Comments on: More speak out about NASA authorization bill

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 01:12:53 +0000

Ah â€“ Commercial crew was dumped from both the senate and house bills, and Obama backed off and went with their leed.

Reread the Senate Bill.

By: Kelly Starks

Kelly Starks — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 23:05:00 +0000

> Coastal Ron wrote @ August 3rd, 2010 at 2:46 am

>== I look forward to a good healthy competition for a commercial crew contract,==

??
Ah – Commercial crew was dumped from both the senate and house bills, and Obama backed off and went with their leed.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 18:49:02 +0000

Development of a launch vehicle should not have be a priority or an added risk. Developing an ARDV is hard enough and there were many more players that were going to use existing launch vehicles, but the powers to be didn’t want to make Ares I look bad.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 06:46:04 +0000

Byeman wrote @ July 31st, 2010 at 4:44 pm

“NASA wants to compete commercial crew services and it is not going to give Spacex a leg up, when its selection for COTS was in a biased competition.”

I think you’ve alluded to this before. In what way was it biased towards SpaceX?

BTW, I look forward to a good healthy competition for a commercial crew contract, and it will be interesting to see if they decide to choose one each high & low-risk winner. If they did that, then Boeing and SpaceX would probably battle it out for low-risk, and SpaceDev and ??? would be high-risk. Just my $0.02

By: Martijn Meijering

Martijn Meijering — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:30:33 +0000

NASA wants to compete commercial crew services and it is not going to give Spacex a leg up, when its selection for COTS was in a biased competition.

Not even if that’s the only way they can fund commercial crew next year?

By: Byeman

Byeman — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 20:44:46 +0000

“The info youâ€™ve provided is secretive nonsense”
If you are looking for nonsense, go no further than your posts. I heard what I heard. Plain and simple, NASA is not going to enact COTS-D period, end of story. You can say what you want, but it isn’t going to change reality.

“I suspect that your â€œinside infoâ€ is wishful thinking on your part.”

Suspect all you want, but you will be still be wrong, along with your logic and reasoning.

NASA wants to compete commercial crew services and it is not going to give Spacex a leg up, when its selection for COTS was in a biased competition.

By: Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 16:36:32 +0000

The info you’ve provided is secretive nonsense that can only be true if we assume that the new policy administrators are insane. That is, it would be insane to accept a contract clause that lets them spend only 1/6th of the money allotted to them. The Lindenmoyer statement about being surprised by the new direction was after the shift, of course. I cannot find anything else.

Fact remains that the C3PO office has not “said this over and over.” It’s all “inside info” that you are asking me to believe despite that it goes against all logic and reason. I suspect that your “inside info” is wishful thinking on your part. We’ll see in around 6 months.

By: Byeman

Byeman — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 15:35:21 +0000

“All the articles I find is that, when asked about it, they say they donâ€™t have the money to do it’

All those articles are before the formulation of the new space policy and FY11 budget.

“Iâ€™m quite involved in space news.”

Iâ€™m quite involved in the space program. I have the insight and contacts and sometimes am a source. Take or leave it, but but not taking it means you will be wrong in any opinions formulated without the info

By: Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:55:22 +0000

NASA is not going to enact COTS-D, period. It will have a new competition. The C3PO office has said this over and over.

I’m not letting this go because frankly this is the first I’m hearing of this, and I’m quite involved in space news. If this was true then there would be a source for it. I cannot find anything where C3PO makes this claim. All the articles I find is that, when asked about it, they say they don’t have the money to do it.

By: Josh Cryer

Josh Cryer — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 14:51:29 +0000

What options exist that weren’t available 2 years ago? I spent two hours yesterday trying to find proof of your statement (and going out of my way to do this is nice of me, when if you had your source you could provide it). I cannot find any evidence that Valin Thorn has thrown COTS-D off the table, and I do not see any evidence that Bolden will not instruct the C3PO office to initiate it.

2 years ago NASA was of the operating mentality that Ares I was flying our crew. This was true as late as a year ago. They did not consider private space for crew launch because the funding wasn’t there to do it. Indeed, you can find quotes by Lindenmoyer claiming that he was surprised that commercial space was getting so much funding in Obama’s original proposal (Obama’s original proposal would’ve funded 2-3 American crewed rockets).

If it is not initiated then the Senate bill does not allow us to go forward with commercial crew in 2011 and it would be a very bad bill. Get rid of the “no contract” exception and let us start working on commercial crew! It cannot wait another year for no reason except bitterness about short term jobs.