Congress, NASA

House releases compromise NASA authorization bill

The House Science and Technology Committee announced Thursday morning the release of “compromise legislative language” for a NASA authorization bill, presumably (although not explicitly stated) after negotiations with the Senate [I’ve since been told, second-hand, that this compromise bill was drafted just by the House, and is not necessarily endorsed by the Senate]. The full text of the bill is available, as well as a summary comparing the new version with the one passed by the committee in July. Some highlights:

  • The new bill calls for the development of a “Space Launch System” similar to what the Senate proposed, although without the lower minimum launch capacity (as little as 70 tons) in the Senate bill. Instead, this calls for a “scalable capability of lifting payloads of at least 130 metric tons” into LEO, although scalable from what, and by when, isn’t stated; the bill requires at least the capability of servicing the ISS by the end of 2016.
  • The compromise bill includes $1.19 billion for exploration technology development as part of an overall $2.67 billion for space technology over the three years of the bill; the earlier version had only $5 million for exploration technology development, in exploration versus space technology.
  • The compromise bill includes $1.212 billion for commercial crew development over three years ($412 million in 2011 and $400 million each in 2012 and 2013), far more than the earlier bill ($150 million a year) but still short of the administration’s original request. As expected, the loan guarantee language in the original bill is gone in this one; instead, the funds “shall be allocated at the discretion of the Administrator” to those efforts deemed the highest priority towards the goal of supporting continued utilization of the ISS.
  • The compromise bill includes $150 million over three years for exploration robotic precursor missions, while the original bill provided only $5 million.
  • The bill also includes language formally authorizing the flight of the “launch-on-need” shuttle mission (STS-135) no earlier than June 1, 2011, unless “the Administrator determines that the level of risk of flying such mission is unacceptable.”

125 comments to House releases compromise NASA authorization bill

  • Ferris Valyn

    I love how they can claim to be for Commercial Spaceflight, and then put in place 24 restrictions into the path of Commercial Crew. And to ensure we have to be more dependent upon the Russians, they lump Commercial Cargo & Commercial Crew.

    F***ing Brilliant!!

  • Martijn Meijering

    Any reaction from the Senate side yet?

  • Ferris, where are those 24 restrictions located?

    I just read through Title IV of the bill and couldn’t find them.

    TITLE IV—DEVELOPMENT AND
    2 USE OF COMMERCIAL CARGO
    3 AND CREW TRANSPORTATION
    4 CAPABILITIES
    5 SEC. 401. AFFIRMATION OF POLICY.
    6 The Congress affirms the policy of—
    7 (1) making use of United States commercially
    8 provided ISS cargo, crew transportation, and crew
    9 rescue services to the maximum extent practicable;
    10 (2) prohibiting, to the extent practicable, any
    11 capability of the Space Launch System from com12
    peting with United States commercial providers that
    13 meet the requirements of this title for the provision
    14 of routine ISS crew and cargo transportation and
    15 rescue services; and
    16 (3) facilitating, to the maximum extent prac
    17ticable, the transfer of NASA-developed technologies
    18 to United States commercial orbital human space
    19 transportation companies in order to help promote
    20 the development of commercially provided ISS crew
    21 transportation and crew rescue services.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill,

    See section 402 for a good chunk of them

    And, lest you think otherwise, this bill attempts to retain Ares I, and not an Direct

  • Section 402?

    What is the problem, exactly?

    (b) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Funds in the combined account established under subsection (a) shall be allocated at the discretion of the Administrator to those activities related to commercial cargo and crew capabilities development, including the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, and to procurement of commercial crew capabilities, that the Administrator deem to be of the highest priority in each of the fiscal years for which funds are authorized by this Act in order to support the continued operation and utilization of the ISS. The amount of funds made available to a company for the development of commercial crew capabilities shall, to the extent practicable, be limited to that amount of funding that is matched by non-Federal provided funding. If the Administrator determines that the requirement for non-Federal matching funds should be waived in whole or in part in a particular instance, the Administrator shall report to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate in a timely manner the justification for that determination and the amount of non-Federal contribution and what type of noncash match, if any, the Government will receive from the company if the matching funds requirement is waived.

    While I would prefer that the House simply adopt the Senate bill “as is” I do not see a problem with Section 402.

  • Where is the Ares 1 language? What section?

  • mr. mark

    Could someone provide a link so i can read section 402 thanks.

  • Mr. Mark,

    The entire bill is linked in Jeff’s original post. A very large pdf.

  • mr. mark

    opps thanks…Bill White

  • Ferris, over at nasaspaceflight dot com, the comments are reading the fine print to fit Jupiter 130 & Jupiter 246 rather precisely.

    No way can Ares 1 be stretched to attain 70 tons to LEO (whether short tons or metric)

  • Ferris Valyn

    My apologize – its section 405 has most of it

  • Ferris Valyn

    They are wrong – its trying to put Ares I in the drivers seat, not Direct

  • Looking at the summary only for the moment I think I can live with this (like my opinion matters outside, or perhaps even inside, this forum).

    I find it patently absurd that the original had a grand plan for a big rocket for BEO operation, but left only $5 million for robotic precursors, which are fundamentally critical to understanding the new environments we’d be sending humans into. Executing a program using new and untried technologies is perhaps jumping into a lake before making sure it’s deep enough for diving. Executing the same program without even understanding the risks is like jumping when you’re not even sure it’s a lake you’re jumping into. No matter what route we take to BEO, we need at least a few critical precursors.

    Good riddance to the loan guarantee and the miserly investment in commercial space. What we really need out of commercial space is redundant, affordable, domestic access to LEO so we can focus beyond LEO for the remainder of the decade. We’ve spent billions and wasted years retooling the shuttle when it has gone down. If BEO is a real possibility, we can’t afford long stretches with no domestic manned access to space. So long as $400 million is sufficient to pave the way for at least two providers to start crew operations it’s a reasonable outcome by my expectations. There’s less than a half dozen companies even putting their hat in the ring at the moment.

    Honestly, I’m content with what I see. This is the sort of middle ground I expect to find from congress, as opposed to entrenched partisanship. Sure nobody gets everything they asked for, but no one get outright shafted on the deal either.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 1:53 pm

    of course…most of those people see their pajamas as fitting Jupiter or Direct something…

    what they dont realize is that this is the opening to end it all.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Yes, Robert, as you’ve been saying ad nauseum for months. We will shortly see if you much-beloved theory is going to match up with reality.

  • mr. mark

    Great to see more money for commercial though. If Ares 1 is in this, we are looking at least at a 5 – 8 year time span before it ready. By then commercial cargo will be in full swing, Boeing will have launched it’s crew capsule and Spacex may have launched it’s Dragon crew capsule as well. I’m hopig that Boeing will see the light and decide to launch at least some of the CST-100 crew capsules on Falcon 9 as it is capable. This would be a great merger of old and new space and strengthen the commercial spaceflight industry.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 pm

    there is nothing I love more then “true believers”…they are entertaining in so many ways…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr Mark – yea, its great that there is more money for commercial.

    But if they can’t spend it because of the 24 restrictions, then whats the point???? It just puts Ares I back in the drivers seat

  • /scI/owan

    You know, it’s funny Ferris, I’m reading section 405 now and there’s not 24 requirements, there’s 10… and they’re not much different than the kind of requirements commercial spaceflight would have had to meet under COTS

    Frankly I think this is the best we could have hoped for as far as a compromise goes… and it’s a hell of a lot better than not having a budget at all.

    Let’s just hope they get a vote in before the adjourn for election season.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill – do you really think Gordon isn’t trying to telescope everyone into keeping Ares I open? I am sorry, I don’t trust him

  • Robert Oler,

    I do see your point.

    For example words such as “in the discretion of the Administrator” and “if practicable” are sprinkled throughout the document.

    This is an opening to end it all. But only an opening.

  • Ferris, what bits in Section 405 do you object to?

    For example, what is wrong with any of these?

    (1) Those commercial services have demonstrated the capability to meet NASA-specified ascent, transit, entry, and ISS proximity operations safety requirements.

    (2) The service provider has completed, and NASA has verified, crewed flight demonstrations or operational flights that comply with NASA standards, policies, and procedures.

    (3) The per-seat cost to the United States is reasonable and has a basis in the cost to the commercial entity providing the crew transportation service.

  • Frankly I think this is the best we could have hoped for as far as a compromise goes… and it’s a hell of a lot better than not having a budget at all.

    This is not a budget. It’s just an unnecessary authorization bill.

  • Ferris, I’d be more open to the idea that Gordon wants to preserve the Ares V option rather than Ares 1. I just don’t see an opening for Ares 1 in this new bill.

    Anyway, IMHO, the best way to preclude a future Ares V is to start flying Jupiters.

    Going scorched earth on the STS infrastructure and workforce won’t preclude a Ares V because Ares V isn’t really shuttle derived. Mike Griffin also wanted to go scorched Earth on shuttle and its components to rule out smaller and more reasonable SDLV versions.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    Bill.

    If Griffin were administrator it would trouble me…because I know which way he would lean…but since Charlie is it doesnt; I know which way Charlie will lean.

    The government right now is devoid of people who have courage (well our elected leaders anyway)…but who are sort of practical and see where things are going. Almost no one who is elected and is from a space pork district can come out and say “we are going to end the shuttle and Cx” because you have all the technowelfare people..

    but what they can do is let someone else take the shiv and seem to be “aghast” when it happens (I dubb this the “Claude Rains” theory of government). Because the vast majority of the “true believers” are really not all that well informed enough and are desperate enough to “believe” that only when the end comes do they get upset…until then…they keep hope alive.

    I really even would be surprised if the LON becomes a real vehicle…all the trends are to shut the show down and spend as little money as possible doing it…

    And once something is law we dont have to revisit this until all the hard decisions are done and “abandoned in place” is stenciled on all the old shuttle hardware…then folks like Pete O in 22 can be “shocked” that Charlie made the choice to go with Delta IV heavy and then it will be “but lets move on”.

    As I said in another post…I love “true believers” they are so much fun

    Robert G. Oler

  • As an aside, isn’t it odd that Ares 1 most often is written with the Arabic 1 while Ares V uses the Roman V?

    How often do we see Ares I (Roman) or Ares 5 (Arabic)?

  • If you right, Robert, the next 12 months will be entertaining to watch. ;-)

  • Hilly Jilson

    Excellent news. The farce of the commercial space bailout was never going to stick.

  • the commercial space ATK bailout

    FTFY.

  • Ferris, I read all of 405 and 406. First off, they specifically define requirements for procurement, and don’t speak to development money. Also, the language speaks only to crew services and not cargo. So we need to keep that frame in mind.

    Here’s what’s in there:

    405.1 Craft must meet NASA launch, orbital maneuvering, and return requirements.
    405.2 Crewed flight must be demonstrated before procurement can take place.
    405.3 Craft must be reasonable cost both in terms of relation to other options and in terms of price/cost ratio for the company.
    405.4 Non-governmental market assessment (doesn’t state procurement hinges on the outcome, just on the completion)
    405.5 NASA acquisition process review
    405.6 NASA advisory of development required, BUT NASA is explicitly not allowed to require changes, only to recommend.
    405.7 Meets NASA safety requirements
    405.8 Sufficient flight history and safety for assessment
    405.9 Indemnity procedures must be determined beforehand
    405.10 Any crew transport must also have crew rescue capability
    406 No procurement in ’11 unless requirements in 404 and 405 are met (duh) and any ’11 procurement is restricted to $50 million or less.

    To summarize:

    1. 405 sections 1,3,6 and 7 all pretty much say new craft need to meet specifications. I can’t imagine how anyone would somehow be under the impression that this was NOT going to be the case.

    2. 405 sections 5 and 9 address NASA policy review. This has also been widely anticipated, and actually requested, by the commercial industry.

    3. 405 sections 2 and 8 require that before services can be procured, a new craft must demonstrate safety and reliability and demonstrate crew capability.

    4. 406 is a total non-issue. No provider I’m aware of intended on having crew capabilities ready for procurement by ’11 anyway. And even if it does happen, there’s provision for some minimal procurement given they meet the requirements they’ll have to meet anyway.

    5. 405.4 is a new one. But if the panel comes back and says, essentially, that no market could possibly exist, I’m not sure I’d support it either. That said, I highly doubt they’ll come back with a total no-go answer, given the wide net cast (including private ISS experiments in with more obvious Bigelow, stand-alone experiment, and tourism applications).

    6. 405.10 I can’t think of any company in the runnings for crew procurement that didn’t design for crew return.

    Points 1 and 2 essentially put words to what we already knew. Points 4 and 6 stand no chance of ever being invoked given timelines and capabilities of all interested companies. Point 3 was all but assumed by every article I’ve read on the subject. That leaves pretty much the market assessment as the only new thing under the sun that could actually impact the program. And there’s no enforcement teeth in it suggesting anyone expects it to be a show stopper.

    As these are very broad policy requirements, any one of them could be fleshed out in draconian ways. But that would be true under the Senate bill and Obama’s plan as well. I don’t think even the wildest commercial advocates thinks it’s a good idea to allow our government to buy up services with no oversight whatsoever, and I don’t think there are any real showstoppers in there.

    Not only are there few actual requirements detailed in those sections, but one thing that is explicitly detailed is that NASA is forbidden to dictate design. They are restricted only to recommendations and then only when they feel the design may be headed down a path that wouldn’t meet the other procurement requirements.

  • This is the best compromise most of us have come to hope for, given the limited dollars. I am very surprised the Rep Gordon was able to make the jump this far, (I take back everything I might have ever said about him).

    I see nothing in this compromise legislation to stop me from telling my Rep to support it, now before the election.

    Naysayers prove your point,
    I’m not convinced by anything said so far.

  • While the House authorization bill rev 2.0 is definitely an improvement on the first one (would have been hard *not* to improve over that travesty), do they really have time to vote on this, do the required conferencing with the senate, and then pass whatever comes out of conference, get it signed into law, all in the next week? I think that there are both good things and flaws in the bill, but I’m surprised that people who are ostensibly pro SDHLV would risk not getting something signed right now before more of the Shuttle capabilities are lost…

    …not that I actually am an HLV myself. Just saying this seems like a poor tactical move on the House’s part.

    ~Jon

  • Doug Lassiter

    “This is not a budget. It’s just an unnecessary authorization bill.”

    An Appropriations bill is indeed more of a budget than this Authorization bill is, but it’s usually not a plan, which this at least tries to be. Budgets without plans are not that helpful.

  • Crewed flight must be demonstrated before procurement can take place.

    What does “procurement” mean? If it means actually buying flights, fine, but I thought the idea was to model Commercial Crew on COTS, in which there would be fixed payments for defined development milestones (e.g., a pad abort test). If this precludes that, then it essentially kills commercial crew.

    Budgets without plans are not that helpful.

    There have been many years when NASA has operated without an authorization bill (more years than with one, historically, I think). Admittedly, the coming year would be a worse one than usual to do that, but I still think that having no bill would be better than this one.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Bill – to answer your question, section 401through 405

    All of those are mandates.

    I actually will grant, not all are bad. But enough are. And putting 24 barriers in front of Commercial Crew is 3 times that of what the Senate put in.

  • Ferris, which sections of Title IV do you see as show stoppers for commercial crew?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Admittedly, the coming year would be a worse one than usual to do that, but I still think that having no bill would be better than this one.

    If this bill passes, then does that make more or less likely that a compromise will in emerge in conference and one that is also acceptable to the Obama administration? And is this compromise designed to be accepted or to be rejected? If it passes the House, then the Senate will have to make a snap decision whether they want to go for certainty or whether they want to hold out for more. It could even be designed to try and split the consensus in the Senate.

  • I find it amusing that multiple people have now looked at the 400’s in the bill and given detailed discussion, sometimes quoting direct language, and nobody but Ferris sees the 24 commercial roadblocks.

    Seriously Ferris, even one example would give us a point to discuss. 24 might keep us chewing for a while. But right now all we have is your number and no reference to actual language supporting it.

  • Martijn, I think this substantially increases the likelihood of passage, though the chance is still slim. With the bill as it stood, the Senate would not have agreed to it under any circumstances. Now there’s at least some chance even if there’s a split opposition in the Senate.

  • Rhyolite

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm

    “What does “procurement” mean? If it means actually buying flights, fine, but I thought the idea was to model Commercial Crew on COTS, in which there would be fixed payments for defined development milestones (e.g., a pad abort test). If this precludes that, then it essentially kills commercial crew.”

    I think section 402(b) seperates procurment and development:

    (b) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—Funds in the combined account established under subsection (a) shall be allocated at the discretion of the Administrator to those activities related to commercial cargo and crew capabilities development, including the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program, and to procurement of commercial crew capabilities, …

    “activities related to commercial cargo and crew capabilities development” are seperate from “procurement of commercial crew capabilities”. The restrictions are placed on procurment but not development.

