cashed-strapped-nasa-chose-cassini-over-sofia

I really hope they might be able to secure some increased German funding to keep this going or maybe get funding from other international partners, as it seems a waste of money to axe something that has only just come into use.
« Last Edit: 03/06/2014 09:03 pm by Star One »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #99 on: 03/07/2014 03:15 am »
If you carry the maximum of 7 astronauts per flight, it would amount to $65M per crew member. If you replace a crew member with cargo, you have to factor in the extra cargo (about 100kg per empty seat) that you gain by doing that.

Yes, but my understanding is that ISS can only support one additional crew member and that dual operations also won't be supported, except in an emergency where there's a problem with the first vehicle. This means crewed NASA missions to ISS will only carry four astronauts at a time.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 03:17 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #100 on: 03/07/2014 04:19 am »
If you carry the maximum of 7 astronauts per flight, it would amount to $65M per crew member. If you replace a crew member with cargo, you have to factor in the extra cargo (about 100kg per empty seat) that you gain by doing that.

Yes, but my understanding is that ISS can only support one additional crew member and that dual operations also won't be supported, except in an emergency where there's a problem with the first vehicle. This means crewed NASA missions to ISS will only carry four astronauts at a time.

Yes, I know. But if the extra 3 seats are sold to spaceflight participants, NASA would get a better price. If NASA decides to replace the three extra seats with cargo, you would have 300 kg (3 x 100 kg) of extra cargo. Based on the CRS2 prices, 300 kg of pressurized cargo is worth about $19M to 20M. So that would reduce your price even further.

But in 2011, Gerst said that the crew transportation system (CTS) would cost about $480M per year. So I am guessing that your $920M estimate is too high. See this link:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28699.msg1151257#msg1151257
« Last Edit: 03/07/2014 01:55 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #101 on: 03/08/2014 05:26 am »
Yes, I know. But if the extra 3 seats are sold to spaceflight participants, NASA would get a better price.

Where would those three participants sleep and eat for the six months they would have to wait before coming back to Earth? As I said before, there won't be dual operations where those participants could transfer across. I'm also pretty sure that NASA will not want to look after three tourists for a couple of weeks.

Quote
If NASA decides to replace the three extra seats with cargo, you would have 300 kg (3 x 100 kg) of extra cargo. Based on the CRS2 prices, 300 kg of pressurized cargo is worth about $19M to 20M. So that would reduce your price even further.

$920M -2x$20M = $880M. That is now $110M per crew member.

Quote
But in 2011, Gerst said that the crew transportation system (CTS) would cost about $480M per year. So I am guessing that your $920M estimate is too high.

That was three years ago. Obviously, the price has gone up since then as the true costs were realised.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1117
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #102 on: 03/09/2014 09:09 am »

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #103 on: 03/10/2014 03:07 pm »
That was three years ago. Obviously, the price has gone up since then as the true costs were realised.

Perhaps but your numbers assume that all of the increases for the ISS budget comes from commercial crew which may not be the case. When NASA is asked about the price of commercial crew, they have always said that they are competitive with Soyuz. Some proposals come under and some come over. Furthermore these numbers are nominal and I doubt that they take into account the numbers in the CCtCap proposals.

Where would those three participants sleep and eat for the six months they would have to wait before coming back to Earth? As I said before, there won't be dual operations where those participants could transfer across. I'm also pretty sure that NASA will not want to look after three tourists for a couple of weeks.

I don't know what the arrangements would be but spaceflight participants are possible under the CCtCap RFP documentation. I think that it's up to the commercial crew providers to suggest arrangements.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2014 03:09 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #104 on: 03/11/2014 04:02 am »
OK, the FY2015 Budget Estimates is now available from the NASA website.

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

The SLS budget is cut by $219.7M or 13.7% to $1380.3M.

The Orion budget is cut by $144.2M or 12% to $1052.8M.

Exploration Ground Systems is increased by 33.1M or 10% to $351.3M.

The ISS Crew and Cargo Transportation budget jumps by $528.2M or 32% from FY2018 to FY2019. Assuming six crew at $70M a year in previous years and offsetting the cost of launching 300 kg of other payload on each launch, gives a total of 6x$70M+$528.2M-2x20M = $908.2M. For eight crew a year, this is $113.5M per crew member.

p.442 EXP-56: EM-1 to carry three cubesats

"AES (Advanced Exploration Systems) plans to continue developing at least three secondary CubeSat payloads in 2015 in preparation to fly on the Space Launch System in 2017. Initial mission concepts include a “Lunar Flashlight” to look for lunar volatiles such as ice, a “Biosentinel” to further study the effects of the deep space radiation environment on simple organisms, and a “Near Earth Asteroid Scout” to characterize and visit candidate asteroids in support of ARM (Asteroid Rendezvous Mission) and future human exploration."

p.443 EXP-57: Program Schedule

Apr 2014 Demonstrate autonomous landing and hazard avoidance in flight test of Morpheus lander

Apr 2014 Determine potential for commercial industry led lunar lander partners and select initial partnerships to be conducted under space act agreements

May 2014 Select Mars 2020 payload to demonstrate oxygen production from atmosphere

Aug 2014 Determine potential for international partner to develop robotic lunar lander
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 05:39 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2146
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA -- previously in Ann Arbor, MI
  • Liked: 833
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #105 on: 03/11/2014 09:07 am »
Re-upload of the presser. Gamefront tends to delete its files.

https://mega.co.nz/#!yBh3iYDC!79HVXGx55K6wuFFBD0utWCimrAK01d-1uffcSP0QCHA
Internal combustion engine in space. It's just a Bad Idea.TM - Robotbeat

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #106 on: 03/11/2014 05:56 pm »
NASA Budget Justification Details Delays, Descopes and Cancellations

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39813nasa-budget-justification-details-delays-descopes-and-cancellations

Amongst others:
- MER Opportunity will be shut down in 2015
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.
- Sofia is grounded (defunded) because “contributions to astronomical science will be significantly less than originally envisioned.”

