Campaign '12

Obama campaign criticizes Ryan speech

On Saturday, coinciding with the release of the campaign’s space policy, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan mentioned space during a speech in Orlando. In the brief discussion of space, Ryan said that he and Mitt Romney “believe we need a mission for NASA” and criticized the “broken promises” of President Obama’s 2008 campaign.

Obama’s Florida campaign has responded with a statement criticizing Ryan for his past votes and budget proposals. “Congressman Ryan has repeatedly voted against NASA funding, and the Romney-Ryan budget’s cuts – if applied across the board – would cut funding for space exploration programs by 19 percent,” campaign spokesman Danny Kanner said in the emailed statement. The latter is a reference to proposals by the House Budget Committee, chaired by Ryan, that would cut non-defense discretionary spending by 19 percent by 2014, according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. The claim that Ryan “repeatedly voted against NASA funding” is a reference to votes cast by Ryan again NASA authorization acts in 2008 and 2010. These bills, though, were authorization bills, and did not directly providing funding for NASA, instead authorizing spending levels rarely met by later appropriations bills.

The statement also claims that the Romney campaign for being “mostly silent” on NASA, but does not mention the space policy document released yesterday by the campaign that contains the most detail to date on what a Romney Administration would do in space.

54 comments to Obama campaign criticizes Ryan speech

  • Mark R. Whittington

    This is typical Obama strategy when called out. The president’s men can’t actually answer the criticism of Obama space policy, so instead they stoop to lying about Paul Ryan.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 23rd, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    This is typical Obama strategy when called out. The president’s men can’t actually answer the criticism of Obama space policy,>>

    there are no actual critcisms of the Obama space policy in the Ryan or Willard “montage” of statements…there are useless platitudes designed to appeal to people like you and to suck people like you into believing whatever they want to believe about Romney’s (to be kind here) “Policy”

    this is what you wrote on “your” web site

    ” Even though the paper is not specific as to space exploration goals, the criticism suggests a return to the consensus program that included the moon as an initial destination for human explorers”

    you’ve been sucked in. This is a typical attempt pushed by Karl Rove in the 00 and 04 campaign and now being used by Willard to get people who are low information or rhetoric voters to believe what they want with little or no specifics. “suggests” a return to a program which included the moon”

    It does not such thing…that part is the part you added.

    You are typical of the voter the GOP candidate is appealing to…

    The Obama space policy is going to be on full display for all to see.

    October the 7th of this year SpaceX is going to do what Cx never did…go into space and service the ISS. It is going to do that for less money then Cx spent in a year.

    That is Obama’s space policy. Romney’s is paper to appeal to people like you

    Goofy RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

    as of today Sunday; romney is ahead in not a single poll, he is only tied int he Rasmussen tracking poll (trends GOP) and in the non published Luntz and Cook poll, romney is behind by 5 and 8 respectively RGO

  • DCSCA

    “The statement also claims that the Romney campaign for being “mostly silent” on NASA, but does not mention the space policy document released yesterday by the campaign that contains the most detail to date on what a Romney Administration would do in space.”

    Nothing plus nothing is still nothing. Which is really something from a cadidate for CIC 45 days or so out from E-day..

    @Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 23rd, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    LOL It ain’t lyin’ when you call out Lyin’ Ryan for lying. Again.

    It’s one of the few threads of consistency in the Romney cxampaign.

    Romney has no space policy to speak of. As Newt Gingrich, Moon President, and the rest of America who caught Romney’s primary slap down of moon musings know all too well.

  • DCSCA

    As far as Romney is concerned, ‘Nassau’ is spot close to the Caymens with lots os space to stash loot

  • Robert G. Oler

    Romney/Ryan’s musings on space policy illustrate why they are most likely going to lose the Presidential race. I’ll ignore for this analysis the self inflicted wounds that the mostly incompetent (see Peggy Noonan) campaign has accomplished but lets talk policy.

    1. Romney and Ryan are mismatched. Willard is (I agree with David Brooks) mostly a non ideologically minded person running in a party where ideology matters. Go tell Willard that the Chinese are going to build a lunar base and take over the Moon he will most likely look at you and say “OK so what?” ….but you can see the hints in Ryan’s speech and the crowds reaction to it (and there are some examples on this blog here)…there are people in the party who really believe that stuff.

