Congress, NASA

The debate over the NASA bill, and its passage [updated]

Update 11:45 pm: The House did pass the bill in a recorded vote by well over the two-thirds margin needed: 304-118.

For about 45 minutes this evening the House debated S. 3729, the NASA authorization bill. Because the bill is taken up under suspension of the rules, the debate was relatively streamlined, with no opportunity for introducing amendments. Most of those speaking, including Reps. Bart Gordon (D-TN), Ralph Hall (R-TX), and Pete Olson (R-TX), were reluctantly in favor of the bill, saying it wasn’t perfect but it was better than none at all. Some of the claims bordered on (or perhaps were fully) hyperbolic: Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) claimed that if the House didn’t pass the bill, President Obama would succeed in shutting down the nation’s human spaceflight program by the end of the year.

A notable exception was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), chair of the House Science Committee’s space subcommittee, who spoke “in strong opposition” to the bill, calling it a “bad bill” that the House should vote down. Over the course of about seven minutes she laid out her issues with the bill, ranging from a lack of funding specified for an additional shuttle mission to a heavy-lift launch vehicle “designed by our colleagues” in the Senate as opposed to engineers, to its support of “would be” commercial providers.

The speaker pro tem declared at the end of the debate that the yeas had won the voice vote, but after a bit of an awkward pause, Giffords formally requested a recorded (roll call) vote. That will take place later tonight; perhaps much later, as the House is now moving on to debate the continuing resolution to fund the government after Thursday. The vote will take place tonight, though, as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer announced this evening that the House will adjourn after tonight’s votes until November 15th, after the mid-term elections. Note that under suspension of the rules the bill will need a two-thirds majority to pass.

67 comments to The debate over the NASA bill, and its passage [updated]

  • /scI/owan

    *fingers crossed*

  • James T

    Long time reader. First time poster.

    I have been following this issue/legislation and this website for several months now and I must say that I’m very surprised to find that I’m conflicted on how tonight’s vote comes. I’ve have always been in strong support of the Administration’s proposal, or anything close to it. I feel that, with some help, America’s space industry can cheaply provide commercial crew and cargo services before Constellation or any shadow form of it are ready to be fully utilized. To throw more money into such a black hole seems fiscally irresponsible to me. I would like to see the private sector reliably sending us to LEO while we put a strong boost into game changing technology to go from there to the rest of the solar system.

    Now with regards to tonight’s vote, it simply is a shame that we had to wait until the night before the new fiscal year to rush this flawed bill on the floor. I admit that both the Senate version and Gordon’s lasted House version of the bills are both a perfect balance of the Administrations proposal and the opposition, but just because the ideas were balanced doesn’t mean the budget’s balanced. The funding is spread too thin for a program that makes sense. Part of me feels that going ahead with this version of the bill might be a recipe for disaster. And they’re voting on it now…

  • And to Amightywind…

    you were wrong wrong wrong!!!!

    Go back and hide under Mike Griffin’s shrinking, shameful shadow.
    Begone with you and your trollish brethren.

    You lost.
    America won.

  • Doug Lassiter

    It is worth pointing out that in this forum and elsewhere, authorization bills have been repeatedly denigrated as being of little interest or value. Now, here we all are, on our toes and jumping up and down about, wringing our hands about, calling our legislators about, and actively debating precisely that. Fact of the matter is, these authorization bills express the long range “plan” that the one-year appropriations bills fund. Sure, the appropriators can fund whatever they want to fund, but it has to be done somewhat slyly if it isn’t consistent with what is authorized. Authorization constitutes Congressional “vision”. In this case, their vision leaves something to be desired, but at least it tries to be a vision.

  • mr. mark

    Yeah we win! Griffin you lose :p LOL Spacex and Boeing and NASA we salute you. Everyone have a great evening, I’m partying. Bennet… you may have just got your human funding for Spacex. Elon’s vision may become reality after all. And NASA just got their HLV let’s party!

  • Doug, the Senate appropriators have already passed out of committee an appropriation bill that tracks the 2010 NASA Authorization Bill very closely.

    And with a 2/3rds majority voting “Aye” tonight (in dramatic fashion) it will take much political capital to get the House appropriators to not follow suit.

    IMHO

    That said, it would be interesting to analyze the roll call vote to see how the appropriations committee people voted.

