NASA

NASA FY12 budget: first look

NASA would get $18.7 billion in FY2012, almost exactly the same as it got in FY2010, according to a summary of the FY12 NASA budget proposal released this morning by the White House. That amount is about $750 million less than what the administration projected last year for the agency in FY12. Compared to 2010 science would get about $500 million more and exploration would get nearly $200 million more, while a new “Space Research and Technology” account would be created with just over $1 billion in FY12 (space technology had been included with aeronautics in the FY11 proposal.) Those increases would come at the expense of space operations, whose budget would decrease by nearly $1.8 billion compared to 2010, presumably to reflect the retirement of the shuttle.

The document is scant on additional details, although it does mention the budget “Initiates development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth’s orbit”. It also makes mention of commercial crew development, although again without additional details. More detailed budget details will come this afternoon when NASA holds its FY12 budget briefing.

One other thing: if you look at page 199 of the summary charts, you’ll see the administration’s long-term budget projections for NASA. They show a budget declining to $18.0 billion in 2013 and 2014 before slowly rising. (One should take such projections, especially more than a few years in the future, with a grain or two or 20 of salt.) The projection for FY15 for NASA is $18.1 billion; last year the projection for FY15 was $21 billion.

Update 1:30 pm: More detailed budget information is now available on NASA’s web site. Some highlights:

  • Most agency programs are held flat in the notional outyears beyond 2012, even though the administration’s projections decrease NASA’s budget to $18 billion in 2013 and 2014.
  • The presentation about the budget states that “tough choices” were made to achieve cost savings, including “reductions to Earth science and administrative costs, elimination of exploration focused robotic precursors, and maintaining the heavy-lift vehicle and crew capsule at approximately the 2011 authorized level.”
  • Commercial crew would get $850 million per year from 2012 through 2016 in the proposal; that works out to $4.25 billion plus whatever it gets in 2011, compared to the $5.8 billion in the administration’s FY11 request. That amount, though, is still enough to support “multiple, competitive, fixed-price, milestone-based agreements”.
  • The James Webb Space Telescope is effectively placed in a holding pattern, getting $375 million in the budget request with no commitment to a specific launch date for the troubled spacecraft. “The revised schedule and lifecycle cost will be reflected in the 2013 Budget request,” the presentation states,
  • Keeping the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle at 2011 authorized levels in 2012 and beyond “provides a solid foundation from which to advance the development of these important systems.” The presentation doesn’t state when they anticipate fielding these systems, which the authorization act states must enter service by the end of 2016.

75 comments to NASA FY12 budget: first look

  • Anyone taking bets on how much CC gets funded?

  • amightywind

    The budget does not accelerate development of an SDLV. It basically squanders the ‘shuttle dividend’ by lavishing the savings on science programs and starving HSF. Obama has it backwards, as usual. Congress will not like it. Round 2 of the battle to save NASA, and another year goes by…

  • @ablastofhotair
    “The budget does not accelerate development of an SDLV. It basically squanders the ‘shuttle dividend’ by lavishing the savings on science programs and starving HSF.”

    Only for someone like you who thinks HSF = SDLV. The hilarity continues. :)

  • youronas

    0.85 Bil. for CC and 2.8 Bil. for SLS/MPCV.

    Senate Porposal: 0.4 Bil. CC, 4.05 Bil SLS/MPCV.

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/

    “# Initiates development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew capsule to carry explorers beyond Earth’s orbit, including a mission to an asteroid—the furthest journey in human history. This investment of $2.8 billion also creates new opportunities for the Nation’s aerospace workforce.

    # Embraces partnerships with the commercial space industry and the thousands of new jobs that it can create by investing $850 million partnering with American companies to provide astronaut transportation to and from the Space Station, thus reducing the risk of relying exclusively on foreign crew transport capabilities.”

  • Practical plan given this funding scenario:
    Scrap the new heavy lift development for five years, if there was ever a reason to defer of it NASA now has that reason; money (and lack of heavy Lift demand). Human rate either the Delta IV Heavy or the Atlas V so USA is back in HSF business with whatever capsule or space-plane we end up with. Keep commercial seed funding and some other tech development.. It’s not glamorous but it does fulfill NASA’s basic function within a myopic spending plan.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ dad2059,

    Over on NSF, they were saying $820 million for Commercial in FY2012. I’m presuming that’s the combined budget for CCDev and CRS. Actually purchasing LVs for various missions is a different line item unless I’m very much mistaken.

    The call over at NSF about the nearly $3 billion for SLS/MPCV is that most of this will be for finishing up the Orion rather than doing anything substantive with SLS.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Correction on my previous post:

    The budget proposal calls for $850 million for commercial crew only. I imagine that represents the whole CCDev budget for the year. This would be spread around all accepted projects. This could include SpaceX’s Crewed Dragon, OSC’s Prometheus and Boeing/Bigelow’s CST-100. Crew-rating existing cargo launchers might also get funded out of this particular cookie jar.

