US AeroSpace: Policy & Politics [updates]

[Unobscured Vision]

Ahh, yes they are. Forgot about GDC. They haven't been in the public eye in a long time. Easy to overlook them; but they have been in the mix since the 40's. Gosh. They used to do a lot of work with Spartan (and anyone who's ever been in the Air Force, Navy, or Signal Corps knows who they are).

[DocM]

SpaceX also has something going on with General Dynamics but nothing firm has been made public. The assumption has been that their Electric Boat division (submarines) was consulted on the building of large pressure hulls and life support systems for BFS. Electric Boat has been building submarines since 1899 so they know a bit about both.

Edited April 10, 2016 by DocM

[Unobscured Vision]

2 hours ago, DocM said:

SpaceX also has something going on with General Dynamics but nothing firm has been made public. The assumption has been that their Electric Boat division (submarines) was consulted on the building of large pressure hulls and life support systems for BFS. Electric Boat has been building submarines since 1899 so they know a bit about both.

Oh yeah; if anyone could help SpaceX with that it would be GDC. I'm sure they'd like their name on something that monumental.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Here we go again.....SLS over shadowing science programs.

 

Senate bill cuts other NASA programs to fund SLS and Orion

 

NASA Orion program is one of several exploration programs getting major increases in the Senate's 2017 spending bill, at the expense of other agency efforts. Credit: NASA

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — An appropriations bill approved by a Senate committee April 21 provides a significant increase to NASA’s human space exploration programs by trimming funds from many other major NASA programs.

 

The Senate Appropriations Committee approved unanimously a commerce, justice and science (CJS) spending bill for fiscal year 2017 during a markup session, two days after the CJS subcommittee approved the bill. None of the amendments considered by the committee affected NASA.

 

The bill provides $19.306 billion for NASA, an increase of more than $280 million from the administration’s request for fiscal year 2017 released in February. However, NASA’s exploration account, which includes SLS and Orion, is increased by nearly $1 billion from the request.

 

That increase includes about $840 million for the SLS, to $2.15 billion, and $180 million for Orion, to $1.3 billion. Exploration ground systems to support SLS and Orion also see a $55 million increase, although research and development activities are cut by more than $80 million.

 

The report accompanying the spending bill reiterated previous criticism by committee members of NASA’s budget requests for SLS and Orion. “The Committee continues to be disappointed that funding requested by NASA for SLS and Orion once again bears little relation to necessary funding levels or to amounts provided in previous years,” the report stated.

 

The increase in exploration funding means that most other major NASA accounts suffered cuts from the administration’s request in the bill. Science, aeronautics, space technology and space operations were cut by a combined $660 million from the request. The aeronautics account suffered the largest cut on a percentage basis, seeing its request for $790 million cut by nearly 25 percent.

 

Quote

The bill fully funds NASA’s commercial crew program at $1.18 billion, but the report indicated the committee remained skeptical about the ability of the companies currently under contract, Boeing and SpaceX, to remain on schedule. “Both companies now anticipate completing contracted milestones on a delayed schedule, closer to anticipated launch dates,” the report stated. “This leaves little margin for either provider to maintain schedule as unanticipated challenges emerge during vehicle production and testing.”

 

Quote

NASA 2017 Request and Senate Appropriations Bill (in millions)

 

Account    FY17 Request    Senate CJS    Difference

SCIENCE    $5,600.5    $5,395.0    -$205.5
– Earth Science    $2,032.2    $1,984.0    -$48.2
– Planetary Science    $1,518.7    $1,355.9    -$162.8
– Astrophysics    $781.5    $807.0    $25.5
– JWST    $569.4    $569.4    $0.0
– Heliophysics    $698.7    $678.7    -$20.0
SPACE TECHNOLOGY    $826.7    $686.5    -$140.2
AERONAUTICS    $790.4    $601.0    -$189.4
EXPLORATION    $3,336.9    $4,330.0    $993.1
– SLS    $1,310.3    $2,150.0    $839.7
– Orion    $1,119.8    $1,300.0    $180.2
– Ground Systems    $429.4    $484.0    $54.6
– Exploration R&D    $477.3    $396.0    -$81.3
SPACE OPERATIONS    $5,075.8    $4,950.7    -$125.1
– ISS    $1,430.7    –    –
– Space and Flight Support    $887.4    –    –
– Commercial Crew    $1,184.8    $1,184.8    $0.0
– Crew and Cargo    $1,572.8    –    –
EDUCATION    $100.1    $108.0    $7.9
SAFETY, SECURITY, AND MISSION SERVICES    $2,836.8    $2,796.7    -$40.1
CONSTRUCTION    $419.8    $400.0    -$19.8
INSPECTOR GENERAL    $38.1    $38.1    $0.0

