Congress, NASA

Gordon: House to vote on Senate authorization bill Wednesday

It appears that advocates of the Senate version of the NASA authorization bill have won their battle: House Science and Technology Committee chairman Bart Gordon issued a statement Monday afternoon saying that he anticipated the full House to take up the Senate bill on Wednesday. “It has become clear that there is not time remaining to pass a Compromise bill through the House and the Senate,” he says in the statement. “For the sake of providing certainty, stability, and clarity to the NASA workforce and larger space community, I felt it was better to consider a flawed bill than no bill at all as the new fiscal year begins.” Exactly how that vote will take place isn’t stated in the release, but one option would be to do it under suspension of the rules, which would prevent amendments whose inclusion could make it difficult to reconcile with the version the Senate passed in early August.

Gordon, though, made it clear he wasn’t happy with elements of the Senate version, including an “unfunded mandate” for an additional shuttle mission, its “overly prescriptive” language for a heavy-lift vehicle, and the lack of a timetable for development a government backup capability to commercial providers for ISS access. He also suggested that he’s not done fighting about those issues, either: “I will continue to advocate to the Appropriators for the provisions in the Compromise language.”

79 comments to Gordon: House to vote on Senate authorization bill Wednesday

  • Bennett

    This is the best news I’ve had in weeks.

    ““For the sake of providing certainty, stability, and clarity to the NASA workforce and larger space community, I felt it was better to consider a flawed bill than no bill at all as the new fiscal year begins.”

    Congressman Gordon, thanks for listening. ;-)

  • Robert G. Oler

    If this passes both Houses (the Senate version) and of course will be signed into law, it is a new day for America and Human spaceflight. It is truly the end of an era…that should have been over decades ago

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “It is truly the end of an era…that should have been over decades ago.”

    Until the process starts over again next year ith a very different Congress.

  • Appropriations wouldn’t seem to have a lot of time to consider the advocacies Griffin thinks he can promote there. As a retiring member of the House any power he may have had is rapidly declining.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    what a joke

    The process is only going to “start over again” if there is not a bill. If there is a bill then the shuttle era, the era of mindless exploration, the era of Cx is over.

    By this time next year there wont be any Cx, Shuttle infrastructure left to restart and all the people will be gone. And commercial will be a long way toward cranking up.

    you are goofy if you think NASA is going to get more money for a mindless exploration game…

    but be goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • Martijn Meijering

    By this time next year there wont be any Cx, Shuttle infrastructure left to restart and all the people will be gone.

    How so? The extra Shuttle mission is a stopgap measure designed to keep the workforce around for long enough for its supporters in Congress to devise a more permanent solution.

  • Once the Senate version is passed, NASA will finally get back the heavy lift capability that Richard Nixon terminated back in the 1970’s. And this will be the beginning of a new era for NASA. Because once the HLV is built, we’ll have to use it!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    first off there is no guarantee the LON is going to become a real mission…cost are (typical NASA) mounting and money is tight…but the LON occurs amidst a workforce that is being shown the door, infrastructure that is being capped and well the death panels are closing out the program.

    There wont be anything left by the time the budget wars heat up next year…and maybe even better the money will be less so its gone.

    It is a great day for those of us who are tired of HSF being technowelfare.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 6:24 pm

    Once the Senate version is passed, NASA will finally get back the heavy lift ..

    yes you are going to love the Delta IV super heavy!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    Once the Senate version is passed, NASA will finally get back the heavy lift capability that Richard Nixon terminated back in the 1970′s. And this will be the beginning of a new era for NASA. Because once the HLV is built, we’ll have to use it!”

    So Johnson and Nixon ended heavy lift for the United States and if NASA gets another heavy lift it would be impossible for another president or congress to kill it as to expensive?

  • Wodun

    The Space Show had a great supplemental classroom episode about the costs of fuel depots and heavy lift last Thursday. It was really enlightening to hear people who ran the numbers talk about them.

    It is good to know they are going with the senate version for the reason that Bennett quoted in the first post. Not perfect but not hanging out in lingo either.

  • @Vladislaw

    And HLV actually makes doing things in space a lot cheaper and simpler to do.

    An HLV could have deployed the ISS with just 2 or 3 launches instead of the 14 module launches. It also could have deployed modules with diameters large enough to accommodate internal centrifuges that could have helped to keep astronauts healthy under microgravity conditions.

  • Wodun, that episode of The Space Show Classroom is indeed fantastic and I recommend people listen to it. http://thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=1428

    However, as Dan said a number of times, he *hasn’t* run the numbers. His purpose of talking about this stuff is to encourage NASA and aerospace contractors to run the numbers as it is more work than just one man can do.

