Another aspect of the election outcome is a new focus on budgets and spending. A major concern is the new Republican leadership would seek to make sharp cuts in spending across the board, including for NASA. Back in September the House GOP leadership proposed rolling back spending to FY2008 levels in its “Pledge to America”, which would trim NASA’s budget from the $19 billion proposed for FY2011 by nearly $2 billion. Such cuts would put additional stresses on the budget that some believe is already to small to carry out everything NASA is tasked to do in the new authorization bill on its current schedule.
Can NASA escape those cuts, if they are in fact pushed through Congress? In an Florida Today editorial Thursday, the paper made a plea to spare the agency. Budget cuts “should be done responsibly and not at the expense of investments that advance America’s leadership in science and technology,” they argue. “That’s precisely what NASA is all about and why possible GOP-led cuts to its budget would be ruinous.” The paper made a particular request to Rep.-elect Sandy Adams (R-FL), who defeated Democrat Suzanne Kosmas to represent the district that includes KSC, and Sen.-elect Marco Rubio (R-FL), to protect NASA’s budget.
In Huntsville, officials are hopeful that Republicans will spare NASA. “Republicans have already taken on the president’s space policy and beat him,” local attorney Mark McDaniel, claimed in comments to the Huntsville Times. “The space policy we have now is a Republican-driven policy.” (That’s an odd claim, since the policy passed by Congress started in the Senate with strong cooperation among both Republican and Democratic members.) That, McDaniel argues, will keep NASA out of the “budget-cutting bulls-eye”.
Others are more skeptical. “A key question is whether the new Congress will view NASA as an investment in the nation’s future or a drain on the economy,” Bill Adkins, principal at the Center for Space Strategic Studies, told Space News. “Support for most NASA programs is pretty strong, but that strength has not been tested in the kind of environment we seem to be heading into.” Some budget cuts, he added, could actually be useful, as they “may actually provide clarity to the choices the agency faces and hasten the process of focusing on solutions.” Provided, of course, that the cuts don’t go too far.
Marcia Smith, in a commentary on SpacePolicyOnline.com, concludes that budget cuts of some kind for the space agency are inevitable. “If Barack Obama wants to get reelected two years from now, he will have to join the bandwagon to cut federal spending,” she argues. The administration’s proposal to increase NASA’s budget by $6 billion over five years “was always just a proposal and it is difficult to believe that it can survive the current economic and political climate.”
Of course, it was clear for some time that the next Congress would be more fiscally conservative than the current one, given the concerns about trillion-dollar budget deficits, and the administration was planning accordingly. Recall that back in June, a joint memo by then-OMB director Peter Orszag and then-White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked federal agencies to volunteer “lowest impact” programs to be cut to obtain a five-percent overall budget cut in the FY2012 budget submissions. The outcome of the election makes it only more likely that there will be budget cuts of some kind.
However, what form those cuts will take, including their magnitude and whether NASA will be either protected or particularly victimized by them remains unclear. While Republicans have control of the House now, Democrats remain in charge of the Senate, with the chair and ranking member of the Senate appropriations subcommittee whose jurisdiction includes NASA, Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), easily winning reelection. That may make it more difficult for House Republicans to get sharp budget cuts through; however, Democrats eager to retain their now narrower majority in the Senate may be willing to go along with some cuts. Also, how those cuts will affect specific NASA programs remains to be seen: outgoing House Science Committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) told Florida Today that it would be “hard to move forward with this new commercial track” should NASA spending be reduced.
One near-term milestone for the agency, and federal spending in general, is what Congress does with the FY2011 appropriations bills still not passed when it returns in mid-November for a lame duck session. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD) told Florida Today that it’s “hard to see how we would move through new spending package” during the session. That suggests that at least some parts of the government may continue under continuing resolution funding into 2011, when Republicans then take over and could make an initial, early effort to trim federal spending.
“That may make it more difficult for House Republicans to get sharp budget cuts through; however, Democrats eager to retain their now narrower majority in the Senate may be willing to go along with some cuts… That suggests that at least some parts of the government may continue under continuing resolution funding into 2011, when Republicans then take over and could make an initial, early effort to trim federal spending.”
