To paraphrase a Simpson’s show, there are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the BreakingWind way. The third is the wrong way, but faster.

That’s not “regulatory power” in the legal meaning of that phrase, it’s simply a customer imposing a requirement on a provider. But I’m certainly not dismissing the potential for conflict of interest, or their ability to screw up the commercial marketplace with unrealistic requirements. I’m simply pointing out that they have neither the legal authority, or institutional capability to regulate commercial activity, and if provided with it, it would be disastrous. Nelson is being as foolish as Ralph Hall in making such a fetish of safety.

NASA has no statutory authority to regulate anything — that is the FAA’s job. And it has no intrinsic ability to do so.

Well, NASA has regulatory power insofar as they can impose the safety requirements for vehicles that use their facilities (including docking to the station) and transport their cargo or astronauts. I wouldn’t dismiss the potential for a conflict of interests when they’re developing a system of their own at the same time.

It was a European attempt to get a piece of SLS/Orion.

This is the most hilariuosly stupid thing I’ve ever read from you.
ESA and RSA have absolutely zero use for SLS or MPCV. They wouldn’t know what to do with it, and they sure as hell don’t have enough money to waste on it. That was already true for Constellation, it remains true for SLS and MPCV.

Having been burned by our ISS construction experience with Russian and European contractors

Yes… Russians and Europeans, always causing these huge setbacks to the station’s construction because of their unsafe vehicles, always bumming a ride on American capsules and never bringing their own supplies.

the idea was to develop Ares/Orion without foreigners on the critical path.

Yeah that worked out really well for you didn’t it.

That is still a laudable goal with SLS/Orion

After all, if the first attempt ended in colossal failure, the obvious solution is to try the exact same strategy again, only harder!

NASA has no statutory authority to regulate anything — that is the FAA’s job. And it has no intrinsic ability to do so. Nelson really wants an agency that killed fourteen astronauts to regulate space transportation safety? Really?

So it should be with spacelines; and those Republicans who are opposing commercial space are particularly hypocritical in this regard. NASA (or the FAA) should regulate safety in space transportation; they should not be competing against the private sector.

Rand Simberg wrote @ February 16th, 2012 at 11:23 am
“If so, that’s good news. The sooner he goes, the better.”

But now we hear in Space News that Shana Dale is returning to work for Hall as his principal space policy advisor! Shana is no space policy lightweight. That could seem like an odd career move if Hall is going to relinquish control in less than a year. Then again, FY13 is when a new NASA authorization bill is due out of the science committee, and I suspect she wants to position herself to be a part of that, as she has had leadership roles in others. I’ll bet she has a good sense of who’s likely to take over as Science Chair, and she doesn’t mind working for that person.

In fact, I would be astonished if Hall didn’t want to be in a position to exercise leadership on that bill.

No, the article is very clear:

“Two of Europe’s biggest International Space Station contributors have rejected a NASA proposal that would see the European Space Agency (ESA) pay its share of ISS operating costs by building a propulsion module for NASA’s Orion crew transport capsule, saying the proposal is technologically lackluster and unlikely to generate public enthusiasm.”

NASA made the proposal, not ESA.

Moreover, the Europeans wouldn’t be turning down a proposal that they themselves made.

Even as screwed up as ESA is, they won’t touch Orion/MPCV with a ten-foot pole. That should tell us something about the state of the program.

And now that program has to fund a propulsion module that it didn’t budget for, instead of relying on foreign partner contributions. More cost growth. More schedule stretching.