    2. Problem is Paul Ryan really is not one of them. If Paul Ryan said what he really believes (see his budgets) about HSF and the government spending money…he would at any outing in Florida get a reception like at the AARP…what Ryan believes is the main notion of the “base” of the GOP which is try and free up as much money as possible to the Romney middle class (his own words 200K and above), feed the war machine, and cut all the other programs to try and pay for it.

    Ryan’s plan(s) are mostly hated by the general public; go tell GOP “Farmer Bob” that farm subsidies are going and well Ryan isnt his friend.

    3…While Obama has missed a lot of opportunities to lead…his policies are working far better then those of his GOP predecessor. OK in Wind and Whittingtonvile Cx was a bipartisan success that only needed more money to do great things and those great things would be loved by the nation…But well not even Willard Mitt Romney believes that (see Florida primary)

    some of the right wing might quibble at how SpaceX (and hopefully OSC) are becoming successes, but they go stone quiet when pressed to explain how Cx was or did spend 15 billion dollars and got nothing…and why SLS/Orion will need about a 16-20 year development effort to fly a single person in space.

    These are “GOP” programs (or space pork take your pick but there are far more GOP space porkers then Dem ones)…and if Ryan or Romney told the truth about space policy then in reality Cx is a flop.

    If you want to see why the GOP is in trouble this year go watch MTP…Morning Joe, David Brooks and Bay Buchanan (the sister of Patrick J) all Republicans spent most of the roundtable tearing into each other. and the space equivelent of that is Mark Whittington and Rand Simberg’s “enlightened” back and forth.

    You would have never seen this under Reagan. Obama should be vulnerable. He and his administration are ideologically out of gas. All you have to do is watch Lori and Charlie floundering now…but they have at least gotten this far.

    Cx…would have not EVEN FLOWN Ares Prime or whatever it was called.

    RGO

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 23rd, 2012 at 7:41 pm
    Romney/Ryan’s musings on space policy illustrate why they are most likely going to lose the Presidential race.

    Most likely?? Sunrise in East. Sunset in West. Most likely.

  • adastramike

    “October the 7th of this year SpaceX is going to do what Cx never did…go into space and service the ISS. It is going to do that for less money then Cx spent in a year.

    That is Obama’s space policy”

    As we all know, Obama inherited COTS from the previous admin, and decided to keep it. I suppose a Prez can take the previous admin’s idea and adopt it and then call it their own policy, but then don’t act like they came up with the idea in the first place. Just like retiring shuttle right now was Bush’s idea, yet some link it to Obama. Don’t take credit for something you didn’t start, Obama. Acknowledge where it came from, then say it represents what you want to continue.

    Obama’s new policy idea was commercial crew. I hear that Boeing may be considering abandoning CST-100 despite their CCiCap award — not enough business with NASA to ISS (to be splashed in 2020). Hopefully that won’t happen but if it does, there goes your competition, leaving just two companies to provide HSF LEO access (SpaceX and Sierra Nevada).

  • NeilShipley

    adastramike wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 1:02 am

    No Boeing won’t abandon CCiCap, they’re just trying to scare NASA into giving more and early contracts for crew a la COTS and CRS. But not going to happen. No more money, have to do SAA rather than FAR which is what the CRS is and what a crew contract will be and also lots more risk-retirement needed yet.

  • Vladislaw

    It was my understanding Bigelow Aerospace has helped Boeing. I would imagine there is contract obligations under that also. I doubt Boeing is going to jump out of two potential markets for their capsule.

  • amightywind

    The fact that the Obama campaign responded shows that Ryan criticism is effective.

    While Obama has missed a lot of opportunities to lead…his policies are working far better then those of his GOP predecessor.

    Which ones? Foreign policy? The economy? Fiscal policy? Race relations?

  • amightywind

    Looks like the Weekly Standard has picked up Ryan’s remarks.

