Congress Decides To Delay US-Launched Astronauts, Keep Using Russian Services 173
New submitter surfdaddy writes: In order to protect the entrenched big aerospace companies, the Congress has increased NASA's budget for FY2016 but has cut funding for "commercial crew." Commercial crew is the funding used by SpaceX for the planned initial manned launches in the first half of 2017. With this cut, the launch of U.S. astronauts from U.S. soil using U.S. rockets will be delayed two years, and we will continue to send millions of dollars to Russia for launch services. "Senate appropriators suggested that NASA’s plans announced earlier this year to procure Soyuz seats for missions in 2018 indicated that the agency was not confident at even this early stage that the two companies with commercial crew contracts, Boeing and SpaceX, could remain on schedule to begin flights in 2017. ...
Typical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of reminds me of what happened to Preston Tucker, just not quite to that extent yet.
What about comparing Musk with that visionary automobile pioneer? There are major differences but I think much better comparison than to a fictional character of Tony Stark. At least Musk has produced usable hardware while Tucker got bogged down with prototypes (hey, Telsa almost went belly-up in 2008).
That lawsuit went through just in time (Score:3, Interesting)
Being able to do military launches means SpaceX neatly outmaneuvered this attempt to cut them off at the knees.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't. They have cut Commercial Crew more than once. They did in 2012 for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Military launches will not be left to only commercial launches. If they can, and it is cost effective, they will. But ULA will be funded and there.
Congress *Cut* Spending??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Ha! They increased funding for the SLS above what was requested.
Re: (Score:2)
In Partisanspeak, that's what they want you to think. Sadly, too many idiots out there take the bait and parrot the line without a second thought.
Republican (Score:3, Insightful)
are more anti Obama than they are pro usa
Re: (Score:2)
The vote was bipartisan, with only 3 out of 30 voting outside the consensus... 'splain that.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats.... (Score:2)
Democrats are just complaining because Congress decided to defund a public project where the money went to a private company owned by a number of their big supporters. But it's not like they totally defunded anything, they just moved some money to another account because said private company wasn't going to be able to deliver the service the money is supposed to obtain. Space X will be short $344 million from what they expected because Congress had to make sure they still had transportation to the ISS to
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. They gave gave more money to SLS (which isn't going to fly anytime soon) than the NASA request while underfunding the Commercial Crew program. They gave more money to SLS than what they cut on Commercial Crew. They also cut the NASA science budget in the process. SLS is about as likely to fly as Constellation was.
It's pork barrel politics nothing else. The sad thing is this only helps the Russians and their own pockets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The commercial transportation program started out when Bush Jr. was President. Obama just expanded it a bit because its cheaper than paying the Russians. That is all.
Comparative advantage (Score:2)
Is it cheaper to launch by Russia? Will we tax the US economy, weaken ourselves, to hoard our activities here, to hoard the illusion of physical dollars staying in the economy?
People are so simplistic in their views. "Shop locally! Locally-produced will strengthen your local economy!" Not if your local economy expends twice as many resources as it would to import; then it only makes you twice as poor.
Re: (Score:3)
No it's going to be cheaper to launch using US launch services. Especially with SpaceX. That's the *really* interesting bit.
Re:Comparative advantage (Score:5, Informative)
Quoting
http://mic.com/articles/11354/... [mic.com]
:
At $60 million-a-seat, the aging Russian Soyuz program will hopefully soon be eclipsed by the $20 million-a-seat Dragon.
The Dragon is the name of the SpaceX capsule.
Re: (Score:2)
Dragon will not be going up half empty. If NASA only uses 4 of the possible 7, the remainder of the mass budget will be used for cargo which should greatly offset the cost/seat lost. Not totally, as astronauts to orbit are worth more but closer to $25m than $35m.
Re: (Score:2)
Once SpaceX gets the Dragon capsule working and proven safe, sure. They've got a great track record, but I still think it prudent to reserve launches with somebody with the proven capability, like Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it cheaper to launch by Russia? Will we tax the US economy, weaken ourselves, to hoard our activities here, to hoard the illusion of physical dollars staying in the economy?
Congress will just increase the limit for H-lB visas - Heavy launch Boosters - since no comparable US boosters are available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Line the pockets of the rich entrenched power brokers.
