Supporters of NASA’s Constellation program are fighting for the program wherever they can, including in legislation that has nothing to do with NASA. On Thursday Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) announced that he was introducing an amendment to an FAA reauthorization bill that would reiterate an existing provision in the FY2010 appropriations legislation for NASA that prevents the agency from terminating any part of Constellation. “NASA is ignoring the will of Congress by taking steps to terminate the Constellation program,” LeMieux said in a statement, referring to claims that NASA has already started work to close down Constellation. “This effort sends the clear message that there are no loopholes, exclusions, or other routes the agency can use to kill the program.”
In addition to the “reaffirmation of prohibition”, the amendment prohibits NASA from using anti-deficiency provisions to stop work or end contract procurements on efforts related to Constellation. The GAO would be required to issue a report within 180 days of enactment on any elements of Constellation “that are contrary to law or are experiencing waste, fraud, or abuse.” The amendment also prevents NASA from taking any steps that would “limit or impair” the launching of at least the payloads on the current manifest.
Six senators, all Republicans, have joined LeMieux as cosponsors of the amendment: Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions of Alabama, Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, and Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett of Utah. The Senate is currently debating the FAA reauthorization bill (several proposed amendments, dealing with issues like prohibiting earmarks and imposing spending caps, were defeated in votes Thursday), a process that will continue at least through today.
Saving Constellation has as much to do with FAA as student loan policy does with health care. Of but the House is doing that one. This is standard politics. It will show a level of support or lack of support for Constellation. The problem still remains for the opponents of the Obama space plan that they don’t have a united approach.
After reading LeMieux’s press release, this is getting really goofy.
“‘NASA is ignoring the will of Congress…'”
No, it’s not. Both draft authorization bills fully fund NASA’s FY 2011 budget request and reduce Constellation to a couple studies. Maybe LeMeiux & Crew should spend a little more time trying to modify the NASA authorization bills to suit their ends, instead of trying to insert NASA clauses in unrelated legislation.
“Without Constellation, the United States will be reliant on Russia for any manned space missions.”
_With_ Constellation, the U.S. will be reliant on Russian Soyuzes for any manned space missions until at least 2017, likely 2019. NASA’s FY 2011 budget request reduces that gap to at least 2016, possibly earlier.
“The amendment would also waive Anti-deficiency Act provisions”
The Anti-Deficiency Act can’t be waived. The government can’t enter into a contract that isn’t funded. That opens the government up to all sorts of lawsuits from the contractors involved. If LeMieux & Crew want NASA to sign additional Constellation contracts, then they need to pass the necessary appropriations bills into law. Waiving the Anti-Deficiency Act doesn’t provide funding. (Duh…)
Even if the Anti-Deficiency Act could be waived, the Constitution itself prohibits any branch of the Federal government from expending funds unless appropriated by Congress. (Double duh…)
Are LeMieux and his staff really this ignorant of contract and constitutional law?
Goofy…
Especially given these efforts to build a case on irrelevant legislation, it’s hard not to step back. take a birds-eye view of this congressional pressure to preserve Constellation, and look at the whole issue with some incredulity. Respecting the facts that Constellation, to these cheerleaders for it, represents some shadow of a continuing human space flight program with a hard destination, and one that certainly stuffs money in the pocket of their constituents, I’ve never seen a cogent argument from them about the fundamental conclusion of the Augustine committee that Constellation was fiscally unexecutable. Do they take the position that Augustine et al were wrong? Misled? That their conclusion was a setup? Or maybe they have some reason to believe that $3B/year will fall out of the sky?
What exactly, to them, is the political value of being a flag carrier for a fiscally unexecutable plan?
Yes, I understand that the incentive is to spend money on it, rather then getting it done. In fact, in a cost-plus scenario, there might be considerable incentive not to get it done, with few or no penalties if that were to happen.
Major,
This is the language that LeMieux is seeking to affirm,
Human Spaceflight: In October 2009, the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans Committee (The Augustine Commission) reported its findings on NASA’s human space flight program. The Augustine Commission raised several issues regarding the current program and budget profile that will require thoughtful consideration by the Administration. In the absence of a bona fide proposal from the Administration on the future of U.S. human spaceflight activities and investments, the bill provides the budget request of $3.1 billion for activities to support human spaceflight in fiscal year 2010; however, the bill requires that any program termination or elimination or the creation of any new program, project or activity not contemplated in the budget request must be approved in subsequent appropriations Acts.
