Congress, NASA

Long odds for a Senate space bill

Last week the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that included none of the space-related amendments that had been proposed, including export control reform language and provisions to extend commercial launch indemnification and NASA’s waiver from the Iran North Korea Syria Non-Proliferation Act (INKSNA) so it can continue to purchase ISS-related goods and services from Russia. Fo export control reform, the lack of an amendment in the Senate bill is less of a concern, since export control language is in the House version of the defense authorization bill and thus may remain in the final version of the bill. However, the other amendments do not have counterparts in the House bill (the House passed a two-year launch indemnification extension as a standalone bill last month.)

To address those other issues, Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) introduced late last week S.3661, “A bill to reaffirm and amend the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010.” The text of the legislation isn’t yet posted, but according to Space News, the bill offers a combination of provisions that the two senators had sought to include as amendments to the defense authorization bill. They include a two-year extension of commercial launch indemnification; a permanent extension of NASA’s INKSNA waiver; “language meant to ensure that NASA adequately funds” the SLS, Orion, and commercial crew programs; and a report to Congress on how NASA’s human spaceflight program could establish a presence beyond Earth orbit “through the robust utilization of cis-lunar space.”

Not surprisingly, prospects for the bill aren’t too great. Introduced less than a month before the new Congress convenes, and with many other issues to deal with, including the infamous “fiscal cliff,” the chances that the bill will even be taken up, let alone make it through the Senate and House, are low. The Space News notes that the INKSNA provision in particular might generate opposition by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. In that case, the best scenario might be for the Senate to pass the House’s commercial launch indemnification bill (perhaps through unanimous consent since it is not a particularly controversial bill), as indemnification is set to expire at the end of the calendar year unless Congress acts, and take up an INKSNA extension and other provisions in the next Congress.

52 comments to Long odds for a Senate space bill

  • Dark Blue Nine

    “S.3661, ‘A bill to reaffirm and amend the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010.’… include(s) a two-year extension of commercial launch indemnification; a permanent extension of NASA’s INKSNA waiver; “language meant to ensure that NASA adequately funds” the SLS, Orion, and commercial crew programs; and a report to Congress on how NASA’s human spaceflight program could establish a presence beyond Earth orbit “through the robust utilization of cis-lunar space.”

    It’s hard to “reaffirm” the 2010 Act on the first two issues when it never dealt with commercial launch indemnification or INKSNA to begin with.

    As for “adequately” funding the programs started in the 2010 Act, that should be determined by a new National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization of 2013 starting with
    the FY 2014 authorization. The 2010 Act’s authorizations run out in FY 2013.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    “Adequately” is a multi-edged word and one that is as dangerous as any edged implement. Who defines ‘adequately’ and on what criteria?

  • E.P. Grondine

    Some Senators are looking for a reason to continue work on SLS and Orion.

    That report is already written, it is called CAPS, the Comet and Asteroid Protection System. There were people working at different centers looking at architectures to implement it, and their work is available.

    It is simply a question of whether Bolden will send that report over. Otherwise, in my view, the US will loose leadership in space to “other nations”.

    I do not think that there is sufficient public support to pay for manned flight to Mars, no matter how low the cost. Musk’s request for public money for this now was way out of line, in my opinion.

    I wish Musk’s team the best of luck working through his 1 in 18 engine failure rate, and I am reasonably certain that the problem will be fixed, and the lower launch costs will be made reliable.

    • Neil Shipley

      Sorry EPG, must have missed Musk asking for funding for his Mars mission. Source please? But anyway, why is it ‘way out of line’. Everyone seems to ask the government for funding of one sort or another. All they have to do is say no.

      As for work for SLS and Orion (MPCV), you’re joking if you really believe that these vehicles will ever be available for CAPS or even fly. Look at the schedule and cost slippage that’s occurring daily. They’re just jobs programs. Get used to it. CAPS will never be seriously funded until it’s too late. Better to bet on Musk and Mars.

      • E.P. Grondine

        Hi Neil –

        If you check Musk’s recent statements on Mars after the engine failure, you’ll see him calling for public moneys to make his Mars’ colony possible.

        B612 plans to use Musk’s launcher for its satellite.

        • Neil Shipley

          Hi EPG. Ok I’ve missed that but gov’t can still say no and likely will. He has other sources. Thanks for the info’ on B612, glad they aren’t relying on SLS et al.