  • Scott Bass

    A great day for America we hope, now I recommend everyone read it ;) …..it sounds like we are going back to the moon ;)

  • It is good that the bill passed and I assume that the President will sign it. This repressents a defeat of the Bolden/Garver Feb. 1 space non-plan! We now will have a new POR which I will name Constellation-lite until such time as NASA announces a new name. We lose the Ares I and scale back the Ares V with our new HLV which we can call Ares IV!

    I which to thank Sens. Nelson and Hutchison for there thoughtful work in crafting this bill. The greatest thing about this is that in the final analysis we actually were about to utilize the political support of the pro-commerical people to defeat there plan and restore a sensible NASA program.

  • reader

    So how is nasa mandated to build _yet another launcher_ good news ?

  • Terence Clark/aremisasling

    I’ve liked the Senate bill since it was first offered. It answers some of the issues in the administration’s plan, but keeps commercial in the game and doesn’t totally backtrack to Cx. But I have to say, Gordon and Giffords do have a point. Congress shouldn’t be designing our next spacecraft and adding a shuttle flight without financing to match is a problem. Congress seems to like to spend money we don’t have, but that’s on the top-level budgets. Once the high-water mark is set, ie the $19 billion, there’s no going over it without another act of congress. So the result is clearly that other programs suffer. It’s why Altair went bye bye and why the precursor missions had to be reinstated in the current bill.

    I strongly disagree with Giffords’ snarky ‘would be’ clause on commercial. I think commercial is well on the way to proving themselves. And among those in the game is the one company that holds the longest continuous record of manned spaceflight development and operations. The only thing I can think is that Giffords climbed aboard a ship she can’t get off of. While fewer and fewer colleagues are denouncing commercial with every passing month, it seems she’s sticking to the script because to do otherwise would be to admit she was firmly on the wrong side of the issue.

  • Matt Wiser

    Yippee!! Scott, let’s hope you’re correct, and we can get there sooner than Constellation would’ve. Now the burden is on the commercial side for them to deliver for the LEO mission, and for the decision on what kind of HLV to put Orion on for BEO. And then build it, test it, and then fly it. Lunar orbit first, maybe GEO, then pick a destination beyond the Earth-Moon system and go. Preferably L-M’s Plymouth Rock mission. And follow Ed Crawley’s advice: while we’re doing this deep-space stuff, the lunar systems can be developed and then used. All that to get ready for the big one: Mars itself.

  • Bennett

    Best wishes to you too Mr. Mark! I love your enthusiasm, and we both know… ad astra!

  • NASA will still need an Ares 1, or something rather like it, to reach the cis-lunar/ trans-planetary space-craft, which would be put in parking orbit, unmanned, priorly. Whether launched by an Ares 4 or an Ares 5, the separate launchings of the manned Orion craft and the Altair lander craft/ earth escape stage, is STILL a wise choice of flight mode. This scheme was a safety measure, conceived after the Columbia disaster. In the event of an in-launch rocket explosion of the heavy-lift launcher, the crew would not be on-board, hence, no fatalities. Plus, the separately-launched Orion would have a launch escape system in place, in the event of an explosion occuring on the smaller rocket, during the ascent to parking orbit.

  • Alex

    I still have yet to see any evidence that NASA can build an-line SDHLV on a reduced budget and by 2016. We’ve traded one unaffordable architecture for another.

  • mr. mark

    Ares I is dead! It is not budgeted in the Senate bill. Only further SRB study is budgeted in conjuction with HLV. Look to Delta IV for the answer for Orion to LEO or the NEW NASA inline direct vehicle!

  • NASA will still need an Ares 1, or something rather like it, to reach the cis-lunar/ trans-planetary space-craft, which would be put in parking orbit, unmanned, priorly.

    I think we will use the Delta IV heavy to launch crew vehicles into orbit. That would also work for transporting crews to the ISS until commercial crew is operational and as a back up to commercial crew after.

  • Chris Castro wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 12:42 am

    The current plan at NASA is to either launch the crew on a separate commercial rocket/capsule and have them board Orion in space, or to equip Orion with an escape tower and stick it on top of the heavy lifter. I imagine they will hold off as long as possible making a decision on this. Neither option presents a safety issue that would necessitate spending the remaining $50 billion to develop and operate Ares I.

