NASA

More reactions to Garver’s departure

A roundup of statements and other reactions to yesterday’s news that NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver will be leaving the space agency next month, particularly regarding her role in championing commercial spaceflight:

“Throughout her years of service and leadership at NASA, Lori Garver has been a stalwart champion of commercial space and of the public-private partnerships that have begun to change the way the Agency does business,” Commercial Spaceflight Federation president Michael Lopez-Alegria said in a statement. “The innovations she promoted will serve the Agency well as it navigates a period of change and challenge.”

“More than anyone in Washington, Lori Garver has advocated passionately for the future of commercial space in the service this nation. That commitment has been challenged repeatedly by opposition from powerful competing interests around the country and on Capitol Hill,” said Space Florida president Frank DiBello. “We need more people like her in this industry. She remained ever faithful to her vision, and we are all the better for it.”

Space News rounded up some other reactions. “Lori made a real difference to the future of spaceflight,” said SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. “Lori has been one of the most important forces for supporting commercial space during the past decade. Her leadership has been critical to the entire commercial spaceflight industry,” said X PRIZE founder Peter Diamandis.

“She came in convinced that it was an organization that badly needed change, and she tried to make some changes,” John Logsdon, former director of George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute, told Florida Today. “It’s an organization that is pretty strongly resistant to change.” However, his successor, Scott Pace, criticized the decision she helped shape to cancel the Constellation program and end plans under the Vision for Space Exploration to send humans back to the Moon. “She was definitely someone who was influential in shaping that decision, which I believe was an unfortunate one.”

Update 12:35 pm: In a separate New York Times interview, Pace said that Garver contributed to “the decline and deterioration of relationships between the White House and Congress” regarding space policy. “I don’t put sole blame on her. She was one of the more visible faces of that.”

“Lori and I share a passion for space technology and I’ve had the honor and pleasure of partnering with her on several cutting-edge space initiatives,” said Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee that funds NASA, in a statement. He called Garver “an invaluable leader” and “an unrivaled champion and defender of space exploration.”

56 comments to More reactions to Garver’s departure

  • Fred Willett

    One interesting titbit she dropped before she left. Evidently Proton is not going to carry cargo for NASA any more (if I understand it correctly) all future cargo will go on commercial flights. Might require more commercial flights.

    • Organic Marble

      Protons do not carry cargo for NASA. If you mean Progress vehicles, they are launched on Soyuz boosters.

      And, Progresses are scheduled out through the end of the ISS life.

  • amightywind

    Effusive praise from her cronies is no surprise. They profited handsomely during her tenure. Scott Pace is on the mark.

    Evidently Proton is not going to carry cargo for NASA any more

    It is a little disturbing that it has taken so many Proton failures to foce this decision.

    • “Effusive praise from her cronies is no surprise. They profited handsomely during her tenure. Scott Pace is on the mark.
      Evidently Proton is not going to carry cargo for NASA any more
      It is a little disturbing that it has taken so many Proton failures to foce this decision.”

      Er, that cargo is going to now be carried on those commercial providers she that she encouraged.

      Bob Clark

  • Here’s the full Elon Musk quote:

    Lori made a real difference to the future of spaceflight. Most people put their career first, so they play politics and pander to the vested interests. But there are some who truly care about humanity’s future in space and will do the right thing in the face of immense opposition. We are fortunate to have several such people in NASA senior leadership and Lori was one of them.

    Lori was a profile in courage. We have a future in space now thanks to Lori.

    • DCSCA

      “We have a future in space now thanks to Lori.” swoons Stephen.

      You’re refering, of course, to her parking space which will open up in a month.

  • Dark Blue Nine

    Maybe I’m holding the bar too high, but there’s not much that’s both new and substantive in NASA’s commercial space flight activities that was achieved during Garver’s tenure. Commercial cargo was well underway during Bush II, and commercial crew and flight opportunities, while they benefitted from Garver’s advocacy, had their origins during Bush II, as well. Everything else, like ILDD and BEAM, is fairly small fry and marginal. Some programs, like prize competitions, have even suffered and gone into hibernation during Garver’s tenure. Maybe it’s more a symptom of how sick the agency is that these small steps are so lauded, but I don’t see much . YMMV.

    As for Pace’s sour grapes, as middling as I think it was, Garver’s performance as Deputy Administrator was infinitely more effective than Pace’s performance as Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation. For several years, Pace was in charge of independently evaluating programs to ensure good formulation and undertake corrective actions during development. Yet Ares I costs ballooned to $40 billion, first flight slipped year for year, and the project tied itself in knots trying to Rube Goldberg solutions to the vehicles’ myriad problems. Orion couldn’t make weight (and still can’t). JWST costs multiplied several times over, and MSL Like Griffin, Pace has no one to blame but himself.

    • amightywind

      Orion couldn’t make weight (and still can’t).

      I don’t think that is so much the issue as the low payload capacity of our Lilliputian launch vehicles. Apollo engineers used to think big. Ares I-X looked good to me.

      • Dark Blue Nine

        “I don’t think that is so much the issue as the low payload capacity of our Lilliputian launch vehicles.”

        Wrong, as usual.

        “The current projected mass of the spacecraft for the first crewed flight test exceeds the recommended mass by over 5,000 pounds.”

        This is from the 2013 GAO report on NASA large projects and refers to the 2021 crewed flight test on the 70-ton SLS Block I.

        http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/653866.pdf

        “Apollo engineers used to think big.”

        No, they didn’t. By mass, the Apollo CM is only 65% the size of the Orion MPCV capsule (not including negative mass margins). By diameter, the Apollo CM is only 62% of the Orion MPCV capsule.

        “Ares I-X looked good to me.”

        Then you’re blind:

        http://i.space.com/images/i/000/004/726/i02/091029-ares1x-big-dent-02.jpg?1292269471

        And you can’t follow your own argument. Ares I-X had a dummy upper stage. It couldn’t lift Orion at any mass.

        • Vladislaw

          Are you saying NASA would not beable to launch the MPCV capsule until they have the 130 ton version of the SLS?

          this should be a comedy show.

      • josh

        apollo was resonably sized. orion is a monstrosity. btw: the ares 1-x flight test was a failure, guess you didn’t catch that.

    • A_M_Swallow

      Dark Blue Nine wrote

      Maybe I’m holding the bar too high, but there’s not much that’s both new and substantive in NASA’s commercial space flight activities that was achieved during Garver’s tenure. Commercial cargo was well underway during Bush II, and commercial crew and flight opportunities, while they benefitted from Garver’s advocacy, had their origins during Bush II, as well. {snip}

      Sometimes the job is not to do the new stuff but to complete the current task. COTS now has two working cargo carriers to the ISS. CCDev is now actively developing 3 manned spacecraft to the ISS including planning the test flights. Technology demonstrators exist for manned lunar/Mars rovers, habitats and medium sized landers.

      How much is due to Garver’s management is hard to say. She has left NASA in a good state to to back to the Moon under the next president.

    • “As for Pace’s sour grapes, as middling as I think it was, Garver’s performance as Deputy Administrator was infinitely more effective than Pace’s performance as Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation. For several years, Pace was in charge of independently evaluating programs to ensure good formulation and undertake corrective actions during development.”

      Ah, that explains it. I didn’t get why at this late date someone would still be supporting Constellation. That Pace does seriously diminishes his credibility.

      Bob Clark

  • Dark Blue Nine

    [I accidentally hit “Post” before finishing my second para.]

    As for Pace’s sour grapes, as middling as I think it was, Garver’s performance as Deputy Administrator was infinitely more effective than Pace’s performance as Associate Administrator for Program Analysis and Evaluation. For several years, Pace was in charge of independently evaluating programs to ensure good formulation and undertake corrective actions during development. Yet Ares I costs ballooned to $40 billion, first flight slipped year for year, and the project tied itself in knots trying to Rube Goldberg solutions to the vehicles’ myriad problems. Orion couldn’t make weight (and still can’t as MPCV). JWST costs multiplied several times over, and MSL/Curiosity’s costs doubled. If Pace really cared about lunar return, then he should have ensured that Constellation was a program that was technically, budgetarily, and programmatically capable of doing so. But it wasn’t, partly because Pace didn’t do his job, so the Augustine Committee had to do it for him. Like Griffin, Pace has no one to blame but himself.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Pace was spot on. For people who really care about opening up the high frontier of space, Garver will not be missed.

    • Guest

      Long live Constellation and Ares I.

      Don’t you think that’s getting a little old for some folks?

    • Vladislaw

      And you think splashing the ISS in 2015, canceling commercial crew and then launching the Ares I & Ares V once a year putting a grand total of four people a year in space was going to open the high frontier?

      I know you are dellusional at times … but come on …

      • @Vladislaw;….It doesn’t matter HOW MANY people fly into space per year: what matters is that what they accomplish in space is worthwhile to humankind’s long-run future in the space arena. Hence, I would consider it pointless even if Commercial Crew would emplace fifty people on board the ISS: just what is the sheer QUANTITY of astronauts on board that structure really accomplishing?!?! Project Constellation mandated doing further Lunar exploration, an endeavor far more worthy & with far more grandeur, than this repeatedly going ’round in circles jazz, that this nation’s been engaged in for the last forty-plus years! Going to an actual other world, should be what this space-faring game, is about!

        • Vladislaw

          The sheer quanity lowers prices. THAT is the freakin’ goal. Lowering the cost of access.

        • Justin Kugler

          We aren’t going anywhere in the long run unless we resolve some fundamental questions about human health & habitation in reduced gravity and develop the technology to circumvent those problems we cannot directly mitigate.

          The ISS is our foothold. It’s our proving ground. Throwing that away just for the sake of going “somewhere else” would be foolhardy.

        • vulture4

          Four people a year in space is just a stunt that will drain tax dollars. There’s a difference between something that is possible, i.e. launching a few lucky souls on the SLS, and something that is practical, i.e. a world where it actually makes economic sense for people, companies, or research programs to pay for human spaceflight.

        • Coastal Ron

          Chris Castro said:

          Project Constellation mandated doing further Lunar exploration, an endeavor far more worthy & with far more grandeur, than this repeatedly going ’round in circles jazz, that this nation’s been engaged in for the last forty-plus years!

          Chris, the ISS is being used to figure out how to live and work in space. I don’t know about you, but that is more important than picking up grey rocks on an airless void.

          “Grandeur”

          That’s a funny one. Get out our your abode and talk to real people out on the street. Ask them if “grandeur” is the prime goal of doing things in space.

          You are funny!!!!

    • That depends on whether you think commercial space is the way to go.
      If you think Constellation was a good thing, you’ll be opposed to that focus of NASA.

      Bob Clark

      • @Robert Clark;…. Commercial Space IS the path to stagnation! NASA & the American space program have been sinking down the drain of oblivion, ever since the return-to-the-Moon goal was eliminated by this presidential administration! I became a Republican over-night, after I heard about this horrid presidential decision, back in February of 2010. May we get wiser statesmen at the helm, come the next two elections, in ’14 & ’16!

        • Justin Kugler

          The return-to-the-Moon goal was descoped from Constellation work orders well ahead of Augustine. And everything I’ve heard from Congressional staff is that Mars is the ultimate goal, not the Moon.

          If you became a Republican just because you didn’t like the canceling of Constellation and are opposed to expanding commercial activity in space, you’re really just a statist.

