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

[nimbus]

Discussion on NSF has people seriously wondering if the House bill has clues of efforts to bring back, of all things, Ares I.
http://science.house.gov/legislation/le ... ewsID=2885

 

[rockett]

Discussion on NSF has people seriously wondering if the House bill has clues of efforts to bring back, of all things, Ares I.
http://science.house.gov/legislation/le ... ewsID=2885

Page 28 of the draft:

SEC. 304. UTILIZATION OF EXISTING WORKFORCE AND ASSETS IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AND MULTI-PURPOSE CREW VEHICLE.

...the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, utilize existing contracts, investments, workforce, industrial base, and capabilities from the Space Shuttle and former Orion and Ares 1 projects, including Space Shuttle-derived components and Ares 1 components that use existing United States propulsion systems, including liquid fuel engines, external tank or tank-related capability, and solid rocket motor engines, and associated testing facilities, either in being or under construction as of the date of enactment of this Act.

I sincerely hope they are only talking about the 2nd stage. :roll: Interesting that the Senate Bill would turn up on the House website though.

 

[MarkStanaway]

Ares 1 would be the logical choice to test the new 5 segment SRB in a vertical configuration if this is chosen as part of the first stage for the new HLV. It sounds just like the old proposed Ares1-Y test
I can see whole debate coming full circle with us ending up with a HLV that has a striking similarity to Ares 5.

 

[rcsplinters]

Just made my first pass through the house version. I must admit I'm pretty surprised at what I saw there. While they seem to be avoiding use of the "C (onstellation)" word, it sounds like they really want to move along that path regarding the development of an HLV and human rated booster but with a new coat of paint and a fresh set of goals. Frankly, I'm ok with that as I thought the fix for this mess was to up NASA funding enough build the lift capability while revisiting the mission. That's just me, but I never thought the house would look in that direction. ARES is expensive and I'm not sure they have the cash in there to do anything but prolong the agony of that path.

While similar in some respects, I think there are some fundamental differences between the senate and house versions that will make this a very interesting debate before a bill comes out of Congress. I will say this, I think that Bolden needs to be very careful in his destruction of the POR. I'm thinking that Orion will survive this debacle. Its looking like the solids may survive as well and maybe even the tank. If the solids survive, then we may see a very ARES I like test program under either plan. Also, I don't think NASA is going to be able to put manned space flight into the deep freeze till 2015. Of course, Pelosi hasn't gotten her claws into this and she will demand retribution in terms of a pet project of hers for going along with the plan so that could cause a lot of changes. My progostication is still a variant of an SD HLV booster which can morph over time as more capability is needed.

Some months back I thought the most challenging and interesting aspect of this debacle would be the back and forth between the houses of Congress and the administration. Now it seems the most interesting piece of this will be the quandry in which NASA finds itself trapped. Their work program is under heavy consideration by the money wielding branches of the government and they don't seem to be a player. NASA has aggressively pursued a proposal from the administration knowing full well that support for that position was soft on both sides of the aisle. Oddly enough, the administration seems to be playing both sides of the table as we haven't seen rigid insistance on their 2015 HLV booster restart.

I say all that to say this, its looking like some hybrid of the house/senate bill may pop out of the political grinder. When it does, its starting to appear that it may have legs and possibly even veto override support. The need to even have such an override is less than certain. So yes, some hybrid of these bills may indeed deliver.

I'm looking for any credible response from NASA brass on these two bills. At this point I'm almost more interested in NASAs response and reaction than I am the bills themselves. Any links in that regard would be most appreciated.

 

[nimbus]

The House bill sounds like poop.

 

[vulture4]

For a few glorious weeks I thought NASA was finally returning to its proper role, as a partner to industry and a developer of new enabling technologies. Now it appears that Constellation is a law unto itself.

I was well aware that the POR was an express train headed for a cliff. One only has to walk along the Ares processing stream, examining the vast and aging VAB and immense workstands, the gargantuan tower on the huge MLP, the gigantic crawler and the mountain-like pad. Add up the hazardous operations, interminable crane lifts, massive construction and endless maintenance man-hours that will be needed to support each of the rare launches. Then look at the mission rationale, the way a nearly infinite cost was justified because we had to beat China to the moon, because helium-3 would solve our energy crisis, because it would inspire our kids to study math. Compare this to the Falcon flow at Cx-40, one low hangar and a few hundred feet of ordinary railroad track. Ares is ten times the cost for the same capability.

I was glad the Obama administration decided to reverse Bush and not scrap ISS as soon as it was completed. I was (and am) aghast they are still going to let Shuttle die just when it is working as we had always hoped, and could easily fly until a commercial replacement is operational. But at least I was happy that at long last NASA would once again be a partner to industry in developing the enabling technologies that would finally make spaceflight practical and routine, instead of an extravagant spectacle.

