Quote from: 51D Mascot on 03/10/2010 01:17 amFirst, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law. Everything in the post above is true and also irrelevant to my point, because co-sponsorship of appropriation and authorization bills, the ones introduced by leadership, is irrelevant. As most people already understand, bills that fund the government do not require co-sponsorship.On the other hand, bills that are not introduced at the behest of the administration or congressional leadership DO require demonstrations of support, otherwise the bills, and their content, are the equivalent of one hand clapping. The standard demonstration of support for such bills is co-sponsorship.So, yes, there are budget, appropriation and authorization bills introduced and passed every year without co-sponsorship, but these are not relevant to this discussion. And there are also situations where bills are thrown into the hopper at the last moment and subsequently integrated as amendments into other legislation, and in that form they are enacted into law, usually at the behest of leadership. The Hutchison bill does not seem to qualify as one of those situations.The last argument is that the Hutchison bill won't be enacted into law as such, but key components will find their way into the NASA authorization. I agree, to the extent that those components are supported by Congress. How will the Administration and leadership determine whether these components are widely supported? The traditional approach would be via co-sponsorship of the Hutchison bill. We are told now that such co-sponsorship isn't relevant, so I guess we are to depend on public statements of support by elected officials for the various goodies in the Hutchinson bill, speeches in support of lunar landings and the like.We'll see. However, the somewhat irrelevant post by 51D Mascot reminds me of what politicians say before elections when they are trailing in the polls: "The only poll that matters is the election".
First, a simple statement of observed experience, based on my thirty-plus years of working in the Congress: the number of cosponsors of a bill is NOT a determining factor in passage of a bill. I have seen many bills with an actual majority of members cosponsoring them, which have never even been reported our of committee. I have seen even more bills with either no or very few cosponsors get enacted into law.
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's.
But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's. The only thing we need, is to finish and fly ALL of the ones which are in various stages of completion right now.Ross.
Quote from: kraisee on 03/10/2010 03:00 pmBut nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's. Well, that is NOT quite accurate.Edit: Ooops. Left out a very important word....
Since commercial space is all about surviving on it's revenue rather than tax dollars I don't see what's the big deal with zogby, considering they deal with finances (unless I missed something) Unless the people at zogby will be the ones building new launch vehicles I fail so see your concern/outrage. They made an analysis on the potential market for private space, they didn't advise NASA to move away from Direct, because they deal with marketing not rocket designs.
However, that is the misconception of all of this. It will not survive without tax dollars because the market is not there to support it.
While there will be off-shoots, such as Virgin with suborbital tourism and maybe a destination from Bigelow, that alone will not support all the other vehicles being proposed to be developed.
So, what this is for the near- and medium-terms is government funded via firm-fixed-price contracts, although it is unclear how much captial funding these firms will provide because those details have not been worked out yet and should be another clue this is not right around the corner, for development and then firm-fixed-price contracts for services. However, unless the government subsidizes directly or the service price is intentionally inflated to cover the sustaining operations (which include all the things people tend to forget about when the vehicles are not flying) the "market" in it's present form cannot keep all these players active.
While it is a bit of a "chicken and egg" scenerio it is definitely NOT about surviving on revenue totally independent from the government at this point.
...and the plot thickens...http://www.space.com/news/space-shuttle-extension-needs-money-100309.htmlQuoteWASHINGTON – The chief of NASA's space shuttle program said Tuesday that the agency could technically continue to fly its three aging orbiters beyond their planned 2010 retirement if ordered to do so by President Barack Obama and lawmakers. All it would take would be the extra funding needed to pay for it.The money is there. It is a question of "want to".
WASHINGTON – The chief of NASA's space shuttle program said Tuesday that the agency could technically continue to fly its three aging orbiters beyond their planned 2010 retirement if ordered to do so by President Barack Obama and lawmakers. All it would take would be the extra funding needed to pay for it.
Perhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 03/10/2010 04:15 pmPerhaps the 6 billion won't be enough, but I can't say for sure. I prefer to think of it as an experiment, not just sheer hope. It might produce a very interesting result or it might blow up in your face. You can't really tell, you just decide whether the potential gain is worth the risk. I take it you think it isn't, but I'm interested in what might come out of it.I can say for sure it is not enough.As for the "experiment", it is not wise to gamble with an entire industry where there is currently no plan, no timetable and insufficient funding to make a difference. I promise you the result of this "experiment" is as follows:1. Near total destruction of this industry. Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.2. Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.3. An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.4. A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.5. Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 6. The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
phantom,I believe he actually said that there would be a two year gap in tank production, not the flights themselves.He knows better than anyone, that the manifest can be moved around to cover that gap, should it be necessary.But nobody is actually proposing to build any more new ET's. The only thing we need, is to finish and fly all FIVE of the ones for which all the parts are currently in-stock and which are in various stages of completion right now, but which are not currently manifested to fly:Current Manifest:ET-135 = STS-131ET-136 = STS-132ET-137 = STS-134ET-138 = STS-133ET-122 = LON-335 (could be re-tasked to STS-135)Additional In-Stock Tank Assemblies Which Can Be Readied To Fly:ET-139 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-140 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-141 (in-stock, partially assembled)ET-95 (in-stock, almost complete)And if you look on L2 there is talk of another fully-built LWT tank which can also be made ready to fly, but I'll leave that to L2 members to learn all those details as they are still very fresh.Ross.
1. Near total destruction of this industry. Unique and valuable skills and experience lost.2. Much more than projected costs for "commercial" development and with that schedules that move to the right.3. An ISS that has degraded and not lived up to it's intended purpose.4. A business case that has degraded for the "commercial" providers because of the degraded ISS.5. Political posturing calling NASA a failure and the "commercial experiment" a loss. 6. The United States of America has no more capability and lost its leadership in spaceflight.
And I thought I was a pessimist about the future OV