>> “Studies for a shuttle derived heavy lift vehicle have been
>> around as long as the shuttle itself.”

> And the fact that no one has found these vehicles affordable
> enough to implement —

Ah that was never shown – nor was it ever relevant then or now.

> As a British citizen looking in on the shenanigans involved in
> trying to get this NASA bill through Congress I have to admit to
> suffering from a cocktail of befuddlement, disappointment and
> a growing sense of anger.

>===
> How can it be, that the President commissions a report from
> august space experts, accepts its recommendations, ===

He actually did..

>=== works with NASA management to publish a plan, which is
> then completely subverted in Congress to become its very opposite? ==

He proposed a plan/bill to them – they rejected it. Without their approval no proposal can be funded. They can – and often do – create their own autonomous budget bills. If more then 2/3rds approve it it goes into law without the Pres needing to support it. Less then that he has to sign it, or it doesn’t get approved as law.

>==
> Forgive my ignorance but does the President have the power
> to reject the bills put forward by Congress and tell them to have another go?

Yes but if 2/3rds of congress approves – they can override the Presidents veto.

One big question is why is the Senate and congress making such a big deal out of NASA? They have rolled over on career killing bills Obama was pushing. So why grow a spin no this?

– Does NASA really touch a nerve for folks?
– or is it some kind of stunt?

Likely the former – since they are getting bipartisan support for shooting down Obamas proposal. Though Obama was curiously politically clueless over the way he did this. No prepping the political ground.

>> if Griffin didn’t think SpaceX was a threat to Ares he would
>> have initiated COTS-D funding a long time ago.

> I didn’t say he didn’t see it as a threat, just as a lesser threat.
>And he was not allowed to kill COTS, whereas he was allowed to delay COTS-D.

Also COTS was seen as spare cash for Orion/Ares after it failed. It was far to little money to support anyone developing anything to meet it – but their plan was fueled up since SpaceX was building something like that anyway – so it didn’t mater if they could pay for the program with COTS.

> Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 28th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
>
> that is not going to matter all that much. Events are going to overwhelm that.

What events could possibly do that?

Have to throw the B.S. flag on this one. Methane has about the same ISP as RP-1. Hydrogen is the lightest molecule and has the highest velocity with oxygen and is the most powerful and practical fuel. There is no substitute for Hydrogen in upper stages but it is expensive. The turbopump for a hydrogen fuel engine has to be about 10 times a powerful as one for the denser fuels like RP and Methane. SpaceX suffers performance losses by using RP in the upper stage but they are going cheap and have to accept it.

Apparently, “abreakingwind” isn’t smart enough to be an idiot.

Yes, it does. You wrote:

“Note how anxious the capital markets are to fund SpaceX (crickets).”

And the fact remains that the capital markets havn’t been anxious to fund SpaceX at all. SpaceX has already received two rounds of private financing.

Don’t repeat stupid statements out of ignorance, especially related to what you wrote in your very own posts.

“SpaceX expects the government to capitalize development of a manned spacecraft.”

No, they don’t. SpaceX has proposed that the government pay part, specifically $300 million to accelerate launch abort development, of the total cost of developing a crew transport capability. The rest of the development is paid for by SpaceX.

Don’t make stupid statements out of ignorance.

“Hard to see the commercial in that.”

Even if SpaceX never launches another commercial payload — which isn’t going to happen since the majority of their manifest is commercial payloads — even an idiot would take an ISS crew transport capability that costs the U.S. taxpayer $300 million to develop over one that costs the U.S. taxpayer tens of billions of dollars to develop.

Think before you post.

“Oy Vey!

Lordy!”

Can’t come up with anything original?

Sigh…

Space X has had two rounds of private financing totalling tens of millions of dollars.

Oy Vey!

Have you no mind? This refutes nothing I said. SpaceX expects the government to capitalize development of a manned spacecraft. Hard to see the commercial in that.

Lordy!

Would the level of hypocrisy have risen to the challenge?