The House Science Committee’s space subcommittee is holding a hearing Wednesday simply titled “Commercial Space.” The subcommittee will first hear from House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), followed by a panel of witnesses: Satellite Industry Association (SIA) president Patricia Cooper, Mojave Air and Space Port CEO and general manager Stu Witt, and Dennis Tito, the businessman who flew to the ISS in 2001 as its first commercial visitor (aka space tourist) and, more recently, established the Inspiration Mars Foundation to attempt a human Mars flyby mission late this decade.
The committee hasn’t disclosed yet additional details about the content of or other details about the hearing. McCarthy, besides being one of the top Republicans in the House, has been an advocate of commercial spaceflight, supporting efforts like last year’s extension of the “learning period” that restricts the FAA’s ability to establish regulations for commercial human spaceflight. McCarthy also introduced legislation in August to “streamline” commercial spaceflight regulations. (Mojave Air and Space Port is in McCarthy’s district, no doubt helping to explain his interest.) Later panelists may bring up other pressing commercial space issues, such as the ongoing reform of export control regulations (a proposed final rule for the new Category XV of the US Munitions List, which covers satellites and related components, is due out by year’s end) and the need to extend the third party commercial launch indemnification regime, which expires at the end of the year.
Actually looks interesting, and even reasonable considering how some other House hearings go.
Notice how hearings that are NOT chaired by reps from states that have massive NASA contracts are looking out for competition, and states that have lots of pork programs are only concerned about keeping them – regardless if they are worthwhile?
Hopefully the issue of down select to one provider will be explored. Stringing 3 bidders along for this short term project is a luxury NASA cannot afford.
amightywind said:
“Stringing 3 bidders along for this short term project is a luxury NASA cannot afford.”
No doubt the question of how long the ISS will remain active is important. However, if the ISS mission is extended past 2020, then a U.S. controlled, redundant, cost effective crew transportation system makes a lot of sense.
Considering that we’re spending $3B/year on an unaffordable and barely usable space system (i.e. the SLS & MPCV), the small investment NASA is making in the Commercial Crew program looks like the better deal for the U.S. Taxpayer.
It’s amazing how much you argue against taxpayer investments in industries that will produce a lasting (and revenue generating) U.S. industry, yet you have no problem with massive deficit spending programs.
“Stringing 3 bidders along for this short term project is a luxury NASA cannot afford.”
Bull. Two, affordable, domestic, independent means of human space access is not a “luxury”. STS history demonstrated this lesson twice. And the difference between the House mark for COTS and the Administration request is only $321 million. That’s less than six weeks of SLS/MPCV’s annual $3 billion (with a “b”) spending. Move SLS and MPCV milestones a lousy month-and-a-half to the right (they’ll slip more than that in FY14 anyway) and COTS will be funded in full.
Moreover, the Senate mark is only $46 million below the Administration request. That’s a hiccup for an SLS/MPCV accountant.
Why buy one when you can buy two at twice the price, eh? The lack of a second alternative hasn’t effected our Russian partners.
“Why buy one when you can buy two at twice the price, eh?”
Why allow a single system failure to stand down a national human space flight program for years at a cost of billions of taxpayer dollars when a second system can be had for a fraction of that amount?
Why be held hostage to price increases from a sole-source when competition can be introduced with a second source for a fraction of those price increases?
Why are we spending billions and billions of dollars for MPCV to be a “backup” to commercial crew when it will put up its first crew a half-decade later?
Think before you post.
“The lack of a second alternative hasn’t effected our Russian partners.”
Not by choice. Their budget is about one-quarter to one-third of NASA’s.
And it’s “affected”, not “effected”. Learn the English language.
And it’s “affectedâ€, not “effectedâ€
Thanks. It doesn’t change the crystalline logic of my argument. To proceed with 3 vendors for a mission that will now last only 2 years is not a sustainable policy. The Obama administration is saddled by lots of them these days.
“To proceed with 3 vendors for a mission that will now last only 2 years is not a sustainable policy.”
Everything in the partnership is moving towards an extension to 2028:
Oldest ISS Element Cleared Until 2028
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_24_2013_p0-619937.xml
International Space Station Could Fly Through 2028, NASA Partners Say
http://www.space.com/8034-international-space-station-fly-2028-nasa-partners.html
Even if ISS splashed tomorrow, the U.S. human space flight program still needs reliable, frequent access. A single-string that launches once every two years like MPCV/SLS can’t provide that.
“It doesn’t change the crystalline logic of my argument.”
Your crystal ball is cracked, as usual.
“The lack of a second alternative hasn’t effected our Russian partners.”
