…will save the space program from a Shuttle-derived parasite eating up all the technology funding?
This bill, however, will probably not get very far. Note Jim Muncy’s comment to the NASA Watch item:
Fortunately, most authorization bills can’t proceed in the Senate without unanimous consent. Which means one Senator can stop this monstrosity.
We continually hear about how “The” Congress is opposed to the Administration’s plan for NASA. However, most all of the vocal opposition to the plan has come from a limited number of Congresspersons protecting Constellation related projects in their states and districts. They deliberately biased the hearing witness panels to eliminate voices of independent support for the administration’s plan.
I’m thinking maybe Sam Brownback.
As a commenter somewhere (maybe over at Space Politics?) said, the key to settling space isn’t going farther now — it’s reducing the cost of access and making it routine. Commercial crew will do that for LEO, and the new technology development programs will do it for beyond. And heavy lift, particularly a Shuttle-derived version, will just continue to delay the day that we become spacefaring, as the falsely perceived need for it has done for forty years.
[Update a few minutes later]
A draft of the bill, obtained by the Orlando Sentinel, was presented to NASA last week by the committee, chaired by Florida Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. So far the White House has not commented on the bill, but several Florida Space Coast leaders have expressed concern about its impact here.
Of particular concern is the fact that Nelson — Florida’s main space supporter — would take away billions of dollars from commercial rocket and technology development that over the next decade would have diversified the aerospace industry in Florida and provided KSC with new jobs and prestige.
…Frank DiBello, the president of Space Florida, the state’s aerospace development body, is not pleased. “We don’t want to sacrifice Florida seed corn for an increased R&D role to be politically expedient and save jobs for Utah and other states,” DiBello told a Brevard County jobs-development meeting Saturday.
“The Senate bill kills outright the promise of a real R&D opportunity for KSC. It’s not good for Florida. I don’t know who Bill Nelson is listening to, but it’s not his constituents,” DiBello said.
Of course, the question itself is generous in its assumption that there is any cognition at all going on here. Bill Nelson has never struck me as the sharpest tack in a drawer of pretty dull ones, and this is just more evidence of it.
I’m thinking maybe Sam Brownback.
He’s not running for reelection though. The Shuttle will probably still be flying when he leaves office. What is needed is for someone to stop any attempt in the next year to revoke the authority to execute Mike Griffin’s scorched earth policy. You’d think that the president would be able to find at least one senator from his own party who is willing to support him on an issue that isn’t critical to his own state.
He’s not running for reelection though.
What difference does it make? But yes, the White House should certainly be able to find support in the Senate to kill this thing. It’s not like they’re gong after those Utah votes.
What difference does it make?
I meant that after January 20th he will not be able to help Obama on this anymore. That probably doesn’t affect the outcome, but it does affect his role in that outcome.
Next year is another year and another Congress. The question is how to kill this stupidity this year.
The problem with not passing an authorization bill is it means the old one, CxP Areis I et all, remains the program of record.
At some point, all the parties involved need to sit down and work out an acceptible compromise because it is clear one side is not going to be able to dictate terms to the other unilaterally.
These things should have been worked behind the scenes before this grossly-bungled roll-out.
You are an SDLV supporter aren’t you? A zombified Constellation would give Obama another year to dismantle as much of the Shuttle/Constellation infrastructure and workforce as possible. R&D can tolerate a gap, SDLV cannot.
I am an Atlas Pahse II supporter, but failing that, I am a Direct supporter.
Still, doesn not change a syllable in what I wrote, it is a statement of fact.
You are either going to have to find an acceptable compromise or this drama will drag out a couple more years till the current administration is histroy and you may get none of what you want.
Pick what is most important(commercial crew) and compromise on the rest or run the very real risk of getting none.
This is all becoming Mike Griffin in reverse.