TOTAL    $19,025.1    $19,306.0    $280.9

http://spacenews.com/senate-bill-cuts-other-nasa-programs-to-fund-sls-and-orion/

 

At least Commercial Crew has been left alone.....for now.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

House bill offers $19.5 billion for NASA in 2017

 

A House spending bill would give NASA $260 million for work on a Europa mission, more than $200 million above the agency's request. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — A House appropriations bill released May 17 would provide NASA with $19.5 billion in 2017, with significant increases in funding for the agency’s Orion and Space Launch System programs and a planned mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa.

 

The bill, released by the House Appropriations Committee in advance of a May 18 markup session by its Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) subcommittee, provides NASA with nearly half a billion dollars more than the agency’s request, which included a mix of discretionary and mandatory funds, and nearly $200 million above a bill approved by Senate appropriators last month.

 

The bill calls for spending $2 billion for the SLS program and $1.35 billion for Orion. Those levels are well above NASA’s request of $1.31 billion for SLS and $1.12 billion for Orion, although the Senate’s bill provides even more — $2.15 billion — for SLS.

 

The House bill also specified that, of the $5.6 billion allocated for NASA’s science programs, $260 million go towards a mission to Europa. NASA requested less than $50 million for the Europa mission, while the Senate’s bill did not specify an amount for that proposed mission.

 

The additional Europa funding is not surprising, as Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), chairman of the CJS subcommittee, has been a leading advocate for a Europa mission for several years, adding funding well above any NASA request for a spacecraft to help determine if the icy moon can support life.

more at the link...

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-offers-19-5-billion-for-nasa-in-2017/

 

This is crazy.........$3.35 billion, approx 18% of the budget on SLS/Orion.    

 

/s      By the time it is complete, guessing $1 million a kg for payload.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

7 minutes ago, Draggendrop said:

House bill offers $19.5 billion for NASA in 2017

 

A House spending bill would give NASA $260 million for work on a Europa mission, more than $200 million above the agency's request. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

 

more at the link...

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-offers-19-5-billion-for-nasa-in-2017/

 

This is crazy.........$3.35 billion, approx 18% of the budget on SLS/Orion.    

 

/s      By the time it is complete, guessing $1 million a kg for payload.

well, one bright spot is the Europa mission.  

 

Aren't they wanting to drill into Enceladus sometime "soon"?

[Draggendrop Veteran]

The Enceladus mission is great. There was talk of drilling, but the problem is several kilometers of ice and contamination issues. Hopefully they eventually get to drill on another mission as well as the sub on Titan...

 

http://www.space.com/32886-exploring-saturn-moon-titan-via-submarine-spaces-deepest-secrets-clip.html

 

[DocM]

As of now its an orbiter with no lander. There's been talk of it spreading nanosats (cracker size) over the surface and relaying their findings, but to get it there in 3 years they're launching it on SLS. An Atlas V 551 would take 5-6 years. There goes the hardware budget.

 

Of course Falcon Heavy with a Raptor upper stage or kick stage would be far cheaper than SLS and have way more push than Atlas V 551, but they need something for SLS to do other than be a hangar queen between the rare Orion missions.

Edited May 17, 2016 by DocM

[Unobscured Vision]

I'd much rather they do the "best bang for the buck" and launch two missions -- one to Europa and one to Enceladus.  Utilize SpaceX for launching the birds; since by the time SLS is ready SpaceX could already have both of them en-route (and this includes building the Probes and planning the Missions) ...

 

So yeah, Falcon Heavy with the standard Merlin++ powered S2 should work out fine as long as the Probes aren't too heavy. Everything I'm led to believe says they're not going to be, so yeah. Winning combo. Might not even need a Heavy if the 1.3 Platform Upgrades to Falcon-9 are as promising as we're reading.  

[DocM]

A bog standard FH can toss 4 tonnes to friggin' Pluto, that's 6 New Horizons for chrissake.

[Unobscured Vision]

28 minutes ago, DocM said:

A bog standard FH can toss 4 tonnes to friggin' Pluto, that's 6 New Horizons for chrissake.