  • The budget proposal calls for $850 million for commercial crew only. I imagine that represents the whole CCDev budget for the year. This would be spread around all accepted projects. This could include SpaceX’s Crewed Dragon, OSC’s Prometheus and Boeing/Bigelow’s CST-100. Crew-rating existing cargo launchers might also get funded out of this particular cookie jar.

    Thanks Ben. ;)

  • amightywind

    Only for someone like you who thinks HSF = SDLV. The hilarity continues.

    There is no manned program funded though to launch, NASA internal or COTS. Don’t you think that’s sad? Just more squabbling by an increasing number of players for fewer dollars. There are decent solutions available. I prefer Orion/Liberty or CST-100/Atlas. But the post shuttle gridlock is beginning to resemble the Air Force’s tanker replacement project, in which no decision is politically tenable. Leadership is absent at all levels. NASA is in need of a strong administrator, like Mike Griffin.

  • tu8ca

    NASA and the prime contractors really screwed the pooch with CxP. They squandered $10 billion. They shouldn’t get another chance at a SDLV – not with good alternatives flying.

    It’s pitiful, actually. Shuttle derived hardware is solid proven technology, and the prime contractors ruined it by ratcheting up the costs, year after year, with their petty fiefdoms, guaranteed monopolies and a rationale to be the most expensive in the world.

    NASA is really good at creating fantastic new missions and machines for exploration – things that have never been done before. They aren’t very good at managing cost effective manufacturing programs.

    If NASA wants to stay in the rocket game they should be developing new technology. That’s what they are good at. There comes a time when they have to let go of the proven technology to commercial industry, who can build it more cost effectively.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    . NASA is in need of a strong administrator, like Mike Griffin…

    humor is always a good thing Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    If NASA wants to stay in the rocket game they should be developing new technology. That’s what they are good at.

    Same pablum Obama was spewing last year. It went over real big.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    ” But the post shuttle gridlock is beginning to resemble the Air Force’s tanker replacement project, in which no decision is politically tenable.”

    it does appear that way particularly to someone who isnt looking very hard but really its not.

    These are my own personal opinions.

    The tanker issue is a mess in terms of procurement but not capabilities. The current tanker fleet is in need of replacement but say unlike the shuttle is perfectly capable of flying during whatever the period is to acquire a new sow there is no real loss of capability.

    The tanker issue consist of two bad choices…One, the Airbus is the technically better platform (in so many respects) but it is politically in my view “not doable”. The Boeing platform is “OK” and certainly politically possible but really is the not so best product. The candidate is from an old generation of airplanes not all that much more technically advanced in the ways of “easy maintanability” and any “new ideas” are postponed while Boeing sorts out issues with the Dreamliner…and even if a “small” liner became available…I am not sure that any more of the airplane would be constructed in the US then the Airbus candidate. And who knows how much this all ends up costing.

    its a mess.

    COTS is not. The shuttle is ending and with it all SDV are becoming “non possible” (to mimic Spiro Agnew)…meanwhile many actual replacements for the shuttle are more or less progressing at a very affordable price. Slowly but surely the thunderheads at NASA which drive up all these prices are finding themselves “out in the cold”…and people like SpaceX and Boeing are moving toward being able to fill the “gap” at a pretty good price (particularly compared with the shuttle).

    There is going to be some shakeout but at some point it will appear obvious to even the dolts on Capital Hill who are “keep our pork forever” that the pig has died and they need to find a new sow to feed.

    The effort in a year has certainly made more progress then Cx did.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “There is no manned program funded though to launch, NASA internal or COTS. Don’t you think that’s sad? Just more squabbling by an increasing number of players for fewer dollars”.

    Not sad, because more will be done with those fewer dollars. This is not the first time America has had a hiatus in its ability to launch crew. But if we get more than one launch source, it could be the last. What I think is sad is your stuck-in-the-past attitude.

    If you actually believe that America could remain a major human space transport power under the old paradigm, then you’re like the Queen in Alice in Wonder Land, having the capability to “believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”

  • Hey windy,
    _spaceflight_ is in need of strong reasons to exist. That means enabling and creating new markets and capabilities through private innovation/investment and- if at all politically possible – strategic public investment.

    Clearly, you prefer the ‘Museum of Taxidermy’ where it has become moth-eaten over the last 50 years. Need a new, strong NASA Administrator? That’s akin to believing that changing the Museum’s director will animate the specimens.

  • tu8ca

    @Tu8ca — If NASA wants to stay in the rocket game they should be developing new technology. That’s what they are good at.

    @amightywind — Same pablum Obama was spewing last year. It went over real big.

    Obama happened to be right, and Bush’s Constellation boondoggle is just one of the many messes Obama is left to deal with.

