Comments on: Senate committees planning joint hearing on launch issues

By: Pieter Hoogstad

Pieter Hoogstad — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 12:38:21 +0000

I ask Elon Musk to make its rocket engine technology available to any competitor. To open source the SpaceX engine technology, to end this debate about developing a new engine and thereby wasting taxpayers money. Also, this will be hugely beneficial to SpaceX in that they will be the hero of congress, the house, the administration and what have you, not the least the US tax payer. By doing so, SpaceX will still be way ahead of its competition in reuseability and other technologies and its Dragen V2 spacecraft. It would be with the same reasoning as giving Tesla’s patents away. Seems like a darn good idea to me.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 04:59:16 +0000

That’s because the two Congressmen are both from Colorado and one of them represents the district in which ULA is headquartered. This is obviously ULA calling on politicians to attack their competition as they try to deal simultaneously with the SpaceX lawsuit against the block buy and the likely end of the Atlas V’s RD-180 engine availability. Calling in political interference from U.S. Congressmen won’t be enough to make SpaceX go away and it certainly won’t help their Russian supply chain situation, but, hey, at least it’s something ULA knows how to do; unlike, say, design a new vehicle and engine in time to avoid corporate disaster.

By: Andrew Swallow

Andrew Swallow — Wed, 16 Jul 2014 04:31:27 +0000

Three members of Congress have written to NASA to ask about for information about the problems SpaceX has had. Similar problems for Atlas V and Delta IV were not on the list.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 12:57:04 +0000

Probably because NASA has been a long-time customer for Atlas V’s of various configurations and – barring that rocket’s increasingly probable imminent demise – would have continued to be. With a hat tip to DB9, it probably makes at least a bit more sense for someone currently with NASA to be there than it does for someone like Dumbacher who recently left and wasn’t involved in anything having to do with EELV’s anyway. Of course if the session gets to be about launch capabilities in general and is not specifically limited to EELV’s, Atlas V, RD-180’s and such, then the erstwhile Mr. SLS might have relevance as well.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 11 Jul 2014 01:56:37 +0000

Why then is NASA involved? They have nothing to add to this issue.
Cheers.

By: Crews Giles

Crews Giles — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 17:52:38 +0000

If I am correct in assuming this has to do with the injuction against ULA at the request of SpaceX as concerns the importation of the Russian motor, then the hearing is to discuss alternatives which manage domestic or allied strategic sources.

I would suspect UAL and SpaceX are not represented because their veiws have to do with marketing advantages against the strategic weakness of the other. In this case, SpaceX will dominate.

Imam reminded of an article yesterday about the the loss of redundant jet engine supply originally intende for the joint strike fighter, but which is now single sourced and resulting in grounded aircraft.

By: Dick Eagleson

Dick Eagleson — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 02:49:16 +0000

Yeah, I don’t have a good feeling about this either. Perhaps no one from SpaceX or Orbtial-ATK was invited for fear they’d say something useful. Given that both companies have launches scheduled just days before the hearing, there might also be reluctance on the part of certain MOC’s to schedule people to testify who each might have just done something useful and instructive by hearing time. Perhaps no one from ULA was invited for fear they’d say something embarrassing.

I do wonder a bit, though, if maybe this is the first step toward Congress and the DoD taking over remaining RD-180 stocks and rationing Atlas V’s for critical payloads. Might be a few interesting things to see despite the high probability that most of the hearing will be cringe-worthy blather.

By: Dark Blue Nine

Dark Blue Nine — Thu, 10 Jul 2014 02:23:07 +0000

“noticeably absent are representatives of any launch providers, such as SpaceX or United Launch Alliance”

Then what’s the point of the second panel? To avoid actual launch companies so that we can listen to every single inexperienced pontificator on the periphery of the launch business? Do we really think that Dan Dumbacher, a long-time NASA manager who recently bailed on MPCV/SLS and now works in an ivory tower at Purdue, has more relevance to RD-180 replacement or national security launch issues than Michael Gass from ULA or Gwynne Shotwell from SpaceX (or someone from OSC/ATK)?

Weird and goofy…

By: sftommy

sftommy — Wed, 09 Jul 2014 21:22:29 +0000

Who is missing from this line up?

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper.