The Senate bill has similar changes. It provides commercial crew with $900 million, $344 million less than the request. The funding is also moved from NASA's exploration account to its space operations account, which primarily funds the International Space Station. The report accompanying the bill explained that the move will allow the overall ISS program "to be analyzed and evaluated in its entirety."
"By gutting this program and turning our backs on U.S. industry, NASA will be forced to continue to rely on Russia to get its astronauts to space." -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden
Another program cut from the administration's request is space technology, which receives $600 million, a reduction of $125 million. The bill also requires NASA spend $150 million of that on a satellite servicing mission concept called RESTORE-L. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), ranking member of the full appropriations committee and its CJS subcommittee, has been a strong advocate of that effort, based at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.
The bill report explained that funding for RESTORE-L was explicitly included in the bill "so it continues in a timely fashion and to avoid lingering drains on satellite servicing funds that have been diverted to other purposes in earlier years."
Other programs received funding increases. The bill provides $1.9 billion for SLS, an increase of $544 million above the administration's request. It also gives the Orion crew vehicle $1.2 billion, $104 million more than the request. The additional funding for SLS is intended to allow its initial launch "as early as possible in 2018," the report stated. SLS is known by space scientists as the Senate Launch System and with its capsule Orion has something in almost every congressional district but NO MISSION of import and is too expensive to really be useful.
#2
"Bygutting this program and turning our backs on U.S. industry, NASA will be forced to continue to rely on Russia to get its astronauts to space." -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden
Don't you see Charles? That is the plan. By funding the Russian effort, we control it and solidify our relationships with their oligarchs.
#6
ed in texas: This page at the end of a NASA document should interest you.
NASA recently conducted a predicted cost estimate of the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM). NAFCOM is the primary cost estimating tool NASA uses to predict the costs for launch vehicles, crewed vehicles, planetary landers, rovers, and other flight hardware elements prior to the development of these systems.
NAFCOM is a parametric cost estimating tool with a historical database of over 130 NASA and Air Force space flight hardware projects. It has been developed and refined over the past 13 years with 10 releases providing increased accuracy, data content, and functionality. NAFCOM uses a number of technical inputs in the estimating process. These include mass of components, manufacturing methods, engineering management, test approach, integration complexity, and pre-development studies.
Another variable is the relationship between the Government and the contractor during development. At one end, NAFCOM can model an approach that incorporates a heavy involvement on the part of the Government, which is a more traditional approach for unique development efforts with advanced technology. At the other end, more commercial-like practices can be assumed for the cost estimate where the contractor has more responsibility during the development effort.
For the Falcon 9 analysis, NASA used NAFCOM to predict the development cost for the Falcon 9 launch vehicle using two methodologies:
1) Cost to develop Falcon 9 using traditional NASA approach, and
2) Cost using a more commercial development approach.
Under methodology #1, the cost model predicted that the Falcon 9 would cost $4.0 billion based on a traditional approach. Under methodology #2, NAFCOM predicted $1.7 billion when the inputs were adjusted to a more commercial development approach. Thus, the predicted the cost to develop the Falcon 9 if done by NASA would have been between $1.7 billion and $4.0 billion.
SpaceX has publicly indicated that the development cost for Falcon 9 launch vehicle was approximately $300 million. Additionally, approximately $90 million was spent developing the Falcon 1 launch vehicle which did contribute to some extent to the Falcon 9, for a total of $390 million. NASA has verified these costs.
It is difficult to determine exactly why the actual cost was so dramatically lower than the NAFCOM predictions. It could be any number of factors associated with the non-traditional public-private partnership under which the Falcon 9 was developed (e.g., fewer NASA processes, reduced oversight, and less overhead), or other factors not directly tied to the development approach. NASA is continuing to refine this analysis to better understand the differences.
Regardless of the specific factors, this analysis does indicate the potential for reducing space hardware development costs, given the appropriate conditions. It is these conditions that NASA hopes to replicate, to the extent appropriate and feasible, in the development of commercial crew transportation systems.