  • DCSCA

    “Leadership is absent at all levels. NASA is in need of a strong administrator, like Mike Griffin.”

    ROFLMAOPIP

    There’s plenty more to cut out of this budget. This ‘civilian’ agency grows more and more arcane, if not irrelevant, to meeting the needs, challenges and economic realities of our world today. NASA is a Cold War relic– and continues to struggle to prove it is not. The Cold War ended 20 ywars ago. It’s time to put NASA out of our budgetary misery as a separate agency. Americans can see the duplications of personnel, of facilities and basic operations. The center of America’s space operations today are conducted by DoD and NRO today. What can be salvaged from NASA belongs as a division of DoD. It’s the smart and cost-effective way of utilizing existing assets while maintianing some kind of stable funding for mid and long term planning through the Age of Austerity. NASA belongs under the wing of the DoD.

  • amightywind

    Obama happened to be right, and Bush’s Constellation boondoggle is just one of the many messes Obama is left to deal with.

    Last year’s standard response, and judging by the electorate’s response, it wasn’t even effective then.

  • DCSCA

    @Charles Lurio wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
    The DoD can manage ‘spaceflight’ operations just fine. America no longer needs NASA as it is currently organized. It has been an agency desperately in search of a ‘mission’ for decades. Tag it ‘mission accomplished’ fold any valued assets into DoD space and aviation operations; FAA/NOAA for any relevant aeronautics and atmospherics and/or any universities for planetary research– and dissolve the agency. The U.S. government is now borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends and the America of today simply cannot afford the luxury of a separate ‘civilian’ space agency along with space operations in DoD.

  • amightywind

    Charles Lurio wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    _spaceflight_ is in need of strong reasons to exist. That means enabling and creating new markets and capabilities through private innovation/investment and- if at all politically possible – strategic public investment.

    Amusing! Great new markets and public/private partnerships like GM, ethanol, and Amtrak. And to think a disc space will be consumed to preserve this gem.

  • I would hope that somewhere spelled out in the numbers is enough funds to human-rate the Atlas and/or Delta lifters. Estimates I’ve seen around are a cost of $1B and 36-48 months. This is the quickest way to return to human space flight on an American launch vehicle. Both Congress and NASA are failing to appreciate this important investment and I hope it comes up in hearings this year if not in more meaningful ways!

  • tu8ca

    @Tu8ca — Obama happened to be right, and Bush’s Constellation boondoggle is just one of the many messes Obama is left to deal with.

    @amightywind — Last year’s standard response, and judging by the electorate’s response, it wasn’t even effective then.

    What exactly are you disagreeing with here? That the CxP boondoggle was a pig that created by Bush with no way to pay for it … that it was more expensive than the Shuttle but less capable? That Bush left enormous messes, like the financial crisis and CxP, for Obama to clean up? That commercial space companies like SpaceX have not only earned a spot at the table through merit, but humiliated the prime contractors by proving their glutenous inefficiencies with actual deeds?

    Is that what you are disagreeing with ? You’d be wrong on all accounts.

  • byeman

    ^^
    DCSCA, the more times you say it, the more idiotic is becomes. You are the true definition of insanity, posting the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

    There is nothing that NASA does that belongs in the DOD. The DOD has no use for space science, exploration or the ISS. NASA is NOT going to be part of the DOD.

    And to deal with another clueless post. Liberty is not the launch vehicle for Orion.

  • amightywind

    The DOD has no use for space science.

    I could spend all day refuting your silly statements. But for today, just one.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_(spacecraft)

    The mission helped renew interest in the moon that culminated in Project Constellation. Now, it seems there is not much interest in anything but trying to scam a buck off of the American people.

  • @tu8ca wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:19 pm

    You’re banging your head against a brick wall here tu8ca. The Windy-beast is comic/satire at best, neo-con Orwellian double-speak at worse.

    But one must admit he/she keeps the thread(s) moving! LOL.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Liberty is not the launch vehicle for Orion.”

    Wrong Byeman- as usual. Orion is cited as one of the capsules that can be launched by Liberty.

  • @DCSCA wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Keep banging that drum, but it’ll never happen as long as there’s NASA centers spread across the South, Ohio and California.

    Johnson and Nixon built a pretty strong edifice.

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    Orion is cited as one of the capsules that can be launched by Liberty.

    Orion was cancelled and is being replaced by the MPCV, so no, Orion will never fly on Liberty or any other launcher. Unless ATK wants to resurrect Orion too…

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Virgil Samms,

    Should be interesting to see it try. Orion is, what, about 23t before you add the LAS? Liberty, assuming that it doesn’t go into a downwards performance spiral like Ares-I, can lift about 20t to LEO.

