Part of the issue is that we live in a hyper-partisan time. A number of people aren’t interested in actually having good governance, or trying to find legislative answers. There is a very large, loud group, that is interested in only their way, and not interested in a compromise. That, and there isn’t additional money to be spent on things.

The debate remains squarely “Either PoR or full commercial” with no middle ground even admitted to exist. I’ll say this much: If the camps remain this polarised and completely without any reference to the many alternate paths then NASA’s future is bleak. Either a decimation of its technical base in the hope that, one day, commercial vendors can fill the gap or decades labouring in futility on Congress’s pet rocket.

A third way must be found if NASA is to make any sort of progress. However, as always, such things seem anathema to the ‘black or white, with me or against me’ mindset of the political leadership.

try reading slower next time…

lol

Robert G. Oler

Robert just likes to see his ungrammatical keyboard diarrhea appear on the screen, regardless of whether it has any relevance to the topic at hand. It’s why I banned him from commenting at my site.

I don’t see a single statement in your long reply to me that has any bearing on anything I actually said.

You are ill.

2011-2015: 3 SpaceX demos and initial 12 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2012-2015: 1 Orbital demo and initial 8 operational cargo flights (ISS) (C3PO)
2016: Entry, descent, and landing demonstration (ISS, in the Pacific ocean specifically)
2019: Ares I/Orion ready to dock with ISS

I guess my first 2 items would be a bit less likely to happen than the corresponding ones in the big list because their destination would be going away (taking away motivation from SpaceX/Orbital) and the $312M COTS augmentation wouldn’t be there, but my 3rd item should be a quite spectacular demonstration of the wisdom of Constellation, and the 4th should be quite entertaining as well.

Indeed.

That’s one small Senate hearing, one giant heap of Gov’t space propoganda.

never made public, superseded by Feb 1st events; (Nelson has Congressional authority to compel NASA to show him the study) I don’t have L2 membership, but we were getting updates from Direct; that was why Direct Fans were sure we had a winner, up until the FY11 budget blew it out of the water;
as for cost of Direct, depends on who you talk to, and whether it is Commercial or Gov’t driven; figures vary wildly and widely;0 every month that goes by, with Shuttle Stack (less orbiter) infrastructure being downgraded makes it more expensive and a longer timeline to get ET’s and 4 seg SRBs back into production;

No need for the foil. It’s SOP in budget battles to orchestrate support for plans A, B and C (and C sub sliver) until the senate appropriations process says, “Final!” btw, is Bolden’s Marshall report public? Where can we find it?

Direct-like plan B & C proposals are out there, no doubt appealing to a handful of Senators and Reps. and their staffs.

Posts by technically oriented folks suggest Direct is head and shoulders above Ares, but is still a shuttle generation design, requiring mega bucks for development and support. Where will the bucks come from, in the FY2011 budget?

It sounds like a deceptively alluring “compromise” but still uses solids for HSF, long pre-launch lead times, and operational costs that are likely much higher than the “2015” HLV. Sen. Nelson might try to get study money in as a foot in the door, but a full blown development budget?

Aside from the local politics of “Direct” I think it shows politicians reacting to the space gap now instead of 5 or 6 years ago, when the gap was all but guaranteed by Pres. Bush and Administrator Griffin.

Still, these stacked hearings are set up as flyers for competing budget lines, and Sen. Nelson is a savvy operator. Tomorrow’s hearing should be interesting.