Other

The national space policy turns one

One year ago today the Obama Administration released its national space policy, a document that, while having much of the same policy foundations as previous documents, differed in both details and tone. The new policy placed a greater emphasis on space sustainability, responsible use of space, and international cooperation, while also supporting commercial space efforts, improved space system procurement, and other initiatives. So, one year later, how is the government doing to implement that policy?

In this week’s issue of The Space Review, I report on one assessment of the policy from a panel discussion earlier this month in Washington. Peter Marquez, who coordinated the development of the policy last year as the director of space policy for the National Security Council (and is now working in the private sector), said in general government is doing a “good job” carrying out the policy. He cited in particular efforts by government agencies, working with industry and other governments, to battle the “existential threat” to GPS posed by LightSquared. However, the government is lagging in other areas, such as support for space situational awareness and progress on export control reform, he said.

Another panelist, Andrew Palowitch, the director of the Space Protection Program, suggested that, for now, the impact of the new policy has been relatively limited. “Everything that happened in this last year, and everything that’s going to happen in the next year, is completely independent of that national space policy,” he said, citing the long lead times of space initiatives. He did, though, call the new space policy “fantastic” that will start having more of an impact in 18 to 24 months. Marquez disagreed with this assessment to some degree, arguing that what the US has been doing “on the international front” has been strong affected by the new policy.

The policy, argued Ben Baseley-Walker of the Secure World Foundation, has helped improve the US’s reputation internationally: “What the national space policy has done is to start to rebuild trust, start to rebuild consistency, and start to rebuild the reliability of the US as an internationally-engaged partner.” However, panelists agreed that while the new policy is consistent in its general themes with the European Union’s proposed code of conduct for outer space activities, it does not mean the US will, or should, sign on to that code.

60 comments to The national space policy turns one

  • The new policy placed a greater emphasis on space sustainability, responsible use of space, and international cooperation, while also supporting commercial space efforts, improved space system procurement, and other initiatives.

    Exactly the path the U.S. needs to take if it is to be the primo spacefaring nation of the 21st century. Except maybe for the part about “international cooperation” if that in anyway compromises the “supporting commercial space efforts, improved space system procurement, and other initiatives” part. What I’m specifically thinking about there is the proposed ATK / Ariane so called “Liberty” vehicle. Even that is alright if it is allowed to compete on an equal basis against everything else, but I’ve always been leary that certain politicians under ATK influence might pull strings in its favor and not let it survive purely on its economic and practical merits.

    This article is bound to thoroughly insense ablastofhotair. Now we wait for his latest piece of idiocy. Should be entertaining if nothing else. :)

  • amightywind

    Happy Birthday Obama space policy! The shuttle program is ending. The Space Coast is a graveyard. ISS is on death watch. SpaceX has vanished with the money. Bolden continues to conceal Mike Griffin’s 2004 rocket designs from congress. Game changing innovations are pouring from the labs of toadies space entrepreneurs. One more year on the road to nowhere. Two cheers for America’s space program! (It reminds me of an Office Space birthday party.)

  • “SpaceX has vanished with the money. “
    ????? He never fails to disappoint!

  • Coastal Ron

    Rick Boozer wrote @ June 28th, 2011 at 7:26 am

    This article is bound to thoroughly insense ablastofhotair. Now we wait for his latest piece of idiocy. Should be entertaining if nothing else.

    It’s scary how well you predicted that. He’s like a puppet on your string!

  • Major Tom

    “Happy Birthday Obama space policy! The shuttle program is ending.”

    A decision made by the Bush II Administration in 2003/4, not the current Administration.

    “The Space Coast is a graveyard.”

    Evidence? References? Links?

    “ISS is on death watch.”

    If ISS goes in the drink, Griffin and his insistence on sticking with Ares I/Orion despite at least five years of schedule slippage are to blame, not the current national space policy.

    In the wake of Griffin’s failure and Constellation’s implosion, the current Administration has gotten a new launch vehicle and capsule into orbit, added test flights for another launch vehicle and capsule, and advanced development of no less than four different crew vehicles.

    “SpaceX has vanished with the money.”

    Evidence? References? Links?

    “Bolden continues to conceal Mike Griffin’s 2004 rocket designs from congress.”

    You’re off by two years. Griffin became NASA Administrator in April 2005 and ESAS didn’t deliver the initial Ares I/V designs until November 2005. Those designs changed from air-start SSMEs and four-segment SRBs to J-2X and five-segment SRBs in 2006.

