Senate Passes NASA Authorization Act

Extending Shuttle, moving the HLV forward and developing it now with much of the existing Shuttle hardware and remaining workforce, and keeping ISS going until we can figure out a use for it, are all the right things to do.

Orion is not needed and should be terminated with the remainder of Constellation. Boeing might go ahead with their commercial vehicle and Space-X with theirs. While some have stated concerns over whether a newSpace company like SpaceX can be successful on a schedule, this is not an issue with respect to Boeing (or Lockheed if they would commit to development on a commercial basis).

Either or both of two manned vehicles are logical for NASA to pursue. One is a new winged or fly-back crew carrier and the other is a deep space ISS-derived crew sortie vehicle. The former could be based on the X-37/X-40 family and would be much better for crew returns from long duration missions. The latter can be based in large measure on ISS hardware, systems and people with experience in the ISS hardware ought to be tapped to take on a major piece of the job.

Even more logical would be for Lockheed to do the commercial capsule as competition to the Dragon and to prove that the two can be cost competitive. Boeing focus on the X-37 manned carrier and/or the ISS-based sortie flyer since they've been working those two systems all along.

If NASA were serious about minding the budget then they would get serious about doing more hands-on work in-house and this would require significant realignment of organization and personnel. A lot of the NASA high ranking non-leaders need to be educated, given some legitimate experience, and put to work doing something useful other than attending marathon meetings.

Do you have a link to the final text of the bill?

For full disclosure, I am admittedly biased towards the Orion, but I believe can honestly say that it is much further along in its design, test and build process than any other potential manned LEO / Exo-LEO vehicle. Weekly reports we receive show the construction of the ground test article going very smoothly; the Launch abort system has been successfully tested; the chute system performed better than expected; the majority of the systems have already been designed and safety evaluated, and, but for the wrench thrown into the program by the Obama adminstration last February, Orion would be going full steam ahead towards a 2014 launch. Could it have been done more efficiently? Sure, but no one else has shown / proven they can do it any better. Prove me wrong and I'd be happy to jump on your bandwagon.

14 SEC. 804. IN-SPACE SERVICING.
15 The Administrator shall continue to take all nec16
essary steps to ensure that provisions are made for in17
space or human servicing and repair of all future observ18
atory-class scientific spacecraft intended to be deployed in
19 Earth-orbit or at a Lagrangian point to the extent prac20
ticable and appropriate. The Administrator should ensure
21 that agency investments and future capabilities for space
22 technology, robotics, and human space flight take the abil23
ity to service and repair these spacecraft into account,
24 where appropriate, and incorporate such capabilities into
25 design and operational plans.

and

a personal communication between Steven Rappolee and Bernard Kutter ULA, reguarding storage and transport of liquid helium for space telescopes using the fuel depot systems

https://doc-0c-1c-docsviewer.googleusercontent.com/viewer/securedownload/rhck0beg2r4d8486vd5m2er80mrfkjvb/os90a6fr6a3em92kks9livbpgg00bqev/1281099600000/Z21haWw=/AGZ5hq8i560W5CWERUiGwmFhWGnt/MTJhMDBiODc0NTg2MmI0ZXwwLjE=?a=gp&filename=fuel+depot+helium+storage.pdf&chan=EgAAAIu8s2mw%2BoF4K5%2BAa2GK0gb0FAjG2pu8J71LWndHjHWb&docid=d8bffd550ffb6d2f952fadf06b973cc2%7C859e25c90a453b790d99f6e514761118&sec=AHSqidakCz3O0-qdT-hQUVY274iJOQCr6bV2qx3P01yXOkMaPSmHh94TvBQa7vL4ISAI8dsKXfm_nOBE2qAUyRtP5UeeFinE6hwMrgz7EVTruipz_FariVus6e728j1CkV-FQRNgiFr85K-M1yTnmpy6RUC75J7JT_5pyMPe0T-xBXDU-v--UcKHSSbDJykANE-UQn-oxgpPrzBO3ibfyW_gMcPMAblzyGxaDfyEgZTVPV5QUxDZDtIw-k-9HFk1Uhig51C-UbQJgUjsPOuVah1ZLXibCasmeH_Bol5J1G34Rwq2qgRCda8uTGCN2gSo3jTBBrl7S_bOslvu_AXagJLE1KMV6GTQ1ythn0A5KKITcjoM7Sv0ld0&nonce=k9f6oot6u8ge4&user=AGZ5hq8i560W5CWERUiGwmFhWGnt&hash=eugdtuh44mvap3kjac4l03tturp007ln

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=20a7a8bd-50f4-4474-bf1d-f0a6a8824b01

it appears language in reguards to not modifying the MAP know longer appear in this version,but more stringent lamguage now is in evidence,that seems to advantage inline luanch systems.The key words may be, "designed from inception" to carry 130 MT,and the language, the upper stage and core vehicle to be developed in parralel.
of course the argument can be made that only side mount can make the 2015-16 deadline and that a side mount can in fact meet the definetion in (A) below and the side mount can be evolved into a inline vehicle

inline first will cost more and suely eat the budgetory lunch of everything else and there will be know shuttle extension with inline and there will be a long gap

(A) The initial capability of the core elements, without an upper stage, of lifting pay
loads weighing between 70 tons and 100 tons
into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit
for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
(B) The capability to carry an integrated
upper Earth departure stage bringing the total
lift capability of the Space Launch System to
130 tons or more.

(2) FLEXIBILITY.—The Space Launch System
shall be designed from inception as a fully-integrated vehicle capable of carrying a total payload of 130 tons or more into low-Earth orbit in preparation for transit for missions beyond low-Earth orbit.

I am inclined to agree about Orion, But do a spiral,
Orion lite is maybe the boeing commercial crew,it being understood that orion deep space is not ment to compeate with commercial crew design deep space Orion for lator when the luancher is ready.
off course claims that something is near being ready or would have been ready by date certian are every where.
Direct makes this claims as does the J2V crowed, but whos to say :):):)

Kevin,

The link to the Committee website is to the bill as reported, not the version passed by the Senate last night.

There were a lot of changes made, some to accomodate objecting Senators, all by one combined substitute amendment last night. The resulting version won't be available until next week.

- Jim

Thanks Jim,
I am keeping a running comparison of all the budgets for work.

What fun it is to see them all side by side!

Jim,
very interesting,
if you have the time, could you tell us what the amendments that passed state?
I am sure many have to do with the commercial crew/SD-HLV mix?
thanks

Steven

Regardless of whether Orion is months or even a year or two ahead of Dragon or the Boeing capsule, if Space-X and Boeing are serious about developing capsules that duplicate the Orion capabilities, then Orion needs to be halted so that the resources can be placed elsewhere.

If not, in several years, you'll have a government funded project in competition with private commercial projects. Based on NASA's past, NASA always wins. You must remember that the NASA organization is one in which the longer the schedule, the larger the organization the manager is overseeing, the more power and authority he has, and the money supply is nearly endless. ISS and Constellation both are excellent examples of the outcome. Decades long inefficient programs with enormous organizations.

A good example is Spacehab. Ten years ago Spacehab was an efficient payload processing system. Payloads were being processed routinely in less than a year. It was a streamlined process. The entire Spacehab organization was fewer than 200 people and those were the people doing payload processing, safety oversight, vehicle/module processing and maintenance, flight-to-flight turnaround, and all phases of mission operations.

Then Spacehab began to get into the ISS processes since Spacehab modules were being used for logistics missions.

ISS did not like that one bit since they had too many ISS organizations and managers trying to do the same job. Today Spacehab is defunct; for all practical purposes it is out of business. In the meantime you have an even larger ISS payloads organization, hundreds of people, perhaps thousands, working to a 30 month or 36 month schedule. Far less efficient, far more costly, not nearly as expedient.

Is growing and running an inefficient organization in government a career-ender ? No-just the opposite. The guy who grew the ISS payloads organization now leads all of ISS.

To keep the Sidemount HLV schedule and cost of 2.7B.,the tank for the extra Shuttle mission is used.Also the light weight tank and spare parts are used to build more.Congress is going to have to make a choice or make more tanks and the cost will go up.
I was pleased to see that the House has included a centrifuge for ISS.I hope this is for humans(see the movie Plymouth) not hamsters.We need to know if reduced gravity is harmful to humans.Will we have to have rotating structures on Mars for artificial 1g?Will runs at 1g stop the body damage to ISS people?Air bearings should isolate it.Hamsters might able to be used.They seem to like those little wheels on Earth,so it should not bother them in a small centrifuge on ISS.AS a bonus the crew gets a pet.NASA is asked at hearings if they have a centrifuge on ISS.They say no.For Congress to get the centrifuge,they might have to direct NASA to have one.

