NASASpaceFlight.com Forum

General Discussion => Space Policy Discussion => Topic started by: collectSPACE on 02/20/2015 03:06 pm

Title: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: collectSPACE on 02/20/2015 03:06 pm
Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness release
Sen. Cruz Calls Subcommittee Hearing on Space Exploration
Former NASA Astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Walt Cunningham, and Michael Massimino to Testify

Feb 24 2015 2:00 PM
Senate Russell Office Building - 253

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness, will convene a hearing on Tuesday, February 24, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. entitled "U.S. Human Exploration Goals and Commercial Space Competitiveness." Former NASA astronauts including Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon and the pilot of Apollo 11, and leaders in the commercial space industry will provide their testimony.

"I look forward to Tuesday's hearing, which will provide both the Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee and the American people a great opportunity to reflect on the past, analyze the present, and examine the future of space travel in the United States," said Cruz in calling the hearing. "We will look to ensure that NASA and commercial space have clear and consistent mission objectives and can continue to work alongside our international partners, but not be dependent on them. America should once again lead the way for the world in space exploration."
 
The hearing will examine the United States' goals in human space exploration, including the role of the commercial space industry and its contributions to U.S. global competitiveness. Among other issues, the hearing will discuss the importance of a sound exploration strategy that involves NASA, partnerships with international allies, and innovation and competitiveness in the U.S. commercial space sector. The hearing will also examine whether updates are needed to the Commercial Space Launch Act.

Panel I
* Col. Walt Cunningham (USMC, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot;
* Col. Buzz Aldrin (USAF, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 11 Pilot; and
* Mr. Michael Massimino, Former NASA Astronaut and Mission Specialist for Space Shuttle Program.

Panel II
* Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space Exploration;
* Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University; and
* Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation.

This hearing will take place in Senate Russell Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements and a live video of the hearing will be available on this page (http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=2b9c03d5-a170-4144-b8be-035bb36ca71b&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a).
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Mark S on 02/20/2015 10:24 pm
Wow, I am looking forward to watching this webcast. It could be quite a show.

1. Do you think Buzz will testify that we've already been to the Moon, so there is no need to go back?
2. It looks like they are loading up on pro-"old space" testimony.
3. I have no idea who Mr. Stallmer is, but with my computer background, my brain immediately formulated an unholy cross between Richard Stallman and Steve Ballmer.   :o

Cheers!
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: ChrisWilson68 on 02/20/2015 10:40 pm
I find it sad that when there's going to be a public discussion of space policy the people called up for the discussion are politicians, astronauts, aerospace executives, and academics.  How about giving engineers a seat at the table?  The engineers are the ones who make it all possible and who are likely to have the best grasp of what is practical.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: cro-magnon gramps on 02/20/2015 11:00 pm
I hope that this will not mean that Congress wishes to control Where, What, Why, and How Commercial Space conducts it's business...

 "We will look to ensure that NASA and commercial space have clear and consistent mission objectives and can continue to work alongside our international partners, but not be dependent on them. America should once again lead the way for the world in space exploration."
 
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: kch on 02/20/2015 11:02 pm

3. I have no idea who Mr. Stallmer is, but with my computer background, my brain immediately formulated an unholy cross between Richard Stallman and Steve Ballmer.   :o

http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2014/07/eric-stallmer-named-president-commercial-spaceflight-federation/ (http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/2014/07/eric-stallmer-named-president-commercial-spaceflight-federation/)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-at-the-top-eric-stallmer-is-new-commercial-spaceflight-federation-chief/2014/09/06/0125b62a-33b7-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/new-at-the-top-eric-stallmer-is-new-commercial-spaceflight-federation-chief/2014/09/06/0125b62a-33b7-11e4-a723-fa3895a25d02_story.html)

 :)
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:07 pm
lots of tall words about NASA
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:12 pm
Nelson in so many words....I warned the US about using Russia
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: JBF on 02/24/2015 06:14 pm
Again Sen. Cruz ignores NASA history, manned space flight was not the only priority assigned to NASA at the beginning.
Quote
Sec. 20112. Functions of the Administration

(a) Planning, Directing, and Conducting Aeronautical and Space Activities.--The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this chapter, shall--

    (1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;

    (2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;

    (3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;
    (4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and

    (5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.

(b) Research and Development in Certain Technologies.—

    (1) Ground propulsion technologies.--The Administration shall, to the extent of appropriated funds, initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstration, and other related activities in ground propulsion technologies as are provided for in sections 4 to 10 of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 2503 to 2509).

