Congress, NASA

Reaction to the House’s decision

While the announcement yesterday by Rep. Bart Gordon that the House will vote this week on the Senate’s version of a NASA authorization bill, rather than its own, would seem to clear the way for passage of the bill, advocates of the Senate version are not resting. Because the House will take up the bill under suspension of the rules, which requires a two-thirds majority for passage, the Space Access Society is asking people to contact their representatives again and request they vote for the Senate bill, while also warning there are more battles to come. “The Old Guard has suffered a setback, but it’s unlikely to fade away anytime soon.”

Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX), who this weekend published an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle supporting the compromise House version, told the paper now that it was more important to “end the uncertainty” facing NASA and its employees and contractors. Olson said he was “throwing his support” behind the Senate bill.

One person who hasn’t decided on the House bill is Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL). His spokesman tells Florida Today that neither the Senate nor the House bills do enough to close the post-Shuttle gap and that Posey was “still evaluating the details of both the proposals”. In the same article Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) expressed her support for the Senate bill, consistent with earlier comments from her.

73 comments to Reaction to the House’s decision

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    As far as I can tell, most people in the House regard the Senate bill as “better than nothing”.

    For Rep. Posey, I have to say that the time to close the post-shuttle gap passed a very long time ago. An alternative to Ares-I/Orion, any alternative, would have needed to be adopted around 2008 to have brought the gap down. As it is, four to five years is an optimistic figure, no matter which option you support.

  • amightywind

    This explains the odd haste with which the house is acting. The chances of the bill being implemented are nil. 1500 layoffs before the midterm election! The dems are sure making friends on the Space Coast. The gifts keep raining on the GOP.

  • Justin Kugler

    Those layoffs were inevitable at this point with the Shuttle program winding down, amightywind. That there isn’t an immediate transition for them to something new doesn’t reflect well on anyone in Congress. Members of both parties have a hand in this.

  • I wish I lived in Posey’s district so I could vote for one of his opponents in November.

  • amightywind

    Members of both parties have a hand in this.

    These layoffs are primarily due to the rejection of Obamaspace by a flat footed democrat majority in congress. They will very naturally bare the brunt of the blame. Under a McCain administration the workforce would have been transitioning to Ares.

  • Justin Kugler

    Under a McCain Administration, NASA would more likely be facing the budget ax because he doesn’t suffer poor discretionary spending. Nor would McCain winning the election somehow have magically accelerated the Ares program beyond where it is now.

    We’re in the position we are now because of decades of neglect on space policy by both parties, both houses of Congress, and the White House. Like most partisans, you are picking and choosing the data to suit your agenda, sir.

  • amightywind

    Like most partisans, you are picking and choosing the data to suit your agenda, sir.

    I am highlighting the track record of the democrat super majority on this issue, just like the GOP will in Florida congressional elections of 2010 and presidential election 2012.

  • Justin Kugler

    Your claims are arguably false, sir. The Shuttle layoffs are the result of a program that is winding down, in accordance with policy approved over six years ago.

    There are no Ares jobs to transition them to because of the delayed development schedule and it is not at all likely that the situation would have been different if the election had gone the other way.

  • MrEarl

    The Senate bill is the right compromise at the right time. It really opens all the options available to us, commercial and public, medium lift and SD-LV, while destinations and means are are debated in these lean budget times.
    The important thing now is to get language in the continuing resolution that will fund STS135 and start NASA, contractors and commercial interests in the direction set out in the Senate bill.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 9:12 am

    ” Under a McCain administration the workforce would have been transitioning to Ares.”

    at “best” you dont know that you are just speculating and at worst you are full of crap.

    There is no indication that McCain would have continued with the Ares program in specific and Cx in general…in fact there are a lot of indications that he would not have done so. Speculation from someone who was semi involved with the McCain campaign aside (thats me) the reality is that McCain would have faced the same (or worse) budgetary pressures, the same under performing NASA and the same “sand charts” out to near infinity in terms of the cost.

    One of the hallmarks (which sadly he did not talk about in my view enough) of the McNasty campaign was a complete top to bottom reorg of the federal government, and that would have included NASA.

    you are just trolling, sorry I bit but when you post something goofy it needs to be challenged as “challenged”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • mr. mark

    And as we argue, we are now 1 month away from the lift off of the first fully functional Dragon cargo capsule (Spacex). The House is throwing it’s vote behind the Senate version which supports Commercial to LEO. And most likely 2011 will be the start of the commercial space age. KEEP ARGUIING!

