The retirement of Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN), the outgoing chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, creates a vacancy in the Democratic leadership of the committee. Yesterday one member, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), formally declared her interest in being ranking member of the committee in the new Congress. “I would fight to ensure that our aviation industry and, NASA specifically, remains strong, and able to undertake each and every new mission that draws them further away from our planet and into depths of scientific discovery,” she said as part of her statement of interest in the position. Her announcement came the same day as another member, Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL), said he was not interested in being ranking member, preferring to focus his attention on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
On the newly-majority Republican side, current ranking member Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) has already shown an interest in the committee chairmanship. However, two other members are reportedly interested in the post: Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Recall that Sensenbrenner served as chairman of the science committee from 1997-2001, and under House GOP rules would have two more years of eligibility as committee chairman.
Ralph Hall is the logical choice, as Texas has the most skin in the game and was damaged most by the democrats. Rohrabacher and Sensenbrenner are RINOs who cannot be trusted.
In other news, Falcon 9 is delayed again. The new committee needs to investigate these delays.
“The new committee needs to investigate these delays.”
Why? There is no need for such a waste of resources. The range delays are nothing that congress can fix.
Again, NASA is more than HSF and therefore TX does not have more skin in the game. As for trust, anybody that windy backs can not be trusted
What is there to investigate? SpaceX is still negotiating re-entry clearance with the FAA and they decided to push out of a busy launch window to give themselves a little more time to make sure they’ve got everything squared away.
Flights with all of the other visiting vehicles slip all the time. You’re just advocating using Congress as a bludgeon to suit your own political aims.
I’m pretty sure that SpaceX should not be investigated for launch delays, unless the suspicion is that there is something systematically wrong going on with that company. In any case, since commercial space is now the recipient of huge amounts of government money it should expect huge amounts of government scrutiny. One goes with the other.
AMW: “In other news, Falcon 9 is delayed again. The new committee needs to investigate these delays.”
The Dragon/Falcon 9 schedule shifted because of the Shuttle delay to November 30 to fix the LH2 leak in the ET.
spacenews.com/venture_space/101108-spacex-cots-demo-delayed.html
Don’t make idiotic statements out of ignorance.
JK: “SpaceX is still negotiating re-entry clearance with the FAA and they decided to push out of a busy launch window to give themselves a little more time to make sure they’ve got everything squared away.”
That’s not what’s driving the schedule. See article at link above.
byeman wrote “anybody that windy backs can not be trusted”
Perfect.
Mark R. Whittington wrote “since commercial space is now the recipient of huge amounts of government money it should expect huge amounts of government scrutiny.”
Please quantify! Or whatever.
“In any case, since commercial space is now the recipient of huge amounts of government money it should expect huge amounts of government scrutiny.”
How much funding equals “huge”? Commercial human space has only recieved 50 million to date. SpaceX hasn’t recieved any huge amounts of government funding for human space flight at all.
When NASA was blowing through almost 2 BILLION a year and schedules were falling faster than heads during the french revolution where were windy’s calls for congressional investigations because schedules has slipped from 2015- 2020 to 2028-2035.
Why are there two standards?
I am surprised people aren’t commenting on Windy’s earlier statement
Rinos? Rohrabacher and Sensenbrenner are Rinos?
Someone involved in developing the Reagen doctrine and a speechwriter for Reagen is a Rino? And that doesn’t even begin to discuss Sensenbrenner.
You clearly have no idea how far to the right you are, which is a little scary (of course, that can be added to a longer list of stuff).
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
“I’m pretty sure that SpaceX should not be investigated for launch delays, unless the suspicion is that there is something systematically wrong going on with that company.”
The great thing about the COTS/CRS contract is that the contractors are not paid unless they deliver, whether that be for paper ($23.1M for a Project Management Plan Review) or for actions ($5M for the upcoming Demo 1 Mission). And since William Gerstenmaier (Associate Administrator for Space Operations) has already stated that SpaceX is not impacting ISS operations, there are no monetary or programmatic impacts that NASA or Congress can point to.