Getting none wouldn’t be a bad outcome. And what do you mean by ‘failing that’? Atlas Phase 2 will remain a possibility indefinitely, although not a very useful one since we don’t need heavy lift. A manned Dragon will also remain a possibility, at least for as long as CRS continues, which could be a very long time indeed.
Are you sure you are an actual Atlas Phase 2 supporter, or is that just a convenient way to avoid saying you are in fact a DIRECT supporter?
So Maritn, since you can’t attack the logic of my argument, you attack my motives.
You are a one true wayist and like all one true wayists, you are wrong. You are the flip-side of the Mike Griffin coin. You need to either learn the art of compromise or you are going to get nothing or at least nothing that you wanted.
There is the world as you would like it to be and there is the world the way it is. Make sure you are living in the latter and not the former.
I didn’t attack your motives, I inquired into your motives.
And as I explained above getting none would not be a bad outcome. Getting rid of the Shuttle stack and nothing else would be a wonderful outcome, because it would remove the biggest obstacle to progress for the past forty years. If you feel otherwise, I’m sure you can come up with logical arguments to support that position, right?
Your mind reading skills let you down. I do not in fact believe in one true way and I certainly don’t believe Obama’s plan is that one true way. If I were czar I’d do things very differently. There is typically more than one good way just as there is more than one bad way. In my opinion Obama’s plan is one (reasonably) good way and SDLV (and that includes DIRECT) is a very bad one. Your mileage will likely vary.
Given there never was any real support for Obama’s proposal in congress, and Obama’s plan explicitly repeats past mistakes and delivers nothing, and Boldens games burned bridges — why is anyone surprized the Senates countering?
why is anyone surprized the Senates countering?
Why would we be surprised about something that isn’t happening? The “Senate” isn’t doing anything. This is just a few senators on one committee.
I nominate Feingold.
Member of President’s party, therefore some kind of innate allegiance to said initiatives. No pork dog in the fight.
Was only political representative I recall who noticed the egress of Constellation and took action against it in the form of his Control Spending Now Act, which would have delayed a return to the moon by five years, which was superseded by the Obama initiative. I suspect that whatever actor was behind that was also responsible for the early Obama campaign position to that effect. Commentary around that time painted Feingold as some super anti-NASA boogeyman, but the wording of the section of his bill clearly targeted the Constellation program alone. I would put the focus on the moon part as derived from perhaps an space outsider position of equating the NASA boondoggle with the stated objective.
Also played a part in the Senate games more recently to insert language in bills to limit NASA, with a curious measure to put a stop to spending on a Moon program, which I again chalk down to this idea of theirs, derived from a position of determining things in isolation, that stopping the moon stops the boondoggle which wrapped itself in the flag of the moon.
At the very least, Feingold has previously recognized and taken actions against a NASA boondoggle. A rare commodity, even if he had little impact. He is your huckleberry.
Given …
I don’t think any of these are in fact a given. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
So, if Fiengold stops the new authorization bill, you are stuck with the old one still in effect.
You get the corndog instead. Be careful what you wish for.
Obama needs his program incoprpoated into a new authorization bill more that the Shelby’s and Nelson’s need toe old one overturned.
Not to mention Fiengold is looking more and more like he is toast in a few months.
You get the corndog instead.
Very unlikely. SpaceX and Orbital will have operational capsules taking cargo to the ISS (and SpaceX from it as well) long before Ares I/Orion would be operational. It’s hard to see how such an obviously superfluous system could survive the coming government-wide budget cuts. And with much of the workforce dismissed during the gap the senator will no longer have anything to fight for.
A gap will kill SDLV, it will not kill a rational successor, but merely delay it. It as as the IRA allegedly said to Margaret Thatcher when she had survived an attempt on her life: you have to be lucky every time, we only have to be lucky once.
I doubt two years more will be enough to kill it.
I am prepared to wager $250 on it. Are you willing ot put your money where your mouth is?
The corndog is the program of record Martin. It is the one operating under an authorization bill. Two more yeaers of continuing resolutions due to gridlock will make it unkillable.