  • Coastal Ron

    John wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 12:24 am

    We now will have a new POR which I will name Constellation-lite until such time as NASA announces a new name.

    Sure, if you consider that there is no more Ares I, no more EDS, no more Altair, no more Moon mission, and the Ares V launcher has been discarded and replaced with something less than half as capable – OK, if you think Constellation is still alive, then who am I to rip you from your fantasy world. Sweet dreams… ;-)

  • mr. mark

    I AM TOTALLY STOKED! Now Spacex can get it’s funding for commercial manned and it’s LAS. NASA get’s it’s inline Direct launcher. It’s like waking up at Christmas and finding all the toys you wished for were under the tree.I just can’t believe it!

  • DCSCA

    mr. mark wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 1:15 am
    I AM TOTALLY STOKED! Now Spacex can get it’s funding for commercial manned and it’s LAS<— Not from the government, but the private sector. No government funds will ever get into the hands of SpaceX.

  • DCSCA

    John wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 12:24 am <– Kraft's editorial some weeks pack explained how it will be done. This is a good step forward. Ms. Garver best have her resume ready and Bolden expect to take retirement next year,

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Coastal Ron,

    Who cares how capable Ares-V was supposed to be if it was never affordable? The Project Orion nuclear pulse launcher could fire multi-kilotonne masses into LEO but was never affordable or remotely publicly acceptable so there’s no point debating it.

    The SLS may be smaller but it is scalable, one major advantage of the EELV concept that the orthodox Ares Launch System entirely lacked. Even if only the two core versions (three-engine one stage and four-engine core, J-2X upper stage) appear, that will still offer more flexibility than Ares-V could. Adding just two more variants (a lighter two-engine one-stage and a three-stage version of the four-engine version) would completely fill all NASA’s stated HLV needs. This, it is worth noting, from a 90%-common core stage.

    Speaking as a DIRECT fan of long standing, the D-SDLV In-line/Jupiter/SLS is hardly ideal. However, given that shuttle-derived is a political prerequisite (as O’Keefe and co found to their cost), something like this is probably the best that could be hoped for at this stage.

  • Aggelos

    we dont need Delta iv for Orion..
    The sdhlv will launch it..thats the plan on senates bill..
    dont make it complicated..One goverment rocket only ,,scalable with variations.but One..
    dont mix eelvs..they will have their comemrcial taxi job to do..

  • Das Boese

    Congratulations to America from across the pond.

    Now that the future of ISS is secure and commercial transport services underway, I hope we can finally start using the damn thing.

    In the long haul, my hope is that the end of Constellation will be seen as the final goodbye to cold war paradigms of “national” space programs and the realization that truly sustainable space exploration can only be done by mankind as a whole.

  • C.R. Keith

    @James T wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 11:35 pm “Now with regards to tonight’s vote, it simply is a shame that we had to wait until the night before the new fiscal year to rush this flawed bill on the floor.”

    That should tell you a great deal about the true priority of space with this administration, which appears in sync with previous administrations.

  • Aggelos

    “In the long haul, my hope is that the end of Constellation will be seen as the final goodbye to cold war paradigms of “national” space programs and the realization that truly sustainable space exploration can only be done by mankind as a whole.”

    from your mouth to the God’s ear…

    When Nasa takes officially the decision for Hlv,,,Europe,Russia,japan ,,all will follow with their plans..

  • byeman

    Orion will fly on an EELV

  • Egad

    Coastal Ron said,

    ” there is no more Ares I, no more EDS, no more Altair, no more Moon mission, and the Ares V launcher has been discarded and replaced with something less than half as capable”

    Maybe it’s still too early to expect to see much, but has there been any indication what NASA is expecting to launch on the new HLV? Not EDS and not Altair, but — what? And how much will it cost to develop and procure the “what”?

  • Aggelos

    “Orion will fly on an EELV”

    where you saw that? o Senate bill?I didnt

  • byeman

    It is already in work

  • Dennis Berube

    It looks like an Ares style heavy launcher will fly along with Orion, along with some move toward commercial. At least in all of this we wil have deep space ability.

  • Coastal Ron

    Egad wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 9:06 am

    Maybe it’s still too early to expect to see much, but has there been any indication what NASA is expecting to launch on the new HLV? Not EDS and not Altair, but — what? And how much will it cost to develop and procure the “what”?