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #107 on: 03/11/2014 06:40 pm »
Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 06:40 pm by yg1968 »

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #108 on: 03/11/2014 06:43 pm »

- MER Opportunity will be shut down in 2015

I don't find this explicitly stated anywhere... but its budget line does get zeroed. They do say that there will be insufficient funds to continue operating all high priority missions identified by the upcoming senior review and the fact that MER's line disappears tells you what its chances are.

the "OGSI" supplement includes an additional ~$30M for planetary extended mission funding.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #109 on: 03/11/2014 06:56 pm »
Here is the 700 pages FY 2015 NASA Budget estimate which was released today:
http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_2015_Budget_Estimates.pdf

NASA is considering extending CCiCap, see page 427:

Quote from: Page 427 of the FY 2015 NASA Budget Estimate
NASA is evaluating whether to extend CCiCap milestones through FY 2015. Competition is an important component of the commercial crew program. Competition is a key to controlling costs over the long term and NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has opined that competition should be maintained until safety confidence is achieved.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 07:07 pm by yg1968 »

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1150
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #110 on: 03/11/2014 07:15 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28766
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8881
  • Likes Given: 5746
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #111 on: 03/11/2014 07:21 pm »
Really dumb if they intend to shutdown MER Opportunity. Even a very minimal budget, with the science and even operations outsourced to universities (grad students are cheap... better experience than cubesats) would be a better idea, IMHO. They should keep it running until it breaks, at very least as a weather station!
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 07:40 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

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #112 on: 03/11/2014 07:25 pm »
Sunjammer solar sail is delayed pending a review. Also sad.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2014 07:26 pm by yg1968 »

Offline veblen

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 253
  • Liked: 27
  • Likes Given: 1753
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #113 on: 03/11/2014 08:10 pm »
Even beyond the science return MER Opportunity generates tremendous goodwill for NASA. It is hard to explain but Curiosity with its science instrument suite and fabulous location at the base of Mt. Sharp has not piqued my imagination like Oppie's trek across Meridiani.


I would write a letter to my Rep but I don't have one, I am not American. I support the Planetary Society in their endeavour to keep Planetary Science programs intact and I know of course there are limits for the budget. If in 2015 Oppie is functioning like it is now the rover will have value and should not be discarded.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #114 on: 03/12/2014 06:27 am »

Even beyond the science return MER Opportunity generates tremendous goodwill for NASA. It is hard to explain but Curiosity with its science instrument suite and fabulous location at the base of Mt. Sharp has not piqued my imagination like Oppie's trek across Meridiani.


I would write a letter to my Rep but I don't have one, I am not American. I support the Planetary Society in their endeavour to keep Planetary Science programs intact and I know of course there are limits for the budget. If in 2015 Oppie is functioning like it is now the rover will have value and should not be discarded.

I can't imagine that decision about the MER will play very well in the court of public opinion once it gets picked up upon. And there is one thing that all politicians worry about and that's public opinion.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #115 on: 03/13/2014 01:06 am »
Don't assume that the Opportunity statement is a done deal. The senior review has to play out. Not everything that is going on is written down in the budget document.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #116 on: 03/13/2014 09:56 am »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.
I did not even realize this was still going on.  :(  :(

I wonder who else recalls a page in a Powerpoint of Robert Brauns.

The one with a set of different technologies for use on the Mars mission overlaid on an exponentially  falling graph of system mass to orbit.

And how better propellant management was the biggest way to reduce that mass in the first place?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that sometimes NASA's plans completely ignore it's stated objectives?
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #117 on: 03/13/2014 10:08 am »
Yup.  It's (still more) evidence that NASA's spending priorities are determined principally by parochial politics.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #118 on: 03/13/2014 12:21 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.
I did not even realize this was still going on.  :(  :(

I wonder who else recalls a page in a Powerpoint of Robert Brauns ... how better propellant management was the biggest way to reduce that mass in the first place?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that sometimes NASA's plans completely ignore it's stated objectives?

Ya think?

I continue to struggle with the incompetence argument which Jim raises from time to time.

This is nothing more than deliberate mis-prioritization.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2014 01:12 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #119 on: 03/13/2014 12:43 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #120 on: 03/13/2014 12:52 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it. 

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #121 on: 03/13/2014 01:20 pm »
Its not just Admin/congress...its the 'selected' team that outlined the roadmap....

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.
I did not even realize this was still going on.  :(  :(

I wonder who else recalls a page in a Powerpoint of Robert Brauns ... how better propellant management was the biggest way to reduce that mass in the first place?

Does anyone else ever get the feeling that sometimes NASA's plans completely ignore it's stated objectives?

Ya think?

I continue to struggle with the incompetence argument which Jim raises from time to time.

This is nothing more than deliberate mis-prioritization.
The Space Agencies Meet To Discuss A Global Exploration Roadmap, but why is the word 'boiloff' not in the technology roadmap, nor depot?!

=====  The 'ol VSE =====  3 clauses added at the last minute....
It all started with three flaws in the VSE:
1) "return to the moon by 2020 ...."
2) "in preparation for human exploration to Mars and other destinations"
3) "NASA does not plan to develop new launch vehicle capabilities except where critical NASA needs are not met by commercial or military systems"

1- deadline killed all tech development ( except engine development  ??? ) $$ redirected to LVs not R&D honeypots--eliminate all efficiencies
2- lunar technology has nothing in common with Mars or other destinations.
    Shielding for cosmic radiation, bone loss (1/3 vs milli-g), landing heavy
    objects on Mars or asteroids (see NASA Tech Challenges]
3- ESAS dictated "need" for HLV and FOUR new engine development programs (J2X, 5-seg, SSME to RS68 to SSME, liq stap-ons)
=====
Of course, the VSE post needs to be updated.   Since ESAS, the BEO promise is not quite as rosy:
A) Orion demonstrated how difficult it is to build a re-entry vehicle and include any significant radiation shielding for BEO in the same vehicle.  20mT of additional GCR shielding, 12.9 km/s heat shield still required for Orion as it can only go to a lunar orbit and not return from Mars nor an ARM mission

B) NASA still requires $B/yr for missions, habitats, landers, and staging at L2 to substantially reduce the energy required and 10s of billions more expensive than a  depot based architecture,


C) NASA still plans on sending Orion via SLS during phase 3 of ARM even though it does not have fully funded heat shield and its the DSH that travels to Mars, not a capsule.  As of 2014,  the upper stage will be designed without maintaining the crew rating requirements.

IOW:  ARM demonstrated the significant shortcomings of the expensive HLV/Orion architecture:  it can't even perform a non-gravity well mission for all BEO exploration.