Is that want you want Martin? That is what you are asking for by taking a Griffinesque hardline stance?
> Rand Simberg Says: July 12th, 2010 at 10:43 am
>== The “Senate” isn’t doing anything. This is just
> a few senators on one committee.
The senate never does anything no that low a level. Its the committee’s – for NASA specifically THIS committee and its house equivelent, that decide.
> Martijn Meijering Says: July 12th, 2010 at 11:00 am
>> You get the corndog instead.
> Very unlikely. SpaceX and Orbital will have operational
> capsules taking cargo to the ISS (and SpaceX from it
> as well) long before Ares I/Orion would be operational.==
Completely irrelevant.
>== It’s hard to see how such an obviously superfluous
> system could survive the coming government-wide
> budget cuts. And with much of the workforce dismissed
> during the gap the senator will no longer have anything
> to fight for.==
The POR is still funded as is unless action is taken to delete it from a new budget. And if the future federal budget involves massive NASA cuts, cutting Obama space is AT LEAST as likely as Nelsons’ idea since it spends as much money with less federal benefit.
Also, If NASA doesn’t fly people ( not by tickets for them ) and doesn’t provide jobs to districts, NASA ceases to exist as far as the publics concern.
Kelly Starks Said:
“Also, If NASA doesn’t fly people ( not by tickets for them ) and doesn’t provide jobs to districts, NASA ceases to exist as far as the publics concern.”
The focus for the last few years has been on the ISS, which is going to be fully staffed for the next 5 years (and likely beyond). Seeing our tax-funded astronauts floating around in the ISS and doing experiments will continue to be the most visible sign that NASA is doing a great job in space.
The majority of the public is not caught up in this discussion about WHO flies the astronauts to the ISS, so when they start to fly on commercial launchers, that will just be another news item that slowly becomes routine.
As far as the “provide jobs to districts” statement, you keep forgetting that the NASA budget calls out for $6B MORE in their budget, which is spent on a combination of NASA and commercial work. How is that not providing jobs? Even if the budget is kept the same, the same money flows out to fund work, so your statement only works if the zero’d out the NASA budget. You keep forgetting that NASA funded commercial companies employ people too. Weird.
This is our best chance at getting away from the shuttle derived architecture that drags down our entire program with its high cost and standing army. It’s like shooting off your own foot then tying an anchor to the ankle that’s left.
I am prepared to wager $250 on it. Are you willing ot put your money where your mouth is?
Sure, as long as we can agree on what exactly the bet is. How about the money going to the Commercial Spaceflight Federation? Do they accept contributions?
The corndog is the program of record Martin. It is the one operating under an authorization bill. Two more yeaers of continuing resolutions due to gridlock will make it unkillable.
I thought we were talking about one year, but two years will be fine too. Unless there is a provision in the CR that provides busywork for the KSC workforce, it will be gone after the Shuttle retires. It is going to be very difficult to bring it back after that. Same for the SRM production facilities. Without additional funding, ATK may get out of that business entirely. Without the Shuttle contract, the future of USA as a separate corporate entity is in doubt. JSC is facing significant contractor losses. The list goes on and on. In addition Obama has the authority to get rid of crucial parts of the infrastructure (the ET barge, the ET tooling, maybe LC-39A). After another year, there may be nothing left for the space senators to protect.
Completely irrelevant.
Do you really think the rest of Congress will allow the Ares boondoggle to continue after a blue ribbon panel has declared it unaffordable, after SpaceX and Orbital have operational capsules, when the president doesn’t want it to continue, in a time of major cuts in entitlements spending (it’s going to happen sooner or later), let alone discretionary spending?
The POR is still funded as is unless action is taken to delete it from a new budget.
And it gives Obama the opportunity to block a slightly less extravagant SDLV like DIRECT, the sidemount or some of the all-liquid proposals.