    “Game changing innovations are pouring from the labs of toadies space entrepreneurs.”

    Congress cut NASA’s exploration and space technology budgets to pay for SLS/MPCV, not the Administration.

    Sigh…

  • Dennis Berube

    If you go to the SpaceX site, it projected 5 flights over 2011??????? If that is to happen, they better start delivering rockets to the cape and pronto!!!!!!

  • Dennis Berube

    One more question: How many here REALLLY believe we will see a Falcon heavy lift off in 2012???????

  • DCSCA

    @ amightywind wrote @ June 28th, 2011 at 8:41 am

    “The national space policy turns one”

    In other words, it is in its infancy and has time to be shaped and redirected. Twelve months of ‘free drift’ is not unusual as the transition in programs, policy and management occurs. Let’s see how it’s all toddling along by 2014 or 2015. A true milestone will be when commerical space actually launches, orbits and returns crews safely to Earth, which, of course, is motivated by the costly, government funded ISS. In the meantime, tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • “One more question: How many here REALLLY believe we will see a Falcon heavy lift off in 2012???????”
    It could slip some, but even if it slipped two years it still wouldn’t be as far behind schedule as Constellation was when it was cancelled.

    Better 2014 than never.

    You keep talking about schedules, never cost. Cost is the reason why both Constellation and SLS are unrealistic. You act as if money is a trivial issue. The laws of economics are as inescapable as the laws of physics that goven rocket flight. A rocket can meet its doom from the former as easily as the latter.

  • Bennett

    How many here REALLLY believe we will see a Falcon heavy lift off in 2012?

    I believe in FH more than I believe that 15 question marks or exclamation points make your questions or exclamations “more so”.

    I hope to god no one shows you how to use html tags.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 28th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    One more question: How many here REALLLY believe we will see a Falcon heavy lift off in 2012?

    Dennis, how many times do you have to be reminded that the dates listed on the SpaceX manifest page are “Target date indicates hardware arrival at launch site” (follow the asterisk).

    And if you actually watched the press conference where SpaceX announced Falcon Heavy, you would have heard Elon Musk say that they plan to deliver Falcon Heavy to their VAFB launch facility in late 2012 or early 2013, and that they are planning a late 2013 or early 2014 launch.

    If you’re going to get excited about something, you should get excited for the right reasons.

    So in answer to your question, no one should expect Falcon Heavy to launch in 2012, because that was never the plan. I do think that they will launch when they say they will.

    Does anyone seriously think that the SLS will launch in 2016?

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 28th, 2011 at 3:01 pm
    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 28th, 2011 at 2:58 pm

    If you go to the SpaceX site, it projected 5 flights over 2011? If that is to happen, they better start delivering rockets to the cape and pronto!

    One more question: How many here REALLLY believe we will see a Falcon heavy lift off in 2012?

    What’s with the superfluous punctuation, Dennis? It doesn’t add emphasis, it simply looks stupid. We get your meaning with one exclamation or question mark.

    As for the projected “5 flights”, as noted in the other thread:
    -Two of them are actually the same, since the Orbcomm satellite will ride piggyback on the next flight of Dragon.
    -Two Dragon COTS demos may be combined.
    -The date is expressly given as “arrival of the hardware at the cape”

    I believe the first stage for Dragon/COTS-2 has been delivered, but in any case the launch is scheduled for September/October, that is plenty of time.

    As for Falcon Heavy, what Musk actually said was:

    Falcon Heavy will arrive at our Vandenberg, California, launch complex by the end of next year, with liftoff to follow soon thereafter. First launch from our Cape Canaveral launch complex is planned for late 2013 or 2014.

    I don’t believe it will fly in 2012 (I’m reluctant to deal with belief in general), but I see little reason to doubt that it will fly in the 2013/14 timeframe.
    The core, engines and upper stage have flown successfully two times, the only required changes are propellant cross-feed plumbing and flight control systems.

  • pathfinder_01

    “If you go to the SpaceX site, it projected 5 flights over 2011??????? If that is to happen, they better start delivering rockets to the cape and pronto!!!!!!”

    If you had been keeping up with information you would know that the Orbcom satelights plan to ride on Falcon 9 with Dragon instead of Falcon 1. So there are only 4 launches planned for 2011.

    However the next launch depends on if NASA combines Cots 2 and 3 it will happen in October. If not September.

