NASA Reauthorization Bill Provides ATK with a Glimmer of Hope

Given the time constraints (December 2016) and the load capacity (75-100 tonnes), what other options are there? CREDIBLE options!?!

Gotta love that R&D stuff.....

It will be fun to watch it blow up. One last hurrah for the old way of doing business.

Then I guess you were ecstatic on January 28, 1986.

I have to say that whether it's NewSpace or OldSpace I don't take joy in watching someone's hard work 'blow up.'

So if people don't believe in the same thing you do they should all fail or better yet, die?

It's fairly simple and has been discussed elsewhere. It essentially goes like this:

1) Take the shuttle ET and replace the oval LOX tank with a more conventional oblong one.

2) Thicken the tank walls so that it can take the axial loads of a 70t-135t mass at the top.

3) Build a simple-as-possible engineering section with either 3 x SSMEs or 2 x RS-68A hydrolox engines and fit that to the bottom of the ET. Call this your Common Core Booster.

4) Fit either RSRMs or (if available) the new 5-seg SRBs onto the old shuttle SRB attachment points.

5) Put the payload on top inside an 8.4m-diameter PLF.

6) Place on Pad 39A. Launch it.

Thus you get a basic D-SDLV In-line of the specification identified by both MSFC and JSC. I have greatly simplified the work required here. A lot of engineering work will be needed, especially for the ET redesign and the engineering of the propulsion section. However, it should be doable within five years and comfortably within the stated budget.

Or:

1. Use Methane/Lox to lower the handling bar and raise the
safety bar (the core first stage is the human rated one).
Would require the evolution of the R-68 or a new engine
eventually. Remaining SME, R-68's could be optimized for
MOX. Might require a second stage for the core first stage
to get the necessary throw weight (possible R-68).

2. Use a weight baring truss to suspend the light tankage in.

3. Use a hybrid solid with extra oxidizer tankage to
supply the oxidizer needed for the simi-solid.

Likely you would want to start with a minimal system and
grow it as needed. The legislation specifies an
evolutionary path. That would be necessary anyway as there
just isn't a lot of time or money to get anything done by
the end of 2016.

So some of what I've read since the compromise announcement makes it sound like Congress is OK with NASA giving Ares I the axe and that the intent is for Orion (or son of Orion) to be launched on top of a heavy lift vehicle for missions beyond LEO. But other articles are talking about how now Orion will be launching to the ISS in 2016 ontop of a "SRB derived" vehicle...as part of the new compromise plan.

My take is that the Shuttle is being extended until Commercial Crew is "ready" and that the intent is to not fly Orion to the ISS...curious what other people are getting from all this...

Don't know where your getting all that. The section by section
on the Senate bill was posted and it definitely does not
mention Ares 1. It specifies that the HLV will use shuttle
and Constellation derived technology. The legislation and
Nelson's comments sound much like the Boeing study "
Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion
Systems " AIAA paper "AIAA 2010-2370".

The legislation requires NASA to launch the back up shuttle
And refurbish the one remaining tank "ET94" for possible
use or for engineering purposes. There is some language
requiring NASA to have a backup to Soyuz after the last
shuttle has flown but the budget only includes funding for
shuttle through 2011. It doesn’t say how NASA is to provide
this backup absent funding for shuttle. NASA could keep
one shuttle mothballed for theoretical use with the one
remaining tank given 6 months notice (which would be
highly dangerous if doable).

Keep in mind that the House has to pass it's version of the
legislation and you can bet there will be some differences
if only because the House always has to show it's
independence. Then the whole thing goes to reconciliation
which is where this administration usually makes it's
adjustments. This all has to be completed by September
15th. or the whole exercise is moot because there wouldn't
be enough time to get anything included in the continuing
resolution that will do for this years budget.

The Section by Section is posted here:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=50faad79-f79d-4531-9f69-cf646b2b96ba

Better to read the real thing from the Senate web site
than get a bunch of second hand info. from biased blogs
and news sites.