And if the future federal budget involves massive NASA cuts, cutting Obama space is AT LEAST as likely as Nelsons’ idea since it spends as much money with less federal benefit.
That would still be better than what we have. The Shuttle, once dead will remain dead. EELVs will continue to exist and so will SpaceX and Orbital as long as CRS exists, which could be a very long time indeed. Paying money to the Russians for crew transport and splashing the ISS will remain as popular with Congress and the public as they are today.
Even if the budget is kept the same, the same money flows out to fund work, so your statement only works if the zero’d out the NASA budget.
A major NASA budget cut wouldn’t be a disaster. It is not as if they’re doing much useful work with it now. If the money is gone, at least it will not be used for anything harmful, space wise. Major budget cuts will force NASA out of the launch business and probably out of the crew capsule to LEO business too if SpaceX or Orbital is successful. And even just getting them out of the launch business would be an acceptable outcome.
“In addition Obama has the authority to get rid of crucial parts of the infrastructure (the ET barge, the ET tooling, maybe LC-39A). After another year, there may be nothing left for the space senators to protect.”
Really? What gives him the authority to destroy government property when no funding has been provided for it’s demolition?
How would I define the bet?
That 5 years from now NASA is funding and working a substantially shuttle-derived launcher.
If you want Atlas V Phase II, you better get them to fund it now. The waiting thing is the fatal flaw of the Obama plan. You can’t replace something with nothing. Leave an empty spot and Congress will fill it with something of their choosing.
If Obama came out with a plan to immediately compete and select a minimum 75 ton LV, they could have headed this off and picked a Keralox Atlas phase II class launcher and used RD-180’s or RD 171’s as placeholders till a domestic large keralox engine came on-line. Like Mike Griffith with his 1.5 launch plan, they were too clever by half and now the process is getting away from them. Politics, like nature, abhors a vaccum cleaner.
Obama needs his program of record incorporated into an Authorization bill or the old authorization remains the soup de jour for some years to come as the POR, aka the stick, lumbers on like a Zombie. For this, he needs congress to support him and to get congress, especially after this clusterfuck of a roll-out, he is going to have to contrite himself and give them something in return and I don’t mean a lifeboat Orion.
It is not going to get any better in the future as Obama becomes a lamer duck by the day. After November, he will be positively flaccid.
Really? What gives him the authority to destroy government property when no funding has been provided for it’s demolition?
I’m dubious that Obama would ever be interested enough to initiate actual sale-by-auction or destruction of Shuttle infrastructure assets, but betting that this president won’t do something just because he hasn’t got any plausible constitutional authority to do so is, in light of his many flagrantly illegal moves already made, a chump’s wager.
Dick Eagleson Said:
“…but betting that this president won’t do something just because he hasn’t got any plausible constitutional authority to do so is, in light of his many flagrantly illegal moves already made, a chump’s wager.”
More so than Bush The Last? Whoa, that’s gotta be a record. 😉
Congress and the Budget:
It’s quite clear that no one in Congress wants to champion CxP, so now the question is who is going to champion an alternative plan to NASA.
Without such a central figure, whatever Congress finally comes up with for an alternative budget will be a mess, since it won’t have a cohesive direction for the agency.
As many have pointed out, whatever Congress wants to fund that currently isn’t CxP or in the proposed budget, will have to come out of somewhere. Most likely it will come from things that would have had payoffs within 5 years like robotic precursor missions, multiple-launcher commercial crew capability, KSC improvements, or in-orbit propellant transfer and inflatable modules. Throw ISS extension in there too, since the support contracts needs to be decided at least 3 years out.
It’s a 5-pound sack we’re talking about here, and Obama was already trying to stuff $6B extra into it.
One can only hope that someone with a vision – hopefully a workable one – will step forward and be the focal point for whatever the NASA budget will finally be. I hope it’s the budget that is proposed, but whatever it is, it better not be a hodge-podge of make-work programs (like Orion or Ares I), otherwise that will set HSF back for a long time.