    First CCagro deliver to the ISS via dragon is planned for December.

    The only non dragon flight is the MDA one.

  • Dennis Berube

    Pathfinder, that still misses the mark by a couple of launches. I do hope however that NASA does allowfor the combined mission. The Russians seem to be negating the Dragon flight however.

  • amightywind

    -Two Dragon COTS demos may be combined.

    Our Russian partners shot that idea down. There will be two flights, assuming they are successful.

    I believe the first stage for Dragon/COTS-2 has been delivered, but in any case the launch is scheduled for September/October, that is plenty of time.

    Spaceflightnow.com gives a launch date of Dec. 7, 2011 and these dates rarely hold up. We are looking at half rations on the good ship ISS…

  • pathfinder_01

    “Spaceflightnow.com gives a launch date of Dec. 7, 2011 and these dates rarely hold up. We are looking at half rations on the good ship ISS…”

    Only if the next shuttle flight fails:

    http://web02.aviationweek.com/aw/mstory.do?id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p26-293630.xml&channel=space&headline=NASA%20Prepares%20To%20Focus%20On%20ISS%20Research

    The last shuttle flight buys 1 year worth of time for commercail to come online.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Pathfinder, that still misses the mark by a couple of launches. I do hope however that NASA does allowfor the combined mission. The Russians seem to be negating the Dragon flight however.

    Ah you counted 5 launches for this year. At most there would be 4 since the “ORBCOMM – Multiple Flights” are sharing a ride with Dragon. The Orbcoom payloads were going to go seperatly on Falcon 1. The MDA one is supposed to happen after COTS2 and COTS 3.

  • Dennis, go read this. It has some good advice for you.

  • Vladislaw

    NASA’s “Return on Investment Report is here:

    http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/563409main_201106_Commercial_60day_Report_508.pdf

    Gives a 60 day report on where commercial crew is at under CCDEV.

  • amightywind

    The last shuttle flight buys 1 year worth of time for commercail to come online.

    Since SpaceX has apparently closed the books on 2011, they will need to fly 2 successful flights in the first 6 months of next year to even qualify to make an operational ISS delivery. SpaceX has never achieved a flight rate like that. The time line is not plausible. One wonders how Musk can claim that they are profitable without making a flight in a whole calendar year. The first ISS delivery attempt is not likely until Q1 2012, assuming the test flights go well.. At that point SpaceX’s political cover might be stripped by the elections. On the bright side the ISS crew will have the opportunity to study malnutrition and scurvy in zero G. Unfortunately, they will be the subjects.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    as I tell people who build their own airplane(s)…start and go slow on the test flying. Musk is doing just that. He has some issues that need to be fine tuned in both his test ops and production ops…and none of that will matter worth a darn 5 years from now if he gets them correct, but if he flops they will kill him soon.

    It took a homebuilder friend of mine about a year to resolve some issues with the canard mod that he made on his Long Eze…we did quite a few “fast runs” and a bit of air “nibbling” but in the end he got him a Long that is a certifiable 14 knots faster and has excellent slow and fast speed handling characteristics and is about 8 inches or so wider…

    Musk will work out his issues…stay tuned. RGO

  • The first ISS delivery attempt is not likely until Q1 2012, assuming the test flights go well. At that point SpaceX’s political cover might be stripped by the elections.

    Even if we accepted the idiotic premise that Spacex has “political cover” to be “stripped,” how would an election that occurs in the first quarter of FY2013 cause this to happen in the first quarter of FY 2012? Will the voters get a time machine?

  • John Malkin

    amightywind wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 1:01 pm

    Customer Dollars + Investment Dollars – Expenses = Profits

    Since I assume you’re not a SpaceX investor, you wouldn’t have access to their financials. Also any investor would have signed a non-disclosure agreement. However if they will IPO next year, I would invest a few million now. Also once they IPO we will know their financials.

  • Dennis Berube

    The astros aboard will not find themselves under fed. Remember the Soviets have their Progress supply tugs, to resupply the station. Now of course too is JAXA, which also supplies the ISS. NO ONE WILL STARVE!

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 7:35 am

    The Russians seem to be negating the Dragon flight however.

    amightywind wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Our Russian partners shot that idea down. There will be two flights, assuming they are successful.