  • amightywind

    Speculation from someone who was semi involved with the McCain campaign aside (thats me) the reality is that McCain would have faced the same (or worse) budgetary pressures

    It is not surprising that you were involved with the McCain campaign since you seem to be confused politically. (How does it feel that McCain invented Sarah Palin, Bristol, etc?) Under McCain we can be certain there would be no stimulus, no general expansion of spending, no take over of GM, and no nationalized healthcare. That is about $4 trillion right there. We would *not* be in the same financial situation we are now. Indeed, if McCain didn’t submit to his RINO tendencies, we would be in a strong recovery now. It is your assertion that is goofy. McCain certainly would have reorganized NASA and the rest of the government. But he would have been under pressure to keep Constellation. Would it have stayed? Who knows?

    You fascists howl “troll!” for anything you don’t like to hear.

  • Bennett

    For whatever reason, the next Falcon 9 launch has been rescheduled for November 8th or 9th. This doesn’t invalidate the rest of your comment however…

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 11:17 am

    McCain certainly would have reorganized NASA and the rest of the government. But he would have been under pressure to keep Constellation.

    What pressure, and from whom? Where were those people when the Administration and Congress dropped Constellation liked a hot potato? There was no outcry from anywhere but the blogosphere.

  • Robert G. Oler

    mightywind wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 11:17 am

    It is not surprising that you were involved with the McCain campaign since you seem to be confused politically. (How does it feel that McCain invented Sarah Palin, Bristol, etc?) Under McCain we can be certain there would be no stimulus, no general expansion of spending, no take over of GM, and no nationalized healthcare. That is about $4 trillion right there. We would *not* be in the same financial situation we are now. Indeed, if McCain didn’t submit to his RINO tendencies, we would be in a strong recovery now….

    not so much .

    It is not all that hard to find out unlike you I post under my “real” name.

    During the campaign I advocated in a wide variety of forums, including the McCain blog that although not perfect a “good choice” for VP was Palin and I did this as early as just after the South Carolina primary. I actually had four choices but she was number 3 on my list and from everything that I had read about her and watched on video Palin seemed like a “novice but an acceptable choice to please the right wing base and present a fresh appearance to the nation longing for a new path.”.

    Palin has been a disappointment. She has been almost like the folks who live in the trailer park who win the lottery and then never figure out that they are in a new game with new opportunities and seek professional help to hang on to what they got…and soon they are back just about where they started. Palin’s ego and the roar of the crowd, a crowd which is like you not very discriminating but puts sound bites over reality, has driven her into a sort of “dancing with the stars” moment in politics. IE outside of the TV it is not very solid.

    According to friends inside the campaign (Whittington has met one of them) Palin proved by week two after the convention impossible to handle. She wouldnt read briefing papers, she would always collapse an issue to a sound bite she liked (and figured her adoring fans would…and in this she was correct) with no notion of if it was correct or not…and in the process cost McCain the middle…they left him in droves.

    As for where we would be in a McCain administration. You have no idea (nor do I) what McCain would have done, particularly after the fiasco (which was equally disappointing to me) of the TARP. After some goofy theatrics going along with the TARP with no significant changes indicated to the American people that he was just another politician. I realize Obama voted for it as well, but the dynamics with the McCain campaign were different then with Obama….Bush was/is hated and Obama was by definition not Bush. McCain looked more and more like Bush every day…with a “nut” for a sidekick. That McCain went along with the TARP, yet another Goofy Bush “have to do it now without thinking about it” plan…shows he was vulnerable to all the bailouts that have been going on now. (Oddly you argue for a bailout of Cx).

    It has been hard for politicians/economics people to get a grasp on the declining economy; in part because they are all fixated by the notion of a 1930’s depression; sort of like generals/admirals lining up to fight the last war…All sort of expecting yet another “Jutland” and instead this is the battle of Midway.

    The McCain of 00 would have probably done OK as POTUS, but the McCain of 08 had been beaten down by the right wing nuts of the GOP to the point where he could never figure out that although loud, they are not the sum and total of America or American politics.

    You dont know what the world would be like if McCain had been elected; I hope it would be better; I supported and raised money for him…but in the end the reality is that it is unlikely. A Presidential campaign is the only thing that is remarkably close to running the Presidency…and at best McCain’s was choatic.