  • Justin Kugler

    There are no plans to “splash” the ISS in 2020. That is just when the current programmatic agreements run out. All of the partners are looking at what the actual limits on service life are. I’m not aware of any reason it couldn’t continue operating until at least 2030.

  • @adastramike
    “I hear that Boeing may be considering abandoning CST-100 despite their CCiCap award — not enough business with NASA to ISS (to be splashed in 2020). Hopefully that won’t happen but if it does, there goes your competition, leaving just two companies to provide HSF LEO access (SpaceX and Sierra Nevada).”
    1) if Boeing drops out, who says they can’t replace them with one of the excluded earlier CC entrants such as Blue Origin?
    2) As long as there is more than one company competing, that (by definition) is still competition.

  • Coastal Ron

    adastramike wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 1:02 am

    As we all know, Obama inherited COTS from the previous admin, and decided to keep it.

    COTS-B & C (Internal pressurized cargo delivery) has not been a source of contention – what was COTS-D (Crew Transportation) is what the Obama administration pushed almost as soon as they took office. Good thing too.

    I hear that Boeing may be considering abandoning CST-100 despite their CCiCap award

    NASA knew of their financial commitment level when they awarded them $460M for CCiCap, so it’s not a surprise. You have to remember that Boeing is a pretty smart competitor, and they have said at various times that they are in the market to be one of the leaders in space transportation. However the wonderful thing about competition is that if Boeing drops out, there will be others that can step in and replace them.

    NASA didn’t have that ability with the Single-Point-Of-Failure Shuttle, and Congress is making the same mistake with the SLS. Keep in mind that any mission built SLS-sized becomes “too big to fail” – is that any way to run an exploration program? No way.

  • Robert G. Oler

    adastramike wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 1:02 am

    As we all know, Obama inherited COTS from the previous admin, and decided to keep it. I suppose a Prez can take the previous admin’s idea and adopt it and then call it their own policy, but then don’t act like they came up with the idea in the first place. ”

    all that statement proves is that you have never raised children or accomplished a major project; and/or taken over one in mid stream.

    The EASIEST thing one does is “start a project”…its not even all that hard to “finish it”…where the “rubber hits the road” (sorry you have to be of a certain age to enjoy that completely) is in the middle of “something” when the reasons for starting it; the hoopla at the start have faded, there are issues that have to be solved that seemed easy at the start or were not even anticipated and everyone else around you is not helpful.

    This is one reason I both MOCK the right to life idiots and people like you who claim that Bush was responsible for everything good that happened after he left and yet has no fault for anything that is getting worse.

    Both Ares/Cx and Commercial cargo were more or less “conceived” at the same time…and yet one remains “challenged” and the other is on the verge of flying with one of its participants for the second time on almost no money compared to the “challenged” program

    As for Boeing. if they are dumb enough to quit commercial crew on a canard, that the station is going to be splashed in 2020 then IQ’s have gone down enormously at that company and my line is “quit”.

    Boeing might have in the next 20 years its hands full trying to simply be an airplane company and they might need all their A plus talent to pull that off.

    Its OK, Ford tried the airplane business but still makes good cars.

    With any luck this election is going to toss into the trashbin of history the far right that has brought this country almost to our knees. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 8:21 am

    yeah.

    TWS is starting to set the stage for picking up the pieces after a Willard loss (which even they can see coming, Kristol has been here before with Dole and McCain)….

    The Romney campaign put out its space policy on a Friday which is a news dump day…(as DSN noted on another thread) but the reason that the Standard picked this up is the same reason that it picked the Palin remarks up…it is trying to plant seeds for the 16 campaign.

    The election is far from over: Willard has one more moment at his command to shift the trend which is the first debate; but if that goes under then he will start to settle at a “losers 45″…

    As another poster said on another thread…he is the last Edsel.

    TWS piece was fluff. RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/23/14049265-gingrich-criticizes-romney-ryan-space-plan?lite

    Newt pans Romney.

    The sad thing for the GOP but good for Obama…was that actually Newt knew where Obama’s Achilles heel was…and could have attacked it. I dont know if he (Newt) would have been successful; he (Newt) has a lot of baggage but he could have at least engaged. Willard…not so much RGO

  • common sense

    Re Boeing.

