Author Topic: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)  (Read 20690 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 14359
  • UK
  • Liked: 4130
  • Likes Given: 220
FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #60 on: 07/26/2024 11:23 am »
House Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486

The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.
Well your comment has already aged badly considering a certain rock just discovered on Mars and looks even more ill informed than the first time you made it.
The 'certain rock' (presumably the 'Snow Lake' elemental Sulphur containing rock) was not sampled and Perseverance has since moved on, making that 'certain rock' irrelevant to future MSR funding.

You were saying. If you’re going to comment about a mission at least keep up to date with it.

Quote
The rock — the rover’s 22nd rock core sample — was collected on July 21, as the rover explored the northern edge of Neretva Vallis, an ancient river valley measuring a quarter-mile (400 meters) wide that was carved by water rushing into Jezero Crater long ago.

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-perseverance-rover-scientists-find-intriguing-mars-rock
« Last Edit: 07/26/2024 11:27 am by Star One »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6828
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 10442
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #61 on: 07/26/2024 12:51 pm »
House Appropriators Boost Mars Sample Return While Cutting Science Overall:
https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/house-appropriators-boost-mars-sample-return-while-cutting-science-overall/

https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/status/1810517333674213486

The headline should have been "House Appropriators Boost Pork, Cut Science". The house doesn't care about MSR, they're just chasing pork.
Well your comment has already aged badly considering a certain rock just discovered on Mars and looks even more ill informed than the first time you made it.
The 'certain rock' (presumably the 'Snow Lake' elemental Sulphur containing rock) was not sampled and Perseverance has since moved on, making that 'certain rock' irrelevant to future MSR funding.

You were saying. If you’re going to comment about a mission at least keep up to date with it.

Quote
The rock — the rover’s 22nd rock core sample — was collected on July 21, as the rover explored the northern edge of Neretva Vallis, an ancient river valley measuring a quarter-mile (400 meters) wide that was carved by water rushing into Jezero Crater long ago.

https://www.jpl.. nasa.gov/news/nasas-perseverance-rover-scienti"sts-find-intriguing-mars-rock
"Chevaya Falls" and "Snow Lake" are two completely different rocks.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #62 on: 07/26/2024 02:34 pm »
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations Report
The Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf

1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.

2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser.

3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.

4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.

5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).

Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #63 on: 07/26/2024 02:49 pm »
In terms of the MSR, I admit that I would prefer that NASA wait to fund this program. NASA is already having to cancel other science programs that they shouldn't be cancelling (VIPER and Chandra). The science budget for FY25 is very limited, it's not the best time to be starting a new program. Furthermore, why not wait for Starship (and Blue's lander) to be further along to start this program.
« Last Edit: 07/26/2024 02:49 pm by yg1968 »

Offline DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6889
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 5626
  • Likes Given: 2337
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #64 on: 07/26/2024 03:07 pm »
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations Report
The Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf

1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.

2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser.

3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.

4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.

5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).

Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.
Crewed EDL Starship may (or may not) be ready before crewed Dream Chaser. If so, SpaceX would have dissimilar systems. They could then spin off Falcon 9 and Dragon to provide the specialty Dragon service as a separate provider. By that point in its life, Falcon 9 would have very few other customers.

Yes, there are any number of exciting ways that the Starship program could fail, just as Starliner or Dream Chaser could fail.

Offline jarmumd

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 411
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #65 on: 07/26/2024 03:10 pm »
Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.

Looking into an alternative crew vehicle makes some sense given:
-Uncertainty in CST-100, especially their long term commercial plans post ISS
-Dreamchaser looking to build international partners
-Starlab looking to build international partners
-Blue Origin could also be lobbying for funding for a crewed vehicle

decoupling CLD stations and transports will be more expensive, but also gives the commercial market more room.  As it is right now, everyone will try to integrate in house to keep costs down, or pick a potentially sub-optimal solution early, to lock down teams.  A separate transport contract might have a good analog with engine competitions for fighter jets?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #66 on: 07/26/2024 05:35 pm »
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations Report
The Committee directs NASA to provide a report, no later than 180 days after enactment of this act, on what steps are required to modify currently available cargo vehicles to a crewed variant, including vehicular modifications, cost, and timing.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf

1. I guess the Senate is probably asking about alternative LEO crew vehicles because they are worried that Starliner won't be an option.

2. Dragon is already available in a crew version so I assume Congress means crewed versions of Cygnus and Dream Chaser.

3. Making Cygnus crewed sounds not much easier than building a new crewed vehicle from scratch since Cygnus does not return to Earth intact and that obviously would need to change to carry crew, which would probably require a dramatically different capsule-shaped outer mold line.

4. Making Dream Chaser crewed sounds likely to be easier since it does return to Earth intact and Sierra Space has been planning a crewed version for a long time.

5. NASA and Congress should also consider other crewed vehicles that NASA wouldn't have to pay all the costs for, such as the one Blue Origin is likely already developing (https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/).