By the time the next Congress gets sworn in, SpaceX will have launched. If they succeed, they will get a grand total of $5M from NASA – that’s what we pay to support 38 minutes of war fighting in Afghanistan. I think Congress has bigger issues to be worried about…
Actually, check that last sentence – you have no idea how warped your political viewpoints are (still remains scary, and can still be added to a longer list)
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 10:21 am
In any case, since commercial space is now the recipient of huge amounts of government money it should expect huge amounts of government scrutiny
“huge” amounts…the amounts that commercial space are getting for a product is not even 1/5 of what the programs you like have wasted..
Cx spent 10 billion and has nothing to show for it.
Robert G. Oler
Ferris Valyn wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 11:23 am
Windy is a troll and I generally push the ignore button.
But the right wing has gone nuts…the fact that Dana is a RINO is of course illustrative as is the fact that people like Whittington are pushing Palin as a person who should be listened to on economics.
The person who couldnt even last one full term as Gov.
Robert G. Oler
I can see that crazy time has come again here, with people thinking that shoveling six billion dollars (more as necessary according to Charlie Bolden) to “commercial†space firms is not something worthy of congressional scrutiny. We also apparently have Oler agreeing that we should devalue the dollar in order to deal with Obama’s deficit.
Dana, by the way, has been a great champion of commercial space in the past, which makes his support for corporate welfare for rocket companies somewhat puzzling. I don’t think that makes him a born again RINO, just confused like many people what is and is not commercial.
I do not expect that Dana Rohrabacher will get the post, because, even though he is fairly conservative (expecially by California standards), he has frequently spoken out against NASA and in favor of Obama favorite, dot com billionaire Elon Musk. Everyone understands this, since Musk owns SpaceX, which is headquartered in his congressional district.
This is really a bizarre situation, where a few left-learning Deomcrats in the White House come out against NASA, which so many associate with JFK, and instead want to give federal money to a comparatively rag-tag (no insult intended) bunch of commecial startups owned by a few billionares.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Everyone understands this, since Musk owns SpaceX, which is headquartered in his congressional district.
is that accurate? I dont have the information myself, but I think that this claim has been made before (although you might have put a qualifier on it…”headquartered”) and someone (Rand?) debunked it…
On the other hand, say it were accurate…the notion that if space “things” are in ones district becomes a dis qualifier per se then I guess Olsen is out for any leadership post?
Robert G. Oler
What Nelson Bridwell said is spot on:
This is really a bizarre situation . . .
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
I can see that crazy time has come again here, with people thinking that shoveling six billion dollars (more as necessary according to Charlie Bolden) to “commercial†space firms is not something worthy of congressional scrutiny. We also apparently have Oler agreeing that we should devalue the dollar in order to deal with Obama’s deficit.
that kind of logic got us involved in Iraq after 9/11.
I am sure congressional scrutiny of any federal expenditure is useful, it just strikes me that the explanation that SpaceX has given seems reasonable and hardly justifies investigation. But then the GOP right wing nuts might have a lot of time on their hands.
As for devaluing the dollar to deal with the deficits. The bulk of the nations debt comes from spending under Mr. Bush…and we do have to deal with it.
You had no trouble with the spending under Bush but then you bought everything he said hook line and decision point.
Palin, (and I see you based on your web posting) have leaped to the most catastrophic conclusion of what could happen with the policy that the fed is trying to do…a conclusion which seems to have no evidence to support it (“WMD LOGIC”) and in fact there is evidence to support that we are headed for a substantial period of deflation.
Palin knows as much about economics as Sharon Angle (spell) knew about what countries Nevada had a border with.
Robert G. Oler
Dana, by the way, has been a great champion of commercial space in the past, which makes his support for corporate welfare for rocket companies somewhat puzzling.
Only in Whittingtonworld is purchasing fixed-price milestones toward progress in a program to meet critical NASA goals at costs to the taxpayer an order of magnitude below what it would pay on a cost-plus program “corporate welfare.”
Everybody understands this, since Musk owns SpaceX, which is headquartered in his congressional district.
No, “everybody” doesn’t understand this, because it’s ignorant nonsense. Why do people continue to repeat it, when it has been debunked multiple times here? Dana’s district is in Long Beach and Orange County. SpaceX is located in Hawthorne, California, in Los Angeles County. Its representative is the loon Maxine Waters.
“I can see that crazy time has come again here, with people thinking that shoveling six billion dollars”
NASA’s 2010 Authorization Act provides $1.6 billion, not $6 billion, for commercial cargo and crew development.
