Senate and White House (Apparently) Compromise on NASA Policy

Bye bye Flagship technology missions.

Now that this is apparently a done deal, if we all started working together, instead of at cross-purposes, maybe, just maybe, we can find ways for EVERYONE to get what they want for the future of humanity beyond LEO. If we remain vigilent about seeking efficiencies, about cutting costs wherever possible, about identifying new and better ways to accomplish everything and about helping each other out; we can find very synergistic ways to maintain America's pre-emminence in space, advance our technologies, include our international partners and propel humans to the farthest frontiers we can find.

Hogan - I am sorry, but thats like saying we can work together with BP, to have a clean Gulf.

Um, sorry, but now we have a real mess on our hands. When a good chunk of a bill does the exact opposite of what needs to be done, you can't expect to make progress

If this is funded, I think this is a win.

HLV by 2016 is way, way better than Ares I in 2017.

COTS is better than no COTS.

ISS extension is better than dumping it into the sea a few years after completion.

Sorry about the Flagship technology missions, but common'... The worst we were ever looking at here was still the best space agency in the world by a mile.

We'll eat the Moon in due time.

Joe - COTS was never in danger - its Commercial Crew. And right now, Commercial Crew is incredibly hamstrung

Finally, the adults have entered the room and have spoken. This is exactly what was needed. And, apparently, the WH agrees. Wow.

I am sorry but that is the worst attitude to take.

The time for debate has passed, if we are to go forward then we need to work together.

In the Gulf, if we did not work with BP then compensation for the damages would be much slower to transpire and a great deal of more problems would be created.

We will never get beyond earth orbit, if the constant attitude is to be adverse to the compromise as it has emerged.

Well, after reading the authorization language, it is not all that bad. The proof will be in the appropriations and how that is carried out.

Will the congress provide the money for the laundry list of items contained in the authorization language?

The problem is, we can't go forward, when one side is pumping more oil into the Gulf. Our side made multiple attempts at compromise (the Orion capsule, being the biggest one) and then we get accused of not trying to compromise. Instead, we get accused of trying to destroy human spaceflight.

I am sorry, but why should I try and work together?

Dennis,

You are right. I have a question. Who looks at that list and gives a price? To me it looks like about $25 Billion a year to do what they want. Keep flying shuttle, start HLV development, keep ISS, keep COTS. Is there any money left to build something to launch on the HLV?

What is worrying is that the cover language seems to state no funding increase. So effectively both old and new destinations, in terms of advanced tech to get there and explore, are deleted, and then we have an HLV going to nowhere. Extra funding to restore actual exploration is going to be critical.

This is from Bill Nelson's press release:

Expand the Commercial Crew Development Program in 2011 for concept development and supporting activities, while requiring a number of studies to ensure effective oversight of the potential initiation of a commercial crew capability procurement program no earlier than 2012.

If I'm reading this right, the key phrase is "no earlier than 2012." They are taking the decision about whether industry is ready to support commercial crew away from NASA and arbitrarily delaying procurement by a full year. They are sucker punching commercial crew by not letting them even get started.

What is NASA supposed to do with the FY11 funding, buy a bunch of studies that probably won't tell us anything we didn't already know? Why does that sound so familiar? And don't you just wonder what excuse they'll come up with next year to delay commercial crew again?

The bottom line on this is that it extends the gap where we're dependent on the Russians by at least a year. Who's side are these Senators on, anyway?

Apparently, these Senators don't care about the national interest. They don't even care how much money you spend, as long as you don't accomplish anything that might upset the gravy train. The proper word for this action is sabotage.

To me it looks like about $25 Billion a year to do what they want.

Me thinks that the money part will be punted until after the election and the hope is that the rubes will think that something has actually been accomplished here.

I guess this is just my cynical side showing today.

Well, after reading the authorization language, it is not all that bad. The proof will be in the appropriations and how that is carried out.