    Comical how some draw conclusions without the slightest notion how Boeing or any major corporation its size runs a business. For Boeing to actually make money on something like commercial space they would have to create a new company, without among other things all the overhead associated with running a major corporation. Boeing always said they had a very thin possibility of making any money in it. But Boeing also still is somewhat driven by commercial applications, you know the big thingies with wings carrying people from place to place, unlike its competitors in the Defense contractor world. AND they have a culture of HSF, unlike you know… its competitors in the Defense contractor world.

    Commercial space was an attempt at doing away with the major very expensive defense contractors, to bring in new blood. And it’s working just fine. Have you seen any other usual contractor (see the CEV finalists) on commercial space? No I did not think so.

    And we shall see. Soon.

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is science genius Mitt Romney’s take on well airplane fires.

    I wouldnt expect much in the way of thoughtful science or space policy from this clown…and with the latest poll information it wont be an issue.

    ” Romney’s wife, Ann, was in attendance, and the candidate spoke of the concern he had for her when her plane had to make an emergency landing Friday en route to Santa Monica because of an electrical malfunction.

    “I appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I don’t think she knows just how worried some of us were,” Romney said. “When you have a fire in an aircraft, there’s no place to go, exactly, there’s no — and you can’t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don’t open. I don’t know why they don’t do that. It’s a real problem. So it’s very dangerous. And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But she’s safe and sound.”

    Heh MArk Whittington…he is your guy RGO

  • Vladislaw

    “But Boeing also still is somewhat driven by commercial applications, you know the big thingies with wings carrying people from place to place, unlike its competitors in the Defense contractor world.”

    Would it be possible for Boeing to sell the capsules, wholesale, to a third party who then choses which launch system to use to launch it?

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    Would it be possible for Boeing to sell the capsules, wholesale, to a third party who then choses which launch system to use to launch it?

    I haven’t heard much official talk on this subject yet, but the little I have heard would indicate it could be one of the possible outcomes.

    That model would be the same Boeing uses for aircraft, in that they build, sell and support them, but otherwise it’s up to the owner/operators to find users and make money.

    Of course launching the CST-100 the only American alternative to Atlas V is the SpaceX Falcon 9, so there is the question of whether SpaceX would sell to a competitor, but I think Musk would do it. Shipping a CST-100 out of the country to fly on an Ariane, H-II, or whatever – that might not be so easy.

    For competition sake, let’s hope that Atlas V stays in the mix.

  • common sense

    @ Vladislaw wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 1:36 pm

    I think a lot of things are possible. But the main challenge remains for the Boeing program execs to convince Boeing the corporation that they would have a profitable company AND that Boeing as a whole would get something out of it. One strength of SpaceX over pretty much everyone else is how little overhead cost they have. Basically Boeing would have to spin off some SpaceX of their own. Now if you refer to the Skunk Works back in the day I would say anything is possible even with a major corporation. You can also look at Northrop Grumman purchase of Scaled Composites. But Skunks had a nice niche inside the DoD and they did not last that long anyway. And how long will Scaled remains “Scaled”, e.g. TRW inside Northrop Grumman… Corporations are much like the Borg.

    So… The answer is “I don’t know”.

  • Egad

    Shipping a CST-100 out of the country to fly on an Ariane, H-II, or whatever – that might not be so easy.

    Just for the sake of speculation, what about a Sea Launch Zenit? IIRC, the Sovs had plans for using it for manned missions. And (I guess) Sea Launch has managed to finesse ITAR and suchlike.

  • Explorer08

    I’m no fan of Obama but it is crystal clear, now, that Romney is an “empty suit.” As my ole granny would have said of Romney, “He’s got nuthin’ ” Perhaps the Republicans will do better at candidate selection in 2016.

  • A M Swallow

    I am worried about the Dream Chaser.

    The Dream Chaser planned to use the Atlas 5 as its launch vehicle. The man rating of the Atlas V is being paid for by NASA as part of Boeing’s CST-100 agreement. If Boeing cancels the agreement will the Atlas V man rating continue?