Get your facts straight before you post.
“(more as necessary according to Charlie Bolden)”
When and where did Bolden state this? Quote? Reference?
The Augustine Committee recommended $5 billion.
“Dana, by the way, has been a great champion of commercial space in the past, which makes his support for corporate welfare for rocket companies somewhat puzzling.”
NASA paying for the development of capabilities and the provision of services it needs to support the ISS and its future human space flight programs is not “corporate welfare”.
Applying a term reserved for bank and car manufacturer bailouts to the provision of goods and services that the government has to pay for is idiotic.
If the Air Force pays Boeing or Lockheed Martin for the development of a new military aircraft it needs, that’s not “corporate welfare” for aircraft manufacturers.
If NASA or the Air Force pays for overnight package delivery by FedEx or UPS, that’s not “corporate welfare” for delivery companies.
If NASA or the Air Forces pays for civil servant, or troop transport on Continential or US Airways, that’s not “corporate welfare” for airline companies.
Think before you post.
“want to give federal money to a comparatively rag-tag (no insult intended) bunch of commecial startups owned by a few billionares.”
The only two companies in COTs or CCDev that are owned by a billionaire are Blue Origin and SpaceX. The other five companies participating in these programs are publicly traded, subsidiaries of publicy traded companies, or privately owned small businesses.
Don’t make stuff up.
Is the Space Shuttle going to be investigated because of all its delays? Now we have both a bad fuel line (again) and a crack in the ET foam (again).
The new committee should investigate these delays, to quote the troll.
“Major Tom”
The Obama space plan envisions six billion over five years, changed to six years by the authorization bill. The Charlie Bolden quote is from Gene Cernan, pretty much confirmed by Bolden himself.
But then of course you know this already. Instead you make phony accusations under an assumed name. There is a word for people like you.
Rand
A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter how much it is structured. It is the government paying for a commercial firm to develop a service, which is something we deplore in everything except apparently for rockets.
I stand corrected!
The SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne is located a whopping 20 miles outside of Rohrabacher’s 46th district!
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
“The SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne is located a whopping 20 miles outside of Rohrabacher’s 46th district!”
And, as Rand pointed out, on the complete opposite end of the political spectrum – why would he feel compelled to help out a Democratic district? Weird.
Is the Space Shuttle going to be investigated because of all its delays? Now we have both a bad fuel line (again) and a crack in the ET foam (again).
Two formal investigations and numerous internal ones have revealed the Shuttle’s foibles to a high degree of detail. So much that the program is being cancelled. One wonders what similar scrutiny of the Falcon 9/Dragon would reveal.
Mr. Bridwell – then explain why its ok that Olson is pro-constellation, because his district has JSC
“… changed to six years by the authorization bill.”
First, it’s not an “authorization bill” anymore. It’s the NASA Authorization Act of 2010. If you’re going to comment on the U.S. government, then learn how that system of governnance works before you post. Middle school civics students know better.
Second, the Act only authorizes funding through 2013, not through 2016. It’s a three-year authorization act, not a six-year authorization act. Stop making stuff up.
“The Charlie Bolden quote is from Gene Cernan, pretty much confirmed by Bolden himself.”
What is the quote? Where is it referenced? Where did Bolden confirm it?
“Instead you make phony accusations…”
Where did I make “phony accusations”?
I’m not the poster claiming that an act that has been signed into law is still a bill.
I’m not the poster claiming that $1.6 billion equates to $6 billion.
I’m not the poster claiming that a three-year authorization act is the same as a six-year authorization act.
I’m not the poster that makes specific claims about statements by the NASA Administrator without any quotes or references.
I’m not the poster claiming that government purchases of capabilities and services are the same thing as “corporate welfare”.
Those are all “phony accusations”
Don’t blame me for your ignorant statements and mistakes.
“… under an assumed name.”
It’s not an “assumed name”. It’s a reference from a pop song.
And since when do identities matter? Arguments are grounded in facts and logic, or they’re not. It doesn’t matter who makes the argument.
If the only argument you can manage is an ad hominem one, then take it elsewhere.
“There is a word for people like you.”
Now you’re going to resort to namecalling?
Grow up.
“A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter how much it is structured.”