  • Just watched Charlie Bolden’s press conference. He made it very clear that NASA needs commercial crew and cargo to generate the savings that will pay for the heavy-lift vehicle and human space flight beyond Earth orbit.

    Commercial is alive and well.

    He did say the timeline might drag out a bit due to the funding cuts, but commercial is the key to everything else.

    And ISS goes to at least 2020.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    The short impression, the proposal is business as usual, but even more under funded than before. It is not responsive to the concerns of this Congress and others about the inherent flaws in Obamaspace.

  • Vladislaw

    Ares I —- $0.00
    Ares V—- $0.00
    Orion —- $0.00
    Altair —- $0.00

    Commercial space $50mil – $200mil – $850mil – $850mil – $850mil

    Spacebased fuel depot – funded

    The short impression, President Obama is finally moving the Nation foreward in the creation of a domestic commercial human access to LEO sector in our economy and America will soon dominate the world in this sector. Hello jobs for the 21st century.

    The Nation will FINALLY have a gas station in space eliminating the need to launch a fully fueled EDS on a grossly expensive and underutilized heavy lift.

    Now if those SLS funds can pushed to a commercial company on a fixed price, milestone based contract and keep it under 50 tons we should be okay.

  • Bennett

    It is not responsive to the concerns of this Congress and others ATK about the inherent flaws lack of ATK pork in Obamaspace.

    There, FTFY.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Bennett, in exhange for SpaceX and Boeing pork? Besides, ATK has a launch vehicle concept in the hunt.

    In any case, I already hear rumblings of incredulous outrage coming from the Congress. Congress wants the HLV operational by 2016 and Congress will damn well get it. If it means slicing and dicing commercial crew and likely Earth science, then so be it. You and others can mutter all your all want about how stupid the Congress is for not seeing things their way, but the fact is that they control the money and one ignores their wishes at ones peril.

  • oh ryan

    Guys come on the main difference between Orion and MPCV is the name. Block II Orion is the baseline. Its not truely cancelled as of now and you know it.

    You guys should just listen to byeman.

    And liberty isn’t going to lift anything.

  • Joe

    “Vladislaw wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    Spacebased fuel depot – funded”

    Where did you see that?

  • Das Boese

    “elimination of exploration focused robotic precursors”

    That’s just stupid.

  • Coastal Ron

    sftommy wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    I would hope that somewhere spelled out in the numbers is enough funds to human-rate the Atlas and/or Delta lifters. Estimates I’ve seen around are a cost of $1B and 36-48 months.

    Two years ago ULA was quoting $400M to human rate Atlas V, and it would take 4 years. Delta IV Heavy was quoted at $1.3B and 4.5 years.

    Human rating Atlas is a no-brainer, since there are so many vehicles that can use it, and that it’s still far less/launch than the proposed Liberty. Then it’s just a question of whether the MPCV survives as to whether Delta IV Heavy get’s human rated too. Likely Liberty will just be a powerpoint memory by that time…

  • So the NASA baseline SLS configuration (Ares-5 Classic) is the same configuration that NASA also said is unaffordable?

    Meanwhile the ‘one’ and only ‘one’ SLS configuration (Jupiter-130) that fits both the budget and law is not the baseline?

    http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/files/2011/01/cost.jpg

    In fact it was even colored in green because it ‘is’ the recommendation coming from the engineers within NASA.

  • Justin Kugler

    Whittington, then Congress really does think SLS is a “faith based initiative.” NASA has already made it clear that they cannot deliver a design-constrained Ares V derivative under the budget and schedule specified. Taking it out of other programs would just be spiteful. It won’t change the ground truth.

    When I worked in intel, we were trained that it wasn’t our job to tell policymakers what they wanted to hear. It was our job to tell them what we knew, what we didn’t know, what our level of certainty, and what we were capable of acting on – all so they could make informed decisions. It was our job to do that even if political blowback was threatened.

    I’m thankful that it seems at least some of NASA’s leaders feel the same way.

  • Dave Huntsman

    ‘Human rating’ Atlas V, is ULA’s to lose, I think:
    1. With a proven flight reliability,
    2. as well as a possible desire to have at least one more ‘proven’ launch in the launch mix to go along with (for example) the Falcon 9s,
    3. If I’m correct, I’m guessing more potential commercial crew entrants will be compatible with Atlas V than with any other launch vehicle. And that an Atlas-V upgrade might be the most likely to get outside financing for the above reasons.

  • Congress wants the HLV operational by 2016 and Congress will damn well get it.

    Congress wants pi to be exactly 3.0 and Congress will damn well get it. Congress wants gravity to be half its current value and Congress will damn well get it.

    Mark, you have an amusing faith in the ability of laws to solve problems. Are you sure you’re not a Democrat?

  • Bennett

    Mark wrote “Besides, ATK has a launch vehicle concept in the hunt.