Of course, with politics, Post-incident contingency planning is much easier per our HLV expert Mark S--the role model from the past 3 decades served as guidance (see below and HLV evolution)

D) Spacex is building a one shot Mars rocket so per the VSE Flaw 3)   does this negate NASA's "critical need"

---
The 1988 launch options buyers's guide says it all:
If congress wishes to;                Then it should:
Limit NASA, DOD growth          Maintain existing launch systems

Deploy Space Station                 Fund ASRM and/or LRB,

Send humans to Mars/moon       Develop an unpiloted cargo vehicle.  Large
                                                  planetary missions will also need a new,
                                                  more economical, cargo vehicle


Deploy SDI                                 Commit to the development of a new unpiloted cargo vehicle...Current launch systems are neither
                                                   sufficiently economical nor reliable enough..


Oh what a mouthful....  Decades of  pure waste and ... Post-incident contingency planning
« Last Edit: 03/15/2014 12:38 pm by muomega0 »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28766
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8881
  • Likes Given: 5746
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #122 on: 03/13/2014 03:55 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
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 woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #123 on: 03/13/2014 05:16 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 02:22 am by Andy USA »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #124 on: 03/13/2014 07:04 pm »

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #125 on: 03/14/2014 08:47 am »

- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.
Exactly. Cheese slicer method only delays the inevitable: to make difficult choices. Eventually, something big will have to disappear.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #126 on: 03/14/2014 10:58 am »


- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.
Exactly. Cheese slicer method only delays the inevitable: to make difficult choices. Eventually, something big will have to disappear.

The question then becomes what; Curiosity, ISS, SLS?

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #127 on: 03/14/2014 11:32 am »


- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.
Exactly. Cheese slicer method only delays the inevitable: to make difficult choices. Eventually, something big will have to disappear.

The question then becomes what; Curiosity, ISS, SLS?
Curiosity is actually not "something big" any more. It's now in operational mode on Mars. Cost levels are considerably lower than they were when the thing was still being designed and constructed.
For something big to be cancelled think, for example, of the successor to Curiosity or other programs still in development. Even SLS could face the axe, although some people think that program is too big to be cancelled. Personally I doubt that.
The way I see things something big (big as in the percentage of NASA budget it eats) will face the axe before the 2017 presidential elections. Either that or US Congress must come up with a way to compensate for inflation eating away a part of NASA's budget each year.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #128 on: 03/14/2014 12:46 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.

I wasn't talking about the depots. Apparently, similar tests will be done on the ground for less money. I was talking more about the cuts to planetary science. Planetary science keeps getting cut every year by the Administration.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #129 on: 03/14/2014 12:48 pm »


- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.
Exactly. Cheese slicer method only delays the inevitable: to make difficult choices. Eventually, something big will have to disappear.

The question then becomes what; Curiosity, ISS, SLS?

None of the above, Bolden and Congress have agreed that those (and James Webb) are priorities which are essentially untouchable. Curiosity wasn't actually on the priority list but given how popular it is, I doubt that it will be targeted.
« Last Edit: 03/14/2014 01:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10087
  • UK
  • Liked: 1987
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #130 on: 03/14/2014 01:57 pm »



- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Sad

a good sum up of the whole FY 15 budget

For an administration that is supposed to be "pro-science", they sure don't act like it.
Congress sees depots as a threat to the HLV, not surprised it's getting cut. The Administration are the folks who put it in there in the first place, Congress never wanted it.
And it's not just that. Remember, NASA's budget will be basically flat for years to come. With having inflation, it means that, every year, NASA can only do LESS while having the same amount of dollars. So every year, NASA will have to shave off several million US dollars of basically everything. In the Netherlands we call this the cheese slicer method. Most of the time this means that big budget programs don't get hit particularly hard, but the smaller programs do. Defund a SOFIA here, cancel a cryogenic propellant demonstration mission there, cancel man-rating efforts for ICPS here, shut an Opportunity down there... This is just the beginning. Next fiscal year you'll see a repeat with more small/medium programs being cut or cancelled. And that will repeat the year after that and so on.

But there is only so long you can keep doing that until something big gets impacted.
Exactly. Cheese slicer method only delays the inevitable: to make difficult choices. Eventually, something big will have to disappear.

The question then becomes what; Curiosity, ISS, SLS?

None of the above, Bolden and Congress have agreed that those (and James Webb) are priorities which are essentially untouchable. Curiosity wasn't actually on the priority list but given how popular it is, I doubt that it will be targeted.

Will they protect Curiosity 2 though?

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #131 on: 03/15/2014 01:07 am »
Great work guys! I'd write an article, but I don't know if I'd be able to make it interesting enough.

Will have a think or write something else.

The most interesting part is the Europa mission. In the past, the President has refused to fund such a mission (although Congress kept including it in its appropriation bills). The rest isn't worth an article in my opinion. 

At the fear of getting a slap from Blackstar, would it be worth referencing the study SLS recently conducted with JPL?

It seems they weren't specific about what the Europa mission would be (size of it etc.)

You are right, they weren't very specific. I am not sure that they would have the budget for an SLS mission. Robinson was talking about looking at the geysers on Europa. There was talk of a Europa Clipper flagship mission. But that might also be too expensive.

Europa is DEAD imho;  the numbers of a 2.4 Billon dollars make putting any money into it pure waste.  Any expenditure will end in some nice powerpoints and several other missions dead in the process.

Friends its time to look and see what's going on here.   This proposed budget is designed to put departments, and interests against each other :( 

If you work for NASA don't feel bad, the whole FY15 budget won't fly.   For example proposed major cuts in the Military by 100,000 troops and replace them with brand new drones won't fly.

Expect major fireworks with Congress after their vacation.   See, this will be the question.  Why ?
 Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group   http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html

"The drone was flying at about 4,000 metres (12,000 feet) and was virtually invisible from the ground. It was possible to break the link with US operators with complex radio-electronic" technology, said Rostec in a statement.

The drone fell "almost intact into the hands of self-defence forces" added Rostec, which said it had manufactured the equipment used to down the aircraft, but did not specify who was operating it."

I brought this up because its all space related.  Some of the drones (common knowledge) are operated out of Nevada via what's launched from Vandenberg and the Cape.   Also related to the RD-180 story.   

Its all intermixed..... :o :o
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1442
  • Liked: 391
  • Likes Given: 463
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #132 on: 03/15/2014 01:48 am »


Expect major fireworks with Congress after their vacation.   See, this will be the question.  Why ?
 Russia says intercepted US drone over Crimea: arms group   http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-intercepted-us-drone-over-crimea-arms-180430584.html

"The drone was flying at about 4,000 metres (12,000 feet) and was virtually invisible from the ground. It was possible to break the link with US operators with complex radio-electronic" technology, said Rostec in a statement.

The drone fell "almost intact into the hands of self-defence forces" added Rostec, which said it had manufactured the equipment used to down the aircraft, but did not specify who was operating it."

I brought this up because its all space related.  Some of the drones (common knowledge) are operated out of Nevada via what's launched from Vandenberg and the Cape.   Also related to the RD-180 story.   

Its all intermixed..... :o :o


U.S. denies drone story.
« Last Edit: 03/15/2014 11:01 pm by arachnitect »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11375
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8424
  • Likes Given: 6770
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #133 on: 03/15/2014 04:22 am »
let's not drone on about drones when we have the very exciting budget topic to stick to.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #134 on: 03/15/2014 12:37 pm »
Europa is DEAD imho;  the numbers of a 2.4 Billon dollars make putting any money into it pure waste.  Any expenditure will end in some nice powerpoints and several other missions dead in the process.

Friends its time to look and see what's going on here.   This proposed budget is designed to put departments, and interests against each other :( 
2.4B is less than one year of SLS/Orion funding......  If canceled BEO Exploration adds Europa.   Which to choose?

The last three decades of horrendous technology development decisions and "post incident contingency planning" have resulted in pure waste of resources.  In the last decade, these decisions include BEO HLV and capsule having the inability to travel to an asteroid, never mind Mars, due to an inadequate heat and radiation shield, an upper stage not crew rated, and zero budget for missions.  A reusable cargo vehicle is non-existant, nor is the ability to add fuel.   Congress tells NASA to buy hybrid cars and discard them after the tank is empty--no gas cap nor pump allowed.

IOW:  it's quite easy to have one department be compared to another one.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #135 on: 03/15/2014 12:39 pm »
I just stumbled off the street into this thread and I see that none of you fellas knows how to trim your posts. Seriously, guys, if you want to be taken seriously, try presenting your comments as clearly and concisely as possible.

I'll skip all of the budget stuff because, even though I happen to know several people who were involved in the budget preparation, it generally bores the heck out of me. But I'll clarify some stuff on the Europa issue.

1-The Europa story goes like this:

-The JPL Europa orbiter that was shown to the Planetary Science Decadal Survey in 2010 was estimated (by The Aerospace Corporation under contract to the DS) at $4.7 billion. This was deemed totally unaffordable. (In fact, it simply could not fit into the planetary budget.) The DS told JPL to go back and come up with an affordable mission.

-After much hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing, JPL produced the Europa Clipper study (you can look that one up) that would do the Decadal Survey science goals for $2.1 billion (cost estimate by the same group that did it for the DS). Everybody I've talked to thinks that the Europa Clipper mission is the bee's knees and is an impressive bit of work by JPL. It needs a bit of tweaking, but it's a good mission design. However, the administration cut the planetary budget by $200+ million and so there's not enough money in the budget to do the Europa Clipper mission without trashing a bunch of other things, which nobody really wants to do.

-OMB told NASA to put out a request for proposals to do a Europa mission at $1 billion. Now we are waiting for the results of those proposals (which really haven't even started yet). The goal is to see what might be possible at that cost. Note that the reason to do a Europa mission is not simply to plant a flag, but to answer fundamental science questions at Europa. A $1 billion Europa mission may not be able to do that. We'll have to see. I think many in the science community would be unwilling to do a mission that doesn't accomplish meaningful science. Better to wait another decade and do it right. But again, we'll have to wait and see.

2-The Europa mission on an SLS proposal is really something that is coming from the rocket guys AND NOT THE SCIENCE GUYS. You might find a couple of scientists who advocate using SLS for this mission, and you might find a few more who are willing to get all misty-eyed and fantasize about such a mission. But for the most part, they don't want to count on a rocket that doesn't exist and might be way too expensive for their tastes when they have Atlas and Delta that can do the job now.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #136 on: 03/15/2014 12:58 pm »
I just stumbled off the street into this thread and I see that none of you fellas knows how to trim your posts. Seriously, guys, if you want to be taken seriously, try presenting your comments as clearly and concisely as possible.

I'll skip all of the budget stuff because, even though I happen to know several people who were involved in the budget preparation, it generally bores the heck out of me. But I'll clarify some stuff on the Europa issue.

1-The Europa story goes like this:

-The JPL Europa orbiter that was shown to the Planetary Science Decadal Survey in 2010 was estimated (by The Aerospace Corporation under contract to the DS) at $4.7 billion. This was deemed totally unaffordable. (In fact, it simply could not fit into the planetary budget.) The DS told JPL to go back and come up with an affordable mission.

-After much hair-pulling and teeth-gnashing, JPL produced the Europa Clipper study (you can look that one up) that would do the Decadal Survey science goals for $2.1 billion

-OMB told NASA to put out a request for proposals to do a Europa mission at $1 billion.

4.7B is less than two years of SLS/Orion, and  provides significantly more BEO Exploration than the $40B ARM in 2025 given The last three decades of horrendous technology development decisions and "post incident contingency planning" resulting in a pure waste of resources provided by HLV/Orion.   IOW:  it's quite easy to have one department be compared to another one.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #137 on: 03/15/2014 01:00 pm »
Interesting to read a bit about the Europa mission.  They do need to figure out why they want to do that mission.  I'm reminded of Mark Twain's adage about how all problems look like a nail when you have one tool.

The one tool in this case is "affordability".  First it was $4.7B; that was deemed too much.  Then it was $2.1B and that seems to have been deemed too much as well.  Apparently OMB is now asking for a $1B mission.

For a hundred dollars, they could get somebody to cut and paste an Encylopedia Brittanica article on Europa.  That is, if "affordability" is the only criteria.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #138 on: 03/15/2014 01:18 pm »
4.7B is less than two years of SLS/Orion, and  provides significantly more BEO Exploration than the $40B ARM in 2025 given The last three decades of horrendous technology development decisions and "post incident contingency planning" resulting in a pure waste of resources provided by HLV/Orion.   IOW:  it's quite easy to have one department be compared to another one.
Implying that cancelling SLS will magically make the money go to Europa exploration...