    (2) Solar heating and cooling technologies.--The Administration shall initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstrations, and other related activities in solar heating and cooling technologies (to the extent that funds are appropriated therefor) as are provided for in sections 5, 6, and 9 of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5503, 5504, 5507).
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:16 pm
Col. Walt Cunningham (USMC, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 7 Pilot

Mars is decades away....no national commitment
wow.....might need a reusable space shuttle, NASA can't close any of the NASA centers politics
Wants a change in the way NASA administrators are operated, not changing direction in 4 years.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:22 pm
Col. Buzz Aldrin (USAF, Ret.), Former NASA Astronaut and Apollo 11 Pilot

America must be the leader
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:29 pm
Mr. Michael Massimino, Former NASA Astronaut and Mission Specialist for Space Shuttle Program

talking about Hubble
the common goal worked bringing everyone together for the ISS
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:38 pm
NASA is risk adverse...
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 02/24/2015 06:39 pm
This is just amazing stuff (minus Buzz's cell going off)...

Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:45 pm
Buzz is excited and has a complete plan...
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:47 pm
mr kill joy....show me the money.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:54 pm
nice group pic...

Their Testimony
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 06:57 pm
can we wait until 2021 ?
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 07:01 pm
story of man vs unmanned booster
he preferred the dream chaser...
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 02/24/2015 07:12 pm
I cannot believe what I am hearing - its very good stuff.

I find myself comparing this to September 22, 2011.  This is that good.

And Senator Nelson is correct - Show me the money.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 07:13 pm
I could just listen to buzz .....he's great ;)
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 07:26 pm
getting ready for the 2nd group
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: PahTo on 02/24/2015 07:27 pm
I'm glad Col. Aldrin is calling on academia to come up with some plans/visions for how to get space exploration done, as it should be "non-biased".  I'm glad to see Col. Cunningham call out NASA's budget at .4% of spending, and that it needs to be substantially increased to do the things "we're talking about".  Still, I find this all to be just talk.  I welcome Senator Cruz calling the hearing, but to what end?  Action?  Increase in budget so we can begin to design missions and landers?  Or just talk?
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/24/2015 07:28 pm
2nd panel

* Mr. John Elbon, Vice President and General Manager, Boeing Space Exploration;
* Dr. Scott Pace, Director, Space Policy Institute, Elliott School of International Affairs, The George Washington University; and
* Mr. Eric Stallmer, President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: eric z on 02/24/2015 07:59 pm
 Personally, I find this all nonsense. Until we get some people working and living on the moon, doing science and researching the "Living-off-the-land" stuff everyone is always talking about,IMHO it's just hot air. This site has some of the smartest and most insightful minds on this side of the multiverse, but we can't get together on the simplest steps first? These committees should find some real-life space cadets to testify- we pay taxes, too!
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: RonM on 02/24/2015 08:09 pm
Personally, I find this all nonsense. Until we get some people working and living on the moon, doing science and researching the "Living-off-the-land" stuff everyone is always talking about,IMHO it's just hot air. This site has some of the smartest and most insightful minds on this side of the multiverse, but we can't get together on the simplest steps first? These committees should find some real-life space cadets to testify- we pay taxes, too!

It's all political theater until Congress decides to give NASA more money. Based on past performance, they won't.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/25/2015 12:40 am
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. I already knew this but it was nice to hear nevertheless. Cruz is also pro-SLS and Orion. In a nutshell, I expect that we will stay the course under Cruz' leadership. But he stressed the importance of the commercial sector. So I am hoping that will mean new commercial partnerships.

During the hearing Buzz made a comment that he didn't like the fact that Dream Chaser got downselected. I thought that was interesting. All of the astronauts seemed pro-commercial space which was refreshing. 
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/25/2015 01:01 am
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. I already knew this but it was nice to hear nevertheless. Cruz is also pro-SLS and Orion. In a nutshell, I expect that we will stay the course under Cruz leadership. But he stressed the importance of the commercial sector. So I am hoping that will mean new commercial partnerships.

During the hearing Buzz made a comment that he didn't like the fact that Dream Chaser got downselected. I thought that was interesting. All of the astronauts seemed pro-commercial space which was refreshing.

finish the thought; he didn't like it because Buzz felt we were going backward, not forward and the DC could land on a runway.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: UberNobody on 02/25/2015 01:48 am
Is there a video of the hearing?  I'd like to watch it, but I missed the live stream.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Rocket Science on 02/25/2015 02:06 am
Is there a video of the hearing?  I'd like to watch it, but I missed the live stream.
Here you go, enjoy! :)

http://www.c-span.org/video/?324519-1/hearing-future-us-space-exploration
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: MATTBLAK on 02/25/2015 02:54 am
When did Mike Massimino leave NASA? I obviously missed that announcement!?
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: guckyfan on 02/25/2015 06:04 am
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. 

