1) Rep. Smith should direct the Government Accountability Office to prepare an independent report on the executability and sustainability of SLS and MPCV development and operations from budget, schedule, technical, and safety perspectives. Key issues that should be addressed in the GAO report include: a) the multi-billion dollar gap between the 2010 NASA Authorization Act budget and FY10 through FY13 Appropriations for these two projects, the impact of this budget gap on meeting the 2010 Act’s 2016 date for starting SLS operations and other milestones, and the realism of closing this budget gap; b) the lack of budget for development of exploration architecture elements such as mission modules, landers, transit stages, and proximity operations vehicles, and its impact on future milestones; c) the 4,000lb. gap between MPCV’s current mass and the mass limits of MPCV’s parachutes and the realism of closing that gap; d) the 1,500lb. gap between MPCV’s service module mass and the mass limits of future missions; e) the recent, multi-year deferrel of tests for MPCV’s Launch Abort System and its impact on crew safety; and f) any other relevant issues uncovered by the GAO.

2) Rep. Smith should direct NASA to fund an independent report of SLS and MPCV alternatives for support of NEO, Mars, and lunar missions at the National Research Council. This report should cover, at a minimum: a) the Delta IV Heavy, EELV Phase 2, Falcon 9 Heavy, and Falcon Superheavy launch vehicles; b) evolution of the CST-100, Dragon, and the Blue Origin Space Vehicles, including the addition of service and mission modules; and c) propellant storage and transfer. Cost, schedule, capability, and safety should be evaluated on an apples-to-apples basis for these vehicles using the same mission requirements.

3) Rep. Smith and his staff should use the results of the GAO and NRC reports when developing the 2013 NASA Authorization Bill and consider actions up to and including SLS and MPCV termination and replacement with less costly, faster, more capable, and safer options that better fit the likely NASA budget going forward.

“Space X has flown nobody and had– what– two grocery runs with less than a ton of supplies to the ISS. ”

You have been schooled on this many times, but apparently certain things don’t stick in your brain.

SpaceX doesn’t operate on your schedule, they operate on a more rational one that let’s them develop their crew system in a sustainable way – you want them to rush development for some fake glory. Their initial customer doesn’t need their crew transportation services until late 2016, so why waste money pushing for anything earlier? That wouldn’t be smart.

Luckily Musk is far smarter than you… but I guess that goes without saying…

=eyeroll= More press releases. Space X has flown nobody and had– what– two grocery runs with less than a ton of supplies to the ISS. Meanwhile, in fantasyland, thanks to Siemens software commercials, it looks like it launches several times a day and the ISS plucks Dragons out of space as often as Homer grabs a donut.

Fly somebody.