    But for you to say that the folks who are losing their jobs because of the issues of the transition in space policy would not be under McCain is about as goofy as Whittington claiming that the WMD went to syria…its just trolling.

    and thats about it for me..

    Robert G. Oler

  • byeman

    “These layoffs are primarily due to the rejection of Obamaspace by a flat footed democrat majority in congress.’

    More disinformation from a troll. That is nowhere near the truth. The only way these layoffs could have been avoided is to continue the shuttle program which the republicans ended.
    Ares I nor Orion would not have saved these jobs.

  • /scI/owan

    The current situation NASA is in is the result of decades of underfunding and poor decisions regarding NASA, not something as simple and short sighted as who won an election.

    The shuttle’s retirement has been set in stone since 2004, and politicians in both parties dragged their feet when it came to supporting Constellation. Ares I is no closer to being finished now than it was five years ago and both sides are to blame.

  • The Poser published a somewhat bizarre letter in Florida Today:

    *****

    Sunday’s letter, “Posey votes against bills that help district,” lied about my legislative priorities. My top priority is to stop the dismantling of America’s human space exploration program.

    No one has fought harder for the past 20 years to promote commercial flight. However, NASA must lead human exploration. I filed legislation, co-
    sponsored by a Democrat, to make the gap between the shuttle and Constellation programs seamless.

    I work every day to stop the dismantling of the greatest space program in the world — America’s.

    Another top priority is to make government more transparent and accountable. I filed legislation to require that bills and amendments are available to read 72 hours before they are voted on. I filed legislation to require amendments relate to the underlying bill they are attached to.

    I try to stop Congress from spending money it does not have. The presidential eligibility bill is a good-faith effort to stop divisive controversies that have arisen seven times in American history. The only time spent on that is when critics bring up the issue.

    Yes, I do vote no on issues. There are times when the answer must be no, like when a drunk asks for car keys — or when Congress is acting recklessly.

    U.S. Rep. Bill Posey
    R-Rockledge

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    strange

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    After having surfed the blogs of some of the most viral and out of touch opponents of commercial space…I must say it is fun watching them lose.

    gee

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    After having surfed the blogs of some of the most viral and out of touch opponents of commercial space…I must say it is fun watching them lose.

    Let’s be honest. Commercial space is no further along then it was before the Obamaspace fiasco. The ISS resupply contacts are intact. Orbital’s Taurus 2 has been lost in the discussion. An unmanned F9/Dragon prototype wheezes on the pad, many months behind schedule and facing an uncertain future from a hostile GOP congress. That’s a far cry from Musk’s gambit to take over manned spaceflight. That vision has been wholly refutiated.

  • Justin Kugler

    That “vision” is a fabrication by the people trying to scapegoat SpaceX in their opposition to the current administration.

  • amightywind

    That “vision” is a fabrication by the people trying to scapegoat SpaceX in their opposition to the current administration.

    SpaceX made the mistake of picking sides, something the other COTS competitors did not do. Musk’s brazen behavior is a matter of public record. It is good if you pick the winning side, not so good if you don’t.

  • mr. mark

    amightywind how do you figure Spacex is behind their current schedule. Spacex’s current proposal was for 2 Falcon 9 launches this year and that is going off as planned. You are trying to hold them to projections made by them when the company was first formed in 2003. That called for Falcon 9 by 2007. Of course companies have to change plans based on current realities such as unforseen development issues and funding. When funding levels from whatever sources are not available production lags. So a lack of funding resulted in a delay of 3 years but, is now starting to result in a successful cargo program. Once again Spacex has not stated nothing officialy about a manned program. Only their CEO Elon Musk has stated his desire to develop a HSP. That is NOT official Spacex policy. Spacex’s current goal is to complete cargo operations under the COTS program and well as launching commercial based satelittes.

  • Ferris Valyn

    also worth noting – OSC endorsed Obama’s proposal as well.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Let’s be honest.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if people did? But with $20B at stake that seems improbable. So far the dishonesty is mainly on the SDLV side, by a wide margin. We’ll see what happens when new players enter the game. If there is true competition, then that will keep them honest and expose the travesty of a “backup” vehicle that is shielded from competition. We’ll see.