I can tell you from those we know at MSFC, JSC, and KSC that the Administration is very likely violating that language. And 16 members of Congress asked for an expedited review of NASA’s workforce usage that they consider a violation of the Shelby language. We should know within 55 days.
Interesting opinion on the various issues given your legal background.
Jim
What exactly, to them, is the political value of being a flag carrier for a fiscally unexecutable plan?…Yes, I understand that the incentive is to spend money on it, rather then getting it done.
The incentive carries over to lobbying and donating to politicians who support the unexecutable plan.
“This is the language…”
That’s not the language from the FY 2010 Omnibus Appropriations Act. That’s a summary of the language.
Don’t make stuff up.
“I can tell you from those we know”
“We” know? You refer to yourself in the royal “we”?
Really?
“…the Administration is very likely violating that language.”
Based on what? Your hearsay? About some generic, unspecified violation?
Don’t make stuff up.
“And 16 members of Congress asked for an expedited review of NASA’s workforce usage that they consider a violation of the Shelby language.”
The appropriations language says nothing about workforce. The GAO is not going to find NASA in violation of language that doesn’t exist.
FWIW…
Wow!!!!
Tommy, dude…
You REALLY need to chill.
No one is making stuff up. This isn’t a court of law so hearsay is permitted. Most people can evaluate statements for themselves.
You take everything too literally and personally.
Amendments are put into urealated bills all the time. First the amendment has to pass then let’s see what the GAO comes back with.
In the mean time, I don’t know where you are but the weather is supposed to be great hear on the east cost this weekend. Chill out and do something relaxing.
I’m worried about you buddy.
“No one is making stuff up.”
The other poster claimed that a paragraph was language from the FY10 Omnibus Appropriations Act. It wasn’t. They were making things up.
“This isn’t a court of law so hearsay is permitted.”
No duh.
But that doesn’t mean that rumors based purely on hearsay should go unchallenged.
“Most people can evaluate statements for themselves.”
That’s what I did.
“Amendments are put into urealated bills all the time.”
And often, even usually, rejected or thrown out because they have no relevance to the bill.
“First the amendment has to pass then let’s see what the GAO comes back with.”
The amendment and the GAO review have nothing to do with each other.
Don’t make stuff up.
“I’m worried about you buddy.”
I’m not your buddy.
FWIW…
Making stuff up is a political tactic that is often used. LOL
“The other poster claimed that a paragraph was language from the FY10 Omnibus Appropriations Act. It wasn’t. They were making things up.”
It was a summery, you sad so yourself.
““This isn’t a court of law so hearsay is permitted.â€
No duh.”
Grow up. And you have used it on occasion too.
““Amendments are put into unrelated bills all the time.â€
And often, even usually, rejected or thrown out because they have no relevance to the bill.”
What documentation to you have to support that?
As you would say:”Don’t make stuff up.”
““I’m worried about you buddy.â€
I’m not your buddy.”
I’m not yours either but it’s so much fun to pluck your strings.
One more thing tom….. (yes your a small t now.)
“‘NASA is ignoring the will of Congress…’â€
No, it’s not. Both draft authorization bills fully fund NASA’s FY 2011 budget request and reduce Constellation to a couple studies.”
I would submit that draft authorization bills not even voted on much less approved on a committee level would not reflect the will of Congress as much as previous funding and authorization acts that have passed the full Congress as recently as late last year.
Just Sayin’
I’m still waiting for someone to explain how what has been proposed by the current White House is not a “…bona fide proposal…”
“It was a summery [sic], you sad [sic] so yourself”
Your point?
The summary is not the legally binding language from the act.
And if English is not your native language, then at least learn how to use a spellchecker.
Lawdy…
“Grow up.”
This from the pre-teen who calls other posters “dude” and “buddy”, uses insulting variations of their screennames, and tells them “chill” (twice).
Spare us the Ferris Bueller routine.
“And you have used it on occasion too.”
Where have I used hearsay, in the absence of any other evidence, to claim that NASA is violating an act of congress?
Don’t make things up.
“What documentation to you have to support that?”
In Congress, the full house (House of Representatives or the Senate) has the power to accept or reject committee amendments.
“I would submit that draft authorization bills…”
You “submit” wrong since those draft bills reflect the will of the committee members in the current congress drafting them up.