Yes, I agree with you. The language seems to favor crewed Dream Chaser. NASA has said that it would prefer if Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) providers had dissimilar redundant commercial crew transportation systems but it isn't entire clear how they will achieve that since it would be at the discretion of the CLD provider what commercial crew provider is actually used. It's still not clear to me if NASA should combine CLD and commercial crew into one program as they are trying to do now or have them as separate programs. Ideally, NASA should have seperate funding for certifying new transportation systems.
Crewed EDL Starship may (or may not) be ready before crewed Dream Chaser. If so, SpaceX would have dissimilar systems. They could then spin off Falcon 9 and Dragon to provide the specialty Dragon service as a separate provider. By that point in its life, Falcon 9 would have very few other customers.

Yes, there are any number of exciting ways that the Starship program could fail, just as Starliner or Dream Chaser could fail.

Starship would need a launch abort system. The Commercial LEO Destinations program has recently revised its requirements for commercial crew but the need for a LAS has remained. 

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #67 on: 07/27/2024 12:27 am »
Quote from: page 155 of the Senate CJS' Appropriations Report
Lunar Discovery and Exploration.—The recommendation includes up to the request level for Lunar Discovery and Exploration, including $22,100,000 to continue the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and not less than the request level for Commercial Lunar Payload Services. The Committee supports NASA’s commitment to utilizing public-private partnerships to advance its lunar science and exploration agenda and encourages the agency to leverage the resources and expertise of both private industry and universities in pursuit of these goals. Developing an industrial base of new space companies is paramount for the United States to be a leader in returning to the Moon and increasing cislunar operations. The Committee directs the Lunar Discovery and Exploration program to adhere to the lunar science priorities established by decadal surveys and the National Research Council’s consensus report titled ‘‘Scientific Context for the Exploration of the Moon.’’ Activities funded within the program should meet both lunar science and human exploration needs.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf
« Last Edit: 07/27/2024 12:29 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #68 on: 07/27/2024 03:58 pm »
Quote from: page 166 of the Senate CJS' Appropriations Report
Commercial LEO Development.—The Committee supports maintaining the ISS as long as it can be operated safely. However, it is anticipated that current commercial efforts to develop viable alternatives will allow NASA to meet anticipated mission requirements using free-flying space stations in LEO before the end of the decade. The recommendation provides not less than the budget request of $169,600,000 for Commercial LEO activities to allow for continued opportunities for LEO commercialization that are not primarily dependent on continual NASA funding. This funding should be primarily focused on solving supply rather than demand problems. NASA’s goal should be to buy services to meet its needs and grow promising research across all industries rather than to fund one-time novelty events, which are not indicators of future sustainable expansion of commercial activity in LEO. NASA shall not use funds provided in this or any other act to subsidize the cost of any project that is primarily intended for marketing, advertising, or entertainment.

Within 90 days of enactment of this act, NASA shall brief the Committee on current plans for rapid and cost-effective Commercial LEO Destination [CLD] capabilities. This briefing should include an assessment of the potential benefits of NASA’s CLD requirements being met by a mix of different services from CLD teams instead of requiring nearly identical services from providers and of NASA taking incremental steps towards more advanced CLD capabilities over time.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #69 on: 07/27/2024 04:12 pm »
Quote from: pages 163 to 165 of the Senate CJS Appropriations Report
The Committee provides not less than the request level for the Space Launch System [SLS], Orion multi-purpose crew vehicle [Orion] and Exploration Ground Systems [EGS]. These funding levels ensure the earliest possible crewed launch of SLS, as well as prepare for the development of future science and crewed missions. However, NASA must effectively manage the cost and schedule of the agency’s highest priority missions, especially in light of a constrained fiscal environment. The Committee is concerned that cost overruns for flagship missions, including those in the Exploration Directorate are affecting programs across the agency and that, in the long term, NASA must drive down launch costs to ensure the long-term success of the Artemis campaign. The Committee acknowledges the OIG’s findings in IG–24–001 that the lack of competition for heavy-lift services are impeding the ability to drive down exploration launch costs. Therefore, not later than 90 days after enactment of this act, NASA shall provide the Committee with a report outlining how the agency is planning on reducing launch costs beginning with Artemis V. The report should include progress on implementing the recommendations in IG–24–001 and an analysis of how commercial launch options could be part of the agency’s long-term strategy.

https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/FY25%20CJS%20Senate%20Report.pdf

There is a discussion of this paragraph discussing SLS cost and asking NASA to explore commercial alternatives in this thread:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58212.msg2610363#msg2610363

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #70 on: 07/29/2024 02:27 pm »
Senate spending bill pushes back on proposed NASA mission cuts:
https://spacenews.com/senate-spending-bill-pushes-back-on-proposed-nasa-mission-cuts/

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #71 on: 09/10/2024 12:08 am »
House GOP unveils stopgap plan to avert government shutdown:
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4866780-government-funding-continuing-resolution-gop/

Quote from: the article
House Republicans on Friday unveiled their highly anticipated plan to avert a government shutdown that is sure to upset Democrats and has already drawn skepticism from some in the GOP. The 46-page plan would keep the government funded into March 2025 [...].

And Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said in a statement this week that a “continuing resolution that ends in December—rather than one that lasts a half year—is better for our national security and military readiness, veterans and their families, victims recovering from natural disasters, and all hardworking American taxpayers.”

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #72 on: 09/23/2024 12:00 am »
House Leaders Agree on Funding Deal to Avoid Government Shutdown:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2024/09/22/government-shut-down-averted-n2645120

Quote from: the article
U.S. House leaders unveiled a bipartisan funding agreement on Sunday to avoid a government shutdown.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the legislation to fund the government until December 20.

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1837997820940366117

https://twitter.com/CraigCaplan/status/1837968336246001747
« Last Edit: 09/23/2024 01:49 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203
« Last Edit: 09/26/2024 12:02 am by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17920
  • Liked: 7601
  • Likes Given: 3203

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1015
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #77 on: 11/13/2024 05:26 am »
There are several ways to eliminate both SLS and Orion from Artemis, and ISTM that four of them are easily achievable.

Option 1 is a single launch architecture using Starship V3 as the LV. Initially, S1 is stripped down and disposable. S2 also is stripped down and disposable, no tiles, no fins, no SL-Raptors (maybe 6 fixed VACs and 1 gimbled in the center where the SL cluster was at). Dragon is on top with its LES. The trunk is highly modified for an extended mission, including engine and prop for TEI. Dragon is modified so that it does not have to pull the higher mass trunk with it in case of abort. Dragon's TPS is beefier. The modified V3 S2 might need slight additional stretch to perform both TLI and LOI. A National Team lander is tucked below the Dragon trunk. Yes, except for the S3, it screams Saturn V/Apollo in its architecture. You could even kludge an S3 of same diameter with a single R-Vac. But much of it exists or is in development.

Option 2 involves sending to LEO everything contained in Option 1, except the Dragon, on minimally modified Starship, refill the S2, then send up the crew via Falcon and have the Dragon dock in LEO prior to eyeballs out for both TLI and LOI. Again, Dragon requires a higher mass trunk and beefed up TPS. So this gives the 1.5 architecture like CPX. The bigger issue here is the higher mass Dragon. This probably requires FH which in turn involves man rating the FH. Sending crew on a tri-core is higher risk.

Option 3 could keep the Artemis Starship lander as it now exists, and simply send crew on Lunar Dragon atop a second Starship for rendezvous in NRHO. I don't think FH (again requiring man rating) can get a Lunar Dragon with high mass trunk to NRHO. Possibly, Starship V2 might be able to do this without waiting for V3. This architecture requires two hardware launches as well as several refilling flights. In essence, it is the POR with SLS/Orion replaced by Lunar Dragon atop Starship.

Option 4 sends the National Team Lander on their already planned LVs, while modified Dragon atop modified Starship meets them in NRHO rendezvous. This essentially is the POR Phase 2 with SLS/Orion replaced by Lunar Dragon atop Starship.

My WAG is that any of these is much cheaper than the POR and could be done well within 4 years. I think option 3 and 4 require the least degree of modifications, time, and expense. Beefier Dragon TPS likely not too hard. A new trunk for long duration, engine, and prop is required in all scenarios (It basically becomes an oversized Apollo Service Module), as is ability for Dragon to abort without the full trunk. These issues may be the long pole. Pushback could come against Option 3 from the National Team unless some missions involve at least one of the other options.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2024 05:44 am by TomH »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3073
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 2039
  • Likes Given: 1015
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #78 on: 11/13/2024 05:56 am »
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1856425532797399393

So, a question about JPL budget. Do the LVs come directly out of their budget or from a separate line in the Science Division's budget? It would seem that transitioning from ULA launchers to SpaceX launchers would save a considerable amount of money if that is part of JPL's own budget. But if that savings comes from a completely different place.........too bad......so sad! I have a feeling JPL's budget is for the probes only.

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3282
  • Liked: 4360
  • Likes Given: 5942
Re: FY 2025 NASA Budget (March 11th)
« Reply #79 on: 11/13/2024 03:39 pm »
https://twitter.com/joroulette/status/1856425532797399393

So, a question about JPL budget. Do the LVs come directly out of their budget or from a separate line in the Science Division's budget? It would seem that transitioning from ULA launchers to SpaceX launchers would save a considerable amount of money if that is part of JPL's own budget. But if that savings comes from a completely different place.........too bad......so sad! I have a feeling JPL's budget is for the probes only.
Launchers tend to be a small percentage of the cost of a project, and SpaceX isn't that much cheaper than ULA.  And there are other costs associated with running a center that this is presumably largely driven by.
« Last Edit: 11/13/2024 03:39 pm by abaddon »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1