2. Degrade the US technological base.
3. Send money and support technology for long term rivals.
Given the above it's a slam dunk. It's the American Way!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Dogs flew spaceships!
The Aztecs invented the vacation!
Men and women are the same sex!
Our forefathers took drugs!
Your brain is not the boss!
Yes! That's right! Everything you know is wrong!"
Glitch at Space Station changes it's orbit (Score:2, Informative)
"a Soyuz spacecraft docked at the station unexpectedly started" yep, that would do it.
http://www.space.com/29632-soy... [space.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"a Soyuz spacecraft docked at the station unexpectedly started"
Marked as Troll, my bad, not my intention.
can't congress make up its mind (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the same congress that has specifically said that DoD payloads can't be launched using the RD-180 after a certain date to PREVENT us from spending more money buying RD-180 engines from Russia... but in order to get to the ISS we are willing to pay the Russians for a ride.
Ugh!!!
Re: (Score:2)
This is the same congress that has specifically said that DoD payloads can't be launched using the RD-180 after a certain date to PREVENT us from spending more money buying RD-180 engines from Russia... but in order to get to the ISS we are willing to pay the Russians for a ride.
Ugh!!!
Congress would have GLADLY funded Space X if there was any confidence that they would actually be able to deliver a human rated capacity to get to the space station and back. The problem was that nobody thinks Space X can really do it before the currently contracted seats with the Russians run out. We really have no choice but to contract more seats with the Russians and cut Space X's funding earmarked for human transport to help make up the difference. Other programs lost funding for this reason too. Spa
Re: (Score:2)
The problem was that nobody thinks Space X can really do it before the currently contracted seats with the Russians run out.
SpaceX could fly astronauts tomorrow if Congress actually thought it was important. Just stick them in a cargo Dragon in space suits, and go.
Re: (Score:2)
ISS is a hundred billion dollar investment. Astronauts are cheap.
If Congress actually cared about ISS, they wouldn't worry about losing a few astronauts to save it. Nor would they have a hard time finding volunteers to fly in a Dragon tomorrow.
The whole 'but we can't fly if it's not HUMAN RATED!' thing just demonstrates how little they really care.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the third time you repeat the same bullshit and lies you astroturfer. The only reason for any delays is that Congress keeps cutting the funds and increasing the requirements. Nothing else. Heck SpaceX could have launched an astronaut to the ISS in the current cargo Dragon yesterday if they really wanted to.
Re: (Score:2)
The USAF kept dragging their feet with the certification making unreasonable demands which they don't make to the incumbents. Even NASA is guilty of some of this. Check the Commercial Crew program. Boeing gets paid a LOT more money for doing paper delivery milestones while SpaceX actually has to conduct actual finished hardware tests to get paid LESS money.
Re: (Score:2)
Not surprising (Score:2)
I was expecting this to happen at some point. Most people think of NASA as a space program, but to Congress it's just a fund to be used for political horse trading. I need a few more votes to pass the budget? Then this representative gets farm subsidies, that representative gets funding for a new highway, and the other rep gets a piece of a NASA program.
What that means is they want Constellation, even though it's going to be waaaaaaaay more expensive than comparable SpaceX offerings. What Congress does
All yuor eggs in one basket (Score:2)
"Senate appropriators suggested that NASA’s plans announced earlier this year to procure Soyuz seats for missions in 2018 indicated that the agency was not confident at even this early stage that the two companies with commercial crew contracts, Boeing and SpaceX, could remain on schedule to begin flights in 2017."
Clearly the correct approach is to put all your eggs in one basket at any given time.
If you delay American crew launches until 2019, then NASA is going to procure Soyuz seats for 2019 and ma
Yet they INCREASE funding for SLS... (Score:4)
Congress cuts funding for a program that (at least on the SpaceX side) is well advanced in producing a man-rated booster and capsule to replace the Russian rides to the ISS and yet they INCREASE funding for a program that has yet to even produce a full-size prototype, doesn't have a proper mission yet, just some thought bubbles AND is costing far more than it would cost if you just said "this is what we want the rocket to do, who can build it for us"
I think there are 2 things going on here.
