Congress, Lobbying, NASA

Commercial space advocates sound the alert

Advocacy groups, concerned about the effect of potential budget cuts in fiscal year 2012 on NASA’s commercial crew and space technology programs, are rallying support for those programs on Capitol Hill this week. Late yesterday the Space Access Society (SAS) sent out an alert about these programs, asking people to contact their representatives by Friday morning “and ask that they tell the Appropriations Committee that they support full funding for the NASA Commercial Crew and Space Technology programs.” The Space Frontier Foundation also sent our a similar alert last night.

Their concern is rooted in the the FY12 appropriations allocations released last week that could result in significant budget cuts for NASA in the coming year. “It’s going to get messy. Any item not strongly defended could be vulnerable,” the SAS alert warns. The alert continues that the leadership of the Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations subcommittee, whose jurisdiction includes NASA, has decided to ask members of Congress this week what programs they believe should have their funding increased in decreased. A push now for programs like commercial crew and technology development—potentially vulnerable to cuts—could have “a considerable impact” on what the subcommittee decides in its markup in July. Previous lobbying efforts by SAS and others may have already had an effect: the alert notes that the subcommittee “is now definitely aware there’s opposition” to the Space Launch System, which the organization dismisses as an “earmark”.

37 comments to Commercial space advocates sound the alert

  • amightywind

    Newspace should expect an aggressive, hostile response to their political offensive of the last 2 years. It is what they get for attempting to give the nation ‘the bum’s rush’ in sabotaging NASA space flight. As the GOP majority increases so will the relative prospects for traditional NASA.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 9:32 am

    Let’s see.

    Constellation was a ruinous program conceived under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about fiscal conservatism…

    Shuttle was cancelled under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about “sabotaging NASA space flight”.

    In our next episodes, amightywind attempts to come back to reality fail because of ATK.

  • SpaceColonizer

    I guess I’ll try to call my rep… I get the feeling he won’t do anything about it.

  • Matt Wiser

    almightywind is correct: the Newspace crowd ought to expect pushback. And they’ll get it.

  • J Lomas

    The blame is on us… We voted them in – the politicians. Don’t just ‘kill’ one side. Congress under the democrats are just as bad. Ares/Constellation is deemed, by the Democrats (and the Augustine Commission) as too expensive and way beyond budget – Ares X test flight was regarded as a $1bn partial success. $1bn! Look as what has been achieved by Scaled Composites/SpaceX and others in the ‘Newspace’ arena for that sort of money – a lot of it their own… True, Richard Branson has invested ‘his money’ with Scaled for Virgin Galactic Elon has put in a whole bunch of his ‘personal fortune’, along with government money to get Falcon 9/Falcon 1/Dragon to the stage where SpaceX is at right now. More are coming…
    Government is supposed to be getting out of the ‘transportation side’ (supplying the ships back in Columbus’ day)…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Matt & Almightywind

    I offer the following without comment

    http://www.teainspace.com/

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    the Newspace crowd ought to expect pushback. And they’ll get it.

    So you think “old space” should get a free ride? No oversight?

    Should Congress, as a whole, debate the need for a rocket that has no funded payloads, and no defined needs? A program that meets the definition of the term “earmark” by the way. I think they should, how about you?

    That is the debate that some are afraid of, not the cost effectiveness of using competitive contracts to spur innovation in an area that has been bereft for too long.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 9:32 am
    With respect to HSF operations, bear in mind, “Newspace” has yet to launch, orbit and safely return anybody. Until ‘that crowd’ calculates the risk of putting some ‘skin in the game’ is worth the rewards to be gained– rewards being financial profit, not any political/prestige/military/strategic advantage- they’re tilting at windmills. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • Vladislaw

    amightywind wrote:

    Newspace should expect an aggressive, hostile response to their political offensive of the last 2 years. It is what they get for attempting to give the nation ‘the bum’s rush’ in sabotaging NASA space flight. As the GOP majority increases so will the relative prospects for traditional NASA

    Matt Wiser wrote:

    “almightywind is correct: the Newspace crowd ought to expect pushback. And they’ll get it.”

    You guys are right, when American entrepreneurs try and create new companies to hire high tech workers in this economic enviroment with the purpose of delivering a lower cost product to the taxpayers they should expect to be CRUSHED right out of existance! What audacity to think they can do this … I think the government should send in armed troops and blockade their factories and not allow and workers to get it. That will show them.

