Author Topic: Lawmakers produce Bill to extend shuttle to 2015, utilize CxP, advance HLV  (Read 300171 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Ross: Can you show me links to show that this added money isn't for NEW tests or added requirements? I don't disbelieve you, but I prefer data to hearsay.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 05:15 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

So making commercial companies meet safety requirements is a bad idea?

EDIT - I guess you missed this. Does the FAA do that?

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 05:17 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Lawmakers should rather fix the rot and go after the Banksters, then there would be more than enough to spend, and the economy would not be so trashed by bad banking practices, or was that lack of oversight, same could be said for NASA?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Ohhh.  So NASA is going to become the FAA of space and "regulate" all the companies going out and doing spaceflight.  I see now. 

So making commercial companies meet safety requirements is a bad idea?

EDIT - I guess you missed this. Does the FAA do that?

They'll serve a regulatory function for the companies and still conduct science and exploration missions by purchasing their services to get to LEO. Least that's the goal.

No, that was my entire point.  You missed that and are now finally catching up.  The problem is no one knows how much oversight there will be.  Since oversight, can at least partially and potentially be defined by requirements levied on someone, those requirements first must exist.  They do not yet and are not expected to arrive until the end of this year.

While some documents exist, such as the ISS visiting vehicles document, that will only take you so far and a company has to balance how much engineering it does without knowing the requirements because it all may have to change. 

How's that?
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
1. "Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?"
No, I am suggesting that cost savings under the new plan will be minimal because you still have to pay spacex, orbital, ect. to do things. Therefore you will save some money but overall savings as opposed to doing it the old way will not be as significant or "game changing" as they are being touted to be.
2. "NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys." True but, What milestones where? Beyond cots and crs I see no milestones. After 2020, under the new plan, I see no reason to even have the commercial providers. Except for the fact that ULA, spacex, and Orbital can find buisness in launching things for other people and companies. Spacex launched a sattilite for the Malaysian government a while back. Perhaps other countries would be interested too?
3. "No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual."
 Which is what will happen under the new plan eventually one way or another.

4. "So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new."

If it happens under the new plan and its a spacecraft, like cygnus for example, that gets cut by its parent company because it is wrecking their buisness with overruns, it will not be "nothing new" it will put a serious dent in the ability of new space to carry out its objectives especially at ISS which is by far not a low maitenence place.

5. "3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC."
The irony of this comment has me laughing. The reason is simple. Its not "thats what happens". Under the new plan (fy 2011) if that happens it literally puts a massive whole in the entire thing. What if Spacex failed? That would be disasterous for the new plan and would significantly reduce both cargo and crew resupply capabilities to Iss. Same with Orbital, ULA, ect. You cannot just pass that off as "thats what happens", if you are going to support fy 2011 and the new plan you must understand that a key provider going under would be a disaster. And it would be hard for the remaining providers to pick up the slack.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.

A near term problem, 6 months away, that has a direct impact on DDT&E of these "commercial" systems. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.

Oh yeah, and if you really knew about this stuff you'd understand requirements definition is critical.  It must be done correctly and right.  Otherwise, when requirements are not clearly defined, you increase your chances greatly for cost and schedule slips.  So, yes, the appropriate time should be taken. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Requirements_analysis
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
NASA would still end up footing the bill.  Lol, people don't seem to remember that you have to PAY commercial companies for things you cannot just have them DO something.

Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?

Add to that the fact that NASA cannot FORCE them to do anything except meet certain safety requirements. Beyond that NASA cannot tell them what to do.

NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys.

And if there was a cost overrun at a commercial firm it would result in 1. bailout, 2 program cancellation, 3 bankrupt. I would remind everyone of Sea Launch.....

1. No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual.

2. So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new.

3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC.
1. "Are you suggesting NASA just has contractors like LM and Boeing "DO something" without payment?"
No, I am suggesting that cost savings under the new plan will be minimal because you still have to pay spacex, orbital, ect. to do things. Therefore you will save some money but overall savings as opposed to doing it the old way will not be as significant or "game changing" as they are being touted to be.
2. "NASA doesn't "force" contractors either. They make a contract and have them meet milestones, just like they're doing to the commercial guys." True but, What milestones where? Beyond cots and crs I see no milestones. After 2020, under the new plan, I see no reason to even have the commercial providers. Except for the fact that ULA, spacex, and Orbital can find buisness in launching things for other people and companies. Spacex launched a sattilite for the Malaysian government a while back. Perhaps other countries would be interested too?
3. "No. If they do that then it's not commercial space, it's business as usual."
 Which is what will happen under the new plan eventually one way or another.