    This is nonsense, the Russians have not “negated” or “shot down” anything. They want reassurance that the vehicle can approach the station in a safe manner. They had no problem allowing ATV and HTV to dock to the station after it was demonstrated that they could safely manoeuver around the station, and those were first flights. There is no sound reason why they would deny Dragon, which has already had a successfull orbital test flight and two tests of its docking target system, as well as a crew that is trained in the docking procedure.

    Spaceflightnow.com gives a launch date of Dec. 7, 2011 and these dates rarely hold up. We are looking at half rations on the good ship ISS…

    That is a bold faced lie, and you know it.
    Spaceflight Now lists the launch dates as

    “Autumn (TBD)” for Dragon C2 test flight,
    Oct. 8 for Dragon C3 test flight and
    Dec. 7 for Dragon C4, the first regular cargo delivery.
    Once again, you are caught lying through your teeth.

    As testified by Mr. Gerstenmaier before your congress, there is enough margin in the station’s supply chain to accomodate possible delays, the station crew will not be in danger of starvation.

    Note that in the same hearing, Mr. Gerstenmaier also laid out the timeline of NASA for the next COTS flight. According to his statements safety reviews and simulations at NASA were planned for June, after which the results would be submitted to the international partners for approval. As such, a final decision on COTS-2/3 is at least a few weeks away, anything else is baseless speculation.

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Simberg, to you I may appear crazy, and while I dont proofread perhaps as often as I should, Im glad you feel you are one of the elite! I went to the SpaceX sight and they have outlined for 2011, 5 missions. Now whether they were combined I am not sure, but I think it has or is becoming obvious that SpaceX is falling a bit behind. When I first came to this sight the name calling really didnt speak much for the people here. I have not called anyone anything, and wont. I exhibit more respect for people than that, even here in my senior years. Personally I think the guy who wrote that article is the one that needs help. If you dont like what I describe in my post, dont look at them. It is just like those SRBs everyone is so sure wont fly anymore. They will, just watch!

  • pathfinder_01

    “Since SpaceX has apparently closed the books on 2011, they will need to fly 2 successful flights in the first 6 months of next year to even qualify to make an operational ISS delivery.”

    Closed the books? More wishful thinking

    A falcon 9 first stage now sits in Florida and the Dragon 2 capsule has been booted up. There is a launch planned for October and one for December.

    “SpaceX has never achieved a flight rate like that.”
    First flight of Space X Falcon 9: June 4, 2010

    Second flight of Falcon 9: Dec 8,2010

    They got 2 in last year….if they needed two flights for COTS they probably can do so this year and both they and Orbital have until about July of next year before the ISS runs out of supplies.

    “One wonders how Musk can claim that they are profitable without making a flight in a whole calendar year.”

    One commercial rockets are paid for before they fly. You start payment up to 2 years before the flight. Two it has not been a whole year yet(last time I checked it isn’t December).

    “The first ISS delivery attempt is not likely until Q1 2012, assuming the test flights go well.. At that point SpaceX’s political cover might be stripped by the elections.”

    They have a contract for 12 launches between over the next 6 years or so and last time I checked none of the rubulicans were calling for giving this role back to NASA. If anything giving this role to the private sector fits their platform better than the democratic one.

    “On the bright side the ISS crew will have the opportunity to study malnutrition and scurvy in zero G. Unfortunately, they will be the subjects.”

    If needed you drop the crew like oh when Columbia went boom over Texas. Progress, HTV and ATV can also bring supplies. NASA can purchase more progress flights (we purchased two this year already).

  • amightywind

    as I tell people who build their own airplane(s)…start and go slow on the test flying. Musk is doing just that.

    Normally, a reasonable position. It is a line of reasoning defenders of Constellation tried to make. But Constellation was killed by Musk and his allies in the NASA leadership with promises of ‘faster’. We were told to expect more from SpaceX. The timeline I offer is accurate, as is the idea that the political window on SpaceX is closing.

    Since I assume you’re not a SpaceX investor, you wouldn’t have access to their financials.

    No. But one must assume SpaceX creates revenue by launching rockets successfully. Since they are not doing that I think I can safely assume they are not profitable.

    Customer Dollars + Investment Dollars – Expenses = Profits

    Yeah, that’s a definition of profits, if you are Bernie Madoff.

    Profits = Revenues – Expenses.

    Investments can help to increase revenues or decrease expenses, but they must be paid back with interest. That is, unless someone has declared the US to be socialist state, which is entirely possible.

    Will the voters get a time machine?

