White House/ Senate Compromise Reaction

As this appears to be the result of a true bipartisan effort, and while gutting commercial crew and advance tech accounts still has the support of the WH, then this bill must be the form of the final effort to pass a NASA budget this year. This means that it is time for all factions to put down their arms and support this compromise. Getting approval from the full Senate will be tough enough, much less the House, so we must start now making the case for its merits and calling on House members of both parties.
It will take a great effort to prevail against the shortened legislative calendar and House member's various conceits, but we must make the effort and if we do so I think we could be successful. Congratulate Sens Rockefeller, Hutchison, Vitter, Nelson, Bennett, and Hatch for putting aside rancor and getting the job done for the nation and for civil space. Oh that a similar effort could have been wrought for health care...

What I like about this plan is that the next President can say ok, time for lunar return, start the lander program. Options are going to be there for future administrations.

And we won't lose time in the mean time because we will be building Orion and we leap frog to heavy lift.

An Apollo 8 style mission could be done this decade.

NASA will be DOING something the next few years! Building rockets and BEO spacecraft!

The tools to explore the solar system are going to be built now. Not thinking about it for five years.

Obama failed to kill Constellation outright as they wanted.

The arguement for return to moon is only going to grow more and more. Especially when we will have spacecraft that can orbit it.

Obama didn't win a whole lot in my view assuming they do sign on to this. And what he did win for commercial support if fine by me for now.

We still underfund NASA however.
That is the most serious problem. Half a penny of the federal discretionary dollar for America's future?

Sad.

I agree with Frank Sietzen, this bill has a lot of good elements in it and should be supported. Its a good compromise with the potential to move HSF beyond LEO, first to the Moon, then beyond.

Also the NY Times headline seems misleading.

Under Findings for Sec.301, Paragraph 7 requires NASA to report to Congress withing 120 days progress on defining near term Cis-Lunar missions. Also Sec. 301, Paragraph 1 clearly puts the surface of the Moon on the list of desired destinations for NASA HSF, while paragraph 2 indicates the potential of "international space endeavors" in that regard.

This would seem to indicate a lunar return is still on the table as far as Congress goes, perhaps as an international effort with NASA supplying the HLV and Orion.

This will do. The Senate keeps the gravy train going one
more round, but the change that NASA has needed since
Apolo is in the bill as well, if not as well funded as
we need it to be. The Senate has missed it's chance to
do space in a more rational way, but has left the door
open to the needed change and there are plenty of us
who will help do the pushing. It will take more time and
money than it needed to.

This means that it is time for all factions to put down their arms and support this compromise.

Why? Why is it urgent to pass a NASA budget this year? Is it even likely there will be a budget instead of a CR?

Looks like a fair and balanced blend of the old plan and the new.
Long way to go though in getting it to from bill to law.
(both in terms of authorization and appropriation)

I still worry though about the transition from the current to the
new and the management of the human capital. We still
got the end of Shuttle looming -- although perhaps extended
by one more flight (once a plan for a crew return on a contingency
vehicle other than a Shuttle is detailed). And we have Orion
surviving which lessens the number of Constellation layoffs.

But there is still a major transition imminent and there will be
a lot of upheaval, even with this comprise.

The heavy lift part is the most undefined. Will it be a LV
for Orion, for other spacecraft as part of a DS architecture,
or both. Too soon to tell, I guess. And will we be able to transition
the bulk of people working on Ares I/V to this (apparently)
fresh sheet of paper HLV?? Who knows?

Bottom line. Pretty good day IMO. Sorry to see the big cuts in the
flagship stuff. But, maybe phasing that in more slowly is the
more prudent answer given all the challenges ahead. It is still going
to take care and skillful management to get through this transition
in terms of managing the human capital.

Glad that there is still a commercial crew component. Long term,
this is the way to go. For human access to LEO I think we need to
at least give it a try. Maybe a market other than government will
briskly develop (e.g. space tourism, etc.) and these vendors will
have more than a single customer. And maybe they can do it
more economically than has been done in the past. Although I doubt
the instant order of magnitude improvements claimed by the optimists.
However, based on their recent success, SpaceX is working real
hard to prove my doubts wrong. I wish them, and all the other
similar commercial endeavors, luck. This rocket science stuff
in still pretty difficult.

So, maybe there is light at the end of the tunnel. Time will
tell. I am more optimistic tonight than I have been in a while.