    The Dream Chaser is being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), they could be asked to write a report on alternative launch vehicles and possible cost estimates.

  • When I first saw Oler’s comment about the airplane window, I was a bit incredulous. But I double-checked and indeed it actually happened. Judging from that, I don’t see how Romney can make intellligent decisions regarding the space policy that is the topic of this thread or any other issue regarding science and technology. He apparently has less scientific literacy than most 6th graders I know. It is scary to think about someone potentially becoming President without even a rough rudimentary knowledge about the modern technical world. I don’t require a candidate to know more about science and technology than the average citizen in order to receive my vote, but I do expect them to at least have low level common knowledge. After all, modern civilization is underpinned by science and technology. I think I just decided for certain who not to vote for.
    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-romney-beverly-hills-fundraiser-20120922,0,2317962.story
    Most school children I know are aware of at least one of the following three dangers of high altitude flight: decompression, thin air suffocation and the extreme cold.

  • common sense

    Re-Re Boeing.

    I read the Flight Global article and I suspect that Boeing is just being cautious about the outcome of the election as well as passing a message to the candidates. I would not read a lot more than that. I did not see anything new in the article.

    So don’t make a big deal out this just yet.

    FWIW.

    http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-not-guaranteed-for-boeings-commercial-crew-capsule-376515/

  • Coastal Ron

    A M Swallow wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 6:32 pm

    The man rating of the Atlas V is being paid for by NASA as part of Boeing’s CST-100 agreement.

    From what NASA showed on the CCiCap slides when they announced the awards, that is not the case. All of Boeing’s funding is going for the CST-100, not the Atlas V or the launch infrastructure. Likely that will be something that will be funded later, but I haven’t heard any details about when. But we are three years out from the first likely test launches, so it’s not an issue yet.

    If Boeing cancels the agreement will the Atlas V man rating continue?

    ULA has received funding under CCDev for getting ready for this, and again, it’s not tied to any particular vehicle. I don’t see this as an issue.

    The Dream Chaser is being developed by Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), they could be asked to write a report on alternative launch vehicles and possible cost estimates.

    Other than Delta IV (which would have the same or more issues than Atlas V), there are no other choices in the U.S. except for Falcon 9. I think SpaceX would launch other spacecraft, but it would not provide a redundant launch system (i.e. we’d be reliant on just one rocket).

    In order of priority, I would probably go for 1) being redundant on spacecraft, and then 2) being redundant on launch vehicles. We’ll have to wait and see what Boeing and NASA do…

  • Coastal Ron

    Egad wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 3:42 pm

    Just for the sake of speculation, what about a Sea Launch Zenit?

    Interesting idea. It appears more than capable enough, so I guess it would be more a matter of ITAR.

    Doesn’t address the domestic capability angle though.

  • When I first saw Oler’s comment about the airplane window, I was a bit incredulous. But I double-checked and indeed it actually happened. Judging from that, I don’t see how Romney can make intellligent decisions regarding the space policy that is the topic of this thread or any other issue regarding science and technology.

    Not to defend Romney, but why would you imagine that Barack Obama is any more knowledgeable?

  • A M Swallow

    Coastal Ron wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 7:35 pm

    “From what NASA showed on the CCiCap slides when they announced the awards, that is not the case. All of Boeing’s funding is going for the CST-100, not the Atlas V or the launch infrastructure. Likely that will be something that will be funded later, but I haven’t heard any details about when. But we are three years out from the first likely test launches, so it’s not an issue yet.”

    No. CCiCap is the integration of the whole lot – capsule, Atlas 5 launch vehicle and ground support system.

    See extract from this press release.
    Boeing Completes First Milestone for NASA’s Commercial Crew Initiative
    Sept. 14, 2012

    “In its Integrated Systems Review (ISR), Boeing presented the latest designs of its CST-100 spacecraft, United Launch Alliance’s Atlas V rocket launch system, and ground and mission operations. These designs will serve as the baseline for further development work to be accomplished during CCiCap. The company also discussed its plans for safety and mission assurance, which ultimately will contribute to achieving certification of the system for human spaceflight.”