  • mr. mark

    By the way it’s not a Dragon prototype it’s a full up Dragon Cargo capsule. The servce module will not be flying this time as the Dragon capsule is only performing 1 to 3 orbits and will not require additional power. I really like how Spacex opponents are using off color words to try to slant the arguement in their favor words such as “prototype” and “dubious business model”. Dragon is not a prototype as prototypes are not full up versions. Also Spacex has been in profit for a least 4 years and with it’s current launch manifest of commercial launches such as the Orbcomm and the $492 million dollar Iridium deal (largest deal in space flight history) are in good shape until at least 2015.

  • byeman

    “The ISS resupply contacts are intact…………. An unmanned F9/Dragon prototype wheezes on the pad, many months behind schedule and facing an uncertain future from a hostile GOP congress.

    The troll Windy again discredits himself. Both sentences are mutually exclusive.

    Just face it, you are consistently wrong in your posts

  • Musk’s gambit to take over manned spaceflight.

    This is lunacy.

  • byeman

    The main point, the bills before congress are closer to Obamaspace than the POR. Commercial space and EELV’s win over Ares I. SDLV exists now.

  • MrEarl

    Mark…
    FYI, Spacex is not profitable yet. The best that anyone has said is that SpaceX has taken in more than it has spent which is not the same thing as being profitable.
    Right now, financially speaking, those contracts are liabilities and do not become income until SpaceX has preformed it’s duties.
    So far SpaceX has not even shown it can deliver payloads to orbit at the agreed upon price and still turn a profit. \
    So, while I wish them the best, their financial stability is yet to be decided.

  • @ mr. mark wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Don’t waste your time trying to talk ‘facts’ to ol’ Windy, ideologues tend to have their own.

  • FYI, Spacex is not profitable yet. The best that anyone has said is that SpaceX has taken in more than it has spent which is not the same thing as being profitable.

    Do you have access to their books, to prove that they’re lying when they claim to have been profitable for years according to GAAP? Or do you make up your own definitions of profit?

  • MrEarl

    Rand:
    Do YOU have access to their books to verify that they are profitable or do you just believe everything you are told.
    Who said that according to GAAP that SpaceX is profitable?

  • amightywind

    If you want to jump for joy at the Senate bill, have at it. I can only marvel at the delicious and unnecessary political damage Obama and the dems have caused on the Space Coast and how the GOP will soon exploit it.

  • Justin Kugler

    amightywind, what does that say about you and those you support politically that you would exploit the suffering of others for ill-gotten political gain? That is precisely the kind of self-serving politics that helped get us in this mess to begin with.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    FYI, Spacex is not profitable yet. The best that anyone has said is that SpaceX has taken in more than it has spent which is not the same thing as being profitable.

    Actually a quick search of the phrase “spacex profitable” would provide you with many quotes from both Musk and at least one of his investors stating that SpaceX has been profitable for a number of years.

    Right now, financially speaking, those contracts are liabilities and do not become income until SpaceX has preformed it’s duties.

    For some of their revenue that may be true, but they have many contracts, and many payments that can be booked as revenue. Just on the COTS program, they have received $244M, and they also receive reservation deposits that can be booked as revenue. You need to do more analysis before you state making conclusions…

    So far SpaceX has not even shown it can deliver payloads to orbit at the agreed upon price and still turn a profit.

    What makes you think that they haven’t?

    And really, who are you, the pricing police? Who says they have to make a profit on launches? Why can’t they designate their launchers as loss leaders, and make their profit on value-added services?

    Coming from a manufacturing management background, I think their Falcon 9 pricing looks like they can turn a profit with enough volume, and their backlog seems to give them that volume. I do think the $95M for Falcon 9 Heavy is an introductory price, and that they probably break even on it, but sometimes you have to do stuff like that to gain marketshare – welcome to the business world.

    The thing is, you and others that complain about lack of transparency better get used to disappointment, because private companies don’t need to disclose any financial information to the public, and don’t need to justify their pricing to anyone, including their detractors.

  • byeman

    “I can only marvel at the delicious and unnecessary political damage Obama and the dems have caused on the Space Coast

    Wrong again. The damage was caused by Bush. CxP would not have stopped the layoffs.

  • Radioactive Man

    If the DEMs cause this suffering, then the GOP exploiting it makes them no better. DEMs,GOPs, and people who say they belong solely to one group are sheep and nothing more.

