Congress, NASA

NASA authorization bill progress

On a panel about COTS at the NewSpace 2008 conference last Friday, Jeff Bingham, a staffer on the space subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, said that the House and Senate had recently completed “pre-conferencing” of the NASA authorization legislation to speed its passage. “We had to do what is a six-week process in four days, and we did it,” he said, which resulted in some compromises, particularly in bill language regarding the Shuttle-Constellation gap. “We had some language [in the Senate version] that was a little bit more aggressive, shall we say, on dealing with the gap issues, and that’s had to be modified,” he said. Exactly when the Senate will take up the bill is uncertain. Bingham said earlier plans to bundle the bill with some other unrelated legislation to expedite its passage in the Senate fell through, so it may be taken up on its own as early as this week.

The Senate version of the authorization bill, S. 3270, was formally introduced last week; it’s not clear if this reflects the results of the pre-conferencing. The Senate version does include language calling for an acceleration of COTS, including development of a crew capability. The bill also calls for a report on what would be needed to recertify the shuttle for flights after 2010 as well as a provision that requires NASA to “terminate or suspend any activity of the Agency that, if continued, would preclude the continued safe and effective flight of the Space Shuttle Orbiter after fiscal year 2010.”

The pre-conferenced version of the bill, Bingham said, does include language calling for an additional shuttle mission to fly the AMS instrument to ISS. While the administration strongly opposes that provision, he said he didn’t think the administration would veto it if was included. “In some ways I welcome a veto on that, because I’d love to write the speeches to override that veto, which I think we could do handily,” he said. “But I don’t think it will get vetoed.”

29 comments to NASA authorization bill progress

  • […] Space Politics » NASA authorization bill progress […]

  • Charles in Houston

    Space Enthusiasts –

    While talking to Congressman Nick Lampson last week, he said that people are working to get a mockup of a Soyuz capsule to display in the Capitol Building. The idea was to show legislators what they are spending millions of dollars to buy. I suggested that they mark the outlines of the Space Shuttle payload bay (in tape) on the floor so they could get a comparison of what they are giving up.

    So there is some education to do even in Congress to show them the consequences of their votes.

    What is going to happen this year is that the Congress is going to be in charge since the Executive branch is going to be in in turmoil – no matter which person is elected President. We will be on a Continuing Resolution for months, wasting vast quantities of money by patching our budgeting process.

  • Someone

    Charles

    Next to the outline of the Shuttle and Shuttle Bay they should also put a mock-up, or at least an outline, of the Dragon and CEV so they see what NASA is “replacing” the Shuttle with as well.

  • Mark

    I think its kind of underhanded to try to trick uninformed senators with unfair comparisons to keep funding the shuttle.

    The CEV is meant to fulfill a different mission then the shuttle, so a size comparison to trick law makers to thinking it is a serious downgrade is unfair.

    I think if you want to fairly compare the Shuttle to the Dragon, then a cost per lb of cargo comparison would be in order, not just size.

    The Shuttle has been a great vehicle, but at this point its just a giant cash vacuum keeping NASA from moving forward.

  • SpaceMan

    And which of these proposed systems can come close to matching the payload of the Shuttle for returning payloads to Earth ?

    Eah ?

    None of them of course. Wake Up !

  • Someone

    Going from the Shuttle to the Soyuz/Dragon/CEV is like downsizing from a private touring bus to a VW Bug. Sure you save money, but what are you giving up by being cheap?

  • Charles In Houston

    Notable Space Observers –

    Most have categorized me as a Shuttle apologist, but even I see statements like this:

    And which of these proposed systems can come close to matching the payload of the Shuttle for returning payloads to Earth?

    None of them of course. Wake Up !

    and I must observe that the Shuttle has seldom been used (and rightly so) to return payloads (or almost anything) to Earth. It’s more proper use is as a space maintenance truck – which no proposed replacement can do by the way.

    The Shuttle has done maintenance work on Hubble Space Telescope, Solar Maximum Mission, etc. One tremendous capability is the Remote Manipulator System (you know – the arm) that the CEV, Dragon, etc will not have.

    The Shuttle has returned some payloads to Earth for reuse – that were never designed for that – and that was pretty neat. But most sample or product returns could be done by an ATV variant more cheaply and safely.

