Congress, NASA

Hutchison’s statement, Shelby’s award

In a statement yesterday, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) endorsed a letter by John Glenn calling for a shuttle extension. “I strongly agree with Senator Glenn, and the concerns expressed by many others, that the simultaneous cancellation of the Constellation program and the retirement of the space shuttle threatens our access to and use of the space station,” Hutchison said. “The decision to retire the shuttle fleet was made based on a plan to have commercial cargo resupply capabilities available soon after the final shuttle flight, and an expected station service date of 2015. The simple fact is that since the shuttle retirement decision was made, the service life of the space station has been extended until 2020 and new commercial cargo capabilities have experienced significant delays.” She added that while she has proposed some scenarios for extending the shuttle program by stretching out the remaining flights (more difficult now with only two missions remaining on the manifest), “the Administration has given no indication that it understands how the President’s proposal changes assumptions and plans regarding the space station, or that it is willing to discuss options to extend the availability of the space shuttle.”

Sen. Hutchison is expected to make NASA a priority at least through the remainder of her current term, which runs through 2012, Roll Call reported this week. David Beckwith, a “longtime” advisor to the senator, told the newspaper that Hutchison “likely would focus her energy on Commerce Committee work and doing her best to protect NASA from budget cuts.” He added that she would likely make a decision “in about a year” whether to seek reelection in 2012, based in part on the whether Republicans take control of the Senate in 2010 or appear likely to win control in the 2012 elections; Hutchison, as ranking member of the Commerce Committee, would be in line to chair it.

Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Shelby is being honored for his efforts to save Constellation, but it’s an award that the Alabama Republican is unlikely to accept. Citizens Against Government Waste named Shelby its “Porker of the Month” for his effort last month add language to a supplement appropriations bill that would require NASA to continue spending money on Constellation. “Sen. Shelby’s actions just perpetuate the notion that politicians in Washington are living on a completely different planet,” CAGW president Tom Schatz said in a statement. “It is outrageous for Sen. Shelby to object to the private sector’s work on space exploration and characterize it as ‘corporate welfare,’ when his own actions are nothing but pure pork-barrel spending to contractors from his state.” That amendment has passed the Senate, but the House has not yet taken up its version of the supplemental.

57 comments to Hutchison’s statement, Shelby’s award

  • amightywind

    With the abdication of leadership in the Whitehouse I think an extension of the shuttle program through 2012 is essential. Then a new GOP President can restructure Constellation.

    Senator Shelby has ever been the friend of manned space flight and a grateful nation thanks him for his efforts.

  • Paul D.

    Back on your meds, windy.

  • The events of the last 24 hours demonstrate more clearly than ever that Obama has won.

    An open letter to Congress signed by 56 space leaders put the lie once and for all to the claim by some that “nobody supports it” and that “no astronauts like it.”

    Eight former NASA astronauts signed the letter, along with CEOs of aerospace companies large and small, as well as pretty much every significant space advocacy group. Particularly notable is the signature of Frank DiBello, the CEO of Space Florida, which represents the space industry in Florida.

    The other big nail in the Constellation coffin was the announcement that United Space Alliance has joined the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, eliminating the last significant opposition in the aerospace industry to the Obama proposal.

    What’s all this mean?

    There’s nobody left except the unions to pour money into the pockets of Congresscritters trying to save Constellation.

    The irony of Republican porkers like Shelby and Posey relying on labor union money is delicious.

    It should be interesting to see whether Democrat Suzanne Kosmas backs off after yesterday’s emphatic endorsement of Obama, or she continues to do the work of the unions.

  • Major Tom

    “There’s nobody left except the unions to pour money into the pockets of Congresscritters trying to save Constellation.”

