Congress, NASA

Subcommittee quickly approves amended NASA authorization bill

The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee quickly approved an amended version of HR 4412 during a markup session this morning that lasted less than half an hour. Instead of the bill text as filed, the subcommittee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute with several changes to the bill introduced earlier this week.

The revised bill amends the provision in the new bill requiring NASA to develop an exploration roadmap, requiring such a report 180 days after the bill’s enactment (instead of one year as previously.) The bill includes a new section on the Commercial Crew program, specifying that “safety is the highest priority” in the selection of new contracts for the program, as well as an independent cost and schedule estimate due to Congress 30 days after the new contracts are awarded.

The amended bill no longer bars NASA from spending money on its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). It does, though, require a report within 180 days of enactment on budget and schedule for the mission, as well as what technologies the ARM will use that can also be used for Mars “which could not be gained by lunar missions.” Added to the amended bill is a provision requiring a report within 60 days on the Mars 2021 flyby mission concept proposed by Inspiration Mars, to be followed by an assessment “of whether the proposal for a Mars Flyby Mission to be launched in 2021 is in the strategic interests of the United States in space exploration.”

On termination liability, the amended bill prohibits reserving funds for termination liability for covered programs (SLS, Orion, JWST, and ISS) and requires NASA to give 12 months notice before NASA could terminate those programs either for cause or for convenience [corrected to reflect language in the bill].

Unlike last year’s contentious, partisan debate, subcommittee and full committee leadership of both parties praised the bipartisan nature of this revised bill. “The bill and amendment for subcommittee this morning reflect a true bipartisan agreement,” Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS), chairman of the space subcommittee. “The ranking member and I don’t always see eye-to-eye, but the provisions contained in this agreement are a testament that Republicans and Democrats can work together in an effective manner for the good of the nation.”

The only sour note to the bipartisan harmony was from full committee vice-chairman Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), who said that while he supported the bill overall, he disagreed with the long-term goal of the exploration roadmap of sending humans to Mars. “I believe it is an expensive folly to tie the American government’s space program so closely to the goal of putting human beings on Mars,” he said. “The odds are too great that this will result in a huge waste of very limited resources that could be spent on goals that are much more certain and much more beneficial to our people today. When one tried to cross a bridge too far, somebody’s going to get soaked.”

43 comments to Subcommittee quickly approves amended NASA authorization bill

  • Coastal Ron

    Well one “can” for the SLS has been kicked down the road.

    I think Rohrabacher’s comment about Mars is interesting. It can be argued that having a goal is important, but I think what he is really pointing out is that at this point the goal of “Mars” is so far down the road that our efforts are too unfocused. And that can be seen in the language inserted into the Bill about the money spent for on the ARM to gain technologies for Mars, and whether going to the Moon would be a better investment. Bottom line is that we don’t have a clear consensus within even one side of Congress for what our priorities should be.

    And with the little amount that NASA can devote to HSF and going to places like Mars, the goal of Mars is probably generations down the road, so arguing about what technologies should be tested on the Moon or in space is really meaningless…

    • MrEarl

      “the goal of “Mars” is so far down the road that our efforts are too unfocused. ”
      True, making plans to go to Mars now is like trying to book a transAtlantic flight the day after Kitty Hawk. On the other hand we do have a good idea of the technologies we will need to get there and it does seem to be the concensus that Mars is the next major milestone. What needs to happen now is for the US to re-focus our efforts. From now on technology development, mission planning and all decisions made about govenment human space flight needs to be able to answer the question; “How does this further our mission to get to Mars?”

  • Boeing’s hand in the commercial crew verbiage, overpriced won’t give up easily.

  • Andrew Swallow

    … as well as what technologies the ARM will use that can also be used for Mars “which could not be gained by lunar missions.”

    A SEP tug was part of some of the Mars plans. It can also be used to deliver cargo to Low Lunar Orbit, but since it takes many months longer than tugs with chemical engines it would probably not have given development money.
    Note: For the same LEO mass a SEP tug can deliver a heavier payload than a chemical tug.

    • Coastal Ron

      Andrew Swallow said:

      Note: For the same LEO mass a SEP tug can deliver a heavier payload than a chemical tug.

      If only we could have a conversation about the fundamental technologies and techniques that we should be funding, instead of talking about how we’re supposed to do something useful with Congressionally mandated hardware. Representative Wolf supposedly wants to know about that, but I doubt his sincerity.

      • Dark Blue Nine

        “Representative Wolf supposedly wants to know about that, but I doubt his sincerity.”