    Does any one else read this the same way?

  • Nothing seems unreasonable or specifically obstructionist in sections 401 through 405 of the compromise.

    Most of the language is geared toward making certain everything is in place before NASA begins paying for crew seats. I don’t see any holdup on development dollars for commercial crew there.

    It also seems to give some leeway to the NASA administrator to define these issues and how to work with and around them.

  • I’m hearing now that the House just attempted to put a compromise of the “compromise” on the Senate hotline, and was rebuffed. The message from the Senate is the Senate bill, or no bill. We’ll see if the House wants to continue to play chicken.

  • “activities related to commercial cargo and crew capabilities development” are seperate from “procurement of commercial crew capabilities”. The restrictions are placed on procurment but not development.

    Does any one else read this the same way?

    I also, drew the distinction there between procurement and development, it did seem intentional to choose those specific words.

  • Bennett

    From Rand’s blog,

    Henry Vanderbilt Says:
    September 23rd, 2010 at 11:41 am

    I wasn’t counting when I read through Title 4 of the new bill, so I can’t say for sure “24″ – maybe they were also looking at restrictions embedded by reference, like that “Class A payloads” ref? (That one calls for 14 successful flights in a row before any NASA astronaut steps on board, which while theoretically admirable sure exceeds NASA’s standards for their own vehicles.)

    Why not 50? Since we’re pulling a number out of the air, a number that has NEVER been met by any NASA LV, why not pick one that kills any possibility of a non-NASA LV?

    I can’t wait to see how many successful launches their HLV is expected to complete before a “NASA astronaut” climbs in for a ride to orbit. Wasn’t the second flight of an actual Ares-1 to be a manned flight?

    What idiots.

  • Rand Simberg wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 4:19 pm

    I’m hearing now that the House just attempted to put a compromise of the “compromise” on the Senate hotline, and was rebuffed. The message from the Senate is the Senate bill, or no bill. We’ll see if the House wants to continue to play chicken.

    I suspect the House will cave. If they were committed to “no bill” Bart Gordon wouldn’t have floated this amendment, today.

    Go Senate!

  • Mark R. Whittington

    If Simberg is right, it is a matter of either who blinks first or if no one blinks. If the latter, chaos continues to rule. This is what happens when one tosses a grenade into the space program and has nothing credible to replace it.

  • googaw

    I love how they can claim to be for Commercial Spaceflight, and then put in place 24 restrictions into the path of Commercial Crew.

    “The customer is always right.” If you don’t like the customer, go into a different line of business.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 4:37 pm
    If the latter, chaos continues to rule. This is what happens when one tosses a grenade into the space program and has nothing credible to replace it…

    first off you are overstating a lot of things.

    Chaos is not ruling (oh perhaps in the tea party but not in space politics).
    The shuttle is ending, Cx is dead and all we are doing is going through the motions of “burying it”.

    Obama’s program (which is going to occur) is the only credible game in town…and it is quite credible. You use to support it…back in the late 90’s…today you have become a big government toady…but that is your problem.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    I agree completely…the House will cave and the Senate bill will mosey its way through. Everyone is busily explaining to the space pork people how their technowelfare jobs are lost at an even faster rate if there is a CR.

    We are on the verge of something wonderful…which is good considering the economy is imploding

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    aremisalsing – I pointed them out – Section 401-405 has 24 different mandates.

    As I said, some aren’t bad. However, here are 2. 405 – 7 is unacceptable because it requires the NASA administrator to certify safety standards. 2 issues with this. First, it requires that NASA certify the vehicles as safe. This means that the vehicles are no longer under the domain of the FAA/AST Commercial Launch act (because certification was explicitly not a part of that). Another aspect is that they be equivalent to NASA standards. In theory, this wouldn’t necessarily be bad, but you know there will be a push to make the standards on par with the BS standards that were claimed for Ares I.

    Another one that is unacceptable is 405-5. This one is about contracting mechanism. There should not be a requirement for a full review of cost-plus verses fixed price.

  • googaw

    (2) The service provider has completed, and NASA has verified, crewed flight demonstrations or operational flights that comply with NASA standards, policies, and procedures.

    Before all is said and done, this clause by itself will add up to hundreds of thousands of requirements.

    :”The customer is always right.” Companies that don’t believe this tend to lose their customers. Even (or especially) in faux-“commerce” areas like government contracting.

  • “This is what happens when one tosses a grenade into the space program and has nothing credible to replace it.”

    All the congressional bills do is reapportion funds a little and give more definition to the new architecture. Otherwise, it’s not all that far from the Obama proposal. I highly doubt Obama expected his proposal to be accepted as was. I have little doubt he anticipated a reduction in the commercial program and a push to re-focus a bit more on a BGR (big government rocket). I’m not calling him a brilliant strategist. But while he clearly failed on PR and miscalculated the depth of congress’ love for big, open contract vehicles, he’d be a fool to start at his target and negotiate down. If you want to pay 10,000 for a car, you start at 8,000. It’s basic negotiation.

  • googaw

    If it means actually buying flights, fine, but I thought the idea was to model Commercial Crew on COTS, in which there would be fixed payments for defined development milestones (e.g., a pad abort test). If this precludes that, then it essentially kills commercial crew.

    In other words, if we make “Commercial” Crew actually like Rand’s favorite analogy, government buying for its employees airline tickets on a civilian airliner, it will kill “Commercial” Crew.

  • “However, here are 2. 405 – 7 is unacceptable because it requires the NASA administrator to certify safety standards. 2 issues with this. First, it requires that NASA certify the vehicles as safe.”

    In what world did you imagine NASA letting any other body make the final call as to what was safe for them to buy? FAA never had a solid hold on that requirement anyway. As I stated before, it just puts into words what was already de facto the case. FAA/AST can shout a spacecraft’s praises from the rooftops, but any customer, NASA or otherwise, is free to determine their own criteria. And NASA certainly will, with or without 405.7.

    “Another one that is unacceptable is 405-5. This one is about contracting mechanism. There should not be a requirement for a full review of cost-plus verses fixed price.”

    I find that totally acceptable. And again, I think they’d probably re-evaluate their approach to fixed price procurements for crewed vehicles anyway, so really, I feel the point is moot. It’s certainly not a roadblock.

    As to how those requirements are defined is entirely a different matter. Again, they very well could be draconian about it. But again, they can snarl up the procurement requirements with or without 405.5. The only outcome that would be different is if they explicitly stated that NASA could only use today’s procurement methodology, which ain’t happenin.

    Do these things make me concerned for the eventual outcome? Sure, they do. But I think calling them unacceptable is taking the ‘end of our HSF program!!!1!1′ approach to the discussion.

  • Ferris Valyn

    In what world did you imagine NASA letting any other body make the final call as to what was safe for them to buy? FAA never had a solid hold on that requirement anyway. As I stated before, it just puts into words what was already de facto the case. FAA/AST can shout a spacecraft’s praises from the rooftops, but any customer, NASA or otherwise, is free to determine their own criteria. And NASA certainly will, with or without 405.7.

    The issue isn’t whether NASA thinks they are safe enough or not. But by certifying it as safe (rather than meeting NASA standards of safety – there is a HUGE difference between these 2 points) , you change the role & responsibility of an operator, such that they then become more libel and are likely to have greater insurance requirements.

    And again, I think they’d probably re-evaluate their approach to fixed price procurements for crewed vehicles anyway, so really, I feel the point is moot.

    If they do that, then its moot, and we might as well just fly Orion & Ares I. The contracts for earth to LEO taxis shouldn’t even be considered close to needing a cost-plus contract.

  • Huh? How does this affect the potential liability of an operator?

    (7) The Administrator shall certify that a commercial ISS crew transportation and crew rescue service provider with which a contract is planned has demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems for crew transportation and crew rescue to be equivalent to NASA-promulgated safety and reliability policies, procedures, and standards for human
    spaceflight. Individual certifications made under this paragraph shall be provided to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation of the Senate.

    I read this as requiring the Administrator to put his (or her) neck on the line before granting a contract to any particular commercial supplier. Nothing more.

    How does this affect insurance, or liability issues?

    The House is being very explicit — no NASA astronauts can ride in a commercial vehicle unless the NASA Administrator has personally vouched for its safety. No buck passing.

    That said, if the NASA Administrator signs off and accepts responsibility, that is good enough for Congress as there does not appear to be outside review of this determination.