    Actually, NASA’s largest union supports the FY 2011 budget:

    spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=33960

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 9:26 am

    In the words of the US Navy “this is the fourth carrier” (analogy Midway )

    there just is no support for the POR.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom wrote:

    Actually, NASA’s largest union supports the FY 2011 budget …

    Thanks for the link … Which makes me wonder who it it that’s staging the local protests down here in the Space Coast. If it’s not the IFPTE, then who is it? We know some of the local Republicans and Tea Partiers have been involved, but there were some union people too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 8:31 am


    With the abdication of leadership in the Whitehouse I think an extension of the shuttle program through 2012 is essential. Then a new GOP President can restructure Constellation.

    another Whittington…ie someone who is unable to view events past the prisms of their ideology…(BTW the Falcon made it to orbit…sorry couldnt resist).

    As I have noted here, the last three weeks have been the first that Obama has given hints of the things that make a one term President…but that is by no means assurred.

    Bush the last was throwing off the same signals and Kerry ran about the worst “insurgent” campaign I have seen.

    but it is impossible to know what 12 will look like now

    much less a GOP contenders space politics

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “If it’s not the IFPTE, then who is it?”

    I don’t know what their position is, but KSC does have at least one machinists’ union.

    FWIW…

  • amightywind

    “another Whittington…ie someone who is unable to view events past the prisms of their ideology…(BTW the Falcon made it to orbit…sorry couldnt resist).”

    I am not an ideologue. I am an advocate of freedom. Bush 2004 was a completely different situation from Obama 2010. Kerry lost due to the wind surfing video and because he ‘looked French’, a bad thing at the time. Bush also had a nice recovery and employment growth. Obama has neither of these because of a rapacious tax policy and explosive government spending. 2 years is a long time, but he has outsourced his thinking to a democrat controlled tax commission, so he is not likely to make rapid progress on employment.

    Yes, Falcon 9 purportedly made it to orbit. It looked pretty dicey at the end with the upper stage rapidly losing control. Next time maybe SpaceX will be a little more open about expected burn times.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 10:35 am

    I am not an ideologue. I am an advocate of freedom. Bush 2004 was a completely different situation from Obama 2010. Kerry lost due to the wind surfing video and because he ‘looked French’

    of course no one but the folks one disagrees with is an ideologue.

    you are an ideologue…the nuttiness over SpaceX reaching orbit shows that…you put your beliefs over facts.

    As for Kerry. Kerry lost by a very clever ploy by Mr. Bush. Bush asked a basic question, that Kerry should have had an answer for “knowing what you know now would you have voted to go into Iraq”.

    Kerry should have had a quick answer (either way) and yet he took three days to answer the question in a sort of baffling way. That killed him.

    Most Presidential elections “turn” on a single event…and while they can turn back at least for a while, they usually start charting a course. For McCain he lost the election during the TARP. Kerry that weekend…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    KBH political future hinges on a lot of things, not the least is the outcome of the Texas Gov election. For the first time in a long time there is a very viable Democratic candidate for Texas Gov…and if Bill White replaces Perry then a lot of things will change in Texas politics.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Brian Paine

    For some years to come the USA will have NO capability to put a manned space craft into low earth orbit. Worse still there is not even a vehicle design left on the horizon for even that mundane task. If this is anything but a management balls up at the highest level I will eat my hat. Constellation or not it matters little… your manned space program is in tatters.
    One point I have made before and has been ignored by all…your military space budget is BIGGER than NASA’s. This is not just absurd but in the “true context” of life on this planet and what humanity should be aspiring to it is an obscenity. ( One I grant you is repeated elsewhere.)
    Thank God that there is enterprise being shown by a number of new companies because there is clearly none demonstrated within the
    governance.
    First dies the spirit and then…

  • Gary Church

    “Eight former NASA astronauts signed the letter, along with CEOs of aerospace companies large and small, as well as pretty much every significant space advocacy group. Particularly notable is the signature of Frank DiBello, the CEO of Space Florida, which represents the space industry in Florida.”

    Plenty of former astronauts, they could only find eight to pay off. CEO’s; give me a break. Pretty much every “significant” space advocacy group? Let me guess what that means.

    This infomercial is getting more transparent as Sidemount looms.
    Go Sidemount!