Its a shame with all the "modern" tech out there in the last 50 years we are still using the same basic chemical rocket tech that Von Braun used back in the day. There are those that will argue that the newer rockets have more efficient mass to fuel ratio, Yet its still a Chemical Rocket. You mean to tell me in 50 years we cant think of anything else? All the Brainiacs at NASA and JPL and various other agencies got nothing else? In a time when Kirk's flip communicator is old hat and Picard's touchpad is a reality and Uhura's ear piece is common place. We can come up with nothing else but solid and chemical rockets? With all mans accomplishments gravity still kicks our asses on a regular basis.

Damn the Politics!

Congress chose to make NASA use solid rocket motors. Trust them.

Dr. John Hunter’ Hydrogen Space Gun is probably the most efficient way of launching small hardened payloads into orbit. For anything large or delicate it’s just hard to beat a good chemical rocket. An SME liberates a very high fraction of the amount of energy chemically available in it’s fuel. There are some advocates of nuclear rockets who claim a better solution, but I am unconvinced. Even if you ignore the socio/political problems with spewing radioactive material into the atmosphere, the thrust to weight issues are not trivial. For now. My own gues is that a two stage (Scramjet/Rocket) is probably the way we will make progress over the chemical rocket for manned space flight. Ofcourse the “compromise” budget puts off the day when that can happen as it guts the space science element in the administration budget.

Then its a real shame that our automobiles still use the same basic gasoline-powered, internal combusion engines that pre-dates Henry Ford's 1908 Tin Lizzie. Oh, there have been some improvements over the years, such as replacing carburetors with fuel injection (except in NASCAR). And belts, hoses, and tires last much longer. But the basic engine design is still the same. Thousands of automotive engineers in Detroit, Japan, and Germany over the last one hundred years have yet to come up with a "game-changing" engine.

Where is Doc Brown's Mr. Fusion?

I read the bill I guess what isn't clicking for me is that if the multi-purpose crew transportation vehicle is supposed to provide alternate access to the ISS, launching it on a HLV for that purpose seems...oh, I don't know...overkill? Unless the new 'Space Launch System' is more than just heavy lift, which I guess is the conclusion that the article I read came to. Granted though, that doesn't jive with the section outlining SLS...

only side mount fits this bill

add the 5 segment SRB to side mount in a block III

Maybe the J2X in a upper stage but,

This budget will cause a train wreck with the above ideas and commercial crew, attempting a deep space Orion on side mount will cause some nasty engineering and budget surprise as well.

My thoughts are with a unconstrained budget or a delay(gap)(1)commercial crew human rates the current EELV(2016),this in turn paves the way to,
(2)human rate EELV heavy as a fall back measure to fuel depot fueled beyond LEO Orion(2022).(3)side mount with 5 segment SRB (2022)
(4)ULA develops a "commercial" side mount carrier block I(2016!)this would use existing EELV upper stage.(5)ULA develops side mount block II,ACES upper stage and tanker, development and operational costs to be shared with EELV ACES upper stages.(6)"new space" fuels the fuel depot

If cryogenic fuel depot fails to prove economic what then?
(1) switch to methane or propane 100 for fuel depot.
(2) Develop side mount block IV(2025-2030)with two 5 segment SRB and two EELV CBC with cross feed between CBC and the ET, reinforce the ET to handle thrust loads from the CBC, this paves the way for a possible second stage(inline?)ULA takes over the ET and Michaud in a commercialization attempt.
(3)ULA incorporates ACES lunar Lander habitat modification ideas (to the fuel tank) to the ET; ET becomes a combined habitat/fuel depot**. Use the inter tank region for habitat and insulation between the habitat and fuel depot, inter tank region also serves as a docking point. It’s possible that this side mount variant would have mostly fuel in the carrier as the payload is the modified ET itself! The entire stack makes it to orbit minus the SRB’s(2030)

** this is an ACES 671 :):):)

If solid rocket motor production is critical to the nation's national security industrial base, then a more comprehensive and longer range solution is needed beyond mandating solids for any future HLV. Such a review should project missile needs well into the century, possible evolvants of today's motor technologies, and which part of the federal government sgencies should pay for any of this. NASA is not the place to sustain this industry alone, IMHO./

Side mount is one but not the only option that would
fill the bill. Check out Boeing's AIAA paper
"Heavy Lift Launch Vehicles with Existing Propulsion Systems"

http://www.launchcomplexmodels.com/Direct/documents/AIAA-2010-2370-650.pdf

However this is really beside the point. The Senate bill
is just that a Senate bill and really not even that until the
Senate appropriators have had their say. But that is as
Lori Garver said "a good place to start". Then the House
has to authorize and appropriate a bill. Then the two bills
have to be reconciled and at each step the White House
has the opportunity to improve the bill.