  • vulture4

    Given the prior records of Nelson and Hutchinson, I assume it means give SLS/Orion everything it wants and give Commercial what’s left.

  • “The administrator would also have to say how human activity in cis-lunar space — the general vicinity of Earth’s Moon — could enable crewed missions to the lunar surface, asteroids, Mars and its moons, and “other destinations of interest for future human exploration.”

    Combine manned missions to the lunar surface and the “robust utilization of cis-lunar space” and you’ve got something that looks remarkably like Lunar COTS where a human-tended lunar ice mining operation provides propellant for very robust cis-lunar operations.

  • An L2 mission is not the robust utilization of cis-lunar space, IMO. The Orion capsule could play a role in sending astronauts to the lunar surface but so could a Dragon capsule. But it is the manned lunar lander that is the major missing piece. If Augustine says we can’t afford that and all the other pieces at the same time, then perhaps it could be developed on a COTS basis for 1/3 to 1/8th the cost of a FAR approach.

    Despite Obama’s comment re: the Moon, it just refuses to go away.

    Amyone have an idea where in the Senate the insistence of manned return to the Moon is coming from?

    Anyone have an idea

    • Neil Shipley

      Yes but in terms of accuracy. It’s not a ‘COTS’ basis. It’s SAA versus FAR contracting basis. COTS is a program run under SAAs as opposed to CRS run under FAR. Each type can work effectively if selected appropriately.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Doug –

    Here’s a hint: it isn’t lunar ice, or solar cell production, or production of fuel or supplies for manned Mars flight.

  • This bill needs to die.

    There is nothing good about politicians mandating to the engineers and scientists what they must spend money on.

    We will dump $8 billion more into SLS before it dies, meanwhile there are valid commercial companies that are further along in development that can set up a railroad for about $8 billion.

    How fiscally irresponsible are they?

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

    • E.P. Grondine

      Hi Andrew –

      We could have had DIRECT and two manned launch systems for the money that was wasted on ATK’s Ares 1 with no disruption to our tech base.

      Cost over-runs on the Ed Weiler Space Telescope have eaten the space science budget.

      In the meantime we’re going to be in a comet debris stream in 2022 and NASA is pretending that its all going to turn into magic comet dust.

      That’s how irresponsible.

      NASA is so irresponsible that the leadership of B612 went the public donation route.

      That’s how irresponsible.

  • common sense

    Went to a meeting today. SLS has supporters in interesting places that will make it difficult to kill it. SLS/MPCV will eventually die but unfortunately very slowly.

    As for this bill I would respectfully request that those Senators put it into law that warp-drive be a reality and no longer a thing of movies and TV shows of yesteryear. Enough with the old ways already. Whatever.

    • Coastal Ron

      common sense wrote:

      Went to a meeting today. SLS has supporters in interesting places that will make it difficult to kill it.

      Can you provide further characterization for what “interesting places” means? I’ll understand if you can’t, but it would be educational to know.

      • common sense

        Nope. Sorry.

        Let’s say I did not expect (wish?) that person to say so and so bluntly. Of the essentially two available HSF options at NASA, that person supports SLS. Nothing about commercial crew. It may have been a political move though but I doubt it.

        I also heard things that clearly makes me believe more that NASA is running on the past more than on the future of the agency. And that is too bad. “Look all we did and we are so great”.

        Once others here asked for leadership. The visionary kind. I think you should look elsewhere. Visionaries would have a real hard time at NASA.

        I just hope I am wrong but somehow I doubt that too.

        • common sense wrote:

          I also heard things that clearly makes me believe more that NASA is running on the past more than on the future of the agency. And that is too bad. “Look all we did and we are so great”.

          Living so close to the KSC Visitor Complex, I get to see a lot of the guest retired astronauts speak. As a general rule of thumb, the further back they flew, the more they think the NASA paradigm is Apollo. They barely acknowledge the existence of the ISS and often claim that nothing is forthcoming — because ISS/COTS/CCiCap don’t fit their paradigm. Even SLS isn’t enough, because some of them think sinister forces are looking to kill it as the first opportunity.

          The astronauts who flew more recently understand we have a lot of research to do in Low Earth Orbit as the foundation for deep-space human spaceflight. More importantly, they understand the potential for a new economy based on biotech and industrial R&D in microgravity.