    If you say so, Mark. Personally, I’d say they have a joke in the hunt for CCDev bucks. Here’s a company that suddenly “discovers” that it can field a LV that includes buying an Ariane core and still come in at under $200 million per launch? Are they serious?

    Other than you, Gary Church, and assorted other reality deniers, almost all the comments in response to “Liberty” have been derisive.

    As far as I can see, the only company interested in this deal is Astrium, and then only as a supplier.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Liberty would be a two stage launcher able to deliver 44,500 pounds to the International Space Station orbit, which would give it a launch capability to carry any crew vehicle in development. -the team has planned an initial flight by the end of 2013, a second test flight in 2014, and operational capability in 2015.”

    “Orion is, what, about 23t before you add the LAS? ”

    “-the main difference between Orion and MPCV is the name. Block II Orion is the baseline. Its not truely cancelled as of now and you know it.”

    “Orion was cancelled and is being replaced by the MPCV, so no, Orion will never fly on Liberty”

    Round and round we go and nobody knows what they know.

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    In fact it was even colored in green because it ‘is’ the recommendation coming from the engineers within NASA.

    The Simple Inline 70-100mt version that is highlighted in green in your link likely meets the requirements of the NASA Authorization Act, but remember that NASA was getting advanced warning that the appropriations direction was going to be to build the 130mt verion, and skip the 70-100mt.

    So NASA is damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don’t on what size to propose/plan to. I’m sure we all remember that no money has actually been allocated for SLS yet, so there is not a lot that can be done anyways.

    From my perspective (which is that SLS is not needed at this time) this kind of delay is fine by me. Any stretch outs make it more likely that all involved will agree to cancel it, and devote more funds to getting actual people and payloads to space.

    Remember that the all the vehicles outlined in the HEFT report fit on existing or near-term commercial launchers, so nothing seriously proposed at this time actually needs a government-run HLV.

  • DCSCA

    @byeman wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
    You’d do well to reacquaint yourself with the history of the space agency and the threads of DoD DNA running through it. And have your resume ready. The civilian space agency is a Cold War relic, desperate for a mission and relevance in an economic environment that has left it behind.

    @dad2059 wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
    Whistle past the graveyard all you like– like a NACA veteran would circa 1957.

  • VirgilSamms

    “Two years ago ULA was quoting $400M to human rate Atlas V, and it would take 4 years.”

    Can’t lift as much or as cheaply as Liberty- or be operational by 2015.
    Delta IV heavy is way more expensive.
    Falcon 9 cannot lift anything but Dragon and that little capsule is not going anywhere with anybody anytime soon.

    The French did not sign on to make propaganda for the unwashed masses. This is going to happen. Like I said, you regulars do not understand what is happening- but you will.

  • Byeman

    “I could spend all day refuting your silly statements. But for today, just one.”
    Windy, you missed on that one and you will continue to miss and and be wrong Clementine was mostly a NASA mission. The DOD wasn’t interested in the actual datA gathered, just the performance of the sensors.

    Windy, don’t bother responding, you will be wrong anyways as usual.

  • Bennett, in exhange for SpaceX and Boeing pork? Besides, ATK has a launch vehicle concept in the hunt.

    For the $800 million smacker ham hock on the ROI of SpaceX compared to the 5 year $10 billion samolian debacle that was CxP, I’d say the taxpayer won that round, don’t you?

    You’re just spouting partisan political “hog” wash Mr. Whittington and useless sour grapes. Don’t worry though, Congress will make sure the NASA districts get just enough funding for district jobs programs and SLS deployment by 2020.

    I’m not buying the 2016 bs, it ain’t gonna happen.

  • DCSCA

    “Commercial crew would get $850 million per year from 2012 through 2016 in the proposal; that works out to $4.25 billion plus whatever it gets in 2011, compared to the $5.8 billion in the administration’s FY11 request. That amount, though, is still enough to support “multiple, competitive, fixed-price, milestone-based agreements”.” Except, of course, this will never fly…. but it looks swell on paper– and makes for a great bartering item. Government funding for commerical space will get butchered in this economic environment– and deservedly so. The place for commerical space to source funding is in the private secto- not from a government that has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends.

  • @DCSCA wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 8:22 pm

    I would love NASA to return to a NACA or DARPA format, but that isn’t going to happen as long as Congress has voters in NASA districts for vote buying.

    Nixon’s Republican vote buying plan in the Southern States was pretty effective, wouldn’t you say?

  • Byeman

    the threads of DoD DNA were bred out long ago. DCSCA, you keep spouting the same nonsense. I won’t need my resume ready, I am untouchable. Even though NASA is not going to go under the DOD, if it did I would still have a job.