Keep in mind that the final outcome has to be a better deal
for both congress and the executive branch than a continuing
resolution of the FY2010 bill or either side can call the whole
thing off and just go with a clean CR. As it is, even if all parties
can come to terms, what will happen is the grand compromise
bill would be put in as an amendment to the Continuing
resolution that congress will adopt in lue of a proper budget.

So the Senate bill is just the start not an ending for the
negotiating process. Lets hope that the remaining
process yields more light than heat. Both sides have
legitimate points and no compromise will fully satisfy
anyone. And since they only have two months left to
accomplish all the above, a political realist would have to
say that the odds favor a clean CR of the NASA FY2010
budget with the compromise if any in the FY2012 budget.

GREeveret,
thank you for your thoughtful comments,I am still convinced that for inline to win out it would have to remove several paragraphs of the senate bill as I have commented below,my comments are beside the white boxes(bullets)

the language in the bill that states, NASA is to use a shuttle derived vehicle that does not need to modify the MAP" is note worthy.
the other obstacle is that this bill would need more money from the appropriations committee in both the house and senate to make inline possible.

Section-by-Section
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2010
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Section 1 – Table of Contents
Section 2 – Findings
Section 3 - Definitions
TITLE I – Authorization of Appropriations
See addenda.
TITLE II – POLICY, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT AND EXPLORATION
Sec. 201 – United States Human Space Flight Policy – The U.S. shall rely upon non-U.S. human space flight (HSF) capabilities only on a temporary basis under circumstances where no U.S. capability is available. Reaffirms policy of 2005 NASA reauthorization stating that the U.S. will maintain an uninterrupted HSF capability and operation in low-earth orbit (LEO) to maintain national security and leadership in exploration and utilization of space.
Sec. 202 – Goals and Objectives – The long-term goal of U.S. HSF efforts shall be to expand permanent human presence beyond LEO through establishment of a long-term LEO presence via the space station and commercial capabilities; to determine if humans can, in fact, live in an extended manner in space; lay foundation for sustainable economic activities in space, maximize role of HSF in advancing knowledge of the universe, national security and global competitive posture.
Sec. 203 – Assurance of Core Capabilities – Sense of Congress that the ISS, technology developments, Shuttle and follow-on transportation capabilities authorized under this act form the foundation for initial missions beyond LEO. Development of the follow-on transportation system will allow for the capability to restart and fly the Shuttle, if directed by Congress or the President, prior to completion of the final Shuttle mission. Authorizes refurbishment of manufactured external tank of the Shuttle designated as ET-94
 The most inexpensive option is that this (ET-94) be a part of the first side mount demonstration flight with a Delta or Centaur carrier. Keeping shuttle on standby I suspect would eat our budgetary lunch.
Sec. 204 – Independent Study on Human Exploration of Space - Provides for an assessment by the National Academies of the President’s plan for HSF and exploration.
 Augustine II! The national academies in the past has tended to advocate efficiency and sustainability in both human and robotic space flight, however the congress may pass this senate committee bill resulting in side mount. The result might be the national academies might endorse a common upper stage for the side mount and the existing EELV.
TITLE III – EXPANSION OF HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT BEYOND THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION AND LOW-EARTH ORBIT
Sec. 301 – Human Space Flight Beyond Low-Earth Orbit – Includes additional findings. Requires report regarding international collaboration on ISS and NASA efforts to define Cis-Lunar Space human missions.
Sec. 302 - Space Launch System as Follow-on Launch Vehicle to the Space Shuttle – NASA will initiate development of a Government-owned and NASA-managed “Space Launch System” - heavy lift launch capability - as soon as practicable after enactment of this act. Extends existing contracts necessary to carry out this title to limit termination liability and other costs associated with this title. NASA shall ensure that existing critical capabilities are maintained: lifting payloads of 70-100 tons initially with an evolutionary design leading to eventual 150-ton payload capability to enable missions beyond low-Earth orbit, lift the multipurpose crew vehicle, serve as a crew and cargo launch backup for ISS delivery requirements not otherwise met by commercial or international partners, ensure critical skills are retained, modified and developed as necessary. These critical skills must also be evolvable to launch objects to beyond-Earth orbit, carry payloads up to 150 ton, and to incorporate new technologies. To support transition, NASA will retain critical skills pertaining to solid and liquid engines, large-diameter fuel tanks, rocket propulsion, and other ground test capabilities.