    My mistake. I meant to say Q1 2012.

  • Mr. Simberg, to you I may appear crazy, and while I dont proofread perhaps as often as I should, Im glad you feel you are one of the elite!

    How much proofreading does it take to not use all caps and lots of exclamation marks? I was just offering some useful advice.

  • Now whether they were combined I am not sure, but I think it has or is becoming obvious that SpaceX is falling a bit behind.

    Yes, it is falling a bit behind. Most projects tend to run a little behind schedule. But Constellation was falling behind more than a year per year, and costing billions per year. So I’m not sure what your point is.

  • pathfinder_01

    “Normally, a reasonable position. It is a line of reasoning defenders of Constellation tried to make. But Constellation was killed by Musk and his allies in the NASA leadership with promises of ‘faster’. We were told to expect more from SpaceX. The timeline I offer is accurate, as is the idea that the political window on SpaceX is closing.”

    Musk would have had a contract to supply the ISS CXP or no CXP.

    CXP had consumed billions of dollars by 2011 and had little in the way of flight ready hardware. It had slipped from 2012 to 2016/2017 and they needed the shuttle money to make that date. In terms of jobs the shuttle jobs were in danger the moment CXP started slipping. What are you going to do pay people from 2010(planned end of shuttle) till 2017(start of CXP assuming no more slippage)? What are they going to do? You might have needed some hiring about 2014/2015 or so but what are you going to tell your debtors? I am going to have a job in 4 years???
    IMHO the sooner you deal with your denial that someone else can do it cheaper the better. Here is a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaGHbXOBcWc&feature=player_embedded

    The shuttle, its processing was designed 30 years ago. There has much that has been to reduce the amount of labor needed. Can you imagine 4 people moving the shuttle or even an SRB?

    “No. But one must assume SpaceX creates revenue by launching rockets successfully. Since they are not doing that I think I can safely assume they are not profitable”

    No. Space X creates revenue by booking flights. You don’t pay for an airline flight or a cruise after you have taken it. Launching successfully is what gives his customers confidence that he can do what he said he can but he does not need to launch a rocket to be profitable in the short term.

    “Investments can help to increase revenues or decrease expenses, but they must be paid back with interest. That is, unless someone has declared the US to be socialist state, which is entirely possible.”

    Depends on the type of investment. Government grants like CCDEV don’t need to be paid back. Stocks are not paid back either (The company simple pays dividends when it is profitable and with common shares the company only pays dividends when it decides to). Also the timeframe of paying back can be long. There are cooperate bonds that are paid back over 5,10,15, even 30 years. I doubt any banker would lend him the money to make his company (too risky).His own money which I think he invested millions is also something that does not need to be paid back any time soon.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 3:37 pm

    “as I tell people who build their own airplane(s)…start and go slow on the test flying. Musk is doing just that.”

    LOL Making excuses when ‘P.T. Barnum’ over promises and under delivers is the work of a carnival shill. Acceptable if Master Musk was a hobbiest, puttering about on weekends building his experimental aircraft for his own use. ‘Experimental Aircraft’ with a big “X” for ‘experimental’ on the wings if properly registered BTW. But Master Musk isn’t constructing experimental planes in his garage for personal use, is he. Master Musk seeks government subsidies for a for profit, private enterprised commerical firm and secured government contracts for professional services w/deadlines to meet and fulfill. Nor is he touting himself as a aircraft or rocket hobbiest– or is he. Gene Cernan has him pegged.

    “Musk will work out his issues…stay tuned.” LOL, more press release teaser fodder. And the Musketeers sing: “Say, it’s only a paper moon / Sailing over a cardboard sea / But it wouldn’t be make-believe / If you believed in me.” Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • BTW, Elon Musk was awarded the Heinlein Prize today for accomplishments in commercial space.

  • Das Boese

    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    I went to the SpaceX sight and they have outlined for 2011, 5 missions. Now whether they were combined I am not sure

    What is there to be sure about? At least two of those launches will be combined, that is a fact. People have explained it to you. Repeatedly. People also pointed out to you that the dates listed on the SpaceX website are arrival at the launch site, not liftoff. Repeatedly.

    The problem I have with you is that you do not listen and you make no effort to understand what it is people are saying to you and why.

    but I think it has or is becoming obvious that SpaceX is falling a bit behind.