I was thinking of more along the lines of launching both at the same time, each with their own little "kickers" to get them on their way once the S2 got them out of Earth's SOI. A single FH could get 'em both uphill, then the S2 gets them boosted on escape trajectory. The little kicker is there to get each bird headed where it needs to go (acting like a Service Module). I'm thinking Ion/Electric Propulsion, or maybe even Hall Thrusters if they're ready.  

 

SpaceX is the model of efficiency, and making stuff work; and they're the Pro's when it comes to Multi-Payloads. And there's time to sort out hardware ...  

[Unobscured Vision]

I might just simulate this myself in KSP with Real Solar System/Space-Y/FASA/WBI and other Space-X/Science Instrument mods .. they've got a Falcon Heavy in there, and I can tweak the config files to bring it up to the 1.3 Platform specs. They might even have Raptor engines in there by now ...  

[Unobscured Vision]

Nelson shepherds RD-180 compromise through U.S. Senate

Article Link | SpaceNews.com Website

Quote

 Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) was the "bridge" over troubled waters during a Senate debate about a Russian rocket engine, according to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls.

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Senate approved a compromise June 14 that would give United Launch Alliance access to as many as 18 Russian RD-180 rocket engines to compete its Atlas 5 workhorse against SpaceX’s Falcon rockets  through 2022 for national security launch contracts.

 

After days of intense negotiations led by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the Senate reached an agreement on the issue as part of its debate on the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017. The Senate passed the annual defense authorization bill 85-13.

 

The compromise on the rocket engines all but ends a three-year debate that has at times divided the Senate’s authorizers and appropriators and pitted the Senate and House Armed Services Committees against each other. The House passed a competing version of the NDAA in May that also includes an 18-engine limit.

 

But other lawmakers feared that the nine-engine limit would stifle competition and inadvertently hand SpaceX a monopoly for national security launches.

 

In the weeks leading up the Senate’s June 14 vote on the NDAA,  Nelson — a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee — worked both sides of the aisle to come up with a compromise: the Air Force could buy as many RD-180-powered launches as it sees fit through 2022, the date by which ULA expects to have Vulcan and its American-made engine ready to compete for Pentagon launches.

 

The Air Force, which gave SpaceX an $82.7 million launch contract in April after ULA sat out its first competition for Pentagon launch business, expects to seek bids for roughly 34 launches by the time the RD-180 ban would take effect on Dec. 31, 2022.

 

The Air Force’s next launch competition, which is expected to be for a GPS 3 mission like the one SpaceX just won, isn’t expected to result in a contract award until 2017.

 

Without the compromise like the one that just cleared the Senate, ULA would eventually find itself with no choice but to bid for Air Force launch contracts with its Delta 4 rocket, which is at least 35 percent more expensive than the Atlas 5 that ULA has already said can’t compete with SpaceX on price alone.

 

McCain, who has pushed for a 2019 deadline,  ultimately went along with the 2022 end date for the Air Force to  award new contracts for RD-180 powered launches. By the time the bill cleared the Senate, McCain could claim another concession: the Air Force can award no more than 18 of the upcoming launch competitions to ULA’s RD-180-powered Atlas 5.

 

In a statement, McCain said he supported the compromise because “it contains a legislative cutoff date for the use of Russian rocket engines” and because it “reflects the concern shared by authorizers and appropriators alike that year-to-year litigation of this issue did not serve the Congress, U.S. space policy, or our national security well.”

 

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), whose push for ULA’s  unrestricted use of the RD-180 pitted him against McCain, was also able to claim victory of sorts.

 

“While we can all agree that the U.S. should not be dependent upon any foreign power – especially in the national security arena – it would have been far too dangerous to hastily restrict the use of the RD-180 before an American-made rocket engine is developed,”  Shelby said in a June 14 press release.

 

ULA spokeswoman Jessica Rye said in a June 14 statement that the RD-180 agreement reached by the Senate “ensures our country’s assured access to space, strengthens competition, protects taxpayers and keeps America’s launch industry healthy”

Uuuuuuggggghh ... seriously?! Back to business as usual. Watch ... Vulcan will be delayed by years now -- if it ever gets built. There's no reason for it to be rushed, now.