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/sep/HQ_12-311_Boeing_Milestone_Commercial_Crew.html

  • @Rand
    No, I have no such evidence that Obama knows more. However, I suspect if he didn’t, we would have seen a similar gaffe of abysmal scientific ignorance from him in the last four years. However, I know now that Romney lacks even rudimentary scientific literacy.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 12:27 am

    “Not to defend Romney, but why would you imagine that Barack Obama is any more knowledgeable?”

    Maybe because he does not say this kind of nonsense?

    And there is nothing to defend about Romney. If you need to defend him even though he hasn’t even started yet then what are you going to do once he is elected? If he is of course. But you never know we did elect GWB. Twice…

  • Coastal Ron

    A M Swallow wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 12:47 am

    See extract from this press release.

    From just that text, it doesn’t mention the “man rating” that you were initially asking about. What Boeing seems to be going over is how the CST-100 integrates with the Atlas V – not the same thing.

    However, if Boeing pulled out, NASA would likely take what’s left of their funding and move some of it over to Sierra Nevada to accelerate the Dream Chaser, which would include funding for whatever Atlas V specific tasks Boeing was doing.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    I don’t see how Romney can make intellligent decisions regarding the space policy that is the topic of this thread or any other issue regarding science and technology. He apparently has less scientific literacy than most 6th graders I know.

    You can bet that Lockheed would get a change order to make sure the windows on Orion could be opened. Aside from that, the relevance of this to space policy is pretty much nil.

  • The man rating of the Atlas V is being paid for by NASA as part of Boeing’s CST-100 agreement. If Boeing cancels the agreement will the Atlas V man rating continue?

    Atlas V already has all the “man rating” it needs. “Man rating” is a meaningless phrase.

  • Vladislaw

    I thought the issue with the Atlas V was the launch pad and infrastructure to allow pad escape from the capsule? The big slide….

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 12:27 am

    someone else wrote:
    When I first saw Oler’s comment about the airplane window, I was a bit incredulous. But I double-checked and indeed it actually happened. Judging from that, I don’t see how Romney can make intellligent decisions regarding the space policy that is the topic of this thread or any other issue regarding science and technology.

    you replied:
    Not to defend Romney, but why would you imagine that Barack Obama is any more knowledgeable?….”

    Yes,

    Barack H. Obama seems to have the sense that most ordinary Americans do…if you went out to the 11 year old in the family and asked him “why airplane windows dont roll down”? What you would get is the answer of a child; but he would at least be able to pontificate based on the knowledge of having ridden in a commercial plane and listened to the “flight attendant” explain the basic safety notions of riding in todays airplanes.

    I doubt BHO understands Pnuematic Air Cycle Konditioners PACKS, or pressurization controllers or outflow valves…but what Obama would do is recognize the people in the airplane who tell him about such things as reasonable “knowledge sources” in their fields…

    Where this entire event is illustrative and useful for a discussion on space policy is that Romney seems to equate “expert” or “knowledge” or even “value” with wealth and power which means he is vulnerable to the self biases of that group, particularly in terms of the people who he is listening to .

    Just as there are “noble and not very noble” people in the middle class there are also these people in the more wealthy class…and Romney (and for that matter the entire GOP thinkers these days) are listening to the folks whose wealth has been gotten by essentially crushing other people. Romney himself is an example of that. He might be very generous in terms of his faith; but there are few souls who worked at the various companies that he “fixed” who would say that he was generous to their “lives” as he cashed in the wealth of their company.

    Elon Musk has in fact used his wealth to create products which create “wealth” for others farther down the feeding chain…romney just created wealth for himself.

    There wont be but if there was a “President Romney” one could imagine the folks at Boeing and ATK and Lockmart and all the other corporate vampires coming to him with the argument “we have to keep SLS going because it employes XXXX or XXXXX number of people” when really what that is is a simple facade argument that “it keeps the company in business”…and Romney in my view would not see through that argument infact would accept the facade as his own.

    As Colin Powell said about Romney “come on Mitt think” …I dont believe Mitt is capable of that.

    RGO

  • No, I have no such evidence that Obama knows more. However, I suspect if he didn’t, we would have seen a similar gaffe of abysmal scientific ignorance from him in the last four years.