  • Brian Paine wrote:

    For some years to come the USA will have NO capability to put a manned space craft into low earth orbit.

    Duh. President Bush proposed that in January 2004. Even at that early date, they knew it would be at least four years after Shuttle’s retirement that we’d have to rely on Soyuz for access to ISS. This is nothing new.

    Worse still there is not even a vehicle design left on the horizon for even that mundane task.

    Untrue. SpaceX has the Dragon, ULA is working with Orbital on a design, we can always go back to Soyuz and ESA is making noises about human-rating Ariane 5.

    One point I have made before and has been ignored by all…your military space budget is BIGGER than NASA’s. This is not just absurd but in the “true context” of life on this planet and what humanity should be aspiring to it is an obscenity. ( One I grant you is repeated elsewhere.)

    Why should the American taxpayers pick up the tab? I haven’t heard you say a word about your nation contributing its fair share.

    Space access is no longer a competition. We have a partnership. People who blather on about who’s #1 in space are living in the 1960s.

    Humanity will go to space as a species, not as a nation.

  • Space access is no longer a competition.

    Actually, we need to make it a competition. A competition between companies, not nations.

  • For some years to come the USA will have NO capability to put a manned space craft into low earth orbit.

    For two or three years to come. No reason it should be much more. Not necessarily much longer than from 2003-2005…

    Worse still there is not even a vehicle design left on the horizon for even that mundane task.

    Have you been living in a cave? Or are you wilfully ignorant? A structural test article of one was launched into orbit earlier this month, with the prototype to be launched in August.

  • Brian Paine

    I agree it is not a competition and I am all for a cooperative effort, and the US taxpayer should not have to pick up the whole tab…I stand by my other statements particularly that it is a management problem and that the US military space budget is bigger than NASA’s and THAT FACT should concern EVERYONE on this planet.
    It defines the insanity of us all.

  • the US military space budget is bigger than NASA’s and THAT FACT should concern EVERYONE on this planet.

    Why? The military has a much different role in space than NASA.

  • Rand Simberg wrote:

    Actually, we need to make it a competition. A competition between companies, not nations.

    Agree.

  • Gary Church

    “Why? The military has a much different role in space than NASA.”

    And…NASA has a much different role than the military. Your point?

  • Brian Paine

    Dear Rand, you ask why?
    I do not want to leave a world to my grandchildren even more dangerous than the one I was born into.
    20,000 nuclear weapon are NOT WRONG!

  • common sense

    @ Brian Paine wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    You’re mixing up stuff. Not that I disagree with you. BUT: NASA and the DoD were hinged at the hip back during the Cold War. NASA was created to demonstrate the might of the US and to surpass the then USSR. It did. Whatever is in the Space Act of 1958 NASA and the government have worked as if we were still at war, cold or otherwise. The Cold War is over and still the DoD and NASA have somewhat a strong connection. NASA’s mission has never been revisited to really agree with the Space Act since then. On the other hand the DoD has a huge budget. They, NASA and DoD, have two different purposes. Like it or not fear is a strong drive hence those huge military budgets. People understand the mission of the DoD, somehow. But people do not understand the mission of NASA. A lot of people on this forum do not either. For some it is about survival of the species, for others it is about national security, none of which is in the Space Act. So what do we do? A hard reboot. This WH is trying hard at doing this reboot but old habits die hard. Also, since NASA is using rockets that are under ITAR it will always be linked to national security and DoD and DoS until ITAR is reformed. Such is life. A lot of things need to happen until you see what you would like to see.

  • DCSCA

    “Actually, we need to make it a competition. A competition between companies, not nations.” Hmmm. Apparently you’ve missed out on corporate bidding for space contracting. A fairly competitive arena. But the last thing the world needs is private corporations managing the heavens when they can’t manage operations in the oceans. See BP for details.

  • Atkins

    Regardless of your views on politics or space priorities, there is no excuse for dismantling one program without developing a transition plan to a new program, and getting buy-in from the NASA center directors. No way to run a railroad – unless of course the goal is to eliminate NASA.