“I’m not yours either”
Then why call me “buddy”?
Are you just a troll here to get your jollies harassing other posters?
“but it’s so much fun to pluck your strings.”
I guess you are just a troll.
Look, if you want to engage in a substantive, fact-based discussion of space policy, by all means, make such an argument.
Otherwise go troll someplace else.
Ugh…
Traditionally NASA has been given a destination/project and a deadline or a time frame to achieve it. At least in human space flight.
The FY2011 budget lays out R&D projects but the objectives are pretty nebulous compared to the previous way things were done. Develop transformitive technologies to roam the solar system sometime in the future vs man on the moon by the end of the decade.
There are people like me who believe that these R&D projects will lack focus and urgency and will be easy prey to future budget cutters.
The other side believes that investing in the R&D now is the only way we will be able to do exploration in a timely manor.
That’s my take on the whole thing anyway.
“Where have I used hearsay, in the absence of any other evidence, to claim that NASA is violating an act of congress?”
You must be a lawyer. I never said that you used hearsay to claim that NASA was violating an act of congress. I just said that you have used hearsay in general.
Don’t make things up tom.
“In Congress, the full house (House of Representatives or the Senate) has the power to accept or reject committee amendments.”
True… but I was asking a specific question, What documentation do you have that amendments to unrelated bills, “often, even usually” are rejected or thrown out because they are unrelated?
“You “submit†wrong since those draft bills reflect the will of the committee members in the current congress drafting them up.”
I was talking about the full Congress not members of a committee. A committee that hasn’t even voted on the bills yet. These aren’t even bills yet just drafts. I would think it would be hard to say that these are the will of the Congress.
“Then why call me “buddyâ€?”
I was using the word generically as in “Buddy can you spare a dime?” or “Hey buddy.”
“I guess you are just a troll.”
Resorting to name calling? I expected better from you. I guess I have rattled you a bit.
“Look, if you want to engage in a substantive, fact-based discussion of space policy, by all means, make such an argument.”
Two people can look at the same set of “facts” and still reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that you can’t accept that. Quite often you resort to taking comments out of context to set up your strawmen, bullying, mocking and general disrespect to the other person. I’m just giving it back to you in a way that I hope others will find amusing and if I can make you look foolish in the process, all the better.
Ok, set up your strawmen so you can knock them over.
Traditionally NASA has been given a destination/project and a deadline or a time frame to achieve it.
Hate to break this to you, but “traditionally,” we have not opened up space to humanity. We’ve been stuck on top dead center.
Maybe we ought to try another “tradition.”
Obama space plan won’t fly in congress these people are already nervous about ‘blow-back’ by the electorate on the health bill issue.
Like the part about everyone must have a health care plan or be fined.
Opponents to Obama space will no doubt track and highlight the deficiencies in NASA budgets for what the public’s idea is the NASA brand, namely cutting edge advancement in HSF.
Apart from politics & hollywood, engineering and science still determine the capacity to build infrastructure in space. Resting HSF on Dot space is not a viable plan and wasteful. I don’t see a problem with Dot Space contributing in building the space locomotive of the future, but really this train already left the station and it’s too late to start over.
I doubt many members of congress like playing Russian roulette with taxpayer money they rather play roulette with their own dollars on the launch pad.
NASA is still a good bet on space advancement.
Anyone check out the polls on Obama administration lately ?
Bruce Behrhorst wrote @ March 19th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
my prediction is that if Obama gets his health care plan…he will get his space plan…indeed he will get just about anything else he wants out of The Congress.
Obama’s polls are higher then the GOP congressional (or Dem congressional) polls are…and no one cares outside of space districts…about space.
Robert G. Oler
Honestly, if this is the best the opposition to the budget request can muster then I can’t help but feel that the administration has nothing to worry about.
NASA should get rid of ESMD altogher. And get rid of HSF altogether.
When and if a credible commercial HSF market emerges (which it hasn’t so far), leave the folks competing for the customers (if such exist) alone, unburdened by the friviouls ‘man rating requirements’ etc…, then NASA can ‘hitch a ride’ and utilize an established HSF market, like it did with the established sat market to launch its robotic spacecraft.
COTS puts the cart ahead of the horse and is thus counter-productive.
And before someone jumps on me – I am not a Constellation defender, in fact I critisized it from the beginning (just like the whole notion of HLVs) many years back.