  • Of course, I continue to hope that the Senate stands firm and the House caves. ;-)

    That said, many of the details found in Title IV of the House version surely will become law before money is appropriated.

    No way will Congress give the NASA Administrator ~$1 billion dollars and say, “Spend it however you want. Good luck!”

  • “The contracts for earth to LEO taxis shouldn’t even be considered close to needing a cost-plus contract.”

    That’s not at all what it is saying. Perhaps that’s a possible outcome. But it’s a highly unlikely one.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Because (now, I’ll be up front, I am not totally certain on this, because it was a little confusing when first explained, but its based on comments from other people whose opinions on these things I trust) certification & certifying are words that have special meaning.

    Saying “it meets NASA’s requirements for safety” does not mean “certifying that it is safe to fly on”. Certifying & certification have particular meanings under the law. If NASA certifies it as safe, it has then been certified by the federal government, and under federal law. This means that it is no longer under the launch license of the Space Launch Amendment Act (because under SLAA, you cannot be certified, only licensed – its quite explicit about that) but under a certification, which means a much higher level of insurance and the like, because the insurance is typically lower under a license rather than a certification. (I may have messed up some of the details up, but hopefully that makes sense).

  • googaw

    a cost-plus contract.

    Don’t worry, we can still call it “commercial.” Shame? What’s that?

  • I think that the word certifying is being used in a very sloppy way here, and it will not preempt the FAA launch licensing process (which is likely to change in the next few years, anyway). All it means is that NASA approves of it for the use of carrying their astronauts. It would have no legal effect on other markets. Also, CRuSR will establish precedents for this, and act as a pathfinder, with Dryden oversight.

  • You’ve actually got that backwards. Certification is an acknowledgement by a private body that a person or entity is qualified to perform the tasks covered by the certification. Certification is also defined as voluntary and not necessary for operation. Licensure is a recognition by a civil authority that one has the legal authority to perform those tasks.

    For instance. Upon completion of a driver’s ed course, the company certifies that you have sufficient knowledge to drive. Your license, however, is a acknowledgement by the issuing state that you have the legal authority ot operate a motor vehicle in that state.

  • Actually the House Bill is a stealth POR reauthorization.

    By dropping any entry level lift requirement (ie the Senate Bill has 70mT) the House enables the Ares-1 to continue, and by increasing the “minimum” upper end requirement to over 130mT they set the upper bar to the Ares-V. Bottom-line Ares-1 is not precluded and the Ares-V is required.

    Pretty sneaky sis.

  • Actually, it’s pretty easily demonstrated by the huge number of forms we sign on a regular basis that end in a phrase “I hereby certify that …”. Note, you have the authority as a private citizen to sign such a statement.

  • Certification is an acknowledgement by a private body that a person or entity is qualified to perform the tasks covered by the certification. Certification is also defined as voluntary and not necessary for operation.

    No, the FAA certifies aircraft. But it doesn’t currently certify space vehicles, because it doesn’t know how — the field is insufficiently mature. But it also has no responsibility to be concerned about safety, other than third-party.

  • But it also has no responsibility to be concerned about safety, other than third-party.

    For space vehicles that is, in case it wasn’t clear. It is very concerned about the safety of aircraft passengers and crew, which is why it certifies.

  • “By dropping any entry level lift requirement (ie the Senate Bill has 70mT) the House enables the Ares-1 to continue,”

    That may be true, but there have been a lot of voices from all camps protesting the engineering by committee approach the Senate bill took. Dropping the entry level requirement also opens the field up to every other provider out there as no rocket flying today is capable of 70mT.

    “and by increasing the “minimum” upper end requirement to over 130mT they set the upper bar to the Ares-V. Bottom-line Ares-1 is not precluded and the Ares-V is required.”

    Not at all. I don’t agree with the need for a 100+ mT rocket, but I’m no rocket scientist. However, since there are no rockets in existance that lift over 30 mT, and any new proposal has the option to build something over 130 mT, there’s no reason to believe we’re limited only to Ares.

    Personally I chalk it up to ‘my phallic machine is bigger than yours’ syndrome as no rocket that has ever flown has had a lift greater than 130 mT. To me this is just another bid for the BIGGESTEST ROCKIT EVAR!

  • “No, the FAA certifies aircraft.”

    Ahhhh, you found the exact counter-example I had in mind. I took ground school so I know that you get a pilot’s certificate and not a pilot’s license as well. Oddly enough, this is a contradiction of the federal stance which does confer certification on ‘non-governmental entities’ and licensure on ‘civil authorities’.

    What it really demonstrates is that the terms are so muddied even in legalistic usage that deriving hidden meanings from them is rather pointless.

  • “I’m hearing now that the House just attempted to put a compromise of the “compromise” on the Senate hotline, and was rebuffed. The message from the Senate is the Senate bill, or no bill. We’ll see if the House wants to continue to play chicken.”

    The Senate version was approved by unanimous consent any changes may be blocked by any one Senator.

    DEFINED: unanimous consent – A Senator may request unanimous consent on the floor to set aside a specified rule of procedure so as to expedite proceedings. If no Senator objects, the Senate permits the action, but if any one Senator objects, the request is rejected. Unanimous consent requests with only immediate effects are routinely granted, but ones affecting the floor schedule, the conditions of considering a bill or other business, or the rights of other Senators, are normally not offered, or a floor leader will object to it, until all Senators concerned have had an opportunity to inform the leaders that they find it acceptable.

    Unless the House proposal mirrors the Senate exactly it can’t be taken up there without a new round of Senate Voting.

  • Coastal Ron

    aremisasling wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 5:13 pm

    “Another one that is unacceptable is 405-5. This one is about contracting mechanism. There should not be a requirement for a full review of cost-plus verses fixed price.”

    I find that totally acceptable. And again, I think they’d probably re-evaluate their approach to fixed price procurements for crewed vehicles anyway, so really, I feel the point is moot. It’s certainly not a roadblock.

    Congress doesn’t write in basic contracting provisions for fun, they write it for a specific reason – and that falls back to the motivations of those that put that clause in – WHY are they stipulating it. It is already known that Giffords and Gordon don’t like the direction Obama/Bolden wanted to go, so it makes sense that they feel that this boxes them in somehow, and that it would benefit what they want, not necessarily what NASA wants.

    So why put that requirement in? Who benefits from cost-plus contracts? The current cost-plus contractors, of which a majority of them work on Constellation. Something smells funny here…

  • DCSCA

    “The compromise bill includes $1.212 billion for commercial crew development over three years ($412 million in 2011 and $400 million each in 2012 and 2013), far more than the earlier bill ($150 million a year) but still short of the administration’s original request.”

    And so, the Congress of the United States proposes to plunge a nation, hurtling toward bankruptcy deeper into debt, borrowing funding from, most likely, communist Red China, to subsidize much-hyped private enterprised ‘commercial’ space ventures which have not been capable of convincing private sector capital markets to fund them because of high risk and limited market ROI. This is reprehensible waste and as the general public becomes increasingly aware, an unacceptable ‘luxury’ cost to the average American who is simply struggling to make ends meet, day to day. This kind of ‘waste’ is what fuels the anger at Tea Party rallies and fired up angst in the bellies of families at dinner tables across America, attempt to set necessary priorities to survive day to day life in the very dour, down to earth economy of today. Congress denies granny a COLA boost for her Social Security; unemployment benefit extentions blocked for ninety-niners; no pay-as-you-go-healthcare as rates soar (19% last week in Califorinia alone); grade schools shutter sports, arts and science programs and furlough teachers as revenues dry up; Banks aget bailed out; GM as well but not Ed’s Hardware store down the stree. $2 billion a week wasted on wars in Afghanistan and funding for ‘training’ troops in Iraq continues; expensive foreign aid packages for indifferent-if-not-hostile-allies along with other hollow elements propping up American empire building… and now government subsidies for wealthy rocketeers who want to play spaceman. Unfair? Of course. But that’s how the people who are being asked to pay the freight for this folly will take it. Tap the DoD for funding if you must, but to go further into debt to fund the elitist enterprise of commercial rocketry and its limited market will be viewed as just more unacceptable waste to most Americans sitting down to their suppers of franks ‘n’ beans.

  • Robert G. Oler

    aremisasling wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 6:12 pm

    A few points if I might.

    The FAA certificates pilots and aircraft that operate under the Federal Aviation regulations (the FAR’s).