  • DCSCA

    For two or three years to come. No reason it should be much more. Not necessarily much longer than from 2003-2005… Hmmm. Space is a vaccum, but you must live in one as well. Plenty of reasons, not the least of which is the fiscal mess facing the U.S. Private corporations will never carry the load alone. NASA sank nearly a billion dollars into the X-33 and L/M choked when they had to carry the rest of the developmental load, problems developed and the project was cancelled.

  • DCSCA

    @Atkins wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    There’s a superb excuse– ending government funded/managed/operated/ manned spaceflight, cutting funding to and eventually dissolving the space agency.

  • I do not want to leave a world to my grandchildren even more dangerous than the one I was born into.

    Who does? What’s your point?

  • NASA sank nearly a billion dollars into the X-33 and L/M choked when they had to carry the rest of the developmental load

    Of course they did. It was a stupid concept, unlikely to ever lead to a profitable vehicle. Only NASA would fund such a monstrosity.

  • Gary Church

    I agree with Rand (amazing). I have seen many really bad ideas get pushed and millions and billions poured into them. Some of them become politically invincible- like the V-22. But the rocket formula is fairly set in stone- or in the laws of physics. Staging is what puts tons in orbit. Two is the minimum and three is better.

  • Gary Church

    Oh, I forgot, with two stages, the best combination is solids for the first stage and LOX/H2 for the second. I will not say “just like the shuttle” because the space plane concept was fundamentally flawed and a mistake. But the shuttle heavy lift hardware- the SRB’s,SSME’ and ET, are a Saturn V class launcher that has been continually improved over decades of use and the U.S. would be making the worst mistake by dismantling the program.
    Go Sidemount!

  • Brian Paine

    Dear Rand of course nobody does but we all do. The human condition dictates that and it’s true definition has not yet been adequately described or defined. (Opinion.)
    The spirit of adventure that has been an integral part of space exploration, particularly manned space exploration, I believe by it’s application offers great hope in our world. The loss of that adventure would be a disaster.
    At this point I would like to thank the US and it’s people for all of the endevours to date. The science has brought us all closer and the ride has enhanced my life for fifty years.
    (Perhaps in truth I should be contributing to your IRS out of gratitude alone!)
    The compliment is enhanced by the fact that so many people outside the US are interested in NASA and it’s future.

  • Alan

    Oh, I forgot, with two stages, the best combination is solids for the first stage and LOX/H2 for the second.

    (sigh) Nothing like building a launch vehicle that has no shutdown capability on the pad nor an engine out capability. Let’s not forget how environmentally friendly solids are . . . At least KeroLOX is cleaner.

    Go Sidemount!
    Better hug that ET real tight, it’s going to a museum. You’re 20 years too late with Shuttle-C.

  • The spirit of adventure that has been an integral part of space exploration, particularly manned space exploration, I believe by it’s application offers great hope in our world. The loss of that adventure would be a disaster.

    We aren’t losing that adventure. We are finally, after forty years, revitalizing it.

  • Gary Church

    “Better hug that ET real tight, it’s going to a museum. You’re 20 years too late with Shuttle-C.”

    Maybe you are right. But I am not taking the blame. You will have to.

  • DCSCA

    The spirit of adventure that has been an integral part of space exploration, particularly manned space exploration, I believe by it’s application offers great hope in our world. The loss of that adventure would be a disaster. “We aren’t losing that adventure. We are finally, after forty years, revitalizing it.”

    Space exploitation is not space exploration.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 3:49 pm It was a stupid concept, unlikely to ever lead to a profitable vehicle. Only NASA would fund such a monstrosity. Stupid? Apparently the other competitors l?M beat out were stupid as well… DCX and Rockwell. Stop embarrassing yourself.