  • Michael Kent

    DCSCA wrote:

    With respect to HSF operations, bear in mind, “Newspace” has yet to launch, orbit and safely return anybody.

    Perhaps not, but Boeing has. Every person NASA has ever launched into space flew there in a vehicle designed and built by Boeing. Why single out NewSpace when Boeing is a major CCDev competitor?

    BTW, Constellation has yet to launch, orbit, and safely return anybody. Tick-tock, tick-tock. The world is waiting.

    Goose, meet gander.

    Mike

  • Adam K

    Common Sense, I’m not sure what your problem is with ATK. They are the ONLY prime contractor that has met all obligations and at budget set out by NASA. It is not ATK’s fault that Ares Failed or that it the costs were politically high.

  • Matt Wiser

    Concur with Adam K: ATK was on time and at budget. Don’t blame the company for Ares being cancelled.

    Ron: Said it before, and I’ll repeat (again) I do want the commercial sector to succeed, so that NASA can go explore. But so far, they have never been in front of a Congressional Committee to explain what they want to do, and how much of a role NASA should have in oversight, mission assurance, and even who flies the vehicle. A year ago, Peggy Whitson, head of the Astronaut Corps, said the corps preferred a lease arrangement: NASA leases the vehicle (if reusable) and flies it. Once the mission’s over, it’s returned to the commercial provider to refurbish and refly for whoever wants to use it next. Boeing’s commerical head was at the Cape for the first Endeavour launch attempt and he was saying that Boeing would seriously consider NASA astronauts to fly Boeing’s CST-1000 for flight tests to LEO and ISS, instead of Boeing employees. Nothing wrong with that. The sooner the commercial sector gets stood up, the sooner NASA can go explore. Build the rocket, build the crew vehicle, build a hab module for long-duration flights (lengthy stays in lunar orbit, L-Points, NEO flyby) and GO.

    Vadislaw: Again, I’m not knocking the commercial sector. But they are not God, and their asperations are getting to their heads. They need to look at the near-term (5 yrs) and say “when can we fly crew and cargo to ISS?” Then mid-term (10 years: propellant depots, continued ISS support, etc.)
    Long-term (support of L-points, lunar base, if any, etc.) None of this “retiring on Mars” crap from Lord Musk-who definitely needs to show up on the Hill and get cut down to size.

  • common sense

    @ Adam K wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 9:02 pm

    You mean a company who had an executive that went to make decisions for Constellation at NASA, a company that got sole source contract for Ares?

    It’s not their fault that the costs were politically high??? So they got a sole source contract and they termed the costs but they had nothing to do with that?

    Ah yeah and they lobbied for a launcher that is unsafe for a crew abort.

    I don’t have a problem with them, except for the above.

    Interesting universe you live in.

  • wodun

    common sense wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 12:17 pm

    Let’s see.

    Constellation was a ruinous program conceived under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about fiscal conservatism…

    Shuttle was cancelled under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about “sabotaging NASA space flight”.

    Strangely enough COTS came from those same people. Where would new space be today without COTS?

    COTS and CCDEV were two of the best things to ever happen for NASA. Hopefully, enough people in congress will realize this.

  • Bennett

    “It is not ATK’s fault that Ares Failed”

    But it is ATKs fault, in that they offered Mike Griffin more than he could refuse (off the record), prettied up with their line of BS about how “you’ll be a hero to humanity by basing your super duper rocket on our big ‘ol srb.”

    Ooops. Big no-bid contract, epic destruction of the VSE.

    Thanks ATK. But let’s just blame it on Mike’s bad judgement.

  • DCSCA

    @Michael Kent wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 7:12 pm

    “Perhaps not, but Boeing has. Every person NASA has ever launched into space flew there in a vehicle designed and built by Boeing.”

    Inaccurate.

    C’mon… hopefully you’re smarter than that or you are being deliberately disingenuous about referencing ‘Boeing.’ Boeing was not merged w/ many of the famed aerospace contractors mentioned below when the various space vehicles were let contracts for development. Context is everything- particularly regarding the time frames space vehicles were contracted for with various manufacturers across the U.S.