    The FAA however has nothing to do with “public use airplanes” which are airplanes flown by the “sovereign” on behalf of the people of The United States (we could get into the notion of how sovereignty is applied but I’ll pass…although Mr. Bush the last…I have to take the swing…had a hard time explaining it)..

    For instance the FAA does not have any jurisdiction over nor regulates the airplanes that NASA flies. The “NA” airplanes are all “public use” and they operate under the sole jurisdiction and authority of NASA which is granted by statute the authority to operate airplanes.

    The FAA also operates its own public use airplanes as well…and it has a special set of regulations for them. For instance all aircraft that carry a type certificate (ie are over 12,500 lbs) must meet certain performance criteria…the FAA’s are frequently flown at masses that preclude that ie they are flown over the mass limits that would allow engine out performance expected of the similar aircraft in FAR regulated flight.

    In “theory” (and sometimes in fact) pilots who fly public use airplanes do not have FAA pilots license. That is rare because usually the various statues that confer operating authority of airplanes to government agencies specify that the pilots will be “2181” qualified…and that means FAA pilots license.

    The question about “lift” to LEO by commercial operators is going to come down to whether or not the vehicles are operated as public use vehicles.

    It is far to early in the transition from complete public use vehicles like the shuttle (I never understood why for PR purposes NASA didnt put an NA number on the things…except for the fact that the space folks are so out of touch with the real world)…to something that Musk or Boeing or someone would “operate” to have that argument or make a decision…

    but in the end that is what it is going to come down to.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Bill White wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    Huh? How does this affect the potential liability of an operator?

    “(7) The Administrator shall certify that a commercial ISS crew transportation and crew rescue service provider with which a contract is planned has demonstrated the safety and reliability of its systems for crew transportation and crew rescue to be equivalent to NASA-promulgated safety and reliability policies, procedures, and standards for human
    spaceflight. Individual certifications made under this paragraph shall be provided to the Committee on Science and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
    Transportation of the Senate.”

    I read this as requiring the Administrator to put his (or her) neck on the line before granting a contract to any particular commercial supplier. Nothing more.

    Why do they state “commercial ISS crew transportation” specifically? Does that mean if NASA contracts with a commercial crew provider to go to a non-ISS LEO destination, that they don’t have to abide by this provision?

    And aren’t they concerned or aware that a complete set of “NASA-promulgated safety and reliability policies, procedures, and standards for human spaceflight” doesn’t yet exist?

    If they wanted to make sure that NASA sets standards for human transportation to space, then they should say just that (i.e. “NASA shall create and institute standards for safe transportation of humans to and from space”).

    This should be no different than setting safety standards for cars, trains, ships, aircraft or any other form of paid transportation. In fact I would argue that even if NASA creates the standards, that it should fall to the DOT to regulate and enforce them, since NASA is not set up to be a regulatory agency, whereas the DOT is.

    Congress doesn’t add text for the fun of it – there is a reason, but it’s not always clear until the time comes to do something, and then they haul you in front of Congress to explain why you’re not following the letter of their law.

  • Aremisasling, you are missing my key points. They didn’t remove the lower end requirement in order to enable other non-Ares-1 launch systems. They removed it in order to keep Ares-1. If the Ares-1 lives they will go right back to everyone will die canard in order to defend the Ares-1 against equivalent proven and/or less expensive systems.

    On the “minimum” requirement of 130mT, while you and I may disagree with how much more lift capacity we need above existing systems if any, the point is that if this became the law of the land than nothing below 130mT would be acceptable.

    I think given the budget it will be a decade before we can afford missions that will exceed the capability of even the entry level SDHLV Jupiter-130 (70mT 12 meter payload). If we do we can always grow up to the Ares-V Classic capability of 130mT if needs be.

    So in order to hold onto the Ares-1 and Ares-V Bart Gorton fiddles while our industrial base and workforce burns? That is the hold up.

    Just pass the Senate version of the bill at the speakers desk right now Bart, gee wiz, lets not over think this. It’s not going to get any easier to save what is left the longer you delay this. Forcing the NASA budget to endure the upcoming budget cutting crossfire of next Congress is also an exceedingly bad strategy. For what? In a vain attempt to save the POR and Mike’s ego? The POR is DOA not only in the Senate but at the desk of the President in this and the next Congress.

    Tens of Thousands of NASA workers and their and families livelihoods are in the balance right now. You can go home knowing you were the deciding vote that push this over the top and thereby saved our nations human space program from the brink with the Senate language.

  • DCSCA

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 7:15 pm “Tens of Thousands of NASA workers and their and families livelihoods are in the balance right now.”

    <– Yes but this isn't just about NASA. There are plenty of competing constiuencies in and out of government desperate for accessing this 'borrowed' funding from a shrinking pie. All of us who support space operations best keep in mind that there's a chance of a 'perfect storm' with bleak economics for years to com, competing priorities and general public disinterest in any future for space activities as the Age of Austerity surround us. Years ago in better times Tom Stafford once cautioned that a space program is not a 'given' to be taken for granted and there's always a chance it can just disappear– or 'fade away' as Neil Armstrong pointed out. That possibility seems increasingly viable as this cacophony over spending increasingly angers the average American regardless of their personal politics. Those losing ground in the middle class are already overburdened and being asked to fund elitist space projects won't be accepted too well. This battle is going to get harder– and nastier in the years to come. NASA best steel itself for some significant budget cuts if the House changes hands– or open proposals for simply disbanding the agency as too costly to continue as an independent organization.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 7:15 pm

    reasonable minds can differ and the post you have is reasonable so I’ll go with that…but there is no effort to save Ares 1 or even the Ares system.

    If there were then the House or the Senate would have followed the B-1 model and well saved ARes. They dont. They just dont.

    In fact they dont save much of anything…they certainly dont care about Jupiter or Direct or any SDV.

    “Tens of Thousands of NASA workers and their and families livelihoods are in the balance right now. ”

    they have to go. There is no system that is affordable if we have “tens of thousands” of anyone working on them.

    For reference a CVN is run with 5000 people.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 8:23 pm “…they have to go. There is no system that is affordable if we have “tens of thousands” of anyone working on them.” <- Agreed. NASA needs a major house cleaning and if this fosters it, all the better. The managment that gave us Challenger and Columbia have to go. If budget cuts and program terminations are a catalyst, so be it.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Robert,

    I grant the Senate isn’t really looking to save Ares I. However, I’d say there is a lot of evidence that Gordon is trying hard to save Ares I

  • The discussion above about the comparison with the FAA and all is really good, but the differences in industries is significant.

    Aircraft certification has been going on for a long time. Its a mature industry and they work from a lot of experience. Test flights, maintenance specifications and programs, reliability and all that are fully developed.

    I’m not convinced that the FAA is even close to being ready to take on certifying or maintaining commercial space vehicles as airworthy, and NASA isn’t either.

    Someone convince me!

  • amightywind

    The recent failures of the ‘Dream Act’ and ‘Gay’s in the Military’ in the Senate are the last spasm of the dying liberal agenda. There will be no NASA agreement in this congress. The GOP has no need to compromise. NASA will be significantly redirected next year. Until then this is just noise. Hopefully the new congress will be wise enough to let engineers design NASA’s rockets of the future.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    sigh this is why you are a troll.

    the failure of the Defense Authorization Bill and its amendments has nothing to do with space policy or even with a future vote on space policy…all it was was a minority blocking the will of a majority…and that has nothing to do with space policy…you were just “trolling” for a reaction.

    Sorry…you can do better

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Spase Blagher wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    The discussion above about the comparison with the FAA and all is really good, but the differences in industries is significant. ..

    now, but not so if you look at aviation in the 20’s…

    we are entering the “barnstorming” era of human spaceflight…its a good thing

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    Spase Blagher wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 8:56 pm

    Aircraft certification has been going on for a long time. Its a mature industry and they work from a lot of experience. Test flights, maintenance specifications and programs, reliability and all that are fully developed.

    The same could be said for spacecraft as well, in fact a lot of the same companies are involved in both. What’s the difference between a new Boeing aircraft (like the 787) and a new Boeing spacecraft (like the CST-100)?

    Both use industry standard materials, as well as new materials that are just being introduced. Both use custom software. Both are also built for a certain amount of operational life, and both have defined maintenance schedules that the manufacturer has defined.