  • DCSCA

    RE: X-33: McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell International were the two primary competitors for the X-33. All three teams [had] been involved in a competitive design and technology demonstration phase since the spring of 1995. Guess they were ‘stupid’ to compete for the contract. Good grief.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 8:55 pm

    RE: X-33: McDonnell-Douglas and Rockwell International were the two primary competitors for the X-33. All three teams [had] been involved in a competitive design and technology demonstration phase since the spring of 1995. Guess they were ’stupid’ to compete for the contract…

    not really, I am pretty sure Lockmart made money on it and learned a ffew things to do and mostly what not to do.

    the problem is of course the vehicle didnt have a chance of flying…

    making money on a NASA contract and flying are two different things

    Robert G. Oler

  • red

    Gary Church: “Plenty of former astronauts, they could only find eight to pay off.”

    Ok, why do you think they’re being paid off? What about the FY2011 opponent astronauts?

    A lot more than 8 astronauts support commercial crew and/or the overall FY2011 plan. For example:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574475091646686368.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    “Commercial Spaceflight: All Systems Go”

    “The following is by astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Ken Bowersox, Jake Garn, Robert Gibson, Hank Hartsfield, John Herrington, Byron Lichtenberg, John Lounge, Rick Searfoss, Norman Thagard, Kathryn Thornton, Jim Voss and Charles Walker: …”

    Also

    http://www.planetary.org/programs/projects/space_advocacy/supporters.html

    “WHo supports the bold proposal for NASA?”

    That list includes Sally Ride, Rusty Schweickart, Leroy Chiao, and others I’ve already mentioned.

    “CEO’s; give me a break.”

    Quite a few CEOs appear to be in favor of the plan. It’s not just the ones on this list. That’s notable.

    “Pretty much every “significant” space advocacy group? Let me guess what that means.”

    Actually the list in question doesn’t cover all of the significant space advocacy groups, but if you combine it with

    http://www.usra.edu/galleries/default-file/Joint_Statement_Space_Organizations.pdf

    “JOINT STATEMENT BY SPACE ORGANIZATIONS ON THE FY 2011 NASA BUDGET”

    you have a pretty comprehensive collection of space advocacy groups:

    AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE
    AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
    AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION
    AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS
    AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR GRAVITATIONAL AND SPACE BIOLOGY
    ASSOCIATED UNIVERSITIES, INC.
    ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITIES FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY
    COMMERCIAL SPACEFLIGHT FEDERATION
    MARYLAND SPACE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
    NATIONAL SPACE SOCIETY
    THE PLANETARY SOCIETY
    SPACE FRONTIER FOUNDATION
    UNIVERSITIES SPACE RESEARCH ASSOCIATION

    It would be interesting to see a comprehensive and up to date collection of what prominent space leaders, politicians, companies, space advocacy organizations, newspapers, unions, and others have publicly supported the FY2011 plan, and which ones support Constellation. It would be even better if their various positions could be tracked at a more nuanced level.

  • Bennett

    Darn it red, there you go with your facts again. Gary doesn’t like facts. In his own special place, “facts” = “lies”, or “advertisement” for something other than “side mount”.

    Titan, Atlas, and Falcon “clusters” will be flying long after I forget his silly comments. Or his “leaving” and then “returning” to this blog.

    Such an ephemeral drama queen. SDHLV is not going to happen. Ever.

  • DCSCA

    Letter from several former astronauts and NASA administrators:

    “We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future…

    “Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through. This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price.”

    This statement was signed by Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7 astronaut; Chris Kraft former director of Johnson Space Center; Jack Lousma, Skylab 3 astronaut; Vance Brand, Apollo-Soyuz astronaut; Bob Crippen, former director of Kennedy Space Center; Michael D. Griffin, former NASA administrator; Ed Gibson, Skylab 4 astronaut; Jim Kennedy, former director of KSC; Alan Bean, Apollo 12 astronaut; Alfred M. Worden, Apollo 15 astronaut; Scott Carpenter, Mercury astronaut; Glynn Lunney, Gemini-Apollo flight director; Jim McDivitt, Apollo 9 astronaut; Gene Kranz, former director of NASA mission operations; Joe Kerwin, Skylab 2 astronaut; Fred Haise, Apollo 13 astronaut; Gerald Carr, Skylab 4 astronaut; Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 astronaut; Jake Garn, STS-51D astronaut; Charlie Duke, Apollo 16 astronaut; Bruce McCandless, STS-31 astronaut; Frank Borman, Apollo 8 astronaut; Paul Weitz, STS-6 astronaut; George Mueller, former associate administrator for manned space flight; Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut; Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 astronaut; Dick Gordon, Apollo 12 astronaut.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 12:56 am