 70 to 100 tons is side mount by 2016, limiting termination liability means perhaps continued 4 segment SRB production with a possible low rate development of the 5 segment SRB .However the ET contract is already terminated so Sec.302 above speaks of preserving, “large diameter fuel tanks” it is thought that this is an ET restart, however could a EELV super heavy combine a large diameter fuel tank and SRB’s to be our evolved 150 ton vehicle in the future?
 Can you have a side mount with two SRB’s and two Delta CBC’s in addition to the carrier?
Sec. 303 – Multi-Purpose Crew Transportation Vehicle – NASA shall pursue development of a multi-purpose crew transportation vehicle based on Orion for use with the Space Launch System. It shall be the goal to reach full operational capability by December 31, 2016. Minimum capabilities include missions beyond LEO, conducting in-space operations, providing means of alternative crew delivery to ISS and the capacity for vehicle modifications.
 This needs a fall back plan incase of engineering and budget horror stories that might come about from Orion on a side mount. Deep space Orion by 2016? Commercial crew should have human rated the EELV mediums, this should provide a path to a human rated EELV heavy as a fall back measure to side mount.
Sec. 304 – Utilization of Existing Workforce and Assets in Development of Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle – In developing the Space Launch system, NASA shall utilize existing contracts, workforce, capabilities, etc. from the Shuttle and former Orion and Aries I projects, and should minimize the modification and development of ground infrastructure. Requires timely and cost-effective development of the SLS and crew vehicle.
 READ, Former Ares I projects. This is dead; “minimize modification of ground infrastructure” is code for side mount.
Sec. 305 – NASA Launch Support and Infrastructure Modernization Program - In preparation for the Space Launch System, NASA shall upgrade KSC infrastructure in preparation for the Space Launch System through streamlining and minimizing of vehicle processing complexity. Elements will include civil and national security operations, providing multi-vehicle support, etc. Requires report on modernization plan within 120 days.
 Ummm, just hand over the MAP to ULA as a commercial contract?
Sec. 306 – Report on Effects of Transition to Space Launch System on the Solid and Liquid Rocket Motor Industrial Bases – Requires report in consultation with Departments of Defense and Commerce assessing effects of retirement of the Shuttle and transition to the Space Launch system on the solid and liquid rocket motor industrial bases.
 Use ACES as common side mount/EELV upper stage. Keep SRB.
Sec 307 – Sense of the Congress on Other Technology and Robotic Elements in Human Space Flight and Exploration – Details the need for balance between expanding existing capabilities and investing in new capabilities.
Sec. 308 – Development of Technologies and In-Space Capabilities for Beyond Near-Earth Space Missions – NASA may develop technologies for missions beyond NES, related in-space capabilities and
make investments in the following: technologies to enable missions beyond LEO and ultimately landing on Mars, a space-based transfer vehicle, advanced life support technology, space suit development, in-space propulsion, refueling and energy, etc.
 Fuel depot and fuel transfer stages, add an ion tug and deep space transfer vehicle.
TITLE IV – DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF COMMERCIAL CREW AND CARGO TRANSPORTATION CAPABILITIES
Sec. 401 – Commercial Cargo Development Program – NASA shall continue the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services Program (COTS) in support of providing cargo services to the ISS. Funds may be applied towards activities reducing risk to the timely start of these services.
Sec. 402 – Commercial Crew Development Program (CCDev) – Continues the CCDev program through 2011. Continues certain CCDev activities and agreements initiated in FY 2010 that advance the development of commercial crew services.
 Add a fuel depot replenishment study to this contract to include fuel transfer to L1 or L2.plan for commercial crew rebid in the 2020’s to involve these contractors.
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.
 The national academies and the aerospace corporation can do this jointly.
