Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[TexasRED]

Welcome to the forum e

Stick around, many interesting folks frequent this place.

It certainly seems like it. Is there any sort of typical thing for new members, someplace to acclimatize? I found the acronym page, but...I guess I'm thinking more of trying to get a feel for the culture of the board. I sort of feel like a kid sitting at the adults table for Thanksgiving for the first time...

There's an introduction thread if you want to check that out - http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=606.0

hey this is cool ,hadn't seen this thread before.

[neilh]

Does this mean peace can now break out ? 

I'm waiting on seeing the amended draft of the bill, but I'm hopeful.

[psloss]

Anybody seen a link to watch the remarks from the Senate Radio and TV Gallery at 11:45 am Eastern?

[mmoulder]

e of pi,

Glad to see I am not the first new-comer to this forum!   

[DaveJSC]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

[yg1968]

Here is Senator Hutchison's statement:

http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=7457bd6b-1721-4c17-994c-77595f3099ae&Statement_id=7ceb6eb1-6902-49d0-b9be-934420b484b8&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=7&YearDisplay=2010

[jongoff]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon

[yg1968]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC and JSC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they've screwed up about a dozen consecutive launch vehicle programs over the past 20 years.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!
~Jon

The backup argument never made any sense. The commercial companies are each other's backup. If one of them fails, you replace them (such as was done with Kistler under COTS). In any event, I never expected Congress to go along with a commercial HLV. So I can't say that I am disapointed or surprised by the turn of events.

[robertross]

Sounds hopeful! Has to be a SD HLV, right?

Implicitly, but not explicitly. They require NASA to use as much existing STS and CxP hardware and contracts as possible (including explicitly ET-94), while not doing the engineering for NASA and selecting a specific option.

That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...

Another trade study maybe.....although technically they've already been there with that.

Will be interesting to follow regardless

Or they can just finish the HLV study...

[MP99]

That said, the real battle between sidemount and inline begins today...

Another trade study maybe.....although technically they've already been there with that.

Will be interesting to follow regardless

Presumably the new launcher programme will be mostly MSFC? Isn't side-mount more favoured by JSC?

cheers, Martin

[clongton]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon

That's a little cynical Jon, not like you.

[jongoff]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC and JSC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they've screwed up about a dozen consecutive launch vehicle programs over the past 20 years.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!
~Jon

The backup argument never made any sense. The commercial companies are each other's backup. If one of them fails, you replace them (such as was done with Kistler under COTS). In any event, I never expected Congress to go along with a commercial HLV. So I can't say that I am disapointed or surprised by the turn of events.

I'm also amused that so many here seem to be so happy with this when:

1-There's still no plan or details, or nearer-term destinations.  This is building an HLV without a mission. 
2-The shuttle won't be extended past 2011 now other than a single extra mission, so ISS is going to be serviceable only by COTS and the Russians till at least 2016-2017, with no US backup. 

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

~Jon

[jimgagnon]

So apparently the gap, and the inability to support the ISS without shuttle, and the lack of a firm plan weren't so much issues as not having a big rocket to feel good about?

That was rhetoric. It was always about the jobs and the money.

[jongoff]

That removes the bailout threat, because if commercial don't get on line in time, they won't get a handout, we'll have the HLV as the backup. Very good!

Heh.  Because we wouldn't want to bail out commercial companies for a few Billion when we can bail out MSFC (again) for another $10-20B.  Who cares that they haven't gotten a new vehicle out of the powerpoint stage in my lifetime.  At least Congress is taking its job seriously of protecting us from those evil free marketeers who are always needing bailouts!

~Jon

That's a little cynical Jon, not like you.

I'm just frustrated at the blatant hypocrisy here.  Shelby can talk about too big to fail, then MSFC gets another $10B in mulligans.  At what point will failure to deliver anywhere near on-time or on-budget ever result in negative consequences for NASA's fair-haired boys?  Why is commercial held to a higher standard than the people being given an order of magnitude more money?

I guess it was more the whole attitude that this compromise was somehow protecting the taxpayer from a bailout, when really it's a bailout bigger than the worst-case bailout that Cernan and Armstrong were peddling.

~Jon

[jongoff]

I think I'm going to shut-up now.  Those of us who wanted to see NASA get out of the 70s have more or less lost at this point.  There are a couple of crumbs, and the dot-product of NASA HSF and something actually enabling spacefaring is now a little bit bigger (we're now say a little bit on the good side of orthogonal, instead of actively moving in the wrong direction).  But a lot of potential was wasted here.

~Jon

[Longhorn John]

It's not perfect Jon, a lot would have prefered a shuttle extension into 2012 plus, but compared to FY2011, this is much better.

You can't even begin to say this is the same when the previous was a five year study for HLV and this is immediate start developing the HLV.

It's not Cernan's fault about the bailout comment, it's Bolden's comment for admitting it.

Money to skilled workers who have run shuttle vs rich stockholders with portfolios at commercial companies is always going to get my vote.

[FinalFrontier]

"We address Commercial vehicles in a measured way. We protect our nation in the event commercial providers face challenges, by starting work on a HLV IMMEDIATELY and a crew capsule.

"By starting work IMMEDIATELY we'll have an exploration vehicle, on an agressive schedule.

"We add STS-135 next summer."

so 135 is offical now? And SDHLV begins that same year. Workforce transition should be smoother now.

They said that the white house agreed to this, but I have yet to see concrete proof..........lets see if he signs it

[2552]

So is the "Major Breakthrough" press conference with Nelson and Hutchison happening now, or was the Executive Session it?

[agman25]

It's not perfect Jon, a lot would have prefered a shuttle extension into 2012 plus, but compared to FY2011, this is much better.

You can't even begin to say this is the same when the previous was a five year study for HLV and this is immediate start developing the HLV.

It's not Cernan's fault about the bailout comment, it's Bolden's comment for admitting it.

Money to skilled workers who have run shuttle vs rich stockholders with portfolios at commercial companies is always going to get my vote.

So commercial aerospace companies do not have skilled workers ?

[yg1968]

I think I'm going to shut-up now.  Those of us who wanted to see NASA get out of the 70s have more or less lost at this point.  There are a couple of crumbs, and the dot-product of NASA HSF and something actually enabling spacefaring is now a little bit bigger (we're now say a little bit on the good side of orthogonal, instead of actively moving in the wrong direction).  But a lot of potential was wasted here.

~Jon

Perhaps but at least commercial crew and things like propellant depots are being funded. So we are one step closer to being a space fairing nation with some of these measures.