LIVE: Congressional Hearings into Obama's NASA Budget FY2011 - Feb 24-25 Part 2

[khallow]

Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.

Eh, this isn't the thread for it, but NASA has access to a secure cash flow (US tax revenue) that isn't available to the commercial sector. They can throw tens of billions of dollars at a space station or a launch vehicle with no serious need for the project to have value. Commercial needs to make some sort of profit. The "greatness" of the commercial sector isn't in their ability to produce money sinks.

[marsavian]

Wu wonders about eventual high cost of private man rated vehicles many years down the line. Against privatization, risky he claims. Worried about falling behind China, India. Claims it is premature.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Mr. Wu - it might seem good now to privatize, but the commercial companies could run into cost problems in the future similar to Ares I, which could lead to canceling the commercial space program.

He ads that the main mistake with Ares is that it tried to use "off the shelf" hardware which is a mistake since NASA should innovate.

Wu is against commercial, period . He says turning to them will mean the US will lose their leadership to China and other nations in space exploration.

We need to drop Ares and do something else, but there's no workable business plan for privatizing LEO crew delivery he added.

[psloss]

Interesting aside here for anyone following the politics at play: Gordon is a (distant) colleague of mine, another attorney from my town and district, as well as being the Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.  He has also announced he will not seek reelection, leaving a mad scramble here at home to find a worthwhile candidate from either party.  Now, all that said, knowing he has no reelection at stake (and not being from a state with a terrible big aerospace industry presence) it will be interesting to see how aggressively he questions people today.

You would know better than me, but listening to him today versus previous hearings, I didn't sense any greater "aggression" in his questions.  (At least in the first round.)  I still expect him to be important in crafting the language of the authorization bill coming out of the House, and we'll certainly have a better idea at that point.

[marsavian]

McCall questions whether he truly agrees with the decision. Bolden claims he agrees. Says there were plans to privatize Shuttle before Challenger and believes it would have been a success. McCall says there will be a lot of Congress opposition to Cx cancellation.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

McCall - What will we tell the people that will lose their jobs?

Bolden says they'll do anything in their power to include them in the new R&D programs and within a couple of months we'll have more details on how we'll mitigate job loses.

[KSC Engineer]

Sounds like Cx is far from dead. 

[marsavian]

Giffords speaking in favor of safe Cx. Nothing inherently wrong with it except funding.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Giffords said - We know Cxp will work and that it's the safest path.

She's harping on the job loss.

Claims that solid rocket production is critical to our missile deference.

Scares congress with stories of the shiny new space facilities the Chinese are building

[marsavian]

Giffords states that Gates was not informed of SRB cancellation which is important to national security. Says termination of US national HSF big surprise to Congress and asks who was involved in the decision making. Bolden says its my budget.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Now she's asking who did Bolden consult to terminate Cxp.

Bolden says that he played an integral part in the decision, but is not at liberty to discuss who were the others that were involved. Bolden says he accepts the blame.

[KSC Engineer]

Gifford worries that China is leading the space race and we are losing our lead in space and  national security.  "Who did you consult with for this radical decision?" She said.

[marsavian]

Giffords says HSF decisions too hard to stomach without prior agreement/consultation with Congress.

[CessnaDriver]

Costello made the "If commercial is so great why didn't they build space stations and send people in space before government sponsored programs" argument.

One of my favorite arguements.

Eh, this isn't the thread for it, but NASA has access to a secure cash flow (US tax revenue) that isn't available to the commercial sector. They can throw tens of billions of dollars at a space station or a launch vehicle with no serious need for the project to have value. Commercial needs to make some sort of profit. The "greatness" of the commercial sector isn't in their ability to produce money sinks.

Weak defense if you ask me.
But so be it, not the place for it.

[marsavian]

Fudge dismayed by lack of concrete HSF mission goals. Mentions failure/cancellation of Prometheus as an example of previous technology exercise that led nowhere.

[Cog_in_the_machine]

Fudge says the new program fails to inspire students (Oh god, this again)

She thinks R&D without a goal may not be sustainable. Mentioned the cancellation of project Prometheus as an example.

Asks: What's to prevent this from happening to these new tech R&D programs?

Bolden says the A-com said that the planing for a program should start with "why", not "where". We do need a destination and that destination is Mars, but we need a "why"

[marsavian]

Edwards 'floored' by this proposal. Wonders about lack of inspiration. Says her district's Goddard will win big but still bemoans about lack of Vision.

[Mark S]

A comet hit Jupiter late last year?  I thought Shoemaker-Levy happened 15 years ago, not last year.  Was there another, or is Bolden confused?

[CessnaDriver]

Donna Edwards was "floored" by this budget.
And not in the good way.

[cd-slam]

There was another.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-112