Probably a CR through at least next February, followed in FY11 by funding between the $19B authorized level and the $18.7B NASA received in FY 2010. In FY 12, the White House will probably propose a level budget at the FY10 or FY11 level, which would be an effective $500M+ cut from the FY11 budget plan.
FWIW…
Imagine, all those oft maligned “pigs at the trough” now being feared as sharp budget cutters.
Going back many years – the Sand Chart, the more recent proposal by the Obama Administration, etc – many times the budget has claimed that the free spending days are just around the corner. And foolishly, our various agencies have laid out grand plans to take advantage of that largess. Then reality hits and people are surprised. NASA happily moved out, after the VSE was announced, with a program that could only work with generously expanding budgets.
Reality tells us that NASA (and most other budgets except for DoD) goes up slowly if at all, and is more likely to be reduced.
As Marcia Smith is quoted as saying The administration’s proposal to increase NASA’s budget by $6 billion over five years “was always just a proposal… and anyone with an operating neuron knew that it was just a way to distract us from their decision to cancel working programs with the promise of maybe doing some other fun thing one day after our Administration ends.
Some NASA funding is almost certain to be cut – millions for improvements for KSC for one. After two more flights – there are NO flights scheduled from KSC. Falcon, Atlas, Delta, all fly from the Air Force side of the causeway. Why would we improve a site that has no flights scheduled??
Hopefully some of those infrastructure programs will be completed before they are cancelled.
“Republicans have already taken on the president’s space policy and beat him,†local attorney Mark McDaniel, claimed in comments to the Huntsville Times. “The space policy we have now is a Republican-driven policy.â€
He’s kinda right. It was frantic democrats in space states and the GOP who modified Obamaspace into the compromised mess it is now. My guess is that now all of those frantic democrats are gone the previous agreement will be revisited. The budget will be cut. On the bright side, it will be beneficial to NASA to jettison peripheral activities and focus on HSF and space science missions.
It will be interesting to read the GOPers’ “buyers remorse” posts next year when they complain about the Congress cutting 2 billion smackers from NASA’s budget and not funding HSF at the level they thought.
If I were asked to make a call (and I haven’t), I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a mutant form of ObamaSpace form over the next six months or so. To wit:
1. STS-135 and LON-336 funded;
2. SD-HLV dropped;
3. MPCV to be launched on Atlas-VH in interim;
4. The RL-10 replacement and Common Centaur upgrades for both EELVs funded (as it is a DoD project and GOP loves defence spending);
5. J-2X funding switched to US 1Mlbf+ kerolox engine to replace the ‘Communist Bloc’ RD-180;
6. HLV pushed back to latter half of decade and will be either the Atlas-V Phase 2, Wide-body Delta or Falcon-X;
7. The ‘loan guarantees’ concept for commercial space is revisited because the Tea Partiers’ have an ideological view that private companies must stand and fall on their own merits;
8. Interim BEO crewed test flights proposed using multi-EELV launches for the end of the 20-teens.
Alternately, we could see a “flip side” version where the ‘Democrat’ commercial space companies lose all Federal funding (CCDev de-funded) and all the savings are poured into the SLS/MPCV which is promoted from ‘backup’ to ‘default’ access to the ISS.
Of course, this is all based on the assumption that NASA faces budget cuts at all. That isn’t a given yet.
The ‘loan guarantees’ concept for commercial space is revisited because the Tea Partiers’ have an ideological view that private companies must stand and fall on their own merits;
There are no “loan guarantees,” and never have been, other than a dumb idea in the House version of the bill, which never passed. And no company has asked for them.
Ben Russell-Gough surmised about what the budget for the next six months will look like, and termed it Mutant ObamaSpace. Unless I miss my guess, the next year will be the recently passed Authorization bill – it will be tough to not sign a matching Appropriations bill (with Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bill Nelson, and other senators behind it).
We could refer to this as NelsHutchShelbySpace perhaps?
