Congress, NASA

House to take up authorization bill this week after all

Space News reported late yesterday that the House may vote on the NASA authorization bill as soon as Thursday. That would indicate a bit of a shift from Tuesday, when one member indicated it was unlikely the House would take up the bill this week. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), who attended a Space Transportation Association luncheon on Capitol Hill Tuesday, said then that “we were hoping to get it up this week, but that’s not going to happen” because of a crowded legislative schedule. It would seem that someone’s found an opening in the agenda.

If the bill is, in fact, taken up by the House before it goes on its summer recess at the end of next week, it will be under “suspension of the rules”. That limits debate and also prevents amendments, but requires a two-thirds majority for passage; the bill’s supporters are “reasonably confident” of getting that level of support, according to Space News. Back in 2008 a NASA authorization bill passed the House on a 409-15, while a 2005 bill passed on a 383-15 vote. The White House has not issued a formal statement of administration policy about the House bill as of early Thursday morning.

35 comments to House to take up authorization bill this week after all

  • amightywind

    The House has historically gotten behind rational NASA policy. It remains to be seen if the bill is fully rational. A winning vote should drive another nail in the coffin of Obamaspace.

  • And what does it mean if the bill’s consideration is pushed off until after the recess because of a firestorm of opposition, windy?

  • Clark Lindsey has linked to messages from Elon Musk and Alan Stern asking folks to oppose the House bill (HR5781) and to support the Senate version.

  • Stephen, do you support the Senate bill?

  • Adam K

    It’s not about pork… It’s about who gets the money. Whether it goes to private industry or historical contractors, it’s still pork.

  • Ferris Valyn

    It’s not about pork… It’s about who gets the money. Whether it goes to private industry or historical contractors, it’s still pork.

    No, its not. the idea that any and all government spending is pork is a load of crap. When there is a clear national need, and the contract is competed fairly, thats not pork.

    I mean, would you consider it pork when a government office goes out and buys paper from Office Max?

  • If there is any common sense left in the White House, they should rally enthusiastically behind the Senate compromise.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Even if it is still pork there is no excuse for picking favourites.

  • This House action seems like a rush job to forestall any changes.

    The big NASA corporations own more jobs therefore more members of congress than the little NASA corporations. Gives them a position to deny competition for NASA funding.

    Obamaspace is about innovation, that’s the nail being hammered.

    Have to see what the final bill looks like, politicians probably don’t want to go into the elections without something they can call a success here. NASA is an easy vehicle, usually, to do that.

  • Brian Paine

    Elon Musk calls House Bill “senseless pork…”
    Presumably he wants sensible pork?

  • common sense

    @ Marcel F. Williams wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    “If there is any common sense left in the White House”

    Hmm I am not in the WH, never been, nor in Congress for that matter.

    Oh well…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Brian Paine wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 12:45 pm

    Elon Musk calls House Bill “senseless pork…”
    Presumably he wants sensible pork?…

    Brian

    I sort of chuckled at that…although to be fair there is “pork” and well worse.

    When the bantam weight US Navy was trying to get a fleet of well equipped, what we would call today “cruisers” to get the bill through Congress the “build” had to include some building in Southern shipyards (namely Norfolk) and getting timber from Southern forest

    There was really no reason to do this, the Norfolk shipyard “then” had little or no expertise in building ships and “southern timber” was inferior to the preserves in the Northern US which dated back to colonial times.

    But the choice was a ship built in the Norfolk yards or no build at all. The “boat” built in the Norfolk yards was badly built and ended up being the most inferior of the class…but the class included USS Constitution.

    “Pork” is a relative term…there is pork that is necessary to get a good project and then there are just projects that are pork.

    BTW I support the Senate Bill

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    From comments on NSF, the Senate isn’t particularly interested in accepting many compromises with the House’s bill.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    If there is any common sense left in the White House, they should rally enthusiastically behind the Senate compromise….

    sigh…we concur on something…help

    Robert G. Oler

  • wintermuted

    Good – the senate bill is a compromise on the White House plan that gives some Senators a few local “wins” they can sell to their constituents, but at least keeps most of the smart new initiatives intact, albeit at somewhat lower funding levels in some cases. Pretty typical government business, not the most efficient but at least goes in the right direction with goals that have a chance of being met.

    The house bill is a disaster that actually puts roadblocks in the way of commercial enterprise getting into the space business, directs NASA on how to design a launch vehicle (???), and re-instates goals that were previously underfunded at EVEN LOWER funding levels, but now with shortened time frames. It’s really an insane waste of money that guarantees failure. I can’t see how anyone in their right mind could logically support it if they want the US to show any kind of space leadership.