  • Someone

    Charles,

    That is the beauty of the Shuttle, it is so flexible and adaptable. I remember in the 1980’s when it returned a pair of comsats to Earth. They were fixed and later launched again.

    Then there were the MMU tests and the experiment in assembly trusses in orbit, and the space tether. And this fall it will repair the Hubble once again giving it decades more of usable service.

    It just makes you cry to think we are scraping it, going back to spam cans and claiming its progress.

    What we should be doing is building a new generation Shuttle, and this time give it the flyback first stage that was originally envision for it before Congress got cheap. A TSTO would be a step forward for the U.S. and ensure its lead in space, not a step backward as with the spam cans.

  • Guys,

    The Shuttle was never going to be “replaced”.
    NASA does not have and will not get the money
    to build everything the shuttle can do.

    The CAIB declared that the Shuttle must go.
    Rebuilding and recertifying the orbiters would
    only be a stopgap.

    We need multiple ways for Americans to get
    crew and cargo into space. Bringing huge
    amounts of cargo back is a low priority.

    What we need are more COTS vehicles to
    compete with Soyuz, and focus Orion on
    exploration beyond LEO.

    – Jim

  • Jim,

    Actually, that gives me an idea – what about putting a series of mockups of the various COTS vehicles in the capital?

  • Someone

    Yes, then Congress could take their pick of sub-compact rentals to replace the touring bus with.

  • Mark

    When money is tight, You cant go driving around in a touring bus. NASA will be able to do more missions and be more versatile because they don’t have to keep that gigantic touring bus running. Also the bus cant make it to the moon.

  • Someone

    Mark,

    Yes, a sad comment on how the nation has fallen on hard times. And a clear signal to the rest of the world on the state of the nation.

    As for going to the Moon, do you really think the spam cans will end up being anything other more then a “cheap” ride to the ISS? Especially if Obama wins?

    The difference between the retirement of the Saturn V and the Shuttle is that at least when the Saturn V was retired we had hopes of a better replacement and a better future. This time its clear the U.S. is taking a huge step down in space access. And in space leadership.

  • Someone Else

    “I remember in the 1980’s when it returned a pair of comsats to Earth. They were fixed and later launched again.”

    Of course, if charged legitimate rates, it would have been much cheaper to simply rebuild and relaunch the spacecraft on an ELV rather that retrieve and repair them.

    “Then there were the MMU tests and the experiment in assembly trusses in orbit, and the space tether.”

    And we see how well the MMU and tether worked out in the long run, based on their extensive usage today. And the most successful tether experiments didn’t even use the shuttle at all.

    “And this fall it will repair the Hubble once again giving it decades more of usable service.”

    Incorrect: SM4 will give Hubble several additional years of life, not decades.

    “What we should be doing is building a new generation Shuttle”

    Given the pathetic record of launch vehicle development efforts since the shuttle’s introduction — X-30, ALS, NLS, X-33, X-34, SLI — what makes you think a ‘new generation’ shuttle would do anything more than repeat history?

  • Al Fansome

    I can’t understand why anyone would still champion keeping the Shuttle. The Shuttle is a trap — as the cost of keeping it going keeps us from doing anything else. We will forever go around in circles in LEO until we retire the Shuttle.

    I have not heard any of the Shuttle advocates ever give a cogent answer to this issues (well, other than a miracle occurs, and NASA gets $3-5 billion added to its budget).

    In the real world, NASA has about the amount of money that NASA is going to get. If we want to go anywhere, that means letting go of the Shuttle.

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • There’s a way to catch a monkey. You put a nut in a jar with an opening large enough for the monkey to get his hand in and grab the nut, but too small for him to get his hand out of while gripping the nut. Monkeys not being the brightest creatures, he will refuse to let go of the nut, and remain with the jar stuck on his hand until the trapper comes along.

    This may or may not have some relevance to wanting to keep the Shuttle.

  • Someone

    As Joseph Goebbels pointed out, if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it’s the truth. New Space Advocates have repeated the lie that the Shuttle was a failure so long as part of their anti-Shuttle propaganda that even space policy “experts” have now bought into it.