 

Bruno's "vacay in the Bahamas", or whatever he's doing? Add the proverbial "tray of blow and a couple of Broads" to Bruno's little list of party favors while he soaking up the sun. That's the symbolism here, folks. Nothing changes from before NewSpace came along, in ULA's mind. All the past three years will amount to is a "minor political annoyance" to their way of thinking. That's it. They don't even care about SpaceX, and this just sealed the deal.

 

Blah. Washington never changes, why should ULA?

[DocM]

EELV requires they have 2 fully certified launchers, and the Falcons are not yet certified for all payload types especially nuclear powered (RTG) missions like deep space probes. Those milestone will fall, but FH can't start being certified until it flies.

 

The Delta IV lines will be closing down to make room for Vulcans production. They'll do final runs of Delta IV Medium and Heavy cores and warehouse them for manifested launches first, but they are going away and Vulcan has to replace them.

 

Tory Bruno said the last Delta IV Medium is 2018-2019, and the last Delta IV Heavy on the schedule is NROL-70 in 2022.

 

 

[Unobscured Vision]

Yeah, I know. I'm just ... grumping.

[DocM]

We've seen the last Delta IV Heavy until 2018 with 2 launches. There is one DIVH launch each in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

[DocM]

DoD Inspector General opens case on the USAF EELV launch program

 

http://spacenews.com/inspector-general-to-open-case-on-air-force-launch-program/

[Draggendrop Veteran]

This one has ULA written all over it......generating chaos before they become irrelevant. 

[Beittil]

Saw this is my daily SpaceNews update:

Quote

A former presidential candidate who chairs the Senate's space subcommittee will hold a hearing on the future of NASA next week. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) announced the hearing, scheduled for July 13, on "NASA at a Crossroads: Reasserting American Leadership in Space Exploration," with NASA's Bill Gerstenmaier and several others from industry and academia testifying. Cruz, who ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination this spring, chairs the Commerce Committee's space and science subcommittee. That subcommittee last held a hearing about NASA in March 2015. [Senate Commerce Committee]

 

When you visit the page of the hearing announcement you see the witness list...

 

- Mr. William H. Gerstenmaier, Associate Administrator of Human Exploration and Operations, NASA
- Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration
- Mr. Mike Gold, Vice President of Washington Operations, SSL
- Mr. Mark Sirangelo, Vice President of Space Systems Group, Sierra Nevada Corporation
- Professor Dan Dumbacher, Professor of Engineering Practice, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN

 

Note the lady in bold... this is gonna be one ugly Old Space circle jerk bashing anything related to New Space. It wouldn't surprise me if she will make this one big SLS glorifying trip while taking stabs at the the likes of Blue Origin (for leading the Vulcan engine choise with BE-4 over Aerojets AR-1) and SpaceX (for being a private cowboy organization, etc).

 

Anyway, I wonder what Mike Gold (former exec of Bigelow) and Sirangelo have to say!

[DocM]

Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, Executive Director, Coalition for Deep Space Exploration

 

Founding members:

 

Aerojet Rocketdyne

Orbital ATK

Boeing

Lockheed Martin

Northrop Grumman

 

All you need to know about that crew.

 

 

[Beittil]

Which is why i said: ugly Old Space circle jerk bashing anything related to New Space

 

[bguy_1986]

I was really hoping I would be able to vote for Cruz coming up, but just read an article yesterday about how he was working with the establishment more (which I'm not a huge fan of).  It will be very interesting to hear what happens in this meeting and whether or not I'll still want to continue supporting him.

 

With SpaceX doing so much in Texas, I would be surprised if this turns into a circle jerk/new space bashing meeting, but it's politics so they will do things that doesn't make any sense at all.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Senate Committee to Markup NASA Authorization, INSPIRE Women Bills

 

Quote

Posted: 18-Sep-2016
Updated: 18-Sep-2016 10:19 PM

 

The Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will markup a new NASA authorization bill on Wednesday that focuses on the desire to avoid disruption to NASA's human spaceflight program during the upcoming presidential transition.  It is one of several bills the committee will deal with that day, including the INSPIRE Women Act that passed the House earlier this year.  It is designed to encourage women to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM).

 

The 2016 NASA Transition Authorization Act, S. 3346, is co-sponsored by three Republicans and three Democrats:  Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Gary Peters (D-Michigan), the chair and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness; Florida's two Senators, Bill Nelson (D), who is the ranking member of the full committee, and Marco Rubio (R); Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi); and Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico).   Udall and Rubio both are subcommittee members; Wicker is on the full committee.