Forrest

Please correct me if I am wrong...

The specifications of the HLV seem to be tailored to the inline SDLV rather then the side carrier version. ie a side carrier cannot 'evolve' into a 150 mt launcher whereas the Inline SDLV can.

Thus, it seems that the Direct Launcher or a version of it won the day.

This Bill is simply a compromise to get votes in November. The political wolves have been let into the chicken coop. It promises more than it can fund over the next three years with Shuttle,ISS and full scale Orion continuing, at the same time a Shuttle derived HLV is developed with SRBs from Utah. Wow! It sounds like NASA's big projects with a large number of jobs (spelled votes) continues in all congressional districts. At least through November.
NASA and the contractors better start hiring right now and add as many jobs as possible before November.

What I like about this plan is that the next President can say ok, time for lunar return, start the lander program.

Just as under the old plan, except they could have started the lander program straight away instead of an SDLV development program.

There are some excellent commentary posts that describe in detail the unrealistic costs of this Senate authorization bill, located at Space Politics: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/07/15/senate-committee-adopts-compromise-nasa-bill/#comments.

Frankly, I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the NYT's quoted comments in Keith's post. People outside the community really didn't know what Ares-I was for, did they? I have to congratulate the NYT for not just getting it wrong, but getting it totally wrong. Building an HLV instead of Ares-I actually hypothetically brings a return to the Moon closer!

Folks:

If even I can agree with CessnaDriver on the direction of this bill then it's headed in the right direction!

I've wanted the "stick" dead since the first time I saw it. Done.

Shuttle derived launch vehicle. Build the general purpose heavy lift capability first ! Done.

Commercial space cargo and crew. Done.

ISS to 2020 (at least). Done.

What more can we ask for?

tinker

Well here we go again. Rocket design by congress people! Everyone gets some pork so everyone is happy, or as happy as they can be. Utah continues to produce solids, Alabama is the chief design center, Louisiana continues to build tanks, Florida gets a new launch vehicle, and on and on. A political design of a rocket and spacecraft. How many congress people are engineers. How many are pig farmers? I must admit that overall it isn't too bad a plan. I think we should be doing a new hydrocarbon based first stage HLV but will admit that the plan will be less costly infrastructure wise and likely take less time to develop. But again as some smart people have said elsewhere, will the budget ultimately support this or will it end as so many recent NASA projects because we ran out of money or time? And finally, with the caveats about continuing shuttle capabilities, I won't be surprised to see Hutchinson come up with a bill next spring to add a couple of shuttle flights a year until this new capability is available or fails. I guess I am getting cynical but I wonder if Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo would have succeeded if congress had designed the hardware?

I'm sorry to be cynical but I simply do not trust the Obama administration. While bi-partisan development is nice to see, the real test of anything is what actually results. Hopefully I'm wrong, but frankly, I don't see Obama and Garver giving up on anything.

Need to get US boots on the ground soon before other nations fill the void.

Sections 1100 are going to cause unnecessary consternation and delay/ Why more studies ?

I believe the “compromise” Senate bill is a step backwards. Indulge me step-by-step observations leading to this conclusion:

1-Judging from the Senate/Compromise bill, sometime in the 20-teens there would be in Human Space Flight certain elements that hold RECURRING costs. These would be the International Space Station, still in orbit, some commercial crew capability to LEO and to ISS, a heavy lift vehicle of some TBD design, also incurring recurring production and operations costs, and an Orion-like spacecraft also incurring recurring production and operations costs.

2-Notably, the multi-purpose-crew-vehicle (MPCV) definition will inevitably lead to a set of beyond-Earth-orbit requirements similar to the Constellation’s Orion. The mass / weight will then be just high enough to assure no existing US launch vehicle (Atlas, Delta, Falcon, Taurus), and no envisioned US commercial launch vehicle, can launch it to Low Earth Orbit, EXCEPT the heavy-lift launch vehicle being developed in tandem.

3-Judging from past data, the RECURRING cost of the elements in Human Space Flight in the 20-teens (ISS, heavy-lift vehicle of TBD design, Spacecraft/Orion/MPCV, space flight support, and commercial crew to LEO) will use up near all the funding in this HSF bucket.