    The reality is that the Shuttle has achieved a notable record of success no matter how New Space advocates try to spin it. More people have flown into space aboard it then all the other spacecraft launched to date. It demonstrated that routine access to space by a reusable spacecraft is possible. That it is possible to build large structures, recover and repair satellites and manufacture commercial products in orbit. I don’t expect any of the “spam cans” will come close to achieving this record. They will be lucky to just provide taxi service to the ISS. Nearly three decades after its first flight there is no spacecraft in the world that comes close to the Shuttle’s capability. And there is unlikely to be any in the foreseeable future.

    As far as lunar access goes the Shuttle actually is more suitable as a launch vehicle then the Ares I as this 1992 General Dynamics studies showed. Nope, the Shuttle wouldn’t go to the moon, but it would use its capability for placing large payloads into LEO to enable a sustainable lunar architecture.

    http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html

    http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

    Indeed, there would be astronauts on the Moon today, courtesy of the Shuttle, if only the Clinton Administration had the vision to make a return to the Moon part of its space mission instead of the ISS.

    Actually, if the Shuttle was used to replace the Ares I/CEV we could be back on the Moon by end of the next President’s second term if they used the original General Dynamics architecture. As it is we will be lucky if there is an American spam can to fly to the ISS by 2016.

    As for the two accidents Shuttle opponents hold up against it, its well to remember the real blame lies with Congress. NASA wanted to build a TSTO with a fully reusable flyback booster. Instead Congress cut funding so much that the Shuttle was left with the world’s largest drop tank and a pair of RATO units to get into orbit. That fact that it still accomplished so much despite the handicap Congress saddled it with is even more amazing.

    Really, the smart strategy for the next president would be not to replace the Shuttle, but simply replace the current orbiters with a Mark II orbiter. Then use STS in place of the Ares I/Ares V for the VSE. But that would be too common sense to do in Washington. And not provide any COTS funding for New Space firms, so will it never happen. The New Space propaganda machine would kill any such plan before it was even proposed.

  • New Space Advocates have repeated the lie that the Shuttle was a failure so long as part of their anti-Shuttle propaganda that even space policy “experts” have now bought into it.

    This is nuttiness. The Shuttle had a set of criteria that is was designed against. It failed to meet it. It was a failure, by any useful measure. Akk if the “successes” that you hysterically want to vaunt came at an outrageously and unaffordable cost. Fortunately, the American people are not as spendthrift as you.

    You are in complete denial, and a relic of the past. Your proposal for the future is insane.

  • You are in complete denial, and a relic of the past. Your proposal for the future is insane.

    I should add that I can understand why you wouldn’t want to post this lunacy under a real name. I wouldn’t, either.

    Of course, I wouldn’t do it at all.

  • Shutupple

    The space shuttle was the smartest, bravest and best thing America ever did in human space flight, besides landing on the moon a half dozen times or so.

    Retiring the SSMEs would be the dumbest most cowardly thing America has ever done, besides lying America into another Vietnam war, and trashing the United States Constitutions, and the numerous other federal, international and war crimes this administration has already committed in brazen disregard for law and honor.

  • […] NASA authorization bill progress – Space […]

  • Someone

    Looks like there are more people out there who don’t buy into the New Space argument that the Shuttle was a failure and needs to be scrapped ASAP.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5916363.html

    Glenn pushes for money to extend shuttle operations

    “Legendary NASA astronaut John Glenn tried to shape the spacefaring agenda of the next president on Wednesday by urging the White House and Congress to come up with enough money to extend shuttle operations for five years until delivery of the next generation of manned spacecraft.”

    But then what would John Glenn know about the Shuttle….

  • Looks like there are more people out there who don’t buy into the New Space argument that the Shuttle was a failure and needs to be scrapped ASAP.

    That the Shuttle is a failure is not a “New Space” argument. And it’s not proposed that it be “scrapped ASAP.” It is to be retired after completion of ISS.

    And no, John Glenn is not an expert on the Shuttle, and even if he is, so what?

  • Someone

    Sorry, Rand, but you have yet to provide anything more then opinion that the Shuttle was a failure. The fact that it has provided space access for NASA for the last 27 years speaks otherwise. If it was such a failure as you claim it would have never lasted as long as it has.

    As for Senator Glenn not being an expert on it – I think his record speaks for itself on the quality of your statement. Do you actually think you are more knowledgable about the Shuttle then someone who has been involved in providing Congressional support for it since it was created and has even flown on it? Plus do you honestly think he would submit such a bill without doing his research?