  • GaryChurch

    That 5 segment SRB is getting ready to light off. It makes the Merlin and clusters last stand look truly and completely pathetic.

    Nothing puts tons up like a hydrogen upper stage; J2X is going to make Sidemount the premier HLV on planet earth.

    It is happening, no matter how many times Oler posts “SDV is dead” and “Human Space Flight is dead.”

    God Bless Shannon.

  • byeman

    Mark this day. Church will again be proven wrong. The Sidemount will not see the light of day.

  • Robert G. Oler

    byeman wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Mark this day. Church will again be proven wrong. The Sidemount will not see the light of day…

    agreed

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    Re: Sidemount

    I cannot believe this is still going on! I mean for crew. What an awful concept. Put it to rest! I’d even take Ares I over this thing.

    Oh well…

  • SpaceMan

    Just say NO ! to any and all sidemount designs.

  • Ferris Valyn

    common sense – I am sure we can come up with a crazier idea. Maybe sidemounted Ares I

  • amightywind

    GaryChurch wrote:

    That 5 segment SRB is getting ready to light off. It makes the Merlin and clusters last stand look truly and completely pathetic.

    Yeah. The 5 segment SRB is the 3 million lbs (thrust) elephant in the room, that the proponents of toy rocket makers ignore. The Ares I first stage development is nearly complete.

    Nothing puts tons up like a hydrogen upper stage; J2X is going to make Sidemount the premier HLV on planet earth.

    True again. Kerolox is a great combo at low altitude. It stinks as an upper stage. SpaceX (and the Russians for that matter) simply choose to ignore a lesson in rocket physics NASA learned in 1963.

  • SpaceX (and the Russians for that matter) simply choose to ignore a lesson in rocket physics NASA learned in 1963.

    Yes, because they decided to build vehicles that are affordable and cost effective.

  • Major Tom

    “SpaceX (and the Russians for that matter) simply choose to ignore a lesson in rocket physics NASA learned in 1963.”

    SpaceX and the Ruskies learned the lessons that NASA failed to learn — and that running different engines with different propellants in different stages doubles costs and that cryogenics make those stages even more expensive.

    Think before you post.

  • GaryChurch

    I guess that is why most of the space probes have been launched with centaur. This is ridiculous- now you are trying to rewrite physics in favor of SpaceX.
    Puhleez.

    I guess that is why Von Braun gave an autographed picture of the Saturn V to Abe Silverstein thanking him for making the moon mission possible by insisting on hydrogen upper stages. There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages; the loss in performance does not equal a more efficient vehicle- it only results in less payload into orbit.

    You are such a liar. You put present yourself as this all knowing expert and yet you will present a blatantly and totally inaccurate excuse for going cheap at the sacrifice of performance. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    Think before you post?
    Don’t make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.
    Ugh.

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom wrote:

    and that running different engines with different propellants in different stages doubles costs and that cryogenics make those stages even more expensive.

    Doubles costs?

    Don’t make stuff up!

    Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth. It has a poor reliability record as well.

    The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.

  • I guess that is why Von Braun gave an autographed picture of the Saturn V to Abe Silverstein thanking him for making the moon mission possible by insisting on hydrogen upper stages. There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages; the loss in performance does not equal a more efficient vehicle- it only results in less payload into orbit.

    Apollo was a “cost is no object” mission, and was about beating the Soviets, not opening up space. Business people who have to make money have different priorities, and unlike Apollo (and Ares) their rockets will be financially sustainable.

    The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.

    And yet it does, and has for decades, with no loss of life. Perhaps you’re not as great a rocket scientist as you fancy yourself.

  • Byeman

    Where is the Saturn V today? Too expensive to use. Why doesn’t Delta IV have any commercial contracts, too expensive. Why is the stick canceled, too expensive. Sealaunch is all kerosene. Taurus II will be all Kerosene.

    For the idiots on this forum and your names are here.
    http://gaetanomarano.blogspot.com/

    For the you clueless ones, specially amightywind and GaryChurch, you don’t know squat. You are the liars. You don’t understand launch vehicle performance and economics.
    Launch vehicles are no longer are designed for performance, they are designed for cost. For a given payload mass, it doesn’t matter if a launch vehicle uses the most efficient propellants and engines, the cheaper vehicle is the better one.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Brian Paine wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
    > Elon Musk calls House Bill “senseless pork…”
    > Presumably he wants sensible pork?

    Its grammatically not correct to call it pork when you’re the one getting it.

    ;)

  • Rhyolite

    amightywind wrote @ July 29th, 2010 at 7:57 pm

    “Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth.”