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #139 on: 03/15/2014 02:10 pm »
4.7B is less than two years of SLS/Orion, and  provides significantly more BEO Exploration than the $40B ARM in 2025 given The last three decades of horrendous technology development decisions and "post incident contingency planning" resulting in a pure waste of resources provided by HLV/Orion.   IOW:  it's quite easy to have one department be compared to another one.
Implying that cancelling SLS will magically make the money go to Europa exploration...

Well, they'd have to use the scientific imprecation "abra-cadabra" or something.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #140 on: 03/15/2014 05:59 pm »
Blackstar any numbers on this mission?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34097.msg1163125#msg1163125

I'd like to understand how this tradeoff process works.    Could a 2.4 Billion dollar Europa mission be traded off to get funding for the mission above?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #141 on: 03/15/2014 06:12 pm »
- Planned in-space demonstration of cryogenic propellant storage (fuel depots) is cancelled.

Curiosity is actually not "something big" any more. It's now in operational mode on Mars. Cost levels are considerably lower than they were when the thing was still being designed and constructed.
For something big to be cancelled think, for example, of the successor to Curiosity or other programs still in development.[/quote]

Saw on the net Curiosity needs 13 million a year.   Trying to figure out what's driving costs here?

Is the cost manpower to research the science?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2651
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 1442
  • Likes Given: 1075
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #142 on: 03/15/2014 06:46 pm »
Saw on the net Curiosity needs 13 million a year.   Trying to figure out what's driving costs here?

Is the cost manpower to research the science?

In the US, the typical so called white collar business has an average per employee cost of $100,000. That includes salary, taxes paid by the employer, benefits such as healthcare, etc. That means it costs you a million dollars for ten employees. Scientists and engineers would have higher wages, resulting in fewer employees per million dollars.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of that $13 million is for the staff.

They also have to pay for office space, power, computers, supplies, etc.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #143 on: 03/16/2014 02:35 am »
Blackstar any numbers on this mission?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34097.msg1163125#msg1163125

I'd like to understand how this tradeoff process works.    Could a 2.4 Billion dollar Europa mission be traded off to get funding for the mission above?

No. There's been no independent cost estimate of the Inspiration Mars mission proposal. If you read Les Lyles' testimony (heh heh heh...) you'll see that he recommends that they perform one.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #144 on: 03/16/2014 02:37 am »
Saw on the net Curiosity needs 13 million a year.   Trying to figure out what's driving costs here?

Is the cost manpower to research the science?

People to do the science and operate the rover. DSN overhead costs.

Actually, $13 million seems low to me. I seem to remember that the two MER missions were running $40 million a year, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #145 on: 03/16/2014 02:41 am »
My quick skim of this article indicates that it is a pretty good account of the Europa situation:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1403/14europa/#.UyUaf17Q5hF

    
Economics, water plumes to drive Europa mission study

BY STEPHEN CLARK
SPACEFLIGHT NOW
Posted: March 14, 2014

NASA plans to use funding proposed by the Obama administration to narrow concepts for a billion-dollar mission to Jupiter's icy moon Europa, according to NASA officials eyeing a launch of the long-awaited probe in the mid-2020s.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7799
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 1299
  • Likes Given: 8742
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #146 on: 03/16/2014 09:39 am »
Apparently, similar tests will be done on the ground for less money.
And so when in space re-fueling/depots is suggested for another big mission the mission planners will say "But it's not been proven in space," and ask for a big rocket again.

Until it's actually done in space there will still be lingering doubts.

This should have been done 40  years ago.  :( :(
BFS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP structured A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of flying in Earth and Mars atmospheres. BFR. The worlds biggest Methane fueled FFORSC engined CFRP stainless steel structured booster for BFS. First flight to Mars by end of 2022. Forward looking statements. T&C apply. Believe no one. Run your own numbers. So, you are going to Mars to start a better life? Picture it in your mind. Now say what it is out loud.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #147 on: 03/16/2014 02:26 pm »
4.7B is less than two years of SLS/Orion, and  provides significantly more BEO Exploration than the $40B ARM in 2025 given The last three decades of horrendous technology development decisions and "post incident contingency planning" resulting in a pure waste of resources provided by HLV/Orion.   IOW:  it's quite easy to have one department be compared to another one.
Implying that cancelling SLS will magically make the money go to Europa exploration...
No such transfer of funds is required, nor assumed.  Cancelling SLS/Orion allows greater flexibility in the budget profile and more science/dollar.

The SLS/Orion programs are so badly thought out that they no longer deserve any attention--it is time to move on.  The lack of commonality was the first reason the case did not close; many other reasons include lack of lightweight GCR shielding, no need for greater than a 20mT LV , no 12.9 km/s heat shield , nothing reuseable , a higher energy architecture , and no funding for a crew rated transfer stage or mission hardware elements.  See VSE Evolution and HLV evolution for more details.

A change in the number of seats and politics may keep them in place at the expense of many other things, no different than corn/oil subsidies and CEO pay exceptions.  If NASA exists to give political science majors a chance to shine, please update the charter....Lies and marketing and lobbying trump science and engineering... the true meaning of 'let the free market decide'.

Apparently, similar tests will be done on the ground for less money.
And so when in space re-fueling/depots is suggested for another big mission the mission planners will say "But it's not been proven in space," and ask for a big rocket again.
Until it's actually done in space there will still be lingering doubts.
This should have been done 40  years ago.  :( :(
TRL 6 is a system or subsystem model demonstrated in a relevant end-to-end environment (ground or space).
TRL6 is required for a flagship mission PDR (Has anyone seen the waivers for a HSF Mars rocket and capsule without the proper heat and radiation shield, ECLSS, nor the crew rated upper stage that fits the mass and cost budget?)

The depot technology to provide a TRL 7-8 in space demo is in place with no showstoppers.   
If there are doubts, please be specific.
Compare depots to the POR:  quite the TRL hypocracy.
« Last Edit: 03/22/2014 11:21 pm by muomega0 »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #148 on: 03/17/2014 02:51 am »
The SLS/Orion programs are so badly thought out that they no longer deserve any attention--it is time to move on.

And yet you're unable to do so...

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #149 on: 03/17/2014 01:04 pm »
Apparently, similar tests will be done on the ground for less money.
And so when in space re-fueling/depots is suggested for another big mission the mission planners will say "But it's not been proven in space," and ask for a big rocket again.

Until it's actually done in space there will still be lingering doubts.

This should have been done 40 years ago. 