Bruce Behrhorst: “Opponents to Obama space”
This is a bizarre name for the new NASA plan, considering that the CATO Institute likes like Newt Gingrich likes it, Robert Walker likes it, etc. It follows recommendations from the expert Augustine Committee. It’s much closer to Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration than the previous plan was.
Bruce Behrhorst: “will no doubt track and highlight the deficiencies in NASA budgets for what the public’s idea is the NASA brand”
Which is what? The Hubble Space Telescope, Mars Rovers, and Space Station?
Bruce Behrhorst: “namely cutting edge advancement in HSF.”
Oh. I think the public no longer has the idea that NASA is involved with cutting edge advancement in HSF. Certainly they wouldn’t associate NASA with that if we stuck with the old Constellation plan – continuing with almost no HSF R&D, dumping the ISS in the ocean in 2016, having no more HSF robotic precursors, getting the ever-delayed Ares I/Orion operational by 2019 with nowhere to go and thus no reason to launch, getting the lethargic Ares V operational by 2028 with no payload and thus no reason to launch, and maybe repeating Apollo by 2035 or so if it isn’t shut down before then, by which time hardly anyone will remember Apollo itself in a first-hand sense.
Since the new plan allows plenty of cutting edge advancement in HSF – lots of new HSF technology research, lots of new HSF technology demonstrations in exciting areas like ISRU and propellant depots (and many others), actual use of the ISS, continuing the ISS to 2020+, adding to ISS capabilities, multiple new commercial crew and cargo services, a new line of HSF robotic precursors, new HLV and other propulsion work, moderized launch facilities, use of commercial suborbital RLVs (some with HSF), and a much stronger human research program – those Congresspeople will, I assume, be singing the praise of the new budget.
Plus, the ones that are more interested in non-HSF NASA work will also be pleased with the new budget, since it boosts general space technology work, starts new Earth observation satellites, increases Aeronautics work, increases NEO observations, starts Plutonium-238 production so we don’t rely on the Russians, etc.
Bruce Behrhorst: “Resting HSF on Dot space is not a viable plan”
Dot space? Do you mean the COTS and CCDEV winners, Boeing, ULA, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Science Corporation (just bought General Dynamics’ satellite division), Paragon, SpaceX, and Blue Origin, or those plus others that might compete? You should check these companies and their experience, accomplishments, and financial backing. Then compare them to the old NASA plan, which really isn’t viable. Then compare the accomplishments of Constellation, and compare the respective budgets.
Plus, even if the commercial crew competition fails (i.e. it results in something like what experts expect from Ares I/Orion), NASA HSF (and non-HSF) will still survive because of the ISS work, technology R&D, technology demonstrations, use of commercial suborbital rockets, KSC ugprades, HLV and other propulsion work, etc in the new budget.
Bruce Behrhorst: “and wasteful.”
Yes, the commercial crew plan (which is what I assume you’re talking about) is so wasteful compared to Constellation that getting rid of Constellation and switching to commercial crew allows NASA to have money to add capabilities to the commercial cargo effort, add capabilities to ISS, keep ISS beyond 2016, actually use ISS, add 42% to the Human Research budget, add lots of technology demonstration missions, add lots of general space technology work, add HLV and other propulsion development and research, modernize KSC, start a new line of HSF robotic precursors, revive the NASA Earth observation like, revive something like New Millenium, revive NIAC, use commercial suborbital RLVs, boost NEO detection work by about 5 times, start Plutonium-238 production, boost Aeronautic funding …
Bruce Behrhorst: “but really this train already left the station and it’s too late to start over.”
No, the train didn’t leave the station. The Ares train is broken down, rusted, and not going anywhere. Its track goes off a cliff. We have no choice but to get a new train. Fortunately there are many better trains and tracks.
Bruce Behrhorst: “I doubt many members of congress like playing Russian roulette with taxpayer money”
Do they prefer a sure loser like Ares?
I doubt many members of Congress like paying taxpayer money to Russians for all HSF transportation to the ISS, which is the Ares plan through 2019. The new plan shrinks that to 2016 or earlier.
I doubt many members of Congress like paying taxpayer money to Russians for RD-180 engines, which is the Ares plan. The new plan develops an American engine of that class.
