The Senate Commerce Committee’s space subcommittee held a hearing Tuesday on “Realizing NASA’s Potential: Programmatic Challenges in the 21st Century”, featuring as witnesses six of the agency’s associate administrators, from space operations and exploration to education and mission support. The hearing didn’t result in any major revelations about the agency’s plans, but did seem to underscore a theme of uncertainty, about both how the agency will implement the directives of the authorization act and how it will be funded in 2011 and beyond.
A major focus, not surprisingly, is the agency’s plans for developing a heavy-lift vehicle as authorized in last year’s act. Senators, including subcommittee chairman Bill Nelson (D-FL) and full committee ranking member Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), made it clear they were not satisfied with the report NASA delivered in January outlining their initial plans for development of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) for the ISS. They pressed agency officials for more details about those efforts, and were told that an updated study on development of the SLS and MPCV, including their estimated schedule given projected funding, would be completed by late spring or early summer. (Nelson went so far as to ask Doug Cooke, the associate administrator for exploration, to “step on some toes” at OMB and OSTP if necessary to expedite their approval of those studies, since Cooke will be retiring later this year and thus didn’t have anything to lose.)
Complicating matters is the current budget environment, with another three-week continuing resolution (CR) set to be enacted later this week. That CR keeps in place language that keeps NASA from terminating Constellation programs. Pressed on how much money NASA has “wasted”, in the words of Sen. Nelson, on Constellation programs as a result of that provision, Cooke would only say a “small amount” had been wasted, without giving a specific amount, saying that work was being phased on existing contracts so that it can be used to support SLS and MPCV work. Still, he said, “Certainly we would be happy and less constrained without the restrictions.”
Hutchison did indicate that the continuing series of CRs may finally be reaching its end. “I believe that the sentiment on the Hill now is that this would be the last temporary continuing resolution that we will pass,” she said, “and that we must go to the long-term continuing resolution that takes us through the end of the fiscal year.” The new CR would extend funding to April 8, giving Congress just over three weeks to figure out what the final FY11 funding levels should be.
Senators also expressed concerns that the FY12 budget request does not match up with the authorization act levels, particularly for the SLS and MPCV; some asked, given the January report that indicated that fielding the SLS by the end of 2016 is not feasible at authorized spending levels, why the administration would then go and request less money for those programs, while requesting additional funding for commercial crew. “I do hope that you can help us see that perhaps we’re mistaken, that perhaps you are not going back to just focusing on the commercial side and leaving our basic NASA missions without the priority that Congress has put on the agency,” Hutchison said in her opening statement.
“You’re conflicted,” Nelson told the witnesses at one point. “You’ve got to defend the president’s request and yet and there’s a law, and it’s called the NASA authorization law, and the two are in conflict.” Nelson then went on to predict: “The president’s budget is not going to be enacted.” He didn’t specify how Congress would change that request, but then, it’s tough to think much about NASA’s FY12 budget when the agency still doesn’t have a final FY11 request.
Senator Nelson bloviated:
Nelson went so fas as to ask Doug Cooke, the associate administrator for exploration, to “step on some toes†at OMB and OSTP if necessary to expedite their approval of those studies, since Cooke will be retiring later this year and thus didn’t have anything to lose.
Riiggghhhttttt … As if Cooke has any authority to tell OMB or OSTP what to do.
Do these Senators live in a fantasy world?!
Oh yeah, that’s right. They do.
*sigh* As usual, politics is hindering our space efforts!
Sen. Nelson knows the 2016 deadline for SLS is out the window, no matter how much he and Sen. Hutchinson browbeat Cooke on it.
In the meantime Elon is building more in MacGregor, Texas while Sen. Hutchinson gripes about the pork launcher.
Karma’s a b!tch.
Congress to NASA: “Go buy us a new car, here’s $1,000. What’s that? No, sorry, you’re just “conflicted.”
Smaller car or more money. Which will it be Mr/Ms Senator?
Yes it might be worthwhile for Hutchinson to read up on what NASA’s charter is. Oh that’s right, these dingbats can’t read LOL
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Boeing move on with their CST-100 capsule test firing their pusher engine while SpaceX sign up another satellite launch contract.
I predict another CR which means commercial just has more time to demonstrate what they can do while Congress exhibits total mismanagement and political indecision. The WH must be laughing their socks off over this one. So much for the Tea Partiers. Same old same old!
Ain’t Newspace grand??
“You’re conflicted,†Nelson told the witnesses at one point. “You’ve got to defend the president’s request and yet and there’s a law, and it’s called the NASA authorization law, and the two are in conflict.†Nelson then went on to predict: “The president’s budget is not going to be enacted.â€
Senator Nelson speaks the truth! Like I pointed out yesterday, Obama’s henchmen can’t keep pushing the same bad Obamaspace position when they made a compromise on the SLV just 3 months ago. COTS is on life support. That’s the fact. We are witnessing breathtaking naivety on the part of the administration.
The WH must be laughing their socks off over this one. So much for the Tea Partiers. Same old same old! Ain’t Newspace grand??
This has nothing to do with Tea Partiers, unless you think that morons like abreakingwind are Tea Partiers. The Tea Partiers are too busy with important issues to pay much attention to space.
A few thoughts: interesting that the Senators can encourage Doug Cooke to “step on a few toes” but what influence do they have over him now? He is gonna retire, and can they touch him after (or even now) after that? He would like to maintain good relations but he just needs to nod and agree to whatever, knowing that he will soon be “safe”. The Senate can order NASA to do all sorts of stuff, but many of the people there can just retire – and then the Senate can scramble to find someone to take their place. Good luck finding someone under these circumstances!
And the CR does hurt “commercial” since the budget provides most of the money that they will earn once they are certified. How can SpaceX or Boeing or anyone plan on the future, when they really cannot project what funding will be available and when it might be available?
Chances are excellent that more CRs will be needed.
The “basic NASA missions” that Senator Hutchison is talking about – will they have any money at all? Will anyone be able to forecast what facilities will be available, what skills?
““I believe that the sentiment on the Hill now is that this would be the last temporary continuing resolution that we will pass,†she said, “and that we must go to the long-term continuing resolution that takes us through the end of the fiscal year.—
Oh my. Yeah let’s replace a CR with another CR! What a great idea. Someday in 2020 when they decide a budget and that our deficit is $13T, not $1.3T, we’ll be able to afford… Sorry we will not be able to afford anything.
““The president’s budget is not going to be enacted.†”
Someone once said Nelson was a supporter of the WH??? Can’t wait for the next round of election cycle when he will be replaced with a good old fashion Republican. Unless he changes party which was in fashion recently. Maybe he’ll get an orbiter in his backyard?
Idiocy a Gogo full steam ahead!
Someone once said Nelson was a supporter of the WH???
He rode the Obama wave as long as he could, but for far longer than was wise. A Florida senator needs to protect NASA, period. It should be stamped on his forehead. He is now facing strong political headwinds and a depopulated, impoverished space coast. If I were Nelson’s opponent I would be having lots of press events at the Cape. He is toast.
BeancounterFromDownunder wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 9:35 am
“I predict another CR which means commercial just has more time to demonstrate what they can do while Congress exhibits total mismanagement and political indecision. The WH must be laughing their socks off over this one. So much for the Tea Partiers. Same old same old!
Ain’t Newspace grand??”
the entire thing (both space and non space) is fascinating to me.
The GOP is stuck between the reality of what “the American people want” and what Tea Party idiots think that they want. Luntz (who polls for GOP people and Fox News) has warned the Speaker that his polling data indicates that most of the cuts that the tea party folks want are very very unpopular…and meanwhile the tea party folks just go off on their merry non fact filled way. Bachmann was in NH and thought the REvolutionary war started there (it did not) and that NH was a caucus state (it is not).
So it was rather pathetic to see the Speaker running around saying “we’ve cut 6 billion dollars”…wow…
Meanwhile the space porkers are hearing the chimes of reality ie there is no more NASA money and what they cant quite seem to understand is that every CR kills any real chance of a SDV…or DIRECT or anything else.
Meanwhile, as Luntz has warned you start to smell the whiffs of populism starting to wonder why “the rich” are not paying more and the likely outcome of the Japanese “meltdown” (Groan I know) is that corporations are likely to be held in even less esteem then they are now…and the GOP is locked in an intimate position with them.
This and next year are going to be so fun to watch…
“so be it” as The Speaker would say
Robert G. Oler
But what is the HLV for? What is the vision? What are the missions? What is the destination? Where is the funding? Look! The Senators have no clothes!
Oh damn! Now its SLS. These acronyms are killing me.
“Meanwhile the space porkers are hearing the chimes of reality ie there is no more NASA money and what they cant quite seem to understand is that every CR kills any real chance of a SDV…or DIRECT or anything else.”
Indeed – the congress people pushing CR’s don’t seem to realize that in their efforts to save their Shuttle-derived pork, they are playing right into the hands of the enemies of SD (shuttle-derived) HLV. Every delay decreases the probability of a SD HLV and makes it look like a worse deal. As the Shuttle infrastructure is torn down, SD HLV makes less and less sense.
As someone who doesn’t really want a SD HLV, I don’t mind. I’m just surprised that they are so excited to shoot themselves in the foot. But by all means, go ahead!
“Like I pointed out yesterday, Obama’s henchmen can’t keep pushing the same bad Obamaspace position when they made a compromise… COTS is on life support”
In the 2010 NASA Authorization Act, the House voted by a 3-1, bipartisan margin to authorize expanded funding not only for COTS, but for CRS and commercial crew, as well.
None of the proposed 2011 appropriations bills or CRs, which actually provide funding to NASA, proposes to cut funding for these programs. The cuts are in other areas, likely because the appropriators and most legislators understand that these programs are the only viable path to getting U.S. astronauts back to space and off Soyuzes this decade after the Shuttle retires.
“on the SLV just 3 months ago.”
What small launch vehicle?
“We are witnessing breathtaking naivety”
An authorization act doesn’t bind future White House budget requests. The Executive Branch has the right and responsibility to adjust each annual budget request based on economic and programmatic realities. And the reality is that SLS is too expensive and takes too long to produce a human space flight capability compared to the competition, and is therefore a lower funding priority, assuming it survives the current fiscal environment at all.
“… on the part of the administration.”
Congress has yet to pass an appropriations act or CR that funds SLS (or MPCV) or rescinds Constellation. The Administration is hardly to blame for the situation on SLS. That the White House submitted a budget request that included SLS when Congress has yet to actually fund it shows rather remarkable faith in the legislative branch on the part of the executive branch.
FWIW…
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 10:54 am
“The Tea Partiers are too busy with important issues to pay much attention to space.”
ROFLMAO Like taking remedial history classes. Start with Lexington and Concord. They’re in MA, not HN, Ms. Bachman, et al.
“-fielding the SLS by the end of 2016 is not feasible at authorized spending levels, why the administration would then go and request less money for those programs, while requesting additional funding for commercial crew.”
Obviously the fix is in. The heavy lift infrastructure must die so certain companies can get the money to live. Once there is no more infrastructure or standing army then they have what they want; a new standing army that incidentally will be lining the pockets of investors.
And leaving us with a shadow of a space program. Criminal.
@amightywind wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 10:29 am
These people are just juggling meetings between CRs. The government is stalled. Hutchison’s retiring so her input is meaningless. She’s trying to save jobs in Texas and really is contributring nothing of value toward shaping the future of the space agency. Nelson’s part of the problem as well. His immediate goal is to save jobs in Florida, too. He has been involved in the direction and disposition of NASA since his days in the House. Literally dacades of involvement. He’s had his ride, both politically and literally, on shuttle. Time for him to retire as well.
@CharlesHouston wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 11:15 am
“How can SpaceX or Boeing or anyone plan on the future, when they really cannot project what funding will be available and when it might be available?” They do what genuine ‘private enterprised’ corporations do- go to the private sector capital markets,seek investors and/or borrow it. Or prove they’re ‘can’t fail’ companies vital to the national security and the survival of the economy- like Wall Street or GM. Boeing just won the huge tanker contract so they’re secure. SpaceX, maybe not so much. Burdening the taxpayers with your risk, while you pocket profits is a hard sell to a government has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends– and even harder to private capital markets for a company like SpaceX.
“Every delay decreases the probability of a SD HLV and makes it look like a worse deal. As the Shuttle infrastructure is torn down, SD HLV makes less and less sense.”
Shuttle derived does not need any delays to make it look like the worst deal, it does it all by itself because it IS the worst deal moveing forward.
Even with the shuttle infrasturcture in place a SD HLV makes no sense. Heritage hardware means heritage costs. There is no way to get around the fact that trying to maintain the shuttle workforce is going to kill any government designed and operated heavy lift launch vehicle. At 150-200 million a month labor costs you are looking at 10 billion spent in five years regardless of what scheme is put forward to utilize shuttle hardware. Show me how you can build a 8 billion dollar heavy lift when just the labor is already 25% over that budget.
If this path is taken, everyone knows that no actual hardware will ever fly, just another 8 billion flushed down the rat hole to keep the labor force intact.
This has nothing to do with Tea Partiers, unless you think that morons like abreakingwind are Tea Partiers. The Tea Partiers are too busy with important issues to pay much attention to space.
A strong NASA is the conservative point of view. GOP proponents of newspace tend to be progressive, mushy, ‘economic’ conservatives who chicken out on moral issues, spending, and defense…like Oler. They are being systematically eliminated in the primary process, if you haven’t noticed. The Tea Party frenzy is a big part of that.
To understand the conservative space philosophy, think of a NASA rocket fleet as a carrier battle group. Sure commercial companies contribute a lot of great equipment – ships from Northrup, radar from Raytheon, planes from Boeing. The Navy manages requirements and the performance of contractors but it is the ultimate integrator and end user. So it is with NASA. What we need is an SLV battle group!
amightywind, no what NASA needs is spacecraft to explore not rockets. This is the problem. NASA is poltically set up to build rockets(or shall we way a certain rocket—the shuttle). It would be like the NAVY building it’s own ships. The don’t.
“‘-fielding the SLS by the end of 2016 is not feasible at authorized spending levels, why the administration would then go and request less money for those programs, while requesting additional funding for commercial crew.’
Obviously the fix is in. The heavy lift infrastructure must die”
There’s no “fix”. With SLS, Congress has designed an HLV that can’t be built within this decade, given the requirements and budget that Congress levied on the vehicle. NASA’s 20+ page report on this is available here:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/Sec.309.Report.pdf
And it shouldn’t surprise anyone that an HLV designed by congessional staff with no aerospace development experience and Shuttle workforce vote retention as their highest priority would be unworkable. Even NASA’s Chief Technologist warned about the fallacy of not allowing actual engineers to determine the technically correct choice for SLS as far back as October 2010:
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-10-04/news/os-nasa-technology-trumps-congress-20101004_1_nasa-administrator-charlie-bolden-engines-and-solid-rocket-boosters-nasa-technology
Moreover, Congress itself doesn’t agree on which HLV to build and hasn’t even provided funding yet. One part of Congress wants SLS to have a 130t payload capability while another part wants SLS to have a 70-100t payload capability. Neither has provided any actual funding in an appropriations bill or CR for SLS. Yet another part of Congress doesn’t want SLS at all and keeps old Constellation appropriations language active, which is what’s actually being funded today.
You’re blaming some weird Administration conspiracy with the aerospace industry for the lack of progress on SLS, when Congressional overreach, ineptitude, and factionalism are the actual causes.
“so certain companies can get the money to live. Once there is no more infrastructure or standing army then they have what they want; a new standing army that incidentally will be lining the pockets of investors.”
None of the COTS or CCDev companies needs funding “to live”. Even if SpaceX never flies another Dragon, they have a huge backlog of LEO satellite launches and are now winning GEO satellite launches:
http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110314
Boeing and OSC are obvsiouly, big, diversified, aerospace firms where aircraft, missile, and satellite work far outweighs their CST-100 and Cygnus work. Aerospace is only a small part of SNC’s work, which is mostly in ground-based military systems. Even small CCDev winners like Blue Origin and Paragon are more heavily focused on the nearer-term suborbital market.
“And leaving us with a shadow of a space program. Criminal.”
After continued Ares I/Orion delays blew even a 2015 readiness date over the horizon, we’ve now had to commit another $750+ million to Russia to buy more Soyuzes to cover the period from 2014-2016. Per the SLS report above, the HLV that Congress has designed can’t be fielded within this decade based on the requirements and funding that Congress has levied on the program. So we have a choice. We can either send another $1.5 billion to Russia to cover 2016-2020. Or we can spend a smaller amount of funds to get one or more domestic human ETO vehicles fielded that aren’t constrained by the political albatross of Shuttle workforce votes and can actually meet a 2017 or earlier readiness date.
The former option — no U.S. human space flight launches this decade while we send billions of taxpayer dollars to Russia — is the criminal one.
FWIW…
The heavy lift infrastructure must die so certain companies can get the money to live.
Excuse me, how is the United Space Alliance not a company? And how has it (and its predecessors) not been getting money to live for the past thirty years? And without ongoing fair, competitive and redundant procurement?
a new standing army that incidentally will be lining the pockets of investors.
If that were true, why would you prefer the old standing army over the new one? Why not have a competition instead? And of course what you say isn’t true. The new system would be based on fair, competitive and redundant procurement.
And leaving us with a shadow of a space program. Criminal.
It’s really amazing to see what brazen lies shills for the Shuttle political industrial complex will tell. Not merely saying things that are false (“Space exploration, however, is too important to be placed at risk for failure”), but things that are the opposite of the truth (“so we must continue to support a robust program at NASA, which has a record of success.”) If a record of success is important when it comes to launch vehicle development, then NASA would be ruled out because it has a record not of success, but of failure and not just any old failure but 100% failure for the past thirty years.
Similarly the shills will brazenly say that spending on Constellation / SDLV must continue out of fiscal prudence, when fiscal prudence demands the exact opposite. The senators say they want SDLV because it is cheaper, but of course the real reason they want it is that they know it is more expensive and they also know the money will be spent in their districts and on their campaign contributors.
Now that’s what I call criminal.
“A strong NASA is the conservative point of view. GOP proponents of newspace tend to be progressive, mushy, ‘economic’ conservatives who chicken out on moral issues, spending, and defense…like Oler. They are being systematically eliminated in the primary process, if you haven’t noticed. The Tea Party frenzy is a big part of that.”
The Tea Party “frenzy” is all about “economic” conservatism. The movement started as a reaction to the legislation that became the Recovery Act and the spending contained therein. Two of the three political themes of the Tea Party Patriots are “Fiscal Responsibility” and “Free Markets”. The third is “Limited Government”. None is about “moral issues” or “defense”. It’s about getting the government out of responsibilities where it does not need to play a role, limiting federal spending, and opening new markets. A prime example is the development and operation of ETO transport.
“To understand the conservative space philosophy, think of a NASA rocket fleet as a carrier battle group. Sure commercial companies contribute a lot of great equipment – ships from Northrup, radar from Raytheon, planes from Boeing. The Navy manages requirements and the performance of contractors but it is the ultimate integrator and end user. So it is with NASA.”
This is a stupid analogy, regardless of which part of the political spectrum it’s erroneously assigned to. NASA is a civilian agency in the domestic discretionary budget. It was explicitly created as such by the Eisenhower Administration. NASA has no operational military role and receives no defense funding. Moreover, unlike an aircraft carrier, the Space Shuttle or any other human space flight vehicle isn’t used to protect US assets, project force abroad, or destroy enemy targets.
Goofy…
“What we need is an SLV battle group!”
Congress has named their HLV the Space Launch System (SLS). And regardless of what tonnage they settle on (if they ever decide), it’s definitely not going to be a Small Launch Vehicle.
At least try to get the acronyms right.
Cripes…
VirgilSamms wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
“Once there is no more infrastructure or standing army then they have what they want; a new standing army that incidentally will be lining the pockets of investors.”
Maybe you don’t realize this, but the current “standing army” is predominately contractors whose revenue goes straight to Boeing and Lockheed Martin (USA is a joint venture). How is the current standing army not lining the pockets of investors, but the next will? You’re using idiotic reasoning.
Moreover, unlike an aircraft carrier, the Space Shuttle or any other human space flight vehicle isn’t used to protect US assets, project force abroad, or destroy enemy targets.
Again, we disagree. You understand NASA politics poorly. The space program projects political power. Always has. Or why to the despot in Russia and China lick our kneecaps to collaborate when they otherwise impede us in any other field. NASA projects the kind soft power the yahoos in the administration always talk about. Ironic they are trying to destroy one of its primary sources.
amightywind wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“A strong NASA is the conservative point of view. GOP proponents of newspace tend to be progressive, mushy, ‘economic’ conservatives who chicken out on moral issues, spending, and defense…like Oler. They are being systematically eliminated in the primary process, if you haven’t noticed. The Tea Party frenzy is a big part of that.”
The Tea party folks are generally stupid and ignorant (Bachmann…Revolutionary war started in New Hampshire which according to her has a caucus…it has a primary state), juvenile (they think in ridiculous terms as “strong”) and arbitrary (their morals are better then anyone elses morals even as they do gooffy things like support wars of aggression). They are all for spending cuts until the spending on “their entitlement” is attacked (see how many Tea Party folks dont want changes to social security) and on defense are quick to send other people to die for their causes but dont want to go themselves.
The notion that you support Cx which was over budget, anti free enterprise, and had little of value other then “pride” is illustrative of this.
Robert G. Oler
“Pressed on how much money NASA has “wastedâ€, in the words of Sen. Nelson, on Constellation programs as a result of that provision, Cooke would only say a “small amount†had been wasted, without giving a specific amount, saying that work was being phased on existing contracts so that it can be used to support SLS and MPCV work.”
By a “small amount”, I assume Cooke means “all of it”.
What Nelson and his mates fail to realise is that SpaceX and Orbital have CRS contracts to supply the ISS. Those won’t change unless the companies substantially breach the conditions of the contracts which I’d consider highly improbable.
So in particular, SpaceX flies 12 Dragon missions to and from the ISS with no failures. This is now more likely given their competence demonstrated with two successful F9 launches and one successful Dragon launch and recovery.
While this is happening, SpaceX continue to develop Dragon Crew irrespective of CCDev Rd2 funding. They’ve consistently stated that NASA funding is not on their critical path. It affects timing but not ultimate outcome. They may even call in more investor funds to fasttrack this. It’s possible that they’re considering this for their F9H.
In addition, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Boeing continue to develop their CST-100. They’re hooked up with Bigelow and while they might like funding from NASA, but I believe that it’s more of about applying pressure than really needing it. As I mentioned in another post, I don’t see Bigelow walking away from his investment just because a bit more money is required to develop a human transport system to LEO.
The final determining factor in this game is, I think, the fear in NASA that they’ll get left behind. If they don’t come up with reasonable human-rating requirements, (and I think they’re using the CCDev Program to develop these in conjunction with the industry) there’s a distinct possibility that they’ll be bypassed and that SpaceX and Boeing (plus others) may simply apply to the FAA for licences. This would, of course, preclude them from servicing the ISS but not Bigelow Space Complexes.
This is all becoming more and more interesting. Both the political turmoil and the inroads commercial is having on traditional space.
“The space program projects political power. Always has.”
No duh, genius.
I wrote “project force abroad”, not “project political power”.
They’re two different things.
Read, comprehend, and think before you post.
“NASA projects the kind soft power the yahoos in the administration always talk about. Ironic they are trying to destroy one of its primary sources.”
Since when are aircraft carrier groups “soft power”? They threaten force. They’re hard power.
Since when are NASA’s human space flight programs “hard power”? They may lead by example or coopt through partnership (soft power), but they never threaten force (hard power).
The difference between soft and hard power is international relations 101. If you don’t understand the difference, then don’t post on the topic. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“Or why to the despot in Russia and China lick our kneecaps to collaborate when they otherwise impede us in any other field.”
This isn’t even an intelligible sentence.
Learn how to communicate in English or don’t post here. You’re wasting other posters’ time.
“Again, we disagree. You understand NASA politics poorly.”
Not nearly as poor as your understanding of basic concepts and terminology in foreign policy.
Not nearly as poor as your reading and comprehension skills.
And nearly as poor as your English writing skills.
Lawdy…
amightywind wrote @ March 16th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
“A strong NASA is the conservative point of view.”
No. Conservatives have been after NASA since its inception. Gingrich once floated the trial balloon to declare its mission achieved and wanted to disband it.
Gingrich once floated the trial balloon to declare its mission achieved and wanted to disband it.
Newt Gingrich is a gadfly conservative who buys into issues like global warming. It is not surprising he has alternative views of NASA.
And while we continue to argue, Spacex is right now test firing the COTS 2/3 first stage at their soon to be expanding McGregor, Texas facility in preporation for a summer launch to the ISS. Keep arguing… the future is moving on.
By a “small amountâ€, I assume Cooke means “all of itâ€.
Well, it is a small amount compared with (say) this month’s federal deficit.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“The notion that you support Cx which was over budget, anti free enterprise,…”
I was shocked that you would use the phrase “free enterprize”.
I would like you to tell us all… do you think that commercial space
–IS– free enterprize”?
“Free enterprize” From the dictionary…
Business governed by the laws of supply and demand, not restrained by government interference, regulation or subsidy.
Commercial space has no demand… no supply, would definently
require government regulation and subsidy.
Perhaps sitting on your ass all day and not having a real job actually
working on space programs with your mind, body, blood, sweat and
tears, like some of us do, has turned your brain into oat meal?
@ JR wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Commercial space has no demand… no supply, would definently
require government regulation and subsidy.”
Ah thanks JR a very constructive comment. All based on references and well known facts.
Oh well.
amightywind wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 8:32 am
“Newt Gingrich is a gadfly conservative…” Who was elected Speaker of the house of Representatives a while back- third in line to the Oval Office, and is currently planning a presidential run so aside from the entertaining delight of dismissing his musings of late- he is a voice for ‘intellectual’ views within that warped group of politicos and policymakers on the far right. Space lobbyist Bob Walker supported his run for the WH in 2008. Perhaps Gingrich’s source on all matters space are fantasists like Hoagland or fantasies like ‘Duck Dodgers in the 24th-And-A-half Century.’
JR wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“Commercial space has no demand…”
Gee, is that why SpaceX has an over $2B launch backlog? All of it won on the open market, based on the laws of supply & demand. ULA has even won commercial contracts, so even part of their business is “free enterprise” (I don’t misspell it like you do – sorry).
Since you’re railing against/about commercial space and “free enterprise”, what would you consider the Space Launch System (SLS), which after it is built will be the opposite of “free enterprise”?
Wouldn’t it be better for Congress to fund a mission, and then let NASA put out the transportation part of it for competitive bid? That’s what we’re talking about for commercial crew – not ending one crew flight monopoly (Shuttle) for another one (Dragon or CST-100).
We want two or more competitively awarded crew transportation contracts awarded for the ISS crew transportation that the Russians are currently being paid to supply. And although the ISS in itself may not completely cover the costs of operating two systems, I think you’ll get plenty of companies bidding anyways, since they will be betting on companies like Bigelow to also need crew transportation, and that’s where they see the market opportunity.
My $0.02
JR wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
“I would like you to tell us all… do you think that commercial space
–IS– free enterprizeâ€?”
SpaceX raised money from private investors to build a rocket and spacecraft to provide launch services to govertment and industry.
About half of SpaceX’s manifest is commercial (non govt non NASA).
You invest.
You sell.
That’s free enterprise.
Bigelow invested his own money to develop space habitats. He launched 2 test articles on his own dime.
The only thing holding up the launch of his commercial space stations is commercial crew. When he has commercial crew he intends to launch and lease his habitats. He has said that to make his business plan work he needs at least 2 suppliers of commercial crew.
SpaceX is one.
Bigelow has been working with Boeing to get them to develop CST-100.
That’s 2.
Bigelow also has expressions of interest from 7 governments to use these habitats once they go up around 2015.
So.
Bigelow is investing his oiwn money in hopes of making a profit.
That is free enterprise.
Are you against this?
CR – “Gee, is that why SpaceX has an over $2B launch backlog? All of it won on the open market, based on the laws of supply & demand.”
If you are including the CRS missions in this backlog, then you are incorrect. COTS, which formed the foundation for CRS, was not a open market competition. Boeing and LM were excluded from that competition by NASA as were foreign launch providers. The subsequent CRS contracts were heavily biased to the COTS winners as a way of justifying the COTS investment by NASA. Neither Boeing nor LM had a realistic chance of winning CRS contracts even if they submitted a cost competitive proposal. Note also that ULA could not bid by law as these were for “commercial” launch services.
“ULA has even won commercial contracts, so even part of their business is “free enterprise†…”
Wrong again. ULA by law cannot perform commercial launches. Hence the restriction on CRS. The Commercial Launch Services of Boeing and LM market and sell commercial launch services utilizing either a Delta or Atlas launch vehicle which they purchase from ULA and then bundle the remaining necessary services on top of the H/W cost of the rocket.
This is pretty basic information that has been in the public domain since ULA was formed. Next time educate yourself before you post; as you remind others to do.
JR wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Robert G. Oler wrote:
“The notion that you support Cx which was over budget, anti free enterprise,…â€
I was shocked that you would use the phrase “free enterprizeâ€.
I would like you to tell us all… do you think that commercial space
–IS– free enterprizeâ€?…………………………….
I have a bad cold tonight (to much world traveling) so a short answer is “yes”.
more later Robert G. Oler
Gingrich : For all of his failings (and he has many) the man knows how to give a speech. He can also talk in an educated manner about many of the problems facing both our nation, and our NASA.
Like many with half a brain and no vested interest in the status quo, he supported the FY2011 NASA Budget proposal. I don’t think he’s electable with all of his baggage, and for that I’m glad, but I wouldn’t walk out of a conference if he was scheduled to address whatever issue was on the table.
He’s an intriguing character, and on the few times I’ve heard him speak, he has impressed me with his grasp of the issue.
“Note also that ULA could not bid by law as these were for “commercial†launch services…. Wrong again. ULA by law cannot perform commercial launches. Hence the restriction on CRS.”
This is a red herring. Boeing and LockMart can and do market EELVs commercially. Heck, LockMart won a new Atlas V commercial launch contract from DigitalGlobe just this week:
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2011/03/16/atlas-launch-digitalglobal-satellite/
“This is pretty basic information that has been in the public domain since ULA was formed.”
It’s misleading to imply that EELVs can’t launch commercial payloads by focuing on ULA. EELVs can be and are marketed commercially by their parent companies.
“Next time educate yourself before you post; as you remind others to do.”
If you didn’t know better, then you need to educate yourself. If you did know better, then you shouldn’t make statements that are knowlingly false by omission and then blame other posters for your bad acts.
FWIW…
GuessWho wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
“The subsequent CRS contracts were heavily biased to the COTS winners as a way of justifying the COTS investment by NASA.”
I don’t think you understand what the point of the COTS contract is. It is the lead-in for CRS, not something different. NASA was not going to let just anyone do the CRS contract without oversight and validation, and that is what the COTS program does – validates that the companies are ready to start the CRS program.
“Note also that ULA could not bid by law as these were for “commercial†launch services.”
What law? Can you cite it, or provide a link? Because United Launch Alliance just picked up a contract for Atlas V to launch a commercial payload (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1103/15worldview3/). Are they breaking the law?
I think what you’re confused about is how Boeing and Lockheed Martin structured their joint venture (i.e. United Launch Alliance LLC, or ULA). They wanted ULA to strictly be a launch provider, and not offer payload services, which is left up to it’s corporate parents (Boeing Launch Services and Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services).
“Boeing and LM were excluded from that competition by NASA as were foreign launch providers.”
You see conspiracy, and I see competition. They weren’t excluded, they just weren’t chosen as first-round semi-finalists. They were pretty much just taking existing supply vehicles (ATV and HTV) and proposing to fly them on ULA launchers – not too innovative, and likely not much of an overall cost reduction to NASA.
Now I don’t know if all the rationale was ever made public, but what I do like is that in the end NASA decided to go with two new companies to the medium launcher field, which means that ULA has more competition.
And while I like the products ULA has, being a virtual monopoly for U.S. government launch orders is not good for innovation and keeping costs as low as possible. So far Orbital and SpaceX are making good progress, and I hope they both meet their internal goals for the CRS contract, whether that’s profitability or market expansion (or both).
You see conspiracy, and I see competition. They weren’t excluded, they just weren’t chosen as first-round semi-finalists. They were pretty much just taking existing supply vehicles (ATV and HTV) and proposing to fly them on ULA launchers – not too innovative, and likely not much of an overall cost reduction to NASA.
I see conspiracy too, or rather shenanigans. EELVs were too much of a threat to Ares.
ULA by law cannot perform commercial launches. Hence the restriction on CRS.
I thought the problem with CRS would have been that ULA isn’t allowed to provide spacecraft. NASA is a US federal agency after all, not a commercial entity. And that problem could be circumvented by having someone else provide the spacecraft and subcontracting the launch services from ULA.
Bennett wrote @ March 17th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
Gingrich : For all of his failings (and he has many) the man knows how to give a speech. He can also talk in an educated manner about many of the problems facing both our nation, and our NASA.
Nonsense. He knows how to sound like he’s delivering authorative comments by speaking in confident tones. That speaks to method, not content. He can state catagorically and with firm passion that 1+1=11 and 3+3=33 and a number of blinded followers across the land will applaud and cheer because he sounds correct. Then the tape is aired on Fox. But in reality, there’s little there.
Guesswho is right on all of his points on ULA
Martijn Meijering wrote @ March 18th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
I thought the problem with CRS would have been that ULA isn’t allowed to provide spacecraft. NASA is a US federal agency after all, not a commercial entity. And that problem could be circumvented by having someone else provide the spacecraft and subcontracting the launch services from ULA.
This is being corrected by CCDev. ULA got money to (partially) manrate the Atlas V and Delta V. To go on these launch vehicles Boeing was given money to help develop the CST-100 capsule and Sierra Nevada Corporation got money for the Dream Chaser. CCDev2 is likely to continue this.
DCSCA wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 1:21 am
That speaks to method, not content… But in reality, there’s little there.
So, are you channeling Newt here on Space Politics?
Byeman wrote @ March 19th, 2011 at 4:49 pm
“Guesswho is right on all of his points on ULA”
You’re going to have to do better than that. What and why?
I don’t mind being wrong, but I like to know WHY I’m wrong. And who knows, maybe I’m not – maybe this is one of those “splitting hairs” type issues (i.e. corporate agreements vs federal law). You have the floor…
“You’re conflicted,†Nelson told the witnesses at one point. “You’ve got to defend the president’s request and yet and there’s a law, and it’s called the NASA authorization law, and the two are in conflict.â€
Oh great, first he is a rocket scientist and now he’s a mind reader…
Nevertheless the authorization law is doing lasting and maybe irreparable damage to NASA by forcing it to continue to spend its rapidly shrinking budget on Constellation. We could be using that money to do something useful.