4-Once operational, systems tend to take on needs for funding. They exist, making a stronger lobby than systems that do not exist. The prior RECURRING elements have no beyond-Earth-orbit (BEO) capability. No departure stages, no propellant depots, no landers, no payloads to go on the heavy (like in-situ stations, etc). It is a plausible risk then that:

—–4a-R&D funds will be transferred again to support the operation of this LEO set of systems and then to the development of the elements necessary for BEO (EDS, Depot, Lander, etc). But the remaining funding transferred from what remains of R&D will be insufficient. So-

—–4b-Human Space Flight will repeat the Cx assumption of waiting on the ISS de-orbit in 2020+ in order to use those funds (in the range of $2-3B/year) for further BEO transportation capability development, then recurring operations.

5-Inevitably though, less R&D now, and seizing more later, sets the stage for RECURRING costs of the basic LEO elements to be HIGH, as by definition these seize on near term technology to get going now vs. later. More importantly, the RECURRING posture is a result of choices now, rather than some value in the future which is set as a goal in order to guide current R&D and create the future posture consistent and in balance with other limited funds.

So assuming success, sometime in the 2020s or early 2030′s we have no ISS (deorbited), and can do some Lunar missions / sorties a year, but with no money left for payloads (habitation, power, etc), and the commercial sector provides a smattering of launches of Crew to LEO as a service. All this using systems not too much different from today.

Think of it this way -

If Commercial Crew to LEO was difficult before, in the compromise it has even LESS funding to address R&D among many industry players. The MPCV and heavy would be in a race with this lesser LEO Commercial Crew capability, but by definition it can only come in as very expensive crew seats to LEO because of the basis in existing and expensive Shuttle technology. Technology not-improved by any new R&D, emphasis on affordability, or change in approach. By definition.

So the gap just got larger. And the opening of space by more R&D that could spread in the private sector also just got sent back to existing Shuttle and Cx contracts. The remaining R&D will inevitably get hijacked too.

As deficit reduction gets going eventually, the prior R&D focused plan would have prepared the agency to do more with less, to invest in industry to make them less dependent on NASA funds, and would have fostered capabilities we could use in a bind. Now when deficit reduction gets going we will be in the midst of programs using existing technology that have expensive operational outcomes. The combination will be disastrous.

At the end of the day it all has to add up long term, the RECURRING production and ops costs, leaving money for R&D as well as for development at higher test and demo phases. When the RECURRING by PLAN uses up all the foreseen funding, and the funding is likely to decline too, we have abdicated planning to doing, and will suffer consequences rather than create outcomes.

Pork pork pork. Rotten compromise - because job program (instead of space program) worked SO WELL last time...

Oink!

I agree CessnaDriver!

Once we have a heavy lift vehicle and a crew exploratory vehicle already built then everything else becomes a lot easier to fund and to develop because you no longer have to fund everything all at once.

This bill is a lot better than the Ares I/V architecture development plan and the Obama plan because it starts funding and developing a heavy lift vehicle-- right now!

Marcel F. Williams

I have some question about this plan. Does it do anything to make transportation to and from ISS less dependent on one source, i.e. the Russians? Do we, the U.S., need transportation to the ISS? If so, for what reason? What science have we gotten from the ISS to date, what science do we expect to get from ISS? Would it justify a LEO vehicle? Why not just dump ISS on our international partners and let them play with it while we focus on deep space exploration.

I think I completely agree with your analysis. However, I cannot understand the last sentence.

"When the RECURRING by PLAN uses up all the foreseen funding, and the funding is likely to decline too, we have abdicated planning to doing, and will suffer consequences rather than create outcomes."

Can you elaborate?

Hopefully NASA will start pursuing the commercial crew transport so that we can get a real schedule that these companies will have to perform to.

This is a good plan. It gets my support. Let's stop fighting and make this work.

It's time for the R&D types to get on-board. There is little funding for you to stay in your ivory towers slinging arrows at the 'peasants' below that are building the future. Bring your TRL 6-7 technologies and embed yourselves in part of the program. Provide your expertise and help to ensure the successful application of your technology. It will require a more humble mindset, patience, a willingness to compromise and an attitude of dedication and service to a greater cause than your own agenda and technologies. Those who can do this will earn the trust of the community, and will see their technologies gradually be applied and accepted. Those who cannot or will not should consider tenure at a university instead.