          • @Justin Kugler;….Whatever & ever….so, I might be a ‘statist’? The thing is, I care about the long-run destiny of the human race, and as soon as I heard all that “we’ve already been there” rhino dung, I resolved to be on the opposing side, to Flexible Path/Obamaspace/New Space. It makes totally NO sense to me, all the changes that this administration has put into effect, for space policy, since 2010. These brash-talking, commercial boys are NOT going to save this sinking ship! Government fully needs to lead the way, at this time. Sure, there may be a farther-future point, in the game, that commercial entities might have a fitting role. But at this stage, in the spacefaring arena, government is the only entity that could handle manned deep space flight, in the short-term.

            • Coastal Ron

              Chris Castro said:

              I care about the long-run destiny of the human race…

              Then why do you back plans to reduce – significantly – the ability of us to keep humans in space?

              The plans you back spend vast sums of money for “Flags & Footprints” type missions that don’t leave anything behind. In contrast we have already learned how to live in space – CONTINUOUSLY – for over 12 years. And for some reason you think that is bad. UNbelievable.

              These brash-talking, commercial boys are NOT going to save this sinking ship!

              It is amazing the view you have of private industry. No really, truly amazing.

              Have you ever worked for a high-tech company? Or anywhere in the manufacturing world? You know, for companies that build things?

              I have spent my professional career in such industries, and I just don’t see where you are coming from.

              For instance you do realize that Apollo was mainly built by “brash-talking, commercial boys”, right? Lots of them right out of college.

              And you’ve called on this many times before Chris, but how in the world can you insinuate that Boeing and Sierra Nevada are too immature to be developing spacecraft. Even SpaceX has shown that they know how to build workable spacecraft, and you completely ignore that.

              Words fail me to describe how out of touch you are on this.

            • I care about the long-run destiny of the human race

              One would never know it from your hysterical mindless commentary.

        • Vladislaw

          Commercial automobile transportation is a path to stagnation the first time someone dies in an auto mobile that will be the end of cars.

          Commercial airplane transporation is a path to stagnation, the first time someone dies in one of those new fangled aero planes that will be the end of them.

          Commercial ship transportation is a path to stagnation the first time someone dies in on a sinking ship that will be the end of it.

          Commercial train transportation is a path to stagnation the first time someone dies in a train accident that will be the end of it.

          Commercial space transportation is a path to stagnation, the first time someone dies it will be the end of it.

  • Vladislaw

    Just finished NASA’s Deputy Administrator Is Leaving Agency and again it fails to touch on what the real problems were.

    P O R K

    Lori just barely touched on it by just the mear mention of the word. I would have instead prefered she went off on a 30 minute tirade naming names, quotes, and just how really bad it is at NASA for the taxpayers. They are getting no freakin’ bang for the buck .. at all.

    How much is the gold plated, gem encrusted, Orion going to cost? 8 billion? 10 BILLION? A disposable capsule at only 1 billion a pop.

    Can we talk about … insanity on a bun?

    How any right thinking person can support this madness is beyond me.

    • Dark Blue Nine

      “How much is the gold plated, gem encrusted, Orion going to cost? 8 billion? 10 BILLION?”

      According to the April GAO report, the preliminary life cycle cost estimate is $8.5-10.3B. But this is almost certainly wrong since:

      1) Dan Dumbacher claims that they don’t know the launch rate for SLS yet (despite the flight milestones in his and Gerst’s slide deck), which would obviously have an impact on the production and cost of MPCV flight articles;

      2) MPCV has numerous schedule issues and will probably slip flights at some point. It has missed “more internal milestones than anticipated” for the EFT-1 test flight and has “deferred development and testing for the launch abort system”.

      3) MPCV has numerous technical issues, including being 5,000kg overweight for EM-1 (the 2021 crewed test flight), cracking issues in the heat shield, and weight issues in ESA’s SM.

      4) NASA has no agreed-to contract with LockMart governing MPCV spending. Three years in, and they have yet to update the old Orion contract with definitized deliverables.