I doubt many members of Congress like paying taxpayer money to Russians for Plutonium-238, which is the Ares plan. The new plan starts U.S. production.
Bruce Behrhorst: “they rather play roulette with their own dollars on the launch pad.”
In that case, they’ll like the new plan. Constellation wasn’t able to launch anything until 2019, but by then there would be no reason for those launches. The Constellation launches wouldn’t happen until 2035, unless they launched just for the sake of launching (with nothing to do, nowhere to go, and no money left to pay to fix that).
The new plan has lots and lots of new launches of all sorts.
Bruce:
Obama polls numbers are:
Gallup 46% Favorable 48% Unfavorable 6% No Comment (calculated) all adults (18 up)
Rasmussen 45% Favorable 55% Unfavorable (likely voters)
Robert: the important thing is the Congressional generic poll not Obama numbers at that is +10 for Republicans. Obama is a bigger set back for the Democrat Party than Carter was.
I don’t see Obama using any serious political captital over space either way. The big problem for “Obama Space” opponents is that we don’t agree on an alternative. Some want to keep the Shuttle, some want to continue with the POR, some want scaled back CxP (Orion + Ares I), some settle for Orion + EELV, and some want DIRECT. It’s hard to beat a destroyer with nothing.
John wrote @ March 20th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Generic ballots for Congress are almost meaningless in terms of the actual outcome.
They dont take a sample in all districts and that is important since the trend these days is to gerry mander all the districts to drive them “safe” for either Dems or GOP. They dont even pit two candidates against each other…and again in the case of the gerrymandered districts it is usually one serious candidate against a very non serious one (Hint go look at who is running against Pete Olson and Sheila Jackson Lee).
In any given House “campaign” there is about 10 percent of the seats that are vunerable…and then the “weight” of the effort biases that number either up or down depending on the level of the surge.
Although in the Senate an excellent example of the dynamics at work in this election is the Senate race of McCain in AZ. The race might for the first time in a very long time have a serious Dem contender. And then there is the primary where McCain does (in my view) have a serious opponent.
The GOP primary could in fact see McCain lose to Hayworth in which case there is for the first time a geniune race (the state is going purple as is a lot of the “populating west”) …on the other hand McCain could win the primary and then find himself with the “sulking right” playing the same role it did in the 08 campaign for him…ie driven him right and he is losing appeal to middle of the road voters who have kept him in power. The same dynamics are playing out here in the TX gov. race. Perry is the darling of the “Right” but White is raising money hand over fist from “the middle” of the GOP.
They dynamics in 94 were clearly “GOP” …now it is not “stay the course” but it also isnt “we want the old guard back”.
As for Obama…he is going to get his space policy. It is that simple
Robert G. Oler
John wrote @ March 20th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
I don’t see Obama using any serious political captital over space either way. The big problem for “Obama Space†opponents is that we don’t agree on an alternative. Some want to keep the Shuttle, some want to continue with the POR, some want scaled back CxP (Orion + Ares I), some settle for Orion + EELV, and some want DIRECT. It’s hard to beat a destroyer with nothing…
sort of but not so much.
The biggest problem with the “anti” Obama space people is that they are hung up on “systems” which keep people employeed not that they have a real clue as for a foundation for their “systems” that actually sales.
Other then being on some “crusade” as true believers the DIRECT people “think” that there is some real urge to explore out in the American public. So they have cobbed up this vehicle(s) that they claim meet the cost numbers (which almost no one outside the converted believe) and wow next stop Phobos.
Problem is that no one really cares outside of the space groupies. That is also the problem with Constellation (and I agree that they are competing with each other). Everyone who supports that program has tried almost every scare tactic in the book…the latest was the “DoD programs will increase in cost” and the fiddle aint playing
That is because the folks who are selling “Obamaspace” have broken the key…which is to create an American launcher industry anew. My wife and I were at a party last night…and one of the “Jupiter” groupies was going on about how cheap the =130 would be for station resupply the line that caught me was “You dont understand 1 Jupiter 130 can do the job of XX number of Falcons/Atlas/Deltas”…the gal from Boeing looked at him and said “you dont understand…selling those XX number of Falcons/Atlas/Delta is what the entire thing is about”.
That is why Obama “space” is winning
Robert G. Oler
No Bob is just that we haven’t got a single plan yet. If we dont’ we’ll lose.