    Samms, quit with the lies, liberty can not be cheaper. The French did sign on for the propaganda, they don’t even know if liberty is feasible. Only the unwashed masses believe it is a done deal, when in actuality, it hasn’t left the powerpoint slide. Go, be gone, clueless one.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 4:54 pm

    this post is almost as funny as the claim you make that the events in Egypt are because of Bush the last…

    ” Besides, ATK has a launch vehicle concept in the hunt.” To mimic a famous Admiral “there are not enough dollars in the federal budget to make son of Ares 1 fly or actually perform”. ATK’s rocket is the classic viewgraph endeavor which will never ever go into space. The vehicle is viewgraph paradise. It takes a first stage that has never flown couples it with a “second stage” that has never acted like a second stage…and then underperforms even on paper…and needs a lot more money then everything else.

    “In any case, I already hear rumblings of incredulous outrage coming from the Congress. Congress wants the HLV operational by 2016 and Congress will damn well get it. If it means slicing and dicing commercial crew and likely Earth science, then so be it. ”

    Two points surface…”incredulous outrage”…where? The best hope for your viewpoints are the GOP house and these folks cannot even come together on what it would take to cut 100 billion out of a 1.4 trillion deficit. There is zero chance that they are going to gut the entire NASA HSF budget, leaving the space station completely vunerable…for something that again has not a chance of coming in on budget and which Obama’s NASA has made clear, they wont build.

    If the Congress wanted to preserve the notion of a SDV they would have done it as the Congress did with the B-1 back in 78.

    Second…where did you go so far off the track that you oppose commercial launch? YOu use to support (see The Weekly Standard Article) exactly what Obama is proposing.

    Are you such a toady for the last administration and some made up fiction of the Chinese taking over the Moon that the realities of space politics and policy have escaped you?

    Anyway keep the humor coming…between you and Windy its a hoot.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    So the NASA baseline SLS configuration (Ares-5 Classic) is the same configuration that NASA also said is unaffordable?

    Meanwhile the ‘one’ and only ‘one’ SLS configuration (Jupiter-130) that fits both the budget and law is not the baseline?..

    Stephen…you are starting to break the code here man.

    In the end no one wants Jupiter…well other then folks like you and the rest of the “evangelist” the reality is that no one who writes checks wants it. Not the least reason of which is that no one imagines that any of the cost numbers you and the other folks so eagerly worked up are in any way reality.

    I feel your pain. A long time ago Rich Kolker and I worked up a Mir Tracking station proposal for JSC (which wanted one)…we demonstrated the effort in one of the parking lots, had the telemetry mask for the station (given to us by some Russian friends) and…they bought some goofy effort that cost over 1.5 million dollars and the antennas were put in so badly they fell over in a thunderstorm.

    Notice how not even on NASAspaceflight.com is the choir singing anymore.

    Its over man Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    [Atlas V] Can’t lift as much or as cheaply as Liberty- or be operational by 2015.

    Ignorance is bliss with you.

    You have to look at what jobs people are paying launchers to perform. In the case of the Boeing CST-100, Atlas V can lift it just fine, since that is what Boeing designed it to fly on. And Atlas V 401 costs far less than the $180M for Liberty, so why would anyone pay more? Same is true for Dream Chaser, and any other vehicle that fits on a medium-class launcher (10,000 kg to LEO).

    Falcon 9 cannot lift anything but Dragon and that little capsule is not going anywhere with anybody anytime soon.

    Falcon 9 has the same capabilities as Atlas V (even slightly better), and can lift Dragon, CST-100 and Dream Chaser to LEO. And since it costs $56M/flight, that means that no one is going to want to pay $124M MORE PER FLIGHT to fly on Liberty.

    Also, for ISS needs, Dragon actually carries more passengers than the MPCV, and when combined with Falcon 9’s far lower cost, means that the ISS partners save a lot more money using Dragon than MPCV/Liberty, or even CST-100/Liberty.

    Delta IV heavy is way more expensive.

    Maybe so – at least according to the powerpoint that ATK put together, but there are a lot of unknown unknowns, and I don’t think anyone thinks that ATK, who has never been in the launch business before (they build rocket components), can build a brand new launcher on-time and on-budget, when far more experienced companies can’t (especially dealing with the French).

    However you keep forgetting that the DoD/NRO are the only customers for Delta IV Heavy right now, and the DoD has invested a lot of money in Delta IV Heavy, so they are not going to change to another launcher until there is a clear-cut reason to. That means Liberty is going to have to run up a significant track record before the DoD even considers making a change. So here are some questions to ponder:

    – How long can ATK survive on MPCV business?
    – Who else is going to use them in a competitive marketplace, and why?
    – Why would anyone use a SRM launcher that has more vibration than liquid-fueled rockets?

