NASA is currently funding four potential commercial crew providers. Moving forward, NASA needs to focus its investment on only those providers that are likely to be able to provide crew transportation services by 2017.NASA should consider identifying the strongest private firms at the earliest opportunity such that NASA's precious resources are focused on ending our reliance on the Russians for transportation to the space station as quickly as possible. The cost would be less and the returns greater.
I'd love to interview them, as opposed to publishing a pre-written statement type article.Never gonna happen, of course.
I'm glad to see that KBH and Bill Nelson care so much about not spending money on rockets that aren't likely to fly in a timely fashion. ~Jon
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 04/10/2012 12:21 amI'd love to interview them, as opposed to publishing a pre-written statement type article.Never gonna happen, of course.Have you asked recently? KBH is retiring soon, and not running for re-election, so she might be more open to an interview. Maybe someone who hangs out here could put in a good word...Mark S.
I'll try. I'm just thinking Senators only want print media (even though we could beat the numbers of the above paper 10 fold as it's non specific media. People never understand that a paper with a million readers does not mean a million people will read THAT article. A specific site with 100,000 readers will get most of them to read the article of the day.)
Thanks Mark. Helps that you're in Texas!
Quote from: jongoff on 04/10/2012 12:10 amI'm glad to see that KBH and Bill Nelson care so much about not spending money on rockets that aren't likely to fly in a timely fashion. ~JonCommercial crew is about spacecraft, not rockets. I have to agree about some kind of down select for CCiCap, we are getting to the fully integrated design phase here, and four companies are not all going to get a Commercial crew contract for a couple ISS flights a year.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say this is just more of ULA slowing down the industry so they can get their way. Atlas V is a horrible and expensive launcher for this and I'm yet to be convinced otherwise.SpaceX has been more friendly and open and giving of their own resources to invest into USA space capability. If ULA was the same they would have the CST-100 in the air rather than just lining shareholder pockets.
At one point, one of the boys asked, "Why has America given up on space flight?" The answer, of course, is that we're not giving up on space flight.
(0) The NASA bill was enacted with strong, bipartisan support and was followed last year by White House-congressional agreement on a responsible funding plan that set three priorities: (1), moving forward with the new heavy launch rocket and Orion crew capsule needed for deep space exploration; (2), completing the James Webb Space Telescope; ... and (3), partnering with private space companies on new vehicles to transport astronauts and cargo to the International Space Station.
If we are to move forward, we must avoid a false competition between our long-range space exploration goals - the moon, Mars and beyond - and commercialized ferrying of cargo and crew members to the space station.
NASA should consider identifying the strongest private firms at the earliest opportunity...
(1) If we reconfigure our priorities every few years, we will not reach our goals. Postponing our long-range space exploration program would be a terrible mistake, no less than remaining dependent on Russia to move our crew members to the space station.In spite of the very real fiscal challenges we face, the United States can - and must - support the (2) innovative space program that assures continuation of 50 years of leadership in space.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/09/4400460/americas-space-act-is-about-to.htmlQuoteNASA is currently funding four potential commercial crew providers. Moving forward, NASA needs to focus its investment on only those providers that are likely to be able to provide crew transportation services by 2017.NASA should consider identifying the strongest private firms at the earliest opportunity such that NASA's precious resources are focused on ending our reliance on the Russians for transportation to the space station as quickly as possible. The cost would be less and the returns greater.Presumably with some political definition of "likely".
Quote from: jongoff on 04/10/2012 12:10 amI'm glad to see that KBH and Bill Nelson care so much about not spending money on rockets that aren't likely to fly in a timely fashion. ~JonCommercial crew is about spacecraft, not rockets.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 04/10/2012 02:26 amQuote from: jongoff on 04/10/2012 12:10 amI'm glad to see that KBH and Bill Nelson care so much about not spending money on rockets that aren't likely to fly in a timely fashion. ~JonCommercial crew is about spacecraft, not rockets. CCiCap is an integrated system which includes more than just spacecrafts. In the case of ATK, I suspect that ATK will subcontract a spacecraft company for its Liberty LV under its CCiCap proposal. But even under CCDev-2, both ULA and ATK were awarded unfunded SAAs. So commercial crew never was just about spacecrafts.