“That is why Obama “space†is winning”
Only until it fails. Then we will have build from scratch in 2013! I’ve got some great ideas for that!
“Generic ballots for Congress are almost meaningless in terms of the actual outcome.”
Actually the are pretty good over indicators. No info on specific districts. Generally if the the generic is worse for Republicans that -5 points the Democrats gain seats if it’s better the Republicans gain. The reason for it not swinging on zero is that the Democrats have a lot of urban districts that they win by 80%. There is nothing similar for Reublicans. A lot of wasted Democrat votes!
John wrote @ March 20th, 2010 at 6:23 pm
I dont think so…it is not a single plan…what hte “Opposition” cannot figure out…is that the companies want the “Expendable” lift to the station…it is as simple as this “the more (insert booster name here), are made, the cheaper they are.” The only company pushing Constellation is ATK, DIRECT is being pushed by no one other then the “converted”…
The AC and Norm in general did exactly what their charge was…its just most people are having a hard time figuring it out.
“The reason for it not swinging on zero is that the Democrats have a lot of urban districts that they win by 80%. There is nothing similar for Reublicans”
for the “Reublicans” (grin) it is the rural districts…they can win with sheep and cattle and horses all day long.
generics are almost never a good indicator…sorry thats politics 101.
Robert G. Oler
“I doubt many members of Congress like paying taxpayer money to Russians for RD-180 engines, which is the Ares plan”
What? RD-180 is on Atlas-V, what on good green earth does it have to do with Ares?
Anyway since when is it the mandate to specify the propellant for an engine in the governmental policy (folks who can’t tell a carbon molecule from tobasco sauce). Perhaps a hydrogen engine would be better? Shouldn’t the exact choice of the propellant be up to the manufacturer/contractor like SpaceX (kerosene), or Boeing (H2)?
“I doubt many members of Congress like paying taxpayer money to Russians for all HSF transportation to the ISS, which is the Ares plan through 2019. The new plan shrinks that to 2016 or earlier”
Prognosed dates tend to slip, you know. Happened during the Constipation years too… Anyway, Soyuz and Progress will be in business for a long time and some of it paid by the US if it likes the ISS.
danwithaplan: “What? RD-180 is on Atlas-V, what on good green earth does it have to do with Ares?”
My point was that, as with all of the other items I was listing, NASA’s old Ares-based HSF plan didn’t leave money to do those things. The new plan has the funds to develop this new and improved RD-180 class engine, which presumably can be used on the Atlas V (reducing our dependence on Russia and helping the U.S. propulsion industrial base), and also used on some future HLV or other rockets.
danwithaplan: “Anyway since when is it the mandate to specify the propellant for an engine in the governmental policy…”
If we’re going to implement an HLV (and I’m not convinced that we should), I’d prefer that we use a competitive approach that allows the contractors to implement the solutions without NASA giving them the details. However, it also makes a lot of sense to me to implement the HLV incrementally by doing things that are useful in their own right (such as an engine to allow U.S. production for Atlas V).
danwithaplan: “Prognosed dates tend to slip, you know. Happened during the Constipation years too…”
Yes, we don’t really know what the dates will be for sure, but those (2016 or earlier and 2017-2019 tending towards the 2019 side) are our independent best estimates from the Augustine Committee and Aerospace Corporation. All we can do is use our best independent estimates, and plan for the possibility that the dates will slip.
danwithaplan: “Anyway, Soyuz and Progress will be in business for a long time and some of it paid by the US if it likes the ISS.”
It’s possible that we’ll still be using them even after U.S. commercial crew/cargo are available. Redundancy has its benefits. However, we wouldn’t depend on them, or use them as much.
Sorry, don’t support the way “Serious Rocket Backbone” at lift-off Thiokol+ATK was treated it was a harbinger of things to come with NASA/Dot Space. Morphing shuttle to C-A-O would not be easy under economic stress. Best to take incremental steps shuttle to C+O for LEO/ISS hold there till economic conditions improve.
Then develop Ares HLV then ‘super charge’ the space program with nukes (in 2016).
ATK is a GREAT company that has worked hard to bring SRB’s up to indispensable rocket power at the launch pad it’s a shame some people are intent on trashing their work. Washington listens to some crazy people with deep pockets.
Again, as a small gov’t civil libertarian I know markets are better but markets and governance function best when both apply the right balance.
To fuse NASA helter skelter into Dot Space is not the best plan.
