Real commercial rockets and spacecraft going through mission testing is far more real than anything NASA has going right now.

Anyone seen an SLS being built?

Anyone seen an MPCV fly yet?

But that’s OK, since nothing you say seems to come true anyways, and companies like SpaceX and Boeing will keep doing things that prove you wrong…

Go SpaceX…”

Real world of paper Dragons and press release space programs.
Ugh. SpaceX go no place fast. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

That point was actually even clarified by Administrator Bolden. He specifically stated the President said NO LATER than 2015 for a decision on a HLLV. Wasn’t the heavy lift also predicated on a new large, domestic RP-1/LOX engine? Develop the engine first, along with some additional technology for 3-4 years then do a competitve bid for the launch vehicle that was sized towards predetermined payloads. Something the new direction by the senate doesn’t take into account at all.

There should be no SLS at all, merely competing its components would still be a gigantic waste of taxpayers’ money even if you do support manned exploration. Even supporting manned exploration goes against Tea Party principles, but SLS should be totally unacceptable. If you support manned exploration, then you should support competitive procurement of the launch services for the payloads it would carry, which would be mostly propellant.

Any support for SLS goes completely against Tea Party principles.

If they really believed that, they wouldn’t be insisting that NASA waste so much time and money on SLS.

Only true to a certain extent. An HLV was called for in the administration plan, but instead of doing a crash project to keep the maximum number of shuttle employees working, the best of several alternatives was to be chosen. You SLS people are like spoiled brats screaming at the top of your lungs, “I want my HLV and I want it NOW!!!” The irony is that in your pursuit of instant gratificaton, though you can start it now, it would actually take longer to develop than the alternative because Congress will not allocate enough money to get it done in a timely manner. Try thinking multiple steps ahead instead of just one.

“A reduced NASA budget actually hurts other NASA programs a lot more than it would the SLS since Congress clearly believes that the manned space program should have priority in funding. For instance, the James Webb telescope was sacrificed rather than the SLS in the House.”

Notice even Rep. Posey is now saying Commercial Crew is essential. If such an adamant former opponent of CC is saying that now, what does that tell you? You can claim all you want that the new NASA cost estimate is soley a political ploy by Bolden and Garver. But if the independent Booz-Allen study finds that SLS costs as much or even more than the NASA study indicates, you will find Congressional politicians abandoning the SLS ship in droves (except for some with major SLS contracts in their constituencies).

“I do find the fact that your an apologist for the Obama administration’s politically and economically unsustainable space policies– amusing:-)”
May I remind you that the use of EELV commercial launchers was first proposed in the VSE under the Bush administration. Griffin chose to ignore it. The only apologist of the two of us is you in regard to SLS and its continuation of the failed Constellation mentality.

@Planet Marcel
“$3.8 billion a year to fund the SLS is a lot cheaper than the $5.5 billion a year that was originally scheduled to fund the Constellation program. “

Did you read for comprehension anything I wrote in my last two comments? The 3.8 billion will not be there and not because government run programs cannot do anything right, but because of the debt ceiling legislation. You are so naive and determined to stay that way. Even if the $3.8 billion was not cut (no way), it still would not give you the SLS in a reasonable amount of time.

” But Obama is holding up a decision on which idea and which contractors should get the job because he and Holdren really don’t want NASA to have a heavy lift vehicle. “

This is a lie. I don’t know whether it’s an intentional lie, but still a lie. The original Obama plan was presented with an HLV included in the mix. It’s just that it was to be developed at a more gradual pace simultaneously with supporter technologies such as fuel depots, deep spacecraft to fly on the HLV, and landers. Also with competitive HLV designs from different companies. Instead certain members of Congress bullied the SLS program into existance to employ the shuttle workers in their constiuencies.

“The only words that should be coming out of the mouths of the private commercial crew companies is– Bigelow! In less than 20 years, the launch rate for space tourism to private space stations through private commercial companies is going to dwarf NASA’s government related activities– largely thanks to NASA!”

Those essentally are our words, except we say Bigelow 5 years. And yes, partially thanks to NASA. Do you not understand anything?

@Rick Boozer

Please! The Obama administration didn’t want to immediately develop a heavy lift vehicle. This was forced on them by Congress. And they’ve been fighting it ever since with delay after delay after delay of something that has been studied to death over the past 20 years.

A reduced NASA budget actually hurts other NASA programs a lot more than it would the SLS since Congress clearly believes that the manned space program should have priority in funding. For instance, the James Webb telescope was sacrificed rather than the SLS in the House.

I do find the fact that your an apologist for the Obama administration’s politically and economically unsustainable space policies– amusing:-)

As I’ve written ad nauseam, the only members of Congress who care about NASA are those with space centers or space contractors in their districts. The rest don’t care and probably view NASA as pork. So don’t think NASA will survive whole the oncoming budget cuts.

I can tell you that there is a very serious push inside the Tea Party caucus to change this. Now, space is a tier two or three issue; however I would submit every staffer I have talked to has incredible interest in American human space flight. Some are not in space states or districts and have asked for additional visits and information. We are providing that.

Half the problem is who is feeding who information. Some people are pro SLS and some are pro commercial space. We just want competition with SLS and commercial crew.

Everyone knows the next time an American rides into space, it will be on either a ULA rocket or a Dragon. MPCV does not have a rocket to ride… with humans. There are so many competing interests on the Hill. I value the time I have been able to spend with all the staffs and members.

The Tea Party will be very active in our nation’s space Endeavour(s). There is so much more to come. We need to organize much better than we are now… and we will.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space

OK, noted.

“I have been dismissive of the sls doomsayers ….trying to remain optimistic, however if the time line described in this spaceflightnow article is accurate then I have to say…. Sls-DOA”

No I don’t think you tried to remain optimistic, sorry. You, but not only you, are (were?) trying to not face the reality. And the reality will face you and I and the others pretty soon yet again.

The problem with this: We could have been ready, at least ready-er. Fortunately some people saw the letters on the wall earlier than you did and maybe, just maybe, we will be able to weather the upcoming storm without too much damage.

Then again we could still demand an SLS and put our heads back in the sand. See what happens then.