    Another reason to listen to that show: the two guests argued for 2.5 hours and neither called the other a name. About the closest thing to an insult was Dan suggesting that it was good that Dallas is quite “optimistic”. It’s a demonstration of how you can have civil disagreement and clarify positions to discover truth.

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler,

    Provide some proof of this Delta IV “super heavy” please and the results of how this “plan” has seemingly been hatched in secret. Provide evidence of the funding profile that would be allocated to ULA for new infrastructure and the rocket development that would be required in light of what has mentioned at length to be the intent of the Senate. Why Delta IV in the first place and provide evidence and verifiable data on how this down-select was seemingly made. Why would this not be “techno-welfare” as well?

    Resolve the discrepency for us on how the Senate bill is fairly specific on what an HLV should entail, as well as what NASA is currently centering on, yet lead to what you describe.

    Answer these questions with verifiable data and we can likely go from there.

  • Martijn Meijering

    That would not have made it cheaper. You don’t design a launch vehicle for 2 or 3 launches. At least not if you’re not a moron.

  • @Robert Oler

    I wouldn’t mind seeing a Delta IV super heavy being developed. But that’s a much larger vehicle than the current Delta IV with larger 8 meter in diameter core boosters. But that would eliminate the need to develop the 5-segment solid rocket boosters which would not be too popular in Utah.

  • @Martijn Meijering

    “That would not have made it cheaper. You don’t design a launch vehicle for 2 or 3 launches. At least not if you’re not a moron.”

    Since I’d use an HLV primarily to deploy habitat modules and oxygen and hydrogen manufacturing machinery on the lunar surface requiring about 3 or 4 launches per years plus two manned launches per year, such an HLV would be heavily used.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:12 pm

    And HLV actually makes doing things in space a lot cheaper and simpler to do.

    Actually, upsized payloads cause lots of new problems. For instance, if you don’t build them near the launch site, then you have to find a new transport method (see the A380 transportation issues as a ref.). That adds cost. Building and testing the 4x larger payloads means that test fixtures & test chambers must be 4x larger, as does the fixtures to build them in the first place.

    Your failure tolerance also goes up, since a launch failure now accounts for 4X more of your space assembly, and your flexibility to reconfigure your space station goes down because of so much integration.

    Upsizing of our current 5m payload diameters has not been proven to be required for the size upgrade either. The ISS astronauts have plenty of room in the 5m modules, and more room doesn’t mean that you can launch those bigger modules loaded (too much launch-only mass to cart around in orbit).

    Someday we’ll be at the point where we know we need to build larger, but we’re not there yet. If you commit yourself to a new standard before you understand what your needs are, your new standard won’t satisfy your needs. It’s not time yet.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Coastal Ron, you are using logic. Marcel is not driven by logic, nor does he respond to it. All we can hope for is that some of those who read these exchanges do respond to logic.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:40 pm

    Since I’d use an HLV primarily to deploy habitat modules and oxygen and hydrogen manufacturing machinery on the lunar surface requiring about 3 or 4 launches per years plus two manned launches per year, such an HLV would be heavily used.

    Bottom line is that the U.S. doesn’t want to spend that much on NASA, which is the only U.S. organization that would fund such a program.

    Looks like you better start saving up your allowance… ;-)

  • @Coastal Ron

    Its kind of difficult to place an internal centrifuge inside of a 5 meter in diameter habitat module; you probably need at least 6 meters. And, of course, we launched a larger in diameter habitat module back in the 1970s. It was called Skylab.

  • @ Martijn Meijering

    “Coastal Ron, you are using logic. Marcel is not driven by logic, nor does he respond to it. All we can hope for is that some of those who read these exchanges do respond to logic.”

    Logic is returning to the Moon to exploit its resources. Lack of logic is spending twice as much to plant a flag on an asteroid why frying the brains of your astronauts:-)

  • Marcel, “returning to the Moon to exploit its resources”, how? What makes you think NASA can do that?

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    If this passes both Houses (the Senate version) and of course will be signed into law, it is a new day for America and Human spaceflight. It is truly the end of an era…that should have been over decades ago…”

    Why do you care. Your own words void any serious pespective on human spaceflight from you:

    “Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.”

  • Personally, I’m of the belief that the government heavy-lifter will never get built. It’ll get the ax in some future budget cycle as Congress looks for easy ways to cut the deficit.

    But that’s fine with me. The solar system will be there when humanity as a species gets serious about exploration and is willing to share the cost among spacefaring nations. Meanwhile, we need to make access to space more routine and bring down the cost, which means a transition to private sector vehicles and space stations.