4. "So, stuff gets canceled all the time already. It's nothing new."

If it happens under the new plan and its a spacecraft, like cygnus for example, that gets cut by its parent company because it is wrecking their buisness with overruns, it will not be "nothing new" it will put a serious dent in the ability of new space to carry out its objectives especially at ISS which is by far not a low maitenence place.

5. "3. Again, if a business fails, that's what happens. And Sea Launch are planning to launch this year again IIRC."
The irony of this comment has me laughing. The reason is simple. Its not "thats what happens". Under the new plan (fy 2011) if that happens it literally puts a massive whole in the entire thing. What if Spacex failed? That would be disasterous for the new plan and would significantly reduce both cargo and crew resupply capabilities to Iss. Same with Orbital, ULA, ect. You cannot just pass that off as "thats what happens", if you are going to support fy 2011 and the new plan you must understand that a key provider going under would be a disaster. And it would be hard for the remaining providers to pick up the slack.

1. That's opinion, not a fact.

2. The milestones that will be laid out for the commercial guys are for LEO access. There aren't any milestones beyond that, because we don't know if they can handle LEO yet, let alone start planing way ahead.

3. Again, opinion, not fact.

4. It would put only Orbital out of the game. The others will continue. It's called a redundant capability, something you don't have with a single government launcher.

5. I said that I think the new plan would be reworked. Don't argue against me as if I am completely for it. And if the plan is reworked it would be in such a way that SpaceX's failure wouldn't result in a catastrophic loss in capability.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.

Oh...clearly you are right.  Thank you for making me see the light.  Lets risk it.  There's gotta be something better right?  Who cares if it doesn't exist yet!  Who cares if we don't even understand the requirements or the contracting structure yet!  It should be far, far better but of course there are no concrete plans around any of it yet to tell us why, but yeah, lets go for it. 

What people are *just* starting to realize their jobs are in danger?  Give me a break.....
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.

I fail to see how your reply addresses safety requirements. And again I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PLAN AS IS! Stop straw maning me.

EDIT - I would like to see a shuttle extension so a commercial failure won't cripple ISS as you're afraid it might.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 05:39 pm by Cog_in_the_machine »
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Wrong on many many levels. This is taking the stance that its ethier all NASA, which would result in cancellation, or its all commercial, which would the "holy grail" of all space exploration. :P :P That is a very extreme position to take and it allows for no chance of sucess. One extreme or another will not work, it must be a middle of the road option that uses the good parts of both sides. EXAMPLE: Not ares 1, sdhlv, not sdhlv or orion to ISS, commercial to ISS (when they are online), not all NASA designed and built hardware or micromanagment of contractors more contractor freedom and less micromanagment; commercial designed componenets (like propellant depots), and finally: A SET OF CLEAR SET IN STONE DATES, GOALS, AND BETTER MANAGMENT. NO MORE CHANCE OF SEEING ANOTHER "GRIFFIN" TYPE MANAGER!
I do not want to keep doing things the way they are now I want something sustainble. Fy 2011 is not that. CXP is not that. Ares 1 or V is not that. All commercial is not that.
A compromise is.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline FinalFrontier

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Space Watcher
  • Liked: 1332
  • Likes Given: 173
OK, but this is a near term problem. Is NASA so slow that they can't come up with a set of requirements by the end of the year or sooner? They already have man rating standards so they can use that as a baseline.
Then give them a new plan with key objectives and timelines and clean up the managment and its practices. Do not just throw money at them for unspecified r&d for no goals or timelines. Also the excuse that timelines should not be used because they cannot be met is both baseless and flawed. Everyone else in the world has timelines they must meet for things and they do. NASA has in the past and can again. But not without a plan. That goes for r&d as well. If you want them to do all this wonderful tech development they need an organized timeline and plan for doing it. Fy 2011 does not provide this.  I also have my doubts as to how far commercial will get without a plan too. The details of how to run the commercial crew vehicle contract competition or if there even would be one have not be specified in the new plan.

