I understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).
Quote from: Drapper23 on 07/22/2010 02:34 pmI understand what your saying. However, the language discussing the use of shuttle derived hardware & the language discussing a 70-100 ton IMLEO launch vehicle with an evolution to a 130+ tons IMLEO booster strongly indicate that the Senate wants a Direct Launcher(SD-HLV).Well, the real kicker for SDLV is the 2016 date, which effectively excludes any new-start engines (but not J-2X), like the RP-1 designs used.And Direct/Inline is not a given, as sidemount could replicate those numbers; it'll be up to NASA to decide between the two...
Quote from: Proponent on 07/22/2010 01:37 amDitto Rep. Giffords. Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband. Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?Orbital in Chandler, AZ.
Ditto Rep. Giffords. Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband. Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?
Quote from: simonbp on 07/22/2010 02:46 pmQuote from: Proponent on 07/22/2010 01:37 amDitto Rep. Giffords. Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband. Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?Orbital in Chandler, AZ.But doesn't the house bill want to gut COTS? Wouldn't that harm Orbital?
Quote from: Hop_David on 07/22/2010 04:27 pmQuote from: simonbp on 07/22/2010 02:46 pmQuote from: Proponent on 07/22/2010 01:37 amDitto Rep. Giffords. Obviously she has a astronaut for a husband. Other than that are there any commercial or other interests within her district that would be especially relevant to her approach to NASA?Orbital in Chandler, AZ.But doesn't the house bill want to gut COTS? Wouldn't that harm Orbital?I did not see it gutting COTS, only the Commercial Crew angle, which Orbital is not participating in regardless.
Looks like Marcia Smith live-tweeted some of the House S&T's markup session today:http://twitter.com/spcplcyonlineIs this being webcast somewhere?
Kosmas amendment adds money for COTS, commercial crew up to Senate level. Takes money from exploration,kills loan guarantees...Hall and Giffords oppose it; Rohrabacher supports it. Gordon opposes. Defeated by voice vote.Rohrabacher amendment to add money for commercial cargo. Bill cuts all but $14 m from $312 request for FY11. Defeated (voice)Grayson amendment to strike loan and loan guarantee language; no company asked for it and is wrong approach. Voice vote underway.Grayson defeated 23-6.Kosmas amendment to add funding for exploration technology development. Funds at level adopted by Senate cmtes. Defeated (voice)Lujan amendment to remove $1 million limit on CRuSR suborbital program and leave amt up to Administrator. Approved (voice)Broun amendment to make it a three year instead of five year authorization bill is approved (voice)Sensenbrenner amendment to use the word "Constellation" in bill to show Congress still supports it. Defeated 10-19.Committee recesses for floor votes. Will recovene 10 minutes after last floor vote.
Some interesting bits from Marcia Smith's twitter feed:QuoteSensenbrenner amendment to use the word "Constellation" in bill to show Congress still supports it. Defeated 10-19.
Sensenbrenner amendment to use the word "Constellation" in bill to show Congress still supports it. Defeated 10-19.