    So what? Their delays are measured in weeks, not years and are perfectly normal for the space business. Some of those delays are due to additional evaluation and simulations requested by NASA. Your expectations are not in line with reality.

    When I first came to this sight the name calling really didnt speak much for the people here. I have not called anyone anything, and wont. I exhibit more respect for people than that, even here in my senior years.

    I can’t remember anyone ever calling you names. I remember strong-worded corrections of some particularly ludicrous statements of yours, which is not the same thing.

    If you dont like what I describe in my post, dont look at them.

    If post things that are misinformed, illogical or factually wrong, expect criticism. If you can’t handle criticism, don’t post.

    It is just like those SRBs everyone is so sure wont fly anymore. They will, just watch!

    See, this is what I’m talking about. There have been discussions with hundreds of posts here about the problematic aspects of SRBs, but you just ignore it and merrily continue making these sorts of simplistic statements that contribute nothing at all.

    What the hell is it with the SRB fetish, anyway.

  • pathfinder_01

    “What the hell is it with the SRB fetish, anyway.”

    I suspect the SRB employs many people. From looking at the politics of CXP they were very willing to throw the people who process the Orbiter under the bus(It might not take near as many people to do this) as it takes to create,transport to Florida, store/process and stack at KSC, retrive, and send back for rebuilding. Given their explosive and toxic nature transporting this item has got to be a hassle. Heck the things even have hydrozline feed APU’s like the shuttle.

  • pathfinder_01

    Anyway when I had looked at an congressional employment report of how many jobs they expected after CXP and the “hard to process” Orbiter had been gotten rid of the number droped from around 10,000 to 8,000 and the number of people needed where the external tank is made exploded because now they were making a rocket stage instead fo just an tank.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis Berube wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    I went to the SpaceX sight and they have outlined for 2011, 5 missions.

    Dennis, we don’t knock your enthusiasm, but your gleeful ignorance of the facts you’ve previously been made aware of.

    The SpaceX page you reference is their launch manifest, not their launch schedule.

    The column header clearly states “Target Date*“, and the asterisk leads you to the statement “*Target date indicates hardware arrival at launch site

    You have also been told about NASA reviewing whether they will combine the last two COTS missions, and that Orbcomm may launch as a dual payload on one of the COTS/CRS missions.

    Stop being a Chicken Little like Windy and DCSCA, and wait to see what happens. Unless you have money riding on the outcome, you’re only a spectator, so try not to stress out too much.

  • DCSCA

    @Rick Boozer wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 5:39 pm
    “BTW, Elon Musk was awarded the Heinlein Prize today for accomplishments in commercial space.”

    LOL and no doubt SpaceX needs the cash flow, even from a ‘prize’ named after a science fiction writer… how appropriate. Meanwhile, tick-tock, tick-tock. President Obama was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize — while waging wars.

  • In response to those making wild accusations about CCDev supposedly falling behind schedule or being a failure, I offer the NASA’s Return on Investment Report just issued. It’s a review of “accomplishments, progress, and happenings in NASA’s commercial spaceflight development programs.”

    All competitors completed their next milestone on schedule.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ June 29th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
    “. ‘Experimental Aircraft’ with a big “X” for ‘experimental’ on the wings ”

    dont do that anymore…the “NX” prefix is not open for issue RGO

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Boese, if you check the link that Mr. Simberg posted for me to look at, I think being called crazy is name calling. Personally I dont care what anyone calls me, nor if they even like my typing skills. I have been on other sights and this is the only one where name calling and the such, is so forward. Anyway people have got the wrong idea, with regards to views concerning SpaceX. I only wish them well and total success. If they can handle the reins of NASA, all the better. However the NASA bashing that goes on here, goes to show how quickly everyone forgets al the miracles that the agency has pulled off over the time of the space program. It put man on the Moon in a very short period of time. It gave us spin offs that we use everyday. Now all of a sudden everyone says NASA cant do it anymore. With leadership it certainly could.

  • “However the NASA bashing that goes on here, goes to show how quickly everyone forgets al the miracles that the agency has pulled off over the time of the space program.”