        Since Wolf is retiring/not running in 2014, it doesn’t much matter. By the time Congress passes appropriations and NASA delivers whatever information Wolf requests in the act, he will be long gone.

      • Neil Shipley

        Yes that would be worthwhile but it’s not going to happen while all the pollies can focus on is where their next chunk of pork is coming from. Oh well, there’s always SpaceX. As they say, timing is everything.

  • Andrew Swallow

    The bill includes a new section on the Commercial Crew program, specifying that “safety is the highest priority” in the selection of new contracts for the program, …

    At the time this clause was first written the manufacturer was going saying its Atlas V was the safest launch vehicle – based on track record. If the RD-180 engines are replaced by a similar US made engine with a different coating then the track record probably no longer applies. The Boeing CST-100/Atlas V may now be officially one of the most dangerous Commercial Crew bids.

    Titanic meet iceberg.
    Atlas V meet Crimea.

    It is going to be fun watching the lobbing for this clause being put into reverse.

    • Malmesbury

      Just get the people who write the report that claimed that Ares-I imposed a lower G loading on crew than launching on an EELV.

      It was actually much higher, but since they were NASA Gs they were not as bad for you….

      With talent like that, I’m sure that a brand new copy of an engine which you only have partial data for can be presented as safer than an engine with a complete design and operational history available….

    • Neil Shipley

      IIRC Boeing is keeping it’s options open by designing CST-100 to be compatible with F9 as well as the Atlas V. Don’t think DC is doing that.

      • Coastal Ron

        Neil Shipley said:

        Don’t think DC is doing that.

        I don’t think I’ve heard them say they weren’t. Maybe they aren’t, but just saying I don’t think they have said they weren’t.

      • yg1968

        DC can also fly on a Falcon 9.

        • Neil Shipley

          Source please.

        • Neil Shipley

          To clarify, I’m sure that F9 can handle the mass. My question is around the aerodynamic forces and associated loads, control mechanisms, etc. I can’t say I’ve heard of any agreement between SpaceX and SN to investigate these. It would have shown up somewhere by now if there was one.
          Cheers.

          • Coastal Ron

            Neil Shipley said:

            My question is around the aerodynamic forces and associated loads, control mechanisms, etc.

            If Atlas V can handle it, why wouldn’t Falcon 9?

            I can’t say I’ve heard of any agreement between SpaceX and SN to investigate these. It would have shown up somewhere by now if there was one.

            You mean a leak? We wouldn’t necessarily have found out about such thing if all that was happening was engineering staff meeting to discuss what the payload required and what the launcher provided. Those happen all the time with prospective SpaceX customers and we don’t hear about it.

            Not saying it has been seriously looked into, but just saying that they could have and it wouldn’t have made it to the news media.

    • If the RD-180 engines are replaced by a similar US made engine with a different coating then the track record probably no longer applies.

      One would surmise from our closet Russia sympathizers that some mysterious alchemy surrounds the manufacture of the RD-180, when they only use the same brazing techniques invented by the US for the SSME and staged combustion engines. Free the RD-180 and bring it home now!

      • Coastal Ron

        amightywind said:

        Free the RD-180 and bring it home now!

        Not sure you understand who owns what, but this statement makes you sound like Putin talking about Crimea…

        • I suggest we exercise rights that the US has already been purchased for this contingency. Russia is clearly and obviously an enemy and a threat. The entire defense structure of Europe is organised around this fact. When will you mushy headed liberals come to grips with this?

    • Jeff, where does that “safety is the highest priority” quote come from? I can’t find it in the bill itself.

  • Egad

    The amended bill no longer bars NASA from spending money on its Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM). It does, though, require a report within 180 days of enactment on budget and schedule for the mission, as well as what technologies the ARM will use that can also be used for Mars “which could not be gained by lunar missions.” Added to the amended bill is a provision requiring a report within 60 days on the Mars 2021 flyby mission concept proposed by Inspiration Mars, to be followed by an assessment “of whether the proposal for a Mars Flyby Mission to be launched in 2021 is in the strategic interests of the United States in space exploration.”

    It would be excellent, not to say entertaining, if NASA were to do those things for real, with credibly supported schedules and budgets. I’d love to see the faces of the committee members on being presented the bill for the 2021 Mars flyby.

    While talking about such things, how much redesign would be needed on the Orion to let it have a 19-month quiescent period (vs the present 6-month spec) and to supply it with a PICA heat shield?