    Putting engine contracting aside, (and NAA’s X-15,) believe you’ll find Chrysler was prime contractor for the Redstone; Convair was prime for Atlas; Martin was prime for the Titan; McDonnell prime for both the Mercury and Gemini spacecraft; Lockheed was prime for Gemini’s Agena target vehicles; Chrysler Space Division for the first stage of the Saturn IB; Douglas for the S-IVB; For Saturn V, Boeing was prime for the SI-C; North American Aviation was prime for the S-II; Douglas for the S-IVB; IBM the IU; North American was prime for Apollo CSM; Grumman was prime for the LM; NA/Rockwell prime for Apollo CSMs for Skylab; McDonnell/Douglas was prime for converting an S-IVB into the OWS-Skylab; NAA/Rockwell- now Boeing, the orbiters; Morton Thiokol, (now part of ATK) the SRB’s; Martin Marietta (now Martin Lockheed) the ETs.

    Being misleading isn’t the way to earn commercial HSF advocates credibility. Flying somebody will. Get some skin in the game and get someone up around and down safely. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • Fred Willett

    I think the most telling thing in the last few weeks is the Apendix B to the Commercial Market Assessment study NASA released recently.
    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/543572main_Section%20403%28b%29%20Commercial%20Market%20Assessment%20Report%20Final.pdf
    NASA estimated the development cost of the SpaceX Falcon 9 @ $4B.
    With a commercial partnership model they estimated the costs of Falcon 9 @ $1.7B.
    Compare these two estimates with the ACTUAL costs confirmed by NASA.
    Falcon 1 $90M,
    Falcon 9 $300M,
    Dragon $300M.
    The kicker is this line in the report
    (p40) “It is difficult to determine exactly why the actual cost was so dramatically lower than the NAFCOM predictions.”
    Perhaps AW could explain it.

  • GuessWho

    Common Sense – “Constellation was a ruinous program conceived under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about fiscal conservatism…”

    Constellation was an NASA implementation of the VSE that Bush proposed in January 2004. The VSE garnered overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the GOP led Congress of 2005. In September, 2008 the Dem-led House passed the $20.2 billion NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063). The Dem-led Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent. H.R. 6063 reaffirmed Congress’ strong bipartisan support for the VSE. So your point is … what?

    “Shuttle was cancelled under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about “sabotaging NASA space flight”.”

    Shuttle wasn’t canceled, it was retired. That decision was supported by both sides of the aisle. So your point is …. what? Are you implying that Shuttle should not have been retired and should still be flying today? At $4B/yr regardless of flight rate? In competition to COTS?

    Common sense? None from you.

  • I do want the commercial sector to succeed, so that NASA can go explore. But so far, they have never been in front of a Congressional Committee to explain what they want to do, and how much of a role NASA should have in oversight, mission assurance, and even who flies the vehicle.

    And whose fault is that?

  • J Lomas

    I possibly believe that its been costing NASA around $6bn+ for 4 flights of the Shuttle – in excess of $1.5bn per flight…

  • Robert G. Oler

    GuessWho wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 9:16 am

    Common Sense – “Constellation was a ruinous program conceived under a GOP government (WH and Congress). Talk about fiscal conservatism…”

    you replied:
    Constellation was an NASA implementation of the VSE that Bush proposed in January 2004. The VSE garnered overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the GOP led Congress of 2005. In September, 2008 the Dem-led House passed the $20.2 billion NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063). The Dem-led Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent. H.R. 6063 reaffirmed Congress’ strong bipartisan support for the VSE. So your point is … what?………………………

    I would assume his/her original statement to wit Cx was a ruinous program that was a financial disaster.

    A issue the points you made in the above graph did not address

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    GuessWho – Passing a bill doesn’t mean active support for it. When was the last time Bernie Sanders spoke out (either in favor or against) NASA in generla, or the VSE in particular? How about Jim DeMint? John Testor? Mike Rogers of Michigan? Michelle Bachmann?

    And while one could argue that Constellation was the implementation of VSE, it was a bad impliementation of it.

  • common sense

    @ wodun wrote @ May 18th, 2011 at 11:30 pm

    “Strangely enough COTS came from those same people. Where would new space be today without COTS?”

    I know that. It is absolutely correct. And I think they deserve praise for it. But it does not change the fact that they also cancelled Shuttle and put in place a failure, Constellation, to replace it. Had they followed O’Keefe/Steidle I still believe to this day that there would have been no Augustine Committee. But well they did not. They gave us Griffin. Too bad.