    Good question, and one of the reasons many of us don’t see a need for an HLV just yet. In short, there are no planned payloads for an HLV. There are hoped-for payloads, but there are no firm or projected needs.

    It will be interesting to see how this all plays out…

  • amightywind

    Jim Muncy wrote @ September 29th, 2010 at 11:39 pm

    And to Amightywind…
    you were wrong wrong wrong!!!!
    Go back and hide under Mike Griffin’s shrinking, shameful shadow.
    Begone with you and your trollish brethren.
    You lost.
    America won.

    Mike Griffin’s Orion on Direct is acceptable to me. Heck, it will use more SRB segments per flight. And the growth potential of the rocket (always the problem with Direct) will be totally dependent on them. It is a great day for ATK! I’m not going anywhere!

  • amightywind

    Das Boese wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 5:04 am

    Now that the future of ISS is secure and commercial transport services underway, I hope we can finally start using the damn thing.

    We, huh? Well, at least for next year. Clinton never did a worse thing than getting us tied up with foreigners who don’t pull their weight. It gives you standing that you do not merit. ISS is the root of all problems with America’s space program.

  • No government funds will ever get into the hands of SpaceX.

    Stop being an idiot. SpaceX has already received many tens of millions of government funds, for COTS, in return for completed milestones. The same will occur for commercial crew.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 10:42 am

    Heck, it will use more SRB segments per flight. And the growth potential of the rocket (always the problem with Direct) will be totally dependent on them. It is a great day for ATK! I’m not going anywhere!

    So it is true – you don’t care how we get to space, as long as ATK benefits…

  • Coastal Ron

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 4:00 am

    Who cares how capable Ares-V was supposed to be if it was never affordable?

    No debate there. I was responding to a poster that seemed to think that “Constellation” was still going.

    Speaking as a DIRECT fan of long standing, the D-SDLV In-line/Jupiter/SLS is hardly ideal. However, given that shuttle-derived is a political prerequisite (as O’Keefe and co found to their cost), something like this is probably the best that could be hoped for at this stage.

    I was a DIRECT fan until I dug into the costs associated with any Shuttle-derived architecture. I don’t see the need for an HLV at this time, but if we have to have one (your “political prerequisite”), then the least costly option would be my choice, and DIRECT is probably it.

    However, there is a difference between what Congress wants, and what they are willing to pay for. It remains to be seen if their SLS is even build-able in that regard.

  • “Orion will fly on an EELV”

    where you saw that? o Senate bill?I didnt

    Not in the Bill, but the Orion will be ready to fly a long time before the HLV. So what will the do the unmanned test on? Delta IV heavy will do. So once the cross that line the next step is that LEO crewed missions can be launched that way too.

  • amightywind

    Delta IV heavy will do.

    You ignore that the Delta IV is not man-rated. The SDLV is composed of man-rated components making certification of the vehicle infinitely easier. besides the Delta IV is too small.

  • You ignore that the Delta IV is not man-rated.

    It can be, for a lot less money than building an SDLV, which doesn’t even exist.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 1:11 pm

    You ignore that the Delta IV is not man-rated.

    Ares I was not either – it was planned to be, but they didn’t finish addressing all the issues related to human flight on an SRB-only rocket.

    ULA has stated that they can man-rate Delta IV Heavy for $1.3B, and that it would cost $300M/flight. It’s flying now, it’s proven, and it gains flight heritage with every Delta IV & -Heavy flight. Most importantly, it doesn’t require NASA to keep an army of contractors standing around waiting for Congress to fund it’s next flight.

  • Let me clear up my comments. When I speak of using the Delta IV for the crew vehicle I only talking about test and crewed missions to the ISS. I think the certification issues might be worked out during the uncrewed test phase.

    When we are talking Moon missions then we would use the HLV to orbit the crew vehicle and the lunar lander to LEO in one package. An use another HLV to place the EDS into orbit. The lunar payload then docks and we are off to TLI.

  • Aggelos

    Delta iv is too small for Orion..for land landing for example..for alot of things..
    why cut things from Orion?

    Orion will NOt be a leo taxi..only for some tests will fly there..

    the leo taxi service will be with commercials..

  • Ferris Valyn

    Aggelos – you can put a BEO Orion on a Delta IV.