"Regardless of whether Orion is months or even a year or two ahead of Dragon or the Boeing capsule, if Space-X and Boeing are serious about developing capsules that duplicate the Orion capabilities, then Orion needs to be halted so that the resources can be placed elsewhere."

You are kidding, right? Stop an effort that is futher along in shortening the gap for the US manned spaceflight program to allow a company with an unproven capability and the company that lost the original bid for the contract to catch up?

I think I'd rather fix the current inefficiencies and get there even faster. If Space-X, Boeing, et al can do it better, let them prove it first, with their own money. If they can't do it with their own money they would not be any different than what Lockheed Martin is successfully doing now under the contract they competively won.

Also, SpaceLab was even more efficient and capable than SpaceHab and it was stopped to give SpaceHab an unfair advantage over the process. As I recall they began to grow and become innefficient as well, as does any organization over time when receiving government funds.

Boeing has every bit as much experience (actually maybe more) as Lockheed on manned spacecraft, and I suspect there will be little difference in when a Boeing CST vehicle could be ready.

Boeing, no doubt will design their's for flexibility in launch vehicles.

Orion, assuming it continues in its current configuration, doesn't even know how it will launch. The launch vehicle is likely to be the driver in terms of availability and length of the gap.

If Boeing is willing to do the job commercially, then I have no fear about turning off Orion. I doubt that the gap will be very different.

As a pressurized module, Spacelab always flew as a double module. The front half was essentially all support equipment, such as outdated computers and CCTV that no one wanted to deal with because of the complexity of the integration processes and because much of the hardware was obsolete by the time it was put into service. The CCTV system, for instance, occupied more than a rack, but was easily outperformed by Canon camcorders on Spacehab. So about half the Spacelab capacity was wasted. Spacelab cost close to a billion dollars a year to keep large workforces operating at KSC, MSFC, and JSC, with a large number of civil servants working in addition to the contractor workforces. If you leave out the 5.5 year gap between D1 and SLS-1, due in part to the Challenger accident (the workforces were still kept in place for the gap), and if you do include the 3 month gap between MSL-1 and MSL-1R, which was a reflight with no significant turnaround activities, that was due to a Shuttle anomaly then Spacelab modules flew on average once every 11 months, then based on total program costs, that came to about $900,000,000 (that is $900 million) per mission. That cost does not include ESA's cost for designing and manufacturing the modules, which was their contribution to Shuttle and in exchange for which they also received several 'free' Shuttle flights. The $900 million is only the US cost associated with managing, maintaining, launching and operating the system. Remember there were largely separate management teams for the JSC and MSFC operated missions. There were 16 double module missions over a 17 year period.

Spacehab, when operated on a commercial basis, first for the Code C contract and then for the NASA-Mir contract, costing about $20,000,000 per mission. The initial missions were actually somewhat less (about $16 million each, not counting optional services). The missions were a turnkey, end-to-end operation, with Spacehab and its McDac contractor providing pre-mission integration, safety, ground support, facilities, mission support equipment, experiment and experimenter support, crew training, ground operator support training, all during mission services, and all post flight services. There were about a half dozen civil servants charging their time to overseeing Spacehab during the commercial period. There were a dozen commercial missions flown at an average every 6 months; actually most flew on 4 month centers but the first couple were a year apart due to Shuttle manifest. Thats a dozen mission over a five year period.

Their were another dozen Spacehab missions for ISS and as standalone lab missions, which were not done on the fully commercial basis since the ISS integration and operations, mission management, and Mission Operations organizations provided much of the manpower to support the missions.

Spacehab was owned and paid for by the company out of the $20 million per mission revenues, and not by a separate NASA DDT&E line item.

The single Spacehab module carried nearly the same payload capacity by mass as the double Spacelab module. The Spacelab had a significant tare weight because of its design and unneeded systems. Experiments on Spacelab were mounted in racks and there was a significant secondary/tertiary structure. Spacelab carried several racks but most payloads were mounted in Shuttle-style middeck lockers mounted directly to the pressure bulkheads, which significantly reduced the tare weight. The double Spacehab carried somewhat more payload chargeable mass as a Spacelab, though was not as open in the interior as a Spacelab.

But basically each Spacelab mission was costing roughly 45 times what each commercial Spacehab mission cost for comparable payloads.