    “COTS and CCDEV were two of the best things to ever happen for NASA. Hopefully, enough people in congress will realize this.”

    True again.

    So why are we arguing again? ;)

  • common sense

    @ GuessWho wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 9:16 am

    “Constellation was an NASA implementation of the VSE that Bush proposed in January 2004. The VSE garnered overwhelming support from both sides of the aisle in the GOP led Congress of 2005. In September, 2008 the Dem-led House passed the $20.2 billion NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (H.R. 6063). The Dem-led Senate passed the measure by unanimous consent. H.R. 6063 reaffirmed Congress’ strong bipartisan support for the VSE. So your point is … what?”

    Hmm can you read what I write? Did I say anything about the VSE being wrong? I said Constellation was a ruinous program. A program started under a GOP WH and Congress. Did I ever say the Dems were right? In my mind they are equally short sighted when it comes to HSF. Bipartisan support for stupidity so what again?

    “Shuttle wasn’t canceled, it was retired. That decision was supported by both sides of the aisle. So your point is …. what? Are you implying that Shuttle should not have been retired and should still be flying today? At $4B/yr regardless of flight rate? In competition to COTS?”

    A rough day for comprehension today? Retired not cancelled? Hmm So what is the main difference if you don’t mind? What is all that nonsense? I’ve read far better from you.

    “Common sense? None from you.”

    I’ll say go get another coffee this morning and I’ll leave it at that.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt wrote:

    “Vadislaw: Again, I’m not knocking the commercial sector. But they are not God, and their asperations are getting to their heads. They need to look at the near-term (5 yrs) and say “when can we fly crew and cargo to ISS?” Then mid-term (10 years: propellant depots, continued ISS support, etc.)
    Long-term (support of L-points, lunar base, if any, etc.) None of this “retiring on Mars” crap from Lord Musk-who definitely needs to show up on the Hill and get cut down to size.”

    Matt once again you seem to miss the point. Look at travel to LEO in just a pure transportation issue and not a “space program”.

    Space is a place, not a program and the Nation should, after 50 years, have a robust transportation system to move goods and services plus people to that place. How has the federal government responded in other forms of transportation systems to help intergrate them into our economic sphere of activity? Land give aways to railroads, highway systems, air ports and air traffic control, harbors for shipping. EXCEPT when it comes to commercial space transportation, some how this has become some kind of sacred cow for NASA alone. That myth has to be broken.

    Look where we would be if NASA would have moved to buying rides to skylab on a per seat basis and turned it over to the commercial sector then instead of the fights we are having over it now.

    As far as Musk’s “dream” of retiring on Mars who am I or you, to crush another person’s dreams and asperations. In 35 years if Musk wants to travel to Mars to retire let him have the dream. It is the dreamers who bring us the innovations.

  • Matt Wiser

    Vadislaw, there’s nothing wrong with dreaming. But Musk is his own worst enemy with remarks like that. All it does is reinforce the skeptics on The Hill that he’s just a “rocket boy” who’s playing around. He needs to zip his mouth and let his rocket do the talking for now. When Space X has flown people and cargo to ISS and back, then he’d be in a much better position to spout stuff like that. Not before.

  • When I was a kid I believed in NASA now that I’m a little older and wiser I believe in Elon Musk. Just wait about 24 months and you’ll be in my camp too.

  • wodun

    common sense wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
    “So why are we arguing again?”

    We aren’t :)

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    He needs to zip his mouth and let his rocket do the talking for now.

    Matt, you’ve been promoting this “sit down and shut up” strategy for Elon Musk for quite a while now. I think you’re afraid that SpaceX is winning over converts.

    Oh, and in case you haven’t noticed, he does let his rockets do the talking. But what has been missing from the large NASA contractors is a vision that doesn’t need massive amounts of U.S. Taxpayer dollars. What Musk talks about is how we can do a lot of space exploration for FAR LESS than what anyone has proposed, and that scares the entrenched contractor base and their political supporters. Tough luck.

    When Space X has flown people and cargo to ISS and back, then he’d be in a much better position to spout stuff like that. Not before.

    The same can be said about NASA, Lockheed Martin, ATK and others. When will NASA launch a Shuttle on-time and without tile damage? Or Lockheed Martin step forward and build the MPCV for less than $1B? Or ATK actually find someone that will pay money to use their proposed Liberty launcher? Or NASA build something, anything, on time and under budget?