      • Crash Davis

        3) MPCV has numerous technical issues, including being 5,000kg overweight for EM-1 (the 2021 crewed test flight), cracking issues in the heat shield, and weight issues in ESA’s SM.

        EM-1 is an uncrewed flight, Genius. Idiot. But please continue to blather on about subjects of which you are completely ignorant.

        • “EM-1 is an uncrewed flight, Genius. Idiot.”
          This from the guy who complained about me hurling insulting names. I will continue my silence after this, but couldn’t resist.

          But while I am temporarily breaking my silence. DBN evidently meant EFT-1, which is indeed an uncrewed flight to be launched on a Delta IV. EM-1 would also be uncrewed, but in either case, it still doesn’t change the validity of the points about launch rate, probable schedule slips, the weight problem and the Lock-Mart contract. As usual you try to deflect the subject away from the real issues. Clueless hypocrisy as usual.

          • Sorry meant instead of,
            “DBN evidently meant EFT-1, which is indeed an uncrewed flight to be launched on a Delta IV.”
            I meant to say
            “DBN evidently meant EM-2, which is indeed an crewed flight, while EFT-1 is an uncrewed flight to be launched on a Delta IV and EM-1 is also an uncrewed flight.”
            This sinus headache is killing me today.

            Still doesn’t change the fact it was an attempted deflection off of the central subject matter.

        • Dark Blue Nine

          “EM-1 is an uncrewed flight”

          A typo. I obviously meant EM-2, as other posters here were able to figure out.

          “Genius. Idiot.”

          Which is it? Let me know when you decide.

          Idiot.

          “But please continue to blather on about subjects of which you are completely ignorant.”

          The 2013 GAO report on NASA large projects states:

          “The current projected mass of the spacecraft for the first crewed flight test exceeds the recommended mass by over 5,000 pounds.”

          http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-276SP

          Furthermore, AvWeek has also reported that ESA’s SM for MPCV is also overweight:

          ESA’s Orion Service Module Overweight, Delaying PDR

          http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_17_2013_p0-588984.xml

          Try reading, you hypocritical, ignorant, idiot.

          • Vladislaw

            There were other interesting parts to that report:

            “NASA cannot realistically expect to have significant additional funding available to cover any potential cost overruns on its major projects without negatively affecting its ability to begin new projects or its performance on existing projects. With a significant portion of this funding already committed to existing projects, NASA will have limited flexibility to address potential cost growth or begin new projects over the next 5 years.”

            So if SLS or MPCV cost a nickle more than what NASA is saying it’s going to cost.. the margins at the agency are so tight .. other projects will be cut back, canceled and new projects not even starting.

            Also:

            “Estimating the full life-cycle costs of SLS and MPCV projects will be critical to ensuring transparency into their cost and schedule and will enable effective oversight. At this point, however, NASA currently plans to estimate only the costs of portions of the SLS and MPCV projects, which is not a true life-cycle cost estimate. For example, the preliminary cost estimates of SLS only extend through the first non-crewed flight in 2017, plus 3 months of data analysis. This estimate does not include costs for the first crewed flight of the same vehicle type of the SLS in 2021, nor does it include costs associated with substantial development for future flights of other variants of the launch vehicle.18 According to project officials, the cost of the first crewed flight will be tracked by the project. Similarly, the MPCV cost estimate extends only through the first crewed flight in 2021. MPCV officials told us that separate cost estimates will be completed for future flights of MPCV. Developing cost estimates in this manner will not allow NASA to provide a total life cycle cost for the SLS and MPCV projects. As a result, a true life cycle cost may never be established and oversight of the projects would be hampered because no one would be able to track the baseline cost and associated cost growth.”

            So basically … it is train wreck so freakin’ back .. they do not even dare attach numbers to it ..

            And no one thinks this trainwreck is going to be on the scrapheap When Hillary becomes President?