Yes, but where does that lead to? If you gain your knowledge exclusively from this hearing then the mentioned robustness of CRS comes from the flexible reaction by Orbital to their launch failure. SpaceX not mentioned.

International competetiveness restored and strides towards reusability acknowledged. But again no mention of SpaceX. That competetiveness seems to come from Antares and Atlas V. Reusability comes into play through the Blue Origin methane engine.

Commercial Crew consists of CST-100 on Atlas V. No mention of SpaceX. Only Aldrins remark that it is a shame that two capsules were selected and DreamChaser was left out.

Only in the very last statement on the hearing was the existence of SpaceX mentioned. If I remember correctly without anything in particular attributed to them.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Borklund on 02/25/2015 07:57 am
It's almost as if the establishment doesn't really believe what it is saying, and that it has strong preferences over who should get money for what, based on their own narrow vested interests and not the greater interests of the nation, or in service of exploring space in a sensible way.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: woods170 on 02/25/2015 11:12 am
When did Mike Massimino leave NASA? I obviously missed that announcement!?
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/july/astronaut-mike-massimino-departs-nasa-for-university-position/#.VO27_0Ci1lc
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Hauerg on 02/25/2015 11:20 am
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. 

Yes, but where does that lead to? If you gain your knowledge exclusively from this hearing then the mentioned robustness of CRS comes from the flexible reaction by Orbital to their launch failure. SpaceX not mentioned.

International competetiveness restored and strides towards reusability acknowledged. But again no mention of SpaceX. That competetiveness seems to come from Antares and Atlas V. Reusability comes into play through the Blue Origin methane engine.

Commercial Crew consists of CST-100 on Atlas V. No mention of SpaceX. Only Aldrins remark that it is a shame that two capsules were selected and DreamChaser was left out.

Only in the very last statement on the hearing was the existence of SpaceX mentioned. If I remember correctly without anything in particular attributed to them.
That might have something to do with the fact/fear that SpaceX might make the gvt space programm obsolete within decades. So spaceX is a threat to them. Orbital and Boeing not so much.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 02/25/2015 12:20 pm
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. 

Yes, but where does that lead to? If you gain your knowledge exclusively from this hearing then the mentioned robustness of CRS comes from the flexible reaction by Orbital to their launch failure. SpaceX not mentioned.

International competetiveness restored and strides towards reusability acknowledged. But again no mention of SpaceX. That competetiveness seems to come from Antares and Atlas V. Reusability comes into play through the Blue Origin methane engine.

Commercial Crew consists of CST-100 on Atlas V. No mention of SpaceX. Only Aldrins remark that it is a shame that two capsules were selected and DreamChaser was left out.

Only in the very last statement on the hearing was the existence of SpaceX mentioned. If I remember correctly without anything in particular attributed to them.
That might have something to do with the fact/fear that SpaceX might make the gvt space programm obsolete within decades. So spaceX is a threat to them. Orbital and Boeing not so much.


I think you're reading much too much into comments or lack thereof in a single hearing.

The point of a hearing is to get various arguments, points of view, positions, etc., read into the Congressional record and discussed in public.  Once in the record it becomes part of a broader collection of data - including letters, documents such as position papers, meetings, etc., that inform Members about an issue and provide staff with reference material for later development of policy, legislation, or in the case of particular Members, position that their staffs might recommend to them.

Cruz made a point of saying that Texas is home to a variety of commercial space companies ...this includes SpaceX.  Just because the company wasn't front and center in this single hearing doesn't mean that anything nefarious was afoot.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: muomega0 on 02/25/2015 01:18 pm
Did you ever wonder why most folks are losing interest in HSF?

Pace (http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e97c713-8642-4e75-b999-48ee31751b51)
Sending humans to an asteroid was a surprise.  Congressional Authorizations in 2005 and 2008 said moon first.  The internationals were blindsided.   Extend ISS to 2028 when it reaches it's life limit.  Space tourism will not be stable enough by 2020.  SLS/Orion and 130mt is highly beneficial for a return to moon, and lacking such a capability would mean multiple orbital assembly flights at substantial additional costs and risk.
The answer is the moon-with Mars and other destinations in the distance.   Congress should direct NASA to return to the moon.  Commercial cargo delivery to the lunar surface would be an attractive post-ISS market to the industry that for the ISS could ever be..
----- other comments:
Regulations are holding commercial back.  Should not move abruptly away from Atlas.  Delta could serve as a backup to Atlas.
======
Impression:
Not much on Competition (which means duplication).    Space policy of keeping everything separate (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36013.msg1284318#msg1284318) continues:  those who operate and provide logistics for ISS would operate and provide logistics to the lunar surface.  they do value and appreciate the folks working in space (so they have moved way left as long as its in their interests)

Quite different from other plans.  LEO Depot, advance R&D, BEO missions, at least one new major market. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35839.msg1271161#msg1271161)
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: yg1968 on 02/25/2015 01:31 pm
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition. 