I support the SIX PRO NASA SENATORS !!!
Sierra Nevada:
Dream Chaser (like Dynasoar concept an alternative to DIRECT concept
(see:astronautix.com) but not too keen on this hybrid propulsion system.
Show where this EELV (throw away) stack system is cost effective, operational and can effectively scale up from SS1 to capacity shown ?
SpaceDevs Dream Chaser – Hybrid Propulsion
-Based on our proven hybrid rocket propulsion technology
-Over 10 years of development
-Over 300 firings
-Based on motors designed for SpaceShipOne (SS1)
-Human flight rated motors
-Hybrid propellants are safe, non-toxic, storable & human flight tested
-Propellants: nitrous oxide (N20) & rubber (HTBP)
-Common Space Vehicle Hybrid Propulsion Modules (SVPMs)
-Modular construction simplifies production and handling
-Throttleable & restartable
-Thrust vectoring control (TVC) by N2O injection; no nozzle gimbals
-Reaction Control System (RCS) uses N2O
SPACE X:
Like the propulsion system but is it rugged enough robust for recovery and turnaround deployment ? More sport car than space locomotive
The main engine, called Merlin 1C, was developed internally at SpaceX, drawing upon a long heritage of space proven engines. The pintle style injector at the heart of Merlin 1C was first used in the Apollo Moon program for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) landing engine, one of the most critical phases of the mission.
Propellant is fed via a single shaft, dual impeller turbo-pump operating on a gas generator cycle. High pressure kerosene fuel flows through the walls of the combustion chamber and exhaust nozzle before being injected into the combustions chamber. This provides significant cooling, permitting the engine to operate at a higher level of performance. The turbo-pump also provides the high pressure kerosene for the hydraulic actuators, eliminating the need for a separate hydraulic power system.
Additionally, actuating the turbine exhaust nozzle provides roll control during flight.
Combining these three functions into one device, and verifying its operation before the vehicle is allowed to lift off, provides significant improvement in system-level reliability.
Sea Level Thrust : 512 kN (115,000 lbf)
Vacuum Thrust: 569 kN (128,000 lbf)
Sea Level Isp: 275s
Vacuum Isp: 304s
With a vacuum specific impulse of 304s, Merlin 1C is the highest performance gas generator cycle kerosene engine ever built, exceeding the Boeing Delta II main engine, the Lockheed Atlas II main engine and on par with the Saturn V F-1.
Orbital Sciences Corp.
Yawn… another robotica delivery system. Need to be a midget to fit this system for HSF.
Medium class space launch vehicle utilizes proven systems from Pegasus, Taurus, and Minotaur product lines Rocket incorporates both solid and liquid stages designed to achieve a 98% or greater launch reliability.
Paragon Space Development: This is great but this won’t happen unless it’s delivered, deployed and working on-site. Same for the Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) which again needs to be delivered, deployed, powered and working on site reliably.
Space life support systems developer
Boeing/Bigelow Partnership: Ok, but beach balls spring leaks, shade-sun-shade-sun hope it holds up in space for long periods. Didn’t MiR have pressure problems and that was a rigid habitat. How many inflatable stadium roofs have changed to ridged roofs. Do inflatables structures have long life spans ?? Replacement/repair costs. Besides the market is on soil firma, EARTH-MOON-ASTEROID-MARS etc.
Space Habitiat Developer
Blue Origin:
Aerospike engines tech. button type DCXA maybe linear old X-33 ? Rather ambitious look what happened to those programs-please !!
Program Overview:
Blue Origin is developing New Shepard, a rocket-propelled vehicle designed to routinely fly multiple astronauts into suborbital space at competitive prices. In addition to providing the public with opportunities to experience spaceflight, New Shepard will also provide frequent opportunities for researchers to fly experiments into space and a microgravity environment.