    Some talking head the other day drew a comparison to the early days of aircraft, pointing out that various government agencies help grow the technology. He cited air mail as an example. Here’s a link for those who are interested:

    http://www.airmailpioneers.org/history/Sagahistory.htm

    Particularly interesting is this passage near the end of the article:

    Taking all these happenings into consideration, the Postmaster General concluded that the time was fast approaching, or was actually at hand, when the transcontinental air mail route might be turned over to private contractors and operation successfully and profitably carried on by them.

    Guess who it was that won the initial bidding?

    Boeing.

    (Okay, who guesses AirX … ?)

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mike Snyder wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 7:25 pm

    the rocket development that would be required in light of what has mentioned at length to be the intent of the Senate….

    Mike, you need a basic civics lesson.

    The Intent of the Senate or the House is meaningless unless the language of the bill specifically says “build a Shuttle derived HLV and these are the parts you will use”.

    The bill DOENST do that. So once the bill comes to the POTUS desk and he signs it, then “the intent of The President” means everything within the frame work of the law.

    If the current Senate bill gets to Obama’s desk then if Charlie wants to build a shuttle derived vehicle he can do it…if he does not then he doesnt have to, all he has to do is think of a reason why he isnt, why it wasnt practical and it doesnt have to be anything more then “Sorry folks it was to expensive” or “it sucked” or (insert some words here).

    Unless a Bill of the Congress says “this research will be carried out using the four B-1A prototypes (and then gives their USAF serial numbers) ” then the USAF could have done the research which was funded to save the B-1 in any manner it pleased…but you see the CA delegation was really trying to save the B-1…

    not like this.

    As for Delta IV super heavy…the PDF is on the web.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    Until the process starts over again next year ith a very different Congress.

    True enough. Doesn’t this House have anything better to do, like calling in Steven Colbert to testify? This lame duck congress won’t be making any lasting decisions. No need for the GOP to compromise on anything when they will wield raw power in 3 months.

  • Major Tom

    “And HLV actually makes doing things in space a lot cheaper”

    History shows otherwise. Saturn V didn’t prove to be affordable for more than seven lunar landings. Energia never saw operational flights due to issues of affordability. No other HLV, from ALS to NLS to Ares V, has gotten off the drawing board because it always proved to be too expensive.

    “[An HLV] could have deployed modules with diameters large enough to accommodate internal centrifuges that could have helped to keep astronauts healthy under microgravity conditions.”

    There are several problems with this:

    1) A major reason to put humans on the ISS is to use them as test subjects to better understand the effects of long-duration exposure to microgravity on the human body. Although you don’t want them to become ill, putting astronauts in a centrifuge every day to counteract the effects of microgravity on the human body ruins the data you want to extract from the astronauts’ bodies as long-duration microgravity test subjects.

    2) A centrifuge must be kept below a spin rate of 2 rpms to avoid the dizziness, nausea, and disorientation induced by Coriolis effects on the inner ear. The minimum radius for a 1g centrifuge spinning at 2 rpms is about 225 meters, or 450 meters in diameter — nearly half a kilometer. A centrifuge that large not going to fit inside the interior of any space station module or the launch shroud of any HLV.

    3) The easiest way to create a half-kilometer wide centrifuge is to deploy two modules connected by a tether or other lightweight structure and spin them about their common center of mass. Launching and deploying that kind of structure doesn’t require an HLV.

    “Its kind of difficult to place an internal centrifuge inside of a 5 meter in diameter habitat module; you probably need at least 6 meters.”

    No, you need about a half-kilometer. Even partial-g centrifuges are going to need diameters that are a significant fraction of a kilometer if the astronauts are going to keep their food down.

    “Since I’d use an HLV primarily to deploy habitat modules and oxygen and hydrogen manufacturing machinery on the lunar surface requiring about 3 or 4 launches per years plus two manned launches per year, such an HLV would be heavily used.”

    This is an annual flight rate of only 5-6 launches per year — no more than the Shuttle program, itself a low flight rate that failed to drive down launch costs. It wouldn’t be a “heavily used” HLV.

    “Because once the HLV is built, we’ll have to use it!”

    That’s not what happened on Saturn V after seven lunar missions. And it’s certainly not what happened on Energia after only one test flight.

    Egregiously expensive hardware gets retired, not used.

    “Logic is returning to the Moon to exploit its resources.”

    Only if those resources are found in significant concentrations and only if processes are invented for extracting those resources with transportation, deployment, and operations costs that are less expensive than the costs of transporting those same resources from Earth.

    Logic dictates mounting the necessary and affordable robotic precursor missions to answer these “ifs” before committing to very expensive human missions that may only become more expensive if they’re dependent on scant lunar resources or expensive ISRU processes.

    “Lack of logic is spending twice as much to plant a flag on an asteroid why frying the brains of your astronauts”

    In terms of radiation exposure, there’s practically no difference between a multi-month mission to an asteroid and a multi-month stay on the lunar surface. Once you’re above the Van Allen Belts, short of a cave tens of meters underground, it’s duration, not location, that determines space radiation exposure.

