POLL: Will the Senate's New NASA Authorization Bill Deliver?

[doublehelix]

A new NASA authorization bill was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology and is headed for the full Senate for review.

The bill falls largely in line for President Barack Obama's vision for future American spaceflight, with key differences: It approves an extra space shuttle missions (in addition to the two flights currently scheduled) before NASA retires the fleet, directs NASA to start developing a heavy-lift rocket now instead of in 2015 and adds another $1.6 billion to spur commercial spaceship development.

Weigh in on whether this NASA authorization bill holds the answer to the pressing challenges for the U.S. space program.

Related:
http://www.space.com/news/senate-approv ... 00715.html

• NASA's New Direction: FAQ
• NASA Delays Space Shuttle Program's End to 2011
• Misperceptions Swirl Around Obama Space Plan
• Video Show - NASA's Vision for Humans in Space

 

[Windbourne]

So much has been proposed, and the article here does not really say what is in the bill.
1) it sounds like constellation is dead.
2) there is an increase in money for commercial space to get it moving faster.
3) there is another mission being added for the shuttle. It will come shortly after the supposed first flight of Dragon.
4) We are to start the BLO in 2015.

But that is about all that I picked up on it.
1) is there more money coming to pay for the increase on the commercial space? Or does it mean that it will be taken from other areas similar to what W/neo-cons did (basically rob peter to pay paul).
2) What is meant by a heavy lifter? Tonnage?
3) What is meant by starting on the lifter now? Does doing R&D count?
4) What about the new advanced R&D? For example, the fuel depot and support of inflatables? Are they funded?

Basically, there are LOADS of questions on this.



BUT, what about the real stuff?

 

[sftommy]

another $1.6 billion to spur commercial spaceship development.

Senator Nelson is also saying this, not sure how the statement is justified.
Perhaps by comparing it to prior fiscal years, rather than President Obama's proposal.

The failure to invest in substantive new technologies is this bill's most striking flaw.

Welcome to Constellation II.

 

[StanislawUlam]

Why is the wording of the questions in this poll apparently designed to create obfuscation rather than clarity?

 

[rockett]

Here's some excerpts from the draft

SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2011.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2011, $19,000,000,000, as follows:

(1) For Exploration, $3,990,000,000, of which—
(A) $1,300,000,000 shall be for a multi-purpose crew vehicle, and associated program and other necessary support;
(B) $1,900,000,000 shall be for Space Launch System and associated program and other necessary support;
(C) $75,000,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
(E) $144,000,000 shall be for Commercial Cargo;
(F) $312,000,000 shall be for Commercial Crew Development activities and studies related to commercial crew services; and
(G) $44,000,000 shall be for Robotic Precursor Studies and Instruments.

(4) For Aeronautics, $804,600,000, of which—
(A) $579,600,000 shall be for Aeronautics Research; and
(B) $225,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

SEC. 102. FISCAL YEAR 2012.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2012, $19,450,000,000, as follows:
(1) For Exploration, $5,239,600,000, of which—
(A) $1,400,000,000 shall be for a multipurpose crew vehicle and associated program and other necessary support, including mission and ground operations;
(B) $2,650,000,000 shall be for Space Launch System and associated program and other necessary support;
(C) $437,300,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
(E) $400,000,000 shall be for commercial crew capabilities; and
(F) $100,000,000 shall be for Robotic Precursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions.

(4) For Aeronautics, $934,700,000, of which—
(A) $584,700,000 shall be for Aeronautics Research; and
(B) $450,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000, as follows:

(1) For Exploration, $5,028,600,000, of which—
(A) $1,400,000,000 shall be for a multipurpose crew space transportation vehicle and associated program and other necessary support;
(B) $2,600,000,000 shall be for Space Launch System and associated program and other necessary support;
(C) $463,600,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;
(E) $500,000,000 shall be for commercial crew capabilities; and
(F) $100,000,000 shall be for Robotic Precursor Instruments and Low-Cost Missions.

(4) For Aeronautics, $1,340,400,000, of which—
(A) $590,400,000 shall be for Aeronautics Research; and
(B) $500,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/NASA Rockefeller1.pdf

 

[rockett]

1) is there more money coming to pay for the increase on the commercial space? Or does it mean that it will be taken from other areas similar to what W/neo-cons did (basically rob peter to pay paul).?