          My personal opinion is that the latter is far more important to the survival of humanity than the former, which basically boils down to collecting more Moon rocks.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Much as I admire Golden Spike for its moxy, I have serious doubts that it will be able to do what it says it can do. $7-8 billion is an immense amount of money for the private sector, It is certainly no reason to scrap SLS.

    • Justin Kugler

      The reason to scrap SLS is that it serves no compelling purpose to the nation.

      The private group that was trying to commercially operate the Shuttle last year raised $4-5 billion in private capital, so there’s an opportunity there for a group savvy enough to make everything line up.

      • Coastal Ron

        Justin Kugler wrote:

        The private group that was trying to commercially operate the Shuttle last year raised $4-5 billion in private capital

        Who is the group, and is this speculation or fact?

        I’m familiar with the private capital markets, and I find it hard to believe that there is $4-5B worth of capital sitting around waiting for a high-risk, low-return investment for operating a money-losing 30 year-old government transportation system.

          • Coastal Ron

            Thanks for the link Justin. Although I do have to point out that no where did it state that they had the money, only that they had interested investors. They even mention that they hadn’t entered due diligence, which means they hadn’t validated the business assumptions yet.

            No matter, even without the Shuttle infrastructure being repurposed to the SLS program, keeping the Shuttles operational wouldn’t have solved any of NASA’s big needs. For instance, the Shuttle could rotate crew at the ISS, but it could not KEEP crew at the ISS, because Shuttles can’t stay in space long enough to act as lifeboats. Because of that, NASA still would have had to pay for Soyuz flights every six months, with or without passengers. NASA didn’t have the budget to pay for Soyuz, pay for Shuttles, AND pay for Commercial Cargo and Commercial Crew capabilities post-Shuttle.

            Even though I initially didn’t like the idea of retiring the Shuttle, I have come to understand there simply wasn’t enough money or need for the Shuttle after the ISS was completed.

            • Justin Kugler

              I know some of the people involved. The money would have been there if NASA had agreed to continue with the venture.

              • Coastal Ron

                Justin Kugler wrote:

                I know some of the people involved. The money would have been there if NASA had agreed to continue with the venture.

                Well I guess we’ll never know. But from what was described in the article you provided, I didn’t see a business case for $1B, much less $4-5B.

                But I guess the big question is “Where are the people with $4-5B to spend on an old rocket system now?” Why aren’t they backing some of the more realistic space projects out there? Heck, $4-5B would get the Golden Spike company far enough along to get them started on the hardware, and they have a much better business case than the Shuttle did.

              • Justin Kugler

                The underlying interests are still there. They’re just figuring out how to make it happen without the Space Shuttle, as I understand it.

      • Guest

        The reason to scrap SLS is that it serves no compelling purpose to the nation.

        I disagree. The reason SLS should be scrapped is that it is not reusable, when it could easily be made so. Look at the direction that Musk is taking. These are not going to be small launchers, they are going to be great big honking reusable cryogenic launch vehicles. And SLS core using modern friction stir welding and spin forming powered by triple Falcon 9s crossfeeding on either side and equipped with landing engines would be immensely valuable and there would be no acceleration problems with it at all. It would be going straight to the poles of the moon where it could deploy small rovers, recharge those rovers, peer into craters, relay information to Earth, take continuous pictures of the Earth and the distribution of sunlight over a wide area, and provide navigational data and valuable temperature data as well. It would be an instant lunar base.

        NASA and Boeing engineers are afraid. It’s fear. These are not leaders. Leaders speak up. They didn’t speak out against Constellation and they certainly aren’t speaking out against and non-reusable Senate Launch System.

        • Neil Shipley

          I’m a bit confused by this post Guest. Musk isn’t going to use cryogenic first stages and he’s never going to get into bed with SLS. So why mix them? If you keep your ideas logically separate, it may be easier to understand your point. Thanks in advance.

          • Guest

            Well, first off, oxygen is cryogenic, so he’s already using cryogenic first stages. Secondly, he’s developing very large cryogenic methane engines and certainly he’s going to be all cryogenic in the very near future, for the sole reason that he intends to be fully reusable, and thus required a low molecular weight hydrocarbon fuel to prevent coking and thus avoid cleaning and rebuilding of the engines. Then he’ll certainly realize after operations that he desperately needs a high energy fuel to move the kind of mass he wants to move.