    The Shuttle has already showed us that spacecraft can be processed on a routine basis, no different from commercial aircraft. Even aircraft like the A-12, F-117 and B-2 have shown that unusually complex aircraft can be tamed and made relatively routine, even though they are still dangerous to fly. If anything capsules are going to be far less complex, and have far less failure modes, than any of those three aircraft.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Robert,

    I grant the Senate isn’t really looking to save Ares I. However, I’d say there is a lot of evidence that Gordon is trying hard to save Ares I..

    ..

    Ferris. Maybe, but I think more likely Gordon is just trying hard to convince people that he tried to save Ares.

    Robert

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 9:54 pm “Hopefully the new congress will be wise enough to let engineers design NASA’s rockets of the future.” <- A new Congress may very well be pressed to implement fresh ideas given the anger festering from the Age of Austerity facing the people of the United States. The first move would be to eliminate 'luxury' expenditures from the government — and that would be budgeting for NASA. There isn't a government official around who wouldn't get giddy over the chance to shrink the federal bureaucracy by shuttering a government agency and NASA, caught btween the ending of one program, the uncertainity of the future and no replacement program for shuttle in the near term, would be an easy mark to eliminate. The odds of NASA disappearing completely grow with every deficit dollar spent.

  • Space Cadet

    The conditions placed on commercial crew in 401 and 405 are not there to stop commercial crew, they are there as a face-saving tactic for the pols who have been opposing commercial crew. Now they will claim their opposition was not based on threats to their pork… no no, it was really just based on their touching concern for the safety of government astronauts. Now that they’ve saved the astronauts from the carelessness of the WH, they’re big supporters of the bill.

    Kind of how defense spending bills are supposedly all about “body armor for our troops”.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 23rd, 2010 at 11:23 pm

    What’s the difference between a new Boeing aircraft (like the 787) and a new Boeing spacecraft (like the CST-100)?

    coastal Ron.

    no one and I mean NO ONE wants to see the FAA take over the licensing etc of human flight spacecraft more then “me”…but there is a difference between the Dreamliner and the CST-100…and that is a body of Federal Regulations (Part 25) that determine the essence of how a Dreamliner is built…and about 80 years of serious experience in terms of how commercial aviation should operate…

    We are, as I have said a lot in the barnstorming era of human spaceflight…and without that the FAA would not be the FAA (or the CAA would not have become the CAA).

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G Oler wrote:

    “they have to go. There is no system that is affordable if we have “tens of thousands” of anyone working on them.

    For reference a CVN is run with 5000 people.”

    Interesting comparison in that is but the crew compliment of one ship. But if you are really going to make an accurate comparison then what about the ship yards that are responsible for construction and major maintenance and upgrades? What about the engineering support staff for the various systems? What about the rest of the Navy that trains the personnel to operate the vessel? What about the rest of the Navy that uses the capabilities that that one 5000-hand CVN can project? What about the vendors that build components flowing into the pipeline for either spares or new construction? I really could go on and on but you should get the point.

    In the end, by the continued nature of your posts, I hope people realize but of course can judge for themselves, that your “opinion” needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

  • Terence Clark

    “Aremisasling, you are missing my key points.”

    No, I got them. you’re saying they wrote the rules to tailor to Ares I/V by opening the bottom limit and pushing up the top limit. What I’m saying is that nothing in the wording suggests that those are the only options. Perhaps they WANT to steer it toward the Cx architecture, but the window they are opening does not exclude other options. Particularly on the 70mT removal. Ares I is not the only provider in town that can aim for the Heavy class. SpaceX has leaked a few ideas about a craft that could go over 70 mT, for instance, and another that would top the 130 mT target. Opening that window for Ares I opens it for any architecture that can provide heavy lift, and there are a few interested parties.

    The 130 mT limit does narrow the field a bit, but most of the SDLV options looked at in the recent NASA architecture studies can scale to that, particularly the inline designs. Again, the field is still wide open. If these are his ‘save Ares’ concessions, he lost big at the bargaining table. The limits are so weakly in favor of Ares, I have a hard time believing he really cares all that much about it. At the very least his heart isn’t in it.

  • Terence Clark

    Seriously people. I’m with Foust on this one. Knock it off with the name-calling and ad hominem crap. We get enough of that on the airwaves from all angles already. I’ve read posts on here long enough to realize that the ad hominem strategy, that of discrediting the target, almost universally backfires and discredits the poster. The best outcome I’ve seen is that it’s ignored.

    In our mass-media world logical fallacy is practically a marketing strategy. And it may fool one or two folks around here. But by and large this group seems fully capable of seeing it for what it is, a fallacy. Save it for your next protest or appearance on a talk show.

  • Terence Clark/aremisasling

    Ugh, I did it again. Terence Clark = aremisasling = me. I really, honestly, am not trying to play sock puppets or confuse anyone.

  • Coastal Ron

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 1:09 am

    We are, as I have said a lot in the barnstorming era of human spaceflight…

    There may be an analogy that fits where were at, but it’s not the barnstorming example. If that were so, then the 60’s, with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1 would be the barnstorming days, not today.

    We’re just getting done with 30 years of flying a reusable winged spacecraft system, and even though it never came close to most of it’s important metrics (cost, turnaround time, ease of maintenance, etc.), it taught us a lot. The Shuttle, the ISS and all the other unmanned spacecraft we have been building and operating have elevated the aerospace industry far above the level of “barnstorming”.

    Unlike the barnstorming days, where there was a lack of knowledge and standardization, today we have a huge body of knowledge, and plenty of industry and military standards to choose from in online parts catalogs.

    Need to build a LOX/RP-1 gas-generator rocket engine with good Isp? There are 3rd generation rocket engineers out there that can do that.

    Need to friction-stir weld your fuel tanks to save overall weight? There’s an industry for that.

    Need a capsule design that doesn’t need thousands of hours of validation? NASA has lots of 50 year old designs that the American taxpayer already spent money on to validate.

    I think a more apt metaphor would be the post 2001 dot-com bubble, where internet companies discovered “a fresh realization of a new channel to the old economy companies“. We have companies that are figuring out how to do today what only countries have been able to do – and that will only increase as others emulate the successful techniques, and learn the failures.

    The question becomes, will the old establishment learn from the new upstarts? I think the answer in the aerospace world is yes, as it has been in the internet world, although it will be far slower. But the sooner it happens, the faster we’ll do more fun stuff in space.

    My $0.02

  • Coastal Ron

    Terence Clark/aremisasling wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 2:09 am

    Ugh, I did it again. Terence Clark = aremisasling = me. I really, honestly, am not trying to play sock puppets or confuse anyone.

    I hate it when people hide behind some sort of nom de guerre… oops! Guess I’m throwing rocks in my glass house again… ;-)

    Btw, I always wondered what “aremisasling” was or meant. Any hints?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Btw, I always wondered what “aremisasling” was or meant. Any hints?

    Question seconded!

  • googaw

    “We are, as I have said a lot in the barnstorming era of human spaceflight…”

    Nearly all analogies with the history of airplanes fail. Especially as Robert pointed out “barnstorming.” But here’s one that comes closer than most. It’s a rather bizarre analogy because — well, because our space program really is this bizarre:

    We are where aviation would have been in the 1930s if World War I had taken the form of a peaceful contest to see who could build the biggest airplane. With the result that the Allies won by spending a hundred billion dollars to build a Spruce Goose to fly across the Atlantic in 1918. This spectacular contest thereafter convinced aviation fans and lobbyists for decades to come that Spruce Goose sized and styled airplanes were crucial to the future of aviation. And that the glory of having our government pilots funded to fly Spruce Gooses on world tours was well worth the copious tax dollars spent for its own sake, without actually performing any useful service that people were actually willing to voluntarily pay for. And while “libertarians” went on and on about their own “commercial” versions of the Spruce Goose which however still just had as their only customers governments flying pilots for the sake of flying pilots. While humble little two-prop DC-3s that actually did useful things for non-pilots like flying mail and passengers where they wanted to go toiled on in boring obscurity.

  • You people are kidding yourselves if you think a few, or a few dozen spacecraft flights that are usually not exactly the same is anything like what the FAA is used to dealing with.

    Space flights, in comparison, are still experiments. The FAA is used to dealing with specific configurations approved by a type certificate. There are manuals and standard procedures for dealing with discrepancies, but changing a type certificate takes nearly an act of Congress.

    If spacecraft were airplanes, just about every mission would be a new type certificate (at least in the beginning).

  • “Btw, I always wondered what “aremisasling” was or meant. Any hints?”