Subsidies pay for things the government doesn’t need to keep an industry afloat. An example would be agricultural subsidies, where the government pays for production (or non-production) on land that food markets don’t need.
NASA paying firms to develop and provide cargo and crew transport services to the ISS and future exploration missions is not a subsidy. NASA needs that capability. Paying for a capability or service that the government needs is not a subsidy, regardless of how it’s structured.
“It is the government paying for a commercial firm to develop a service, which is something we deplore in everything except apparently for rockets.”
The government pays commercial firms to develop capabilities and services to meet government needs all the time. Orion and Ares I were being developed and would have been serviced by commercial firms (LockMart, ATK, etc.) to meet NASA’s needs. Practically every weapon system bought by the U.S. military was developed and serviced by a commercial firm to meet the U.S. government’s needs. .
For the umpteenth time, think before you post.
Cripes…
A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter how much it is structured.
And non-subsidy is a non-subsidy.
It is the government paying for a commercial firm to develop a service, which is something we deplore in everything except apparently for rockets.
Really? The only time I deplore it is when the government is paying for a commercial firm to develop a service for which the government has no need. In this case, by paying for the commercial firm to “develop a service,” it is saving the taxpayers billions, and satisfying its need much sooner, compared to paying a commercial firm for its labor on a cost-plus contract, which seems to be what you prefer.
The Charlie Bolden quote is from Gene Cernan, pretty much confirmed by Bolden himself.
Bolden did no such thing.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter how much it is structured….
ok I dont agree with that…but based on that definition what would you call the entire Cx program?
It was a program which had no commercial applications and for which there was no pressing government need or popular support?
I call that technowelfare but am curious as to what your definition would call it.
Robert G. Oler
NASA Selects Companies For Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle Studies
http://www.nasa.gov
NASA has selected 13 companies for negotiations leading to potential contract awards to conduct systems analysis and trade studies for evaluating heavy-lift launch vehicle system concepts, propulsion technologies, and affordability….
Yes Minister.
the end of Shuttle derived vehicles…As Sir Humphrey would note “study it to death”.
LOL wow the folks at DIRECT must be having kittens.
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
“Rand
A subsidy is a subsidy, no matter how much it is structured. It is the government paying for a commercial firm to develop a service, which is something we deplore in everything except apparently for rockets.”
We deplore it when the military creates literally hundreds of small businesses to provide them a service or a part?
We deplore it when we do this for all kinds of communications systems?
We deplore it when we do this for all kinds of different IT systems?
The government is non stop in creating small businesses to provide a whole range of services. I do not hear anyone screaming about it though.
Paying farmers to not grow something to keep prices higher is the type of subsidy people are more offended by.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 4:34 pm
“what would you call the entire Cx program?
It was a program which had no commercial applications and for which there was no pressing government need or popular support?
I call that technowelfare but am curious as to what your definition would call it.”
Well well. I do not disagree with the spirit but I would say this: There was a government need, i.e. the votes, not necessarily a US people need…
Oh well…
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
“LOL wow the folks at DIRECT must be having kittens.”
Oh come on! You know as well as I do that they have access to classified use of a SD-HLV with SRBs for those special DoD payloads that we cannot name!!!
Robert, please!
This is how the trade study language looks. When the ESAS was conducted wasn’t that supposed to be a trade study? Look at the disaster that turned out to be.
” “These trade studies will provide a look at innovative launch vehicle concepts, propulsion technologies, and processes that should make human exploration missions more affordable,” said Doug Cooke, associate administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at the agency’s Headquarters in Washington. “If we are to travel beyond low-Earth orbit, industry’s collaboration is essential to reduce the cost associated with our future exploration goals and approaches and make the heavy-lift vehicle affordable to build and fly.”
The studies will include heritage systems from shuttle and Ares, as well as alternative architectures and identify propulsion technology gaps including main propulsion elements, propellant tanks and rocket health management systems. The reports will include assessments of various heavy-lift launch vehicle and in-space vehicle that use different propulsion combinations. The companies will examine how these combinations can be employed to meet multiple mission objectives. “
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/nov/HQ_10-292_Heavy_Lift.html
If I recall there were certain parts of the ESAS were not released to the public when the final decision was made on what architecture was going to be utilizied.
Could the same thing happen again? Could some of the data be held from the public so that shuttle heritage systems are sold as being the most innovative, or less expensive, or safer or, or, or, and once again get sold a bill of goods?
When the ESAS was conducted wasn’t that supposed to be a trade study?
Yes, but that was done by NASA, with a preordained conclusion. This is a set of competing studies by contractors, and the reports should be publically available, other than proprietary data.
(Missed several typos!)
Ferris:
It is OK that Olsen was pro-Constellation. It is OK that Rohrabacher is pro-SpaceX, a local company. That is what Congress is supposed to do. Speak up for their local interests. The title is Representative.
Note, however, that in the committee hearings Rohrabacher was the one and only member who spoke up for SpaceX and commercial space.
(If Newt G. was in congress and on the committee, I suspect he would second Dana.) EVERYONE else, even David Wu, a Democrat from Oregon (I dare you to find our top-secret NASA centers!), spoke out strongly in opposition to Obama’s proposal to scrap NASA’s manned space program and strongly in favor of Constellation.
That is why I would be VERY surprised if Rohrabacher was appointed, this time around. If NewSpace were to become a big success story in the future, and actually accomplish all of the miracles that Elon Musk has routinely promised for the past decade, then the story could change.
Kosmas didn’t speak out against it. Mark Warner (admittedly in the Senate) didn’t speak out against it, and neither did Brownback (yes, also in the Senate). In short – we’ll see who gets the seat.
And Obama wasn’t proposing to scrap NASA’s human spaceflight program. Constantly repeating falsehoods don’t make them true.
More to the point – what you are missing is that Dana’s position was more likely a result of his true beliefs, since his position has been fairly consistent during most of his tenure.
Mr Oler –
As a rule, so do I. But the fact that no one had yet commented on that part of the post – someone needed to point it out
“One wonders what similar scrutiny of the Falcon 9/Dragon would reveal.”
That windy is clueless for making such baseless comments
amightywind wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
‘Is the Space Shuttle going to be investigated because of all its delays? Now we have both a bad fuel line (again) and a crack in the ET foam (again).
Two formal investigations and numerous internal ones have revealed the Shuttle’s foibles to a high degree of detail. So much that the program is being cancelled. One wonders what similar scrutiny of the Falcon 9/Dragon would reveal.’
Sorry, can’t let this pass.
Such an investigation, while being a complete waste of resources, would reveal an engineering lead, quality and cost driven, commercial company using modern manufacturing techniques and delivering products for which there is a commercial and government market for an all-up investment of approximately $500m.
It would also reveal more publically available information such as employing 1100 staff, the world’s largest commercial satellite launch contract, an ISS cargo replenishment contract worth $1.6b with NASA and a forthcoming launch manifest of approximately 40 commercial and government customers extending out to 2017.
Unlike Cx and Shuttle for which there are no customers government or commercial.
Let’s get something straight; Elon Musk is not now, and has never been, a billionaire.
Jeff Bezoz is a billionaire, Robert Bigelow is a billionaire.
Elon Musk is a millionaire.
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
‘If NewSpace were to become a big success story in the future, and actually accomplish all of the miracles that Elon Musk has routinely promised for the past decade, then the story could change.’
Ok so what miracles are you talking about here Nelson? Don’t generalise, specifics please.
Ferris:
Go to the Kosmas website and you will read her statement after Obama’s April 15 KSC trip saying that his announcements were unsatisfactory. Also note that she was easily defeated last week, possibly for being on AF1 with Obama. Certainly not for being too oversupportive of her district.
Also, Kosmas never made any pro-commercial space statements at all. I recall a Ohio rep, a black Democrat who’s said that even though her district would have come out with significantly more money under the Obama plan, there is no way that she is going to agree to the dismembership of NASA’s manned space program.
Regurgitating someone else’s rhetoric does not make for an argument of fact, Nelson.
Mr. Bridwell – go look at Kosmas’s proposed amendment for the 2011 NASA act – it was very pro-commercial
Nelson Bridwell wrote @ November 9th, 2010 at 7:05 pm
‘If NewSpace were to become a big success story in the future, and actually accomplish all of the miracles that Elon Musk has routinely promised for the past decade, then the story could change.’
SpaceX wasn’t formed until 2002, so this company hasn’t even been around for a decade. What are the mircles he promised 2 years before he even formed the company?
I have to say that ATK’s PR people are very good.
Somehow canceling ATK’s medium heavy rocket, which was way over in cost, way behind schedule, and not particularly good, ends up as Obama cutting NASA, or Obama gutting NASA, while in fact Obama increased NASA’s budget.
If anyone has gutted NASA, it has been ATK. And that started with Nixon and the shuttle, and continued on from there.
And no one here talks about that bit of corporate welfare. What could any other US launch company have accomplished with the taxpayer money that ATK received?
We are on the same page concerning planetary defense Mr. Grondine but I have say the 5 segment SRB is the only game in town for Heavy Lift. And I consider Heavy Lift to be the number one prerequisite for human space flight beyond earth orbit.
There is nothing else on earth for the next decade and probably longer that puts out 3.6 million pounds of thrust. Since they are used in pairs what we have is 7.2 million pounds waiting to be used.
The only argument I have heard against my stand is that the RD-180 can “easily” replace the 5 segment SRB.
8 engines with 16 nozzles; sounds like Musk’s “heavy” (which is kind of a joke- it is not even close)
Not practical really. Modeled after the paralell staged R-7 it would probably work but…..not practical.
The SRB’s are expensive and the politics is definitely depressing but I have decided I have to keep my eye on the prize.
“SpaceX wasn’t formed until 2002, so this company hasn’t even been around for a decade. What are the mircles he promised 2 years before he even formed the company?”
Try his WIKI:
In 2001, Musk announced that he would launch a Mars lander in 2005. , which would land a miniature experimental greenhouse on Mars, containing food crops growing on Martian regolith.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=3698
And if you finished the rest of the story, why did he find he couldn’t do it? When he found out he couldn’t do what was his next move?
Musk said in the above article that “the path by which I hope to get there is to get the public enthusiastic about the possibility, then translate that into legislative pressure so that Congress hands us a Mars mandate”.
The core of the problem and a good reason to press forward with SpaceX.
You can’t depend on the public or politicians for anything.
“Not practical really. ”
And you base this on what space launch system engineering experience or knowledge?
It is viable unlike your beamed launch vehicle
Possible, viable, doable, practical;
Playing at semantics with you is like having the runs.
No thanks.
You stick to playing at semantics and I will stick to working with real spaceflight hardware, which won’t follow the paradigm that you misguidedly support.
Hi Mike –
Glad to have another planetary defense supporter here.
While the goals define the lift requirements, there are different architectures to meet those goals. Those architectures define the size of heavy lift needed.
The trade space is multiple launches for the mass on orbit of a really heavy launcher. There are cost restraints that define that space as well.
Griffin chose a variant of Zubrin’s Mars Direct architecture for Mars, and a variant of the Apollo architecture for the Moon. His choice of the manned Orion vehicle size was indicative of his architectures.
On the other hand, the use of L2 for lunar operations and the use of some variant of Dr. Aldrin’s Mars cycler (say the old Soviet TMK architectures) are far more cost effective architectures. Further, Griffin never understood the separation of LEO manned vehicles from BEO manned vehicles.
The use of 5 segment SRBs has been extensively discussed by others far more capable than myself at nasaspaceflight.com, and the problems with their use discussed there, in particular their cost problems. They were examined extensively by the Augustine commission.
Currently, China’s space leadership is examining whether their next launcher goal should be to make the CZ5 reusable with fly-back, or whether to invest in the development of a larger engine. Since my stroke, I am unable to make any further comment on this.
If there is a defense need for a 5 segment SRBs for the quick replacement of on orbit assets, then DoD should have funded them, not NASA, and the need should have been openly stated from the start.
My historical observation is that the cost of the Vietnam War ended Apollo, and it appears that peace and cost sharing are requirements for BEO manned activities.
In the current fiscal environment, Direct has the best architecture I’ve seen so far.
“Hi Mike –Glad to have another planetary defense supporter here.”
Yes, we seem to be alone here in having our priorities correct.
The first purpose of any government and it’s political system is to defend against all threats, foreign, domestic, and extra-terrestrial.
The regulars here have tunnel vision; all they understand is dollar signs.
The regulars here have tunnel vision; all they understand is dollar signs.
This is stupid. No one here opposes planetary defense, or has said anything to indicate that they do.
MichaelC wrote @ November 11th, 2010 at 5:24 pm
“The regulars here have tunnel vision; all they understand is dollar signs.”
Yes, we understand how many dollars you’re trying to spend (HLV, nuclear space reactors, massive space ships, etc.), and we’re trying to reduce that significantly.
Oh, and the majority of what you propose is related to leaving the Earth, not protecting it, so don’t think you’re riding some sort of high horse on that subject.
Hi Rand –
From his post elsewhere on tunneling machines, I can see the difficulties you are having with Michael.
While I certainly do not want to try to turn this forum into a one topic forum specializing in my own interests, I do have some questions about your own statement:
“No one here opposes planetary defense, or has said anything to indicate that they do.”
1) I would assume that you agree that planetary protection is a legitimate and necessary function for the Federal government. True?
1) I would assume that planetary protection would have a very high priority for you as a space goal. True?
2) I would assume that coming up with an accurate as possible estimate of the nature of the impact hazard would have a very high priority as a space research goal. True?
3) What systems do you think would be adequate to deal with the hazard?
4) I would assume that you would hope that the US would not have to pay for these all by itself – the old free rider problem. True?
5) Cost/ Benefit: How do you translate that into a budget? Any numbers?
If anyone else here wants to try and answer these questions, that is fine with me.
planetary defense is not NASA’s task.
Byeman, the Congress disagrees with you
“Oh, and the majority of what you propose is related to leaving the Earth, not protecting it, so don’t think you’re riding some sort of high horse on that subject.”
The threat is in space- you have to leave earth to intercept the threat.
“Byeman, the Congress disagrees with you”
No, it doesn’t. Nowhere does it say NASA is going to defend the US against . It only tells NASA to look for potential objects.
Byeman, you’re right that finding these things is NASA’s responsibility. But NASA’s responsibilities do not end there. Better go back an look at the language of the George Brown Jr. amendment, and the followup setting up the PPCO, and the PPCO response’s proposed allocation of tasks.
I did not thank you for replying to the questions to Rand. Care to take a try at answering them?
1) I would assume that you agree that planetary protection is a legitimate and necessary function for the Federal government. True?
False. Protection of the nation is a legitimate and necessary function of the federal government, not the planet. For instance, if we knew that a city in (say) China was going to be hit by a smallish object, there would be no constitutional responsibility for the federal government to do anything about it. Which isn’t to say that we wouldn’t, of course.
But there is currently no agency in the federal government with a charter for protecting either the nation, or the planet, from extraterrestrial events, and none that I would trust with the job. I would propose establishing a Space Guard for such purposes, under DHS (or better yet, Commerce, if we can get rid of DHS), attach it to the Air Force in the same manner as the Coast Guard supports the Navy, and restructuring federal space policy in the process. It would pick up a lot of what NASA and the Air Force (and Commerce, and DOT) currently do, and have that new responsibility as well.
A clean-sheet organization would be much more focused on the task than giving it to NASA or the Air Force (this is why, for example, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization was established in the eighties — because it was clear that the Air Force wasn’t interested in the job).
“I would propose establishing a Space Guard for such purposes,
A clean-sheet organization would be much more focused on the task than giving it to NASA or the Air Force ”
Well, let’s slap a pair of 5 segments on a Delta IV heavy making it an actual heavy and go kick some asteroid ass.
Sign me up Rand, I will work with you on this; as long as you allow for some kind of an HLV to put up the big pieces, and nuclear weapons/energy, I will be on your side in this.
Well, let’s slap a pair of 5 segments on a Delta IV heavy making it an actual heavy and go kick some asteroid ass.
I think you have an unhealthy fixation with 5 seg boosters. Why would you stick them on a Delta Heavy? To tear the core to pieces?
I will be on your side in this.
Sorry, but I don’t want someone so completely clueless about space technology, launch economics, and logic on my side. I’d rather you unwittingly sabotage the enemy, as you do with almost every comment.
LOL
I have for months been reading the regulars post here and been amused at their repeated displays of gullibility concerning commercial space schemes. You attack me like pit bulls every chance because my comments reveal what your real agendas are.
You attack me like pit bulls every chance because my comments reveal what your real agendas are.
And you say you’re laughing out loud?