            As for Musk getting into bed with the SLS, it should rather be the other way around, but as I pointed out, NASA and Boeing engineers are far too timid and fearful to try anything as nutty as using the most efficient kerosene boosters and engines ever designed by man (efficient as in T/W and mass fraction), where acceleration problems evaporate with the new 70% throttle capabilities and his already demonstrated ability to sequentially shut down selected engines, and are further enhanced by the ability to crossfeed and eject entire boosters sequentially as well. Are you getting it yet? I can go on.

            The one thing that Mr. Musk does not have, but both the US and Europe do have, are highly efficient hydrolox cores and engines, both in need of liquid reusable booster upgrades if they are to remain competitive with SpaceX. There is nothing preventing them from approaching SpaceX besides both fear and embarrassment.

            Get over it people. SLS is dead, but hydrogen is not. Run the sims. A reusable SLS would easily hand us moon bases in short order if reusability was mandated and somebody besides myself stood up.

            The alternative here is Constellation regurgitated and cancelled.

            • Neil Shipley

              Ok thanks for that. Couple of points. I think you’ll find that LOX is not a fuel therefore it’s inaccurate to call oxygen cryogenic. However it is accurate to call KERLOX a cryogenic fuel since it is stored at very low temperatures to maintain its liquid state. Point is that Musk will never get into bed with SLS or vise versa since there’s nothing in it for him nor is there anything in it for SLS. Musk is a competitor of SLS and likely to demonstrate the bloated monster it is in the not to distant future.
              Musk isn’t going to go Hydrogen. If you follow his public talks, etc, you’ll almost always find him discussing Methane. This fits with his interest in Mars.
              Musk is working up reusables however nothing has ever been mentioned regarding a reusable SLS.
              And finally what’s stopping ESA and other U.S. companies competing with SpaceX is plain and simple cost. They’re not competitive in their existing configurations. And they can’t get competitive as their entire organisations are based around different structures. Again, none of them are working on reusables.

              • Neil, the term cryogenic has nothing to do with whether or not something is classified as a “fuel”. The word just means “exceedingly cold” and anything is said to be cryogenic if its temperature is less that -150 degrees Celcius. Liquid oxygen, though not a fuel, is cryogenic. It’s just not a cryogenic fuel; instead, it is a cryogenic oxydizer. Otherwise, I agree whole heartedly with you comment, particularly as it pertains to Musk, ESA, competing rocket companies and reusables.

            • Coastal Ron

              Guest wrote:

              Then he’ll [Musk] certainly realize after operations that he desperately needs a high energy fuel to move the kind of mass he wants to move.

              You are confused about how things are developed. Musk already knows the pros & cons of using Hydrogen, and he stated them when he talked about using Methane for the Raptor engine. There is no need to develop, build and test an engine to know what the predicted thrust is going to be.

              As for Musk getting into bed with the SLS…

              Musk won’t bid on the SLS booster program. His goal is not to be a booster company for rockets that have no defined need, his goal is to lower the cost to access space – and that can only be done using his own rockets.

              Get over it people. SLS is dead, but hydrogen is not.

              If your goal is reusability, then Hydrogen is not the fuel to use at this point.

              A reusable SLS would easily hand us moon bases in short order if reusability was mandated and somebody besides myself stood up.

              An SLS with reusable boosters is NOT a reusable SLS, nor do reusable boosters make the SLS affordable for any intended use.

              As to Moon bases, there is no money to build ANY of the infrastructure needed for getting to the Moon, much less setting up permanent bases. Plus, there is no recognized need to go back to the Moon, for any reason.

              My suggestion to you is to focus on HOW MUCH things cost, and leave the engineering choices to those that understand them.

              • Guest

                Musk won’t bid on the SLS booster program.

                That’s not what I said. The SLS design is completely borked, the fact that they are demanding the boosters to be SRB drop in replacements is just one of the many huge glaring problems. The SLS, if it is to survive, requires a complete redesign. I’m not saying that is going to happen, I’m just pointing out the obvious to those of you who do not understand design.

                An SLS with reusable boosters is NOT a reusable SLS, nor do reusable boosters make the SLS affordable for any intended use.

                I didn’t say that. I’m just pointing out that LRBs make the core stage even more effective at reaching deep space orbits than it already is. The SRBs are fine for taking an SLS core stage through a greater fraction of TLI, LRBs can easily take it all the way and then some. I’m just pointing out the obvious to those of you who haven’t done any of the sims.