    this letter is typical. SAve our pork save our jobs but I cannot explain to you what those things are important to the rest of the nation that pays the bills.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Kelly Starks

    > Brian Paine wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    >==
    > I do not want to leave a world to my grandchildren
    > even more dangerous than the one I was born into.
    > 20,000 nuclear weapon are NOT WRONG!

    It will likely be a more dangerous world then now, but less then the peak of the cold war.

    However – nuclear weapons are not what the mil spends its big space budget no.

    On the good side – the Mil is more interested in developing practical space launch systems.

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 3:12 pm
    >
    >== NASA sank nearly a billion dollars into the X-33
    > and L/M choked when they had to carry the rest of the
    > developmental load,==

    Ah, no — you have it backwards. L/M offered to do the full program up to fielding a production shuttle replacement (rather then the X-33 tech demo system) out of their pocket if NASA – or someone – would sign up as customer. NASA refused, so L/M said they wouldn’t be interested in being involved in X-33 as a tech demonstrator – especially where they effectively would pay half the cost to teach their competitors how to build it. NASA countered by agreeing to pay the X-33 project dev costs in total.

  • Kelly Starks

    > Brian Paine wrote @ June 23rd, 2010 at 4:59 pm
    >
    > == The spirit of adventure that has been an integral part of
    > space exploration, particularly manned space exploration, I
    > believe by it’s application offers great hope in our world. The
    > loss of that adventure would be a disaster. ==

    Sadly – at this point theres serious fear we could be effectively seeing the end of US aerospace – much less space exploration – within the decade.

  • Apparently the other competitors l?M beat out were stupid as well… DCX and Rockwell.

    They had much more sensible plans, including business plans.

    Stop embarrassing yourself.

    Physician, heal thyself.

    Letter from several former astronauts and NASA administrators

    Who cares? They’re living in the past.

    theres serious fear we could be effectively seeing the end of US aerospace – much less space exploration – within the decade.

    That’s not a serious fear. It’s a silly one. Neither SpaceX or ULA are going away. Nor are XCOR, Armadillo, Blue Origin…

  • Gary Church

    Typical save our pork letter?
    But the eight astronauts supporting private space are true champions of space exploration in your view.

    Letter from several former astronauts and NASA administrators:

    “We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future…

    “Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through. This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price.”

    This statement was signed by Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7 astronaut; Chris Kraft former director of Johnson Space Center; Jack Lousma, Skylab 3 astronaut; Vance Brand, Apollo-Soyuz astronaut; Bob Crippen, former director of Kennedy Space Center; Michael D. Griffin, former NASA administrator; Ed Gibson, Skylab 4 astronaut; Jim Kennedy, former director of KSC; Alan Bean, Apollo 12 astronaut; Alfred M. Worden, Apollo 15 astronaut; Scott Carpenter, Mercury astronaut; Glynn Lunney, Gemini-Apollo flight director; Jim McDivitt, Apollo 9 astronaut; Gene Kranz, former director of NASA mission operations; Joe Kerwin, Skylab 2 astronaut; Fred Haise, Apollo 13 astronaut; Gerald Carr, Skylab 4 astronaut; Jim Lovell, Apollo 13 astronaut; Jake Garn, STS-51D astronaut; Charlie Duke, Apollo 16 astronaut; Bruce McCandless, STS-31 astronaut; Frank Borman, Apollo 8 astronaut; Paul Weitz, STS-6 astronaut; George Mueller, former associate administrator for manned space flight; Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut; Gene Cernan, Apollo 17 astronaut; Dick Gordon, Apollo 12 astronaut.

  • DCSCA

    Who cares? They’re living in the past.<- past is prologue. =sigh=

  • DCSCA

    Kelly Starks wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 11:10 am <- inaccurate. The video of news reports from the day of the announcement of the contract being awarded in mid 1996 states NASA woud put up to $1 billion into development w/ L/M to carry the rest of the load and operate/maintain the program for NASA.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “this letter is typical. SAve our pork save our jobs.” LOLOLOL Utter nonsense, but it would be amusing to see Kraft/Kranz/Lunney managing again– or Bean trading his paint brush in for another lunar dust brush. The signatories of that letter are mostly retired. Who’s up for another gig on it- Griffin, maybe. That’s all.

  • DCSCA

    Neither SpaceX or ULA are going away. Nor are XCOR, Armadillo, Blue Origin… <- and you drive a Tucker. Meanwhile, we wait, wait, wait for private rocketeers with amusement. SpaceX boosters take note… Earth to Conestoga 1…

    "The first launch of the new Conestoga I design took place on 9 Sep 1982, consisting of the core missile stage and a 500 kg dummy payload which included 40 gallons of water. The payload was successfully ejected at 313 km, and the Conestoga I became the first privately funded rocket to reach space." That was 28 years ago.

  • Gary Church

    “We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future…”

    Go Sidemount!

  • Kelly Starks

    >DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    > Kelly Starks wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 11:10 am The video of news reports from the day of the announcement
    > of the contract being awarded in mid 1996 states NASA woud put
    > up to $1 billion into development w/ L/M to carry the rest of the
    > load and operate/maintain the program for NASA.

    I was refering to earlier then that. Origionally it was a shared dev program with each puttling ni as much — I beleave NASA was noly to put in $300M.

    L/M aws pushing for most of the year to go past X-33 to a full shuttle usnig all inhouse, NASA responded with just X-33 – but they’ld pay another billion. Most of the industry took that as conclusive proof the customers had no interest in CATS, and NASA in perticular was VERY hostile to it (I was in the office of space access tech at NASA HQ around then, adn someong fieldibng a CATS was their nightmare scenario for obvious reasons.).

  • Kelly Starks

    > DCSCA wrote @ June 24th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
    >
    > Neither SpaceX or ULA are going away. Nor are XCOR,
    > Armadillo, Blue Origin… <- and you drive a Tucker.

    8)

    Love it!

    Guess that makes as much sence as NASA budgeting $100B to develop "Apollo on Steroids" space flight tech — a half century after they did it the first time.

  • DCSCA

    @Kelly- “Guess that makes as much sence as NASA budgeting $100B to develop “Apollo on Steroids” space flight tech — a half century after they did it the first time.” Bear in mind, an assult on the moon to establish a permanent presence there makes Apollo look like kite flying. Revisit the LRO image files on the NASA website and review the Apollo landing sites imaged over the past year. It’s puny stuff. You explored more of your backyard after a snowstorm as a kid. It’s going to take a redirection away from LOE architecture and reawakening the technologies skills and thinking put away– or lost- when Apollo was ended. Otherwise, don’t lose your keys to your Tucker. ;-)

  • Kelly Starks

    DCSCA wrote @ June 25th, 2010 at 11:47 pm

    >= Bear in mind, an assault on the moon to establish a permanent
    > presence there makes Apollo look like kite flying. ==

    But that’s not what Constellation and VSE was going to do.

    And lets face it – you could do that for a lot less then the quarter trillion they were talking about for VSE. Hell for that, you should be building the lunar base in 2001!!

    Defiantly you need to building stuff well beyond what we did in Apollo – or Constellation.

    > == Otherwise, don’t lose your keys to your Tucker. ;-)

    Can I trade it in on a new Studebaker?

    ;)

Leave a Reply to Stephen C. Smith Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>