    Skepticism is fine, but blind skepticism is not.

    Why I like SpaceX is that they build and launch, and build and launch, and build and launch. Not everything goes right, and I wouldn’t be surprised if something goes BANG in the future, but just like Boeing and others learn from their mistakes, SpaceX has shown the same ability. They have conservative designs that are simple to build and launch, and that is a concept that is foreign to many people. But coming from a manufacturing background I see where they can succeed where others struggle, so I do support them.

    Oh, and I hope that Musk keeps on talking publicly, because our politicians need to hear what can be done for far less money than they have been led to believe. And since NASA has validated the cost numbers, why pay more?

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Fred Willett wrote @ May 19th, 2011 at 12:19 am
    Sorry to disappoint you but AW probably won’t know due to severe mind block when dealing with comparisons between NASA and commercial. Never mind, I can help him with this.

    The cost difference more than likely lies in the fact that the NASA models are historically based. NASA’s never managed to do anything in a commercial-equivalent manner so to compare their estimates with a purely commercial estimate or actual development cost is really chalk and cheese.
    I’ve had direct experience in cost estimate modelling both for government and commercial.
    Guess what? I used different models for each. Often the major input for the government model when something like this: estimated or expected government budget for the project modified for known competition bidding. Commercial was usually direct cost plus overhead plus margin again modified for known competition bidding practices.
    Pretty simplistic but I’m sure you knew anyway.

  • GuessWho

    Common Sense – “Hmm can you read what I write? Did I say anything about the VSE being wrong? I said Constellation was a ruinous program. A program started under a GOP WH and Congress. Did I ever say the Dems were right? In my mind they are equally short sighted when it comes to HSF. Bipartisan support for stupidity so what again?”

    No, what you “said” was that that Constellation was conceived under a GOP Government. The “GOP Government” did not conceive Constellation, it proposed VSE to Congress as part of the 2005 budget request. Subsequent to that budget being passed, NASA began to execute the VSE by implementing Constellation. That implementation was endorsed by both parties in subsequent budget appropriations. This is a Space Politics forum, you called out the GOP while remaining silent on the Dem support for VSE and Constellation. That implies the GOP is solely responsible for where NASA ultimately took the VSE and the mess that Constellation became. That is naive at best and disingenuous at worse. I called you out on that point.

    “A rough day for comprehension today? Retired not cancelled? Hmm So what is the main difference if you don’t mind? ”

    My comprehension is just fine thank you very much. The following definitions of cancelled and retired (with respect to the Shuttle Program) are appropriate (source MW Dictionary):

    cancelled: to decide or announce that a planned event or activity will not take place;

    retired: to remove from active service or the usual field of activity;

    There is a difference. Again, you called out the GOP for “cancelling” a program (and thus “sabotaging NASA space flight” ) while remaining silent on the Dem involvement/agreement on the path to retire the shuttles and use that budget to accelerate the implementation of the VSE. Again, that is naive at best and disingenuous at worse.

  • Vladislaw

    Matt wrote:

    “All it does is reinforce the skeptics on The Hill that he’s just a “rocket boy” who’s playing around. He needs to zip his mouth and let his rocket do the talking for now.”

    Oooh … so people like Shelby, Nelson, KBH will give up their pork train if ONLY Musk doesn’t open his mouth?

    That’s a hoot!

    It doesn’t matter to them what the facts are, if it is cheaper and cuts the jobs in their district and the contributions they recieve from the usual suspects they are against it. It has not and will never matter what Musks says, it is the price and small company size and the smaller contributions that matter.

  • common sense

    @GuessWho wrote @ May 20th, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Sometime you are fun to read but other times…

    “No, what you “said” was that that Constellation was conceived under a GOP Government. The “GOP Government” did not conceive Constellation, it proposed VSE to Congress as part of the 2005 budget request.”

    Hmm funny I thought the NASA Admin was hired by the WH. So Griffin did what he did all on his own I assume. Yeah.

    “Subsequent to that budget being passed, NASA began to execute the VSE by implementing Constellation.”

    This is not true. I believe Constellation came to be with Griffin. The work under O’Keefe was not named Constellation if memory serves. VSE was first implemented under O’Keefe. Not Griffin.

    “That implementation was endorsed by both parties in subsequent budget appropriations. This is a Space Politics forum, you called out the GOP while remaining silent on the Dem support for VSE and Constellation. That implies the GOP is solely responsible for where NASA ultimately took the VSE and the mess that Constellation became. That is naive at best and disingenuous at worse. I called you out on that point.”