                I’m also not saying the SLS is affordable. I’m saying the SLS could be affordable if it was redesigned with SpaceX developed best practices and lunar and Mars development in mind, which is what SpaceX intends to do anyways, with or without the SLS. I’m just pointing out that both the US and Europe have high performance cryogenic engines that open up credible innovative space development architectures that are not available to Spacex – to those of you who have not done the requisite architectural trades. I don[‘t expect many of you to understand these principles, and the replies I have gotten thus far more or less confirm that. I do, however, expect NASA, Boeing and SpaceX engineers to understand those trades, especially since SpaceX has generously made those best practices available to anyone who is interested, including the Chinese – at the non ITAR level. Things like the built up structural elements and the spin formed domes, the cross feeding and the full cryogenic operations for reusability. These should be on everyone’s design table, and the fact that they are not in NASA and Boeing’s designs is about as revealing of incompetence as one can get, where they are still claiming they are interested in reducing launch vehicle costs and developing space without an easily recognized smirk on their faces. That says it all.

                I would think that this explanation would suffice for both of you. Good luck burning kerolox in a vacuum without oxygen. And good luck developing space by dumping your orbital booster hardware back into the ocean after it has reached orbit. You want the definition of insanity – there it is. The costs of the SLS core just exponentially multiply that tragedy, and quite honestly, it doesn’t have to be with some quite modest redesigns of their approach to spaceflight. Hydrogen is going to be a big part of this, Mr. Musk’s inability to develop the necessary hydrogen engines at this time. But that is only a matter of time, and certainly his decision to conquer methane first will only delay the inevitable, and make his eventual hydrogen engine only more robust and effective than what we already have.

                If you want to wait until 2030 for that, it’s your choice, but the topic of these threads I have been responding to is the legislation of launcher development, so the money is going to be spent whether you redesign or not. Just FYI.

              • Coastal Ron

                Guest wrote:

                The SLS, if it is to survive, requires a complete redesign.

                I’m not sure you understand WHY the SLS was mandated by Congress to be built – it’s a jobs program. Jobs programs are meant to spend money in certain regions & business sectors, and the SLS is doing what Congress wanted. Everything else is secondary.

                I’m just pointing out that LRBs make the core stage even more effective at reaching deep space orbits than it already is.

                Considering that there are ZERO designs for the SLS LRB’s, you don’t have the information needed to make that claim.

                I’m saying the SLS could be affordable if it was redesigned with SpaceX developed best practices and lunar and Mars development in mind, which is what SpaceX intends to do anyways, with or without the SLS.

                Sure, if the SLS was changed to be the Falcon XX, then that would be true. But that’s not going to happen because of what I said above (i.e. the SLS is a jobs program).

                I’m just pointing out that both the US and Europe have high performance cryogenic engines that open up credible innovative space development architectures that are not available to Spacex – to those of you who have not done the requisite architectural trades. I don[‘t expect many of you to understand these principles, and the replies I have gotten thus far more or less confirm that.

                :-) Well so far you haven’t been impressing me either. We do have real rocket engineers that participate on this blog, and I’ll let them debate you on what you are saying.

                However, from my perspective engines are just one part of a system, with good and bad tradeoffs. And as SpaceX can tell you, RP-1/LOX engines are just fine if your goal is to lower the cost to access space.

                I do, however, expect NASA, Boeing and SpaceX engineers to understand those trades, especially since SpaceX has generously made those best practices available to anyone who is interested, including the Chinese – at the non ITAR level.

                Nope. Everything SpaceX does is proprietary, and they do NOT share their secrets with the Chinese – Musk has stated that specifically.

                It’s this type of statement that leads me to believe that you really don’t know as much as you say you do. For instance, “spin formed domes” are not new, nor is friction-stir welding (FSW). It’s the designs that make use of these manufacturing techniques that make what SpaceX is doing innovative. For instance Musk used the example recently of ULA hogging out isogrids out of plate aluminum to make the outer skins of ULA’s rockets, whereas SpaceX uses aluminum sheets connected by FSW and internal strengtheners to lower the costs and lower the weight of their rocket bodies.

                Their Merlin engines are a good example of simplicity of design, which lower overall costs, even though they might be as efficient as a larger LH2/LOX engine. Cost is the most important factor for Musk, and that is proving out to be the right engineering choice.