Really? What gives him the authority to destroy government property when no funding has been provided for it’s demolition?
He can simply continue with Mike Griffin’s plan, which intended to make LC-39A incapable of supporting DIRECT or sidemount, which intended to scrap the 8m ET tooling and the ET barge. He can also retire the Shuttle, send the orbiter to museums, lay off the workforce. And since Ares I will not be ready in time, he can lay off the Michoud workforce. The SSME’s can be sent to museums, or better yet become outdoor works of art. He can’t touch the crawler or the SRB recovery ships, he can’t touch LC-39B, but there is a lot he can do.
And if discussion on NSF.com is correct, he could fund COTS-D and another round of CCDev. He can continue with his ADA ploy. He can play games with ET foam recertification, he can redefine crew transport requirements to make life difficult for Ares (limits on max q, vibration environment, flight experience of the engines that are used etc, i.e. pulling a Mike Griffin on the Shaft). And in the mean time the remaining workforce will be demoralised, knowing their future is doomed. Everybody will be looking for a way out and the more talented ones will find it first.
How would I define the bet?
That 5 years from now NASA is funding and working a substantially shuttle-derived launcher.
Whoa, excuse me while I dodge a couple of moving goal posts. What I meant was that commercial space has no need to fear a CR, in fact I’m hoping for it. For now I see no reason to compromise with the space senators, at least not to the degree it requires an SDLV.
If you want Atlas V Phase II, you better get them to fund it now.
You’re the one claiming to support Atlas Phase 2, not me. I’m actually opposed to government funding for it, but even if I weren’t, there is no need to do it now. I am in favour of EELV Phase 1 (because of the bigger upper stage which can serve as an EDS), but it’s not urgent. We need an upper stage with EDS capability (and then one with refueling capability) more than we need a bigger launcher. A slightly bigger EDS would be nice to have and a bigger launch vehicle would be the automatic result but none of that is crucial. And none of it matters until we have a spacecraft.
Leave an empty spot and Congress will fill it with something of their choosing.
As I’ve said before, that wouldn’t be a bad thing. Getting rid of the Shuttle stack is urgent, because it would mean that all future NASA manned spaceflight would have synergy with commercial development of space. Everything else is icing on the cake.
The somethign of their choosing was referring to the Stick. Are you arguing that wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Yes, because I don’t think the Stick would survive.
Actually, I prefer a different name. Do you know what happens if you hold the Stick sideways? It’s not really a Stick, it’s a Petard.
A Petard is an explosive charge like a hand grenade, not a pike or a spear.
“Yes, because I don’t think the Stick would survive.”
And I think you should buy me a pony. Both our wants are equally valid. Reality does not care what you or I think, it has it’s own agenda.
You can choose to participate in the art of the possible or watch the river pass you by from the shore. Your wishes ain’t gonna make it flow someplace else.
http://www.tech.org/~cleary/petard.jpg
Maybe the petard proper is what’s at the end of the stick.
Both our wants are equally valid.
I didn’t say your wants are invalid. It’s just that I don’t know what they are.
To achieve mine it’s not necessary that a CR should be avoided, in fact it’s probably the best possible outcome. I’m not confident the space senators will not be able to pass some blocking amendment. I’m less confident still that Obama will be able to hold them off for long enough to create irreversible facts on the ground. That’s why I thought Brownback’s support wasn’t all that relevant. We may get the CR, I’m more worried about what comes next.
> Coastal Ron Says: July 12th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
>> Kelly Starks Said:
>> “Also, If NASA doesn’t fly people ( not by tickets for
>> them ) and doesn’t provide jobs to districts, NASA
>> ceases to exist as far as the publics concern.”
