Comments on: Mikulski’s unlikely fundraiser

By: Palazzo to remain space subcommittee chair; Shelby to be top Republican in Senate Appropriations « Space Politics

Wed, 09 Jan 2013 14:04:04 +0000

[…] issues, and also have a record of working together despite their different political affiliations: Shelby even helped support a fundraiser for Mikulski in Huntsville in […]

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:46:26 +0000

Rhyolite: “The EELVs may be the USAFâ€™s baby but they are Boeing and Lockheedâ€™s property.”

googaw: “This doesnâ€™t mean much when they have one dominant customer.”

And if USAF doesn’t like what ULA does with other customers, what are they going to do? Take their payloads to Arianespace? Proton? Long March?

USAF undoubtedly has some influence with ULA. But not enough to prevent them from seeking potentially profitable contracts with other agencies of the US government.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 22:11:13 +0000

I wonder if they'd ever use any of the normal school fundraisers like on http://www.fundraisingideas.org/

By: googaw

googaw — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:31:14 +0000

The EELVs may be the USAFâ€™s baby but they are Boeing and Lockheedâ€™s property.

This doesn’t mean much when they have one dominant customer.

By: John

John — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:57:37 +0000

Why wouldnâ€™t Shelby endorse a Shuttle replacement centered around Atlas V and/or Delta IV?

He is a big supporter of Ares rockets and the NASA centers connected with this development.

sc220: Your idea is a good one and it may be part of a compromise. This would also involve going with the Direct/Jupiter concept on HLVs. He can’t give up his chips at this point in the process. This issue is complicated both technically and politically. Stay tuned.

By: sc220

sc220 — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:33:39 +0000

I could also see Decatur winning a good share of the big boost in launches implied by the new line of robotic HSF precursor missions, the increase in Earth science missions, and possibly some of the technology demonstration missions (beyond those that will involve ISS services from the commercial crew/cargo lines you already mentioned).

This is something that has truly confounded me for the last five years. Why wouldn’t Shelby endorse a Shuttle replacement centered around Atlas V and/or Delta IV? Going with one of these options, rather than Ares I, would have consolidated Northern Alabama as the launch vehicle technology and development capitol of the U.S., if not the world.

By: danwithaplan

danwithaplan — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 09:41:59 +0000

Trust me, DOD, NRO, NASA nonHSF is not happy with the “man rating” HSF NASA crowd trying to get their hands on EELVs and messing up perfectly good launchers. The robotic NASA folks know that EELVs are good enough as they are. No changes needed. Neither the commercial customers would be happy if the exploration directorate got their fingers on the EELVs and make them EVEN more expensive until the ESMD re-evalutates its idiotic ‘man rating’ requirements.

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:12:47 +0000

Speaking of the J-2X, does anyone know whether it has been canceled or is going to live on under the in In-Space Engine Demonstration component of the exploration budget?

By: Rhyolite

Rhyolite — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:00:34 +0000

The EELVs may be the USAF’s baby but they are Boeing and Lockheed’s property.

USAF paid only a fraction of the EELV development costs. Boeing and Lockheed invested their profit and loss money into the designs and have considerable rights them.

If ULA thinks they are competitive with the other entrants, then expect them to bid.

By: ISS vet

ISS vet — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 05:51:40 +0000

googaw: It’s a little different this time because ULA is a commercial launch company. The Air Force can’t stop them from launching EELVs for other customers. The Air Force has a lot of influence, but not control. The Air Force should get some benefits out of the deal – lower costs and probably some redundant new facilities, as well as upgrades to EELV reliability.