    Dennis, you misunderstand. Those people you accuse of “NASA bashing” are some of the most pro-NASA people here. It is a certain clique of old guard people in NASA that we are against who admantly want to cling to the old way of doing things. We want NASA to reclaim much of its former prestige and prominence by having it get out of the LEO access business and focusing on cutting edge technology development and exploration. Yes, we want to see NASA buying its rides to LEO from commercial, but instead of wasting billions on SLS, we want to see NASA using that money to get our astronauts deep within the inner solar system by developing and actually building such things as fuel depots, Nautilus X, etc.. Those are the more adventurous and high profile things that would not be profitable for commercial entities to pursue. Let’s face it, human travel to LEO has been done for 50 years and has reached a point where it is not worthy of an agency that is supposed to be cutting edge as NASA is meant to be. Instead of being anti-NASA, the vision is NASA and commercial working together toward a common goal. If you want NASA to reclaim the admiration and respect of its glory years, this is the way to go.

  • “LOL and no doubt SpaceX needs the cash flow, even from a ‘prize’ named after a science fiction writer… how appropriate. Meanwhile, tick-tock, tick-tock.”

    They don’t need the money and you know it. How inane. The $250,000 just happens to be a requirement of the Heinlein Trust. Personally I wish they only gave the formal award without the cash since it is a meaningless amount for most recipients. But I mentioned it only as a point of timely news.

    “A true milestone will be when commerical space actually launches, orbits and returns crews safely to Earth, which, of course, is motivated by the costly, government funded ISS. In the meantime, tick-tock, tick-tock.”

    And your hypocrisy of not holding the people who want SLS to the same standard is hilarious. Putting it to you somewhat differently than others have…

    I would be the first to admit that the personnel at NASA and its usual contractors are some of the best in the business. But for you to say that they have experience developing successful launch vehicles for human flight is ludicrous. The people at NASA and its prime contractors 30 years ago had that experience, but they have long since retired. Yes, there are still people there helping to launch the shuttle that were there then, but they are not the people who developed it.

    The people currently involved in launch vehicle development at NASA and its subcontactors (as I said) are good, in fact, some of the best that have been turned out in the intervening 30 years. However, you need to remember that a lot of the best people at companies like Orbital, SpaceX etc. were also some of the best people trained at the same NASA centers and contracting companies who decided to go over to the new commercial entities. How do you think SpaceX was able to do two successful orbital launches? Neither currrent NASA employed professionals nor CCDev professionals have an overall advantage over the other as far as experience is concerned because none of them were there when Shuttle, Apollo, etc. were developed.

    So yes, the people (as good as they are) now at NASA indeed have yet to prove their prowess at putting humans in orbit. Just as the people in the commercial sector (equally as good and trained in the same places) also have yet to prove that very point. But the fact is, as Major Tom, has pointed out to you repeatedly, that the latter have at least orbited a vehicle and the most the former have been able to accomplish so far is the pitiful so called Ares I-X (mainly because some NASA management had great highly competent engineers working on a turkey). Face it, SpaceX is ahead right now in its efforts toward putting humans into orbit simply due to the fact that they have reached orbit and NASA (under management using traditional methods) has not. Given these facts, your silly childish repeating of “Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock” just makes you look increasingly irrelevant.

  • Mr. Boese, if you check the link that Mr. Simberg posted for me to look at, I think being called crazy is name calling.

    No one called you crazy. I simply pointed you to some advice that, if you took it, would reduce the potential for people thinking you are.

    Personally I dont care what anyone calls me, nor if they even like my typing skills.

    It has nothing to do with your typing skills, unless you are saying that you accidentally hit the caps lock and forget to turn it off, or your forehead falls on the 1/! and shift keys simultaneously. Or something.

    However the NASA bashing that goes on here, goes to show how quickly everyone forgets al the miracles that the agency has pulled off over the time of the space program. It put man on the Moon in a very short period of time. It gave us spin offs that we use everyday. Now all of a sudden everyone says NASA cant do it anymore. With leadership it certainly could.

    NASA didn’t get to the moon because it had “leadership.” It got to the moon because it had a blank check from the treasury, and it was (temporarily) of high national importance to get to the moon in a hurry. We couldn’t afford to keep it up the way we were doing it, or the way that the heavy-lift fans insist on doing it now, which is why we don’t go back to the moon any more. The only hope of getting back to the moon is to reduce the cost of access to orbit, something that only vigorous competition among multiple commercial providers will give us, and something that we will never get from NASA developing another monopoly launch system for its own use.

  • Face it, SpaceX is ahead right now in its efforts toward putting humans into orbit simply due to the fact that they have reached orbit and NASA (under management using traditional methods) has not. Given these facts, your silly childish repeating of “Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock” just makes you look increasingly irrelevant.