    You just can’t put the LAS on top of it, and get it into orbit.

    Of course, if you have commercial taxis to LEO, why not just launch it unmanned, and dock with a CST-100 or a Dragon or Dreamchaser?

  • amightywind

    John wrote:

    When we are talking Moon missions then we would use the HLV to orbit the crew vehicle and the lunar lander to LEO in one package. An use another HLV to place the EDS into orbit. The lunar payload then docks and we are off to TLI.

    I have not seen a coherent Direct proposal for the lunar or NEO mission. Is there one published? You would think the Senate would have thought about that before they designed the rocket. What you suggest is the Ares profile with the Altair offloaded from the EDS launch. I am not sure even the rosiest upgrade scenarios for Direct support this. The EDS won’t be large enough. I guess we will find out.

  • Windy –

    Posting as a fanboy and not a team member, I believe DIRECT asserts that two Jupiter 246 can deliver more mass TLI than Ares 1 + Ares V. AFAIK, the DIRECT lunar reference mission is the baseline NASA lunar mission, with greater margins.

    Here are some links:

    Loose summary:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT#Lunar_Mission_Architecture

    2009 ISDC paper

    http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/DIRECT_ISDC_2009.pdf

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    I have not seen a coherent Direct proposal for the lunar or NEO mission. Is there one published? You would think the Senate would have thought about that before they designed the rocket.

    A decent question. However, one thing it highlights to me is the that you and others keep looking at Moon missions from the standpoint of one-off trips. This is just an observation, not a criticism.

    I look at future travel to the Moon from the standpoint of building up assets and keeping them there. So for me, it makes sense for lunar equipment to be sent ahead to a staging area (EML1?) to wait for the crew. Maybe chemical rockets are used for departure, or maybe VASIMR-type engines are used. The main point is that there will be a supply line established that is separate from the crew/explorers.

    People can be launched to LEO using any commercial carrier, and meet up with an EDS – or wait at the ISS or a way-station in LEO for their transportation vehicle to pick them up.

    None of this is dependent on any particular-sized launcher – the hardware dictates the size of the launcher needed, not the mission. For now, we have a lot of 5m diameter space tested hardware that we can utilize for space-only vehicles and assemblies. Once we get established in space, then we’ll figure out what types of heavy payloads we really need an HLV for, and that will be the right time to build one. But anything before that is a waste of money.

    My $0.02

  • Egad

    Coastal Ron:

    “Once we get established in space, then we’ll figure out what types of heavy payloads we really need an HLV for, and that will be the right time to build one. But anything before that is a waste of money.”

    That’s what worries me a bit about the Senate mandate to develop SLS/HLV by 2016. Not only will there (probably) not be anything for it to launch then and for some significant amount of time thereafter, but there’s also the fact that the thing isn’t going to be cheap to design and build. I.e., it’s going to be sucking up a fair amount of money at least in the period 2011-2016, and money is going to be scarce in those years. What gets cut so the HLV can be developed and put on the shelf?

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Coastal Ron, Almightywind,

    The most detailed information that the DIRECT team published was the AIAA paper back in 2007. This included their full v.2.0 evolution from LEO to Mars Semi-Direct (aka DRM 3.0). Most of the details still apply, although you need to swap their v.2 RS-68A core for the v.3 SSME core and their original 2 x J-2S upper stage for the current 6 x RL-10B-2 one.

    In essence, the DIRECT asteroid mission was not an early phase mission as is currently envisaged. Rather it was part of the integrated beyond Earth-Moon phase that came after the lunar outpost. This included such things as Venus orbiters and, of course, Mars landings (by both robot and human sample return missions). In essence, due to the much greater fuel capacity and better boil-off mitigation (Centaur-derived) of the Jupiter Upper Stage compared to the current NASA CPS, the huge DRM 5 spacecraft proposed by the HEFT team is unnecessary. Instead, the vehicle uses just one EDS (launched seperately) and the Mars Lander’s own engines for ROI. However, as their focus had always been to show that the Jupiter could carry out the Constellation DRMs (which were lunar excursions and the operating of the lunar outpost) these plans are really only concept sketches.

    If you’re really interested, the paper is downloadable as a PDF from their website.