> The focus for the last few years has been on the ISS,
> which is going to be fully staffed for the next 5 years
> (and likely beyond). Seeing our tax-funded astronauts
> floating around in the ISS and doing experiments will
> continue to be the most visible sign that NASA is doing
> a great job in space. ==
It won’t be fully staffed until we up the life boat5 carrying capacity — but the big nit that will burn is all our astrounauts are gonig to be doing is paying the Russian’s to fly us to our station, which we service for internationals. No big construction with shuttle – no Shuttles coming or going. No plans to develop a new NASA ship to go anywhere.
> D. Messier Says: July 12th, 2010 at 3:35 pm
> This is our best chance at getting away from the shuttle
> derived architecture that drags down our entire program
> with its high cost and standing army. It’s like shooting off
> your own foot then tying an anchor to the ankle that’s left.
Its not the shuttle architecture that drives the costs, and the Obama proposal showed every sign of keeping the same costs and overhead for the commercial as was done for shuttle, if not more.
> Martijn Meijering Says: July 12th, 2010 at 4:43 pm
>> Completely irrelevant.
>
> Do you really think the rest of Congress will allow the
> Ares boondoggle to continue after a blue ribbon panel has
> declared it unaffordable, ==
That’s not what the panel said, they said it would require a higher budget, which is congresses call to make. And given they have insisted the Constellation option stay open (and theirs no real way its going to get cut out of the 2011 budget by now)
>==
>> The POR is still funded as is unless action is taken to
>> delete it from a new budget.
>=
>> And if the future federal budget involves massive
>> NASA cuts, cutting Obama space is AT LEAST as
>> likely as Nelsons’ idea since it spends as much
>> money with less federal benefit.
> That would still be better than what we have. ==
What cutting all Nelsons and Obama’s idea and pretty much all none Soyuz options?
>>== Paying money to the Russians for crew transport
>> and splashing the ISS will remain as popular with
>> Congress and the public as they are today.
If our only budget acceptably way to get to the station is Soyuz, splashing the station will be a more popular and logical option.
1. > Martijn Meijering Says: July 12th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
>
> Major budget cuts will force NASA out of the launch business
> and probably out of the crew capsule to LEO business too ==
It will force about everyone in the US out of the manned launch and flight space business, and of course space exploration.
1. > Dick Eagleson Says: July 12th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
>== betting that this president won’t do something just because
> he hasn’t got any plausible constitutional authority to do so is,
> in light of his many flagrantly illegal moves already made, a chump’s wager.
Sadly, very true.
What cutting all Nelsons and Obama’s idea and pretty much all none Soyuz options?
Yes. We will still have Dragon and Cygnus.
> Martijn Meijering Says: July 13th, 2010 at 6:17 am
> Yes. We will still have Dragon and Cygnus.
It would be political suicide for NASA or congress to accept them for crew carry. So Soyuz or canceling manned space, would be the prefereable options to them.
It would be political suicide for NASA or congress to accept them for crew carry.
Much as you might want that to be true, I see no evidence for this. And even if it were true, we would still have Cygnus and Dragon, which means Bigelow might use them.
Those of us who want to see commercial development of space have no reason to hope Obama strikes a deal with the space senators before he has to. And in the coming months he will have the opportunity to create irreversible facts on the ground that will strengthen his hand.
It’s those who want the Shuttle stack to continue (much as they might deny it) who need a deal.
> Martijn Meijering Says: July 14th, 2010 at 5:06 am
>> It would be political suicide for NASA or congress
>> to accept them (SpaceX/Orbital) for crew carry.
> Much as you might want that to be true, I see no
> evidence for this. —
;/
Have you not been hearing the rants about teh folly of “moving astrounauts onto untried space craft, flown by companies with no experence”?
How are senators and congressmen going to justify shutting down NASA and US industrial space flight capacity and development programs (with associated job loses), and tasking start-ups to carry astrounauts? Hell using Soyuz and Russia is going to rub a lot of voters the wrong way — and the voters are not friendly toward encumbants as it is.