    Never happen, of course, but one can dream…

  • Malmesbury

    “One would surmise from our closet Russia sympathizers that some mysterious alchemy surrounds the manufacture of the RD-180″

    They use coatings on the inside of the engine. The nature and methods for applying the coatings was not included in the technical transfer from Russia. When they experimented with producing parts in the US, they were unable to reproduce the coatings. This is a concern since the coatings may well be the secret sauce that allows the RD-180 to tolerate oxygen rich gas flow at extreme temp and pressure so reliably.

    All this is available on nasaspaceflight.com

  • Robert G Oler

    Dana’s full comments about Mars are essentially correct. At the stage of technology and industrial capabilities any focus on a human landing on Mars is ludicrious…the cost, lack of safety and the requirement to simply “invent” not develop technology makes it a stupid notion. For a fraction of the cost we can get far more science and exploration from uncrewed vehicles.

    We need to develop a space infrastructure that is self sustaining not dependent on government spending. RGO

    • DCSCA

      “We need to develop a space infrastructure that is self sustaining not dependent on government spending.”

      Pfft. We need a perpetual motion machine and a good 10 cent cigar, too. Government will always be involved w/space ops. Even Armstrong acknowledged that over 25 years ago in a wel publicized DC presser.

      • Hiram

        “We need a perpetual motion machine and a good 10 cent cigar, too.”

        Elon might just be up to that challenge.

        “Even Armstrong acknowledged that …”

        Armstrong is gone, and a 25-year old “well publicized DC presser” is irrelevant to the contemporary world. Of course government will always be involved in space ops. Just because space ops doesn’t depend on the government doesn’t mean they aren’t involved.

        The problem with government dependency is simple. Congress, and the congressional budget cycle.

  • DCSCA

    Treading water. ‘Muddling through’… etc. Rohrbacher has nothing of any value to contribute to future planning/operations for HSF. Mars has been spinning around, hanging out there as a long range ‘goal’– at least a serious one for planning, since Dryden penned similar musings fifty years ago in an old National Geographic.

    The intermediate future is Luna. And it wil be government(s) that take humans back there. Not commercial. LEO is a ticket to no place, going in circles, no where, fast.

    • John Malkin

      NanoRacks and Bigelow could drive a commercially viable lunar lab. NanoRacks’ Jeff Manber in his senate testimony said lunar is on their roadmap. By lowering the cost of space access markets will expand. It will create an environment of commercial innovation.

      From the revised authorization bill
      “the term ‘domestic commercial provider’ means a person providing space transportation services or other space-related activities, the majority control of which is held by persons other than a Federal, State, local, or foreign government, foreign company, or foreign national.”

      Commercial doesn’t exclude government. It gives a ‘majority’ ownership and control to entities. Satellites are the prime space example of commercial space. We need to apply it to HSF, it’s not going to be easy but we don’t do things because they are easy…

    • But Russia is focused on the moon, even if our Hamlet of a NASA Administrator is not.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2602291/We-coming-Moon-FOREVER-Russia-sets-plans-conquer-colonise-space-including-permanent-manned-moon-base.html

      Guess what? We’re not invited! How do you like our Russian partners now?

      • Hiram

        “How do you like our Russian partners now?”

        The Russian partnership on ISS was set up for one purpose only — to employ aerospace workers who would otherwise be developing intercontinental ballistic missles. That strategy has worked very well. For that purpose alone, I like ‘em fine.

        No wonder the Russians want to colonize the Moon. Their efforts on Mars have been totally laughable. It will be interesting to see if they can do a lunar orbiter and lander. They haven’t had a lot of practice on that kind of thing in a long long time.

        Now, if Russia wants to colonize the Moon, it might take some pressure off the Ukraine.

      • Wake me when they at least do a manned circumlunar mission…

        They almost did it in 1968, after all. Today’s Soyuz technology is better, Inverted sensors not withstanding, the Proton is more reliable than back when it was new. Talk continues to be inexpensive. As someone else here is fond of saying of Commercial Crew (which at least has some regularly working hardware to this end, with more on the way), when will they fly somebody?

        I would not expect their invitation, nor are they crying to go to the Moon with us, either. Meanwhile, the former alternative to Obama, still doesn’t look like he’d look kindly on someone who came to him with Moon base plans…

      • Vladislaw

        Windasovich didn’t show what the article said…

        President Bush announced the Vision for Space Exploration in 2004. In the document released in Feb of 2004, it stated multiple times, a landing on the moon as early as 2015 and no later than 2020.

        By the time a bi partisan congress refused to fund it anymore and canceled it, the earliest landing on Luna had moved to right to 2033. A total of 29 years. In this respect Winasovich is correct Russia cut their plan to only 26 years.

        Is Vlad keen on a trip?

        “Kremlin announced the 26-year plan in state-run newspaper this morning

        Deputy PM says moon is only realistic source of minerals and resources

        First mission to launch in 2016 and ‘base will be up and running by 2040′ ”

        yup the Russians are going to do in only 26 years what was going to take us 29 years.

  • vulture4

    I’m with RGO on this. The customer for a commercial service can be tourists, researchers, or government agencies, but they all follow the law of supply and demand. But unless the price of human spaceflight can be brought down to a fraction of what it would be with the SLS/Orion technology, the market size will be too small for human spaceflight to be sustainable. In the long term, this holds true for Russia and China as well.

  • Space Advocate

    In the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it.

    The United States Space Program was an engine of our economy!

    Under the Obama Administration, NASA is waving the white flag as other countries forge ahead with plans for human lunar exploration and settlement. This is a national disgrace!

    Support bipartisan legislation that sets NASA’s focus on the Moon! Specifically, the REAL Space Act of 2013 directs NASA to plan to return to the Moon by 2022 and develop a sustained human presence there as a stepping stone for future exploration.

    Support the REAL Space Act of 2013 and America’s triumphant return to the Moon!

    http://www.facebook.com/REALSpaceAct2013

    Link to Congressman Bill Posey’s web site included below.

    http://posey.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=327243

    Link to Congressman Bill Posey’s bill is included below.

    “http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113%3AH.R.1446%3A”

    IF YOU CARE ABOUT AMERICA’S SPACE PROGRAM, “LIKE” THIS PAGE AND SPREAD THE WORD!

    • Jim Nobles

      NASA’s focus should absolutely be not set on the Moon. Our Congress will never give them enough money to do much of anything there and in no kind of reasonable time frame. People who are continually calling for Uncle Sugar to pay for returning to the Moon aren’t being sensible. Not enough support in Congress or in the general American populace. If there was, we’d already be on the moon to stay.

      Instead call for NASA to spend what resources it has on developing the assets needed for allowing commercial to spearhead the effort. Commercial has a much better chance of getting the job done and we should support that. Who’s developing affordable launch? Commercial (SpaceX). Who’s developing affordable habitats? Commercial (Bigelow Aerospace).

      Expecting the government to finance an actual meaningful manned space program is foolishness. They are not going to do it. They’ve proven it. Let the people who actually want to get this done lead the way. They are in commercial space. That’s just the way it is.

    • Hiram

      “The United States Space Program was an engine of our economy!”

      Was? The real engine of our economy IS the effort on navigation, communication, and surveillance/resource detection that continues to dominate our space efforts. If by United States Space Program you mean NASA’s human space flight effort, er, not so. The space economy would go on grandly and proudly if that NASA human space flight effort closed shop entirely. Hope that doesn’t happen, but it’s not being done in the interest of the economy.

      “Under the Obama Administration, NASA is waving the white flag as other countries forge ahead with plans for human lunar exploration and settlement. This is a national disgrace!”

      Lunar settlement is in no way shape or form a national priority. It would be a national disgrace if our President was pursuing efforts that weren’t consistent with national priorities.

      “Support the REAL Space Act of 2013 and America’s triumphant return to the Moon!”

      Triumphant? Give me a break. Triumph would be doing something hard AND important. A return of humans to the Moon is, in itself, hardly important. Apollo 17 was, I guess, a “triumphant return to the Moon” but, gee, it was really not looked at that way at the time. I guess the potential for triumph increases with time. So let’s put the return off another decade or two, whereby it’ll end up being MORE triumphant! The REAL Space Act is being reintroduced this year because last year it went nowhere. It didn’t even get out of subcommittee. By the way, the last line of text in this bill is “The budget requests and expenditures of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall be consistent with achieving this goal.” Presto, money!

      Of course they can’t get this legislation into a real authorization bill, so they throw it out in an easily ignorable stand-alone bill.

      This isn’t space advocacy. It’s just silly.

    • Vladislaw

      Your facebook page is a joke, I made a bunch of comments that I see today were all removed… I guess you do not want any actual facts being presented that disagrees with the false narrative you are trying to sell… it is really laughable.

      • “Your facebook page is a joke, I made a bunch of comments that I see today were all removed… I guess you do not want any actual facts being presented that disagrees with the false narrative you are trying to sell… it is really laughable.”

        Whenever I run across his posts (‘Space Advocate,’ you really should remove references to Facebook, when posting elsewhere. We don’t do ‘like’ here.) and respond with facts and supporting links, he simply re-posts the same, pushing my comments out of sight…

    • “NASA is waving the white flag as other countries forge ahead with plans for human lunar exploration and settlement.”

      Names of countries, please?

Leave a 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>