I think the plan nelson says its just the Direct plan..one hlv 70-120 t manned or not..
a vehicle like that is no competitor to the cheap leo taxis..

the problem its not techical i think but economic ..can direct plan bland economically with the commercial space and research?

Augustine went back and forth, back and forth... for months looking at these trades...

The budget debate is slowly re-treading their path.

It will be interesting to see if NASA does continue Orion with a manned launch capability. Also if they look to be able to launch it on another booster. The big indicator is if the abort launch system is continued or canceled.

Sorry Aerin, but the R&D types are the ones being pushed out the door. A NASA lab could develop a warp engine tomorrow and it would be shut down at the end of September because it doesn't fit with the "program".

Now that HSF is dead, the battle is over which incumbents get the leftover pork while it lasts. NASA is not interested in intangibles like R&D. It's not about technology anymore, it's about money and power and now it's about jobs too, thanks to Congress.

The last part of your post sounds like some kind of feel-good HR boilerplate. None of the qualities you propose will get you anywhere in today's NASA. They will get you laid off.

Folks:

You know, I still think that an Orion based capsule is the wrong way to go. If they build it then they should launch it once and keep it on orbit. Carry the "life boat" analogy for the ISS over to our deep space craft too (even if it means swapping out the service module every once in a while). Re-enter only in an emergency. Send it up on the HLV unmanned and save the weight and hassle of a launch escape system (especially important for the side mount version which looks like the way things will go).

Does this preclude NASA launching their own astronauts in their own spacecraft ? I don't think so. I emphasize the word spacecraft on purpose because NASA has been launching spacecraft on commercial rockets for a long time. Satellites and probes but not people... yet.

My favorite arrangement for that would be the Delta V and the SpaceDev Dream Chaser. The Dream Chaser is based on the HL-20, a NASA lifting body design from the 90's. The Delta V uses hydrogen and oxygen for fuel so could more easily be adapted to pads 39A and 39B. Just build a special mobile launch pad (of better yet modify the one they built of the Ares 1).

Send up your deep space craft on the heavy launcher including the Orion type capsule (might as well use it as your flight deck and avoid duplication). Then launch your crew on the Delta V /Dream Chaser from pad 39. Dock with the deep space craft. The Dream Chaser will loiter or return to KSC depending on how the the mission is.

NASA could have it's cake and eat it too. They could have two reusable spacecraft instead of... none. The Orion type capsule would be reusable as long as they didn't need it to come down. They could also use it to bring down cargo back when they did need to be refurbished or replaced. The Dream Chaser is a quite capable multi-mission spacecraft that could fill many of the roles of the Space Shuttle. And lets face it, I for one am going to miss the "traditional" walk about of a Space Shuttle after it lands.

In fact, this scenario would exceed the performance of the Space Shuttle. Any of the heavy lift vehicle designs out there can carry many times more payload than the Shuttle. The Dream Chaser has the crew/cargo capacity of the Shuttle flying a Multi Purpose Logistics Module... just not at the same time.

tinker

It's nearly all pork, and it's pork we don't need with the record breaking deficit.

NASA, like any other government agency, should purchase its transportation from the competitive private market. The dinosaurs like ULA, ATK, and the rest have been sucking at the taxpayer teats for far too long and need to be forcibly weaned.

Also, I'd like to see a cost comparison between realistic numbers for a NASA HLV vs a Proton or its successor from Energia. Why can't we just buy the blueprints and a manufacturing license? For that matter, why not buy the prints and a license for making Soyuz capsules and launchers?

@Aerin "It's time for the R&D types to get on-board. There is little funding for you to stay in your ivory towers slinging arrows at the 'peasants' below that are building the future."

Bravo...spoken like a true troglodyte! Now I can see why KSC is in such an excellent position to lead technology development programs for the agency. It's also painfully apparent why Brevard County desperately needs white-collar welfare to keep its citizens employed.

I agree with a lot of people on this thread that I have not agreed with in the past, this is a good plan. It accelerates commercial cargo and crew (though less than the Obama budget which was biting off too much too quickly), it skips the Ares I debacle and gets right to HLV, and it keeps our options open for the future about destinations. Maybe we can get IPs to pony up a lander and some surface systems.