Sec. 404 – Report on International Space Station Cargo Return Capability – Requires report on alternative commercially-developed means for the soft-landing return on land of research and other small payloads.
TITLE V – CONTINUATION, SUPPORT, AND EVOLUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION
Sec. 501 – Continuation of the International Space Station through 2020 – It shall be the policy of the U.S. to support full utilization of the ISS through at least 2020.
Sec. 502 – Maximum Utilization of the ISS – NASA shall maximize returns from the ISS through innovation, international cooperation and collaboration with domestic government and non-government research entities.
Sec. 503 – Maintenance of the U.S. Segment and Assurance of Continued Operations of the ISS –Ensures safe and effective operation, maintenance and maximum utilization of ISS through 2020 through a comprehensive assessment of essential systems, components, elements, etc., on board or planned for delivery and installation, including spare and replacement parts needed through 2020. Requires a report to Congress within 90 days of enactment that will detail each part, its function, location, criticality to ISS function and planned method of delivery, as well as procurement and delivery costs. Requires GAO review of the report.
 All ISS follow on modules should serve a dual purpose as a deep space habitat/transfer vehicle/test bed. Use a combination of NASA in-house ISS derived and Bigalow modules. Fly this combination along with the Chinese and ATV in a 29 inclination orbit collocated with fuel depot; this becomes human and robotic way station for deep space.
Authorizes and directs Administrator to fly the Shuttle Launch on Need (LON) flight pending results of the report. Preserves Shuttle capabilities through 2011 to complete the current manifest and prohibits termination of any contracts that would inhibit launching of the Shuttle as described in this section.
 Fly shuttle beyond LON along with side mount only if the budget is increased so as not to destroy commercial crew, fuel depot demonstration. In this budget you may not have both shuttle and deep space Orion.
Sec. 504 – Management of the U.S. National Laboratory of the International Space Station – Requires NASA to enter into an agreement with a non-profit organization whose sole purpose is to manage and plan the activities of the National Lab and develop and implement research and development projects. Guarantees National Lab managed experiments access to a minimum 50% of U.S. research facilities and crew time.
 Use peer review and the non profit run by a consortium of universities much like the nations telescope are run. Fly an early experiment of the effects of microgravity on mammalian reproductive tissues. Use COTS to fly a centrifuge and live rats or mice and with a biological barrier in the docking mechanism to protect ISS astronauts.
TITLE VI – SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT AND TRANSITION
Sec. 601 – Sense of the Congress on the Space Shuttle Program – Retirement of the Shuttle and transition to new HSF capabilities must be done in a manner that builds upon the Shuttle legacy and retains the skills and industrial capability to provide a follow-on space launch system designed for missions beyond Near-Earth-Space (NES).
Sec. 602 – Retirement of the Space Shuttle Orbiters and Transition of Space Shuttle Program – The retirement schedule shall be consistent with ISS contingency requirement under this act. To the extent practicable, NASA will utilize Shuttle skills and capabilities in efforts relating to initiation of the follow-on space launch system authorized under this act. Workers not covered in this section will be provided retraining and other placement efforts.
Sec. 603 – Disposition of Orbiter Vehicles – Upon retirement, NASA shall decommission orbiter vehicles through established safety and competitive processes with priority given to locations with the best public value, educational opportunities and historical connections the orbiters.
 “Historical connections with the orbiters” this means no to New York and yes to Texas? I guess one will have to go to California or Florida.
Title VII – EARTH SCIENCE
Sec. 701 Sense of Congress - Earth observations are critical to scientific understanding, protecting human health and property and national security. NASA plays a critical role in providing environmental data. Existing government agency and international partner sharing of satellite data should be maintained. Satellites and monitoring programs will continue to play a vital role in climate science and mitigation of destructive environmental impacts.
Sec. 702 – Inter-Agency Collaboration Implementation Approach – OSTP shall establish a mechanism to ensure greater coordination of civilian Earth observation activities among government agencies.
Sec. 703 – Transitioning Experimental Research into Operation Services – NASA shall coordinate with NOAA to establish a mechanism to plan, coordinate and support transitioning of NASA research to NOAA operations.