This includes funding for STS-135, funding for Commercial endeavors, and MPCV (nee Orion) on Delta. HLV (or HEFT or whatever) was not in the 2011 Authorization bill as a program and would have to take over another program.
The next fiscal year budget will be the one where we see if the Tea Party-ers are able to get legislation passed.
@ Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 12:35 pm
I think you have some nice points. I would not necessarily agree with everything, nonetheless.
I also think that if the “tea-partiers” hold up to their claims then SLS/MPCV is gone. But politics being politics…
BTW if we do see a revived FY2011 I think it would give a lot of credentials to the WH being really astute. Then again it could only be coincidence…
Oh well…
Ben Russell-Gough wrote:
5. J-2X funding switched to US 1Mlbf+ kerolox engine to replace the ‘Communist Bloc’ RD-180;
It is more likely they will punt kerolox development because it is unnecessary for a nation already possessing the SSME and RS-68.
7. The ‘loan guarantees’ concept for commercial space is revisited because the Tea Partiers’ have an ideological view that private companies must stand and fall on their own merits;
The $1.5G wasted in this bucket would go a long was toward Orion/SDLV development. If the endeavor were worth while the market would fund it. You don’t see Virgin Galactic asking for a handout.
These items and the egregious, budget distorting ISS are the main candidates for the guillotine.
The election really has to be put into proper perspective.
In the end what the GOP (and its tea party affiliate) won was one house of the legislative branch….and (I think that this is the most important thing) the election broke any link with the administration that the rest of the Democratic party has.
How this affects space policy and politics is not all that clear. The GOP folks in the House are going to be under intense internal and external pressure to try and produce significant spending cuts that are at least tolerated by the American people as a whole as a matter of politics and as a matter of policy.
In politics if the GOP is seen to be going back to Bush economics they will fly in the face of polling data and if they are seen as cutting popular programs…well thats not going to work either…particularly if they do it in the face of increasing less popular ones (like Human exploration of space). In the policy mantra they will have a hard time getting extreme policies out to the Senate…and past a Presidential veto.
The difference between now and the 94-96 level…is I think three fold.
First the GOP has at least studied the lessons of how Newt was outmanuvered in the 95 era and I dont think that the Obama political shop is anywhere near the chops of the Clinton one.
Second, the economy is not likely to get better.
Third…while the Dems are now “every person for themselves” the reality is that the tea party and GOP are likely to have an unhappy marriage with each other…
Where we may be headed is a year of a lot of inaction passing as action and then a rush to see who in 12 can be blamed for the economy being what it is…Obama or the GOP majority in the House.
In any event I dont see much more money for NASA particularly HSF and my guess is things like the LON and HLV are getting less and less likely.
Robert G. Oler
amightywind wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
there is not a chance that ISS goes under none.
to even suggest that shows that you are incapable of substituting policy analysis for your own self wishes.
Robert G. Oler
it will be tough to not sign a matching Appropriations bill (with Kay Bailey Hutchison, Bill Nelson, and other senators behind it).
As a general rule, the appropriators do what they want, and often ignore the authorization bill. I can’t imagine why that would be different this year, in the current fiscal environment.
“These items and the egregious, budget distorting ISS are the main candidates for the guillotine.”
You haven’t been right in any of your predictions or about anything wrt to launch vehicles, what make you thinks your warped wishes are going to happen?
ISS is safe and will last past 2020
Commercial crew is going to happen, period. It needs to happen, Orion can’t be ready anytime soon.
Orion will fly on EELV.
SDLV more than likely won’t happen.
This issue has been coming for years and years. They’ve known for a long time that the Baby Boomer bubble would reach retirement in the 2010s, significantly increasing Social Security and Medicare entitlements.
Yet Congress turned a blind eye, spending money on pork and lowering taxes rather than making the difficult choices to balance the budget.
The day of reckoning is here. The GOP, Tea Partiers in particular, can claim they’ll lower taxes even more while cutting programs but they won’t tell you which programs they’ll cut or whether they’ll wipe out entitlement programs to balance the budget.