Unfortunately, the Shuttle/ISS Ops people currently running HSF at NASA do not have the skills to do this work. All they know how to do is build empires, which kills programs. Every program ever attempted to complement/replace Shuttle failed because of poor management (X-33, NGLT, OSP, the list is extensive). Instead of designing and building hardware, they lined their conference rooms with oak paneling and flat screens, cobbled together massive project offices, and prematurely issued contract before requirements were even understood and documented. It is particularly bad at KSC. The project office has 100 people when it should have 2 dozen. They micro-manage the requirements and architecture instead of giving Engineering high-level functional requirements and letting them do the details. Of course, Engineering is full of a bunch of Ops people thanks to Griffin and the design work is pitiful. It will take decades and tens of billions to get through fabrication and testing because the designs are immature even when "complete" and the drawings are fraught with errors. I can count on my fingers and toes the number of competent engineers with a design background in an organization well over 600 people.

By the time all this becomes apparent to the world in the next decade, maybe commercial capability will have come far enough along to save our bacon.

I concur with yours and others' thoughts.

As far the the Shuttle and ISS ops people-the same is true for JSC. After the last 15 years of Shuttle and ISS, both almost exclusively operations efforts during this period, it will take a lot of time and effort to retrain the operations people to be able to work in development programs. This means a lot of the people on the job in leadership positions today need retraining, guidance and replacement.

As far as NASA not having adequate money to do what the compromise calls for, NASA will be able to do much more if we fix our organizational and management problems.

Remember Kraft's words: "we could never have done Apollo with any more people; we could have done it with a lot fewer".

I agree on both your points.

The same rot that resulted in the degradation of NASAs real vehicle design capabilities at other centers will have set in at KSC. By the time they have something to launch, ALL of the folks that they will need to get it off the ground in a properly engineered and executed manner will be gone.

None of the above is very hopeful.

Augustine actually did think SDLV was viable under a budget like this. Just not so early in the schedule.

It makes sense though that transforming a giant operations organization into a development organization would suck. The growing pains are unimaginable to me.

Compare that with paying experienced rocket companies to build their own rockets their own way. You can imagine a situation with two rockets with two compatible engines for guaranteed space access, high technology, heavy lift, jobs...

Most won't remember but I was the one who posted the note when all this started coming out several months ago and I said "no one is addressing the 800lbs gorilla in the room i.e. HLV. "Studies" will kill any program. We need an HLV to maintain our position in space." Well finally I see a ray of hope on the horizon thanks to this new Senate bill. They understand the 800lbs gorilla. I also warned the Cx haters not to get too excited and I still predict that parts of Cx are not going away starting with Orion Lite but even more will be around as things progress if I had to guess. I also warned the "government space program haters" not to get too excited and sure enough it appears that NASA is here to stay and not being taken over by a few private rocket companies. The Senate bill reduces the focus on this so called commercial space flight program but you can spin it the other way if it makes you feel better. Did anyone really think a private company would try to make a profit in a way that is any different from the existing government space contractors? If you did you are naive or you expected a GM type bailout at some point.

History repeats itself so never bet against it unless you have a really good reason. OK go ahead and argue that we don't need an HLV and the small space companies will rule in 20 years... whether you are right or wrong really doesn't matter as it is not going your way. Personally I think you are wrong but what all of us think really has zero bearing on what WDC will do. The only thing that rules in this case is History! Spend more time reading your history books and you will be able to predict these events a lot better.

Sorry but I told you so several months ago.

No doubt about it, it is a political compromise, and some of its tenets like the Shuttle extension comes too late to do much good. But I think we need to work with this compromise.

I fully believe that developing a Shuttle-derived heavy lift NOW is what is needed or we would have wasted much of the heritage that Shuttle could provide.

I am more unsure of continuation of Orion in any form. I do not think a capsule approach was the right follow on to Shuttle for earth to orbit transfer especially if commercial interests are taking care of this approach. As a lunar or planetary return vehicle, accepting that we need a capsule at all, means we are buying into the Apollo model of throwing everything away every mission. Sure we might be able to do a lunar flyby or orbital mission this decade; that might last a week or two. Then what? We should have taken advantage of the opportunity for change to develop an advanced propulsion craft, based in part on ISS systems that can be used long term in space missions and using ISS as the orbital port. This would have been advancing technology.

Well, if they're going to insist on using expensive 30-year old technology on the HLV, then at least have some 21st-century upgrades. How about autonomous SRB return with wings? Shuttle-dervived doesn't necessarily have to mean shuttle-identical. This is the time to give us some innovation.. please!

