Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not so, I'm told by LM, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh!
Quote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.
Has the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?
This latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh! I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows.
Quote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh!
Quote from: Bill White on 03/04/2010 12:34 pmISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere. And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.The funny thing about people as a payload is that demand is very price elastic. So, if a system that can affordably fly, say, 12 people to orbit each year is available, other payloads will volunteer to fly, as well. The same cannot be said for most other payloads.
ISS alone cannot possibly sustain a robust commercial crew capability (not enough flights) and yet the proposal floated February 1st seems to do little, if anything, to hasten the arrival of non-NASA destinations in LEO, or elsewhere. And that is why I find NewSpace enthusiasm for the original February proposal to be rather odd.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:28 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:26 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 04:14 pmQuote from: psloss on 03/05/2010 04:08 pmQuote from: Danderman on 03/05/2010 03:16 pmHas the proposed bill been introduced yet? Does it have co-sponsors?On the Senate side:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=20720.msg555723#msg555723It's up on Thomas, too.Not on the House side; planned for next week, IIRC.NO co-sponsors.I don't understand politics, so I won't get into the whys and why nots of lots of political armwaving, when they won't put their name to it (looking at you Senator Nelson). However, there's something in the article that everyone has missed, and I'm worried it's because it doesn't mean much?QuoteThis latest Bill has been worked on since last year, with consultations and inputs from throughout the industry, including the United Space Alliance, NASA and even SpaceX and Lockheed Martin, with the latter heavily involved.The one to watch is Lockheed Martin, as you'd think they'd love the FY2011 proposal. Not sure, they are against it, against losing Orion.That could lead back to politics, because I assume there's lobbying and such going on, and if that's the case, then why doesn't this Bill have a ton of names on it?Politics, argh! I don't think the full story is out yet. Probably they are gaining sponsors right now but who knows. I have wondered if the plan all along was to cancel Constellation in an attempt to cancel Ares only? Everyone has stated how expensive that rocket has been to develop and its shortfalls. Canceling CxP outright with the idea of some sort of compromise(s) after the fact, like bringing back Orion and some sort of HLV, would eliminate Ares and make everyone look good because everyone compromised. I think that seems to be more politically pleasing by all then just canceling Ares only on the outset, if you know what I mean. Could that be possible?
How long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President
It's been referred to committee:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/05/2010 04:39 pmIt's been referred to committee:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068In the Senate only at this point. Danderman is referring to a bill in the House. That hasn't been introduced yet.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct?
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct? Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!Yeah, months is no good.
By the way, Awsome article Chris . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change.
Quote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmBy the way, Awsome article Chris . When I logged on to NSF and saw that epic picture of STS-Jupiter up again I new something good had happened for a change. Thanks! Although I do like that graphic, and probably overuse it like the Shuttle during MaxQ image Will start working the next article - probably after a processing update (Shuttle still rules the roost) - at the weekend. Have a fair amount of content to throw in and some interesting quotes. Will probably note what SSP manager John Shannon had to say about this week's events into the processing article.
It's been read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-3068
Occurred: Introduced May 15, 2008Occurred: Referred to Committee View Committee AssignmentsOccurred: Reported by Committee Jun 4, 2008Occurred: Amendments (13 proposed) View AmendmentsOccurred: Passed House Jun 18, 2008Occurred: Passed Senate Sep 25, 2008Occurred: Signed by President Oct 15, 2008
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:49 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:48 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:46 pmQuote from: FinalFrontier on 03/05/2010 04:43 pmQuote from: Chris Bergin on 03/05/2010 04:41 pmHow long - I know, IF it went through - can such a below process take? Introduced Mar 3, 2010 Referred to Committee View Committee Assignments Reported by Committee Senate Vote House Vote Signed by President Sounds like STS extension would be in serious doubt.Oh NOW I'm confused. What does my post have to do with "serious doubts over extension"? Sorry for not clarifying. I am under the impression that if it takes "months" and NASA contiues under current *old* plans, too much of the workforce and infrastructure will be removed in prep for the old 2010 retirement date which would invalidiate the chance of an extension, especially one to 2015. Is this correct? Sorry, I got it about a minute later, but didn't delete my post in time, oops!Yeah, months is no good.Lol "Yeah, months is no good." Nope, but it doesnt make it impossible. Just more expensive.