But apparently Constellation lobbying is more powerful than reason. Both houses of Congress decimate commercial space and new low-cost RLV technology to pour more resources into the bottomless pit of huge vehicles and programs that carry no useful payload except the mountains of tax dollars they transport to powerful contractors.

 

[EarthlingX]

http://www.spaceref.com Letter From California House Members to Rep. Bart Gordon Regarding NASA's FY 2011 Budget

PRESS RELEASE
Date Released: Thursday, July 22, 2010
Source: U.S. House of Representatives

We write today to express our strong support for key portions of the President's 2011 proposal for NASA's budget. Funding for research and technology programs drives the space programs forward and ensures that NASA continues to be an innovative exploration agency.

We are concerned that the draft NASA Reauthorization bill you recently released and have scheduled for a markup this week will reduce funding for programs that are important to NASA's mission and the nation's competitiveness. These reductions will have a serious effect on California's workforce and economy, and that of many states. We urge you to increase funding for the Exploration Technology Program, Robotic Precursor Spacecraft Program, and Commercial Cargo and Crew Programs. These are areas that should be the cornerstone of NASA's new direction because they will drive innovation and job creation across the nation.

We are pleased to see significant funding included in the draft bill for the Space and Earth Science Program, as well as the Space Technology Program. Funding for these programs is critical to our country's ability to sustain an affordable space program and will lead to technology developments that can help us address climate change, predict natural disasters and grow our economy.

The President's NASA budget replaces an over-budget and behind-schedule Constellation Program with a sustainable architecture that will take the Agency in a new direction enabling NASA to explore more of our universe. It offers a serious plan to reduce the cost of access to the International Space Station, without exporting that responsibility to other nations. We believe this new direction is good for the country and that California's NASA centers and those across the country can help take NASA to new and exciting destinations. We hope to work with you as you move this important legislation forward.

 

[menellom]

http://www.space.com/news/senate-panel-commercial-spaceflight-100723.html

So... if I'm understanding this new version of the senate bill correctly... essentially both branches of Congress are caving to the Constellation lobby - both are now proposing we cutting a lot of the funding that would have gone to developing a private spaceflight industry in the US, and both are now proposing preserving most if not all of the Constellation architecture.

Correct?

 

[rcsplinters]

http://www.space.com/news/senate-panel-commercial-spaceflight-100723.html

So... if I'm understanding this new version of the senate bill correctly... essentially both branches of Congress are caving to the Constellation lobby - both are now proposing we cutting a lot of the funding that would have gone to developing a private spaceflight industry in the US, and both are now proposing preserving most if not all of the Constellation architecture.

Correct?

In my opinion, regarding HLV, I wouldn't be suprised to see some hybrid of ARES/SD HLV/Direct/whoknowswhatelse pop out of the grinder. The wild card here is the configuration for launching the crew vehicle (aka Orion). I've gotten no feel whatever about any particular design for a human rated booster from the proposals of either the house or senate. That said, I would not be terribly surprised to see a rather tall skinny rocket (with the letters "A", "R", "E", "S" ,"I" painted over) rated for human flight because that vehicle may contribute to the development and testing of an HLV. That said, I can't escape the Augustine report's seeming infatuation with the ARES V Lite (aka Ares IV) which combines HLV cargo and manned rating. Also, the SD HLV guys have some darn solid proposals for human rated boosters that have little in common with ARES I. I can't help but wonder how much that report is still influencing decisions.

I don't think we're going to actually know anything till the bill, in some form, passes and NASA produces their reports in 180 days. Near as I can tell, NASA brass is either muzzled or dumbfounded, as they aren't saying much of anything these days. The least of my worries is the commercial aspect of things. If they have a solid plan and business model, either form of the bill is a non-event for them. If they don't, then, they really weren't players in the first place.

One thing is for sure, its going to be quite a stage on which to watch the plan unfold. In the act I, we get to find out who's in charge.

 

[menellom]

Does anyone know when the bill is likely to be brought up for a vote?

 

[rockett]

Does anyone know when the bill is likely to be brought up for a vote?

Congress typically tries to get budget items out of the way by Oct 1 (beginning of the fiscal year), otherwise they have to vote extensions to keep things going as is. Also this year they will recess for the month of October because it is an election year and they will be campaigning. If anyone has an ax to grind on this (and there are many) I would think they would want it done before then, to avoid the possibility of not being around to vote on it.

All that being said, my personal forecast is we should see some action in September, as NASAs budget is rolled in with other appropriations, as I recall. First the Senate will have to pass their version, the House theirs, then the wrangling will begin between the two - this will be a critical point. Usually the cooler heads are in the Senate, in that activity.