Quote from: JFFrom:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdfQuoteThe Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever. Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it. All Cretans are liars.Just to be clear I was more talking about the engineering design than how it would be funded or the contract supervised. ...
From:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdfQuoteThe Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever. Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it. All Cretans are liars.
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.
no a sidemount design would have been the excellent transition, with a Direct follow on a maybe. We would be operational now.
Somebody does not want his problem (crew to ISS) solved.
Quote from: Sean Lynch on 06/09/2014 05:37 pmSenate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:QuoteBolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."I've had to re start viewing this a few times to calm down. I think it would be interesting to picture what would happen if Shelby posted on NSF."Seemingly unlimited federal resources" for commercial crew. "Budget cuts" for SLS.You'd have to ban him for blatant trolling.
Senate May 1st CJS Appropriations meeting:QuoteBolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
...Shelby asked about [how] soon Commercial Crew providers could take over from Russia if unlimited funding was available for them ...
NASA has the ability and competency to do all of these programs well, it just doesn't have the budget to do so.
... North Carolina passed a bill limiting the amount of Sea Level rise climate change models used in the state could predict. After public embarrassment the bill went unsigned by the Governor.
I don't believe NASA was using JCL budgeting when the Shuttle was in development. To answer the question, one would probably need to retrospectively construct a 70% JCL. If I recall correctly, though, cost overruns on the Shuttle's development (though not it operations) were modest, at least by the standards of cutting-edge technology programs. If that's right, it might tend to suggest that the Shuttle was budgeted at a fairly high JCL.
I get the impression that the good senator could care less if ISS goes away in 2020 since they are not using his launch vehicle of choice. Once that happens all the funds can go to evolve the “Shelby Launch System”.....
At least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here. Did he listen to anyone but himself? Will he respond to fact based objections? Nahh.
Shelby will not post here; his position is indefensible, and he could not make any rational line of reasoning to support the positions he is taking, and would, in an ideal instance of the universe, have to admit the false premises underlying his virtually complete track record in his long term evisceratiion our nation's HSF capabilities, not to mention a good possibility of not getting any such capability back within the next few decades.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:20 pmAt least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here. Did he listen to anyone but himself? Will he respond to fact based objections? Nahh.TBF he did respond a few times. I'm not sure if they were to substantive questions however.QuoteShelby will not post here; his position is indefensible, and he could not make any rational line of reasoning to support the positions he is taking, and would, in an ideal instance of the universe, have to admit the false premises underlying his virtually complete track record in his long term evisceratiion our nation's HSF capabilities, not to mention a good possibility of not getting any such capability back within the next few decades.His "rationale" can be summed up in 2 words. "Marshall" and "Decata," with a side order of Alabama U. (go "The Crimson Tide" What )I'm fairly sure he <irritating redaction of relatively mild profanity> less about if the rest of NASA imploded as long as they, and the centres that support them, were preserved (Yes I'm aware Decata is not a NASA facility).Keep in mind that that is exactly in line with his responsibilities of keeping the cash flowing to his state. It's what the people who employ him want.Wheather it's in line with his responsibilities for the good of the nation as a whole is another matter. I thought members of Congress were meant to swear some kind of oath to support the whole nation, not just the region they were elected to represent, but my education on that side of things has been fairly minimal.The Space Access Society are more charitable. They feel a lot of this is that members of Congress basically still see NASA though the rose tinted backvision of the mid 1960's, when every mission was an exploration missions, as so little was known the environment (both LEO and Lunar) and how well (if?) the equipment they had bee issued with would function.So if people want a more sensible space programme (and a better NASA) I guess they have to engage with their bit of Congress, find out what they think about NASA and start to (gently) correct their misconceptions ("No sir 'Armageddon' was not a dramatization of real events") about it. One Senator can stop the Shelby amendments cold. It all begins with one.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 06/11/2014 01:20 pmAt least Mr. Sowers screwed up enough courage to post his viewpoint here. Did he listen to anyone but himself? Will he respond to fact based objections? Nahh.TBF he did respond a few times. I'm not sure if they were to substantive questions however.
This kind of “monkey business” has been going on since 1776...
In a policy statement issued today, the White House took issue with two objectives near and dear to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): crippling NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and boosting its Space Launch System (SLS). >
Good read. Hopefully it influences those working on the final Senate version and conference report.Link....QuoteIn a policy statement issued today, the White House took issue with two objectives near and dear to Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): crippling NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and boosting its Space Launch System (SLS). >
policy statement attached from:http://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/06/17/white-house-washington-times-both-criticize-senate-commercial-crew-language/
The Senate provides no specific FY 2015 funding for a mission to Europe, which is believed to have a substantial ocean beneath its frozen surface.
I also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crewhttp://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-lossThis isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either. I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way?