I fail to see how your reply addresses safety requirements. And again I DO NOT SUPPORT THE NEW PLAN AS IS! Stop straw maning me.
Glad to know where you stand. A clearly defined set of goals, destinations, and a timeline will address safety better than a lofty program with no set dates. That goes for commercial too. As to how safety protocol will be implement for commercial vehicles, lvs, other equipment I do not know.
3-30-2017: The start of a great future
"Live Long and Prosper"

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Glad to know where you stand. A clearly defined set of goals, destinations, and a timeline will address safety better than a lofty program with no set dates. That goes for commercial too. As to how safety protocol will be implement for commercial vehicles, lvs, other equipment I do not know.

I think the timelines and goals will be formed in the coming months after a compromise is reached so the strategy can be sound. Considering they are reworking the budget we can't expect them right away, though I do wonder if they will be satisfactory and realistic when they arrive. Regarding the goals of commercial they'll center around LEO. What I'm interested in is NASA's BEO goals.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Everyone:
Right. So let's all just keep doing everything the same way it's going right now. After all, the colony on Mars is already out-competing Earth businesses. Their commercial ventures don't need any help from us. ::)

Seriously, is just doing everything the same as we have in the past a good idea? Is competition really so ineffective? I'm no libertarian and I understand there are huge macroeconomic inefficiencies in having an idle workforce, but what is really the point of NASA? Is it just to provide very high-paying jobs? Are we going anywhere other than LEO with the Shuttle (as amazing as it is)? Is there really no way to do transport to ISS cheaper than the Shuttle or Ares I? I mean, I understand that for many of you, you are in some really deep kimchi when it comes to your job. But there's a finite amount of money. Is it worth just doing what we're doing, or should we take a risk and actually try for something that will be far better in the long-term if it works out at all?

The alternative is a gradually reduced NASA budget. Heck, the POR means that Shuttle is retired THIS YEAR and ISS in 2015. Obama's budget is far better than that. The real issue is that people are finally realizing that their jobs are at stake. It's now crunch time, and it doesn't look good. So, people are understandably upset and are unfortunately lashing out at everything else.
Wrong on many many levels. This is taking the stance that its ethier all NASA, which would result in cancellation, or its all commercial, which would the "holy grail" of all space exploration. :P :P That is a very extreme position to take and it allows for no chance of sucess. One extreme or another will not work, it must be a middle of the road option that uses the good parts of both sides. EXAMPLE: Not ares 1, sdhlv, not sdhlv or orion to ISS, commercial to ISS (when they are online), not all NASA designed and built hardware or micromanagment of contractors more contractor freedom and less micromanagment; commercial designed componenets (like propellant depots), and finally: A SET OF CLEAR SET IN STONE DATES, GOALS, AND BETTER MANAGMENT. NO MORE CHANCE OF SEEING ANOTHER "GRIFFIN" TYPE MANAGER!
I do not want to keep doing things the way they are now I want something sustainble. Fy 2011 is not that. CXP is not that. Ares 1 or V is not that. All commercial is not that.
A compromise is.
So all this fire and fury is just because you think that this current plan isn't quite as good as you'd like?

Why the heck is everyone so worried around here? I don't see how the PoR was any better than FY2011. NASA is getting more money. It seems like a net win, compared to the PoR. So, we have non-guaranteed commercial crew servicing of the ISS starting in 2015. That's far better than a COMPLETELY guaranteed deorbiting of the ISS by 2015, if you think the ISS has any value. And I don't see how going to the Moon like we did for Apollo is any better if we don't go sustainably. Hey, maybe you argue DIRECT is a better plan. Fair enough. But don't pretend the FY2011 proposal is the worst thing in the world.

I grant that the FY2011 proposal has more risk in some areas than some other plans. But there are no guarantees in life, let alone space. I guarantee we will never get to Mars without some of the expansive R&D programs outlined in the FY2011 proposal.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
If fy 2011 passed what do you think would happen the first time there is an overun, be it under commercial or the NASA STP (space tech program i.e. the big r&d game changing tech thingy).

Same as always:   Money would be stripped from another department to pay for the essential stuff :(

Are there not already laws regarding government contracts which go over budget?

Ross.
« Last Edit: 03/10/2010 06:10 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline psloss

  • Veteran armchair spectator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17980
  • Liked: 4047
  • Likes Given: 2089
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2010_record&page=S1254&position=all

Nelson's speech begins halfway down the middle column
Hmmm...seems to be a little further definition/emphasis of his middle ground position (not sure if it's going to be the only position that gets staked out).  Sure seems to be a different position than the emphasis of the S 3068 bill.

He also noted again that his subcommittee will be having a hearing about "commercial rocket competitors."

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0