“What if it’s got the wrong armament, and what if the action isn’t where you think it is?”

The point is: cost. What is the cost a hypersonic cruise missile? What is the cost of a drone? How many drones can you afford per hypersonic missile? If you pick a large drone you can put several types of war head on different missiles. You could dedicate x drones on a given area. The only real application is your second statement about where the action might be, or not. A hypersonic cruise missile on submarine(s) could buy you some flexibility. But that would have to be for highly valued target… I think.

There isn’t any way to “ensure” that these things don’t happen. But what Nelson wrote in his letter isn’t any different from what Bolden has said in testimony. Bolden (or his successor) is going to have to be satisfied about the safety of any commercial crew vehicle before NASA astronauts fly on it, and that will mean some level of insight/oversight and checks/balances.

That said, COTS has set good a precedent in terms of how NASA can manage its human rating requirements in a way that is consistent with a more commercial contracting mechanism. And if NASA wants to get the Soyuz monkey of its back and close the gap ASAP, they won’t have much incentive to screw around, anyway.

“That sounds an awful lot like a ‘I want an SDLV’, rather than being open-ended about HLV (IE an EELV based HLV).”

It could be — we’ll have to wait to see the actual authorization language. But Hutchison’s draft authorization only asked NASA to study Shuttle-derived options — it didn’t direct such a solution. Nelson’s letter appears to back off even from that position — it just asks NASA to leverage the workforce they’ve got, whatever the solution.

FWIW…

Personally, I find much that is good in his proposed plan. It isn’t perfect but it is a great deal more conservative and achievable than most alternatives. Frankly it has fewer questions and leaps of faith than President Obama’s proposals and, IMHO at least, that is a major selling point. I’m sure that those who believe that orthodox CxP is a necessity and those, like Robert Oler, who believe that the NASA model is inheritly flawed and needs to be set aside will demur and set our their reasons for their viewpoint.

Ultimately, I suspect that any vote taken on this plan will finally settle the question of just how much bipartisan and universal support NASA has in Congress.

No, it sounds exaclty what its written like : i want to preserve as much of these contracts as jobs as possible.

The bill would also require NASA to complete a number of studies, assessments, and milestones as we progress from a commercial cargo capability to commercial crew services. Astronaut safety will be the core component of all of these requirements, as with any human space flight program.

Concern 1 is right here – how do we ensure that NASA doesn’t demand that the only surefire way to “safely” fly is to do it the NASA way? And how do we ensure that there is a push to actual development, rather than a “death by a thousand cuts” attempt?

The authorization will propose that both the heavy-lift and crew exploration vehicles leverage the workforce, contracts, assets, and capabilities of the Shuttle, Ares I, and Orion efforts.

That sounds an awful lot like a “I want an SDLV”, rather than being open-ended about HLV (IE an EELV based HLV). If we couldn’t afford Ares I & Orion, how are we going to deal with the fact that an SDLV is going to be a lot more expensive?

That’s good news. Thanks!

Now off to bed after spending the last hour catching the escaped ducks and geese and getting them back into their fenced yard. Dang, country life has it’s moments..