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.