First is that there is an election comming up and the votes of a bunch of ATK workers in Utah who have been promised jobs in the SLS program to replace the jobs they had in the shuttle program are somehow important enough to matter (which is a reflection on just how broken the US political system is). Hence the increase in funding for SLS to get it to the "actually building stuff" phase much faster. (and to assure the workers in question that their jobs are safe)
And second is that SpaceX has the lead in producing a crew rated capsule right now (their crew capsule and rocket are a modified version of the capsule and rocket they are launching to the ISS already whereas Boeing has to develop a capsule from scratch) so the cut in funding and the delay is a chance to give Boeing time to catch up (since Boeing is too politically and economically important to allow SpaceX to win this race on its own)
Re: (Score:2)
Situation normal, all porked up (Score:2)
It's all about the pork, [blogspot.com] and protecting those Shuttle-era jobs. (Never mind that NASA is a relatively small budget item and there's no good reason they couldn't add to SLS while keeping Commercial Crew funded.)
Remember those Shuttle main engines that they removed (replaced with mock-ups) before sending them off to museums? Yeah, well the test stands are still at Stennis, and the 2010 legislation ordering SLS required NASA to use existing Shuttle technology where possible, so SLS will launch with SSMEs rem [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That's right, the actual same Shuttle engines that they had to refurbish after every flight.
But this time, they'll be cheaper, because they'll just dump them into the sea rather than refurbish them.
What hapened in Sotchi? (Score:2)
John Kerry met Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Putin in Sotchi a few weeks ago, and since that time US and Russia seems to be able to talk together again.
What happened? Obviously the US administration realized the Ukraine government was just impossible to control, but that kind of consideration did not prevented them from supporting weird regimes in the past.
Re: Go space (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it will be funny if Russia subcontracts the launches back to SpaceX and pockets the profit. Would make Congress and Boeing look stupid.
Re: Go space (Score:5, Insightful)
This would still be cheaper than paying Boeing to do the launches.
Re: Go space (Score:4, Interesting)
This would still be cheaper than paying Boeing to do the launches.
Boeing has to charge more, to fund all their political donations, and jobs for ex-bureaucrats [washingtonpost.com]. But the sleaze pays off. That is how they got the contract for the KC-X [wikipedia.org] contract over a better and cheaper bid from Northrup-EADS. The USAF picked the better bid, but congress forced them to give the contract to Boeing.
If SpaceX wants to compete in this market, they need to use a lot more grease.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet there will be a no subcontract clause or a clause specifying what launch vehicle is used.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we shouldn't have had the CIA lead a coupe in Ukraine, eh?
Re:No boas here (Score:5, Informative)
There will never be a Delta IV Orion with humans on it. Even ULA is planning to sunset Delta and Atlas for a new rocket [ulalaunch.com] to replace these. Probably will somehow manage to make it even more expensive for taxpayers and a way to keep retired Air Force colonels employed.
Re:No boas here (Score:4, Informative)
1. Orion is too heavy so it can't be launched on anything less than a Delta IV Heavy. That's assuming its weight doesn't increase further.
2. ULA is cutting Delta IV core production.
3. Delta IV Heavy is not man-rated. The rocket just ain't reliable enough.
Re: (Score:2)
4. It's expensive like heck.
Re: (Score:3)
Orion costs 320x more than Commercial Crew (SpaceX AND Boeing capsules):
http://mic.com/articles/11354/... [mic.com]
Re:Delta IV never lost an engine in flight (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Delta IV can't even survive an engine loss. Falcon 9 could survive up to two engine losses, and presumably the reusable version will be able to survive even more if the control system has an option to ditch the stage and use the landing fuel reserve to compensate for higher gravity losses and to complete the ascent instead.
Furthermore, the Merlin 1C engine that failed was already being phased out at that point. If I recall the events correctly, it was the manufacturing process (electroplating) that isn't be
Re: (Score:2)
The bias is actually very visible in the article with the Freudian slip of "send Russians money" instead of "paying Russians for services rendered" which is the actual case.
It's pretty rare for fanboy crowd to slip that badly though. Usually it's at least masked as a more reasonable argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The bias is actually very visible in the article with the Freudian slip of "send Russians money" instead of "paying Russians for services rendered" which is the actual case.
It's pretty rare for fanboy crowd to slip that badly though. Usually it's at least masked as a more reasonable argument.