              • Guest

                Considering that there are ZERO designs for the SLS LRB’s, you don’t have the information needed to make that claim.

                That statement is simply NOT TRUE. There are Falcon Heavy boosters in development. What is lacking is any SLS design effort to accommodate their obviously superior design.

                You can spin it any way you want, but it doesn’t fly.

              • I’m guessing that “Guest” is Elifritz.

              • Coastal Ron

                Guest wrote:

                That statement is simply NOT TRUE. There are Falcon Heavy boosters in development.

                Yes, for Falcon Heavy, not the SLS. And again, Musk is not going to be bidding on the SLS booster program, so this is a completely moot point.

                But look, the bottom line here is that you are trying hard to make the SLS “better”, when in fact there is no need for an SLS-sized, government-built, government-run rocket, so there is nothing anyone could do to make it “better”.

                The best thing to do is to lobby for the SLS program to be killed and let the market determine what needs to come next. Then maybe someone will recognize what a genius you are and hire you to build the “next best thing”… ;-)

              • Guest

                Yes, for Falcon Heavy, not the SLS. And again, Musk is not going to be bidding on the SLS booster program, so this is a completely moot point.

                Again, I reiterate – there is no SLS booster ‘program’. Period. Nobody is bidding on any SLS boosters, neither solid or liquid.

                If you can’t even get your basic fact right there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks.

                But look, the bottom line here is that you are trying hard to make the SLS “better”, when in fact there is no need for an SLS-sized, government-built, government-run rocket, so there is nothing anyone could do to make it “better”.

                On the other hand, there is the congressionally mandated SLS ‘program’ that doesn’t appear to be going away, and thus I posit there is a need to make it perform more realistically. But some guy on the internet says otherwise, so I defer to your superior understanding of the SLS ‘booster’ ‘program’.

              • Coastal Ron

                Guest wrote:

                Again, I reiterate – there is no SLS booster ‘program’. Period. Nobody is bidding on any SLS boosters, neither solid or liquid.

                If you can’t even get your basic fact right there is no point in continuing this discussion. Thanks.

                Uh, then why did NASA just award $137.3M to three companies for the SLS Advanced Booster contracts? Would you consider that a “basic fact”?

                On the other hand, there is the congressionally mandated SLS ‘program’ that doesn’t appear to be going away, and thus I posit there is a need to make it perform more realistically.

                Ya think? I’m glad you finally realized this, but it’s entirely unrelated to what Congress wanted when they created the SLS program. They would have been perfectly happy to have the current SRM’s be usable for the 130mt version of the SLS, but unfortunately they can’t control that decision without new scrutiny being applied to the whole program (any law they introduce would bring unwanted attention to the whole program). And in any case, the design is set for now, and it’s already starting to slip schedule and go over budget, so why would NASA want to spend even MORE money on the program?

                But some guy on the internet says otherwise, so I defer to your superior understanding of the SLS ‘booster’ ‘program’.

                Glad I could help.

              • Guest

                Uh, then why did NASA just award $137.3M to three companies for the SLS Advanced Booster contracts? Would you consider that a “basic fact”?

                No I would not. It would probably help if you actually read the RFP.

                These are technology demonstration contracts. There is no advanced booster ‘program’. And if there were, which there isn’t, certainly Mr. Musk wouldn’t feel compelled to submit, since he already has functioning demonstrated boosters that require no technology demonstration at all, having already been demonstrated in reality of actual demonstrated flights. You could claim that he hasn’t demonstrated parallel staging of said boosters, but that will be demonstrated by the end of next year. Furthermore I question your ability to read the future and Mr. Musk’s mind whether there may eventually be an SLS advanced booster program and whether he may choose to submit or not, but I also don’t see why he would since the program clearly falls into the realm of ‘fraudulence’. As in defrauding the American public with nonsense designs. I’m only pointing out some very easy ways in which the design of the SLS could quickly move from fraudulent, to extremely interesting and valuable for the American public. I’m glad I could help you get a grip on your misunderstandings of the SLS program and its misdirection. Since your position appears to me to be inflexible, this conversation is over.

            • Paul

              I thought methane, and even more so propane, actually had worse coking problems than kerosene.