Something has to give.
NASA is low hanging fruit, so to speak. Outside of the Congresscritters who represent space center districts, none of the others care.
This is why it’s all the more important to privatize space access. The money simply won’t be there in coming years to pay for government-subsidized human access to space. Robots are a lot cheaper.
The only way I see a solution is for more multinational programs that will share the costs. A U.S. mission to the Moon, Mars or an asteroid will never be properly funded. A joint mission involving the spacefaring nations of the world might have a chance, for no other reason than a Congresscritter voting against it risks being accused of embarrassing his country in the eyes of the world.
Earlier this year, Russian President Medvedev informally suggested a global space summit of spacefaring nations to set a multinational agenda. I think we should take him up on it and hold it sooner than later.
SDLV more than likely won’t happen.
Wow, that’s the first time I’ve seen you state things this confidently and I’ve been watching your statements closely. Do you think the political fallout from such a decision would take the prospects for near-term manned exploration with it?
Yet Congress turned a blind eye, spending money on pork and lowering taxes
They didn’t lower taxes — they lowered tax rates.
“It is more likely they will punt kerolox development because it is unnecessary for a nation already possessing the SSME and RS-68.”
SSME and RS-68 are LH2, not RP, engines.
“The $1.5G wasted in this bucket would go a long was toward Orion/SDLV development.”
The FY 2011 COTS and CCDev budgets total $612M in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, not “$1.5G [sic]â€.
And even the incorrect “$1.5B [sic]” figure is a fraction of Orion or SLDV development costs.
In the FY 2010 budget, the FY 2011-2014 budget runout for Orion totalled $7.6 billion. (Orion would still need at least another three years of development before producing an operational vehicle.) “$1.5G [sic]” wouldn’t even fully fund one year of Orion development at that spending rate.
According to it advocates, the development costs for the simplest inline SLDV (Jupiter 130) that can meet the authorization act’s payload and schedule requirement start at $8.3 billion. “$1.5G [sic]” is only 18% of that figure.
“You don’t see Virgin Galactic asking for a handout.”
Virgin Galactic is planning to apply to the next round of CCDev funding, either alone or in partnership with another company.
parabolicarc.com/2010/10/22/branson-virgin-galactic-enter-nasas-commercial-crew-competition/
“These items and the egregious, budget distorting ISS are the main candidates for the guillotine.”
The ISS FY 2011 budget is $2.8B in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. That’s only 14% of the $19B total NASA budget in the Act.
FWIW…
“As a general rule, the appropriators do what they want, and often ignore the authorization bill. I can’t imagine why that would be different this year, in the current fiscal environment.”
That is the usual rule, but this year is different as the appropriators in both chambers deferred (or passed the hot potato) to the authorizers on funding for NASA’s human space flight programs.
Although the House will be shaken up, I doubt Wolf et al. will go back on that agreement. And Boehner, for all his budget rhetoric, is still a GRC representative. It’s a guess, but I doubt the worst case on the House side would cut NASA below its FY 2010 budget level of $18.7 billion.
And even if the House appropriators do not abide by the authorization bill, the unshaken Senate will.
So I think we’re looking at a conference appropriations with NASA totals somewhere between the authorized $19 billion and the $18.7 billion that NASA received in FY 2010.
If I’m right, then honestly, the FY 2011 appropriations cuts, if any, are in the noise and will probably be taken across the board or at the agency’s discretion. If the agency has discretion, with the current NASA leadership and White House priorities, that probably means SLS takes the hit.
I think the duration of the FY 2011 CR and how the White House reacts to the new political/budget environment in the FY 2012 request will have a much greater impact on NASA’s programs. If the CR lasts until well after the new Congress is seated, a lot of new programs are facing 6-9 month delays to get started. And if the White House decides to, say, flatline NASA funding in FY 2012, that’s an effective $500-800 million cut from what was projected — no longer in the noise.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
The ISS FY 2011 budget is $2.8B in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
Are Soyuz purchase booked under that account? How about COTS?