Yeah, they forgot the "at gunpoint" whenever talking about govt. (taxpayer) bucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Space-X is working hard to reduce spaceflight costs. If they develop a way to send people to orbit that's less expensive than their competitors, we all win. They are investing in their own private platforms, so I don't see what you're complaining about.
That said, NASA does need to send some people into orbit, and it's wise to have plans other than "We're sure that somebody in the US will have proven human launch capability by 2018", however likely that looks.
Where we can have commercial spaceflight,
Re: Offshoring (Score:3)
Last I checked, spacex wants to charge less than Russia. Also last I checked, Russia isn't a corporation.
Re: (Score:3)
>> spacex wants to charge less than Russia
everybody "wants" to be cheaper, better, more reliable than Soyuz.
Nobody suceeded in 6 decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Rampant corruption seems to be leading to terrible quality control.
We'll give you a grand if you stop posting this --Roscosmos management
Re: (Score:2)
muh muh muh Republican muh muh muh...
Hey, genius - RTFA, because the vote was decidedly bi-partisan.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, genius - RTFA
Whoa whoa whoa, hold up there Cowboy. You can't go making suggestions like that! People might pay attention or something!
Re: Offshoring (Score:2)
Fact is this bs is purely neo-cons.
Re:Offshoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even read about what they did with the funding?
Yes, they cut funding to SpaceX efforts (commercial crew) in favor of securing additional seats with the Russians on future dates. However the reasons where clearly due to Space X's failure to get their act together and provide confidence that they will be human rated in time to take over when the contract with the Russians was set to end. So NASA really doesn't have much choice, because if Space X isn't ready when the current seats we have from the Russians end, we'd be in a place where no US crew replacements would be possible.
It's also not a total abandoning of Space X, they remain funded, albeit at a lower level. They will still be doing cargo delivery and working towards human rated transport. Congress just moved future funding to the sure thing of Russian transport in order to de-risk keeping the Space Station going.
Congress DID fund NASA's Orion project fully, and then some, meaning that the idea here is to get the US back to where we had human rated systems and can transport our own people in our own equipment. So, where the short term effect is to fund the Russians, the LONG term idea is to use US built equipment to transport US personnel to the station as soon as Orion can human rated and made available. Plus, if Space X get's it's act together and manages to get human rated, you can bet that congress will GLADLY abandon the Russians in future budgets. In fact, they are COUNTING on doing so after 2018 at this point.
And here I thought the leftist where all upset with the republicans for being aligned with big business all the time, here they are cutting direct funding for Space X (a private business enterprise) and all you can say is they are off shoring work? If Musk wants to make up the measly $334 million with his own investors, he can keep development going just fine thank you... They don't seem to be lacking investors and they seem to have at least SOME ability to make money from cargo flights for the ISS and other launches so coughing up another few million shouldn't be an issue.
Offshoring jobs, give me a break, 334 Million is a drop in the bucket in that world.... My guess is you are upset about Congress choosing to defund programs going to huge democratic supporter owned companies... You want welfare for these kinds of companies, because they support your political views...
Re:Offshoring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
As soon as the upstart can actually deliver a human rated vehicle that makes trips to the ISS and back, that will surely change.
Remember the issue here that nobody has confidence that Space X can provide the necessary service by the time it is needed in 2017, so other arrangements simply have to be made now with the Russians to make sure we can keep crew on the ISS. The commercial crew program wasn't the only NASA budget item to get hit because of this, and it 's not totally defunded but lost $344 Million
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't mean the Russians? As I recall, they have vehicles there now which are human rated, and where the bulk of the money taken from Space X was moved to.
What are you saying when you talk about entrenched players?
Re:Offshoring (Score:5, Informative)
"“I am deeply disappointed that the Senate Appropriations subcommittee does not fully support NASA’s plan to once again launch American astronauts from U.S. soil as soon as possible, and instead favors continuing to write checks to Russia.
“Remarkably, the Senate reduces funding for our Commercial Crew Program further than the House already does compared to the President’s Budget.
“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 – and continue to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into the Russian economy rather than our own.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think the upstart will have a man-rated launcher in less than 2 years???? Sending an unmanned cargo capsule is way different. At this point I don't think NASA has a choice other than buying seats on Soyuz in 2017.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really think the upstart will have a man-rated launcher in less than 2 years????