              • Guest

                No, it doesn’t. Incomplete combustion is dependent upon molecular weight and mixture ratio, with hydrogen being entirely exempt from any of these considerations. Nor does the concept of enthalpy of formation care much which species are called fuel and which species are called reactants, just as electrons and protons don’t care if you call them positive or negative. Oxidizers are merely called oxidizers because they contain oxygen. Technically all fuels are reactants. The cost of fuel (or oxidizers if you prefer) is a small fraction of launch costs and the cost of processing liquid hydrogen is greatly reduced by processing it on Earth. Mr. Musk’s engineers merely correctly deduced that a new start clean sheet cryogenic engine development would proceed more effectively with methane than it would with hydrogen, and his stated goal is Mars and not the moon. Also the boiling point of oxygen is within a fraction of a degree of the melting point of methane, and thus oxygen boiloff can be used to cool liquid methane. These are trades that have been performed years ago. What I am proposing is that large cryogenic hydrogen engines exist now, have existed for decades, and there is a large swath of circumference on the SLS core that is available for LRB attachment points, without even changing the SRB attachement points, and technology has advanced far beyond ET tank fabrication technology. And of course, I have done the sims so I know what is possible and what is not possible. The laws of physics are not any different for SpaceX engineers than they are for Boeing and NASA engineers. Unfortunately, NASA, Boeing and congress do not seem to be acknowledging either the laws of physics, nor the economic reality of fully reusable heavy lift launch vehicles. There is nothing in the laws of physics nor economic theory that prohibits the development of reusable heavy lift launch vehicles, and the SLS components and hydrogen engines are eminently capable of supporting their rapid development and implementation.

              • pathfinder_01

                Don’t know about Propane but methane has less coking problems than Kerosene. It is a propellant that is considered for in space storage becuase it does not coke eniges nor does it seperate in zero g like kerosene as well as mars isru posibilities.

              • Paul

                Hmm, I think I may have been misled by some studies that didn’t properly consider the effects of sulfur-containing impurity compounds.

    • Robert G. Oler

      Mark R. Whittington
      December 11, 2012 at 4:15 pm · Reply

      Much as I admire Golden Spike for its moxy, I have serious doubts that it will be able to do what it says it can do. $7-8 billion is an immense amount of money for the private sector, >

      but if you wanted a reason to cancel SLS…here is a good one.

      If Golden Spike cost 14 billion, not just 7 but lets say they missed it by double…then it still would cost less money then SLS has spent since Cx started.

      now when you add in Orion well the 2X billion spent so far would simply be exploration on the Moon.

      “It is certainly no reason to scrap SLS.”

      but in the spirit of not wasting federal money why dont you give us a single reason to continue a launch vehicle that when it flies “with a crew” will be over 10 years away, after almost 20 years in development (at about 1.5 billion a year at least) and it can only fly 2 more times (assuming it got a test in 17) before more money is needed for more development.

      Come on Mark, let us in on why you think that money is a good hting RGO

      • Neil Shipley

        These are good questions and have been asked before. I’d also like to hear your response Mark since I’ve yet to hear an adequate response.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “$7-8 billion is an immense amount of money for the private sector, It is certainly no reason to scrap SLS.”

      The fact that the Golden Spike plan can get astronauts on the surface of the Moon for billions less than what SLS/MPCV will spend just to get an unmanned capsule into space is exactly why it’s a reason to scrap SLS. Who cares if Golden Spike can’t raise $7-8 billion to get back on the Moon? That’s a human space exploration program NASA’s taxpayers can afford.

  • This thread makes people cry in Hart and Rayburn.

    So much misinformation zooming around offices. People know what the right thing to do is. I am just not sure if the will “pull the trigger”. Take SLS funding and throw it into an SAA Milestone contract with GSC while Orion clumps along.

    That is the answer.

    Respectfully,
    Andrew Gasser
    TEA Party in Space

    • Robert G. Oler

      Andrew. With all due respect I doubt many people in DC particularly in the House have a clue what the correct thing to do is; and that includes most people who claim to be “Tea Party” members but who are just really right wing members of the GOP

      The SLS and Orion are posture children for the way the House works under both Dems and Republicans, except in this century the GOP (and that includes Tea party people) have made an art out of it…ie “whats in my district is important to me, so if you want me to vote for what is in your district which is important to you then well we all vote for things which outside our district suck”

      I AM NOT SAYING that the Dems dont do it, they do (and even some Dems do it on SLS/Orion) but the GOP and the TeaParty wing of it does it all while also mouthing the words “cut spending” and “no new taxes”…

      NASA is dysfunctional for a host of reasons but for the most part it is dysfunctional for the same reason the DoD is…there is no project that NASA does (except say Gore sat) which the folks who protect it in Washington dont excuse incompetence and ineptness on. and hence NASA has no real incentive to fire anyone.