    I strongly disagree. That last statement would imply that the troll was ever relevant at all.

  • DCSCA

    @Rick Boozer wrote @ June 30th, 2011 at 9:20 am

    “They don’t need the money and you know it.”

    In fact, they do. And THEY know it.

  • DCSCA

    @Rick Boozer wrote @ June 30th, 2011 at 9:20 am

    “Face it, SpaceX is ahead right now in its efforts toward putting humans into orbit simply due to the fact that they have reached orbit and NASA (under management using traditional methods) has not.”

    ROFLMAOPIP NASA has been flying people into and back from space for half a century– in that span of time to LEO and to the moon and back. Even the PRC is orbiting crews. Even Iran plans to loft monkeys into space. SpaceX has flown a wheel of cheese.

    It is mid-2011. Face it: SpaceX has not launched orbited and returned ANYBODY. NBC News has reported they won’t even try for 4 to 5 years. It’s false equivalency; it’s empty promises; it’s a paper space project, fueled by press releases. They fly nobody. .And the Musketeers continue to sing: “Say, it’s only a paper moon/Sailing over a cardboard sea/But it wouldn’t be make-believe/If you believed in me.” It comes dow to this: put somebody up or shut-up. Tick-tock, tick-tock…

  • DCSCA

    “Let’s face it, human travel to LEO has been done for 50 years and has reached a point where it is not worthy of an agency that is supposed to be cutting edge as NASA is meant to be.”

    Not worthy?? High time YOU faced it. Just do it. Fly somebody. Take risk NASA did orbiting Glenn, when (per Kraft’s memoirs) the reliability of missile technology at the time was 60% or so. Get somebody up, around and back safely. So far, in 50 years, commercial HSF has failed to accomplish this.

  • @DCSCA wrote @ June 30th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
    “ROFLMAOPIP NASA has been flying people into and back from space for half a century– in that span of time to LEO and to the moon and back. Even the PRC is orbiting crews. Even Iran plans to loft monkeys into space. SpaceX has flown a wheel of cheese. “

    Are you really that stupid? Did you not comprehend what I wrote? The current people at NASA are flying astronauts to orbit on a launcher developed by the previous generation before them. Because someone else previously at NASA could successfully build a launcher does not mean the current people know how to do it. Launching a vehicle and developing a vehicle are two different things. It’s a lot easier to maintain and use something than it is to create it. I can maintain and drive my car without knowing how to build an automobile.

  • Coastal Ron

    Rick Boozer wrote @ June 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Are you [DCSCA] really that stupid?

    I think it’s a mental issue, since he keeps repeating things.

    The current people at NASA are flying astronauts to orbit on a launcher developed by the previous generation before them.

    And substantially run by the same evil commercial aerospace industry that he like to rail against.

    NASA does HSF program management, but they don’t design and they don’t build.

    DCSCA is still getting “updates” from the Apollo program, so he’s a little behind the times… ;-)

  • DCSCA

    @Rick Boozer wrote @ June 30th, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    Put down the mirror. 1+1=2, not 11 amd your attempts at false equivalency are denser than Jupiter’s atmosphere. You fly nobody. It comes down to this: Put someone up, or shut up. Until then, you have nothing but paper proposals, empty promises, go begging for government subsidies and boast of things to come– like Fearless Leader retiring on Mars. And the Musketeers sing: “Say, it’s only a paper moon/Sailing over a cardboard sea/But it wouldn’t be make-believe/If you believed in me.” Tick-tock, tick-tock.

  • pathfinder_01

    “DCSCA is still getting “updates” from the Apollo program, so he’s a little behind the times… ”

    yeah someone should by him a digital clock.

    I agree that they are good at operations but design and build are different things.

  • Today the families of the crew of the Challenger disaster issued a statement in support of the commercial human spaceflight effort. Read it here:
    http://www.challenger.org/about/media/release.cfm?release_id=166

  • Guys, if you haven’t seen the late breaking SLS news that I put in a comment under the SpacePolitics.com post Briefly: Budget Turmoil, 2012 Lobbying go check it out.

  • OOPS! I made a mistake!
    I goofed up. I had just glanced at Clark Lindsey’s post about it. Clark said he wished Warner would compete the whole thing. I misread his comment. Sorry! Need to quit trying to post while I’m doing my research! Can’t give the it space news the scrutiny it deserves.

Leave a Reply to DCSCA 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>