I think they already have a launcher at least as safe as a Soyuz is likely to be, if the Russians' recent launch debacles are anything to go by.
Sending an unmanned cargo capsule is way different.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Offshoring (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All supposition without any facts to back them up.
They requested $1,244 Million for commercial crew, they only got $900 million from congress. They are still funded at a significant level. If this was about payback, why didn't the rascally Republicans just pull it all? Surely they could have yanked more than 1/3rd if it was about politics.
Then there is the bi-partisan support of this budget. It seems to me that if the democrats are on board and not yelling bloody murder about it, there isn't much they
Re: (Score:2)
"Mikulski's amendment would have added $300 million fo
Re: (Score:2)
It's their fault that the past inadequate funding led to delays, therefore they don't deserve the full amount of funding required to meet their schedule? You're seriously making that argument? Delays resulting from underfunding are not justification for continued underfunding.
And Orion? Orion won't fly until around 2025 at best, will cost several billion to fly if it ever does (just the SLS to launch it will cost about a billion), and won't ever visit the ISS or any other space station...it would be gratuit
Re: (Score:2)
However the reasons where clearly due to Space X's failure to get their act together and provide confidence that they will be human rated in time to take over when the contract with the Russians was set to end. So NASA really doesn't have much choice, because if Space X isn't ready when the current seats we have from the Russians end, we'd be in a place where no US crew replacements would be possible.
Source for that? Really I think you are making it up. Space X just finished their launch abort test for their capsule. They are likely going to be ready on time. They have been delivering Dragon 1 capsule to the station for a while now. What this really sounds like is a full court press by incumbent aerospace companies to derail SpaceX before they can demonstrate successful launches of humans to space. The committees in Congress and the Senate that underfunded the commercial space program were largely
Re: (Score:2)
And so called "free enterprise" republicans are behind much of it.
It's the Progressive "establishment" Republicans and Progressive Democrats vs more small-'L' libertarian-leaning Republicans and Democrats. It's the Progressives in *both* major US political parties. The same Progressives that want to maintain/expand NSA-style 4th-Amendment-violating dragnet domestic surveillance and weaken encryption, etc., who use government agencies like the IRS & BATF as partisan/ideological political WMDs.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
However the reasons where clearly due to Space X's failure to get their act together and provide confidence that they will be human rated in time to take over when the contract with the Russians was set to end. So NASA really doesn't have much choice, because if Space X isn't ready when the current seats we have from the Russians end, we'd be in a place where no US crew replacements would be possible.
Bullshit. SpaceX recently did a test of their crew escape mechanism:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I quote NASA themselves to cut your bullshit:
For fiscal year (FY) 2012, NASA received $397 million for its Commercial Crew Program; less than half its $850 million request. In light of this development, in August 2012, NASA revised its Commercial Crew Acquisition Strategy to rely on Space Act Agreements rather than FAR-based contracts for the integrated design phase of the program. The Agency also delayed the expected completion date of the commercial crew development phase from 2016 to 2017.
https://oig.n [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand. If China is the rising star, why go to Canada?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is that a big deal ? I just order by the numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought we we're gonna solve this shit with a space elevator, what's the current progress on such?
Still on the ground floor with that idea... I don't think it will get off the ground...
Re: (Score:2)
Run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: lol (Score:2)
Are you claiming that the US is the primary cause of violence and unrest in the world?
B.S. We are not alone, and not the worst by a significant margin. Nope.
We are not innocent, but we are not, despite our enemies' accusations, worst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: lol (Score:2)
Did I write that I thought it was ok?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, European powers used to be in charge of destabilizing many parts of the world in their attempts to bend the world to suit their agendas.
Re: (Score:2)
The program is supposed to move from an R&D phase to a hardware production phase. That's the reason for the cost increases.
Cutting funds will only make the program more and more delayed. They already delayed it two years by cutting funding in the past. Elon said they could do it by 2015 if they were properly funded. In 2012 Congress funded NASA Commercial Crew to the tune of half what they requested. That's the cause of the delays.
SLS and Orion are nothing but a money sink just like constellation was.
Re: (Score:2)
President Obama could easily ask for proper funding for commercial crew
That's exactly what happened, and look how it ended up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)