    FWIW…

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    Its kind of difficult to place an internal centrifuge inside of a 5 meter in diameter habitat module…It was called Skylab.

    If the goal is to simulate Earth gravity to halt the muscle tone degradation of astronauts, then a 10m diameter assembly won’t cut it either. However, you could make a much large one from 5m building blocks… ;-)

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    Logic is returning to the Moon to exploit its resources.

    You don’t need logic – money and enthusiasm is what you’re missing.

    To the masses, the Moon is just another place in outer space – kind of like Mars, but not as interesting. Because of that lack of interest, and the lack of any real need for resources from the Moon, you are just tilting at windmills.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 9:38 pm

    No need for the GOP to compromise on anything when they will wield raw power in 3 months.

    Are you saying that Republicans are pro-government run transportation, and against private enterprise being given the chance to do it better and less expensively? Wow, their “Pledge To America” really was different… ;-)

  • reader


    “Because once the HLV is built, we’ll have to use it!”

    That’s not what happened on Saturn V after seven lunar missions. And it’s certainly not what happened on Energia after only one test flight.

    Egregiously expensive hardware gets retired, not used.
    ..

    oh .. say it isnt so ? Look at the Ironclads, Spruce Goose ..

  • Matt Wiser

    About time! Get it passed, signed into law, and then NASA can get down to business. Orion and heavy-lift work are funded, the commercial sector has a start, though not as big as the original FY 11 budget had, and everyone’s generally happy. (Oler and the other anti-HSF people excepted, of course)

  • Ferris Valyn

    except those who want to see BEO happen – there isn’t any money for it, since Super HLV sucks up the funding

  • @Coastal Ron

    “Bottom line is that the U.S. doesn’t want to spend that much on NASA, which is the only U.S. organization that would fund such a program.”

    Its too late! It looks like the President and the Congress are going to support a NASA budget that’s around $20 billion a year over the next 5 years. Even with the old budget, NASA was spending $8.4 billion a year on man spaceflight (space shuttle, ISS, and Constellation). That’s plenty of money for a Moon base program once the HLV and crew vehicle is completed.

    NASA is not going to develop an HLV and then not use it!

  • @Stephen C. Smith

    “Personally, I’m of the belief that the government heavy-lifter will never get built. It’ll get the ax in some future budget cycle as Congress looks for easy ways to cut the deficit.”

    Kind of difficult to significantly cut a $3.5 trillion US budget with a space program with a budget that’s way less than 1% of total Federal expenditures. Any cuts in the NASA budget only creates more poverty and joblessness.

  • DCSCA

    amightywind wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 9:38 pm <- Relax. Obamaspace as proposed is like commerical manned spaceflight: going no place fast. .

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 11:38 pm
    Any cuts in the NASA budget only creates more poverty and joblessness…

    actually no. unemployment checks are far more a multiplier in the local community then technowelfare.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    To understand why a SDV is becoming less and less “possible” (or to be fair “affordable”) one has to follow the bouncing ball of the layoffs.

    http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/09/ksc-arrival-et-122-marks-michoud-workforce-cull-hope-hlv-role/

    “The New Orleans facility will soon lose a significant amount of its workforce within days, as production grinds to a halt, now that all the flight tanks have been shipped.”

    since folks like Whittington love Sarah Palin…I continue to use the phrase “the death panels” are turning the lights out on the shuttle and its infrastructure daily.

    Delta IV super heavy…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Oler, isn’t that the point of pushing through the Senate bill? With authorization to immediately start a SDHLV they can come up with a reason to not lay off all those people. (thus ensuring the unsustainability of the program once again).

  • @ Robert G. Oler

    “actually no. unemployment checks are far more a multiplier in the local community then technowelfare.”

    Unemployment checks are fools gold that only results in the Federal government borrowing more money from foreign countries to fuel the Chinese manufacturing economy instead of our own.

    The Federal government’s investment in space technology has totally revolutionized the way we live. There would be no $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if governments hadn’t invented the satellite. An America without satellites would be a much poorer country.

    And space tourism, solar power satellites, mining the asteroids and someday even manufacturing our own Earth-like artificial worlds will dramatically increase our wealth and technological advancement.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 1:43 am

    There would be no $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if governments hadn’t invented the satellite.

    Uh, “governments” didn’t invent the satellite. They may have paid for a lot of the technology R&D to make them work and get them to space, but “governments” don’t usually invent things. And the commercial markets took over the R&D of satellites decades ago, so “governments” no longer get the credit.