Funding is about the same

2) What is meant by a heavy lifter? Tonnage?
3) What is meant by starting on the lifter now? Does doing R&D count?

70 to 100 tons initially, 150 tons is the ultimate goal

4) What about the new advanced R&D? For example, the fuel depot and support of inflatables? Are they funded?

Suspect it will come out of one or more of the following:

SEC. 101. FISCAL YEAR 2011.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2011, $19,000,000,000, as follows:

(1) For Exploration, $3,990,000,000, of which—
(C) $75,000,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;

(4) For Aeronautics, $804,600,000, of which—
(B) $225,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

SEC. 102. FISCAL YEAR 2012.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2012, $19,450,000,000, as follows:

(1) For Exploration, $5,239,600,000, of which—
(C) $437,300,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;

(4) For Aeronautics, $934,700,000, of which—
(B) $450,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

SEC. 103. FISCAL YEAR 2013.
There are authorized to be appropriated to NASA for fiscal year 2013, $19,960,000,000, as follows:

(1) For Exploration, $5,028,600,000, of which—
(C) $463,600,000 shall be for Exploration Technology Development;
(D) $215,000,000 shall be for Human Research;

(4) For Aeronautics, $1,340,400,000, of which—
(B) $500,000,000 shall be for Space Technology.

 

[Windbourne]

Well, for those of us who really want to get to the moon, mars, etc, this IS good news. The reason is that this bill is NOW OUT OF COMMITTEE. Basically, those on the committee pushed pork. If you look at all the members of it, they all have loads of funding on the shuttle version of a launcher. So now, the bill is into the senate as well as into the house. What is the likelihood that it will pass untouched? slim. I think that it is very likely that many of these changes will be nixed. In particular, the building of shuttle-derived would give us a white elephant. IN addition, we will see commercial space come on real strong. As such, the pressure will be on the 85 members to do the right thing and get us to BEO for the least costs, rather than creating a jobs bill for 15 members.

 

[rockett]

In particular, the building of shuttle-derived would give us a white elephant. IN addition, we will see commercial space come on real strong.

SEC. 302. SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AS FOLLOW-ON LAUNCH VEHICLE TO THE SPACE SHUTTLE.

(a) UNITED STATES POLICY.—It is the policy of the United States that NASA develop a Space Launch System as a follow-on to the Space Shuttle that can access cislunar space and the regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit in order to enable the United States to participate in global efforts to access and develop this increasingly strategic region.

(b) INITIATION OF DEVELOPMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall, as soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act, initiate development of a Space Launch System meeting the minimum capabilities requirements specified in subsection (c).
(2) MODIFICATION OF CURRENT CONTRACTS.—
In order to limit NASA’s termination liability costs and support critical capabilities, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, extend or modify existing vehicle development and associated contracts necessary to meet the requirements in paragraph
(1), including contracts for ground testing of solid rocket motors, if necessary, to ensure their availability for development of the Space Launch System.

(c) MINIMUM CAPABILITY REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Space Launch System developed pursuant to subsection (b) shall be designed to have, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The capability of lifting payloads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to lift the multipurpose crew vehicle.
(C) The capability to serve as a cargo backup for supplying and supporting ISS cargo requirements or crew delivery requirements not otherwise met by available commercial or partner-supplied vehicles.
(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System shall incorporate capabilities for evolutionary growth to launch objects beyond low-Earth orbit and to carry heavier or larger payloads of up to 150 tons.
(3) TRANSITION NEEDS.—The Administrator shall ensure critical skills and capabilities are retained, modified, and developed, as appropriate, in areas related to solid and liquid engines, large-diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities for an effective transition to the follow-on Space Launch System.
(6) The capacity for efficient and timely evolution, including the incorporation of new technologies, competition of sub-elements, and commercial operations.

 

[kelvinzero]

As far as I can tell, the compromise is:

• Commercial gets half the money and a cost plus prepaid oversize crew vehicle as a competitor.
• Exploration gets a honking big rocket, but no Altair with which we could actually land on the moon (and which btw could also have been launched using existing rockets and propellent depots.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.spaceref.com : Letter From Former NASA Astronauts in Support of Commercial Crew Transport

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Wednesday, July 14, 2010

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Chair, Subcommittee on Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Senate Appropriations Committee

Dear Senator Mikulski:

The 2011 budget request for NASA has generated much debate about the right course for America in space. You have raised the issue of safety as an indispensable component of any new plan for NASA, and we wish to express our appreciation for your leadership in ensuring that safety is at the center of this debate.