    Yes, Griffin wants to kill the Shuttle so his Ares I is built. And New Space does as well so its COTS-D space tourist welfare program is funded so its an uphill battle, but then the lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for as a ficitional senator once said.

    Being forced by bad Bush Administration decisions to beg rides on Russian spacecraft to the ISS, a station America spent $100 billion building is not, and never was a wise idea. And as more Americans realize this the more they will support Senator Glenn.

    So, evidence, in detail please, to support your belief that the Shuttle was a failure…

  • Sorry, Rand, but you have yet to provide anything more then opinion that the Shuttle was a failure.

    It failed to meet its specified flight rate, it failed to meet its cost goals, it failed to meet its performance specifications, it failed to achieve its safety goals. Those aren’t opinions. They are objective facts. Just because NASA has had to make do with it for almost three decades doesn’t magically make it a success.

    Do you actually think you are more knowledgable about the Shuttle then someone who has been involved in providing Congressional support for it since it was created and has even flown on it?

    Of course I do. I worked on it. He was just a Senator.

    Plus do you honestly think he would submit such a bill without doing his research?

    What “research” did he “do”? What “research” is there to do?

    He is simply expressing his opinion, as are we. The difference is, ours corresponds to reality.

  • Someone

    It failed to meet its specified flight rate, it failed to meet its cost goals, it failed to meet its performance specifications, it failed to achieve its safety goals.

    Gee, if that is your criteria then every spacecraft ever built, including all the New Space ventures, would be considered failures. Look at SpaceShipOne, $25 million to win a $10 million prize. It was supposed to fly weekly but is just a hanger queen after barely the X-Prize. And SpaceShipTwo always seems to be two years before starting commercial service.. And look at Falcon I.

    Of course I do. I worked on it. He was just a Senator.

    Somehow I think most people on this discussion board will find that hard to believe, at least those that haven’t bought into the New Space hype that a dozen new space “experts” are wiser then the thousands of engineers and scientists at NASA and the major aerospace contractors. Glenn is more then just a Senator, both in terms of his aerospace engineering experience and as an astronaut. A general tends to know far more about what is going on then the private in the trenches…. Including tge risks of leaving ISS access to the Russians alone.

    But then New Space needs the Shuttle to die, so I am sure that reality will not have any impact on your continue beliefs on it. And you will continue to argue that anyone which disagrees is foolish, which is also part of the big lie technique.

    But I suspect if the CAIB knew in 2004 what is reality now, the long spaceflight gap, the Ares I spam can replacement, the lackof increased funding for NASA, an increasingly agressive Russia, a more objective perspective of the Columbia accident, the failure of New Space to live up to its post X-Prize hype, they would not have called for its retirement in 2010. But continue to fail to recognize how the world has changed since the CAIB.

    In any case, debating with you is a waste, so enjoy promoting your beliefs as reality.

  • Look at SpaceShipOne, $25 million to win a $10 million prize.\

    There was no requirement that it cost less than the prize. Sorry.

    It was supposed to fly weekly but is just a hanger queen after barely the X-Prize.

    In what alternate reality was that supposed to happen? What medications are you on? I’m not interested, but some who want to trip might be.

    Somehow I think most people on this discussion board will find that hard to believe, at least those that haven’t bought into the New Space hype that a dozen new space “experts” are wiser then the thousands of engineers and scientists at NASA and the major aerospace contractors

    Why would they find it hard to believe that I worked on the Shuttle? Many people worked on the Shuttle. It hardly seems incredible that I was one of them.

    Glenn is more then just a Senator, both in terms of his aerospace engineering experience and as an astronaut.

    Glenn was not an aerospace engineer. And what experience he had with that discipline is at least four decades old, with nothing done in the interim in that regard.

    A general tends to know far more about what is going on then the private in the trenches

    I was hardly a “private in the trenches.” I was a program manager.

    But I suspect if the CAIB knew in 2004 what is reality now, the long spaceflight gap, the Ares I spam can replacement, the lackof increased funding for NASA, an increasingly agressive Russia, a more objective perspective of the Columbia accident, the failure of New Space to live up to its post X-Prize hype, they would not have called for its retirement in 2010. But continue to fail to recognize how the world has changed since the CAIB.