      And those people are mostly Republicans and quite a few self proclaimed or otherwise members of the Tea Party.

      RGO

  • A M Swallow

    ITAR – Reaction Engines Limited, the British firm building the civilian Skylon space plane, admit to banning the use of US made parts because of problem with ITAR. This is bad for jobs in the USA. Other European companies may have similar rules. An investigation into how ITAR restricts US exports of civilian goods is needed.

    A national security law banning military exports to a small number of communist and terrorist countries is very different to a law that bans almost all exports. ITAR is becoming the second.

    Examples of problems ITAR is causing in Britain.

    South: Defence boost?
    Last Updated: Friday, 16 July, 2004, 12:28 GMT 13:28 UK
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3892891.stm

    US-UK Treaty Aims to Ease ITAR Export Control Burdens
    Sep 30, 2010 12:31 EDT
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-uk-treaty-aims-to-ease-itar-export-control-burdens-04371

  • Robert G. Oler

    While working here I have occasionally peaked at some of Jeff’s tweets…just say this

    As long as “leadership” in space is viewed as “NASA sending humans to somewhere” then there is not going to be much of it.

    A few things should be clear:

    1. NASA cannot conduct human spaceflight programs that have realistic time frames for anywhere near approaching the amount of money that is likely to be spent.

    The Golden Spike folks (as I noted to Whittington) even if they missed their price by a factor of 2 would accomplish “something” in space for about what SLS/ORION spent in their Cx guises. And for that there was nothing. At current funding rates NASA will need at least 30 billion more (so around 45 billion) to get to a simple human test flight of Orion…that is essentially a 45 billion dollar flight. And with that there is no anything after that.

    2. Unless how NASA has been doing HSF but space programs in general is abandoned and some other mechanism found it will soon be obvious that ANY human space effort will quickly price itself out of the market

    The EML station for all its hoopla…never had a price tag to get to some operational condition.

    3. The time spans are to long.

    Its hard to imagine how a knock off of the shuttle system that replaces the orbiter with some sort of cargo carrier or a modified Apollo capsule takes a little over 15 years at 3 billion a year

    Until this changes we are doing the theme song from STreets of Fire…as Ellen and the Attackers noted; we are going nowhere but we are going nowhere fast.

    RGO

  • The greatest failure new affiliate marketers make is not getting a customers email address. By sending prospects directly to an affiliate website, you are working to build the owners business, not yours. You should focus on growing your business, not selling affiliate products.

    Building an effective affiliate business the right way:

    1. Use a lead-capture page on your own domain. Write an email course that highlights the benefits of the product you are promoting. Design your squeeze page to promote your email course. Then, in your course, promote your affiliate product. You will be on your way towards creating a valuable direct marketing business with your very own customers.

    2. We’ve all heard the money is in the list. Concentrate your efforts on sending visitors to your website. It’s a numbers game and the more visitors you get, the more money you can make. Having lists of buyers that are interested in the products you are promoting is is key. You Should continue to build this list. You should be spending at least 65 percent of your time in targeted list building.

    3. Reinvest in your business. When you make a sale, congratulate yourself! Take your spouse to dinner, go to a movie, or buy another internet marketing ebook! Growing your business though, should be your primary goal. You should take at least 60% of your profits and reinvest them back into your business.Smart affiliate marketers invest 60% of their profits back into their business. How? By purchasing pay per click or cpm advertising, setting up another website with a different affiliate topic, or even purchasing an d marketing an ebook with reprint rights.

    4. Keep marketing to your list(s).Don’t let your list go stale by not sending emails regularly. You should always be on the lookout for new products to promote.Search for new related products to promote regularly. Write a new email series for each related product you locate and ad it to your autoresponder(s). You should be adding one new series and related product to your auto responder every month. You will have members that unsubscribe from your list but if you are focused on building your list you will always have many more subscribers for each unsubscribe you receive.you shold however have many more subscribers than unsubscribe requests if you continue promoting your list. If you follow these steps, your affiliate business will grow into a very profitable direct marketing business.By following these four simple steps, you can build a great affiliate marketing business.

Leave a Reply to Justin Kugler 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>