    As the say in the Godfather, this isn’t personal, it’s business. There has to be clear business reasons to spend more money than you need to, and Liberty is more expensive than medium-class launchers, and more risky (lack of flight history, vibration issues, etc.) for the DoD/NRO.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    The problem, Virgil? I don’t believe ATK’s figures for Liberty. They gave solid assurances about Ares-I’s performance and failed to meet them. I suspect that Liberty too will undershoot. I’d say that the quoted performance may be as much as 150% of what it will eventually turn out to be capable of.

    This assuming it flies operationally, which is unlikely.

  • DCSCA

    @Byeman wrote @ February 14th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
    You’d do well to reacquaint yourself with the history of the space agency and stop embarassing yourself. Start with the basics- like human resources. Most astronauts are either former or current military personnel. No DoD DNA there… oops! =sigh=

  • Vladislaw

    Joe wrote:

    “Where did you see that?”

    Search the budget for:
    Cryogenic Propellant Transfer and Storage

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/516675main_NASA_FY12_Budget_Estimates.pdf

  • Joe

    Vladislaw wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 8:18 pm
    “Search the budget for:
    Cryogenic Propellant Transfer and Storage

    The Cryogenic Propellant Transfer and Storage and Solar Electric Propulsion project elements willcomplete Phase A concept studies in FY 2011. Based on the results of these concept study efforts, these two Exploration-specific Technology Demonstration Missions will transition from formulation toimplementation in either FY 2012 or FY 2013.”

    Interesting. Phase A studies usually involve awarding specific contracts, but I have heard of none. Do you know who is performing these studies (that would have to be completed by end of September this year)? They should have been under way for 4 months now, have there been any interim reports; which are usually required in Phase A contracts? I am not being sarcastic only skeptical, if contractors have been selected and interim reports are available I would really like to read them.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA, you need to acquaint yourself with basic spaceflight knowledge and history and things that matter.
    a. Astronauts do not represent NASA as an agency . Where they come from has no influence on the rest of the agency.
    b. There are military personnel in other gov’t agencies. Does that mean the DOD is going to take them over too?
    B. The ratio of military to non military astronauts is close to 1. This means the military influence is diluted.

    As for embarrassing, each of your posts further proves that you know nothing about NASA.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    After digesting the info’ on the Liberty, have to agree with Coastal, it’s a load of crock. ATK just hoping to divert some funds from the serious players and keep some of their workforce going for a bit longer. Good luck to them if they can sucker some but I doubt it. People involved with COTS and CCDev aren’t going to fall for it.

  • Vladislaw

    “Interesting. Phase A studies usually involve awarding specific contracts, but I have heard of none. Do you know who is performing these studies (that would have to be completed by end of September this year)?”

    There is another section, I do not recall it .. the budget is over 700 pages so a lot in there. But it refers to funding towards this in the 2011 budget, who knows what is actually going to get appropriated for 2011 and the budget year will be almost over. But in the 2012 budget it calls on using data from a 2011 funding project that gives some baselines for what to do in 2012 as far as how to proceed.

    On of the things that is supposed to be determined in 2012 is whether or not they just send up like a mock EDS, transfer fuel to it, then let is just sit in LEO for six months or fire it up after six months. This would be for prepositioning a depot/eds for your return. Another is to just send up a straight depot, let it hang in LEO six months then try and fuel a EDS from that.

    Personally I would prefer they test something that can be part of a spiral development towards a more fixed fuel station. I would like it to be open for anyone that wants to deliver fuel. The way the ISS is receiving cargo right now… multiple suppliers.

    I would want the fuel station to be commercial. Terrestrially a fuel seller buys fuel from multiple distributors and each load is bought at different prices but then resold for an average price. I see the same for orbital operations. Fuel cargo launchers will get different prices based on launch costs and NASA will just buy fuel for the average cost from the station.

  • VirgilSamms

    “The problem, Virgil? I don’t believe ATK’s figures for Liberty.”

    I don’t believe SpaceX advertising either.

  • byeman

    Virgil,

    1. Spacex is not advertising, they are demonstrating. Anyone of some intellect can see the difference.
    2. The Falcon 9 is flying. Ares I or Liberty isn’t and won’t.
    3. NASA believes Spacex
    4. 1. You dont know enough to have an informed opinion on these matters

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ February 15th, 2011 at 10:11 pm
    You are surprisingly inaccurate. Let’s hope you’re not an engineer. Please explain why the USAF Museum in Dayton would lay claim to an orbiter for display if the DoD has no ‘DNA’ with NASA– oh, and suggest you check with human resources at NASA- most of the roster of astronauts- current and past– are of military background.

  • VirgilSamms

    “You dont know enough to have an informed opinion on these matters”

    It seems you are the only one that knows anything.

    ” I am not being sarcastic only skeptical, ”

    Go ahead and be skeptical, I will be sarcastic; fuel depots are B.S. wishful thinking. No cryogenic propellants have ever been stored for more than a few hours and never transferred in space. There is a reason for that- it is not practical.