    Both CCDEV and SLS\Orion will move forward. People need to stop acting like one group one and the other has lost. Why can’t both win?

  • MrEarl

    Costal Ron:
    “Who says they have to make a profit on launches? Why can’t they designate their launchers as loss leaders, and make their profit on value-added services?”
    Hahahahaha!
    We lose money on every rocket but make it up on volume!
    They aren’t selling Thanksgiving turkeys or $99 LCD tv’s on Black Friday.
    You are the one who needs to understand the difference between revenue and profit.
    Right now SpaceX has a positive revenue flow. What that means is that money coming in from deposits and other sources is more than what is going out in expenses. But SpaceX is still in the development stage and no one, including the principles at SpaceX, really know what the operational expenses will be.
    Wow Ron, you seem a little over sensitive about this. Hey, I’m not the price polizi, SpaceX can charge a penny a pound to launch objects into space as far as I’m concerned but if they’re not making a profit they won’t be doing it for too long.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Many reasons. Let’s look at fairness. One is a system that is shielded from competition and the other is a group of companies that have to compete, have a much smaller budget and are held to higher standards. SLS/Orion is fundamentally corrupt. That’s not to say that Orion by itself would be a disaster, or that either one will ever become operational.

  • common sense

    @ Radioactive Man wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 4:04 pm

    “Both CCDEV and SLS\Orion will move forward. People need to stop acting like one group one and the other has lost. Why can’t both win?”

    Answer: Politics.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    Do YOU have access to their books to verify that they are profitable or do you just believe everything you are told.

    That’s a pretty flimsy line of reasoning. It’s like me saying “do YOU have any PROOF that you’re not a complete idiot, because we can’t rely on your word.”

    You’re no more likely to give us proof than SpaceX is to give you their audited financial statements.

    Btw, have you audited the books of ATK, USA, ULA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, OSC, and every other NASA contractor?

    Oh, and NASA does have a view into their financials, since they required SpaceX to do three rounds of financing, which Orbital Sciences did not have to do (they are a much bigger company). SpaceX completed the financing, and received a total of $30M of REVENUE from the NASA.

    Rocketplane Kistler had a similar financing requirement, which they were not able to meet it, and that was why they were kicked off the COTS contract. The COTS program safeguards worked, and the two current contractors are financially stable enough to continue. NASA is not worried about SpaceX, so why are you?

  • Scott Bass

    Gotta agree with radio active man, we are all Americans and should be thankful congress worked together enough to retain at least the heavy lift part of constellation. I am back to being optimistic about NASA and the future.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Heavy lift was one of worst parts of Constellation. We don’t need heavy lift, we need cheap lift. And we could have it, both for NASA and for commercial manned spaceflight, if NASA got out of the launch business and used competitively procured launch services to do exploration. Until we have cheap lift, the future of both exploration and commercial manned spaceflight looks bleak. And as long as we have an SLS program, the prospects for cheap lift are dim, at least for the foreseeable future.

  • MrEarl

    Why are you so sensitive about this Ron?
    First, I can show that I’m not a complete idiot by showing you my SAT scores, my college diploma and my Novel and Microsoft certs. It’s up to SpaceX, as long as they are a privately held company, to decide if they want to release financial information. Until they do there is reasonable room for doubt. As far as ATK, Boeing, ect… they are publicly traded companies and have to file financials with SEC at least once a year.
    Neither you or I know how deeply NASA has delved into SpaceX financials. COTs only required that the companys raise a certain amount of private capital to augment the NASA funding. SpaceX was able to do this where Kisler was not because of the much deeper pockets of Elon Musk.
    Like I said in my first post, I wish them the best but it still remains to be seen whether they will be profitable.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Performance bonds are a good instrument to deal with this uncertainty.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    We lose money on every rocket but make it up on volume!

    Too bad your reading comprehension is not that good.

    I said that they could price one service as a loss leader, and make their profits on other added-value services. But I also said that I think they are making money with Falcon 9, so I don’t see that they need to do that. I also think they will make good profit on the CRS program.

    But SpaceX is still in the development stage and no one, including the principles at SpaceX, really know what the operational expenses will be.

    I think they have a pretty good idea, since they copied the Soyuz launcher/erector concept for it’s ease of use, and they already have one operational launcher (Falcon 1), and another getting ready for it’s second flight (Falcon 9). Not to mention all the aerospace vets they have hired, who bring their knowledge and abilities to bear on not only technical issues, but cost issues too.