    Somehow, I think, you’re trying to impress us with all the advancements government investment in space have brought us, but in the current world, space related technology development is not spinning off a lot of every day useful stuff – the commercial/industrial sectors are the driving forces behind innovation today. NASA hasn’t contributed much to technological innovation since the 60’s, or maybe the 70’s if you were generous.

    And for a current example, look no further than Constellation. How did Griffin describe it? Apollo on steroids! Constellation was not an example of new technology, it was the epitome of repackaged old technology. That’s how far NASA has sunk…

  • @Coastal Ron wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 8:10 pm

    “Its kind of difficult to place an internal centrifuge inside of a 5 meter in diameter habitat module…It was called Skylab.”

    If the goal is to simulate Earth gravity to halt the muscle tone degradation of astronauts, then a 10m diameter assembly won’t cut it either. However, you could make a much large one from 5m building blocks… ;-)

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 8:14 pm

    “Logic is returning to the Moon to exploit its resources.”

    You don’t need logic – money and enthusiasm is what you’re missing.

    To the masses, the Moon is just another place in outer space – kind of like Mars, but not as interesting. Because of that lack of interest, and the lack of any real need for resources from the Moon, you are just tilting at windmills.”

    1. Internal centrifuges are used to create high levels of simulated gravity a couple an hours a day to protect astronauts from the deleterious effects of a microgravity environment. To create a continuous 1G artificial gravity without the dizziness and nausea associated with the The Coriolis effect would require rotating a habitat module nearly a kilometer away from a central axis.

    2. If we’re going to spend nearly $20 billion a year on a space program, we might as well use it. Trapping NASA at LEO since 1973 hasn’t exactly made people enthusiastic about space travel. But, believe it or not, there hundreds of millions of Americans who are excited by space travel and who would love to travel to the Moon and Mars.

    3. Oxygen and hydrogen are extremely valuable extraterrestrial resources that are cheaper to deliver to low earth orbit from the Moon than from Earth. Using such extraterrestrial resources could make placing satellites into GEO a lot cheaper.

  • Jim Hillhouse

    I am unaware that the Appropriators had spoken.

    The Senate and House have been quarraleing over competing Authorization bills. Now comes the fight over appropriations. And there Gordon has a more receptive audience with Lewis.

    On the Senate side, all of this has to go through Mikulski and Shelby. Btw, guess who threw a fund-raiser in Huntsville for Sen. Mikulski not too long ago? Sen. Shelby. So these two will be working very close together. And even at the full Senate Appropriations Committee, it’s not like the White House has friends in Inouye and Cochran.

    This isn’t to say that everyone isn’t worried that the damage that 9th floor is doing to Constellation related work, so why not just get something voted. We’ll know soon enough.

    In the meantime, the proposal to outsource the human spaceflight program has been put on a very short leash while Orion survives. We get a new HLV while we wait to see how soon ULA can update the Delta IV to carry Orion.

    In a way, it’s a solution and nobody can declare victory…as long as everything is settled before the next Congress.

    If the House changes hands, things will get very interesting as Lewis leads House Appropriations, Wolf Space Approps, Hall Sci-Tech and Olson Sci-Tech Space Sub. Anyone want to guess to which two people an Olson Committee will first issue subpoenas? I doubt the GOP will pick up the House, but counting your chickens, as some are in declaring victory for the commercial side, is a bad strategy.

  • Dennis Berube

    Lets not forget also what Griffin said. You guys always point out what you think is the worse. He said, Apollo did it right, meaning it worked, so utilizing what you call old tech that has a good running record is not a bad thing. Also Orion is NOT the same craft, and now people are looking to send it on to an asteroid. Orion will have the ability to stay in space longer than Apollo ever could, it has more room, and is indeed an improvement on an old design. Also with touch control screens instead of switches for control of the vehicle, new dimensions have indeed been added. Orion is also designed for high speed Earth return from deep space, again necessary to save on fuel so that Earth orbit capture is not needed. while if may be Apollo on Steroids, it is a good sound design and I personally will be glad to see it achieved and man go back into deep space, whatever the destination. If a Delta heavy is utilized as a launch vehicle that is okay too, as llong as we have the ability to go forward our of LEO.

  • Jeff Foust

    I am unaware that the Appropriators had spoken.

    Indeed.

    On the Senate side, all of this has to go through Mikulski and Shelby. Btw, guess who threw a fund-raiser in Huntsville for Sen. Mikulski not too long ago? Sen. Shelby. So these two will be working very close together. And even at the full Senate Appropriations Committee, it’s not like the White House has friends in Inouye and Cochran.

    Mr. Hillhouse appears to be unaware that the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a CJS bill back in July whose NASA language closely tracks the Senate authorization bill. House appropriators have, for now, deferred to authorizers, so we’ll see what they’ll do assuming the House does pass the Senate authorization bill, and how much influence Congressman Gordon has with them for tweaking the language he disagrees with, as he noted in Monday’s statement.