    You mean like “we can solve our energy problem by keeping our tires inflated”?

    Maybe because he does not say this kind of nonsense?

    Obama has spouted all manner of nonsense over the years, scientific, geographical, economic, etc., but this is getting off topic.

    And there is nothing to defend about Romney. If you need to defend him even though he hasn’t even started yet then what are you going to do once he is elected?

    I just said “not to defend Romney.” Do you have trouble with basic English?

  • Barack H. Obama seems to have the sense that most ordinary Americans do…

    Not to me.

  • Coastal Ron

    Vladislaw wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    I thought the issue with the Atlas V was the launch pad and infrastructure to allow pad escape from the capsule? The big slide….

    Yes, I think that is really the costly part of using Atlas V for crew. I think A M Swallow was using the wrong term (“man rating”).

  • common sense

    @Rand Simberg wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 2:40 pm

    “You mean like “we can solve our energy problem by keeping our tires inflated”?”

    You know I think you’re better than that but some times… Keeping tires inflated does reduce the amount of energy required to move your car. Now if you want to give us a reference where the President actually said it would “solve our energy problem by keeping our tires inflated” it would be nice.

    “Obama has spouted all manner of nonsense over the years, scientific, geographical, economic, etc., but this is getting off topic.”

    Yeah yeah… References etc… Right?

    “I just said “not to defend Romney.” Do you have trouble with basic English?”

    Not as much as you do obviously. Facts not opinions etc. As I said you can be better than that.

  • Jeff Foust

    General campaign chatter is off topic here. Please keep the discussion focused on space policy. Thanks for your cooperation.

  • A M Swallow

    @ Coastal Ron merely because you have not heard of something does not mean it does not exist. NASA has written standards covering man-rating.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-rating_certification

    The Atlas V modifications include the addition of an Emergency Detection System that monitors the launch vehicle that can trigger the Launch Abort System.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Detection_System

    In flight testing of that could easily cost easily cost several hundred million dollars just to buy the rockets.

  • Coastal Ron

    A M Swallow wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 6:01 pm

    merely because you have not heard of something does not mean it does not exist. NASA has written standards covering man-rating.

    Written documents, sure, but some sort of relevant standard, no, not really. I mean they said the Shuttle was “human-rated”, even though there was no reliable way to save the crew if something went wrong. The SpaceX Dragon is likely safer in it’s current configuration (i.e. not specifically “human-rated”) than the Shuttle ever was.

    The Atlas V modifications include the addition of an Emergency Detection System that monitors the launch vehicle that can trigger the Launch Abort System.

    The study that determined what was needed was done under $6.8M CCDev-1 contract.

    In flight testing of that could easily cost easily cost several hundred million dollars just to buy the rockets.

    Now we get to the heart of what we both have been talking about, which I think has been two different things.

    Yes, Boeing at some point will have to demonstrate pad-abort and inflight-abort for the CST-100, but that is not part of the CCiCap milestone schedule for Boeing – they only get through CDR, not actual flights. SpaceX will be doing both a pad-abort and inflight-abort as part of their Dragon’s CCiCap milestone schedule.

    What was on my mind when I first responded to your post is the infrastructure changes required to launch crew on Atlas V. There are pad changes that need to happen, a crew ingress/egress tower, and a crew escape system that needs to be added. Other stuff too probably. THAT is what my response addressed as not being part of Boeings CCiCap award, since that is ULA specific. But I wasn’t clear, so apologies for the confusion.

    However, if Boeing is taken off the CCiCap program, then Sierra Nevada could inherit part/all of their part of the funding to accelerate Dream Chaser. Again, the great thing about competition is that there are always other choices, which is why many of us have hoped NASA would pursue a course of multiple suppliers for both cargo and crew.