Yes, but where does that lead to? If you gain your knowledge exclusively from this hearing then the mentioned robustness of CRS comes from the flexible reaction by Orbital to their launch failure. SpaceX not mentioned.

International competetiveness restored and strides towards reusability acknowledged. But again no mention of SpaceX. That competetiveness seems to come from Antares and Atlas V. Reusability comes into play through the Blue Origin methane engine.

Commercial Crew consists of CST-100 on Atlas V. No mention of SpaceX. Only Aldrins remark that it is a shame that two capsules were selected and DreamChaser was left out.

Only in the very last statement on the hearing was the existence of SpaceX mentioned. If I remember correctly without anything in particular attributed to them.
That might have something to do with the fact/fear that SpaceX might make the gvt space programm obsolete within decades. So spaceX is a threat to them. Orbital and Boeing not so much.


I think you're reading much too much into comments or lack thereof in a single hearing.

The point of a hearing is to get various arguments, points of view, positions, etc., read into the Congressional record and discussed in public.  Once in the record it becomes part of a broader collection of data - including letters, documents such as position papers, meetings, etc., that inform Members about an issue and provide staff with reference material for later development of policy, legislation, or in the case of particular Members, position that their staffs might recommend to them.

Cruz made a point of saying that Texas is home to a variety of commercial space companies ...this includes SpaceX.  Just because the company wasn't front and center in this single hearing doesn't mean that anything nefarious was afoot.

Yes I agree and I think that SpaceX wasn't invited because this was a hearing on space exploration (not just commercial crew). Boeing is involved in both SLS and commercial crew. So it made sense to invite them.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Borklund on 02/25/2015 02:48 pm
[snark]Oh you mean SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies Corporation? The company that ultimately wants to send people to Mars? The company that is tantalisingly close to flying a man-rated, partially reusable, super heavy launch vehicle? I can't imagine what they could bring to the table, if they were brought to the table. Oh well.[/snark]

I agree that it makes sense to invite Boeing. It does not make sense to not invite SpaceX.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 02/25/2015 03:31 pm
[snark]Oh you mean SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies Corporation? The company that ultimately wants to send people to Mars? The company that is tantalisingly close to flying a man-rated, partially reusable, super heavy launch vehicle? I can't imagine what they could bring to the table, if they were brought to the table. Oh well.[/snark]

I agree that it makes sense to invite Boeing. It does not make sense to not invite SpaceX.

Do you know that they weren't invited?
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Borklund on 02/25/2015 03:50 pm
No :-[ But I'm not going to let something like that get in the way of my faux outrage.

Joking aside, even if they were invited, they were only mentioned by name once, in passing, during the whole thing. That tells you something, like for example that lawmakers seem dead set on SLS being the one and only part of the launch vehicle puzzle for NASA going into deep space.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: OpsAnalyst on 02/25/2015 07:48 pm
No :-[ But I'm not going to let something like that get in the way of my faux outrage.

Joking aside, even if they were invited, they were only mentioned by name once, in passing, during the whole thing. That tells you something, like for example that lawmakers seem dead set on SLS being the one and only part of the launch vehicle puzzle for NASA going into deep space.

Of course the Members support SLS, it is the law.

Beyond that the hearing tells you the following:
It tells you that Cruz is on record as a strong supporter of NASA human space exploration.
It tells you he supports commercial crew/cargo.
It tells you he supports commercial space companies, particularly those doing business in Texas (includes SpaceX)
It tells you he buys into the idea that a strong HSE program is important for national/international competitiveness.
It tells you that right now there is strong bipartisan agreement supporting NASA HSE in this committee (very important), though it is future hearings that will tell us more about the nature of bipartisan support for all other aspects of NASA's mission
It tells you (most of all) that it was Cruz's first hearing as Chair and he used it as a _first_ hearing to start fleshing out the general policy outlines he intends to color between.

The rest of this is a tempest in a teapot.  But people see what they want to see.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/26/2015 03:04 pm
No :-[ But I'm not going to let something like that get in the way of my faux outrage.

Joking aside, even if they were invited, they were only mentioned by name once, in passing, during the whole thing. That tells you something, like for example that lawmakers seem dead set on SLS being the one and only part of the launch vehicle puzzle for NASA going into deep space.