Maybe not by forty, but certainly by thirty years ago, after shuttle came on line, and regular access to LEO became almost routine.  But the Incompetence Argument (IA, not to be confused with AI) clearly demonstrates that forward thinking, rational planning, accurate budget projectons, capable prioritization, and a host of honesty issues in the political process have been successful in keeping this important work from being worked on for decades.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #150 on: 03/17/2014 02:58 pm »
The SLS/Orion programs are so badly thought out that they no longer deserve any attention--it is time to move on.
And yet you're unable to do so...
Nope. :o

Zero missions for the available budget by 2025, the big goose egg.   On top of zero, NASA still does not have a crew rated upper stage, a heat shield to return from an asteroid, lightweight radiation shielding, mission hardware that fits the mass and crew budget and violates the TRL 6 PDR requirement..   Even if 'it' is built, NASA cannot afford to operate 'it'.

Flip it around:  One needs payload/mission for a robust LV program.

Move on to what exactly?  Nothing?  Spend another decade working on nothing?  Seriously?

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28766
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8881
  • Likes Given: 5746
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #151 on: 03/17/2014 03:05 pm »
Lightweight radiation shielding is just plastic.
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 vulture4

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 90
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #152 on: 03/17/2014 05:55 pm »
There is a slight mass advantage to using radiation shielding containing a large percentage of lightweight nucleii like hydrogen, in fact plastic blocks are used on ISS. But this is a modest improvement, it doesn't mean you can increase the GCR protection dramatically.

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11603
  • Liked: 3151
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #153 on: 03/19/2014 02:31 pm »

- MER Opportunity will be shut down in 2015

I don't find this explicitly stated anywhere... but its budget line does get zeroed. They do say that there will be insufficient funds to continue operating all high priority missions identified by the upcoming senior review and the fact that MER's line disappears tells you what its chances are.

the "OGSI" supplement includes an additional ~$30M for planetary extended mission funding.

Jim Green explained this on Monday at "NASA Night" at LPSC. The situation is complicated, but it is not dire. I'll put this in all caps for emphasis: OPPORTUNITY IS NOT GOING TO BE SHUT DOWN.

I don't fully remember the explanation, but it goes something like this: the White House came up with this OGSI supplement budget. In essence, it is "extra money" that the OMB wants to spend on a bunch of things. They offered about $35 million to NASA for planetary. When NASA looked at their budgets in planetary, the operating costs for both Opportunity and LRO added up to about that amount (the operating budgets for all of the other planetary missions in any combination could not add up to that amount--in other words, Opportunity/LRO was the only combination that added up to the amount that OMB was offering). So Opportunity and LRO are both "zero" in the NASA budget, but they are included in this other budget.

OPPORTUNITY IS NOT GOING TO BE SHUT DOWN.

Okay, everybody following me so far?

Now as he explained it, two things will happen. One, they will hold a senior review and all of those projects will be reviewed, including LRO and Opportunity. They could be recommended for shut down by the senior review process. But my understanding is that planetary does senior reviews differently than astronomy. My impression (and I'm reaching a bit here) is that whereas astronomy often turns off missions that do not get a certain grade in the senior review (like WISE), planetary prefers to keep things running, albeit at a lower level of operations. So a planetary senior review might include shutting off instruments, but still operating the mission if it is returning some useful data. (This is somewhat complicated by the fact that the Mars orbiters have comm relays, and nobody really wants to shut off those assets.)

(So, yeah, as a result of the senior review, Opportunity could be shut down, but it is not going to happen because of the budget.)

Second, Congress will pass a NASA budget (maybe--Congress doesn't have a good record on this). When they do, they could roll the OSGI budget into the NASA budget and so Opportunity would go from "zero" in the NASA budget to a funded level.


In this instance, as well as with SOFIA, you have to remember that the President proposes a budget, but that is not the final budget.

This is all part of a complicated process that has to play out.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8850
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 5939
  • Likes Given: 2004
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #154 on: 03/25/2014 09:11 am »
Posturing begins (yet again)...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39966nasa-authorizers-unite-in-support-of-sls-orion-ahead-of-budget-hearings

And the infamous "China card" has now been upgraded to the "China/Russia card":
Quote
The lawmakers cited “the expansion of human spaceflight programs in countries such as China and Russia over the past decade” in urging the White House to make space exploration a top priority.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #155 on: 03/25/2014 12:21 pm »
I don't understand some of the concerns expressed on this forum regarding SLS. 

Clearly, Congress, by their own telling, has provided a robust funding commitment for this right sized LV.  SLS will fly, carrying ballast and other important cargo two or possibly even three times, many years before the impact of shifting priorities forces the vehicle to carry humans.

China and Russia are suffering from extreme BTDT due to their expansion of human spaceflight programs, but this has no effect on the sound engineering basis upon which Congress has designed SLS.

What's not to like?
« Last Edit: 03/25/2014 12:22 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1402
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #156 on: 03/25/2014 01:38 pm »
I don't understand some of the concerns expressed on this forum regarding SLS. 

Clearly, Congress, by their own telling, has provided a robust funding commitment for this right sized LV.  SLS will fly, carrying ballast and other important cargo two or possibly even three times, many years before the impact of shifting priorities forces the vehicle to carry humans.

China and Russia are suffering from extreme BTDT due to their expansion of human spaceflight programs, but this has no effect on the sound engineering basis upon which Congress has designed SLS.

What's not to like?

Congress has not increased NASA budget to deal with their mandated program and they have not provided any funding for any missions besides the Orion test flights.  If they are serious about SLS beyond being a jobs program they need to mandate and fund a project.

If you are being sarcastic ignore this please, the whole subject just gets my dander up.
« Last Edit: 03/25/2014 01:52 pm by JBF »
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline M129K

Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #157 on: 03/25/2014 01:42 pm »
I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #158 on: 03/25/2014 02:28 pm »
Posturing begins (yet again)...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39966nasa-authorizers-unite-in-support-of-sls-orion-ahead-of-budget-hearings

And the infamous "China card" has now been upgraded to the "China/Russia card":
Quote
The lawmakers cited “the expansion of human spaceflight programs in countries such as China and Russia over the past decade” in urging the White House to make space exploration a top priority.

You must Expect it under the conditions.   Expect a lot of knee jerk reactions to news items, long term thinking is on hold.

"An electronic copy of the letter — signed by 15 Republicans and 17 Democrats — was sent to media March 24 from the office of Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-Miss), chairman of the House Science space subcommittee that produces policy-setting NASA authorization bills."

that letter might be of some value.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11375
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8424
  • Likes Given: 6770
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #159 on: 03/25/2014 02:59 pm »
As a note I got an email from the Planetary Society which warned of dire cuts to basically everything planetary and asked for petitions, phone calls and the like to my congresscritters. Seemed very scare tactic-ish to me.  I had expected better from them. Glad I'm getting the real scoop here.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #160 on: 03/25/2014 03:08 pm »
Posturing begins (yet again)...

http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/39966nasa-authorizers-unite-in-support-of-sls-orion-ahead-of-budget-hearings

And the infamous "China card" has now been upgraded to the "China/Russia card":
Quote
The lawmakers cited “the expansion of human spaceflight programs in countries such as China and Russia over the past decade” in urging the White House to make space exploration a top priority.

Here is a copy of the letter:
http://palazzo.house.gov/uploadedfiles/slsorionletter.pdf

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #161 on: 03/25/2014 03:53 pm »
Notice that Rep. Palazzo et al. describe the current NASA budget as "robust."

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #162 on: 03/25/2014 04:00 pm »
I don't understand some of the concerns expressed on this forum regarding SLS. 

Clearly, Congress, by their own telling, has provided a robust funding commitment for this right sized LV.  SLS will fly, carrying ballast and other important cargo two or possibly even three times, many years before the impact of shifting priorities forces the vehicle to carry humans.

China and Russia are suffering from extreme BTDT due to their expansion of human spaceflight programs, but this has no effect on the sound engineering basis upon which Congress has designed SLS.

What's not to like?

Congress has not increased NASA budget to deal with their mandated program and they have not provided any funding for any missions besides the Orion test flights.  If they are serious about SLS beyond being a jobs program they need to mandate and fund a project.

If you are being sarcastic ignore this please, the whole subject just gets my dander up.

JBF: 

My dander is way, way, way up. 

I'm sure you've read the letter where Mr. Palazzo assures the President of the United States of America that Congress has provided a "robust funding commitment" for a "future deep space exploration architecture".  Architecture means, in this context, the entirety of the program, including land based infrastructure, the LV, and all necessary "deep space" components.

Most of us here know pretty much the actuality of those "funding committments".  The policymakers can no longer accomplish anything, because they have no idea of what the true situation is.  Congress pretends to portent in this letter, but it is not even hot air.

Many sincere thanks to Yves for his continued offerings of proof of how our leadership is ruining NASA and any serious BLEO HSF.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #163 on: 03/25/2014 04:02 pm »
Notice that Rep. Palazzo et al. describe the current NASA budget as "robust."

Sorry, Proponent.  Palazzo specifically said  there was a "robust funding commitment".  Totally different thing than what you said.  He didn't mention the *cough* budget *cough* at all.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #164 on: 03/25/2014 10:44 pm »
From the just when you seen it all dept.

NASA chief uses tension with Russia to blast Congress on space funding

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/25/5547404/nasa-chief-uses-tension-with-russia-to-blast-congress-on-space-funding

 "The choice moving forward is between fully funding the President's request to bring space launches back to American soil or continuing to send millions to the Russians," Bolden says in perhaps his strongest bit of rhetoric. "It's that simple."
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5654
  • Liked: 1176
  • Likes Given: 713
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #165 on: 03/25/2014 10:57 pm »
Wow -- that is pretty blunt for a man in his position.  Way to go!

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #166 on: 03/26/2014 12:42 am »
Wow -- that is pretty blunt for a man in his position.  Way to go!

Time to spend more time with the grandkids?
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #167 on: 03/26/2014 04:30 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:

Auth = Authorisation
PBR = President's Budget Request
* Includes Exploration Ground Systems
+ Appropriations

SLS/Orion  Auth   PBR   Final
FY2011    $2751  $2459  $2732
FY2012    $4050  $2810* $3002*
FY2013    $4040  $2365  $2529
FY2014    $2800  $2412  $2797+
FY2015    $2950  $2433    -

CCDEV      Auth   PBR   Final
FY2011     $312   $500   $307
FY2012     $500   $850   $392
FY2013     $500   $830   $525
FY2014     $800   $821   $696+
FY2015     $815   $848    -


Attached is a summary of NASA's budget, including references for where I got the information from.
« Last Edit: 03/26/2014 04:40 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #168 on: 03/26/2014 04:33 am »
There are no real spending controls with the NASA Budget.  Everyone will be a winner. 
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1402
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #169 on: 03/26/2014 09:47 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:

Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #170 on: 03/26/2014 12:58 pm »
From the just when you seen it all dept.

NASA chief uses tension with Russia to blast Congress on space funding

http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/25/5547404/nasa-chief-uses-tension-with-russia-to-blast-congress-on-space-funding

 "The choice moving forward is between fully funding the President's request to bring space launches back to American soil or continuing to send millions to the Russians," Bolden says in perhaps his strongest bit of rhetoric. "It's that simple."

The article is based on Bolden's blog:
http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/2014/03/25/bringing-space-launches-back-to-america/

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #171 on: 03/26/2014 01:23 pm »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:

Why should the blame be on the President? 

Mr. Bolden has the answer for you...Bolden: "We had to make choices"   Read his blog....http://blogs.nasa.gov/bolden/

Its the story all along.  Nice thing about this web site is that you can search and read the history yourself.  Chris has covered things with great articles.   So spinning things won't work unless you want to buy into it.

Bolden: "We had to make choices"    Obama allowed the shuttle program to die without a working method to get crew and supplies to the ISS. 

Bolden: "We had to make choices" ..... looking at cargo its not a fine tuned operation.   Crew was going to be operational in 2015.   Bolden is buying seats for 2017.   Had Bolden listened to the testimony in front of congress, they said 2020?   They might be right?

Bolden: "We had to make choices"    To spin now and blame it on Congress is hypocritical.

Bolden: "We had to make choices"   Fails to put the blame where it belongs the Administration.   He forgets that both the President and the Vice President were in congress and "underfunded" NASA before they came into office.

Time to fess up and take responsibility for their actions sans spin
 
« Last Edit: 03/26/2014 01:32 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline JBF

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1402
  • Liked: 418
  • Likes Given: 751
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #172 on: 03/26/2014 01:32 pm »
Sans spin, both sides share some blame. However as Congress controls the purse and the President has consistently asked for more money, they have the greater blame.