    Certainly the CAIB didn’t anticipate a desire to redo Apollo by Mike Griffin. But that doesn’t mean that the Shuttle wasn’t a failure, and that we need to move beyond it.

    In any case, debating with you is a waste

    The notion is certainly mutual, given how out of touch with reality you seem to be.

  • Someone

    You know Rand its zealots like you that are destroying what little creditability New Space might have had.

    You may have been one of the 20,000 or so individuals that worked on the Shuttle for a while but I doubt if that give you more insight then an Astronaut and former Test Pilot who as a member of the Senate was there from the beginning. People who work on the factory floor as foremen rarely understand what goes on in the executive suite. Glenn knows first hand from the 1970’s the damage a spaceflight gap would do to the aerospace work force. And the damage it would do to American prestige to depend on the Soyuz to reach ISS. Those are factors that do matter.

    Hopefully he will be able to counter the New Space propaganda machine and save America’s space program. But I am afraid it’s a long shot.

    Especially given how many New Spacers are actually cheering for the destruction of NASA. Somehow you see it as a block to your free enterprise schemes. But destroying NASA and its work force won’t advance the New Space libertarian agenda. It will only set the nation further back in space. But the New Space propaganda machine will likely destroy any chance at a rational space policy. And so NASA won’t get what it needs, the Shuttle flying until a true replacement is ready. Instead it will just get a new spam can for astronauts in its place.

    I will leave you to your NASA Bashing/New Space Hyping which seems to be the main reason the Space Politics board exists now. It definitely not a place to discuss rational space policy. But before I go I want to leave you with a good analogy for understanding what New Space really is. I know its probably useless on someone like you, but perhaps it will enlighten others lurking here.

    Imagine if a dozen “technical entrepreneurs” in a hanger somewhere claimed they could build a better air tanker then Boeing or Airbus and demand the multi-billion dollar contract go to them. They argue they are qualified because they have been building homebuilt aircraft for years. People would laugh themselves silly on the idea, and if they responded to the RFP they wouldn’t even be seriously consider.

    Yet if the same dozen “technical entrepreneurs” claims they are able to build a better spacecraft (which are a bit more complex then tankers) then Boeing or Lockheed you would also expect people to laugh. But instead people like you believe they are “New Spacers” and demand that the government create special funding (i.e. welfare) programs for them like COTS and COTS-D. And when they get their “homebuilt rockets” flying people like you claim it’s a revolution and some great advancement. Yea, right…

    You know in the 1940’s everyone believed in flying cars. There are still a few out there promoting them, but no one takes them serious anymore. Such will be the case with New Space in a decade or so.

    Rocket racing will just be a faded memory, having been far too boring to be a sport and too elitist to appeal to the masses outside the aerospace community. Sub-orbital space tourism will always still just a couple of years away. But the super rich would have gotten bored of waiting as the market fades away in law suits for broken promises. Bigelow will finally give up waiting for New Space to provide him with a way to reach his stations and just pull the plug. If Elon is lucky he may be as successful as Orbital Science is, the only survivor out of the current crop of hopefuls. But he will have learned that there are no killer apps out there for his rockets. And the rest of New Space? The rest will just be foot notes like the rocket mail fads are today.

    Of course, as with flying cars, there will still be a few zealots like you hyping New Space. But the last legacy will be the damage it did to NASA and America’s space progam.

    You may now continue with your NASA Bashing, Shuttle Bashing and New Space Hyping uninterrupted by logic or common sense both of which seems to have left this website.

  • People who work on the factory floor as foremen rarely understand what goes on in the executive suite.

    I wasn’t a “foreman.” I was project manager for advanced Shuttle concepts, which required an extensive knowledge of the entire system, so that we could identify areas for improvement.

    Glenn knows first hand from the 1970’s the damage a spaceflight gap would do to the aerospace work force.

    The “damage” wasn’t caused by a “spaceflight gap.” It was caused by massive layoffs at the end of Apollo.

    Imagine if a dozen “technical entrepreneurs” in a hanger somewhere claimed they could build a better air tanker then Boeing or Airbus and demand the multi-billion dollar contract go to them.

    Why would I imagine such an idiotic thing? I’ll leave foolish and irrelevant analogies to you.

    I’ll also leave you in your bizarre fantasy world.

Leave a Reply to Someone Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>