        • Neil Shipley

          Generally posters on this site try to be relatively polite however your latest effort ‘Crash’ wasn’t and also didn’t contribute to the discussion points.
          Try to do better in future.
          Cheers

    • Agreed, wish she’d called out ULA et al as the porkers Elon is showing them to be.

  • josh

    scott pace is one of the worst people in the space business. he did lasting damage to nasa for the sake of helping out his cronies at atk.

  • red

    I don’t know how much credit Garver should get for them, but there are a number of other good things that happened during her term (although I complained for more in the other thread):

    – Griffin left ISS on a funding course that led to doom. Now it’s built with prospects for a long career.

    – The Earth Ventures (small suborbital, instrument, and full orbital) Earth Science mission series was started.

    – NASA’s Space Technology program started the Small Satellite (typically CubeSat) technology development and demonstration lines.

    – NIAC was revived.

    – The ISS is doing more productive work. For example, for Earth Observation, planned instruments include RapidSCAT, SAGE-III, ISERV, OCO-3, and numerous others. In other areas, there is AMS-02, NICER is planned, and on and on.

    – NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative is giving rides to a large number of CubeSats. This list includes 80, with many 3U and 6U ones: http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/home/CSLI_selections.html

    – NASA got back into developing space technology demonstration missions like the atomic clock demo mission, the solar sail demo mission, etc. While we probably would want them to fly missions that could solve some of their biggest problems like propellant depot demos, this is better than the previous situation.

    – While commercial cargo and crew originated before Garver’s term, there was no sign that anything was going to happened with crew under Griffin, and neither made sense with the ISS plan unless a major change happened like cancelling NASA Science or Constellation to give ISS funding. Some credit is due for pushing along cargo and crew, so far successfully in spite of fierce resistance.

  • Wouldn’t be surprised to hear, down the road, she was forced out somehow.

    Airline Pilots Association seems so unlikely it makes me think she took it because on some level she had to. I’m looking forward to hearing the full story.

  • Robert G Oler

    Several decades ago I called for Loris resignation at a national meeting of NSS so I think that I can be fairly balanced in my assessment of her time at NASA

    Given the state of the two political parties, the state of the Defense and Space Industrial complexes and the reality that in thirty or so years human space flight has not come up with a single reason for its cost, other then the ephemeral ones of national leadership etc…..Garver probably did the best that anyone could do on her position (and the same words go for Charlie as well)

    With no real reason to have human spaceflight, the forces in play now are simply those trying to preserve their unique access to the federal trough supported by really bizarre political forces. Yet somehow Lori and others have managed to carve out modest policy shifts, which, due to the solid engineering and management of groups like SpaceX, are at least offering the hope tha human spaceflight will find itself on an economic footing which will improve both access and use.

    Garver it appears played a key role in that. she somewhere along the line did an evolution(as did I) that “old space” and the NASA bureaucracy in place since Apollo was incapable of both performing and being terminated…so she did the only thing possible which was to inject competition…which in a future time can given better political leadership evolve change.

    Lori got to do what a lot of space advocates, including myself, have wanted to do…and that’s make policy and we are in my view better off for it

    ALPA is a solid organization committed to advancing the state of aviation in the US and they have in my view found a good person. We have had our differences in the past Lori but you spent your time I government moving the ball forward, you are Ma’am a steely eyed missile person. good luck Robert G Oler For The Clear Lake Group

  • guest

    Orion …8-10 billion $….and that is for an Orion MPCV capsule command module, not an entire spacecraft. ESA is contributing much of the functioning system. It is really amazing to see how far NASA and its old space contractor, Lockheed, has fallen. They seem totally impotent.

    My guess is that once Dragon, CST, and Dreamchaser are flying good sense will prevail and ORION will be cancelled.

    • Justin Kugler

      I’ve heard that LM hasn’t even figured out yet how to put a life support system back in after the unmanned flight tests because that team was gutted. If Orion/MPCV ever flies with people, it won’t be before 2020.