Sec. 704 – Decadal Survey Missions Implementation for Earth Observation – NASA will undertake certain missions identified in the National Research Council’s Earth Science Decadal Survey.
Sec. 705 – Expansion of Earth Science Applications – It is a Sense of Congress that NASA should expand its role in Earth Science applications with State and local governments and other entities.
Sec. 706 - Instrument Test Beds and Venture Class Missions – NASA will pursue innovative ways to fly instrument-level payloads for early demonstration. The ISS is encouraged as a platform for such activities.
Sec. 707 – Sense of Congress on NPOESS Follow-On Program –The National Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) has suffered chronic rising costs and delays. Congress supports independent recommendation and OSTP decision to restructure the program to minimize future cost increases and schedule slips. Encourages NOAA and DOD to make full use of NPOESS and to structure their programs to maintain continuity across agencies.
TITLE VIII – SPACE SCIENCE
Sec. 801 – Technology Development – The Science Mission Directorate shall maintain a long-term technology development program for space and Earth.
Sec. 802 – Suborbital Research Activities – Establishes a Suborbital Research Program to advance science and train future scientists and engineers in skills critical to maintaining the aerospace workforce.
Sec. 803 – Overall Science Portfolio–Sense of the Congress – Adequately funded research, technology development and space missions contribute to a robust science program and innovation.
Sec. 804 – In-Space Servicing – Ensures provisions are made for on-orbit or human servicing of observatory-class scientific research spacecraft deployed in Earth-orbit or at a Lagrangian point.
 Start a study of utilizing fuel depot to store and transfer liquid helium for telescope servicing.
Sec. 805 – Decadal Results – NASA should take the current Decadal Surveys from the National Academies’ Space Studies Board into account when submitting the President’s budget request.
Sec. 806 – On-Going Restoration of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator Material Production – Radioisotope power systems are the only viable power source for deep-space missions. Current supplies will not support planned future missions and continuing to rely on Russia is not a secure option. NASA and the Department of Energy will pursue restarting and sustaining domestic radioisotope thermoelectric generator material production to power deep space satellite, robotic and other science missions.
 Start a study incorporating cryogenic storage in a deep space upper stage to power onboard fuel cells that power the payload that has its solar arrays stowed behind a aeroshell for atmospheric breaking.
Sec. 807 – Collaboration with EMSD and SOMD on Robotic Missions – ESMD and SOMD shall coordinate with SMD on interagency and international collaboration on certain robotic missions. Requires a report detailing the chosen approach, which must be submitted prior to acting on any robotic EMSD or Robotic SMD project.
 The storage of cryogenics on upper stages in deep space can be used by both SMD and ESMD. This allows for dual mode power generation using chemical rockets.
Sec. 808 – Near-Earth Object Survey and Policy with Respect to Threats Posed - Reaffirms policy regarding near-earth asteroids and comets. OSTP shall implement a policy for notifying relevant emergency response institutions pending a threat posing a public-safety risk.
Sec. 809 – Space Weather – Requires OSTP to improve the Nation’s ability to prepare, avoid, mitigate, respond to and recover from potentially devastating impacts of space weather events. Requires report on current ground and space-based data sources and detail data systems needed for space weather forecasting for next 10 years.
TITLE IX – AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY
Sec. 901 – Sense of the Congress – Recognizes importance of and need to continue support of aeronautics research, the National Science and Technology Council and NASA-developed Aeronautics technologies.
Sec. 902 – Aeronautics Research Goals – Specific research goals include the Next Generation Air Transportation System, noise, emissions, fuel consumption, alternative fuels and aviation safety.
 The next generation bomber should be more then that, it should be a next generation transport as well for the DOD, here NASA would partner to make sure the DOD transport variant serves as a commercial transport as well as a first stage launcher.
Sec. 903 – Research Collaboration – NASA will continue to collaborate with the Department of Defense and Federal Aviation Administration regarding aeronautics infrastructure and explore areas for greater collaboration.