    What insight do you have that leads you to think they don’t “really know”?

    And really, what’s the big deal? Do you have money riding on this?

  • MrEarl

    “We don’t need heavy lift, we need cheap lift. ”
    We need both. With all else being equal, quality, schedule, ect… cheaper is always better. But it’s not always the case the everything else is equal.
    I can move my household across country with a caravan of Segways but that’s certainly not the best way to do it. The vast majority of research done into space exploration has called for an HLV of at least 70mT to LEO or better. That is over twice the maximum capacity of anything that US has available right now. We also have the parts, design and expertise available right now to construct a SD-HLV with a 70 to 120 mT to LEO capacity and the ability to evolve to 200mT.
    Buy starting development of this SD-LV in the FY’11 budget we open up far more options for exploration beyond Earth orbit than by not having that capability.

  • MrEarl

    Ok, Ron. I’m going to let you calm down and we’ll talk about this more when you’re not so upset.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    Like I said in my first post, I wish them the best but it still remains to be seen whether they will be profitable.

    And I guess it remains to be seen that you are not a complete idiot, since you are not providing documentation to prove otherwise.

    But you can see how silly these types of statements are, since it doesn’t matter to me if you are or are not an idiot (I don’t believe you are), and it doesn’t affect you whether or not SpaceX is making a profit on any or all of their services.

    The SpaceX CEO says they have been profitable for a couple of years, as has one of their investors. You can believe them or not, but you are not their customer or an investor, so your statements amount to nothing more than idle speculation.

    But one thing stands out – their pricing is far below the current market price points, and far below the point they would need to capture marketshare. From what I can see from the outside, it’s because of their capital efficient startup approach, and their use of proven technologies (less R&D, shorter schedules, less risk). Based on my observations, and in comparing them to their competitors, I don’t see a financial risk to their pricing. FWIW

    You obviously disagree, and it would be interesting to hear if you are speculating uninformed, or you have informed speculation.

  • Martijn Meijering

    We need both.

    I think that is overstating the case considerably. I can see how we might eventually want HLV for reasons of economy (as opposed to mere excitement), but that time is very far off. Also, I believe it is far more likely that cheap lift will lead to commercial development of space and then heavy lift than the other way round.

    The vast majority of research done into space exploration has called for an HLV of at least 70mT to LEO or better.

    That would be 70mt or more, not better. ;-)

    Yes, most studies say this and I explain that by a conflict of interests. Most studies are funded by NASA and NASA has a standing army that wants an HLV. Kirk Sorensen recently talked about a meeting he attended at the time of the DPT and where upper management clearly told him that Shuttle-C was the only acceptable propulsion option. Mere technical or economic arguments were not allowed to interfere with that predetermined conclusion.

    Also, there have been studies that describe architectures that could do without heavy lift. And in fact it is quite easy, trivial even, to see HLV is not needed for the foreseeable future. If you can refuel in orbit, then you don’t need HLV. That’s not to say HLV based architectures don’t have strong points as well, all viable architectures do. It merely says that HLV won’t be important for a very long time. Cheap lift on the other hand is very important and we can’t have both cheap lift and heavy lift soon. We really have to make a choice.

    For spacecraft the picture is quite different. Maximum use of commercial spacecraft would still be desirable, but not nearly as crucial as cheap lift. If there have to be special privileges for existing contractors and the MSFC workforce, then let them work on spacecraft. Sadly that doesn’t appear to be an option. And the spacecraft they do decide to develop competes with commercial spacecraft, when they could have developed a lander or an orbital transfer craft like Aldrin’s XM instead.

  • Griffin just flamed out in an email on Gordon’s acceptance of Senate compromise:

    “If we cannot do better than that, then I believe we have reached the point where it is better to allow the damage which has been brought about by the administration’s actions to play out to its conclusion than to accept half-measures in an attempt at remediation.”

    Good riddance Mr. Griffin!
    The Administration and Congress are undoing your damage!

  • DCSCA

    The sad reality is, given the status of our politics at this point in the election cycle, nothing of any true consequence will be ‘voted’ on by this Congress before the midterm election. Valid space policy will have to be left to the next Congress.