    You might want to check again. The RP-1/LOX powered Block D/DM upper stage has largely been replaced by the UDMH/N2O2 power Briz-M (or Breeze-M) upper stage. They still fly the occasional Block DM but almost all of the commercial launches have gone over to the more powerful Briz-M upper stage.

    “It has a poor reliability record as well.”

    Not poor enough to scare away the a very large fraction of the commercial launch market.

  • Major Tom

    “Doubles costs?”

    Yes, it does. You have double the number of engine designs, which doubles the number of production lines, doubles the number of supporting engineers, doubles the control code variations, and doubles the number of different fueling and operational interfaces. All those doublings have to be paid for, which, at a rough order of magnitude, doubles engine costs.

    Even a child could figure this out by applying a little common sense.

    If you’re not going to stop making stupid statements out of ignorance, at least think before you post.

    Lawdy…

    “Last I checked a Russian Proton used UDMH/N2O2 in the first 3 stages and RP-1/LOX in the fourth.”

    Check again, genius. You’re wrong, as usual.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance. Check your facts before you post.

    “Don’t make stuff up!”

    I’m not. You are, about Proton.

    “The Soyuz has such a bizarre design it is a wonder that it works at all.”

    Only an idiot would still find Soyuz to be a “wonder” after decades of successful operation.

    Ugh…

  • common sense

    Re: Soyuz design.

    What the heck is so bizarre about its design? It actually is a great design. It is designed so it will always reenter with the base heat shield first, unlike any Apollo design. You lose a little lift-to-drag performance but so what? What it means is that the crew is more likely to survive in case of an abort from space than in any Apollo shape vehicle. The recent reentries with a Soyuz are a testament to their great design. BTW, if you were to look at this http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/cev.htm and try to understand you’d see that several designs were Soyuz like. There is a good reason for it and it is what I stated above.

    It has become really annoying to see people give their expert opinion on things they do not understand.

    Oh well…

  • Major Tom

    “I guess that is why most of the space probes have been launched with centaur. This is ridiculous- now you are trying to rewrite physics in favor of SpaceX.”

    I’m not doing anything. SpaceX is just doing what the other, most market competitive launch vehicles (primarily Russian) have been doing for years — employing only a single propellant and, ideally, a single type of engine.

    Physics performance and cost performance are not the same thing. The physics of a Ferrari’s engine and chassis allows it to greatly outperform a Honda Civic. But I can buy 25 Honda Civics for the price of one Ferrari.

    Same goes for launchers. You can have better performance with a more powerful upper stage that uses a different engine from your first-stage, but you’ll pay a substantial cost for it. And that extra performance means squat if no customer cares about it or needs it or if your competitors can undercut you on price as a result of the added cost.

    “I guess that is why Von Braun gave an autographed picture of the Saturn V to Abe Silverstein thanking him for making the moon mission possible by insisting on hydrogen upper stages.”

    Saturn V wasn’t designed to be cost-effective. Saturn V was designed to get a couple astronauts to the surface of the Moon as soon as possible.

    “There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages”

    Yes, there is. Non-hydrogen upper stages are used on many foreign launch vehicles. Cryogenic propellants incur added costs, and it’s a contributing factor to why no U.S. launch vehicle besides Falcon 9 is competitive in the world market today.

    “the loss in performance does not equal a more efficient vehicle- it only results in less payload into orbit.”

    Performance efficiency and cost efficiency are not the same thing. See above.

    “You are such a liar… You should be ashamed of yourself.”

    I havn’t lied about anything. You’re the one lying when you state that “There is no substitute for hydrogen upper stages”, when, in fact, all kinds of reliable, competitive, and successful launch vehicles use non-hydrogen upper stages all the time.

    Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance. Learn something about the topic you’re posting about before you inadvertently lie or make yourself look like an idiot.

    “You put present yourself as this all knowing expert…”

    I don’t present myself as anything — I don’t write about my accomplishments, credentials, industry experience, or education.

    I only state facts, try to make logical arguments, and point out where other folks’ arguments are lacking logic and facts. Your posts consistently fall into this category.

    “and yet you will present a blatantly and totally inaccurate excuse for going cheap at the sacrifice of performance.”

    It’s not an excuse. It’s a legitimate design tradeoff. What good is a Ferrari if you don’t need the extra speed and can’t afford to buy one?

    “Don’t make stupid ignorant technobabble statements and expect people to believe them.”

    Don’t call simple systems engineering tradeoffs “technobabble” just because you don’t understand them.

    Stupidity is not an excuse.

    Lawdy…

Leave a Reply to Byeman 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>