Both as astronauts and as citizens who care passionately about the future of human spaceflight, we write today to communicate our views on this critical issue.

Let us be clear: we believe that that the private sector, working in partnership with NASA, can safely develop and operate crewed space vehicles to low Earth orbit. We have reached this conclusion for a number of reasons:

SDC : Astronauts to Congress: NASA Should Use Private Spaceships

By Clara Moskowitz
SPACE.com Senior Writer

posted: 15 July 2010
05:58 pm ET

Private spaceships could be safe enough to transport astronauts to the space station, a group of 24 former NASA spaceflyers told Congress in an open letter this week.

The astronauts argue in favor of a new plan by President Barack Obama to encourage commercial companies to build spacecraft capable of replacing the space shuttles as NASA's means to reach the International Space Station.

"We believe that the private sector, working in partnership with NASA, can safely develop and operate crewed space vehicles to low Earth orbit," the astronauts wrote.

 

[kelvinzero]

I also liked this pdf:

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/pr ... 2-2010.pdf

Still.. I dunno. Maybe this could be made to work anyway. Perhaps it could be structured so that

• Initially Commercial just concentrates on cargo delivery. Crew really is a bit of a poisoned chalice after all.
• Robust work on what is effectively the Orion is not so bad (perhaps not bad at all) if it is not competing with commercial.
• Enforce the provision that the 'Orion' can also be carried on a delta or atlas, not just the new HLV.
• Perhaps other provisions can be added that the work done on the 'Orion' is available for future commercial providers.

I would still much prefer that the money for the HLV was spent on a moon lander, or if what is really wanted is work for the shuttle companies, research into reusable launchers or crew vessels.

 

[rockett]

I also liked this pdf:

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/pr ... 2-2010.pdf

Still.. I dunno. Maybe this could be made to work anyway. Perhaps it could be structured so that

• Initially Commercial just concentrates on cargo delivery. Crew really is a bit of a poisoned chalice after all.

• 
  Commercial can prove itself reliable for man-rating with cargo launches -which it will have to do anyway.
  

  [*]Robust work on what is effectively the Orion is not so bad (perhaps not bad at all) if it is not competing with commercial.
  [*]Enforce the provision that the 'Orion' can also be carried on a delta or atlas, not just the new HLV.
  [*]Perhaps other provisions can be added that the work done on the 'Orion' is available for future commercial providers.

I see no reason why it couldn't be launched with a man-rated Falcon 9 heavy, same as an Atlas, or Delta.

 

[FrankT]

An article with a bit more clarity than this one is available at: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... nnel=space

 

[FrankT]

And, another one: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... nnel=space

 

[sftommy]

... Basically, those on the committee pushed pork... the building of shuttle-derived would give us a white elephant... commercial space...pressure will be on the 85 members to do the right thing and get us to BEO for the least costs, rather than creating a jobs bill for 15 members.

Thanks for putting optimism so succinctly.
The only way heavy lift can compete economically is if creative-commercial-ventures are shut out. This is a Big-corporations bill.

I contacted my two Senators earlier this year, they have both now publicly spoken strongly in support of the new commercial launch ventures. Barring an unseen laws-of-physics-breakthrough, commercial and technology investment is the best hope for making space access cheaper and more widely available.

 

[RickTumlinson]

This version of the bill is complete disaster.

ANY government funded development of an Orion capsule is a poison pill for a company like Boeing working with Bigelow to build commercially usable human capsules. It is a Complete and utter waste of money that actually hurts American innovation.

I am sad to see my home state of legislators schilling so badly for the entrenched aerospace interests even as NewSpace firms like Armadillo, And Jeff Bezos' Blue Origins and SpaceX are pouring money and dollars into the state to try and start a revolution in opening the Frontier.

Constellation was a failure to launch. It was a rip-off and this idea that some how a big new launch system will save the day is ridiculous.

NASA's astronauts need to get back to exploring and let US firms carry them to the edge of space - where their job starts.
No more government rockets of any sort. NASA and the US should buy the ride not the rocket.

Anything less will be a slow rolling disaster for the US taxpayers.

Right now the first humans on Mars are most likely going to be private US citizens riding on a SpaceX vehicles and living in Bigelow Hab modules, which is fine with me, but just hate to see NASA's legacy and billions of dollars wasted on dead ends and socialist space projects that are doomed to failure. NASA and the pro-porkers are driving the agency out of any meaningful role in the human exploration and settlement of space....