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 4:57 pm <- There's really nothing special about SpaceX hauling cargo. Russian Progress vehicles have been doing that for three decades. The key barrier remains a successful manned spaceflight for commerical space companies. As long as the profit calculus of the 'free market' rocketeers tally the cost of failure outweighs the value of success, they'll never fly crews. Commercial space is no closer to lofting manned spacecraft in practical terms today than they were two decades ago. sure, they can try to build them, but they've yet to risk flying them crewed. Until some private firm accepts percentages of the risk, as NASA did launching Shepard in 1961, governments will continue to lead the way in flying humans into space. But then, lofting Shepard was valued for its political profit, not for financial profit.

  • Do YOU have access to their books to verify that they are profitable

    Of course not.

    or do you just believe everything you are told.

    Are those the only two possibilities? You might want to invest in a course in logic.

    Who said that according to GAAP that SpaceX is profitable?

    Elon and his accountants. You seem to be accusing them of lying. Back it up.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    The vast majority of research done into space exploration has called for an HLV of at least 70mT to LEO or better.

    If the research proponents want a bigger launcher, then of course their research is going to show that bigger launchers are needed. Q.E.D.

    But they also ignore that we have already built a 400 ton space station using current launchers, and there is nothing holding us back from expanding it bigger, or creating any additional modularized structures in space, be it stations or exploration vehicles.

    HLV is a jobs program – it has not been proven to be needed. And there won’t be enough budget for HLV payloads until after the HLV is built, which means it will be sitting around for a couple of years with nothing to do – your tax dollars at work.

  • DCSCA

    mr. mark wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
    “… Spacex has not stated nothing officialy about a manned program. Only their CEO Elon Musk has stated his desire to develop a HSP. That is NOT official Spacex policy.” <- Inaccurate. Of course the first question Congress would ask a firm vying for government subsidies is WHY are you BUILDING manned spacecraft, currently 'hanger queens,' if you have no intention to fly them. Waste of financial capital and smacks of poor managment and planning, if not outright fraud. Of course, that's not the case. SpaceX's 'mission statements' as well as their CEO, Elon Musk, repeatedly have voiced human spaceflight as a keystone to their existence. To make 'excuses' and suggest otherwise is to slight everyone at SpaceX and those who support the eventual success of commerical human spaceflight. The reality of it is they simply can't do it now in this time frame and have calculated that the cost of failure out weighs the value of success.

  • Martijn Meijering

    @MrEarl:

    You wrote

    The vast majority of research done into space exploration has called for an HLV of at least 70mT to LEO or better.

    and I replied

    Yes, most studies say this and I explain that by a conflict of interests.

    Warren Buffett put it better:

    Never ask a hairdresser if you need a haircut

  • mr. mark

    DCSCA -Wrong again. Nowhere in Spacex’s policy does it say anything about human spaceflight. In their mission statement it states that Spacex hopes to be an asset in future space exploration. It says nothing about human spaceflight and never has. Once again you are making up the facts as you go to suit your aims, whatever they may be. Elon Musk has said it is his desire to move into human spaceflight. That’s far different than company policy. There currently are no OFFICIAL plans for human Dragon transport only cargo and satellite launches at this time. Nowhere on their launch manifest is there a mention of human launches and their are no timelines for human dragon transport. Once again the talk of a CEO is far different than actual company policy.

  • mr. mark

    Here is the current projected launch manifest for Spacex. Nowhere does it project manned spaceflight as official company policy.

    Customer

    Target Date*

    Vehicle

    Launch Site

    NASA COTS – Demo 1

    2010

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA COTS – Demo 2

    2011

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA COTS – Demo 3

    2011

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    Falcon 1e Inaugural Test Flight

    2011

    Falcon 1e

    Kwajalein

    ORBCOMM – Multiple flights

    2011-2014

    Falcon 1e

    Kwajalein

    MDA Corp. (Canada)

    2011

    Falcon 9

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flight 1

    2011

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 2

    2011

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    DragonLab Mission 1

    2012

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 3

    2012

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 4

    2012

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    CONAE (Argentina)

    2012

    Falcon 9

    Vandenberg**

    Spacecom (Israel)

    2012

    Falcon 9

    Cape Canaveral**

    DragonLab Mission 2

    2013

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 5

    2013

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 6

    2013

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 7

    2013

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    CONAE (Argentina)

    2013

    Falcon 9

    Vandenberg**

    NSPO (Taiwan)

    2013

    Falcon 1e

    Kwajalein

    Space Systems/Loral

    2014

    Falcon 9

    Cape Canaveral**

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 8

    2014

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 9

    2014

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 10

    2014

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    Astrium (Europe)

    2014

    Falcon 1e

    Kwajalein

    Bigelow Aerospace

    2014

    Falcon 9

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 11

    2015

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    NASA Resupply to ISS – Flt 12

    2015

    F9/Dragon

    Cape Canaveral

    Iridium

    2015-2017

    Falcon 9

    Vandenberg

  • mr. mark

    You see a CEO’s corporate desire is far different than official policy. Spacex’s ability to eventually launch astronauts to orbit will depend on a number of outside factors including financing and development. None of which has taken place. Cargo has/ Manned has not. Now that may change tomorrow if the Senate bill passes. But as of now there are no official plans that have been publicly released along with a development timeline ect.

  • Coastal Ron

    mr. mark wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 8:18 pm

    DCSCA doesn’t care – he’s a troll that just doesn’t like SpaceX. Facts don’t matter to him…

  • Bennett

    None of which has taken place.

    Do you really believe that? :-)

    With Ken Bowersox in house: “Mr. Bowersox, a former NASA astronaut, will lead SpaceX’s Astronaut Safety Office, working closely with SpaceX’s Mission Assurance team.”

    Hmmmmm… For some reason, I don’t think he’s just standing around, or taking 3 martini lunches.

  • mr. mark

    Bennett – If we believe it or not is unimportant. The Spacex astronaut safety office has to do with processing Spacex Dragon cargo by ISS astronauts not at this time Spacex astronauts which have never been selected as there is no official Spacex human rated spacecraft or program. There are also no mockups of a human Dragon spacecraft as well. There also is no timeline proposed for Human Dragon spacecraft development and there is definitely no human rated dragon hardware in the chain. Which adds up to a big fat zero. The only real technology is for a very real cargo Dragon spacecraft which is sitting at the cape undergoing processing for a early November launch right now. That’s the difference between vision and policy. A vision is a dream of a CEO or corporation. A policy is something you are implementing. It’s clear Spacex is implementing a cargo and satelitte launch policy and they are achieving those goals. It is yet to be seen what will become of Elon Musk’s vision. With the right funding sure, Spacex could launch a manned program but, that funding is not there yet.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Yeah I agree with you on that Bennett. Ken would’nt be doing zilch. He’s busy doing everything possible short of building the Crew Dragon, to get SpaceX to the best position possible when a crew program of sorts is up for grabs.

  • Bennett

    mr. mark wrote @ September 28th, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    Oh, I’m with you on that, but I also think Beancounter from Downunder has it sussed.

  • Googaw

    most likely 2011 will be the start of the commercial space age.

    And here I thought it started in the 1960s.

    Silly me. I forgot that if there’s no astronaut involved, it doesn’t exist.

  • Dennis Berube

    Yes, how long has Russia now been taking paying customers to the ISS? They truly started commercial didnt they? At first NASA wanted nothing to do with it, but now have gone along with the idea. Russia rakes in the cash while we watch……

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Dennis Berube,

    They took paying customers to Mir too. I seem to remember about them flying a Japanese journalist up to the station in the early-90s. However, Dennis Tito was in the mid- to late-90s.

  • Dennis Berube

    Im just saying Russia has paved the way into space many time throughout history. Until now I didnt realize they also paved the way for commercial. Now they want to put a commercial space station up by 2016. Will they beat Bigelow and Musk?

  • RaumAdvokat

    Jeff, when are you going to ban “amightywind?” Free speech is one thing, but this guy brings nothing to the party but error, falsehood, negativity, and conservative talking points. I suppose some enjoy watching trolls embarass themselves, but many more don’t. The guy just takes up space that could be better used by others. Please do something about this. Unless you do, I fear you will lose the informed comments here.

  • Patrick Beatty

    Just gave my rep a call. Can’t hurt.

  • mr. mark

    Even though amightwind and I rarely agree on anything, I believe he has a right to express his opinion. That’s what this website is for, free and open speech. Now if someone threatens someone or goes beyond the rules of this site that is a different thing. Everyone should have the right to express his opinion even though other members here may not agree with them.

Leave a Reply to Dennis Berube 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>