#7
3dc - simple: its money spent on actually developing something that works, vs money spent dividing the effort and spending to spread over as many congressional districts as possible, and kissing the ass of powerful legislators.
The actual rocket system costs are what Falcon shows - the rest is political waste and corruption, no different from the inefficiencies we used to see in the Soviet Union's system, with their built-in corruption.
#9
Oldspook: there's also the whole mandated solid rocket booster requirement... it adds a whole layer of costs to the rest of the rocket, because of the vibration problems, potential thrust assymetries, etc...
#10
I think you guys are being a little unfair to NASA. In the 50s and 60's they invented a process that turns money into space craft. They were under extreme pressure to not have technical failures. They figured out one way to do it.
Was it the cheapest way? the best way? Probably not, but experimenting on ways to make the process they did invent cheaper invites technical failures. So, they have mostly stuck with their way of doing business.
It would take a complete redesign of the organization to make substantial changes, which of course is what SpaceX did.
So, it wasn't wasteful to pay for NASA's way of business, in the past, when it was the only way we knew to do it. Now, however, we do know better ways and NASA should get out of the business of making spaceships, just like the Army has gotten out of the business of making rifles.
Sadly, the Senate has set us on the opposite course.
So far, so good...
President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill.
The House voted 302 to 126 to sink a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, fracturing hopes at the White House that Congress would grant Obama fast-track trade authority to complete an accord with 11 other Pacific Rim nations. From what I know about the details (not much), this is only one component of the whole unread bag o' shit they're trying to pass. As Ace points out this afternoon, it doesn't matter: we don't trust the Republicans any more so it doesn't matter what they say.
#3
Too many Donks got burned by Pelosi's "you get to read it after we pass it". How many of those never returned? Mr. No Coattails has left too many out to flap in the wind too many times. Someone is smelling blood and they don't want it to be theirs. The herd is spooked.
#4
Im not sure about the bill, because these GOP assholes PUT IT TOGETHER IN SECRECY. Its basically we have to pass it to find out whats in it. Do Boner, Ryan, McConnel et al genuinely not have a damned clue just how wrong this is? They are so damnably caught up in the insider beltway machinations that they have lost sight of how this republic is supposed to function. Guys, read the document -WE THE PEOPLE, not you the politicians. They keep pushing and the GOP will die, deservedly so as bing just another branch of the Democrat/DC/Beltway/BigGovernment party - and if they push harder then eventually this government will die - they are giving the "armed rebellion" folks a lot of fodder.
We need a a Term Limits amendment, Sunshine amendment, a Sunset Amendment, an amendment that makes any laws they pass apply to government and the people equally - and probably a balanced budget amendment (supermajority override) while we are at it.
#9
This could well be the most dangerous piece of shit ever proposed.
There have been several things leak out about hidden deals in this trade bill that would give Obastard much more authority over immigration. Another deal has to do with "arms trafficing" that would basically gut the second amendment.
Think about all the bull shit that has been added to federal law via the "elastic clause" which supposedly deals with interstate commerce. A trade bill can include pretty much anything and still get called constitutional.....or do you trust John Roberts?
[ENGLISH.ALARABIYA.NET] The White House on Tuesday rejected suggestions that President Barack Obama Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.... had deliberately ignored the Iraqi prime minister at a G7 summit in Germany.
News footage emerged from the summit showing an apparently eager-to-talk Haider al-Abadi awkwardly sitting down next to Obama, only to be shown the U.S. president's back.
White House front man Josh Earnest suggested those who saw a snub were "telegraphing some insecurities that date back to junior high."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/12/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iraq
#1
White House front man Josh Earnest suggested those who saw a snub were "telegraphing some insecurities that date back to junior high."
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
The Senate bill has similar changes. It provides commercial crew with $900 million, $344 million less than the request. The funding is also moved from NASA's exploration account to its space operations account, which primarily funds the International Space Station. The report accompanying the bill explained that the move will allow the overall ISS program "to be analyzed and evaluated in its entirety."