  • NeilShipley

    CR Yes I noticed also that SpaceX is going to do more than Boeing in terms of actual activity, testing. I would think that that would put them as the front runner for any resulting crew contracts. Perhaps that’s what Boeing are concerned about. Only one crew contract due to money issues with Soyuz as the ‘backup’ to commercial or really as the alternative provider.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    For a fella who considers Russia our biggest foe, even though we partner with them on the ISS and capitalist McDonald’s is in Red Square, it’s par for the course. At first, you’d want to give him the benefit of the doubt and lay it with another aborted attempt of humor, but reading the text and listening to it on the tube, it’s clear he’s just ignorant- or to borrow oyur refrain, ‘goofy’ on it– and most likley other aviation, aerospace and defense matters. Expect him to insist submarines need screen doors installed to get some more fresh air to sailors after he tours the Electric Boat Works in Connecticut then give a policy speech to thwart global warming by using less fresh air and treathing through one nostril. But his space policy is crackerjack… isn’t it. A prize in ever box. What is is, remains a mystery.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ September 25th, 2012 at 12:15 pm

    “Man rating” is a meaningless phrase.

    Not to the men who have to ride it– but then you’re on record on this forum holding the value of the hardware higher than the people who’d have to ride it. For shame.

  • Coastal Ron

    NeilShipley wrote @ September 26th, 2012 at 1:28 am

    Perhaps that’s what Boeing are concerned about.

    Could be. It could be legitimate concern, or it could be their way of getting more money out of Congress.

    Let’s remember that Boeing is a very savvy government contractor, and they know how things work in Congress. Also, it looks like there is no currently identified funding to build the Atlas V launch infrastructure (remember Boeing is a co-owner of ULA), so if they could get Congress concerned about a lack of competition with Commercial Crew, then maybe they could get Congress to make sure it gets funded soon.

    This has a ways to go before we know if it’s a concern.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ September 26th, 2012 at 1:42 am

    Rand said: “Man rating” is a meaningless phrase.

    DCSCA said: Not to the men who have to ride it

    Ask the men and women that risked their lives riding the Shuttle about “human rating”. Ask them what they were told to do when something went wrong.

    “Human rating” seems to be whatever NASA wants it to be at the moment. Now that the Shuttle is retired, they want something better (which is good), but they were fine for 30 years with something pretty fragile.

    The Commercial Crew systems (rockets + spacecraft) will be far safer on day one than the Shuttle ever was, and that’s before NASA requirements are added.

    Can can stop your huffing and puffing.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 24th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    For a fella who considers Russia our biggest foe, even though we partner with them on the ISS and capitalist McDonald’s is in Red Square, it’s par for the course. At first, you’d want to give him the benefit of the doubt and lay it with another aborted attempt of humor, but reading the text and listening to it on the tube, it’s clear he’s just ignorant- or to borrow your refrain, ‘goofy’ about it– and most likely other aviation, aerospace and defense matters. Expect him to insist submarines need screen doors installed to get some more fresh air to sailors after he tours the Electric Boat Works in Connecticut then give a policy speech to thwart global warming by using less fresh air by breathing through one nostril. But his space policy is crackerjack… isn’t it. A prize in ever box. What it is, remains a mystery. Apologies for typos.

  • Paul

    Romney has positive things to say about cold fusion.

    I can’t say I’m surprised, just disappointed.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/transcript-of-our-interview-with-mitt-romney/article/992671#.UGEnsq72ZLd

  • Coastal Ron

    Paul wrote @ October 1st, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Romney has positive things to say about cold fusion.

    Yes, he said:

    I do believe in basic science. I believe in participating in space. I believe in analysis of new sources of energy. I believe in laboratories, looking at ways to conduct electricity with — with cold fusion, if we can come up with it. It was the University of Utah that solved that. We somehow can’t figure out how to duplicate it.

    He tries so hard. He does. You can tell he’s really interested in certain things, but then he just racks his brain for things to say that sound presidential and he ends up advocating for passengers opening windows on airplanes and such.

    One other thing to wonder about him – why are his science frames of reference so far in the past? Why couldn’t he have mentioned high-efficiency gas turbines that can use the CNG coming from all the fracking going on, or the work being done to upgrade our national electricity grid (i.e. Smart Grid). Those are much more likely to affect the national GDP than cold fusion.

    Maybe this is why his handlers don’t want him to be discussing details too much…

Leave a Reply to Coastal Ron 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>