    If I was asked to develop such a mission now, I would launch two stacked ACES-41 propulsion modules on one J-246H and the Orion and ATV-derived habitat on a second. These would rendezvous in LEO before performing TOI. ROI would be carried out by a propulsion pack on the base of the ATV, possibly with AJ-10-190s or maybe modified versions of the Ariane-5’s original hypergolic upper stage engine.

  • DCSCA

    “@Rand Simberg wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 11:52 am
    No government funds will ever get into the hands of SpaceX. Stop being an idiot. SpaceX has already received many tens of millions of government funds, for COTS, in return for completed milestones. The same will occur for commercial crew.”

    Stop being rude. Contracted payments are obviously different from loan guarantees and government subsidies for any program development that has yet to demonstrate it can fly crews safely, and you again are peddling the ‘press release’ position of promises of ‘things to come'; that they will get funding for ‘commerical crew’ — yet the fact remains, they have flown nobody. Nobody. Get a grip, man.

    Apologists for SpaceX, several on this blog alone, are making excuses for SpaceX not living up to its own hype, measuring ‘success’ w/o manned flights as a benchmark, which we both know are central to the success of commerical space ventures, be they made by SpaceX or other firms. Hauling cargo, like the Russian Progress has been doing for three decades, is nothing special. Manned flight remains the key. As long as the commercial space calculus concludes that the value of success outweighs the cost of failure, they’ll never fly crewed vehicles. ‘Free market’ forces keep crewed commerical spaceflights grounded as strongly as gravity and the limits of the technologies on hand. That’s why governments do it- and will continue to do so. The United States flew Shepard in ’61 on a rocket-propelled system w/a 60% success rate. The motive was political, not profit and the value of success outweighed the cost of failure and pressed on. A private-enterprised, ‘for-profit’ concern would never have risked financial disaster flying Shepard with those success/failure numbers. That’s why governments do it- and will continue to do so in this era. The day a private enterprised, commerical firm successfully launches and orbits a crewed spacecraft and returns safely to earth is the day the era of government-funded manned spaceflight is bookended. That’s your immediate goal, fella. Accomplish that, and the floodgates for government subsidies as well as loan guarantees will open.

  • DCSCA

    ^– transposed terms, meant to say: “…the the cost of failure outweighs the value of success, they’ll never fly crewed vehicles…”

  • Contracted payments are obviously different from loan guarantees and government subsidies for any program development that has yet to demonstrate it can fly crews safely,

    Despite your demented fantasies, SpaceX has never asked for “loan guarantees or government subsidies.” It is hoping to get a contract, like COTS, in which it delivers milestones for a fixed price.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 4:53 pm. “It [Spacex] is hoping to get a contract, like COTS, in which it delivers milestones for a fixed price.” <– Hope springs eternal and a fixed price pitch from a commerical enterprise that has yet to fly crewed spacecraft in a fluid 'free market' is fantasy, if not at heart, and a disincentive on free market competition. When they or any other commercial space enterprise flies a crewed spacecraft successfully is the week they'll get subsidies, contracts and loan guarantees.

  • Major Tom

    “Accomplish that, and the floodgates for government subsidies as well as loan guarantees will open.”

    The “floodgates” have already opened. The authorization bill passed last night provides $612 million in FY11 and over $1.6 billion over three years for commercial crew development agreements and services contracts.

    Try to keep up instead of trolling this forum with the same out-of-date and ignorant statements.

  • amightywind

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    A decent question. However, one thing it highlights to me is the that you and others keep looking at Moon missions from the standpoint of one-off trips.

    No. I consider the moon or NEO mission to be a minimal benchmark of what is useful, meaningful exploration.

    People can be launched to LEO using any commercial carrier, and meet up with an EDS

    Great. Let them develop the capability, but not at the exclusion of a rational follow on to the space shuttle.

  • Byeman

    “but not at the exclusion of a rational follow on to the space shuttle.”

    And that is not Ares I

    “Aggelos – you can put a BEO Orion on a Delta IV.
    You just can’t put the LAS on top of it, and get it into orbit. ”

    Yes, it can

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 30th, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    No. I consider the moon or NEO mission to be a minimal benchmark of what is useful, meaningful exploration.

    I think you missed the point. One-off missions, no matter where you’re going, would require that you take everything with you. If you have infrastructure that you’re pushing out ahead of you, then you don’t need to launch everything on one or two launches.