Of course the Members support SLS, it is the law.

Beyond that the hearing tells you the following:
It tells you that Cruz is on record as a strong supporter of NASA human space exploration.
It tells you he supports commercial crew/cargo.
It tells you he supports commercial space companies, particularly those doing business in Texas (includes SpaceX)
It tells you he buys into the idea that a strong HSE program is important for national/international competitiveness.
It tells you that right now there is strong bipartisan agreement supporting NASA HSE in this committee (very important), though it is future hearings that will tell us more about the nature of bipartisan support for all other aspects of NASA's mission
It tells you (most of all) that it was Cruz's first hearing as Chair and he used it as a _first_ hearing to start fleshing out the general policy outlines he intends to color between.

The rest of this is a tempest in a teapot.  But people see what they want to see.

good sum up...
would also add those who wanted more SpaceX; should note that the 2nd panel had a rep of "commercial"
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2015 09:38 pm
No :-[ But I'm not going to let something like that get in the way of my faux outrage.

Joking aside, even if they were invited, they were only mentioned by name once, in passing, during the whole thing. That tells you something, like for example that lawmakers seem dead set on SLS being the one and only part of the launch vehicle puzzle for NASA going into deep space.

Of course the Members support SLS, it is the law.

Beyond that the hearing tells you the following:
It tells you that Cruz is on record as a strong supporter of NASA human space exploration.
It tells you he supports commercial crew/cargo.
It tells you he supports commercial space companies, particularly those doing business in Texas (includes SpaceX)
It tells you he buys into the idea that a strong HSE program is important for national/international competitiveness.
It tells you that right now there is strong bipartisan agreement supporting NASA HSE in this committee (very important), though it is future hearings that will tell us more about the nature of bipartisan support for all other aspects of NASA's mission
It tells you (most of all) that it was Cruz's first hearing as Chair and he used it as a _first_ hearing to start fleshing out the general policy outlines he intends to color between.

The rest of this is a tempest in a teapot.  But people see what they want to see.

Well said, and a good summary. The "good news" is the fact that the field of so-called "commercial space" (remembering of course, that throughout its history, NASA has used commercial companies as contractors for 80-90% of its program expenditures, but using the term in its recent conventional usage) has grown to the point where in a hearing context, with limited time and thus limited opportunities for witnesses (usually they like one panel with no more than 5, or two panels with 3 or 4 apiece) the Committee was able to turn to the "Trade Association" for input from that "sector." In this case, it was Eric Stallmer, representing the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, of which SpaceX is a key member. SpaceX's senior Washington rep was sitting right behind Mike Massimino, and looked quite satisfied throughout the hearing whenever caught on camera (I was watching the webcast from the comfort of my favorite easy chair). Same with Michael Lopez-Alegria, Eric's predecessor in that job. Eric's written statement (as opposed to the five-minute oral summary all witnesses are asked to actually present), submitted for the record, likely detailed SpaceX progress, among other CSF members, though that's a guess until I can get a copy.)
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Blackstar on 02/26/2015 10:20 pm
Well said, and a good summary. The "good news" is the fact that the field of so-called "commercial space" (remembering of course, that throughout its history, NASA has used commercial companies as contractors for 80-90% of its program expenditures, but using the term in its recent conventional usage) has grown to the point where in a hearing context, with limited time and thus limited opportunities for witnesses (usually they like one panel with no more than 5, or two panels with 3 or 4 apiece) the Committee was able to turn to the "Trade Association" for input from that "sector." In this case, it was Eric Stallmer, representing the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, of which SpaceX is a key member. SpaceX's senior Washington rep was sitting right behind Mike Massimino, and looked quite satisfied throughout the hearing whenever caught on camera (I was watching the webcast from the comfort of my favorite easy chair). Same with Michael Lopez-Alegria, Eric's predecessor in that job. Eric's written statement (as opposed to the five-minute oral summary all witnesses are asked to actually present), submitted for the record, likely detailed SpaceX progress, among other CSF members, though that's a guess until I can get a copy.)

And as I know that you know, there's a reason why people ask trade or industry association reps to do these things, because if you ask one company, you will get complaints from all the companies that you did not ask. So if they had SpaceX, they would also have to invite ULA and Orbital (and then Boeing would complain because although they are part of ULA, they also make capsules, like Orbital and SpaceX, and so on). And they would probably then get complaints from others lower down the supply chain as well--"Why didn't you invite Aerojet? Or Amalgamated Rocket and Machine Tools Company?"

As this board demonstrates, you can't make everybody happy. Somebody will always complain.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: AnalogMan on 02/26/2015 10:32 pm
[...] In this case, it was Eric Stallmer, representing the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, of which SpaceX is a key member. SpaceX's senior Washington rep was sitting right behind Mike Massimino, and looked quite satisfied throughout the hearing whenever caught on camera (I was watching the webcast from the comfort of my favorite easy chair). Same with Michael Lopez-Alegria, Eric's predecessor in that job. Eric's written statement (as opposed to the five-minute oral summary all witnesses are asked to actually present), submitted for the record, likely detailed SpaceX progress, among other CSF members, though that's a guess until I can get a copy.)

Written statement attached.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Tea Party Space Czar on 02/27/2015 12:21 am
This was such an amazing hearing.  I need to chop some of the statements and post them.  I have downloaded the hearing.

I do not understand, by some, why SpaceX needs to have front row billing at everything.  Quite frankly, I am quite happy to NOT have them testifying but instead launching rockets.

Moreover, as we move closer to F9R I can promise you that landing a core will "lobby" quite nicely.  You have officials on record saying that this wasn't possible and yet, it is being done.

Commercial is adequately funded.  No reason to worry.

Finally, Senator Cruz did a lot to dismiss the fear mongering by some.  I think fans of commercial and SLS will be happy.

Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser

PS Senator Nelson is right - show me the money.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/27/2015 01:49 am
This was such an amazing hearing.  I need to chop some of the statements and post them.  I have downloaded the hearing.

I haven't had time to watch the hearing, so I appreciate whatever you can provide.  Thanks in advance.

Quote
I do not understand, by some, why SpaceX needs to have front row billing at everything.  Quite frankly, I am quite happy to NOT have them testifying but instead launching rockets.

I am a SpaceX fan too, so I understand the comments.  That said, for this hearing at least it was not material.

Quote
Moreover, as we move closer to F9R I can promise you that landing a core will "lobby" quite nicely.  You have officials on record saying that this wasn't possible and yet, it is being done.

Quite right.

Quote
Commercial is adequately funded.  No reason to worry.

While Commercial Cargo is fully funded through the ISS budget, Commercial Crew is not fully funded.  And from what I can tell nothing in this hearing looked liked that was going to change.  Apparently Senator Cruz is not concerned about sending money to Mr. Putin either - I was hoping he would show more support for the home team...

Quote
Finally, Senator Cruz did a lot to dismiss the fear mongering by some.  I think fans of commercial and SLS will be happy.
...
PS Senator Nelson is right - show me the money.

The fear, for some of us at least, is that he would not recognize that NASA is currently too underfunded to use the SLS.  If the FY2016 House budget for NASA is passed as is then that means there is only 6 short years to fund, design & develop, build & test an SLS-sized payload for the first operational SLS mission, which should be in 2022.

Just go look at any of the complex payloads NASA has been building to see how unlikely it is that NASA can build someone SLS-sized in 6 years.

And it's not just a payload or mission for 2022, but 2023, 2024, 2025 and on.  There is no funding for the stream of payloads and missions that supposedly were crying out for a government-owned HLV.  So if anything Senator Cruz confirmed my worst fears of not recognizing the massive disconnect between the ambitions the SLS represents, and the fiscal realities that Congress imposes on NASA.

Senator Nelson is as guilty as anyone for pushing the SLS, but his "show me the money" quote is accurate.  When will Senator Cruz decide to either massively increase NASA's budget or cut a program that has lots of Texas jobs?
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: RonM on 02/27/2015 02:03 am
I watched the hearing and it was a good one. Encouraging, except that unless Congress gives NASA more money, nothing will happen.

I think it is funny Senator Nelson said  "show me the money." No Senator, you show us the money. The lack of payloads for SLS and any future NASA Mars program is the fault of Congress.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2015 03:32 am
A few other comments about hearings and how they figure in the deliberations of the Congressional committees and in the conveying of information to Members and staff. As Mary Lynne mentioned in a post, a key function is to make a record that eventually serves to document some portion of the fact-finding functions of the Congress. Eventually, the hearings are published and copies can be obtained from the Committee, and often are distributed to selected libraries around the country. That's mostly for historical/archival reference. In more "real time," there is typically the following kind of dissemination of information:

First, there is a document called a "Hearing Memo" (the term generally used in the Senate, and generally an internal document, not generally published; in the House, they typically use a "Hearing Charter", published in advance of the hearing by the Majority, which provides an overview of the purpose and content of the upcoming hearing.) In the Senate, each side does its own hearing memo, and they are generally fairly extensive and detailed papers, which not only outline the purpose for the hearing, and describe the witnesses and what they each can be expected (or have been asked) to discuss, but also provide some historical context for the issues within the subject of the hearing, previous legislative history, and current matters of expected interest to committee members. They are generally pretty informative and, frankly, often used by professional Committee staff to help bring Committee Members' personal staff, who may not specialize in the subject matter of the Committee, "up to speed" on the issues. They are distributed a few days in advance to each of the Committee or Subcommittee Members, via their designated staff contact for the Committee.

Secondly, the witnesses are asked to provide their written testimony at least 24 hours (sometimes 48) in advance of the hearing, and these are distributed to all Committee members' staff. They use them to expand their understanding of the issues and the various points the witnesses intend to make, and to prepare questions for their Members to ask during the hearing, to press for more information, or to underscore a particular point they think is important.

Thirdly, after the hearing, there is generally a two-week period during which Members can submit "Questions for the Record," (QFR's) to each of the witnesses. These are generally questions deriving from comments made by witnesses during the hearing, where more clarification is wanted, or are drawn from the list of questions prepared in advance of the hearing but not actually asked during the hearing. (Most Members have a large number of questions prepared by staff in advance, but the dynamics of the hearing often mean they only select a very few that seem most pertinent to them to ask; so the rest are often sent as "QFRs). The responses to these questions often provide a lot of good information that was not able o be brought out or discussed in the hearing itself. These are circulated to Committee Members' staff and included in the formal printed hearing record. These include items where a witness may have indicated during the hearing that they would submit documentation for the record which they may not have been prepared to address during the hearing.

Finally, there is the official transcript of the hearing, which arrives within a week or so of the hearing and is used to go through and correct misspellings of names, explanation of technical terms, etc., that the official stenographers mis-hear or misunderstand, etc. But they do serve to help the staff "re-experience" the hearing and reinforce their recollection and comprehension of what took place and what was said and by whom. These are not generally circulated, but witnesses (and Committee Members) are provided sections where their comments are included, and given the chance to suggest corrections for accuracy. All these are then incorporated into the final official hearing document submitted for publication.

Point is, there is a lot more to these hearings than just what meets the eye and they do perform a valuable role in the legislative process.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Jeff Bingham on 02/27/2015 05:52 am
[...] In this case, it was Eric Stallmer, representing the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, of which SpaceX is a key member. SpaceX's senior Washington rep was sitting right behind Mike Massimino, and looked quite satisfied throughout the hearing whenever caught on camera (I was watching the webcast from the comfort of my favorite easy chair). Same with Michael Lopez-Alegria, Eric's predecessor in that job. Eric's written statement (as opposed to the five-minute oral summary all witnesses are asked to actually present), submitted for the record, likely detailed SpaceX progress, among other CSF members, though that's a guess until I can get a copy.)

Written statement attached.

A good read!
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Prober on 02/27/2015 03:41 pm
[...] In this case, it was Eric Stallmer, representing the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, of which SpaceX is a key member. SpaceX's senior Washington rep was sitting right behind Mike Massimino, and looked quite satisfied throughout the hearing whenever caught on camera (I was watching the webcast from the comfort of my favorite easy chair). Same with Michael Lopez-Alegria, Eric's predecessor in that job. Eric's written statement (as opposed to the five-minute oral summary all witnesses are asked to actually present), submitted for the record, likely detailed SpaceX progress, among other CSF members, though that's a guess until I can get a copy.)

Written statement attached.

A good read!

First panel reading material    http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=36843.msg1336662#msg1336662

2nd panel
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Blackstar on 02/27/2015 06:36 pm
And it's not just a payload or mission for 2022, but 2023, 2024, 2025 and on.  There is no funding for the stream of payloads and missions that supposedly were crying out for a government-owned HLV.  So if anything Senator Cruz confirmed my worst fears of not recognizing the massive disconnect between the ambitions the SLS represents, and the fiscal realities that Congress imposes on NASA.

Senator Nelson is as guilty as anyone for pushing the SLS, but his "show me the money" quote is accurate.  When will Senator Cruz decide to either massively increase NASA's budget or cut a program that has lots of Texas jobs?

It is nonsensical to expect the first public hearing of this committee under a new chairman to deal with issues 8-10 years out. That's not how the Senate works, it's not how the U.S. government works.

Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Blackstar on 02/27/2015 06:45 pm
Every so often I'll watch a movie and some character goes and testifies in front of a committee or meets with a senator and I cringe at how Congress is portrayed. I've seen movies where senators are telling military personnel or covert operatives what missions to undertake--as if a senator commands anything other than his own staff. They don't have executive control over anything. Any employee of the federal government, unless they explicitly work for the Congress, works for the executive branch.* Thus, anything that Congress tells them to do they don't follow unless: a) their bosses in the executive branch tell them to follow it, and/or b) that command gets turned into a law.

What lots of people don't seem to get is that congressional hearings serve several purposes. These are:

-theater: perform for the TV cameras, media, and constituents
-information gathering
-discussion/debate (in many ways a combination of the first two)

They are not really legislating. They're not writing bills or voting in hearings (well, they can vote depending upon what they're doing, but that's not really the purpose of hearings). Hearings are the public face of congressional action. Most of the real work, the hard work, takes place behind closed doors, in offices and meeting rooms. And often most of it is being done by staff that you have never heard of, some of the people who can occasionally be seen sitting behind the politicians at the hearings.


















*I once worked for the Congressional Budget Office. Whenever I fill out a form that asks if I have ever worked for the "federal government" I end up scratching my head. Well, I worked for Congress...
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: muomega0 on 02/27/2015 07:04 pm
Pace: SLS/Orion and 130mt is highly beneficial for a return to moon, and lacking such a capability would mean multiple orbital assembly flights at substantial additional costs and risk. (http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/?a=Files.Serve&File_id=8e97c713-8642-4e75-b999-48ee31751b51)
Quite different from other plans.  LEO Depot, advance R&D, BEO missions, at least one new major market. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35839.msg1271161#msg1271161)
This was such an amazing hearing. 
... and given the chance to suggest corrections for accuracy.
Point is, there is a lot more to these hearings than just what meets the eye and they do perform a valuable role in the legislative process.
Q:  is the value to misinform the general public?

For example, a key flaw in ESAS was Automated Rendezvous and Docking Risk
"The goal of the analysis was to eliminate all “3-launch solutions” and better optimize each of the mission mode options" based on 1.5% chance of catastrophic AR&D failure, which does not reflect decades of actual experience. (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34115.msg1170017#msg1170017)
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Coastal Ron on 02/27/2015 07:59 pm
And it's not just a payload or mission for 2022, but 2023, 2024, 2025 and on.  There is no funding for the stream of payloads and missions that supposedly were crying out for a government-owned HLV.  So if anything Senator Cruz confirmed my worst fears of not recognizing the massive disconnect between the ambitions the SLS represents, and the fiscal realities that Congress imposes on NASA.

Senator Nelson is as guilty as anyone for pushing the SLS, but his "show me the money" quote is accurate.  When will Senator Cruz decide to either massively increase NASA's budget or cut a program that has lots of Texas jobs?

It is nonsensical to expect the first public hearing of this committee under a new chairman to deal with issues 8-10 years out. That's not how the Senate works, it's not how the U.S. government works.

Would agree that taking action in the first meeting would be too much to expect.  However Senator Cruz has been a member of this committee previously, so it's not like he wouldn't be familiar with the various issues NASA faces.

My point was that this hearing did nothing to show that this committee recognizes that there is a massive disconnect between what NASA is tasked to do and what NASA is funded to do.  So solving that problem was not my expectation, but acknowledging that a train wreck is coming would have assuaged my fears.  Needless to say, my fears were not assuaged by that bipartisan committee hearing.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: Blackstar on 02/27/2015 11:03 pm
But committee meetings are mostly theater. The only question is how much theater compared to actual information-gathering and position forming? Fifty percent? Ninety? I've attended a lot of hearings and watched a lot more. (And in fact, I've written congressional testimony for about half a dozen people appearing before these kinds of committees, but that's a separate post.) It's rare that I learn anything factual from them that I could not get from other sources (reading, talking to people, attending conferences). They're usually information light. The biggest value out of them is that at best you'll get statements of positions, less actual information or clear indications of what will happen in the future. I didn't find this hearing terribly impressive or informative beyond the fact that it provided us with Cruz's general positions on the subject--something that, as Ops has pointed out above, is quite valuable.

And my general impression is that a lot of politicians don't think about these issues much until they actually hold the hearing. They might not have a heck of a lot of knowledge about the subject. Hopefully their staff does. You'd be shocked at how smart some of the staffers are.

You're not going to get specifics out of these kinds of things. You are much more likely to get specifics out of interviews. What I'm hoping happens is that Space News does a sit-down interview with Cruz and asks more specific questions.
Title: Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
Post by: vulture4 on 03/02/2015 01:00 am
Everyone likes to be on the winning team. If Commercial Crew in general and SpaceX in particular continue to make progress at a rate that hasn't been seen since the Sixties, I would guess the members of Congress who have attacked them so persistently will soon act like they were supporters all alone.