SSME and RS-68 are LH2, not RP, engines.
The point is kerolox is an anachronism when one possesses LH2-LO2 technology. Kerolox is a third world space technology.
The ISS FY 2011 budget is $2.8B in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. That’s only 14% of the $19B total NASA budget in the Act.
The new congress will not ignore the fact that we are spending billions to prop up the Russian space program on the ISS while they arm Iran and other miscreants around the world. It will have no support. If George Bush’s House agreed to deorbit ISS in 2015, what do you think the Tea Party House will do?
“In the FY 2010 budget, the FY 2011-2014 budget runout for Orion totalled $7.6 billion. (Orion would still need at least another three years of development before producing an operational vehicle.) “$1.5G [sic]†wouldn’t even fully fund one year of Orion development at that spending rate. ”
Wasn’t this run-out based on an Orion that had to be fitted to an Ares I?
Further, I was under the impression that the three additional years of development was not so much a product of Orion difficulties, but rather in waiting for the “long pole” Ares I US.
I don’t think the Orion can be finished under this current budget run-out, but surely completing an EELV launched Orion would cost less than 7.4 billion through ’14.
If anyone has links to the numbers required to finish an EELV Orion, I would love to take a look.
amightywind wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
The new congress will not ignore the fact that we are spending billions to prop up the Russian space program on the ISS
lol. Its not billions, and yes the GOP House will keep the status quo on ISS…oh its going to be a hard year for you. The good news is that you will have as sad a two years with the GOP house as many of Obama’s fans have had with him the last two years.
Robert G. Oler
Kerolox is a third world space technology.
Kerolox is superior for first stages.
That is the usual rule, but this year is different as the appropriators in both chambers deferred (or passed the hot potato) to the authorizers on funding for NASA’s human space flight programs.
That was this Congress. We’ll see what the next one does, since it’s unlikely to be addressed in the lame duck.
If George Bush’s House agreed to deorbit ISS in 2015
It didn’t agree to that. It only agreed to withdraw from the program. It would have to get permission from the other partners to deorbit.
RS-68 and 5 segment SRB’s are the future 1st stage of space exploration. The kerolox project should get the axe. What will go on the second stage or the third stage is anyone’s guess.
I would put Shannon in charge of a sidemount HLV cargo version and put Orion on the Delta heavy if it was up to me.
Some DOD funds for planetary defense could make this happen.
Probably not.
“The point is kerolox is an anachronism when one possesses LH2-LO2 technology. Kerolox is a third world space technology.”
Wrong, again you show the lack of basic space technology knowledge.
1. Solids are world space technology and not kerolox
2. LH2 is not optimal for lower stages
3. Hence Atlas is the right design.
4. Also, an all Kerolox vehicle has cost advantages, which may outweigh any LH2 performance advantage.
But then again, windy wouldn’t know these things as shown by his asinine posts.
“If George Bush’s House agreed to deorbit ISS in 2015, what do you think the Tea Party House will do?”
Bush did not agree to this.
Again, with the clueless political slant, the Tea Party House will keep the ISS because it funds jobs in their districts.
Shave $2B?
Cut the extra SHUTTLE FLIGHT
Delay the HEAVY LIFT DEV until 2016
Pretty much as President Obama suggested.
@ almightywind,
It’s funny that you should characterise core stage propulsion in such a way. Maybe it’s me, but it seems to me that kerolox launchers (to wit, the Atlas-V) is getting a lot more work than the hydrolox ones (specifically, Delta-IV). Like-for-like, the Atlas-V has better lifting power than the Delta-IV too. The ESA is planning to drop its hydrolox/solid Ariane-5 for a kerolox-core Ariane-6 and has licensed the kerolox Soyuz booster for some of its work.
Of course, the real issue here is that hydrolox has lower thrust at launch than kerolox. So, if you have hydrolox core engines, you need boosters to match the performance of a kerolox-core LV, which means probably SRMs. Suddenly, your reason for disliking kerolox cores is brought startlingly into focus.
These items and the egregious, budget distorting ISS are the main candidates for the guillotine.