    Let them develop the capability, but not at the exclusion of a rational follow on to the space shuttle.

    No one is building a follow-on to the Shuttle – there are no multi-purpose reusable winged-spacecraft that are being funded. Instead we are regressing back to relying on capsules and unmanned payload launchers.

    Without the Shuttle, and without extending the Soyuz contract past 2015, how will the ISS rotate crew? The Senate bill stated that NASA was only a backup to commercial crew, and NASA won’t have their SLS ready to fly by 2016 anyways (underfunded to start).

    Senate Bill 3729 302.c.1.D:
    The capability to serve as a backup system for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.

    Boeing, ULA and SpaceX (plus everyone else) won’t take on a NASA-specific task without NASA putting up at least part of the cost. Boeing and SpaceX don’t have a deadline for when they have to have their capsules “man-rated”, but NASA has a looming deadline for ISS crew rotation.

    Since you don’t like the ISS anyways, I know what your answer would be, but Congress has mandated the ISS to continue, so NASA will have to pay commercial crew companies to perform their crew rotations for them – there is no way around it.

  • Frediiiie

    It’s interesting to watch how different people react to the passage of the bill. HLV fans think they’re getting a HLV (any HLV) Commercial crew fans think they’re getting commercial crew and that will save the day.
    I would remind everybody that these congressional mandates still have to be put into effect by NASA.
    And remember this is the same NASA that gave us Constellation.
    I can not seriously see them developing any HLV on half the budget and in half the time they took to fail to develop Ares .
    Hey I might be wrong.
    But what I fear is that the rest of NASA’s budget, including commercial, will be consumed attempting to complete the HLV beast.
    I hope I’m wrong.
    I really do.

  • Aggelos

    “No one is building a follow-on to the Shuttle – there are no multi-purpose reusable winged-spacecraft that are being funded.”
    And Dreamchaser?

  • byeman

    Dreamchaser is not “multi-purpose’. It is only a crew transfer vehicle

  • Coastal Ron

    Frediiiie wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 3:27 am

    And remember this is the same NASA that gave us Constellation.

    Actually Constellation was given to us by Griffin, so luckily we don’t have to worry about that part.

    However, the NASA organization takes some credit for the mis-management of the Constellation program, since they figured that schedule slips and cost escalations were OK. This type of attitude needs to change, otherwise the fears you identify will continue to come true.

  • amightywind

    Since you don’t like the ISS anyways, I know what your answer would be, but Congress has mandated the ISS to continue, so NASA will have to pay commercial crew companies to perform their crew rotations for them – there is no way around it.

    Well, *this* congress let ISS continue. New leadership will be on board in a few months. I can only assume the same people who killed it in 2015 before will do so again. Does anyone think that setting $5G/yr of scarce funds alight is a good thing?

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ October 1st, 2010 at 1:33 pm

    Does anyone think that setting $5G/yr of scarce funds alight is a good thing?

    Are you saying $5,000 per year? A “G” is slang for a thousand, or are you somehow converting that to billion (as in $5B/yr)?

    In any case, if any money was wasted in a useless effort, it was Ares I. $10B to duplicate existing launcher capabilities (i.e. Delta IV Heavy), and no flight hardware was ever built.

    At least the ISS is built and operational, and many people in the U.S. and our partner countries think that it produces worthwhile results. You won’t find similar feelings about Ares I…

  • Byeman

    “Well, *this* congress let ISS continue.”

    And every subsequent one will too. Republicans aren’t going to cancel it.

    “I can only assume the same people”

    1. That was only Griffin
    2. the “me” part of assume is not applicable where as the rest of letters are.

  • Major Tom

    “Well, *this* congress let ISS continue. New leadership will be on board in a few months.”

    The prior, Republican-controlled Congress endorsed ISS in authorization bills and funded ISS through multiple appropriations bills.

    Think before you post.

    “I can only assume the same people who killed it in 2015 before will do so again.”

    It’s October 1, 2010. No one is killing anything in 2015 for another four years and two months.

    Don’t waste this forum’s time with idiotic statements.

    “Does anyone think that setting $5G/yr of scarce funds alight is a good thing?”

    The FY 2010 ISS budget is $2.3 billion. It’s not projected to exceed $2.7 billion through the runout.

    Don’t waste this forum’s time with ignorant statements.

Leave a Reply to Egad 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>