    As I said sometime you’re fun but here you are not. Read again and again until it makes it through.

    “My comprehension is just fine thank you very much. The following definitions of cancelled and retired (with respect to the Shuttle Program) are appropriate (source MW Dictionary):

    cancelled: to decide or announce that a planned event or activity will not take place;

    retired: to remove from active service or the usual field of activity;”

    Wow a great difference indeed. In both cases Shuttle would not fly now would it? In both cases we terminate all ongoing contracts with vendors don’t we? In both cases we lay off people don’t we? Very, very subtle difference indeed.

    “There is a difference. Again, you called out the GOP for “cancelling” a program (and thus “sabotaging NASA space flight” ) while remaining silent on the Dem involvement/agreement on the path to retire the shuttles and use that budget to accelerate the implementation of the VSE. Again, that is naive at best and disingenuous at worse.”

    Again the decision to terminate Shuttle was made by the Bush WH. It was made after the Columbia accident. If you wish to believe that the Dems were part of it great! What can I say? You are playing with words and not contributing anything.

    The Bush WH decided to retire the Shuttle. They implemented Constellation. Yes the Dems agreed. Wow now we can all say it was the Dems.

    Happy?

  • Matt Wiser

    Musk doesn’t have the support on The Hill. Now, if Congressman Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) had gotten the Science and Technology Committee chair, then he would have a powerful ally in Congress to at least promote his ideas and get some support for them. The current Chair, Hall, is skeptical at best of Space X (though not Boeing-probably because they’re a more established company, along with ULA and L-M), if not downright hostile.

    What Musk needs to do is let his launches do the talking, and when he does go to the Hill-as Chairman Hall wants to have such a hearing with Musk as a witness-then he’d be in a much better position to put forth his arguments. And keep the “retiring on Mars” crap out of it-all that does is reinforce the view that Musk is just a “rocket boy” just having fun.

  • Vladislaw

    “That implies the GOP is solely responsible for where NASA ultimately took the VSE and the mess that Constellation became.”

    As it was I believe President Truman who said “the buck stops here” that is the case with the VSE. O’Keefe and Stridel (?) where going to do a pay as you go spiral development which at the time also included a COTS-D element. The VSE was pretty specific that NASA wasn’t going to be building any new launchers and the CEV was going to use EELV’s. It was only after the ESAS that COTS-D was shelved to save money for the rockets to nowhere and gone was the idea of using existing launchers, Dr. Griffin simply ordered a bigger capsule shutting them out. When Griffin came in, for whatever reason President Bush caved or actively supported and signed off on Constellation.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ May 20th, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Musk doesn’t have the support on The Hill.

    Boy you sure have an obsession about Elon Musk, don’t you?

    Musk doesn’t need support on The Hill, all he needs is fair competition, which is what he’s been calling for. Support for individual companies is called “Earmarks”, which is what the Senate is doing with the SLS. We don’t need more backroom deals, we need fair and open competition to lower costs and increase innovation.

    What Musk needs to do is let his launches do the talking

    As he has been doing. Everyone is so impatient – he’s making far faster progress than everyone else, but you ignore their failings but concentrate on SpaceX. Selective, aren’t we?

    But if you think Musk shouldn’t be providing his “vision”, then the same should be said for ATK, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Orbital Sciences, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and every other company that seeks business from the government. You can’t be selective.

    And keep the “retiring on Mars” crap out of it-all that does is reinforce the view that Musk is just a “rocket boy” just having fun.

    Only idiots think that. Intelligent people see that he has turned $200M in investment into a company with $3B in customer backorders. Only serious business people can do that, regardless what childish names you call them.

  • What Musk needs to do is let his launches do the talking, and when he does go to the Hill-as Chairman Hall wants to have such a hearing with Musk as a witness-then he’d be in a much better position to put forth his arguments. And keep the “retiring on Mars” crap out of it-all that does is reinforce the view that Musk is just a “rocket boy” just having fun.

    This is stupid, particularly given SpaceX’s accomplishments to date, on trivial amounts of money relative to what it would have cost NASA. What it reinforces the view of is that Musk is serious about opening up space to humanity, and that the Congress, and Chairman Hall, are not.

Leave a Reply to Vladislaw 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>