Lobbying, Other

American students speak; European policy developments

On Thursday the organization Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS) released a letter to the White House and Congress signed by 280 of its members from universities across the US, voicing its opinion on space policy. The students offer various recommendations in the letter, most of which are related to supporting commercial spaceflight as a driver of the economy and inspiration for students. “We believe that companies in the commercial spaceflight sector such as SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Blue Origin offer huge opportunities for us as students, and for our nation,” they note in the letter. “We strongly believe that NASA and the nation both benefit greatly from investing in commercial spaceflight programs that will allow astronauts to fly on commercial vehicles; and we urge you to fully fund and support those programs.”

In Britain, the UK Space Agency officially became an executive agency within the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills today, taking responsibility for most of the country’s space activities. The agency also released a five-year strategy for comment, all of which involve growth of some kind or another for the country’s space economy. In Scotland, though, they’re more interested in government plans to reform the Outer Space Act, which could make it easier for companies like Virgin Galactic to perform launches from UK territory. Virgin has previously expressed an interest in flying from RAF Lossiemouth, an air force base in Scotland, but has cited current law as an impediment to that.

The European Commission is expected to outline plans next week to strengthen the EU’s role in spaceflight by improving the EU’s space policy. According to a draft document obtained by EurActive, the EU’s current efforts “are too piecemeal” and aren’t linked to the EU’s political, economic, and social issues.

79 comments to American students speak; European policy developments

  • It will be entertaining to see what kind of goofy “democrat operative” scenario our resident conspiracy theorist (ablastofhotair) comes up with regarding the student letter.

  • There is an effort underway to get President Obama to issue an executive directive recognizing the July 20th anniversary of the first manned Moon Landing, as the Space Exploration Day (non-paid) Holiday. The goal is to make this holiday a looked forward to event for families. It will also become a good public space education resource. We are in need of contacts who can get a commitment out of their U.S. Senators to ask President Obama to issue the executive directive. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah is already commited to do this. For more information check out the Space Exploration Day Holiday website: http://www.spaceexplorationday.us .

  • amightywind

    The opinion of SEDS is a great example of how the universities to a marvelous job reaching youth first and brainwashing them into parroting the liberal party line. Such is the stranglehold the left has on education. I have found it takes about 5 years in the working world to flush out their brain and recover.

    and aren’t linked to the EU’s political, economic, and social issues.

    Interesting that these undemocratic commissions make no accommodation for the will of the people but rather the abstract (social issues). The difference between us and them.

  • amightywind

    The goal is to make this holiday a looked forward to event for families. It will also become a good public space education resource.

    What a crock. Neil Armstrong would sneer. It is time this country started making history again instead of celebrating anniversaries.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Rick – I kinda think his comment was uninspired, parroting a standard claim.

    All in all, I’d only give it a 5 outta 10

  • “The opinion of SEDS is a great example of how the universities to a marvelous job reaching youth first and brainwashing them into parroting the liberal party line. Such is the stranglehold the left has on education. I have found it takes about 5 years in the working world to flush out their brain and recover.”

    See, he never disappoints! :)

    BTW: ablastofhotair. Democrat operatives have discovered your identity via an IP address trace. The evil Obama administration has targeted you for revenge. You can expect an IRS audit at anytime! Mooooo AH HA HA!!!

  • nbk

    Looks like you were spot on, Rick.

  • Major Tom

    “The opinion of SEDS is a great example of how the universities to a marvelous job reaching youth first and brainwashing them into parroting the liberal party line. Such is the stranglehold the left has on education.”

    All those dangeorus leftists and hippies in university women’s studies, african american studies, and environmental science departments are clearly brainwashing the innocent, unthinking, aerospace engineering students into voting for competitive human space flight programs because commercial space flight is the bedrock of their common socialist ideology!

    Since he isn’t willing to pay for SLS development out of his own pocket or go to jail for circumventing federal appropriations law that hasn’t budgeted for SLS yet, former Marine General Charlie Bolden must be a fifth column saboteur paid by SpaceX to hand control of the solar system to Elon Musk’s ex-wife! Except for the Moon — that’s going to China! Or Russia!

    Give me a budget-busting, 200-ton, Shuttle-derived HLV that won’t fly until the 2030s, if ever, and won’t have any payloads or missions to perform when it gets there — or give me death! Don’t tread on my sole-sourced contracts for ATK!

    You all are a bunch of pinko commies who want to ride unicorn vehicles powered by fairy dust. My insane, over-the-top, out-of-touch rhetoric and repetitive, incorrect, and utterly false statements add much needed balance to your echo chamber.

    Just you wait until Obama is defeated by the next Tea Party President. Even though they are aggressive budget cutters aiming to dramatically roll back the scope of the federal government, they’ll still add the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to NASA’s budget necessary to build a really big honkin rocket that no one uses because it’s traditional, vaguely like some sort of military program, and, well, it’s American, dangit!

    You’ll see!

  • Ferris Valyn

    Major Tom

    LOLROTFLMAO!!!!!

    Perfect 10

  • GWM

    This Bolden-is-Satan blather sure gets old. Bolden is not the tip of the administration’s fingertips (IMO). Nor is he necessarily out to hinder the will of the district-grubs on the Hill. My favored view is he actually wants what most of us wants and is sufficiently fearless to wedge his future between the embattled and entrenched titans. In the end, the WH is lukewarm on space and Congress’s vision extends no further than their individual backyards. Better to be remembered as someone who honestly tried than as a cog ground to dust doing what he was told.

  • LOL, I wondered how long it would be until everyone vented on Windy. ;)

    Parody and neocon revisionism can get on folks’ nerves eventually.

  • Vladislaw

    “Such is the stranglehold the left has on education. I have found it takes about 5 years in the working world to flush out their brain and recover.”

    If it takes 5 years to flush out liberal thinking, how long does it take to flush out a right wing fundametialist that thinks planet earth is only 6000 years old?

  • Major Tom

    “Perfect 10″

    Actually, I forgot some classic BreakingWind schtick — like how putting ISS in the Pacific will save NASA $5 billion per year. There’s lots of room for improvement if other folks want to try their own April Fool’s Day take on BreakingWind or one of our other trolls (Bridwell, Castro, Whittington).

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom

    “Parody and neocon revisionism can get on folks’ nerves eventually.”

    “If it takes 5 years to flush out liberal thinking, how long does it take to flush out a right wing fundametialist that thinks planet earth is only 6000 years old?”

    To be clear, that schtick was a take on BreakingWind’s inflammatory and false statements, not Republicans, the Tea Party, or conservative politics in general. There are some folks who post on this board on that end of the political spectrum (some of my positions, included) who are grounded in reality and logic. It’s comedy aimed at one or a few posters — not a broad brush of an entire political party.

    FWIW…

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ April 1st, 2011 at 11:01 am

    “It’s comedy aimed at one or a few posters — not a broad brush of an entire political party.”

    Don’t worry, save for the parodied-few we got it.

    Well, unless, y’know, y’actually meant it for all those people you claim you did not. See, come to think of it, it could be the action of the tortuousest mind of us all. Yeah. I think so.

    So are you saying that the GOP is made of religious fundamentalist zealots who think the Earth is pretty young good looking yet flat, that dinosaurs never ruled the Earth and those fossils were planted by democratic operatives, that humans did not evolve from chimps? Is this what you are actually saying? Yeah. I think so.

    Major Tom you’ve been exposed. There is no coming back now so you might as well tell us who you actually are! There are objective thinkers here who demand an explanation. What with all these insults?! It’s only human if one cannot read and comprehend yet have an opinion on how to reach space, the Final Frontier where no one bald has gone before. Or something like that.

    Oh well…

  • Doug Lassiter

    The presentations from the Goddard Symposium earlier this week are being put online. John Holdren’s is quite good, as are the Q&A for him and Charlie Bolden afterward (included in that same video).

    What Obama really meant when he sounded dismissive about the Moon was something I had not heard explained by someone who would be in a position to know.

    http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/600/highlights/storie/goddard_symposium_2011.html

    To make this post more on-topic, there are remarks here about the importance of international participation in our HSF efforts and the importance of commercial spaceflight in realizing national goals for HSF.

  • To be clear, that schtick was a take on BreakingWind’s inflammatory and false statements, not Republicans, the Tea Party, or conservative politics in general. There are some folks who post on this board on that end of the political spectrum (some of my positions, included) who are grounded in reality and logic. It’s comedy aimed at one or a few posters — not a broad brush of an entire political party.

    I got it the first time around the horn MT, lol.

    Often however, people use veiled humor (very thin at times) to vent how they feel.

    I’ll take my couch and play elsewhere now…. ;)

  • JR

    Major Tom wrote:
    “Since he isn’t willing to pay for SLS development out of his own pocket or go to jail for circumventing federal appropriations law that hasn’t budgeted for SLS yet”

    Why do you keep insisting on sending Bolden to jail… Again, you must
    not live here so you may not understand… polititions here lie all of
    the time… they circumvent the law, all of the time in various subtle
    ways… quite successfully, and you can not stop them or thow them
    into jail for it. Wake TF up Major!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Wind…are you the one advising Eric Cantor on The Constitution? yikes Robert G. Oler

  • Bennett

    “Why do you keep insisting on sending Bolden to jail”

    Reading for comprehension?

  • James T

    @jr

    Bolden isn’t a politician, he doesn’t get the same immunities… not suggestion he would or should go to jail… just FWIW.

  • Has Virgin Galactic started flights yet?

  • GuessWho

    Oler – “cost plus contracts are great”

    Reading the link you provided indicates this is less about the nature of the contract (CPFF vs FFP) and more about USA adhering to NASA requirements at the time of award that included pensions already in existence. From the link:

    “”One of the requirements that came clearly from NASA … was to continue our performance in a seamless way and to not disrupt the work force,” Gookins said in an interview.

    As the newly created USA rebadged thousands of shuttle workers from Lockheed Martin, Rockwell International and other contractors, “we just brought those [pension] plans into USA with them.”

    A decade later, when USA and NASA were negotiating the Space Program Operations Contract — a four-year, $6.4 billion agreement since extended through the last shuttle flight — the company realized it could not keep offering a pension and be competitive as it sought new business. Gookins said USA froze new enrollments in the plan, which by 2006 was running $200 million to $300 million short, and began discussing with NASA the need to terminate the pension at the conclusion of the shuttle program. “.

    Sounds like a company taking a commercially driven decision to reduce operating costs to remain competitive and informing their customer early in the process. The article also indicates that the shortfall is due to underperforming markets, low interest rates, and USG rules and regs. Also looks like NASA, because of Cost Accounting Standards could not take action to mitigate the problem earlier. So where is the mismanagement you imply Oler? Please provide facts to back up your implied assertion that this issue is purely a CPFF vs FFP contract structure issue and that USA by default mismanaged the pension fund. Please provide a relevant example of how a FFP contract under this scenario would have avoided the problem with the pension fund and/or prevented NASA from having been liable for those costs. Please provide the evidence that had USA terminated the pensions in 1995/1996, that a similar bill wouldn’t have been due to close out the pensions at that time as required by law.

  • Major Tom

    “Reading the link you provided indicates this is less about the nature of the contract (CPFF vs FFP)”

    It is about the type of contract. Per the article:

    “But the U.S. space agency is legally obligated to make up the shortfall, which totaled more than $500 million as of January, because USA operates the shuttle fleet under a COST-REIMBURSABLE [emphasis added] contract that entitles the company to charge the government for personnel costs, including pay and benefits.”

    USA could not pass along the costs of these pension shortfalls to NASA and the taxpayer under a fixed price contract.

    FWIW…

  • mr. mark

    And while we are debating, Spacex is moving forward to start work on the Falcon Heavy vehicle, which will be announced at a Nation Press Club gathering this Monday, as well as Continuing work for the upcoming COTS launch as well. Spacex has 24 launches scheduled over the next 5-6 years and 2.5 billion in upcoming revenue from those flights. You can see where things are going it’s needless to continuing to argue.

  • Michael from Iowa

    Honestly, at this point one has to wonder whether NASA should even bother with building its own LV at all. Congress can’t even pass an appropriations bill a third of the way through the year they’d be appropriating for, they’re constantly delaying hearings on space policy (the next NASA hearing won’t even be until May now), hell they won’t even let NASA terminated contracts for canceled Constellation hardware – around $100 million wasted so far this year.

    If Congress’ foot-dragging and penny-pinching is any indication of what lies in store for NASA in the coming months and years… we’ll be lucky if they have enough funding to build a shuttle replacement before the end of the decade.

    I say scrap the whole idea of a public vehicle. The pathetic amount NASA is likely to get won’t be enough to build anything decent in a reasonable time frame… but in the form of grants and prizes and future contracts it’d be more than enough to put commercial spaceflight into high gear.
    For the cost and time it would take to build one ridiculously expensive replacement for the shuttle, we could have half a dozen cheaper commercial vehicles.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mr. Mark…you got it

    Robert G. Oler

  • GuessWho

    MT – “USA could not pass along the costs of these pension shortfalls to NASA and the taxpayer under a fixed price contract.”

    Correct, thus had it been negotiated as a FFP contract at the outset, all pension benefit liabilities would have been resolved before contract signature. That was the point I was trying to get to. The pension option would have been eliminated before USA took over the consolidated contract as it would have had an undefined cost which USA could not have predicted and thus budgeted for in their cost bid at the time. No company in their right mind would take on a FFP contract without fully understanding downstream costs to a level that they could confidently budget for. Pensions are just such a cost risk.

  • GuessWho

    Michael – “… hell they won’t even let NASA terminated contracts for canceled Constellation hardware – around $100 million wasted so far this year.”

    This would be true and an issue if the goal of NASA was to produce hardware and missions. For HSF, the goal is jobs and paychecks. Thus the $100M is not wasted, it is just in a bucket of a different color. Eliminate the blue bucket and all those civil servants, that CANNOT be fired, are moved over to the purple bucket. Doesn’t matter what it is called (OCT, SLS, Office of SpaceX support and safety). The contractors aren’t delivering much in the way of hardware, mostly paper for the blue bucket squad to review and comment on.

  • Major Tom

    “Congress can’t even pass an appropriations bill a third of the way through the year they’d be appropriating for…”

    Actually, the federal fiscal year starts on October 1 of the prior year (October 1, 2010 in the case of fiscal year 2011). So we’re actually halfway through the fiscal year.

    FWIW…

  • E.P. Grondine

    Personally, its tough to maintain any objectivity when you see ATK holding the skilled workers of Alabama and Florida hostage to their 5 segs, and then add in ATK’s constant PR sloganeering and legislative maneuvering.

    ATK seems to think that if they can just delay until 2012, then a new Republican president will be able to make things alright for them.

  • E.P. Grondine

    I’m sorry I’m very tired today, and forgot to mention the skilled workers of Louisiana alongside those of Texas and Alabama.

    If there is a defense need for ATK’s 5 segs, then the funding should have been out of DoD, and they better make it explicit.

    If ATK wants to enter the medium heavy launch market, then they’ve had more than enough government “help”, and risked $0 of their own money.

    In my opinion, the key question is “why?”, and an answer to that won’t become apparent before Ed Weiler is relieved. I’ve suggested three very adequate replacements, but I’m sure with the head-hunting resources of the WH more very qualified candidates could be located.

    For all you manned Mars enthusiasts, here’s a bit of old news:
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/03/james-camerons-3d-camera-wont.html

  • Martijn Meijering

    Personally, its tough to maintain any objectivity when you see ATK holding the skilled workers of Alabama and Florida hostage to their 5 segs, and then add in ATK’s constant PR sloganeering and legislative maneuvering.

    So the asteroids are just a pretext and what you really care about is preserving the jobs of “skilled workers”? Why is it OK for these “skilled workers” to hold the space program hostage but not for ATK to do the same thing? Yes, it does look as if you have trouble maintaining objectivity.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    ” summer wrote @ April 2nd, 2011 at 3:01 am
    Has Virgin Galactic started flights yet?”

    Persume you mean public commercial flights. No where near it yet. They haven’t managed an in-flight rocket test on SS2 yet so I’d say they’re at least 12-18 months away from going ‘live’. FAA licencing will take some time anyway once they have their systems complete.

    But they’re sub-orbital and I don’t really think they’re serious about orbital at this point. More likely to be looking at point-to-point sub-orbital which was the last snippet I heard.

    Fyi here’s their test flight summary page:
    http://www.scaled.com/projects/whiteknighttwo_spaceshiptwo_test_summaries

    Cheers.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Oh in case anyone points it out, I know they have a submission for funding in to CCDev Rd2 but I don’t really consider that a serious effort. Probably a technology development path for them.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ E. P. Grondine,

    AFAIK, the only ‘defence need’ for the 5-seg RSRM is that ATK are threatening to raise the cost of their monolithic products for DoD if they aren’t able to pad out their revenues with selling segmented rockets to NASA. So, in essence, ATK are proposing that NASA funds a subsidy to them so that DoD doesn’t have to pay as much.

    A part of me would like to see DoD impose a price cap and NASA go to Aerojet, just to see the looks on their faces when they realise that their own plotting has led to disaster.

  • Robert G. Oler

    a bit of self promotion.

    If you are in range of the KPRC Ch 2 newscast in Houston texas at1800 local time I will be on concerning the 737 events

    Robert G. Oler

  • E.P. Grondine

    Hi Martin –

    Dealing with the comet and asteroid impact hazard is THE key. The first step is defining it, the second is finding these things in a timely fashion well before they hit.

    I do not want to see that tech base lost. Everyone except ATK was not averse to the 70 ton DIRECT compromise, and given the state of the economy that is the only viable possibility, and the window for DIRECT is closing rapidly.

    As I mentioned before, my guess is that the likely low cost launch alternative appears to be fly-back liquids. How the US gets there from here is the problem before us as a nation.

    Musk of SpaceX has stated that if he can not accomplish re-usability, he will have failed. If he fails, I do not want to see the US launch industry fail.

  • Martijn Meijering

    How the US gets there from here is the problem before us as a nation.

    Choosing DIRECT will not help us achieve that goal while the asteroid defence you say is necessary can be accomplished with commercial launchers too. And doing it that way will greatly aid the cause of RLVs. There is no “tech base” worth preserving that is not present in the commercial launch sector as well. It’s DIRECT or RLVs soon, not both. It’s beyond me why any space enthusiast without a financial motive would consider choosing DIRECT over RLVs, even for only a moment.

  • Coastal Ron

    E.P. Grondine wrote @ April 4th, 2011 at 3:10 pm

    Musk of SpaceX has stated that if he can not accomplish re-usability, he will have failed. If he fails, I do not want to see the US launch industry fail.

    Musk meant this from a product standpoint, not from a life & death one. He is not going to close up the company because a product feature on a profitable product does not meet his original goals.

    Likely he will evolve his product approach to something more amenable to reusability – maybe jump to RLV’s? But I don’t think he would start work on this until after he gets Dragon going for crew, so we have quit a few years to wait.

  • Robert G. Oler

    I am told by friends that there will be a CCD announcement on April 6

    Direct and SLS just keep dying Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ April 4th, 2011 at 4:35 pm

    “I am told by friends that there will be a CCD announcement on April 6″

    Maybe ATK announces that they will loft Soyuz?

  • Googaw

    Tea Party

    Some local Tea Party activists have related to me the story of how John Quincy Adams was almost impeached for advocating a federally-funded observatory (along with some more practical “infrastructure” proposals like federally-funded canals), because at the time these projects were considered so blatantly unconstitutional. I don’t know about the “almost impeached” bit, but Adams was largely unsuccessful in getting Congress to fund such projects. Tea Party folks are originalists who take these kinds of early views of the Constitution very seriously.

    With respect to the NASA budget there are three overlapping wings of the Tea Party movement, the first with this very strict construction of the Constitution, and a second with a very negative view of NASA’s role in promoting global warming theory. These two groups want to take the meat axe to NASA. A third, less active group likes NASA for what they suppose to be its national security importance, but recognize that like the DoD its budget may be bloated with waste, and they might or might not compromise and extend their cuts to NASA in the same way they would be hesitant to include DoD in the budget cuts but would probably advocate cutting particular projects if they became convinced they were wasteful, or as a compromise for getting deep cuts in the rest of the budget.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Major Tom wrote @ April 3rd, 2011 at 10:01 am

    “Actually, the federal fiscal year starts on October 1 of the prior year (October 1, 2010 in the case of fiscal year 2011). So we’re actually halfway through the fiscal year.”

    FWIW…

    Thanks for that MT. I’d been trying to match up the comments and timelines and couldn’t. Now I see why. Congress is even worse then than I’d imagined.

    On the topic of pension funding, I can’t believe this actually happens. In the Australian context it’s utterly bizzare. Superannuation / pensions, call it what you like, company contributions are mandated by federal legislation, funds are regulated by federal legislation and if people want to add additional amounts out of pay, etc, to them, then they can within limits. For low paid workers there’s a federal government co-contribution scheme. People can even have their own fund which is also required to follow the federal legislation. If, on retirement, a person’s income is below a certain limit, there’s a federal pension scheme. That’s a simplistic summary but gets most of it.

    The idea that this becomes a contract issue between a government agency and a contractor is beyond belief. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the U.S. isn’t the home of capitalism any more but socialism under another name.

  • Bennett

    “common sense wrote @ April 4th, 2011 at 4:50 pm ”

    Maybe ATK announces that they will loft Soyuz?

    Funny!

  • pathfinder_01

    US retirement is different. Nearly all workers pay social security tax to the fed. Government. When you reach retirement age you can draw social security which is paid out according to how much you put in.

    There is no law requiring companies to have pension plans or 401K but there are tax deductions for it (to the company) and for most people these days social security does not pay enough on retirement to live comfortably on it alone (It is enough to keep elderly from falling into extreme poverty but you are going to do some major downsizing to live on it alone). Most companies no longer offer pensions but offer 401k instead(401K’ if the underperform do not require the company to pay in).

    ‘The idea that this becomes a contract issue between a government agency and a contractor is beyond belief. I’m becoming more and more convinced that the U.S. isn’t the home of capitalism any more but socialism under another name.’

    In the US all pensions are private and are the property of the company. There are some laws about how they should be run but that is the limit of it. While I do think that the pension issues should have been settled beforehand the moment USA picked up those employees and their former pensions with other companies NASA was going to have to be involved if any of those employees were former NASA workers or if NASA had a hand in consolidating those contractors.

  • GuessWho

    Looks like the adults have finally arrived:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/05/usa-budget-cuts-idUSN0429071020110405

    I suspect NASA’s future will be minimalist at best along with the rest of the USG. Given that the GOP proposed $61B cut in a single year was “extreme” according to Chuck Schumer, he must apoplectic over a >$600B/yr cut this plan effectively proposes. I am eager to see the details. What is telling however is that as severe as these cuts appear, all it really does is return the USG to the debt position we were in in 2008. Still too high, but better than where we are now. Ten years of austerity to pay off 2 years of wild spending …

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Meanwhile, SpaceX have officially announced the Falcon Heavy – 50 tonnes to LEO, 13 tonnes to Mars per launch and the capability for a two-launch crewed lunar mission. Mr. Musk has officially stated that the company’s goal is to push their costs for cargo to orbit down to $1,000/pound and says that this is “not a myth anymore”.

    Say what you like about the man, but you can’t fault him for a lack of ambition!

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ April 4th, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    I think that naming the vehicle Liberty when it has a “french” upper stage is pretty hilarious already. What with those “freedom” fries? How’s our Congress going to like this?

    But if they were to loft a russian spacecraft on top of that!!! Boy that’d be something else. And I just hope our subtle friends at FoxNews would catch up on that.

    Whatever ;)

  • common sense

    @ GuessWho wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 8:27 am

    We’ll see how they fare with the cuts to medicare though. Not a done deal yet.

    ” all it really does is return the USG to the debt position we were in in 2008″

    If their plan is to have any value it must reform, not just cut.

  • E.P. Grondine

    Interesting discussions this afternoon.

    Martin, THE problem with impactors is finding them early, which means, space based detection. The launchers are tools to accomplish that.

    Once found, you then have the problem of changing their path or blowing them up into dust. Again the the launchers are tools.

    Ron, Musk’s goal is clear: low cost launch.

    Googaw, thanks for the tea party summary. This likely explains why Adams was a one term president, while Jefferson was able to put through the National Road and won a second term, with Madison going on for another.
    http://www.answers.com/topic/cumberland-road

    The best current political analysis I’ve run into is “The Wrecking Crew”, and I suggest reading it.

    One of my bottom lines is that there is nothing conservative about paying for a war with tax cuts for billionaires. Another is that the US has to become less dependent on foreign oil.

    In space politics, it is not generally understood how severe the impact hazard is. While he’s done excellent work in studying asteroid and comets, and in developing navigation, the first problem is finding these things, and relieving Ed Weiler will fix that problem almost immediately.

    All else follows.

  • Robert G. Oler

    GuessWho wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 8:27 am
    ” Ten years of austerity to pay off 2 years of wild spending …”

    goofy…the wild spending has been since Bush the last came into office.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 11:54 am

    Meanwhile, SpaceX have officially announced the Falcon Heavy – 50 tonnes to LEO, 13 tonnes to Mars per launch and the capability for a two-launch crewed lunar mission……………….

    propellent crossfeed. Strangely enough Musk and his engineers can probably pull it off.

    An impressive press conference…you can see where the future is going…what impressed me was how many engines they are going to produce…

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Mr. Musk has officially stated that the company’s goal is to push their costs for cargo to orbit down to $1,000/pound and says that this is “not a myth anymore”.

    Seems to me that the F9H is very much a myth. Comparing it to a D4H, F9 has a grossly inferior first stage thrust package, and it doesn’t have a high energy upper stage at all. Musk is getting chatty because he is nervous about the Tea Party tsunami that is about to hit. The F9H bubble gum and bailing wire design does not improve with age. There is also the minor detail that the F9H is not funded.

    You guys need to get your mind off of playing SpaceX small ball. Let’s suppose that all of you Elon Musk fantasies came true. At best the F9/Dragon mission will be to deliver fresh underwear to those stuck on the space station. A grim future.

  • pathfinder_01

    amightwind F9H does not need funding from Congress……

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Back alright? Was missing you…

    “Musk is getting chatty because he is nervous about the Tea Party tsunami that is about to hit.”

    To hit whom? SpaceX? What difference would it make to them? Now to NASA unfortunately it may be a different story considering how obtuse some GOPers of this ilk seem to be.

    “There is also the minor detail that the F9H is not funded.”

    It’s always nice that you tell us what you read in SpaceX accounting books. Alwasy the source of first hand information which has become so invaluable! Thanks!

    ” At best the F9/Dragon mission will be to deliver fresh underwear to those stuck on the space station. A grim future.”

    Well we disagree here unfortunately because I am not sure I would welcome the sight of astronauts in the ISS without underwear! So the “grim future” to me would be astronauts without underwear.

    Thanks again for the profound remarks well thought of. We need more like you on this blog to enlighten the SpaceX cheerleading crowd.

  • Michael Kent

    amightywind wrote:

    Seems to me that the F9H is very much a myth. Comparing it to a D4H, F9 has a grossly inferior first stage thrust package, and it doesn’t have a high energy upper stage at all.

    So? It will put more than twice the payload into LEO for less than half the price.

    Musk is getting chatty because he is nervous about the Tea Party tsunami that is about to hit.

    And you expect the Tea Party — a family of organizations who are overwhelmingly concerned about federal spending — to demand that Congress spend more money for less performance? Goofy.

    There is also the minor detail that the F9H is not funded.

    Yes it is. He’s funding it. When your costs are low enough you don’t need federal funding to do things.

    Mike

  • Martijn Meijering

    Thanks again for the profound remarks well thought of. We need more like you on this blog to enlighten the SpaceX cheerleading crowd.

    Yeah, I feel smarter already.

  • Bennett

    @ Common Sense

    “I think that naming the vehicle Liberty when it has a “french” upper stage is pretty hilarious already.”

    I think they were going for the reference to France’s aid to the Revolutionary Army in order to help secure “liberty” for the colonials…

    I hope ATK gets a small part (25million) of the CCDev money, so long as they have to match it. Imagine trying to get the Ariene’s engines to start a third of the way to orbit?

    Hilarity ensues.

  • amightywind

    Back alright? Was missing you…

    One last lavish ski vacation.

    I find it a little odd that Musk would choose now to have an ‘iPhone’ unveiling event. SpaceX has a crucial series of ISS resupply test flights coming up. Why would he choose now to go after a static Air Force/NRO market? Is it because NASA funding prospects are so bad? Granted Lockmart and Boeing have a cozy duopoly. The Air Force would benefit from increased competition. But if they could not make money competing with each other, what makes Musk think he can do better? I look forward to a competitive response from Boeing and Lockmart. A 2012 launch date is laughably optimistic, and a sign of desperation.

  • Your TEA Partying Congressional GOPers might be looking at Elon’s Falcon Heavy with more discerning eyes than you think Windy, if saving money for the taxpayer is more than paying lip-service and cutting away my wife’s Medicare by 2022 is the official platform.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    Comparing it to a D4H, F9 has a grossly inferior first stage thrust package, and it doesn’t have a high energy upper stage at all.

    Ah it’s good to hear from the man that said that, per his calculations, the bumblebee cannot fly.

    So Delta IV Heavy’s 2.2M lb of thrust is far superior to Falcon Heavy’s 3.8M? And per the specs on the venerable RL-10 (with a potential competitor coming from XCOR), you would need four RL-10’s to match one Merlin 1C in thrust, and likely more for a vacuum version of their uprated Merlin 1D.

    So the only thing “inferior” is your facts, and the only “high energy” thing that is lacking is your ability to comprehend said facts.

    Musk is getting chatty because he is nervous about the Tea Party tsunami that is about to hit.

    Hmm, an American company providing a better service for far less than the companies that have been gouging us for a long time? What was the mantra of the Tea Party? Oh yeah, that we should be PAYING LESS!

    I would say that Boeing, Lockheed Martin and ATK are the ones that are getting nervous – nervous that the DoD/NRO and NASA will start buying more Falcon flights, buy less Atlas/Delta, and that the Tea Party will realize the waste of money that the SLS truly is, and lead the charge to cancel it.

    At best the F9/Dragon mission will be to deliver fresh underwear to those stuck on the space station.

    True, but you make that seem like a bad thing. Logistics is the heart of any form of commerce, and the CRS program is going to be the start of one of the next revolutions in space. Oh, and with the Falcon Heavy, Dragon can now deliver fresh underwear to those stuck on the Moon and Mars, whenever NASA finally gets some money to go there. Good to know the logistics part is already taken care of… ;-)

  • E.P. Grondine

    50 Tons will do nicely, and with the economies of scale…

    The only questions left are the reliability of the Merlin 1 engine, and the engine out capabilities of the Falcon 9.

    ATK’s per launch cost for Liberty doesn’t even come close.

    ULA and Orbital have some real competition as well.

    It looks to me right now that ATK managed to shoot themselves in the foot by insisting on their 5 segs, and that they have managed to close the door for DIRECT.

    In this fiscal climate, my guess is that there is no way the country is going to pony up money to keep the NASA Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana launch tech bases in place, when the same service can be had at a much much lower price.

    ULA is based in Texas and Colorado, PWR in Alabama and Mississippi,
    while Orbital is based in Virginia/Maryland.

    ULA faces the problem of obtaining a full manufacturing license for Glushko’s engines, which is the only way Atlas’s could be clustered.

    With Tea Party Republicans in place, I don’t think the Utah delegation can roll enough logs, particularly if publicly called on the Ares 1/ATL 5 seg fiasco, and they will be.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    FH – no first flight customer but apparently customers for flights 2, 3, & 4!!

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    ” amightywind wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    … A 2012 launch date is laughably optimistic, and a sign of desperation.”

    There is no 2012 launch date. That’s just the press missing the facts again. Can’t you get anything right? That’s a rhetorical question btw since it’s more than obvious that you can’t.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Beancounter,

    No big surprise. Seriously, that thing will either fly or blow up and I don’t think that anyone is entirely keen to be the ones risking their multi-million dollar payload to find out!

    As will the first flight of Falcon-9, Musk will probably end up having to kludge together some kind of simulator payload. However, if it is proven to fly without significant issues, then we can expect things to start happening.

  • amightywind

    ATK’s per launch cost for Liberty doesn’t even come close.

    You have no idea what the real costs of the Falcon 9. Boeing, Lockmart, and Orbital have to maintain an ROI that appeals to shareholders. SpaceX is burning Musk’s own cash in an effort to enter the market. Hey, its his prerogative, but please don’t buy the line that SpaceX has miraculously halved the costs of space launch.

    As will the first flight of Falcon-9, Musk will probably end up having to kludge together some kind of simulator payload.

    This is one thing SpaceX actually has experience with.

  • Bennett

    “…simulator payload.”

    “This is one thing SpaceX actually has experience with.”

    Versus Ares 1X and all the “real” rocket and payload parts that never made it close to orbit?

    HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

    Thanks for the laugh.

  • common sense

    amightywind… Some time it feels like reason gets to you and then it evades you very quickly. Alright I am going to help a little. Read these links below and try to understand what this means. Look at the date. Look at the customers. Now think real hard. What are the customers SpaceX are REALLY after? Who are those guys and why? NASA? NASA is a nice thing to have, it is a nice excuse to fulfill Elon’s desire to explore space. BUT the market is NOT NASA. Again think. Think real hard.

    http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/87838/spacex_selected_for_responsive_space_launch_demonstration_under_darpa_falcon/

    “Posted on: Tuesday, 21 September 2004, 06:00 CDT

    EL SEGUNDO, Calif., Sept. 21 /PRNewswire/ — Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) has been awarded $8M by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and U.S. Air Force to demonstrate highly responsive, affordable launch capability. This supports broader interest by the Defense Department and Air Force in a launch capability that can rapidly add satellite coverage when needed.”

    Try this one too…

    http://www.space.com/2751-elon-musk-spacex-rocket-plans-outlined.html

    “The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the primary launch customer, Musk said, with the NASA payloads chosen by DARPA.”

  • common sense

    Ah and as a side note that I find somewhat funny. If DARPA and USAF are customers of SpaceX, does that mean that SpaceX is part of our National Security apparatus??? Unlike NASA…

    I say this is real funny, don’t y’all think?

  • common sense

    @ Bennett wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    “I think they were going for the reference to France’s aid to the Revolutionary Army in order to help secure “liberty” for the colonials…”

    Are you actually saying on this forum that France actually helped the formation of the United States of America???? Okay it’s way back when but still. What about our special relationship with the UK? What happened to that one? You know the French people, well you know, they speak french! Can’t trust them now can you? And they told us it was a bad idea to go to Iraq.

    Anyhow. It’s good to see good ol’ subtle diplomacy at work.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ April 6th, 2011 at 8:30 am

    Boeing, Lockmart, and Orbital have to maintain an ROI that appeals to shareholders.

    True, but that has nothing to do with what they charge, and how innovative they aren’t. In fact one of the things that shareholders look at is how well the CEO’s are doing at staying competitive, and right now they aren’t looking so good. How do you explain to your shareholders that a new competitor is able to offer the same service for 1/6 of the price that you can? ULA management is pretty uncomfortable right now…

    SpaceX is burning Musk’s own cash in an effort to enter the market.

    Nope. If that were true, then the company would be belly up fairly quickly, but they are not. They have been profitable for the past couple of years, and they project that they will continue to be profitable. But they are plowing those profits back into their new products and services, which is how you take over the competition:

    “There’s no point in matching the competition,” Musk said. “We want to steamroll them. We’re trying to make this a complete no-brainer.”

    The lack of innovation in the launch market is what gave SpaceX their opening, and they are taking over marketshare the old fashioned way, by offering better service for a better price. Now we just need to get Boeing and Lockheed Martin to invest money in ULA so they can lower their costs and stay competitive. Or, maybe they will decide to exist the business?

  • Googaw

    Jefferson was able to put through the National Road

    This was a postal road and came under the Constitutional postal power. The stated purpose of these roads was to expedite delivery of the federal mails. Canals and observatories, however, for most Congresscritters went too far beyond any enumerated federal powers as they understood them back in first few decades after the Constitution was ratified.

    So unless federal rockets are delivering warheads or snail mail, their justification under originalism is problematic. Thus sayeth my Tea Party friends who have studied such matters.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    ” Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ April 6th, 2011 at 4:01 am

    As will the first flight of Falcon-9, Musk will probably end up having to kludge together some kind of simulator payload. However, if it is proven to fly without significant issues, then we can expect things to start happening.’

    You’ve missed the point and the whole SpaceX operating philosophy, they plan and test, they don’t kludge. Even when things don’t go quite right (eg. MVac skirt issue) they still planned a way forward. The simulator payload was certainly not ‘kludge’. It was always planned to fly and was jam packed with instrumentation to provide a bunch of flight data for their COTS-C Demo1 flight.
    Wrt FH, still wouldn’t be surprised to see a customer for the 1st flight anyway. Since there’ll be a number of F9/Dragon flights before that which will demonstrate ongoing soundness of SpaceX designs and systems.

    And please, don’t anyone start with the ‘old technology’ rant. The FH will demonstrate several innovative technologies such as cross-feed tanking and they continue to develop their Merlin capabilities to M1D such as their in-house upgraded turbo-pumps. In fact, it’s an evolved version of the F9.
    In addition, due to the capabilities of the cross-feed arrangements (which are designed to be turned off if required), the 2 strap-ons may survive for reuse due to the lower altitude on release. That would be very well done indeed if it works.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    “E.P. Grondine wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 8:52 pm
    50 Tons will do nicely, and with the economies of scale…

    The only questions left are the reliability of the Merlin 1 engine, and the engine out capabilities of the Falcon 9.”

    So, SpaceX have flown what, 6 variants of the Merlin of which 4 have made it to orbit so far. This amounts to 22 engines flight tested (sorry, 1 was actually commercial customer F1 Flight 5). Not to mention all the static firings they’ve done both on the pad and at McGregor.
    Not one failure so far. If you’re engines reliable, no engine-out capability needed.
    In addition to that, on F9 flights, SpaceX deliberately shut down 2 engines at MECO1 prior full stage one MECO2 shutdown. Seemingly excellent control of their engine systems. So all in all, evidence indicates a pretty reliable power plant to me.

    Further, it’s clear that SpaceX have a talented in-house engine design, testing and manufacturing team in place. They’ve started with a relatively simple design which they continue to improve. I would say that in the liquids engine area, they currently have the most expertise of any commercial or government organisation in the U.S. And they also have staff with liquid hydrogen experience and a existing engine design licence if they want to explore that route which I reckon they already have.

    Questions answered.

  • DCSCA

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ April 5th, 2011 at 11:54 am
    ROFLMAO SpaceX is very good at announcing everything yet never flying anybody. It’s a ticket to no place. Branson is on the right track for this era. Musk is a waste of time and capital investment– as the capital markets have shown.

Leave a Reply to E.P. Grondine 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>