The Bernie Madoff strategy. Before the investors can realize they’ve paid big bucks for a fraud, quickly bury it so we can raise more funds for the next big fraud. Then when the taxpayers wonder why the ISS never produced the grand benefits promised, the same contractor astroturfers who advocated canceling it can whine and and moan that it was never given a chance because just when it was becoming operational, those grinchy Tea Partiers canceled it.
MichaelC wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Some DOD funds for planetary defense could make this happen. ..
not a chance. The DoD is going to have pretty severe budget cuts as well…
Robert G. Oler
The Joker:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann
note the October, 2011 perihelion.
When they mention “disintegrate” and “visible”, remember that 30 m = 5Kt, 60 m= 15Mt. Impactors are notoriously apolitical, and have no party affiliation, and do not need any campaign contributions, as they are not elected.
The President dispatched the PPCO report to the House and Senate on October 15, as required by law.
I think DIRECT will hold, perhaps with fly-back lifting body pods used for returning the SSMEs. EELVs and Falcon for manned flight to ISS.
Ares1 and Ares 5 are dead.
“… and the egregious, budget distorting ISS are the main candidates for the guillotine.”
Good luck getting that past Hutchison, Olsen, and the rest of the Texas delegation.
I think ISS is in a good enough position that the Administration probably should be selling parts of their exploration technology demonstration effort (AR&D vehicle, inflatable habitat demo, and ECLSS demos) to Congress (or at least the Congressional JSC supporters) as an “ISS flagship exploration technology demonstration” package. The AR&D vehicle can help support the ISS, the inflatable habital demo can expand the ISS, and the ECLSS demos represent more work to be done on the ISS. Even with commercial and other non-JSC participation, JSC can play an important role in, and be helped quite a bit by, all of these.
The DoD is not going get involved in any SDLV
The DoD is not going get involved in any SDLV
Are you psychic also?
“Are Soyuz purchase booked under that account?”
Yes.
“How about COTS?”
COTS, no. CRS, yes.
“That was this Congress. We’ll see what the next one does, since it’s unlikely to be addressed in the lame duck.”
On this topic, for all intents and purposes, it’s the same congress. The key appropriators in the House like Wolf deferred to the authorizers and voted for the Senate authorization bill. And the key appropriations players in the Senate remain the same. Even Boehner has a NASA field center to defend.
“It didn’t agree to that. It only agreed to withdraw from the program.”
Neither chamber in any past congress even debated, nevertheless agreed, to withdraw from the ISS. No authorization bill ever projected budget limits out that far (even the latest authorization act only goes through FY 2013, not 2015) and obviously FY 2015 appropriations are a still a few years away.
The other poster is just making things up.
FWIW…
The ESA is planning to drop its hydrolox/solid Ariane-5 for a kerolox-core Ariane-6
ESA hasn’t made up its mind yet and it doesn’t have funding for a new vehicle. Germany is dead set against Ariane 6, and I believe they would prefer funding for ARV instead. France wants a staged combustion LOX/LH2 vehicle without solids and Italy probably wants a bigger version of Vega, say an SRB as a first stage, then a Vega solid first stage as a second stage and then a liquid upper stage, perhaps the Ariane cryogenic upper stage, perhaps something derived from the yet to be developed Lyra upper stage. Nobody seems to have a HC first stage as their first preference, even though it might make a lot of sense technically.
“The point is kerolox is an anachronism when one possesses LH2-LO2 technology. Kerolox is a third world space technology.”
RP is denser than LH2 and non-cryogenic, requiring smaller propellant tanks and no insulation or thermal control. This results in substantially smaller, simpler, and less costly stages, especially for first-stages. RP engines are also generally simpler, easier, and less costly to develop and build than LH2 engines. Finally, with no cryogenic issues or systems, RP ground ops are simpler and less costly than LH2 ground ops.
There is a lot more to rocket engine and launch vehicle design than Isp. You might try to learn about it before making such stupidly strident statements.
“The new congress will not ignore the fact that we are spending billions to prop up the Russian space program on the ISS while they arm Iran and other miscreants around the world.”
