News NASA's Future: The News and Updates Thread

[Codz]

Awesome! SLS looks great in the Apollo scheme.

 

[Notebook]

BBC article on the SLS:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14925154

N.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Senate Gives $500M to Commercial Crew, Limits Future Use of Space Act Agreements:

In the last three days, the Senate has proposed:

• cutting NASA’s overall budget by over a half billion dollars;
• spending $3 billion on a massive heavy-lift program and Multi-purpose Crew Vehicle that probably won’t fly people for 10 years;
• slashing the Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program from a proposed $850 million to $500 million;
• dictating that NASA conduct the CCDev program in the most complicated, expensive and time consuming manner possible.

Welcome to the Congressional sausage factor, 21st century style. Real pretty, ain’t it? And congratulations to the Russians. If this plays out like I think it will, NASA will continue to pay you ever increasing amounts of money for many more years to come to send its astronauts to a station it primarily funded.

But, enough of this. Let’s get to the numbers for human spaceflight in the Senate proposal.

SENATE’S PROPOSED FY 2012 NASA BUDGET

Appropriations, 2011: $18,448,028,000
Budget estimate, 2012: 18,724,300,000
Committee recommendation: 17,938,773,000

The Committee’s recommendation provides $17,938,773,000 for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA]. The recommendation is $509,255,000 below the fiscal year 2011 enacted level and $785,527,000 below the budget request.

Exploration [In thousands of dollars]

Exploration Research and Development: 275,000
Commercial Space Flight: 500,000
Orion Multipurpose Crew Vehicle: 1,200,000
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle System: 1,800,000
TOTAL: 3,775,000

{...}

 

[Wood]

The Senate report, NASA starts on page 85.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc:

• Senate Cuts $400 Million From NASA Technology Request
• Senate Budget Includes Funding for SLS/Orion Ground Infrastructure

 

[NukeET]

Jerry Pournelle's take:

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=1992

:tiphat:

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Senate to NASA: Tell Us Where We’re Going

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: NASA's Future on Space Station Hinges on Private Spaceships

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: NASA’s Budget: A Comparison

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Neil Armstrong to Discuss NASA's Future With Congress Thursday

 

[orb]

SPACE.com: Apollo Astronauts to Congress: Bring Back the Space Shuttle

Discovery News: Armstrong to NASA: You're Embarrassing

 

[orb]

Full Committee Hearing- NASA Human Spaceflight

And a couple of videos of that hearing from YouTube:

 

[Ark]

SPACE.com: Apollo Astronauts to Congress: Bring Back the Space Shuttle

Honestly, this is almost starting to seem like a good idea.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: Congressman Seeks GAO Investigation into SLS Contracting:

Oklahoma Rep. Tom McClintock is asking the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate NASA’s plans to use existing contractors for the Space Launch System instead of competitive bidding.

“I have serious concerns with NASA’s attempt to avoid holding a full and open competition to acquire the SLS,” McClintock wrote. “NASA is considering modifying and/or extending existing contracts for retired or cancelled programs resulting in one or more ‘de facto sole source awards.’ Some of those contracts were originally awarded on a sole source basis.

“I strongly believe that such a de facto sole source award would be a violation of the 1984 Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). GAO has stated: ‘Under the Competition in Contracting Act, 41 U.S.C. 253(c)(I), a sole source award may be made only when there is a single responsible source that can satisfy the government’s needs.’ I am aware of multiple potential contractors who have expressed intent to compete for any available SLS contacts, and who should have every opportunity to do so,” he added.

McClintock’s letter was immediately hailed by the Space Frontier Foundation and the Tea Party in Space, two groups that support commercial space efforts. Both groups urged GAO to issue a “stay” order that would halt work on the heavy-lift vehicle until an investigation is completed.

“Last year several Senators demanded a multi-billion earmark for a heavy lift rocket that NASA clearly can’t afford. Now NASA has capitulated, and has announced plans to heavily modify existing contracts for a failed rocket, to award billions without any competition,” said TPIS President Andrew Gasser. “The GAO should stop this anti-competitive plan before it goes any further.

“This SLS bailout earmark is Solyndra on steroids,” Gasser added. “Every thoughtful member of Congress should join Congressman McClintock in challenging the spending of $32 billion in taxpayer funds without free and open competition. Only brave actions like this will protect us from the evils of crony capitalism that is running rampant in Washington. NASA’s SLS strategy abandons everything that defines America’s system of government: fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.”

SFF Chairman Bob Werb took aim at Texas Sen. Kay Baily Hutchison, who pushed a reluctant NASA to build SLS.

“The Senate’s monster rocket is looking worse every day. Not only is it unaffordable and unnecessary, but it looks like NASA’s plan to do the Congress’ bidding actually violates the law,” Werb said. “Senator Hutchison may be in a hurry to feed pork to a few big aerospace contractors, but that doesn’t allow our space agency to ignore laws designed to stop sole-source, no-bid contracts from wasting taxpayer money. Thank goodness Congressman McClintock threw a penalty flag on this outrage.

“Even if you wrongly assume that NASA needs a 130 metric ton launch system anytime soon, there are clearly multiple ways to achieve that and many are much cheaper than the Senate’s preferred path,” he added. “Simply modifying existing Shuttle or Constellation contracts to accelerate payments to the same companies to build SLS is a violation of the law.”

 

[Ark]

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Has this report been posted yet? Incredible how much cheaper SpaceX's approach is to the traditional NASA development route.

Someone remind me how much was wasted on Ares I and Orion again? :lol:

 

[Tychonaut]

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

So based on the cost comparisons in that report, developing SLS and MPCV using the SpaceX methodology should cost $6-7 billion, rather than $16 billion. SLS should cost even less given its shuttle derivation. Not that I am in any way advocating the unnecessary SLS.
I'm not surprised by the numbers, but I'm impressed someone at NASA put them together.

 

[orb]

NASASpaceflight: SLS mission schedule improving – Crewed Moon mission moving to 2019

 

[N_Molson]

And so they do not plan to paint it white. Logical. :yes:

And they mount the Delta-IV second stage atop an interstage adapter, as I was suspecting.

 

[orb]

Parabolic Arc: NASA’s Once and Future King:

In the latest edition of The Lurio Report, Charlies Lurio reports on growing evidence that former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin wants his old job back:

I have now heard from two independent sources – though in both cases second hand – that Griffin was recently overheard telling Scolese that the main objective right now was to slow down the Commercial Crew program, because he figured he’d be back in charge of NASA under a new Republican White House. I suppose that a former official using his pals like this to undermine present policy is typical DC skullduggery, but I don’t have to like it. (Update: I hear that Griffin’s determination to get his old job back was being discussed “everywhere” at a recent major conference of aerospace professionals as well as later events.)​

{...}

 

[orbitingpluto]

NOOOOOO!

Just nooooo!