Sec. 904 – Goal for Agency Space Technology – NASA will maintain a space technology base that helps align mission directorate investments and supports long-term needs. NASA will seek partners as is practicable.
Sec. 905 – Implementation Plan for Agency Space Technology – NASA will provide a plan detailing how it will meet the goals outlined in this title and certain other sections.
Sec. 906 – National Space Technology Policy - Requires the President to develop a national policy to guide U.S. space technology development programs through 2020.
 Side mount SRB’s are supplemented or replaced with the proposed air force EELV fly back CBC
TITLE X – EDUCATION
Sec. 1001 – Report on Education Implementation Outcomes – Requires report on the development of a national Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) workforce, STEM student retention, and STEM education providers.
Sec. 1002 – Sense of Congress on the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research – The EPSCoR strengthens the research capabilities or jurisdictions that did not historically participate in competitive aerospace-related research activities, has provided taxpayer and excellent return on investment, has been successful in achieving broader geographical distribution of R&D support and NASA EPSCoR research should the departments of Energy, Agriculture, Defense, EPA and NIH.
Sec. 1003 – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Commercial Orbital Platform Program - Establishes program to annually sponsor at least 50 scientific and educational payloads developed with U.S. student and educator involvement to be carried on commercial systems. NASA shall engage with students and educators to make available relevant expertise to those selected to participate.
TITLE XI – RESCOPING AND REVITALIZING INSTITUTIONAL CAPABILITIES
Sec. 1101 – Sense of the Congress – NASA needs to rescope infrastructure to fit current and future missions and funding levels.
 A side mount/ EELV hybrid could mean a commercialization opportunity, but would commercial space want to use the MAP?
Sec. 1102 – Institutional Requirements Study - Requires a study to lay out approach to get to the most efficient NASA footprint of facilities and infrastructure, paying specific attention to eliminating unneeded duplication or infrastructure. The study will include a reinvestment strategy to upgrade needed equipment and facilities.
Sec. 1103 – NASA Capabilities Study Requirement – NASA shall contract with an independent entity to examine alternative management models for NASA’s workforce, Centers and certain other Capabilities.
Sec. 1104 – Sense of Congress on Community Transition Support - Recognizes efforts to assist communities adversely affected by NASA program changes. Eligible communities include all those in which NASA maintains mission-related centers. Makes certain other communities eligible as well.
Sec . 1105 – Workforce Stabilization and Critical Skills Preservation – Prior to receipt of the report detailed in Sec. 1103, NASA may not transfer the functions, missions or activities, and associated civil service and contractor positions, from any NASA facility without authorization by Congress. NASA will preserve the critical skills and competencies at NASA centers to facilitate timely implementation of this Act and minimize disruption to the workforce. NASA may not implement any reduction in force, other than for cause, prior to receipt of the report.
TITLE XII – OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 1201 – Report on Space Traffic Management - Requires report on the status discussions with other nations on a framework to address space traffic management concerns.
Sec. 1202 – National and International Orbital Debris Mitigation – NASA shall, in consultation with other space nations, initiate discussions to determine a framework and actions to deal with orbital space debris. OSTP and the National Security Council will develop the strategy for Review by the President.
Sec. 1203 – Reports on Program and Cost Assessment and Control Assessment –Requires annual reports on the implementation of NASA’s corrective action plan to address issues adhering to program cost and schedule targets. The report will focus on each program that has exceeded its cost baseline by 15% or is more than 2 years behind schedule.
Sec. 1204 – Eligibility for Service of Individual Currently Serving as Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration – Complies with current law to require NASA Administrator be a civilian at the time of appointment.
Sec. 1205 – Sense of Congress on Independent Verification and Validation of NASA Software – Supports the importance of and NASA activities to use independent verification and validation to ensure safety-critical software will operate dependably and support mission success.
Sec. 1206 – Counterfeit Parts – Requires a program, in coordination with other federal agencies, to detect, track, catalog, and reduce the number of counterfeit electronic parts in the NASA supply chain.

Thanks. I try to keep my comments rational.

I think my point was to the effect that the Senate bill
is not as written acceptable to the administration or
for that matter completely acceptable to the House or
even the Senate appropriators as a whole.

One of the things I would expect to see changed is the
detailed constraints on the HLV. If the administration
concedes a 2011 start on HLV, then Nelson et al, will
have to concede NASA decision making of how to get
that done. They may also have to accept an end date
after 12/31/16 as well given budgetary constraints.
What is not in this bill for sure is how do you afford the
HLV costs in the out years. Which is what killed Cx.

In the current and anticipated budgetary environment,
there is no way that the Senate bill could be carried
out. It is a self aware political document meant to be
the Senate' bargaining position and as such a good thing,
but is as un executable as CX as written and the
negotiations will have to center on that fact.

If I were to guess I would say that the administration
is willing to concede HLV but a less robust one delivered
latter, with the objective of getting fuel depot' and
inflatable space ship modules into LEO. The administrations
position was to borrow Senator Vitter' words "a radical
departure". The details are negotiable, the radical
departure isn't.

So I hope it goes well. My money is still on a clean FY2010 CR,
hope I am wrong.

Fred, It would be more accurate to say "damn the physics or Damn the Engineering" Warp drive is very expensive in energy conversion and just hasn't happened yet. I'm sure you would like to have nuclear propulsion which at least get toward the right energy density but it has many environmental and political problems. Until then, chemistry is what you have to use.

Damn the self-important bloggers who refuse to accept reality.

Wouldn't a link have sufficed?

Anyhow - if the usual rules for any govt. project apply the specs will change 5 times, the cost will triple or worse and by the time NASA gets anywhere someone else will have already been there - be they private ventures, other nations or whatever.

In-Line Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Vehicle, or Bust!

Forget the damn Side-Mount. In-Line has more flexibility and opportunity for growth.

I never said anything about "warp drive "( which is fantasy) nor did I suggest nuclear rockets( which I'm against by the way, wow another assumption you made found wrong). Let me be clear I understand the problems with getting into space and I understand the physics ( although I'm not engineer) It freaking hard and it cost a lot!. My question is fair, it has been 50 years.

Damn the ASSumptions and the Politics!

In-Line ALL the WAY!

folks post on here and appear to not have read the documents being discussed.newspaper reporters even appear to be guilty of this,so I posted the document with comments.
I have seen this on many forums and it worsens when you try to add in budget figures, out year operational costs, fixed costs ect, ect.
the facts remain,
heavy lifter with Orion deep space version by 2016
Likely?
since of congress, do not spend money modifying the MAP,we are not going to appropriate for that.
Remains to be seen as GREeveret points out.
look at the budget through to 2016,you just might get side mount but you will not have a deep space variant of an Orion, you might not get a earth escape stage.
you will not have access to anywhere by humans from Florida, since there will be no commercial crew.

Do some of you guys own stock in ATK? Solid rockets cannot be shut down, thus they are inherently less reliable than liquid fueled rockets. It is stupid to use solids in any launch system that is intended to reliably carry valuable payloads.

If NASA has any sense left they will remember the sad lessons of Shuttle, and the specs for an HLV will include:

No solids
Parallel staging
No solids
Flyback first stage
No solids

Of course not. Challenger was destroyed because solid motors, especially big multi-segment ones, are inherently less reliable than liquid-fueled motors. It would be foolish to use them again.

So you believe that we should stick with designs that are proven failures and crew-killers?

"For now. My own gues is that a two stage (Scramjet/Rocket) is probably the way we will make progress over the chemical rocket for manned space flight."

Yeah, and we'd better fly back the scramjet stage :) Problem is, right now we can't get up to scramjet speeds without another stage or something (rocket again? ramjet?). I believe somebody's working on that though. Maybe variable inlet shape? I don't know. We need to continue scramjet research. Let's see some more X-43s. Mach 15 anyone? Also, Go X-51!

"After the X-43 tests in 2004, NASA Dryden engineers said that they expected all of their efforts to culminate in the production of a Two-Stage-To-Orbit Crewed Vehicle in about 20 years."