    It’s just a pen name, but run together and used as a pseudonym. Aremis is a name I stole from a book I read as a kid and Asling (ashleen) is an anglicisedversion of the Gaelic word for dream, a borrowing from my earliest logins, and also a surname in Ireland. I was looking for something that had some meaning to me, but still sounds like an actual, albeit unusual, name. I’ve been using it for probably 10-12 years now. The run together is a result of loginid restrictions from the web 1.0 days. I’m just too stuck in my ways to change it.

    This is actually a pretty big ‘whoops’ for me. I usually go to great lengths to maintain separation between my legal name and my online handle since online privacy is all but a thing of the past these days.

  • Terence, I would agree with you that ‘any’ HLV path could work in the House Bill (as long as it can get to 130mT, Mike’s fingerprints) and Senate (if it can make at least 70mT initially with growth to 130mT if needed)……

    ‘if’ the SRB and maximization of the STS industrial base wasn’t so clear in both bills. Since these STS component requirements are in the Senate Bill (clearly a Jupiter-130 evolvable to Ares-V Classic path) and in the House Bill, the House Bill is in fact a stealth POR for the reasons I stated.

    Now even with the House Bill Language NASA could still do the right thing and ditch the stick, but the language doesn’t preclude the shaft either.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 2:42 am

    There may be an analogy that fits where were at, but it’s not the barnstorming example. If that were so, then the 60′s, with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1 would be the barnstorming days, not today…

    Coastal. I do not agree.

    The Apollo era no where fits the definition of “barnstormering” unless one limits it to a really bad approximation of “The Great Waldo Pepper”.

    The Barnstorming era is what makes US aviation different from the development of every other countries development of aviation.

    While there was (like the old west) the romantic notion that the movie “The Great Waldo Pepper” (which I like) illustrates…the real backbone of the era was:

    1. The search for a product that could sale
    2. The search for a market that would buy

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 2:42 am

    There may be an analogy that fits where were at, but it’s not the barnstorming example. If that were so, then the 60′s, with Mercury, Gemini and Apollo 1 would be the barnstorming days, not today…

    Coastal. I do not agree.

    The Apollo era no where fits the definition of “barnstormering” unless one limits it to a really bad approximation of “The Great Waldo Pepper”.

    The Barnstorming era is what makes US aviation different from the development of every other countries development of aviation.

    While there was (like the old west) the romantic notion that the movie “The Great Waldo Pepper” (which I like) illustrates…the real backbone of the era was:

    1. The search for a product that could sale
    2. The search for a market that would buy
    3. The ceaseless development of technology
    4. The growth of government regulation to keep pace with 1-3.

    Apollo and the race to the Moon was a fluke…it was an effort out of time which really has no historical development in really any form of American industry. It does not even come close to the notion of building the Ike highway system.

    While no analogy is perfect, including and mostly historical ones…what “human spaceflight” has never had, but must if it is to develop as an industry like everything else in the US…is the search for a proper balance between the 4 of the points I mentioned above. Aviation has that…as does almost all successful market products.

    But so far in human spaceflight it is just a bunch of good old government employees doing things on the taxpayer dole, none of which have any real value to the Republic.

    Sorry for the double post…baby is helping

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:02 am

    ‘if’ the SRB and maximization of the STS industrial base wasn’t so clear in both bills. ..

    lol it is so thin, it makes the atmosphere on the Moon look as dense as Venus

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 1:12 am

    Interesting comparison in that is but the crew compliment of one ship. But if you are really going to make an accurate comparison then what about the ship yards that are responsible for construction and major maintenance and upgrades? What about the engineering support staff for the various systems? What about the rest of the Navy that trains the personnel to operate the vessel?..

    once one gets off the crew of the CVN, the systems that “train, engineer” etc the foundation of the USN’s ships are generic to the fleet and the USN’s other missions.

    So for instance unlike the “standing army” at Alliance that only does the shuttle and nothing else…the shipyards and the workers that work on the flattops work on the “other ships” as well…boot camp in the USN trains everyone including but not limited to those who sail on the flattops…

    NO analogy is perfect; but there is no other vehicle in the US government portfolio that takes the amount of people or money for a single stroke effort as does the shuttle. And the place that is most obvious is the astronaut corps.

    No other government agency has that many people sitting around pushing for the few number of flights…and is hiring more.

    NASA HSF is way over “peopled”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Spase Blagher wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 5:59 am

    If spacecraft were airplanes, just about every mission would be a new type certificate (at least in the beginning)…

    I would not go that far.

    The FAA is used to dealing with a very wide variety of vehicles (from homebuilts to the Part 25 aircraft) and a very wide variety of manufactoring bases. They have developed a “level of safety” that is appropriate for just about every “level” of flight…for instance want to go out and build your own airplane …there is one level of federal intrusion…on the other hand want to start a Part 121 organization that carries passengers for hire…well the intrusion is more.

    I can work a one time STC on my Ercoupe fairly easily (including for instance engine changes that make it a one of a kind issue) but the notion of a mod on the B-737 classic series for trailing flaps during cruise took us the better part of a year and lots of flight test back in the last decade.

    The shuttle orbiters were actually the subject of an internal FAA AVN study to evaluate what “type certification” would be like for space vehicles.

    While I agree we are some decades (and flights) from a Part 25 arraingement we are also far from simply “not being able to do it”.

    There is probably a good compromise to start with.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    For me it comes down to which bill creates long term wealth for the nation and helps foster in a new long term industry.

    Ares I and V doesn’t do that like a commercial crew program that primes the pump and when the funding ends America is left with multiple domestic service providers that can serve both international and markets.

    We know that the constellation program can not “grow” after it is up and running, the future budget picture just doesn’t support growth, but a commercial company can continue to grow long after the start up funding ends.

  • Coastal Ron

    Spase Blagher wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 5:59 am

    You people are kidding yourselves if you think a few, or a few dozen spacecraft flights that are usually not exactly the same is anything like what the FAA is used to dealing with.

    I come from the manufacturing world. Essentially parts are parts, although different industries require different levels of effort.

    For the medical & aerospace worlds, you have to have part traceability for critical components. It doesn’t matter if it’s a one-time use product or something that is in service for a long time, if it’s critical then you have to design, build, test and manage it as a critical item.

    ULA, which is averaging one launch a month right now, is no different than Boeing, Cessna, or any other aerospace company. They have a defined product catalog (available online), internal policies and procedures that employees must follow, and there are outside requirements that they must also follow, be it manufacturing or quality standards, or customer requirements.

    In fact, it’s because of the highly evolved standards and quality systems in the aerospace industry that emerging companies like SpaceX can build and launch rockets at all, much less for lower cost than legacy companies. Smart designs can only take you so far – you have to be able to build and launch in a repeatable fashion, otherwise you’ll never survive or succeed.

    Despite it’s failings, the Shuttle has showed us that we can access & work in space on a routine basis, and the ISS is continuing that legacy. New crew systems won’t be revolutionary, but evolutionary. I don’t see a problem.

    My $0.02

  • Mike Snyder

    Rober G. Oler wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:31 am

    Absolutely no analogy is perfect but those trying to make it should be somewhat responsible with it too. With respect to your latest response on the Navy it is filled with half-truths and just plain wrong “facts”, as usual.

    Again, keeping to your status quo, you then lash out at others who have really nothing to do with any of your rants. First it was MOD for some curious reason and now it is seemingly the astronaut corp. Very strange indeed.

  • Vladislaw

    “The odds of NASA disappearing completely grow with every deficit dollar spent.”

    What kinds of odds are you laying down and how much ya willing to wager? .. The odds of NASA totally folding their tent is about between impossibly slim and none. It is an iconic cornerstone of American technical excellence and the “can do” spirit. Politicans have used it for 50 years and it is pretty much inconceivable that it would be allowed to go away 100% when it represents such a small part of the budget.

    We also have an international space station and international obligations that are going to run to 2015 – 2020. So when exactly would this killing of NASA take place?

  • Kinsey Therapist

    Mike, perhaps its because many of us space advocates are so sick and tired of hearing about our ‘elite astronaut corps’ from a congress and NASA management that have so horribly managed human space flight these last five years, that now we are in the utterly unnecessary position we find ourselves in, and then these same institutions (NASA, congress and the US senate) continue to spew the ‘elite astronauts corp’ bile and propaganda, and then profess their undying love for the previously failed rocket architecture managed by the previously failed management team, that they intend to fund it at previous levels for yet another five years. That probably explains why many of us space advocates who previously were die hard human space flight advocates have jumped ship and how just don’t give a dam anymore, and are advocating the dissolution of government sponsored human spaceflight altogether. It’s over. You’ve lost your base.