  • Mike Snyder

    Robert G. Oler,

    You didn’t, again, answer a single question of mine. What you did do is “answer” it again with more conjecture and attempting to tell me I need a “civics” lesson.

    You are a joke and not one to be taken seriously at all.

  • mmeijeri

    If a Delta heavy is utilized as a launch vehicle that is okay too, as llong as we have the ability to go forward our of LEO.

    To do that we need a spacecraft, not a new launch vehicle. An existing Delta IV Heavy will do just fine.

  • Justin Kugler

    To add to Jeff’s comment about the CJS bill, Hutchison and Nelson already got Shelby’s agreement before they submitted the authorization bill. I hear that Hutchison threatened to push for indefinite Shuttle extension if Shelby didn’t go along with her and Nelson’s plan. There would have been no money for HLV development at MSFC under such an extension, so Shelby agreed to play ball.

  • Dennis Berube

    mmerjeri We will have the spacecraft, it looks like Orion is a go. That is what I thought I said. If the Delta is chosen for the job, Im sure it will deliver. That also however remains to be seen. Those 5 segment SRBs are hot and waiting..

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 1:43 am

    The Federal government’s investment in space technology has totally revolutionized the way we live. There would be no $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if governments hadn’t invented the satellite. ..

    there are so many problems with your position.

    First government did not invent “the satellite”.

    Second government did not invent the geo synch comm satellite…it was Hughes that did it in a joint NASA Hughes program

    Third none of this has a thing to do with human spaceflight which has not been a cost/value multiplier in sometime

    Robert G. Oler

  • Marcel wrote: You don’t need logic

    That would explain the majority of your comments.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Those 5 segment SRBs are hot and waiting..

    And are incredibly expensive, and don’t have any upper stage….

  • mike i

    So Oler if you have no need for HSF and technowelfare, why give any money to commercial guys? if they can survive without the government handouts fine, but if NASA is providing them any funding it is still technowelfare just different locations. If these companies could truly survive on tourists alone then I have no issue with them, but since they need to feed from the federal trough they are no different than the rest of us. Sure they may say they can do it on the cheap, but once NASA has lost the capability will their Enron accounting house of cards coming tumbling down and ask NASA for bigger piece of the pie as they are now too big to fail.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 2:51 am

    1. Internal centrifuges are used to create…” – I think you repackaged this from Major Tom’s post above, and unfortunately it bolstered the argument against you, not for you.

    2. … But, believe it or not, there hundreds of millions of Americans who are excited by space travel and who would love to travel to the Moon and Mars.” – Yes, and there was such an outcry when Obama and Congress cancelled our return to the Moon… NOT!

    3. Oxygen and hydrogen are extremely valuable extraterrestrial resources…” – only if there is demand for them, and there isn’t any. Just like there is no demand for the methane on Titan, or the Hydrogen & Helium on Jupiter. Some day, yes, but until then anything beyond robotic precursor missions would be a waste of taxpayer money.

  • byeman

    “And space tourism, solar power satellites, mining the asteroids and someday even manufacturing our own Earth-like artificial worlds”

    These are not the tasks of NASA or US Gov’t.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Nor are they helped by SLS.

  • @Major Tom

    “History shows otherwise. Saturn V didn’t prove to be affordable for more than seven lunar landings. Energia never saw operational flights due to issues of affordability. No other HLV, from ALS to NLS to Ares V, has gotten off the drawing board because it always proved to be too expensive.”

    That’s a total myth! The highest funding levels in– today’s dollars– for the Apollo program were from 1963 to 1968 during the development phase before the Moon program was fully operational. From 1969 until 1973, the NASA budget in today’s dollars was: $21.4 billion (1969), $18.8 billion (1970), $15.7 billion (1971), $15.1 billion (1972), and $14.3 billion (1973). During that time we sent Apollo 10 and 13 astronauts around the Moon, sent Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 astronauts to the lunar surface and placed a 77 tonne space station into orbit on a NASA budget generally about the same or lower than today’s NASA budget.

    There were things back in the late 60’s and early 70’s that were clearly not affordable like the Vietnam War. But NASA’s heavy lift program was not one of them!

    The Apollo program was a great success and a space station/Moon base program using Apollo hardware would have been even more affordable and successful.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “And HLV actually makes doing things in space a lot cheaper and simpler to do.

    An HLV could have deployed the ISS with just 2 or 3 launches instead of the 14 module launches. It also could have deployed modules with diameters large enough to accommodate internal centrifuges that could have helped to keep astronauts healthy under microgravity conditions.”

    A 10 meter core HLLV with a 14 meter shroud would allow you to launch a habitat module with an inside diameter of 36 feet.

