Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sftommy

Guest
If it comes up tomorrow in present form;

This isn’t just about Space-X,
it’s about the wrong vision for NASA.

And it’s being rushed through congress with no notice,
WARNING FLARE
Congress doesn’t rush on anything except for powerful special interests

If you rep is it all unsure about space policy tell them to vote NO so they can make a better, more informed decision.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

I agree. This bill seems to be mainly about giving billions in business to ATK that they didn't even have to compete for.
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Time to play devil's advocate: while Space-X and these aerospace companies can provide access to LEO on the cheap, none of them are going to explore the solar system anytime soon nor is there a market for a HLV that can take men to the Moon or Mars. Leave LEO to them while the government explore the planets.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Crossover_Maniac":14fuot0m said:
Time to play devil's advocate: while Space-X and these aerospace companies can provide access to LEO on the cheap, none of them are going to explore the solar system anytime soon nor is there a market for a HLV that can take men to the Moon or Mars. Leave LEO to them while the government explore the planets.
Have you seen the bills???????

Funding for space exploration? CUT 90%<----------------------

Funding for technologies to advance in deep space CUT.

The single thing this gives us is funding for a Superheavy that might be ready by say 2020 at the earliest. Keep in mind this wont happen sense its so woefuly underfunded. But hey it practicaly smashes the rest of the space exploration program---One of Nasa's main jobs-------for this probably never goingto get built launcher without a job.

What could you people see wrong in this???? :roll:
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

I have already asked mine to vote yes. SpaceX isn't taking us one step closer to Mars, Moon or anywhere else beyond LEO. Whatever NASA builds will be designed to do just that. Musk has tipped his hand in begging for public funding. He has a shakey business model and wants the American public to bear the risk for his profit. That's just wrong.

I have no problem with a SpaceX ISS taxi service. However, if they want in that business, they need to take the risk themselves. Clearly Musk feels that risk is too great and wants to push it off on the US taxpayer.
 
J

Jonny_Quest

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

rcsplinters":1j2isv7t said:
I have already asked mine to vote yes. SpaceX isn't taking us one step closer to Mars, Moon or anywhere else beyond LEO. Whatever NASA builds will be designed to do just that. Musk has tipped his hand in begging for public funding. He has a shakey business model and wants the American public to bear the risk for his profit. That's just wrong.

I have no problem with a SpaceX ISS taxi service. However, if they want in that business, they need to take the risk themselves. Clearly Musk feels that risk is too great and wants to push it off on the US taxpayer.
Reality check - we're in a transition period now. For manned LEO missions, the 100% NASA-owned and NASA-operated shuttle will end soon. I agree that it would be great if we had a 100% privately funded U.S. commercial system ready to take over that task the next day. Eventually I believe we will get to that point. But a safe, reliable, manned space capability is very expensive. So for now, pragmatically speaking, the commercial space industry needs a combination of their own capital plus some government funding to phase in a U.S. based taxi service to LEO. The alternatives, for such missions, are to rely on the Russians indefinitely, or spend much more $$$ on a new NASA-owned rocket. (The latter is a fine choice for missions beyond LEO, however.)

The U.S. commercial space industry can get there, but be patient, it's a lot to expect for it to happen overnight. Of the two bills in Congress, only the Senate bill gives the U.S. space industry this chance.
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Valcan":3qp43zuz said:
Crossover_Maniac":3qp43zuz said:
Time to play devil's advocate: while Space-X and these aerospace companies can provide access to LEO on the cheap, none of them are going to explore the solar system anytime soon nor is there a market for a HLV that can take men to the Moon or Mars. Leave LEO to them while the government explore the planets.
Have you seen the bills???????

Funding for space exploration? CUT 90%<----------------------

Funding for technologies to advance in deep space CUT.

The single thing this gives us is funding for a Superheavy that might be ready by say 2020 at the earliest. Keep in mind this wont happen sense its so woefuly underfunded. But hey it practicaly smashes the rest of the space exploration program---One of Nasa's main jobs-------for this probably never goingto get built launcher without a job.

What could you people see wrong in this???? :roll:
After 40 years of manned space exploration being limited to LEO vs spending space probes to all the planets in the solar system, the space science department doesn't have much to complain about.
 
M

menellom

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

The version of the bill passed by the House Committee on Science and Technology, the version that will be debated and voted on today, will continue the Constellation Program more or less as planned. The Ares I will NOT fly before 2018 at the earliest, and the Ares V will not fly before the mid to late 2020's. Add to that the fact that any plans for a lander or habitat are still in the 'doodle on a napkin' stage, and you're looking at $20-30 billion being sunk into a program that maybe has us doing Apollo style sorties on the Moon in 20 years.