Will the congress provide the money for the laundry list of items contained in the authorization language?

perhaps we can work together,Go with side mount it can be deployed by 2016 and satisfies the 70 MT requirement.
hand over the side mount carrier to ULA with the direction to build a common EELV/carrier upper stage architecture.This would be ACES,tanker and fuel depot.NASA and DOD would both need to sign off on this.
this would satisfy commercial involvement in heavy lift and provide for high production of upper stages over DOD/SMD/ESMD/commercial flight.
Use this common upper stage architecture with commercial crew if possible.If DOD goes with a fly back CBC on a future EELV then use this on the side mount stack.

"Senate panel sets NASA on course to asteroids" say some of the headlines.

This is pretty close to the "this is where we'll end up compromising anyway" compromise that was floated 4 months or so ago....

CxP - dead. :)
Moon vs. Flexible Path - FP. :)
Technology - less. :(
HLV - sooner. :|

And they are delaying SpaceX crewed capability by a year, just so Shelby will be happy. Small price.

If this is the outcome, and in face of the almost insane levels of opposition to the plan, then I'm game, since the final outcome is preserved.

Wingo:
"Bye bye Flagship technology missions." Really?

Bye bye Flagship technology missions.

The Flagship technology missions are cheap so it looks like the amendments to the bill may bringing them back.

I like the Senate bill and I like the administrations vision with the tech demos. Why not fund them all?

Isn't everyone jumping up and down screaming jobs, jobs, jobs? NASA is spread all over the country and every well paid engineer or scientist can create a couple of other jobs through economic activity.

Plus if the jobs are on creating new markets, once the development is done the number of jobs grow and the private sector takes over.

When done correctly NASA is a great investment by the government in America.

Supporting Orion/HLV is a good long term investment in exploration capability. The Shuttle, Soyuz nor Dragon are purpose built for leaving Earth for a very long time.

Dragon, the tech demos, and other visionary projects create new abilities to explore and new gear for commercialization.

For example Bigelow needs the closed loop life support as much as NASA. Funding it for exploration and sharing it with industry not only allows us to go to Mars, it also allows Bigelow and other yet to be formed companies to compete in space.

NACA didn't create the commercial airline industry, they just performed the research that the companies needed to make it happen. Maybe, just maybe it is that time again.

Plus the bonus is we have Orion and a HLV as an ace in the hole just in case SpaceX or Bigelow make a bad decision, fail, or otherwise are not capable of finishing what they started.

One pint of champagne plus one pint of sewage is not a "fair and balanced" compromise.

Jobs programs should at least build useful things. Son of Ares is not useful. It would be better to extend unemployment benefits for redundant NASA and ATK employees; that way there would be no astronauts killed by the failure of an idiotic rocket design, and no private sector efforts killed by competition with the government monopoly.

The real "heavy lift" we need is to get legislators out of the socialist aerospace mindset.

"we have Orion and a HLV as an ace in the hole just in case SpaceX or Bigelow make a bad decision, fail, or otherwise are not capable of finishing what they started."

I agree. I hope NASA starts actively pursuing the commercial path so we have a real schedule that these companies have to perform to. I also hope they don't play games like "We can't provide any status on their progress because these are private companies".

Just imagine.

These wonderful people are going to set things back to the way they were and no one is going to lose their jobs and astronauts are going to get to do fun things like they always have. Maybe they will get to go to the Moon someday. They have been really whining about it lately. The compromise could conceivably allow all of this to come true.

I am sorry. I just don't get it. These are extremely difficult times. $19B for NASA next year does not equal massive layoffs. These two things just don't jibe with me or anyone else with an IQ high enough to add 2 plus 2. If you watch the videos of these people talking and turn down the sound, you get a whole different perspective based on the facial expressions of the committee members standing next to the speaker. The massive layoffs are going to happen before, during, or after the election unless the President gives up and relinquishes his desire to stop NASA from going back to the Moon. I believe these people do not know who they are dealing with since the guy is from a foreign country and is difficult to read.

These wonderful people are making it difficult for me and many others to believe anything any powerful leader claims they are going to accomplish. I guess we are all waiting for just one powerful bolt of lightning (massive layoffs) to get all of our attention, to get us going in one direction, and to ignore the distracters.