    If you had an inner drum moving at an angular velocity of 6 revolutions per minute it would have a tangential velocity of 7.71 miles per hour and create a centripetal acceleration of .22% of gravity, more than the moon.

    With 6 astronauts at the ISS you could have 3 not using it as your base line and 3 doing different lengths of time in the drum to see how that moves from the baseline. 2x per day for an hour, 2x day for 2 hours, 2x day for three hours et cetera.

    2 rotations per minute would be .0245%
    3 rotations per minute would be .055%
    4 rotations per minute would be .09%
    5 rotations per minute would be .15% G
    7 rotations per minute would be .30% G

    It would still cost you 35-50 billion to develop the heavy lift to put that first habitat module into LEO. I do not believe we are there yet.

    For that 35-50 billion you could launch 12 – 30′ long and 15′ diameter modules and connect them end to end in a circle and rotate the entire circle, this would be cheaper and faster to do.

  • @Robert G. Oler

    “there are so many problems with your position.

    First government did not invent “the satellite”.”

    The Soviet Union and US governments did not fund and launch the first satellites into orbit? Keep reinventing history Oler:-)

  • byeman “And space tourism, solar power satellites, mining the asteroids and someday even manufacturing our own Earth-like artificial worlds”

    “These are not the tasks of NASA or US Gov’t.”

    One of the primary roles of the Federal government is to create an economic environment where it citizens can prosper. And there wouldn’t even be the possibility of private commercial launch companies or solar power satellites if it weren’t for the US tax payer’s investment in space through the Federal government.

  • @Rand Simberg

    Marcel wrote: You don’t need logic

    “That would explain the majority of your comments.”

    Actually, Coastal Ron said “You don’t need logic.”

  • byeman

    “The Soviet Union and US governments did not fund and launch the first satellites into orbit? ”

    That does not mean they invented them. Get a clue Williams

  • byeman

    “One of the primary roles of the Federal government is to create an economic environment where it citizens can prosper. ”

    It does not extend into space or off earth. Off earth settlements do no good for the USA.

  • No, you said it, up above:

    You don’t need logic – money and enthusiasm is what you’re missing.

  • DCSCA

    Dennis Berube wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 7:04 am
    “Apollo did it right, meaning it worked, so utilizing what you call old tech that has a good running record is not a bad thing.” <– what was 'right' about Apollo, aside from it's success utilizing, modifying and exploiting the technologies of the era on hand, was the methods and procedures learned as well as a stellar engineering/managment team that made the best use of industry/government/university teams to achieve a goal in a relatively short time frame. Apollo was as much a triumph of organization and planning as it was a successful achievement. They teach Apollo managment techniques at business schools today.

  • Googaw

    space tourism, solar power satellites, mining the asteroids and someday even manufacturing our own Earth-like artificial worlds

    Ah, the old sci-fi standbys.

    These have been coming Real Soon Now for at least five decades. Sure, let’s bring back the old propaganda about solar power satellites and O’Neill Colonies that helped sell the Shuttle, which was supposed to Radically Lower Launch Costs and help bring us to such glorious futures. Let’s recycle all the old heavenly visions to keep funding a vast army of bureaucrats who are supposed to magically reduce launch costs because they are building a Bigger Rocket Than Yours. Why invent new sci-fi frauds when you can take advantage of the short memories of young and gullible space fans by recycling the old ones?

    If you insist on spinning fantastic fiction at least try to bring a modicum of creativity and originality to the task. Sheesh.

  • Martijn Meijering

    the Shuttle, which was supposed to Radically Lower Launch Costs

    Why didn’t it RLLC? That’s a crucial question. Any thoughts on that?

  • Rhyolite

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 7:16 pm

    “Why didn’t it RLLC? That’s a crucial question. Any thoughts on that?”

    Two thoughts:

    Finding one solution for every problem rarely works. A smaller single purpose vehicle (e.g. cargo only) with fewer requirements and fewer compromises would have had more of a chance of being successful.

    That being said, I don’t think we were technologically to jump from expendable launch vehicles directly to a fully operational. That became apparent early in the development of shuttle.

    The US would be better off today if it had pursued an EELV like program early in the 70’s while investing in a series of technology demonstrators that lead stepwise to an RLV.

  • @Coastal Ron

    “Somehow, I think, you’re trying to impress us with all the advancements government investment in space have brought us..”

    I’m not trying to impress anyone. I’m just making a historical fact.

  • I should say that I’m stating a historical fact:-)

  • byeman wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    “The Soviet Union and US governments did not fund and launch the first satellites into orbit? ”

    “That does not mean they invented them. Get a clue Williams”

    Sorry that the historical facts don’t support your conclusions. But without governments and the tax payers that fund governments, there would be no satellites and no private satellite industry today. That’s just the facts!

