Comments on: House passes Senate-amended launch indemnification bill

By: common sense

common sense — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 19:20:26 +0000

OT:

Remember the exchange we had about the asteroid retrieval idea?

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/01/why-does-nasa-w.html

” the specific mission proposal that NASA has sent to the White House ”

So Tom Jones et al. made NASA send the proposal to the WH.

Some people are more influential than others…

Oh well.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 17:12:49 +0000

Fred Willett said:

“But Explotation can â€“ and should â€“ follow Exploration.”

It’s not really a matter of “should”. Exploration without the desire of exploitation doesn’t make much sense, and in human history we have always used exploration as the guide for exploitation.

“Commercial crew and cargo follws shuttle.”

The Shuttle was not exploration, it was a failed attempt at transportation infrastructure. As to Commercial Crew and Cargo, they are a new attempt at transportation infrastructure, which hopefully will be more successful.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:50:50 +0000

Exploitation is not and can never be Exploration. But Explotation can – and should – follow Exploration. So Planetary Resources follows Apollo. Commercial crew and cargo follws shuttle.
But I don’t think we should be so precious about exploration waht we want to restrict exploitation.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 08:56:29 +0000

Happened to catch a January 2 CSPAN broadcast of Rutan’s presentation in central Florida on commercial space and technology development from November. Was a relatively interesting presentation from his POV, his opinions et al., but the come away on commercial space was the usual prattle; spaceports servicing a limited market for sub-orbital jaunts leading in out years to Mach 25 runs to LEO tourist hotels and little more. Quaint. But space exploitation is not space exploration and without actually saying that, his whole presentation all but reinforced it. Interesting all the same.

By: E. P. Grondine

E. P. Grondine — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 03:29:13 +0000

Well, well, well.

This piece of legislation makes it through, while Hurricane Sandy relief is not taken up.

How did this happen, I wonder?

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Thu, 03 Jan 2013 00:41:24 +0000

Thanks Jeff.
Luv your site BTW.
Have a happy new year.

By: Jeff Foust

Jeff Foust — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 22:10:47 +0000

Fred,

A “sense of Congress” is merely a formal expression of opinion. It is not binding. However, development of SLS and Orion has already been authorized by the 2010 NASA authorization act, so in that respect NASA is “locked in” to developing themâ€”unless Congress changes its mind.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 21:43:32 +0000

As an outsider with a limited understanding of the US political system I am interested to know the practical meaning of the term “Sense of Congress”.
Does the this provision lock in SLS and Orion or does NASA have some wriggle room here. If so what is the wriggle room? Or not.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me.
Oh, and a happy new year to you all.