Mission
The New Shepard vehicle will consist of a pressurized Crew Capsule (CC) carrying experiments and astronauts atop a reliable Propulsion Module (PM). Flights will take place from Blue Origin’s own launch site, which is already operating in West Texas. New Shepard will take-off vertically and accelerate for approximately two and a half minutes before shutting off its rocket engines and coasting into space. The vehicle will carry rocket motors enabling the Crew Capsule to escape from the PM in the event
of a serious anomaly during launch. In space, the Crew Capsule will separate from the PM and the two will reenter and land separately for re-use. The Crew Capsule will land softly under a parachute at the launch site. Astronauts and experiments will experience no more than 6 g acceleration into their seats and a 1.5 g lateral acceleration during a typical flight. High-quality microgravity environments (<10-3 g) will be achieved for durations of 3 or more minutes, depending on the mission trajectory.
http://www.blueorigin.com/nsresearch.html
United Launch Alliance:
Good solid company for throw away EELV Launch Vehicles Atlas V-Delta IV-Delta II. This is a military SAT delivery system capability going commercial more robotica delivery not HSF. ULA will survive but how far they venture into HSF even with gov’t money remains to be seen ?
Formed in December 2006, United Launch Alliance (ULA) is a 50-50 joint venture owned by Lockheed Martin and The Boeing Company. ULA brings together two of the launch industrys most experienced and successful teams Atlas and Delta to provide reliable, cost-efficient space launch services for the U.S. government. U.S. government launch customers include the Department of Defense, NASA, the National Reconnaissance Office and other organizations.
Atlas and Delta expendable launch vehicles have supported Americas presence in space for more than 50 years, carrying a variety of payloads including weather, telecommunications and national security satellites that protect and improve life on Earth, as well as deep space and interplanetary exploration missions that further our knowledge of the universe.
With three families of launch vehicles Atlas V, Delta II, and Delta IV ULA continues the tradition of supporting strategic U.S. space initiatives with advanced robust launch solutions to provide assured access to space and 100 percent mission success.
Always depressing to see the claim
as a small gov’t civil libertarian I know markets are better
Followed by a bunch of central planning and pseudo-engineering drivel.
…And of course googaw knows better ?
Googaw knows a ludicrous contradiction when he see it, so yes.
I don’t know why someone would write so much to prove their own ignorance.
I think your question answers itself…
…at least I’m not delusional about space capacity like most participants on this ancient wordpress blog.
“Traditionally NASA has been given a destination/project and a deadline or a time frame [sic] to achieve it. At least in human space flight.”
Yeah, those deadlines and timeframes have worked out really well for human space exploration over the 40 years we’ve spent in LEO since Apollo.
[rolls eyes]
“The FY2011 budget lays out R&D projects but the objectives are pretty nebulous”
The budget calls out technology demonstration missions and robotic precursor missions with specific deadlines. How is that “nebulous”?
Don’t make things up.
“… do exploration in a timely manor [sic].”
In this context, it’s “manner”, not “manor”. Is English not your first language?
“You must be a lawyer. I never said that you used hearsay to claim that NASA was violating an act of congress.”
You accused me of doing what the other poster did. And they used hearsay to claim that NASA was violating an act of congress.
“What documentation do you have that amendments to unrelated bills, ‘often, even usually†are rejected or thrown out because they are unrelated?”
Any idiot can go to THOMAS and compare a few bills at different stages in the legislative process to see this for themselves.
Heck, even LeMieux’s amendment to the FAA bill — the very topic of this thread — got axed for this reason.
“I would think it would be hard to say that these are the will of the Congress.”
If they’re not expressions of the will of members of Congress, then who the heck wrote or approved those drafts? Legislative faeries?
“Resorting to name calling?”
No, you admitted yourself that you’re a troll. You wrote:
“…it’s so much fun to pluck your strings.”
I’m just calling a spade a spade.
“Two people can look at the same set of “facts†and still reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that you can’t accept that.”
No, I readily accept opinions. But you (and others) repeatedly present opinions as facts when they’re not. That’s making things up.
“Quite often you resort to taking comments out of context to set up your strawmen,”
Directly quoting another post is not setting up “strawmen”.
“bullying,”
Calling a spade a spade is not “bullying”.
“mocking and general disrespect to the other person.”
This from a troll who uses insulting variations of other posters’ screennames, who admits that he likes to “pluck [other posters’] strings”, and who thinks its “better” to make other posters “look foolish in the process”?
Please…
“I’m just giving it back to you in a way that I hope others will find amusing”
No one said such about any of your posts in this thread.
“and if I can make you look foolish in the process, all the better.”
Again with the admissions of trolling?
Really?
Ugh…
[…] week a group of senators led by Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) introduced an amendment to the FAA reauthorization bill defending Constellation. That amendment reiterated an earlier provision in the FY2010 appropriations bill preventing NASA […]