    But if you hate government so much, there are libertarian paradises like Somalia where you could go:-)

  • @Googaw

    “Ah, the old sci-fi standbys.

    These have been coming Real Soon Now for at least five decades. Sure, let’s bring back the old propaganda about solar power satellites and O’Neill Colonies that helped sell the Shuttle, which was supposed to Radically Lower Launch Costs and help bring us to such glorious futures. Let’s recycle all the old heavenly visions to keep funding a vast army of bureaucrats who are supposed to magically reduce launch costs because they are building a Bigger Rocket Than Yours. Why invent new sci-fi frauds when you can take advantage of the short memories of young and gullible space fans by recycling the old ones?

    If you insist on spinning fantastic fiction at least try to bring a modicum of creativity and originality to the task. Sheesh.”

    Humans are very smart creatures. Just 12 years after the launching of the first satellite, people were walking on the surface of the Moon.

    The 21st century is going to be the century of space and humans will probably be living permanently on the surface of the Moon and Mars well before mid-century, IMO. But technological progress has always had cynics like yourself and probably always will.

  • But if you hate government so much, there are libertarian paradises like Somalia where you could go:-)

    Ah, the idiotic argumentum ab Somaliam.

    Why am I not surprised?

  • byeman

    “Sorry that the historical facts don’t support your conclusions. ”

    Get a clue, yes, they do support me. Satellites were invented (key word is invented) long before the US and USSR built and flew them.

    I don’t hate the gov’t, I actually work for it and I understand its role and it is not as you see it.

  • Googaw

    the Shuttle, which was supposed to Radically Lower Launch Costs

    (reply) Why didn’t it RLLC? That’s a crucial question. Any thoughts on that?

    Because RLLC was an economic fantasy to justify the funding in the first place. The fact that it never had any basis in economic reality didn’t do any harm to the NASA contractors and bureaucrats who made billions of dollars.

    Just as the vaunted microgravity industry we are supposed to have gotten out of ISS was techno-economic gibberish — even some of the microgravity scientists NASA was funding told us so against their interests. But the economic fantasy served to sell politicians again spending 100% other peoples’ money.

    Without a real market of private customers sufficient to cover the R&D as well as the operational costs, but instead glory-seeking governments or philanthropists pretending to be investors covering the costs, there is little or no economic incentives for the sellers of the project to either (a) tell anything remotely resembling the truth about costs in the first place, or (b) actually try very hard to reduce costs once one gets the money. So the projectors make up a bunch of absolutely wonderful sci-fi daydreams to convince a bunch of space fans and politicians to spend somebody else’s money on it. It’s a great scam that has been going on for decades and is still running strong. Although the distraction of just doing the obviously instead of nonobviously frivolous (i.e. “Exploration” a la Constellation or Plymouth Rock) has crimped the style of the RLLC scammers as will probable upcoming budget cuts.

    That said, there is admittedly still some prospect of SpaceX producing a much more modest, but still impressive, reduction in launch costs if they extract themselves from this scam cycle and keep moving to actual private markets.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @Rhyolite:

    Agreed. And interestingly von Braun wanted to build an intermediate vehicle first. If only people had listened to this man.

  • “Apollo did it right, meaning it worked, so utilizing what you call old tech that has a good running record is not a bad thing”

    Apollo was successful at getting canceled and creating a bureaucratic zombie that is still eating the brains of the nation today.

  • Major Tom

    “That’s a total myth! The highest funding levels in– today’s dollars– for the Apollo program were from 1963 to 1968 during the development phase before the Moon program was fully operational. From 1969 until 1973, the NASA budget in today’s dollars was: $21.4 billion (1969), $18.8 billion (1970)…”

    Your Apollo budget numbers prove my point. NASA’s FY 2010 budget is only $18.7 billion. We could wipe out everything that NASA does today — ISS, transport to/from ISS, exploration technology, aeronautics technology, science, civil servant salaries, etc. — and we’d still be hundreds of millions to billions of dollars short of affording Saturn V-based lunar landings or their HLV-based equivalent today within NASA’s budget.

    “There were things back in the late 60′s and early 70′s that were clearly not affordable like the Vietnam War. But NASA’s heavy lift program was not one of them!”

    If Apollo was affordable, then it wouldn’t have been cancelled.

    “The Apollo program was a great success and a space station/Moon base program using Apollo hardware would have been even more affordable and successful.”

    Apollo was successful at beating the Soviets in a Cold War demonstration of U.S. technical, especially aerospace and missile, prowess. It was not successful at establishing an affordable, sustainable means of expanding human frontiers in space (nor was it designed for such). If Apollo had been successful at the latter, then Apollo wouldn’t have been terminated.

    FWIW…

Leave a Reply to amightywind 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>