I just called my Congressman's office (Loebsack, IA) and asked him to support amending the bill to fund commercial development and to develop a new HLV and spacecraft rather than continue Constellation.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Sorry to play fear monger, but a longer-term national strategy is a consideration;

It is in the best interest of the United States that the commercial human launch space industry develops under the auspices of the United States and not a foreign government. That certain controls are held by officers of the US government.

Any other choice imperils the future of US national security. The US spends a Billion a year trying to keep terrorist off US planes, out of US skies. If commercial is not developed under US control we risk opening this venue to unfriendlies in the next decade.

Politics isn’t rocket science, national security must be. NASA must be fully funded for all its missions including the development and control of commercial human space flight.
 
M

menellom

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

WHEW! House adjourned without bringing up the bill. That gives people the next month or so to get out their and encourage our representatives to support a better alternative
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Website POLITICO has an interesting article online detailing a little more of the back room shenanigans behind this this week;

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40472.html

What is motivating Rep Gordon that he would try so hard to push this over and against the will of so large a part of the motivated electorate? In an underhanded way?
 
H

HopDavid

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Crossover_Maniac":1f1ekol3 said:
Time to play devil's advocate: while Space-X and these aerospace companies can provide access to LEO on the cheap, none of them are going to explore the solar system anytime soon nor is there a market for a HLV that can take men to the Moon or Mars. Leave LEO to them while the government explore the planets.
The government isn't going to explore the planets with this make work program.

Quite the opposite. Many exciting robotic missions will be axed to pay for this pork.

Best case scenario: flags and footprints on Mars and an asteroid. Worst case (and far more likely) axed before the HLV ever takes any humans past LEO.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

Realized something tonight while discussing this topic on the Bar.

A easy reason why we shouldnt have this bill and should support commercial and especially SpaceX instead.

"This means in for a 1.5 billion you can get 51,000 lbs to orbit or for 1.7 you can get 1,065,000 lbs to orbit.......now which makes more sense?

Thats not adding the fact that falcon 9 will be man rated before Ares I or that falcon series has the ability to do a restart, or that they can lose a engine and complete the mission...

There logicaly isnt a reason for Ares anymore."

The Falcon 9 series and especially the Falcon 9H can be launched almost 15 times for the cost of 1 Ares I...That is a culmative total of Millions of lbs vs.....51,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9

The answer here seems obvious to me. :geek:
 
M

menellom

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

I just got back from meeting with some people at Congressman Loebsack's office. The good news is that most of the House hasn't even had a chance to read HR5781, let alone make up their minds on it. I encourage everyone to call their representative and encourage them to oppose HR5781. Tell them to support the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation's version of the bill or tell them to support drafting a new bill altogether but 5781 can't be allowed to pass.
 
D

danhezee

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

http://www.reformspacenow.com/
HR 5781 Asks Taxpayers to Bail Out an Over-Budget, Behind-Schedule Program Called Ares I

The success of human space flight is too important to be driven by pork spending. Not only does Ares I replicate capabilities we already have, but Ares I is far behind schedule and dramatically over budget.

Publicly available data shows that Ares I has slipped its schedule by 5-7 years, and yet is still 7 years from being completed.
Ares I’s development costs have risen from $1.5 billion in 2005, to about $4.3 billion in 2006, to now over $17 billion. Most of this is yet to be spent.
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

HopDavid":1hc18od0 said:
Crossover_Maniac":1hc18od0 said:
Time to play devil's advocate: while Space-X and these aerospace companies can provide access to LEO on the cheap, none of them are going to explore the solar system anytime soon nor is there a market for a HLV that can take men to the Moon or Mars. Leave LEO to them while the government explore the planets.
The government isn't going to explore the planets with this make work program.

Quite the opposite. Many exciting robotic missions will be axed to pay for this pork.

Best case scenario: flags and footprints on Mars and an asteroid. Worst case (and far more likely) axed before the HLV ever takes any humans past LEO.
I don't know if you're one of those "Let's axe the manned space program and give the money to JPL to launch more probes", but if you are, I want to let you know that stabbing the manned space program in the back doesn't mean planetary sciences is getting the money, and secondly, the same arguments for giving the manned space program the axe can and has been used to put unmanned space sciences on the chopping block and it's a fate they so richly deserved.
 
K

kelvinzero

Guest
Re: Ask you REP to vote NO on H.R. 5781 tomorrow

We are talking about the house bill right?

My horror of the House bill is based in particular on the way it slashes the exploration technology budget. That is the budget that deals with life support, ISRU, new spacesuits etc. These were some figures I dug up and pasted on the NasaSpaceflight site.