As far as the shuttle goes that was in process long before the current administration; at most they could have added a couple additional flights.
"In principle, rocket engines are simple, but that’s the last place rocket engines are ever simple." Jeff Bezos

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #173 on: 03/26/2014 01:37 pm »
Sans spin, both sides share some blame. However as Congress controls the purse and the President has consistently asked for more money, they have the greater blame.

As far as the shuttle goes that was in process long before the current administration; at most they could have added a couple additional flights.

Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1150
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #174 on: 03/26/2014 02:18 pm »
Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.

That's because, I believe, there is such a large contingent in Congress that is both focused on austerity measures and does not understand the true cost of the things they support. Basically we have an uneducated legislature.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28766
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8881
  • Likes Given: 5746
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #175 on: 03/26/2014 03:05 pm »
Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.

That's because, I believe, there is such a large contingent in Congress that is both focused on austerity measures and does not understand the true cost of the things they support. Basically we have an uneducated legislature.
Can we clone your generation?
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 clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10679
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 2871
  • Likes Given: 1150
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #176 on: 03/26/2014 03:09 pm »
Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.

That's because, I believe, there is such a large contingent in Congress that is both focused on austerity measures and does not understand the true cost of the things they support. Basically we have an uneducated legislature.
Can we clone your generation?

I wish :)
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #177 on: 03/27/2014 05:06 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:
Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.

It was the administration that totally ignored Congress for the FY2010 PBR that cancelled Constellation to be replaced with a technology program and delaying a HLV start to 2015. This is a standard technique for cancelling a program. "Lets stop for now and study it a little more." Congress made up a new authorisation that included Orion, SLS and CCDEV which the president signed. That was the compromise that Congress and the Administration reached. The administration then ignores the authorisation, requesting up to 70% more for CCDEV, and cutting SLS and Orion by up to 40%. How do you think Congress would react to that? Not very well, which is why I think CCDEV has not always been getting the full authorised amounts. Had the administration cut or increased CCDEV, Orion and SLS equally, without the obvious bias they have been showing, I believe funding would have been more beneficial to all parties.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28766
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 8881
  • Likes Given: 5746
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #178 on: 03/27/2014 05:11 am »
Oh, good, well, cutting CCDev and everyone equally would've left us in the same exact position we're in right now.
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 Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18705
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 6709
  • Likes Given: 924
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #179 on: 03/27/2014 05:41 am »
Note that the opposite case could apply if the budgets were equally increased.

Also, if the administration had asked for the authorisation amounts without significant increases or cuts, Congress would most likely have left those numbers alone or given much smaller cuts. That seems to be the case for the other items in NASA's budget.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2014 05:50 am by Steven Pietrobon »
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Online yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9774
  • Liked: 1461
  • Likes Given: 887
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #180 on: 03/27/2014 10:44 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:
Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.

It was the administration that totally ignored Congress for the FY2010 PBR that cancelled Constellation to be replaced with a technology program and delaying a HLV start to 2015. This is a standard technique for cancelling a program. "Lets stop for now and study it a little more." Congress made up a new authorisation that included Orion, SLS and CCDEV which the president signed. That was the compromise that Congress and the Administration reached. The administration then ignores the authorisation, requesting up to 70% more for CCDEV, and cutting SLS and Orion by up to 40%. How do you think Congress would react to that? Not very well, which is why I think CCDEV has not always been getting the full authorised amounts. Had the administration cut or increased CCDEV, Orion and SLS equally, without the obvious bias they have been showing, I believe funding would have been more beneficial to all parties.

The 2010 NASA Authorization wasn't a compromise between Congress and the Administration. It was a compromise between Senators Nelson and Hutchison. The amount authorized for commercial crew was a lot less than what the President requested prior to the law being enacted.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #181 on: 03/27/2014 11:27 am »
Its so strange that Congress agrees on support for NASA and space in general, just not how much they wish to spend on it.

That's because, I believe, there is such a large contingent in Congress that is both focused on austerity measures and does not understand the true cost of the things they support. Basically we have an uneducated legislature.
Can we clone your generation?

BTDT.  He's got grandkids. :)
« Last Edit: 03/27/2014 11:30 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #182 on: 03/27/2014 11:29 am »
Well the problem is that the administration constantly requests more money for CCDEV than has been authorised, while at the same time constantly requests less money for Orion and SLS than has authorised. This is no way to cooperate with Congress. In millions of dollars:

Why should the blame be on the President?  I would say it's the current Congress that is refusing to compromise.

Where did Steven mention the term "blame"?  Is there a factual discrepancy in his reporting that we should be aware of?
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9176
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 623
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #183 on: 03/27/2014 11:57 am »
I dunno about the idea that had the President proposed a different funding mix in the PBR, that Congress would have provided more beneficial funding to both SLS/Orion and CCDev.

As to the idea that Congress is uneducated; on an anecdotal level, this sure seems true.  Analyzing congressional actions from a different perspective might support the tentative, and not too controversial thesis that congress critters consistently mis-prioritize the matters of government.  They put Machiavelli and Alinsky at the top of their priority lists, and endlessly fight for the sake of adrenaline and testosterone.

They pretend that the means justifies the ends when arbitrarily suitable, and always defend that erroneous suitability primarily with Alinky's rule #5.

Add in their constant practice of valuing money before principle; multiply by their incessant gerrymandering and campaigning, and our panoply of problems, most of which have solutions, never gets solved.

Over the last few years, I have suggested a number of pragmatic instances which would probably result in a dramatically successful HSF program.  Others with more technical expertise have also weighed in on these matters, agreeing with me in some cases, and I with them in other cases.

Hakuna metata.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2014 11:57 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10317
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 702
  • Likes Given: 728
Re: NASA FY 2015 Budget
« Reply #184 on: 03/27/2014 02:26 pm »
Note that the opposite case could apply if the budgets were equally increased.

Also, if the administration had asked for the authorisation amounts without significant increases or cuts, Congress would most likely have left those numbers alone or given much smaller cuts. That seems to be the case for the other items in NASA's budget.

I've come to a conclusion that Crew funding was not that high a funding target as promoted with the spin.  If it was, then it would have been fought for.

Something caught my eyes the other day and I did a quick look up.   Was shocked at the increases NOAA has received in the same time frame.  Not going to get into the "need" or any argument about it.....just saying.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work. ~ by Thomas Alva Edison

Tags: