[Update 11:35 pm: Fortunately, these shutdown preparations will not have to be enacted. Congress and the White House have agreed on a budget deal for the rest FY11, and will pass a seven-day CR tonight to give them enough time to finalize the legislation and pass it.]
If no agreement is reached on a fiscal year 2011 budget by midnight tonight, shuttle launch preparations will cease, work on other satellite missions under development will stop, and, if you were planning to while away the weekend watching some action-packed NASA TV programming, you’re out of luck. A memo from NASA CFO Beth Robinson outlines the agency’s plans in the event of a shutdown caused by the lack of a FY11 budget or continuing resolution.
According to the memo, operations of the ISS and other active spacecraft would continue during a shutdown, and there would also be an allowance for an orderly completion or shutdown of other research “in cases where serious damage to property would result from temporary suspension of the activity.” Other activities across the agency intended to “protect life and property” will also continue, and contractors can keep working on projects under contracts obligated prior to the shutdown so long as NASA facilities and personnel are not required for that work. Had the shuttle been in orbit, or in the final phases of countdown to launch, its operations would have also continued, but in this case only those operations needed “to monitor and maintain the safety of the assets” will continue. Some activities included in the memo that will not continue during a shutdown include educational projects, tours of NASA centers, NASA web sites, and “televised access to NASA operations and programming”. (Florida Today does note that the Kennedy Space Center Visitor Complex would remain open since it is privately run, and apparently tour buses would still be allowed on center property during a shutdown.)
The table at the end of the memo makes it clear that the vast majority of NASA personnel would be furloughed in the event of a shutdown. Of the agency’s 19,014 employees, only 481 full-time equivalents (FTEs) would be exempted on a full- or part-time basis during a shutdown, with nearly half of those at JSC (reflecting, presumably, ISS operations.) Only 6 of the nearly 1,700 personnel at the Glenn Research Center would be exempted fro furlough, and only 22 of the 1,600-plus at Headquarters. A larger number–nearly 2,000 agency-wide–would be available “on call” if necessary for specific tasks.
Just another reason why substantial pieces of our space exploration efforts need to be handed off to the private sector. The shutdown is part of the same dysfunctional politics that is crippling at least human space flight planning. SpaceX folks will be working happily through the shutdown.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Just another reason why substantial pieces of our space exploration efforts need to be handed off to the private sector.
Nonsense. But then, perhaps have travel plans on Braniff or Eastern… or the Trump Shuttle.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 11:58 am
“SpaceX folks will be working happily through the shutdown.”
That remains to be seen… especially if it involves any government contracted work. But then, they’ve flown nobody– and never will and remain a ticket to no plave so whether they work or not is no loss to HSF planning.
DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 12:35 pm
” But then, perhaps have travel plans on Braniff or Eastern… or the Trump Shuttle.”
the joy of the free enterprise system is that it “should” (but does not under Republican pro corporate groups) cleanses malfunctioning and dysfunctional organizations
Robert G. Oler
@ DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
I was wondering about SpaceX. Did they actually fly someone recently? What is your opinion on that? Are they going to fly someone soon? It is not quite clear to me whether they will or not fly someone? Any insight you’d like to share with us?
Thanks!
…(but does not under Republican pro corporate groups) cleanses malfunctioning and dysfunctional organizations
You mean like GM and Chrysler? You don’t even make a good democrat partisan.
Excellent point DCSCA. Perhaps we will find out just how deep Musk’s pockets are.
@common sense wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Dream on. Tick-tock, tick-tock. And watch Branson fly. He’s on the right track for this era.
amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
Actually, Wall Street “banks” on government subsidies to bail it out every few decades. Sweet racket. Too bad money and not the space industry is what makes the world go around. But then, in another millenium past, salt was valued as a treasure, not a seasoning.
@ DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:14 pm
“Dream on. Tick-tock, tick-tock. And watch Branson fly. He’s on the right track for this era.”
So you don’t really know whether SpaceX flew some one? Or whether they will fly some one soon? How about Virgin Galactic? Put any one in orbit recently? Or soon? Oh boy it is so difficult to keep track with all that is going on. At least the shutdown will give us some well needed relief.
@ amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
@ DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
“Perhaps we will find out just how deep Musk’s pockets are.”
“But then, in another millenium past, salt was valued as a treasure, not a seasoning.”
Seems you guys are talking with one voice now! Good it’ll make it easier to post fewer messages. So how deep his pockets need to be? Is it that important to someone who claims to be a fervent Republican? But I can see two philosophers joining forces now. So HSF is salt now? But actually salt “was” a treasure and is a “seasoning” now. Are you saying that NASA was a treasure and is becoming a seasoning? Soon we’ll have NASA-TV join the Food Network and finally see some spicy NASA HSF coverage. Not a bad idea after all. Bam!
“Nonsense. But then, perhaps have travel plans on Braniff or Eastern… or the Trump Shuttle.”
You know, those companies collapsed, and human air travel continued with more efficient programs. I don’t miss those companies. I don’t even think about them anymore. Air travel continued because there was value in that work. The collapse of those companies was part of an evolutionary process of improvement of air travel operations. That process is called capitalism. If the product has value, then someone will step up to the plate to get it done in an effort to realize that value.
Of course, U.S. space enterprises of dubious value either never collapse, or when they do (e.g. Constellation), they don’t go away gracefully. They just haunt our future. Why? Because of pork, federal procurement, and politics. Braniff, Eastern, and Trump Shuttle went away. R.I.P.
I’m becoming more convinced that our government is simply not capable of producing a sustainable program of human space flight. Now, ISS and Shuttle have been such sustainable programs, but I can’t help but wonder if we’re still capable of starting something like those. The Apollo program was, of course, not such a program.
To the many people who think that LEO operations should be turned over entirely to commercial, but that BEO missions should be kept under NASA control, one still has to wonder if NASA, and the heavy congressional thumb it is under, has what it takes to do the latter. I’m not talking about technological grounding or engineering expertise, which NASA certainly has, but about an environment of sustainability for a grand mission that will consume a large part of the agency budget. As we are currently witnessing, our nation has trouble sustaining the whole shebang.
FWIW
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/government-shutdown-2011-military-pay-disrupted-boehner-reid/story?id=13327722
“In the case of a government shutdown, essential personnel who are kept on duty — including troops in the field — do not receive paychecks, but members of Congress do.”
Make what you will of this.
So how deep his pockets need to be? Is it that important to someone who claims to be a fervent Republican?
No. Musk can do what he wants. My point is that F9 is a very conventional piece of technology. It is not clear how it will drive the cost of space launch down by the >50% as Musk claims. Eventually his extravagant claims will meet economic and technical reality. He will under deliver and you chimps will still be cheerleading.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 1:44 pm
I’m becoming more convinced that our government is simply not capable of producing a sustainable program of human space flight
Hmmm. The United States government has been sustaining a HSF program for half a century as of May 5. And, of course, “capitalism’ has always been a follow-along in the 80-plus year history of rocketry and space development. Never a leader, but always cashing in where it could while government has led the way by socializing the risk. It has been governments, in various guises, which has pushed the technology forward in this still relatively new and developing arena. But for profit ‘capitalism’ Reaganomics et al, ain’t gonna lead the human expansion out into the cosmos any time soon– unless you catch it in the movies. See ‘Destination Moon’ for a good busienss plan– then hope you discover uranium on the moon by reel five.
common sense wrote:
I was wondering about SpaceX. Did they actually fly someone recently? What is your opinion on that? Are they going to fly someone soon? It is not quite clear to me whether they will or not fly someone? Any insight you’d like to share with us?
After Dragon flew, Elon Musk said he planned to fly humans aboard Dragon in 2013. It should be noted he did not say NASA personnel.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if SpaceX hires former astronauts to fly on the first crewed test flights. Otherwise he’ll be waiting forever while NASA tries to get permission from porking members of Congress desperate to maintain their monopoly on who goes into space.
My point is that F9 is a very conventional piece of technology. It is not clear how it will drive the cost of space launch down by the >50% as Musk claims.
Reduction in costs is a matter of economics, not technology. Reducing costs and prices by two to three orders of magnitude would require technical breakthroughs.
@ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Stephen I was only playing DCSCA at his own game…
SpaceX has already hired 2 astronauts: Bowersox and Reisman. You make whatever you like of this
amightywind wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 2:59 pm
“No. Musk can do what he wants. My point is that F9 is a very conventional piece of technology”
technology does not seem to be the issue in terms of driving the cost of human spaceflight, what seems to be driving the cost “Now” is NASA and its legacy contractors (and with people like you supporting them) tendency to “over people” a problem.
Southwest Airlines has a per hour cost on its 737 NG aircraft (to keep apples to apples) that is significantly lower then its opposite numbers at CAL for instance…and it is not because they have the 737 NG’s with the special cost saving items…nor is it because they pay their people less (in fact SWA’s flight personnel are some of the highest paid in the industry)
What they do is use the people much more efficiently and have a curiously entertaining mix of people/technology so that on a given airplane “turn” they will do the turn with about 50% less people then CAL will.
USA has a proposal (which I dont support) which claims that they can fly the shuttle “system” significantly cheaper then it is being flown now…and they do this by eliminating a lot of the people and process steps that NASA corporate claims is important.
One reason that the EELV’s and perhaps Musk seem to be able to fly cheaper is that they have gotten a good hand on the process which allows them to use less “people” and far more technology then NASA uses…Go look at the firing room personnel for any launch (Shuttle/EELV/Falcon1/9) and you see levels of personnel decreasing as one goes down the list.
NASA’s programs (which you seem to support simply because they drive some inner feeling you have) are consistently “over FTE” and they dont look for ways to fix that in any serious fashion.
we are seemingly some distance from the need for exotic technology to start lowering launch cost. Indeed in an era where the full Gemini program (including R&D, flights, and people) cost about 1/2 in current dollars what Cx cost just to get to a suborbital flight of a non representative rocket…its pretty clear that technology development is the least of our problems.
Try being serious for a change Robert G. oler
A MESSAGE TO SOON TO BE FURLOUGHED NASA EMPLOYEES
Are you tired of political squabbling getting in the way of you making a living with your unique and experienced skill sets? Not sure how much longer you’ll even have your government job given that one of the major politically parties is founded on a base that is anti-science and anti-public spending? Well then I implore you to consider jumping ship and seeking employment in the private space sector! Sure, there isn’t enough jobs for everyone out there right now, but many of these companies already have expansions planned and it’s never too early to start formulating your exit strategy.
DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
“Hmmm. The United States government has been sustaining a HSF program for half a century as of May 5.”
Yep. Just as I said. Although no, there was nothing truly sustainable about Apollo, much to the frustration of most human space flight advocates. But what I was wondering is if we were still able to set something like this up. It’s been a LONG time since we actually conceived something like the ISS or Shuttle operations. Those two programs were begun with a kind of political consensus management and commitment that perhaps doesn’t exist anymore, at least for space. This isn’t about NASA. It’s about Congress, which basically rendered Constellation unexecutable by refusing to pay for it, and proceeded to reprogram the plans of the new administration.
The soft power that we’re seeing exercised with respect to human space flight is, by the way, that of Congress. Not the United States. Congress is in control, and while it’s their constitutional responsibility, they’re not going to let us forget it. The sustainability of a U.S. human space flight program is contingent on them, and they frankly don’t want to play the game. What they want to sustain is money coming to their constituents. As we look at what’s happening today (and over the last five months), the word sustainability isn’t obviously part of the congressional vocabulary.
@common sense wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
Yes, you play games but fly nobody. Tick-tock, tick-tock. Musk can hire two or two hundred. They make nice window dressing and are great for PR… but SpaceX has not flown ANYBODY. And most likely never will– unless Musk buys them tickets on Branson’s bird.
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
LOL Musk ‘launches’ more press releases into the media universe than Donald Trump. Of course, to date, Musk has flown nobody… however, Donald Trump has– see the now defunct Trump Shuttle for details. At least he gave it a go.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Well, the central issue really facing NASA and the U.S. is a rationale for HSF. The Cold War worked out well in that respect to get the thing off the ground circa 1961. Today, “exploration” -at least with the current generation, doesn’t ignite the kind of ‘wonder’ or ‘inspiration’ as a core motivator as it did with previous generations, at least in the United States. China may see it differently- as a matter of prestige; a matter of reinforcing technical skill and asserting ‘ownership’ of a new century. They’ll find a rationale and make it work for them. But this writer =drum roll= tends to agree with Oler that lofting expensive manned spacecraft to the moon and beyond to leave footprints, raise flags and gather rocks doesn’t sell well to the generation of today facing the Age of Austerity. The been there, done that thing echoes from them. If it was national policy to expand ‘American values’ out and lay claim to planetoids a la Arthur C. Clarke or such, maybe, but it’s a stretch and in this economic climate it’s all that more science fiction. My position is more pragmatic. Given the lead time necessary for planning space projects of scale in this era– tucking NASA back under the protective wing of the DoD may just give some stability in terms of funding and an opportunity for reasonable planning. Keeping the infrastructure in place– as once its gone, it will be all the more difficult and expensive to replace. As of now, the space agency has been is blatant free drift for a decade and going in circles since 1981. And in this climate, it’s absurd to attempt any planning while the government is operating week to week on CRs. This takes nothing away from the technical achievement of shuttle, but it’s not really a ‘space program’ to project a future upon. The ISS should have been firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms 240,000 miles out…. not soaring in circles 240 miles above Earth. Most likely space will continue to get bumped down the list of national priorities for a decade or so. Branson will make a splash when he starts flying and his way seems to be a logical bridge to the next phase. Musk, less so. He’s a ticket to no place in this era. If he ever orbits a crew and they survive, it will be a pleasure to be proved wrong. But don’t hold your breath. And the possible irony of having the government shutdown as April 12th passes is inescapable. no one will be at work to dispose of the shuttles… and the anniversary of Gagarin’s flight will be celebrated by Russia, still flying manned spacecraft.
“But then, they’ve flown nobody– and never will.”
“but SpaceX has not flown ANYBODY. And most likely never will”
So which is it? Are you unsure of your beliefs? Do meds change your opinion?
I am SO looking forward to shoving this into your faceless persona. I’ll be around in 3 years, will you?
@Bennett wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Tick-tock, tick-tock. Sir Richard will be giving you heartburn, for years to come, indeed.
@James T wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
A MESSAGE TO SOON TO BE FURLOUGHED NASA EMPLOYEES
Oops! Now you know why they say thirty seconds is a lifetime to a test pilot.
Branson and VG have about given up on orbital. The last I’d heard was that they were spending more resources considering point-to-point sub-orbital (modern Concord). Apart from their CCDev Rd2 partnership which is about tech. development, not actually creating an orbital system or vehicle as such.
It’s true that sub-orbital is enough to qualify someone as an astronaut however my interest is not sub-orbital which requires many times less energy and is consequently many times less difficult than orbital.
So now that we have a FY 11 Budget ( almost) what is “the plan” for shutting down Ares and starting SLS? I assume the “shelby” amendment is void once the budget has been approved / signed / authorized… or are we still proceeding with business as usuall? Ive lost track….
DCSCA wrote @ April 8th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
“Well, the central issue really facing NASA and the U.S. is a rationale for HSF.”
Well put, about the dearth of real rationale for HSF. The “exploration” justification is one that no one really understands any more, though it’s a handy word that HSF advocates like to hide behind.
The idea that HSF should be relegated to DOD is an interesting idea. Especially, as I said, because there is the perception in Congress that HSF matters to national security. Now, the awkward thing would be if DOD didn’t want to take it, thereby validating the error in that perception. The large projects that have some semblance of political sustainability are, in fact, DOD projects. We haven’t forgotten how to do sustainable projects for DOD.
I am more hopeful about the commercial efforts, in the spirit of possible commercial value of human space flight. That spirit is not that well grounded, of course. If it were really all about policy, then of course the reluctance of many people in Congress to get behind commercial human space flight would be because of the perceived need to them of human space flight for national security. We’re going to hand off our national security to Elon Musk??? But it’s not about policy, of course. It’s about the lift capacity of launchers to drop dollar bills in specific districts which is, of course, easier than putting them in LEO. To the extent that Musk has a ticket to no place in this era, the same should be said about Congress, whose SLS is designed simply to do that.
@ Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 11:12 am
I have to say I am a little perplexed here after your comments.
DoD does not want NASA, never did, never will. If they can use NASA assets they will of course, why not, if it does not come out of their budget. The last classified Shuttle mission was circa 1992. It is way too complicated to use non classified assets and personel for any military mission. DoD would have to clear all those people and facilities. Not going to happen. They’d have to have a real justification and they don’t otherwise they would have a human space program of their own. Which they already might, who de heck knows if it is classified. If the national security issue was a real one then you would hear from people in the DoD, so far only crickets we hear. So this all DoD nonsense will not happen. Nope. And it is not interesting as an idea it would only damage all the efforts one in space policy by the US and the other nations. Come on!
Now agaoin about Musk, no one is handing our national security to him, what a shortcut! BUT he was initially funded by DARPA and the USAF. That on the other means something about the role of SpaceX in national security. Our own DoD actually put money into SpaceX. This is REALITY, not the NASA under DoD mumbo jumbo. What they want is real affordable and rapid access to space and this precisely what SpaceX is showing. Remember the quick turn around onpad after the nozzle issue. For a military mission you don’t have the luxury to make a 2 week analysis before launch or your asset only is in your mind. Again DoD partially financed SpaceX, much more important to note than COTS or CRS. COTS and CRS are vehicles for SpaceX to exist along with selling their products.
Again Doug, SLS is NOT designed, there is no such thing as an SLS to this day. SLS represents the daydreaming wishes of the Congress pork machine to their states. There is nothing but that in SLS. Who will use SLS? To do what?
Ugghhh.
common sense wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 11:54 am
If Falcon 9 and F9H work as advertised at the cost offered…the DoD and all national security groups would be stupid to NOT get on the vehicle. What is holding back the next generation of military space aps (no not laser battle stations) is launch cost…Falcon 9 and F9H particularly the later if it crosses the 1000 dollar a pound number…changes everything.
off for an afternoon of turning and burning over the Houston skies…
Robert G. Oler
The DOD has never been in a situation where the private sector has access to a transportation system denied to them.
I do not believe that the Xprize and suborbital launches would have taken place if the miltary had not given it a green light.
Congress has been reluctant to allow weapons in space and or the idea of miltary space planes. But if the public gets used to seeing commercial suborbital it will not be a big jump at all if the miltary starts buying some point to point suborbital space places from the spaceship factory.
common sense wrote:
“DoD does not want NASA, never did, never will. If they can use NASA assets they will of course, why not, if it does not come out of their budget. The last classified Shuttle mission was circa 1992. It is way too complicated to use non classified assets and personel for any military mission. DoD would have to clear all those people and facilities.”
Personally, I don’t think the military minds that SpaceX is going ahead with the Falcon Heavy. They can upgrade their spaceplane and give it a lot more cargo space.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 11:12 am
Bear in mind, before events forced the creation of NASA, DoD was the space program and the brass and eggheads of the era expected it to be so. High altutude flight research was underway by the AF for a decade and the definitive orgins of what became known as Project Mercury were DoD/USAF planning in 1956. The Navy used the civilian-staffed lab to get Vanguard going; the Army had Von Braun. And, of course, the roster of astronaut-test pilots, past ans present, is virtually all military. It really was where the nation expected space operations to flourish until Sputnik. And the intrigue surrounding the legalities resulting in Corona have only recently come to public light. For the Age of Austerity, space operations in general and HSF as a survivable venue, is a good fit for DoD. You can rationalize anything as essential to ‘national security’… from HSF to a stapler. The biggest squawk against it come from the shills in the budding commerical sector fearful of having to get in line behind DoD contractors and see any opportunity to siphon off government subsidies denied them by private capital markets due to the high risk and low ROI, evaporate.
The next logical phase for ‘commercial HSF’ is Branson’s effort. Sub-orbital pops for paying passengers for profit in this era will establish and verify the venue. A spaceport, a ‘Sherpard’ ride, paying passengers and ‘gee, whadda view’ press for a few years is a good thing fifty ywears on from Freedom 7 in a harsh and highly unforgiving environment. With respect to HSF, Musk is a ticket to no place. There’s no economic rationale to dump millions into a LEO manned capsule for access to the ISS already slated for splash by 2020 in the Age of Austerity. Access redundant to the Soyuz, which has been flying crews for 40 years. Dragon may end up hauling cargo and proving room service to the ISS, but it’s not worth the investment to carry crews. Soyuz was initially designed as a lunar distance spacecraft and been operational for over 40 years in LEO. Dragon is an LEO cargo can and incapable of carrying crews to date, having no verified, operational and flight-tested ECS. The only Mars Musk will be retiring to is Mars, Pennsylvania. Branson is on the right track, and unlike Musk, Branson’s not afraid to ride in his own spacecraft.
@ common sense wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 11:54 am
“DoD does not want NASA, never did, never will.”
You’d do well to bone up on some history. DoD (Army, Navy,AF) ‘WAS’ the ‘space program’ of the pre-NASA USA before Cold War political ‘events’ forced Ike to invent NASA and the military was none too pleased about having its hardware and assets ripped away from them. Even Von Braun was initially opposed to it before he saw the light- and smelled where the funding was going (no bucks, no Buck Rogers) and changee his mind. Today’s military will salute and do as it’s told by civilian authority- and if it’s told to make use of NASA assets, planning and procedures to streamline costs of space operations through the Age of Austerity, it will. And don’t kid yourself; there isn’t a military pilot/aviator alive who’d pass up taking a crack at the controls of a manned spacecraft if the opportunity presented itself.
“You’d do well to bone up on some history. DoD (Army, Navy,AF) ‘WAS’ the ‘space program’ of the pre-NASA USA before Cold War political ‘events’ ”
You’d do well to bone up on reality and quit spouting irrelevant history. NASA is not going to be part of the DOD.
Don’t kid yourself, there isn’t a bit of truth in your posts.
Jeff: How much did NASA get cut in last night’s deal?
How much did NASA get cut in last night’s deal?
Only the overall level of budget cuts were announced last night. It’s my understanding we’ll see the details on Monday when the draft of the legislation for the full-year CR is released.
@byeman wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 2:57 pm
No truth? Hmmm. Circa 1956: “General Thomas S. Power, [USAF] Commander of ARDC, expressed-impatience with the failure of his “idea men” to propose any advanced flight systems that could be undertaken after the X-15. Work should begin now, he declared, on two or three separate approaches beyond the X-15, including a vehicle that would operate outside the atmosphere without wings. He suggested that a manned ballistic rocket might be “eventually capable of useful intercontinental military and commercial transport and cargo operation.” But the main benefit of having an advanced research project underway, Power pointed out, was that the Air Force could more easily acquire funds for the “general technical work needed.”
“Thus prodded into action, Power’s staff quickly proposed two separate research projects. [The second,] termed “Manned Ballistic Rocket Research System,” would be a separable manned nose cone, or capsule, the final stage of an ICBM. Such a vehicle could lead to the “quick reaction delivery of high priority logistics to any place on Earth,” as suggested by Power, or to a manned satellite. Power’s staff argued that the manned ballistic concept offered the greater promise, because the solution to the outstanding technical problems, the most critical of which was aerodynamic heating, would result from current ICBM research and development; because existing ICBMs would furnish the booster system, so that efforts could be concentrated on the capsule; and because the ballistic vehicle possibly could be developed by 1960. Either program, however, should be pushed rapidly so that the Air Force could protect its own interests in the field of space flight.
In March 1956, ARDC established two research projects, one for [a] glide rocket system, the other, known as Task 27544, for the manned ballistic capsule.” – source, NASA. Task 27544 evolved into Project Mercury. Bye-bye, Byeman.
Jeff: Thanks. I’m looking forward to seeing the details.
@ Robert G. Oler` wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@ Vladislaw wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Just want to make sure I made myself clear:
1. NASA will not go under DoD. Period. I’ll pass our friend DCSCA usual tirade.
2. SpaceX is/was partially funded by DARPA/USAF hence DoD. DoD therefore sees SpaceX somehow as part of our national security: Quick, affordable access to space. However, not for humans but rather for satellites and the likes. No Space Marines for a while to come sorry.
3. It’s not whether DoD minds F9H, it rather is that F9H is coming out of a program, again, funded by DoD. What the relationship between SpaceX and DoD might be remains to be seen and is yet another story.
4. Weapons in space is not about the US public, it is about international treaties: Never going to happen, not openly anyway. Therefore if it were to happen it already did. The DoD needs neither NASA nor SpaceX to do that.
Now for the sake of argument: X-37 flies on F9H, what does that mean? Ever thought about that: Responsive, quick, military space vector.
@ DCSCA wrote @ April 9th, 2011 at 1:46 pm
I thought I would pass but I just can’t help.
“there isn’t a military pilot/aviator alive who’d pass up taking a crack at the controls of a manned spacecraft if the opportunity presented itself.”
See this to those who know at least a little ought to say how little you actually know about the subject. The next generation of spacecraft will be crewed, not manned, and will be fully automated. No controls my friend. No joystick. The last one was Shuttle and might have been in part Orion. Shuttle is gone and Orion too. No controls. No fighter pilot with a white scarf rolling the victory roll. And of course I am talking orbital vehicles. The only remaining place for the pilots and not for that long is the suborbital hop business. And not all teh suborbital hops will require a pilot.
F’oget’about’it.
“In March 1956,”
Yeah some people seem to have a terrible time coming out to 2011. 1956 is relevant to the current geopolitical, and space policy situation. For sure. Now let’s check the successor to X-15 so to speak is what? X-51 maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-51
Any difference you think between X-15 and X-51, I mean technical difference you can see?
Oh well…
F9H nor the X-37vwill neither be responsive or quick. X-37 takes just as long to prepare as any spacecraft.
No relationship between DOD and F9H.
@ Byeman wrote @ April 10th, 2011 at 9:05 am
I was only asking. Any reference to your assertion between DoD and F9H? Note that responsive or quick is a relative notion, should I say “more responsive” or “quicker”?
I don’t know enough about X-37 though. But it’d be nice you give us more than a few words…
DCSCA
Soon to join the ranks of AlmightHotAir. Branson as the logical step to orbital – next stupid idea please! No basis in fact (SS3 not happening for orbital) otherwise point to it and, CCDev Rd2 isn’t it.
SpaceX has a business already for LEO. No need for NASA or DoD. But those are markets and SpaceX believes they are worth pursuing.
BTW Musk is on record for wanting a mission to Mars. He’s perhaps doing more than anyone to promote this by moving forward on FH on his own dime. No other company private or public has done that.
@Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ April 11th, 2011 at 2:28 am
Who said anything about Branson HSF commerical as ‘orbital?’– only you. You don’t read very well as the comment says: ‘The next logical phase for ‘commercial HSF’ is Branson’s effort.’ Suborbital commerical pops w/paying passengers for the thrill and view is a sound, logical step. SpaceX is a ticket to no place in HSF. But then, we’re all awaiting Australia’s first manned space mission, too,- orbital or sub-orbital, aren’t we.
“Suborbital commerical pops w/paying passengers for the thrill and view is a sound, logical step. SpaceX is a ticket to no place in HSF.”
let me get this straight, a 5minute up and down ride isn’t a ticket to no place, but an orbit trip to a bigelow station is a ticket to no place?