I don't think the SRB and ET are the expensive part of Shuttle or at least they do not need to be.

But if the entire burden of maintaining the US solid rocket fuel industry is placed on maintaining NASA SRB production or maintenance, then it is an expensive proposition for NASA and DOD and commercial users are getting a free ride. This is apparently what Mr. Hatch of Utah wants, and it was apparently something that the Constellation Program managers bought into, which is why every Ares 1 launch was going to cost a billion dollars.

SSME's perhaps need to be traded against alternatives.

SRB fly back makes no sense. Its quite inexpensive to send a little boat out to recover the SRBs after they descend under chutes.

Ironically, the burden of maintaining the US SRM industry doesn't fall on NASA. The military and ULA use far more of it than NASA does with no more than 12 RSRMs a year. It's just that ATK know that the military will get nervous at the thought of increasing prices for their orders and that is an excellent way to put pressure on even an Executive and Congress that cares not a whit about space issues.

I understand your point Miles, but if one of the missions of NASA is to push technology just for the sake of doing it, then SRB flyback does make some sense. If that is learned, then perhaps using the same tech, other stages of other rockets can fly back too, saving money in those areas. But since cost cutting isn't a priority of Congress, then I guess that ability will have to be developed commercially.

It's just that ATK know that the military will get nervous at the thought of increasing prices for their orders

Actually, Payton stated they weren't nervous at all.

The new proposal is the first sign of light at the end of the tunnel, it seems to leave open a lot of options. Everyone has their own opinion of what those options might be, here's mine - WH and Congress can kill Constellation, but they can't kill the Moon. Regardless of what deals are cut and what budgets are signed, the Moon will still be there staring at us and will continue to be the closest object to Earth, thus making it the logical next step regardless of everyone's wishes and dreams to skip it and go somewhere else first.

Never give up ground.

We gave up the Moon, we are on the verge of giving up the Shuttle, and we nearly gave up ISS, all because of "Mars fever". Instead we need to continue ISS beyond 2020 or start planning a replacement now. With the retirement of Shuttle we are losing the capability to work in space, we need to restore that, perhaps with an HLV that can carry both Orion and a dockable cargo container so that a recently trained crew can fly with the cargo that they will work with. This has been a huge benefit of Shuttle. Also with the retirement of Shuttle we are about to lose the ability to return large cargo to earth, we need to regain that as soon as possible.

We should go back to the Moon and establish permanent bases like we should have already done.

Flights to Mars or asteroids should be Apollo 8 style, meaning they shouldn't be stunts but they should be done only as the final test flights for an upcoming landing. And when we do land on Mars it should only happen when we have a clear plan for continuous habitation, so that the first landings will be the first and not the last. We don't need any more Gene Cernans (I think he agrees).

Never give up ground.

Will all of this require money? Yes. So we may get to Mars slower this way, but instead of continuously shifting goals which is what has plagued us for the past 40 years, it should be a continuous building of presence and capability that will get us there.

Never give up ground, and no more "gaps"

Steve Pemberton

> We should go back to the Moon and establish permanent bases like we should have already done.

Moon bases!

Possum, your comment was right on the money. The same problem exists at MSFC. MSFC is full of folks that review requirements documents and people's designs. They haven't designed anything in years. There is nothing wrong with that but don't try and fool yourself into thinking that you will be able to be successful learning the process from scratch with three or four support contractors teaching you that are not motivated to get you to the finish.

This is not a perfect plan, but no plan ever is. This is a whole lot better than the alternatives that were the main competition. If I had the decision making power there are some things I would definitely do different. But I can live with and even strongly support this plan. I want to thank the Senate committee for the work they, their staffers and outside contributors have done. I take back some of the things I have muttered under my breath about them.

In my opinion I think it is time to let your representatives and senators know that you want them to move forward on this.

I can sympathize with this reality as well. Yes NASA puts more effort into building bureaucracies than developing hardware these days. To a certain extent simply using engineers in operations has been a big part of this problem. And I love those words from Kraft about too many people vs. too few. I think that hit the nail on the head as well. And although I like some aspects of this new plan, building an HLV simply to be used initially to lift a capsule into LEO is going to be very costly and wasteful. Reducing the funding for commercial also means that will take longer and as a result cost to LEO will remain very high. Nothing like designing rockets and spacecraft by politicians keeping all the space related states in the money.