Sorry Matt – I guess they didn’t get your memo about Musk & Mars…

“Ah! It was option d)!”

Kind of what we expected I’m sure, since SpaceX (and the other COTS & CCDev participants) have not been misspending any government money – how do you complain about companies that are performing to contract?

They can’t. Instead they focus on the personal aspects of “someone”, which in this case is Elon Musk. But even there, what’s to argue with? The number of jobs he’s produced? How he’s making the U.S. competitive in the international launch market again?

I think Matt is hoping “something” will come up at the hearing, and then he’ll point retroactively at it and say “see, I told you”…

Ah! It was option d)!

“When I mean hold Musk’s feet to the fire, I’d be grilling him about some of the promises (or boasts) he’s made.”

I’ll echo what Das Boese said – what you’re talking about regarding Musk is your own personal vendetta, not something that Congress is worried about.

Retiring on Mars is not the concern of Congress, and the business plans of a company are of no concern of Congress either – whether SpaceX achieves reusability, which is an internal company goal, is immaterial to Congress since SpaceX is not under contract to do so.

“Not to mention that he’s two years behind schedule in cargo runs to ISS.”

When the Michael Griffin led NASA awarded SpaceX the original COTS contract, they didn’t want to set specific contract dates since it was a development contract and this type of public-private partnership had never been done. NASA did add the dates that SpaceX (and later OSC) proffered, but NASA was not planning to depend on them. You can see that when NASA wanted to add the extra Shuttle flight to stock up the ISS.

Are they running behind their announced schedule? Yes. Is that unusual in aerospace? No, and SpaceX and OSC are not being paid for slipping schedule either. So why are you so focused on it? Were you as upset when the Ares I was slipping schedule one year for every year it moved forward? No. So your fake umbrage is just that – fake.

“What was it that Chairman Hall said at a commercial cargo hearing? “Don’t overpromise us.””

Another “Cernian” type statement that makes a nice soundbite but doesn’t do anything. The great thing about COTS/CRS is that SpaceX and OSC don’t get paid unless they deliver the goods, whether it’s engineering milestones or cargo to the ISS. Compare that to the Cost-Plus contracts that NASA had for Constellation, where we spent $4B on a capsule that never saw the light of day. More fake umbrage.

Talk is cheap, but unfortunately that’s what you seem to place your faith in. I prefer results, which is why I like what is happening with the COTS & CCDev programs – public milestones that everyone can see, and an aggressive schedule to get things into space at the lowest possible cost.

a) He has already answered those questions. The fact that you are too dim to understand the answers is your problem, not his or ours, and as Das Boese notes, b) they have zero relevance to the topic at hand, which is commercial crew.

As I indicated in my reply to Rand, when it comes to people with similar positions to those of ablastofhotair, it doesn’t matter whether you, I or anyone else thinks they don’t pass a litmus test for being purely ideologically right-of-center, they consider themselves to be right-of-center no matter what. Nothing any of the rest of us can say will change their minds.

When I mean hold Musk’s feet to the fire, I’d be grilling him about some of the promises (or boasts) he’s made. A proper explanation of that “retiring on Mars” nonsense (he won’t, but his grandkids might), or how does he plan to have a completely resuable rocket based on Falcon 9-with so many engineering hurdles to overcome?

Since none of this is at all relevant to commercial crew, what you suggest is that elected representatives waste valuable time and public funds to indulge your personal obsession with Elon Musk. Don’t know about your country, in mine this kind of misconduct carries severe legal consequences.

Not to mention that he’s two years behind schedule in cargo runs to ISS.

SpaceX has met all of NASA’s goals on time so far, otherwise they would not have received payment. Admittedly there have been significant alterations to the original schedule following the implosion of Constellation and the subsequent changes at NASA and within the COTS program it necessitated.

What was it that Chairman Hall said at a commercial cargo hearing? “Don’t overpromise us.”

Perhaps the Chairman should have repeated this sentiment during the discussions about SLS and MPCV, which have a much worse history of not fulfilling initial promises.

Getting the frank and honest opinions of astronauts-both Apollo era and more recent shuttle fliers, is vital.

Unless of course, their views contradict yours.

The Apollo hands’ wealth of experince in BEO operations-including work on a planetary surface, is something that

…is again irrelevant to the topic of this hearing which is commercial crew.

Experience in collecting rock and dust samples during a short, monumentally expensive stay on the moon is not a sufficient qualification for discussing current or future policy regarding LEO transport of humans and goods.

Just get them talking and air things out. Get the recent vets’ opinion on possible future courses of action re: exploration and see if there’s common ground. And if some “agree to disagree” on specifics, that’s fine. Just as long as flying BEO missions as soon as possible are one thing all agree on.

In other words, every opinion is fine as long as it’s the same as yours, with a bit of wiggle room to give the illusion of diversity.Got it.

In case you haven’t noticed, check out a recent piece on the Space Review: it seems to indicate the NEO mission as currently outlined by POTUS may be a nonstarter. Said it before, and I’ll repeat: Under ideal circumstances, Moon first (including Earth-Moon L Points), then NEO and Earth-Sun L-Points, then Mars. In that order. Now, we’re more likely to see Lunar orbit and L-Points before boots on the ground,-and maybe the NEO mission, but that will come in due course.

You can repeat what you said before as often as you want, repetition does not make it true. Until you come up with sound reasoning why your plan is the only way forward and how it’s gonna work in the real world, you shall be dismissed.

Getting the frank and honest opinions of astronauts-both Apollo era and more recent shuttle fliers, is vital. The Apollo hands’ wealth of experince in BEO operations-including work on a planetary surface, is something that needs to be tapped for future reference. Just get them talking and air things out. Get the recent vets’ opinion on possible future courses of action re: exploration and see if there’s common ground. And if some “agree to disagree” on specifics, that’s fine. Just as long as flying BEO missions as soon as possible are one thing all agree on.

In case you haven’t noticed, check out a recent piece on the Space Review: it seems to indicate the NEO mission as currently outlined by POTUS may be a nonstarter. Said it before, and I’ll repeat: Under ideal circumstances, Moon first (including Earth-Moon L Points), then NEO and Earth-Sun L-Points, then Mars. In that order. Now, we’re more likely to see Lunar orbit and L-Points before boots on the ground,-and maybe the NEO mission, but that will come in due course. And personally, I’d very much prefer the first human back on the lunar surface be an American, PERIOD.

Here’s the article: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1949/1

And if it’s a question for which there is not an honest answer where SLS comes up less than roses, he will probably do one of the following (based on my past experience with him): a) continue to not answer your question, i.e., ignore it, or b) pretend you asked a question different from the one you actually asked and answer said alternate question, or c) answer your question with another question that has little or nothing to do with the question you asked.