  • googaw

    This isn’t the 1960s any more. NASA has since that time come to be seen far less as a source of “technical excellence” than it has become infamous for wasting hundreds of billions of dollars on white elephants like the Shuttle and ISS. Which even many space fans have favored scrapping, like the spoiled leftovers from last week’s weight-gaining feast. Do you think it’s any coincidence that Obama canceled Constellation in the middle of a financial crisis when for the first time since the 19th century the credibility of the U.S. debt (“the risk-free investment”) was starting to be questioned? In such a situation you want to calm down the bondholders but with minimal disruption to the vast population dependent on government largesse whose support you need. So you go, not after big but sacred budget items like Medicare and Social Security, but after the most visible thing that can be portrayed as waste. And for that purpose NASA provides a target-rich environment.

    NASA is not sacred with the frank ‘n beans crowd. It’s only sacred with a small and diminishing HSF cult. To the rest NASA is an expendable luxury.

    Because the politicians want a visible cut but want to minimize actually offending the people dependent on their largesse, most of NASA’s parts wouldn’t disappear. HSF is useless and wouldn’t fit in any other agency so it would have to go, but most of the other functions of NASA would find homes in other bureaucracies.

    When they get around, whether due to the Tea Party or future financial crises or some unexpected budget-busting event, to making dramatic cuts at the level of whole agencies, NASA with its history of preposterously expensive yet useless spectaculars will be one of the first agencies on the chopping block.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 4:05 pm

    “lash out” really? You should see me when I really lash out…I mean just take the bark off the tree….

    At the service for one of the Columbia 7 Linda H was all in tears and someone was trying to console her and my reply was “let her cry, these folks are dead because of her”.

    Thats lashing out!

    Wasnt even my best either.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert,

    Ahhh, yes. I assumed you would be getting back to the Columbia accident. Feel free to continue to villianize but it really isn’t relevent. Obviously, everyone knows of the mistakes made. I’m sure, given your extreme knowledge in the matter, your “claim” of being a “consultant” and your supposed inside information you are well aware of the changes made since then.

    As for lashing out, yes. Absolutely. First it was MOD and you were wrong about their role. Now it is the astronaut corp. Again, you are wrong about their role. Again, you continue spout inaccurate information and generally tend to say “this or that” without any concrete evidence or data behind it.

    Opinions are fine but with someone who likes to post as much as you do, “correcting” others, then there should be a measure of responsibility and accountability.

  • Mike Snyder

    Kinsey,

    Thank you for your post. That said, it is not over and it is not my “base” to lose. While I understand the reason behind being disappointed in Constellation, and I am also one of those people, there are many factors that contributed to ultimately what happened. Likely you know that if you are a part of the “space advocacy” community.

    Blaming the astronaut corp in the fashion you did, and excuse me for this remark, seems odd. It hints at what is known as “displaced anger”.

    Feel free to “jump the ship” now if you like but this is exactly the wrong time to do so and apathy and a “make them pay” mentality will not get anyone anywhere either.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
    you are well aware of the changes made since then. …

    oh it is the “we get it this time” line…and nothing has really changed.

    The Safety office is still mostly ignored and flight rules are waived routinely…

    but you keep on in your own little world. It wont last much longer…the shuttle will soon stop flying, Cx is dead and the folks who brought you the last 30 years will soon be fading out.

    It is a good time.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler,

    Provide proof that the Safety office is “mostly ignored’.

    There is no such thing as “waiving” a flight rule.

    My “own little world” is reality. You are just validating my points.

  • GuessWho

    Snyder – “Robert G. Oler, Provide proof that the Safety office is “mostly ignored’.”

    He can’t and he knows it. Oler is very good at throwing out bombs (spearchucking I think he calls it) and then running away when called on it. He still hasn’t provided proof that “Lockmart and company probably invested more (reference back to $60M) in “information suites” and the bimbo’s that go with them then they did engineering (reference to CEV). (Oler – wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am).

  • Kinsey Therapist

    it is not over and it is not my “base” to lose.

    You can keep living the delusion for all I care, but when former hard core human space advocates start bailing out in the monster jesus rocket, and then start calling for the wholesale abandonment of government sponsored human spaceflight like I am, then you have most definitely lost your base.

    Blaming the astronaut corp in the fashion you did, and excuse me for this remark, seems odd. It hints at what is known as “displaced anger”.

    Oh really? All I have to do is mention Doc Whorowitz, Marsha Ivins and Mark Kelly, and you just lost quite a few more hard core human space flight advocates from your delusional and idiotic and indeed exorbitantly expensive and nearly worthless human beyond Earth orbit spaceflight cause. These people have irreparably DAMAGED and DESTROYED the American human space flight program, and that isn’t going to change. Ever.

    Lisa Nowak hasn’t damaged American human spaceflight in any way shape or form compared to these cast of characters from the Bush Griffin era.

  • Mike Snyder

    delusion? Wow.

    Look at that response. If you represent “hard corp space enthusiats” then you share a measure of responsibility for where we are now. With an attitude like this, the obvious and misplaced anger and general lack of respect to even carry on a conversation, then no wonder the “space advocay” community is in the shape it is in and percieved the way it is.

    Congratulations. Continue to blame others this way but do not forget to look in the mirror along the way.

  • Kinsey Therapist

    If you represent “hard corp space enthusiats” then you share a measure of responsibility for where we are now.

    Dude, you have no idea who you are talking to and what you are talking about. It is documented that I was the very first person and nearly the only person to ream Michael Griffin and George Bush a new one in late September and early October of 2005. I was willing to go along with the farce and folly after Columbia, but only if it reinstated the rationality and affordability of the Space Launch Initiative in propulsion and launch, and resulting in the immediate use of EELVs. I was willing to go that far.

    But it didn’t happen, and I vocally, loudly called the Stick and ESAS for what it was, a corrupt and irresponsible sham by a bunch of ignorant astronauts feeding nonsense to a dictatorial and incompetent engineer.

    You can call me anything you want, but cowardly isn’t in my character.

    Now here we are, ten year later after SLI, and where do we stand? Looking at another five years and $10 billion dollars funneled down an engineering black hole. Do please enjoy your non-existent and delusional beyond Earth orbit space program for another five years of not flying beyond LEO. I’m perfectly happy with that future result, because it’s your delusion, not mine.

    You know what I think? You should hire Steve Cook and Doug Stanley back to engineer your Direct 3.0 ten billion dollar one flight every two years Jesus rocket. Those Huntsville boys got the jesus, how could that go wrong?

  • Martijn Meijering

    Dude, you have no idea who you are talking to

    What, your name isn’t really Kinsey Therapist? I’m shocked!

  • googaw

    Kinsey Therapist takes it on the chin for daring to talk real:

    All I have to do is mention Doc Whorowitz, Marsha Ivins and Mark Kelly, and you just lost quite a few more hard core human space flight advocates from your delusional and idiotic and indeed exorbitantly expensive and nearly worthless human beyond Earth orbit spaceflight cause.

    That said, the corruption started long before this cast of characters. It’s inherent in the economic-rationality-free cult of HSF, their worship of useless astronauts, and their various ways of begging for and using government money. Which, “commercial” or otherwise they utterly depend upon since actual private tourists are not stupid enough to sign up for this nonsense unless they are billionaires paying the marginal costs of marginal costs.

    Fortunately, some NewSpace companies like SpaceX are starting to wake up to this mass delusion we’ve been under and are starting to realize that freedom from the NASA teat requires economic rationality which means real commerce that actually does useful things for people on earth.

  • DCSCA

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 24th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    Never say never. NACA disappeared. GM went bankrupt. It is entirely possible in years to come to see NASA broken up and its assets folded into existing aeronautical and space research elements of other existing agencies- DoD, FAA, NOAA etc., especially if NASA’s operational overhead keeps sapping more and more costs to keep the agency around. It is far too layered now with deadwood. It needs a 30% cut across the board in staff and affiliated operations.

  • DCSCA

    Example- cleaning out poor managment. After Columbia, Dittmore and Hamm should have been immediately fired from NASA.

  • Please don’t feed the Elifritz troll, folks.

  • Beeble Brox

    And by all means, please continue to enable and apologize for Rand’s trans terrestrial groupies to namejack, smear, shout down and subvert any good discussion with anti-science teatotling conservative propaganda and dogma.

Leave a Reply to Martijn Meijering 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>