This bill needs to die.
Rick Tumlinson
BTW - It is obvious from the wording of the article and the poll vs. these postings that the readers of this site "get it" overall Far More than those writing the poll - which is completely biased the wrong way. It is the attack on the emerging US citizen space program that is wrong here - not Constellation. I havent seen such slanted stuff since I left the Fox News website (wink).

 

[kelvinzero]

Commercial can prove itself reliable for man-rating with cargo launches -which it will have to do anyway.
I see no reason why it couldn't be launched with a man-rated Falcon 9 heavy, same as an Atlas, or Delta.

I meant to say that

 

[kelvinzero]

BTW - It is obvious from the wording of the article and the poll vs. these postings that the readers of this site "get it" overall Far More than those writing the poll - which is completely biased the wrong way. It is the attack on the emerging US citizen space program that is wrong here - not Constellation. I havent seen such slanted stuff since I left the Fox News website (wink).

Yes, I couldn't actually select any of the options in this particular poll. A number of Polls have been like that.

Maybe all Poll's should have a 'None of the above' so you can gauge whether the poll covers a sufficient range of opinions.

 

[steve82]

The most important section with regard to Commercial Crew was Section 403:

"Sec. 403 - Requirements Applicable to Development of Commercial Crew Transportation Capabilities - NASA cannot enter into any contract or procurement agreement for follow-on commercial crew development during FY 2011. Allows support of commercially developed crew or cargo launch capability starting in 2012 contingent upon completion of establishment of human rating requirements, a commercial market assessment and a procurement system review. Requires consideration of the anticipated contribution of government cost, expertise, technology and infrastructure needed to support any commercially-developed crew or cargo launch capability. Establishes milestones and minimum performance objectives to be achieved before procurement authority is granted. Requires commercial crew capabilities to also provide crew rescue services."

THere is also language that directs the Administrator to determine the expected government contribution and associated costs and to report back to the Senate within a timeline. This is one of the areas where Augustine really dropped the ball and a true accounting of what the government contribution to developing "commercial" crewed flight will cost will probably vaporize the $20million/seat figure as complete fantasy. It will also finally allow some honest apples-to-apples comparison with the POR as far as costs are concerned. SpaceX may very well be able to build a manned vehicle, but when all of the support they need from the government is accounted for, it will be no different from any other cost+fee contract.

 

[MarkStanaway]

This is all getting very confusing.
Does it mean that the Orion Lite concept proposed by Obama in April is now dead?
Is this proposed multipurpose crew vehicle just another term for Orion with its original capabilities restored?
When does the Senate and Congress finally vote on the inevitably modified Bill so that is finally law?

I also could not vote in this poll as giving a 'yes', 'no' answer to such leading questions does not really tell you anything.
Mark

 

[rockett]

This is all getting very confusing.
Does it mean that the Orion Lite concept proposed by Obama in April is now dead?

Not necessarily. Boeing has a commercial contract to use that vehicle to serve Bigalow space hotel guests, it just won't be federally funded.

Is this proposed multipurpose crew vehicle just another term for Orion with its original capabilities restored?

If you read the Bill (and between the lines) probably the answer is yes. The multipurpose crew vehicle specs bear more than a passing resemblence to the original Orion.

When does the Senate and Congress finally vote on the inevitably modified Bill so that is finally law?

Technically the fiscal year begins Oct 1, however, it being an election year and a congressional recess scheduled for October so they can campaign, I would be very surprised if they vote before November, maybe not even until December.

 

[MarkStanaway]

Thanks rockett for clearing that up
It makes you wonder if LM was a little premature when they laid off all those workers recently
Mark

 

[MeteorWayne]

Why is the wording of the questions in this poll apparently designed to create obfuscation rather than clarity?

that's polls for ya

 

[rockett]

Thanks rockett for clearing that up
It makes you wonder if LM was a little premature when they laid off all those workers recently
Mark

You're welcome. Yes, it was a bit premature.

 

[rockett]

More on the Bigalow-Boeing partnership:

New Spaceship Could Fly People to Private Space Stations
By Denise Chow
SPACE.com Staff Writer
posted: 19 July 2010
02:17 pm ET
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/boeing-cst100-commercial-crew-spacecraft-100719.html