(this is pasted from this link: http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index. ... ic=22328.0)

Exploration Technology- this includes closed cycle life support, ISRU, radiation protection,
-President: 652.4m "Exploration Technology and demonstration"
-Senate: 75m "Exploration Technology Development"
-House: 0.0

Robotic precursor- the president's version includes a robotic lander/rover to the lunar pole around 2015, with an ISRU experiment.
-President: 125m "Exploration precursor robotic mission program"
-Senate: 44m "Robotic precurser studies and instruments"
-House: 0.0
I think a later version of the Senate bill increased these numbers significantly.

This is from S. 3729 (is that the latest? I think Chris just put it online. I really don't understand the american political process)

2011:
7 (C) $250,000,000 shall be for Exploration
8 Technology Development;
16 (G) $100,000,000 shall be for Robotic Pre17
cursor Studies and Instruments.

2012:
17 (C) $437,300,000 shall be for Exploration
18 Technology Development;
(F) $100,000,000 shall be for Robotic Pre24
cursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions.

2013:
22 (C) $449,000,000 shall be for Exploration
23 Technology Development;
3 (F) $100,000,000 shall be for Robotic Pre4
cursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions.
The house bill slashes a bunch of other things also. This is just my personal favorite and what got me interested in space, the way the VSE was a commitment to not just go somewhere, but go somewhere to do something, to learn how to stay. The house budget isnt even about going somewhere. No one is even talking about a lander anymore. Maybe, if everything works out, it might deliver us to a NEO for a one off visit. We wouldnt have advanced lifesupport but I guess you just send a big bottle o' oxygen for a 100 day trip. There wouldn't be any radiation protection, but after all we pay astronauts to take risks right? In short we could do it without any significant advances at all, and that would be it. With an architecture that can take you to a NEO there is no danger of getting into a habit of going. Orbital mechanics rule it out. When someone asks about a mission to mars we would just have to say the same thing we have had to say after the last 30 years. Sorry we don't know about the radiation. We don't know about the gravity, we don't know about the life support, we don't know about the generation of fuel from local resources, we don't know how to land humansized missions through mars's atmosphere. And we don't have the money to look into these things right now. Sorry.

Unless the house bill has significantly changed since I last inspected it, it is the death of any dream of a permanent human BEO outpost for the forseeable future and also does its best to kill every last $100m that could possibly be spent on making exploration practical or meaningful while we wait for this HLV, or to provide a worthy mission for it when it appears.

The house bill makes it very clear it has no vision at all beyond keeping the money flowing to the same people.

(edit: changed asteroid to NEO)
 
C

Crossover_Maniac

Guest
HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

I've read HR 5781 and I've kept up with the Obama plan which varies depending on the time of day. After much soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the HR 5781 plan is a piece of cow feces while the Obama plan (subject to change depending on where the political wind is blowing) is a piece of horse feces.

The problem with HR 5781
HR 5781 in section 202 calls for continue funding of the Ares flight vehicle. Ares I and V has been racked with cost overruns and problems and will not go into service until at least 2018, eight years after shuttle's retirement. Ares I and V are both over-budget by $17 billion. But is Obama's third plan any better? That's right. His third plan. Then candidate Obama's first plan was to replace Constellation with a government-run preschool program. He then changed his mind and said it was vital to fund Constellation only to change it again and stop funding altogether once he got in office.

Problems with Obama's plans
The first problem is the same Constellation. Both Constellation and Obama-Space will not have a replacement for the shuttle by the time it's needed. So if Russia jacks the price for rides on the Soyuz or deny us access altogether due to some international pissing contest with them and the US, there's nothing the US can do about getting access to the ISS. Secondly, Obama's heavy lift plan. Obama's current plan hasn't scrapped heavy lift. Instead, heavy lift will be put off until 2015 after all shuttle equipment and millings have been destroyed. IOW: Obama would have NASA start from scratch rather build on shuttle heritage to make a shuttle-derived heavy lift. Also, according to some sites, Constellation would not get mankind back to the moon until 2030. However, Obama-Space will not get us to an asteroid until 2025, only a five year difference between the two projections. The only thing Obama seems to be doing right is counting on the private sector for a shuttle replacement and the fact that Ares I and V gets defunded. But since there are other options like DIRECT or the side-mount shuttle derived heavy lift, it's pointless to scrap shuttle parts just to reinvent our heavy lift capability if we're playing on using them eventually for manned missions.
 
K

kk434

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

"So if Russia jacks the price for rides on the Soyuz or deny us access altogether due to some international pissing contest with them and the US, there's nothing the US can do about getting access to the ISS."

Has already happened, one seat on soyuz is expected to reach 100 million $ in 2014.
 
D

danhezee

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

Crossover_Maniac":2enoauv4 said:
The problem with HR 5781
HR 5781 in section 202 calls for continue funding of the Ares flight vehicle. Ares I and V has been racked with cost overruns and problems and will not go into service until at least 2018, eight years after shuttle's retirement. Ares I and V are both over-budget by $17 billion. But is Obama's third plan any better? That's right. His third plan. Then candidate Obama's first plan was to replace Constellation with a government-run preschool program. He then changed his mind and said it was vital to fund Constellation only to change it again and stop funding altogether once he got in office.
Do you even look at dates the first link is from 11-20-07 and the 8-19-08, Both before he was president and both before the Constantine Commission
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

kk434":2xzh70du said:
"So if Russia jacks the price for rides on the Soyuz or deny us access altogether due to some international pissing contest with them and the US, there's nothing the US can do about getting access to the ISS."

Has already happened, one seat on soyuz is expected to reach 100 million $ in 2014.
Can I get a source on that.
 
D

DarkenedOne

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

Crossover_Maniac":192e8oca said:
I've read HR 5781 and I've kept up with the Obama plan which varies depending on the time of day. After much soul searching, I have come to the conclusion that the HR 5781 plan is a piece of cow feces while the Obama plan (subject to change depending on where the political wind is blowing) is a piece of horse feces.

The problem with HR 5781
HR 5781 in section 202 calls for continue funding of the Ares flight vehicle. Ares I and V has been racked with cost overruns and problems and will not go into service until at least 2018, eight years after shuttle's retirement. Ares I and V are both over-budget by $17 billion. But is Obama's third plan any better? That's right. His third plan. Then candidate Obama's first plan was to replace Constellation with a government-run preschool program. He then changed his mind and said it was vital to fund Constellation only to change it again and stop funding altogether once he got in office.

Problems with Obama's plans
The first problem is the same Constellation. Both Constellation and Obama-Space will not have a replacement for the shuttle by the time it's needed. So if Russia jacks the price for rides on the Soyuz or deny us access altogether due to some international pissing contest with them and the US, there's nothing the US can do about getting access to the ISS. Secondly, Obama's heavy lift plan. Obama's current plan hasn't scrapped heavy lift. Instead, heavy lift will be put off until 2015 after all shuttle equipment and millings have been destroyed. IOW: Obama would have NASA start from scratch rather build on shuttle heritage to make a shuttle-derived heavy lift. Also, according to some sites, Constellation would not get mankind back to the moon until 2030. However, Obama-Space will not get us to an asteroid until 2025, only a five year difference between the two projections. The only thing Obama seems to be doing right is counting on the private sector for a shuttle replacement and the fact that Ares I and V gets defunded. But since there are other options like DIRECT or the side-mount shuttle derived heavy lift, it's pointless to scrap shuttle parts just to reinvent our heavy lift capability if we're playing on using them eventually for manned missions.
Ultimately I think it comes down to New Space vs Old Space. New Space wants to try out new ways of doing things like commercial crew. They also want us to test new technologies including VASIMR, closed loop life support, inflatable spaceships and etc. Old Space wants NASA to forgo all these things and put all its money into large rockets based on 1960s tech with all of NASA's old contractors.

Fact of the matter is that human spaceflight as it exists right now is just to expensive. I knew from the beginning when the plans for Constellation came out that it would get canceled. Human spaceflight's only real hope is to develop new technology and new methods to bring down the costs.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

No arm of the government has presented a comprehensive do-able proposal.

If one selects the best pieces from the White House, Senate, and House it'll cost more but NASA and America will be on the right track for developing new technologies and industries, all while giving America some hope for a brighter future.

A little American optimism seems to be needed in the country right now, space and NASA fully funded could just do that!!
 
M

menellom

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

sftommy":1viokqaj said:
If one selects the best pieces from the White House, Senate, and House it'll cost more but NASA and America will be on the right track for developing new technologies and industries, all while giving America some hope for a brighter future.
Ideally that's what would happen... but more than likely not they'll just pass one of the bills 'as-is' or amend the senate bill significantly. In which case, the best available option is the Senate bill. The biggest advantage the Senate bill has over the House bill is that it preserves funding for commercial development ($2.6 billion over 3 years vs $164 million with the House bill) and new technological development programs. So even if the Senate's HLV weren't finished by the 2015 goal, we at least have something to fall back on as far as maintaining operations in orbit go. We don't get that 'backup plan' with the House bill - it bets the proverbial farm on Constellation being completed on time and without any issues, and on being our sole means of getting into space once it's done.
 
Y

Yuri_Armstrong

Guest
Re: HR 5781 vs the &quot;Yes We Can&quot; Cult...IN SPACE

I've realy had enough bad news!!! It seems like NOBODY has any idea what we should do or where we should be going! I'm sick and tired of these idiot politicians slowing our space progress down to look out for their own political careers!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY