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.
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).
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 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.
Is there a video of the hearing? I'd like to watch it, but I missed the live stream.
It was a positive hearing. It was nice to see that Senator Cruz is pro-commercial crew and pro-competition.
When did Mike Massimino leave NASA? I obviously missed that announcement!?
Quote from: yg1968 on 02/25/2015 12:40 amIt 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.
Quote from: guckyfan on 02/25/2015 06:04 amQuote from: yg1968 on 02/25/2015 12:40 amIt 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.
Quote from: Hauerg on 02/25/2015 11:20 amQuote from: guckyfan on 02/25/2015 06:04 amQuote from: yg1968 on 02/25/2015 12:40 amIt 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.
[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.
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.
Quote from: Borklund on 02/25/2015 03:50 pmNo 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 missionIt 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.)
[...] 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.)
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....PS Senator Nelson is right - show me the money.
Quote from: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2015 09:38 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.
Quote from: AnalogMan on 02/26/2015 10:32 pmQuote from: Jeff Bingham on 02/26/2015 09:38 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!
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?
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.Quite different from other plans. LEO Depot, advance R&D, BEO missions, at least one new major market.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 02/27/2015 01:49 amAnd 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.