      • guest

        Orion is not scheduled to carry its first crew until2021.The2014flight is a mockup, not a real spacecraft. The 2017 flight is unmanned. My guess is that none of the dates will be met.

        • josh

          i think the 2017 flight will actually happen, call it a hunch. however, sls will be cancelled soon afterwards, no manned missions, no arm, no moon landing. falcon heavy and its successors will be used for beo missions.

        • Justin Kugler

          I had heard that LM might try to find a way to bump it up, especially if SpaceX flies people on their own ahead of the NASA commercial crew dates, but I just don’t see how it’s possible. They’re running so lean that actual mission capability is gone.

          • Coastal Ron

            Plus the MPCV is still fighting a pretty big over-weight issue. NASA wasn’t even sure when that would be solved, except to say they thought it would be a battle up until the first flight with crew.

  • Bill L

    I think you are correct. Take a look at the top technical people in NASA and you’ll see why-none of them have any history of any kind of successful achievement; they’ve never designed or developed anything successfully and Orion is no different. Lori Garver did good by helping to keep the newspace programs going, because that is America’s future space program. NASA will continue to try and hold onto ISS simply because it is the last vestige of success, really the product of the last of the Apollo generation. Even the people in charge of ISS today have failed pretty miserably, failing to get science and applications put in place over the last several years. It was really kind of humorous-tragic really, to watch them at work. They had a relatively trivial job of assembly-not nearly as difficult as design and development, and so they took their eye off the ball and failed to plan for utilization. And yet I’ve never seen one of them held accountable for failure.

  • Actually, it’s too bad that the real hack is not leaving his job at NASA: Charlie Bolden! NASA as an agency really got mothballed, under his watch! NASA has sank into oblivion. Time keeps on with its future slipping, and guess what?—-America remains without a viable space travel vehicle, because Commercial Crew is totally NOT up to the task! Human space endeavors should never be trusted to the hands of hobbyists. Not even millionaire hobbyists. These space entrepreneurs are going to cost this country heavily, and government will waste enormous money sums on propping them up, when all the while they simply cannot deliver on their snake-oil promises.

    • Justin Kugler

      One of the competitors is the prime contractor for the ISS. Another is delivering cargo to the ISS. The “dark horse” candidate has an unparalleled record serving the national security satellite market and drawn on NASA’s own lifting body research.

      The United States remains without indigenous human launch capability because Constellation was mismanaged and the COTS-D option wasn’t exercised. We wouldn’t be in this situation if Griffin had followed the recommendations of the Aldridge Commission to use existing launch systems and only develop new vehicles where mission requirements demanded it.

      It’s the Apollo Cargo Cult mentality that has cost this country billions in trying to recreate an architecture that could only exist under a unique set of geopolitical circumstances that no longer hold.

    • Coastal Ron

      Chris Castro said:

      America remains without a viable space travel vehicle, because Commercial Crew is totally NOT up to the task! Human space endeavors should never be trusted to the hands of hobbyists.

      Kind of a nonsensical statement, since there are no “hobbyists” vying for being a Commercial Crew provider. All of the current participants are profitable companies employing thousands of people, which rules them out as “hobbyists”.

      Do you know how to use a dictionary to look up definitions?

      Oh, and if you think NASA can somehow come to the rescue, then forget it. The Griffin-era $8B Orion spacecraft is so far over weight that it can’t carry humans safely (the parachutes will shred), regardless how big a rocket you use.

      Commercial Crew is the only near-term option NASA has for replacing the Soyuz, which considering how well Obama and Putin are getting along these days, means we need to accelerate the program, not slow it down.

    • josh

      lol, it will be fun to watch you moving the goal posts some more when spacex flies people in 2015:) then again, maybe you’re just trying out some new material. you are a comedian after all…

  • Daddy

    Lori Garver — “a steely eyed missile person.” A fitting tribute. I’m sure she would be flattered.

Leave a Reply to Justin Kugler 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>