You’re kidding, right?
http://www.space.com/5267-soyuz-spacecraft-short-landing-raises-concerns-future-station-flights.html
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-08/30/abandoned-iss
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1112/23soyuzmeridian/
http://www.dvice.com/archives/2012/01/russian_soyuz_g.php
“Why buy one when you can buy two at twice the price, eh?”
With Orion development cost pegged at $16.5 billion, the cost of two commercial crew designs is going to be 1/4 the price.
The lack of competition (when the Shuttle program ended) has affected our Russian partners in spectacular fashion. It allowed them to more than double their market price for seats on the Soyuz! Look for the Soyuz price to fall drastically when Commercial Crew finally gets operational.
For all you who think Congress supports NASA HSF…
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=44971
I suppose that’s all Obama here again.
Oh well
And by commercial space they mean almost entirely paid for by the government!
No not entirely unlike the Cx, Orion and SLS which all are so your point is?
I wasn’t doubting that they were, they’re just not claiming to be anything other than what they are.
Gregori said:
“And by commercial space they mean almost entirely paid for by the government!”
Some investment, sure. Not unlike Apple buying one of it’s suppliers a factory so that they can ramp up to meet Apple’s needs quicker.
At least with commercial space there is a likelihood that a new industry will be created, which will provide jobs and revenue far into the future after government funding has ended. That won’t happen with pure government deficit programs like the SLS and MPCV.
Does that help you understand the difference?
The favored response of the so called “commercialists” is to attack a program I don’t support either, the SLS and MPCV which are egregious technowelfare. You assume tribally that people are one camp or the other and that other must be exterminated or something dramatic like that.
If companies and individuals want to privatize space by all means they should be allowed to that with the correct regulatory regime. But they shouldn’t be given government handouts and still get to call it something which its not. Private capital markets are what should create new industries in a capitalist economy, not governments subsidizing it through tax payer money. I can think of a few people who would want their money back instead of having it spent on corporate welfare. That goes for SLS too btw
Gregori said:
“You assume tribally that people are one camp or the other…”
I used a comparison. If comparisons are no longer allowed in discussion and debates, then I wasn’t aware of it. I’ll keep that in mind the next time I see you use one…
“But they shouldn’t be given government handouts and still get to call it something which its not.”
No disagreements about handouts, which can also be called “Pork”. The SLS and MPCV are good examples of that since they were instigated by the politicians that benefited from it the most, and were not identified as being needed in any way.
In contrast, the Commercial Cargo & Crew programs were instigated to provide a needed service. The ISS, which is an approved and funded program, needs supplies and crew deliveries.
I’ve worked in industries where customers pay upfront for their suppliers to develop products and services for them, so NASA doing the same for their own suppliers is not unusual at all. Maybe you’ve never worked in the same industries I have, and you’re not familiar with how prevalent it is. From a business risk standpoint, and a need standpoint, it makes a lot of sense.
What would you do differently, and how would it cost the U.S. Taxpayer less money for the same outcome?
What’s the pressing need to have humans in space? I can’t see one other than some geeks want that. I would call it more of a want than a need. The public who pays for this waste is indifferent to the goals. Again you are bantering on about the SLS/Orion which I don’t support and am not trying to defend AT ALL. They are more of the same thing, corporate welfare, just more expensive.
And of course the supplier is happy with being paid to develop a capability that no one on the open market actually wants or needs. Why wouldn’t they not be happy with complete handouts that they’ve lobbied for?
“What’s the pressing need to have humans in space?”
The pressing need used to be to flip off the Russians in the era when missles were a threat. There is no such geopolitical need anymore for this particular brand of American missle exceptionalism.
The pressing need used to be exploration. But that was when robotics were done with tubes and discrete transistors. Exploration, as in learning about a new place, is FAR better done remotely these days. How many planets have humans explored, anyway?
The pressing need used to be resource development. But the rapidly increasing sophistication of our robotics and telerobotics calls this into question, as does the uncertainties about available resources.
The pressing need used to be species preservation. That still has some cachet, but I don’t think it has been really thought through completely. What scale of human spaceflight is needed to protect the species? My understanding is that it would take *thousands* of colonists to produce a secure gene pool that is resistant to inbreeding. And that’s for ONE race. It ought to be thought about whether shipping thousands of people to another world is the most cost-effective insurance for our species.
Yeah, there also was “inspiration” and “spinoffs”, but those are somewhat nonsensical, when you think about them.
Human spaceflight is very clearly a “want”, and I guess we just have to think about how defensible federal investment is in wants that aren’t needs. If Elon Musk wants to pay for a want out of his pocket, more power to him!
The video of the hearing is now online at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWtBundJ6_A