Yes, a Republican House probably will prefer to pay domestic companies to supply ISS cargo and crew transport instead of paying RSA for Soyuzes and Progresses.
“If George Bush’s House agreed to deorbit ISS in 2015″
Neither chamber of congress has ever passed legislation to deorbit ISS.
Don’t make stuff up.
“RS-68 and 5 segment SRB’s are the future 1st stage of space exploration.”
SRBs are not first, or core, stage engines. They’re parallel, or stage zero boosters.
“The kerolox project should get the axe.”
Yes, why would anyone want to replace the complexity and high costs associated with maintaining two separate rocket engine production lines with a single, simplified, lower cost rocket engine?
“What will go on the second stage or the third stage is anyone’s guess.”
LH2 or hydrazine, depending on size. Maybe CH4 if you want to go green and avoid cryogenics. It’s not too hard to figure out.
“I would put Shannon in charge of a sidemount HLV cargo version”
Why? Sidemount can’t meet the payload requirements in the authorization bill. And Shannon is an operator, not a developer.
“Some DOD funds for planetary defense could make this happen.”
If by “planetary defense”, you mean redirecting incoming NEOs, none of these systems support that.
FWIW…
“… surely completing an EELV launched Orion would cost less than 7.4 billion through ’14.”
By putting an end to constant redesigns to accommodate Ares I’s performance and launch environment, Orion on a Delta IV would be marginally less expensive. But we’re not going to cut Orion’s cost in half or save multiple billions of dollars. Orion’s cost is driven more by its size, requirements, contract structure, and NASA oversight. And if NASA doesn’t take advantage of the flexibilities in its 2010 Authorization Act, Orion’s size and requirements are only going to grow as it morphs into the MPCV, while still being stuck with the same contract structure (and likely NASA oversight).
If I were king, I’d forgo Orion altogether, and separate ETO requirements and elements from in-space requirements and elements. The former is better handled by simple, commercial taxis like Dragon, while NASA needs as much flexibility as possible to build affordable, reliable, and long-lived in-space transport systems. Orion tries to do both, and as a result, does neither well and at great cost.
FWIW…
MichaelC wrote @ November 5th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Well, Gary Church, how are you? Still trying to make a case for Sidemount, HLV, and ATK? Why would our government go that route during times of financial difficulties? It didn’t make sense before the midterms and it certainly doesn’t make sense now.
All your points have been met with valid (and better) counterpoints, but still you persist. That’s OK I guess, but to make like you’re arguing against “regulars” when you are as much a regular as anyone around here is highly amusing.
Anyway, carry on!
E.P. Grondine, good luck turning a light meteor shower into a grand looming disaster. The reality of 73P is that “dust should reach Earth in 2022, producing a minor meteor shower–nothing spectacular.'”
With the Tea Partiers in Congress, NASA and its contractors need something to replace the global warming hysteria. Something more “national security”-like. So we’re all about to die from meteor showers, run for cover!
BTW, in case astronaut fans feel tempted to join such disaster-mongering in the hopes that it will prevent their heroes from being pink slipped, any such hype would benefit robotic science (probably Boehner’s GRC would get a big role). The money would have to come out of HSF.
“Why would our government go that route during times of financial difficulties? It didn’t make sense before the midterms and it certainly doesn’t make sense now.”
Certainly….I say cut funding for all space programs, especially commercial space and the ISS
See how long your beloved Musk stays in business.
I say cut funding for all space programs, especially commercial space and the ISS. See how long your beloved Musk stays in business.
SpaceX has plenty of business without NASA funding. Please stop flaunting your ignorance.
‘ MichaelC wrote @ November 7th, 2010 at 7:49 pm
See how long your beloved Musk stays in business.’
Musk isn’t reliant on the government for the continued success of his business. He’s also got commercial contracts. His commercial contracts are sufficient to keep his business viable, just smaller.
Stupid is as stupid – well – is!
I would add that NASA needs SpaceX a lot more than SpaceX needs NASA.