 

The 73-page bill incorporates changes to a draft that was circulated earlier, but the main themes remain the same.  Among the provisions are the following (quotes are from the committee's press release or the bill itself):

 

affirms support for continuity across presidential administrations in space science and exploration, noting progress on development of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion programs for deep space human exploration, on the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and on commercial crew systems;

affirms that "NASA is and should remain a multi-mission agency with a balanced and robust set of core missions in science, space technology, aeronautics, human space flight and exploration, and education";

supports utilization of the International Space Station through at least 2024 and requires an evaluation of the feasibility of operations through at least 2028, while also requiring a report from NASA on how to transform low Earth orbit from a "model reliant on government support to one reflecting a more commercially viable future";

adds human exploration of Mars as an explicit goal and objective for NASA and requires NASA to submit a "strategic framework and critical decision plan" on how to achieve it;

directs NASA to continue the SLS and Orion programs with the first uncrewed mission in 2018 and the first mission with a crew "by 2021";
requires a report from NASA evaluating alternatives to the Asteroid Redirect Robotic Mission for demonstrating technologies and capabilities needed for human trips to Mars;

asserts that it is U.S. policy to develop technologies to support NASA's core missions, including propulsion technologies to reduce the human travel time to Mars;

expresses support for several space science missions, including JWST, its successor the Wide Field Infrared Space Telescope (WFIRST), the Mars 2020 rover, and a mission to Europa (the bill is silent on Earth science);

allows NASA to provide medical monitoring, diagnosis and treatment for current U.S. government astronauts and former astronauts and payload specialists for "psychological and medical conditions deemed by NASA to be associated with human spaceflight";

 

and directs NASA to take steps to improve oversight of information technology and cybersecurity.

The bill authorizes $19.508 billion for NASA in FY2017, the same amount approved by the House Appropriations Committee in its version of the FY2017 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill.  That bill has not been considered by the House yet.   The amount is $202 million more than the Senate Appropriations Committee approved.  The authorization bill allocates the difference to NASA's exploration account (which funds SLS and Orion).   Otherwise, the authorized amounts are the same as in the Senate Appropriations committee-approved bill.  The Senate bill was brought to the floor for debate in June, but was derailed by the gun control debate.

 

Authorization bills set policy and recommend funding levels; they do not actually provide any money.  Only appropriations bills provide money to agencies like NASA.

 

The House passed a NASA authorization bill in 2015 (H.R. 810) that can serve as a basis for compromise if both chambers want to pass a bill this year, even though time is short.  Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas), chair of the Space Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, has called on the Senate to pass a bill several times, most recently last week.

 

The other space-related bill scheduled for markup on Wednesday is the Inspiring Next Space Pioneers, Innovators, Researchers, and Explorers (INSPIRE) Women Act, H.R. 4755.  The House passed the bill in March.  The bill was sponsored by Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Virginia). There were no hearings or markups of the bill; it was introduced and went directly to the floor.  No funding is included in the bill.  It simply directs NASA to take steps to encourage women to study STEM fields and submit a plan on how NASA can facilitate and support current and retired astronauts, scientists, engineers and innovators to engage with K-12 female STEM students.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/senate-committee-to-markup-nasa-authorization-inspire-women-bills#.V99LVT8Z_cs.twitter

 

At least Commercial crew has been included...

[Unobscured Vision]

To do all that, NASA needs more funding. Like double the amount that Congress is giving it currently. They want the new engines and propulsion systems, the new rockets, and all of the new cutting-edge technologies? It costs money to R&D that stuff. 

 

Sheesh. Tightwads ....

[Draggendrop Veteran]

To make matters worse, congress is now asking for alternatives to ARM, the asteroid redirect mission. NASA is having open discussions on it and now congress is dictating to science, what the projects will be. This is becoming a disturbing trend. ARM will probably be cancelled and NASA is tasked with giving alternatives to kill their own project.

 

Remember when the NOAA raw data proved that the "climate data" that congress used was conveniently altered. The repercussions were that congress wants access to all data at all times now. This also means any data that NASA has gained from SpaceX. Here is another recent article on the levels of stupidity achieved by members of congress, though I must admit, Canadian scientists are also facing restrictive issues similar to this.

 

THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE’S ANTI-SCIENCE RAMPAGE

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-house-science-committees-anti-science-rampage

 

If this is not addressed, dire times ahead.