    Another way to get tax dollars on a hopeless project that cannot succeed- it makes profit by failure a sure thing.

  • Barry

    A commonality is need for both crew and HLV. The NASA Authorization Act requirement increase to 130t was for ATK leverage. I agree that a HLV is not required at this time. Congress should first put ATK out to pasture and stop scrounging around the Shuttle and CxP junkyards, in other words its time to move on. Please no revamp of the Delta or Atlas.

  • Byeman

    DCSCA, all your post are filled with inaccuracies.

    The DoD had ‘DNA’ with NASA. “had” is the operative word. It is no longer true of today. Also, the current military personnel in the space arena are no where like the ones of the past. The USAF used to have small program offices because the personnel were competent engineers. Current era personnel don’t need engineering degrees and are just filling out checklists.

    Look at the current Astronaut roster yourself, it is nearly equally balanced civilian and military.
    But then again, you wouldn’t know that astronauts are only a small group and don;t reflect the rest of the agency.

  • Byeman

    “Another way to get tax dollars on a hopeless project that cannot succeed- it makes profit by failure a sure thing.”

    A perfect description of an HLV.

  • DCSCA

    Byeman wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 10:29 pm
    You’d do well to reacquaint yourself with the civilian space agency. ‘he rest of the agency’ is a luxury that cannot justify itself to a government that has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends to fund it. NASA as currently configured is a Cold War relic– a war which ended Christmas Day, 1991 when the USSR went out of existence. It is obsolete, out of sync with the economic demands and realities of modern times. Its functions can be easily broken up between existing agencies, university consortiums and its core assets transferred to DoD to maintain spaceflight operations. Could be bye-bye, Byeman, so have your resume ready. Try CalTech.

  • pathfinder_01

    Virgil– Just because something has not been done does not mean that it is impractical or can’t be done.

    In terms of fuel depots they don’t need to be cryogenic. Cryogenic ones are more advantageous than hypergolics.

    In terms of propellants only hydrogen is a problem. Oxygen is a mild cryogenic(in fact liquid nitrogen is colder) Methane about the same as oxygen. In fact on a trip to Mars oxygen would freeze if not warmed.

    Cryogens colder than oxygen have been stored in space for years.

    The only reason it has not been done is because no one has tried. Manned LEO programs don’t need cryogenic propellants and although unmanned spaceflight could benefit from it no one has wanted to invest in it yet(profits too far in the future for most companies). This is what government R/D is good at.

    Propellant depots along with storage and transfer of cryogenic propellants would hugely benefit a BEO program. If Orion had a cryogenic service module, an Atlas V heavy would be able to throw Orion to L1/L2 in one launch! It would be possible to send propellants ahead for the crew via electric propulsion or slower trajectories.Long term storage of cryogenic propellants could enable lighter weight and more powerful landers.

    IMHO this technology is as important as docking. Without the ability to rendezvous and dock even the Saturn V would be unable to land men on the moon and there would almost certainly have been no moon landing in 1969.

  • Joe

    VirgilSamms wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    “You dont know enough to have an informed opinion on these matters”
    ” I am not being sarcastic only skeptical, ”

    The second quote appears to be mine, the first one is definitly not, you appear to be confusing me with someone else. No big deal (it happens) just a clarification

  • Joe

    Vladislaw wrote @ February 16th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
    “There is another section, I do not recall it .. the budget is over 700 pages so a lot in there.”

    You mean you do not have all 700 pages memorized by now. :)

    “But it refers to funding towards this in the 2011 budget, who knows what is actually going to get appropriated for 2011 and the budget year will be almost over. But in the 2012 budget it calls on using data from a 2011 funding project that gives some baselines for what to do in 2012 as far as how to proceed.”

    Good point given the chaos that is the current budget process, the Phase A Study may not have even begun.
    “On of the things that is supposed to be determined in 2012 is whether or not they just send up like a mock EDS, transfer fuel to it, then let is just sit in LEO for six months or fire it up after six months. This would be for prepositioning a depot/eds for your return. Another is to just send up a straight depot, let it hang in LEO six months then try and fuel a EDS from that.”

    Here is where the results of the Phase A Study would get interesting as to what can be supported. How big would the “mock EDS” be, how much fuel would be transferred, etc. That will drive the size of the required boosters (Delta-IV Heavy is apparently currently going for about $475 million per launch, Atlas 551 $180 million each – the cost of two launches starts to add up). Also this implies the use of an “operational” automated docking system (several in development, but none in use).

    Don’t look down on the 6 month loiter capability too much, even three months for the Constellation Systems EDS (to allow for delays in the crew launch) was a considerable hit with the available insulation. If they could actually pull off a refueling with an acceptable “boil off” after 6 months, it would be quite an accomplishment.

    I am still skeptical of this fitting into the available budget, but it will be interesting to see what they eventually actually propose.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>