Author Topic: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)  (Read 23651 times)

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #20 on: 02/24/2015 07:26 pm »
getting ready for the 2nd group
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1192
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #21 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?
« Last Edit: 02/24/2015 07:44 pm by PahTo »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2015 03:27 pm by Prober »
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline eric z

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 543
  • Liked: 472
  • Likes Given: 2121
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #23 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!

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2231
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #24 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.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #25 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. 
« Last Edit: 02/26/2015 10:26 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Prober

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10348
  • Save the spin....I'm keeping you honest!
  • Nevada
  • Liked: 721
  • Likes Given: 729
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #26 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.
2017 - Everything Old is New Again.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant..." --Isoroku Yamamoto

Offline UberNobody

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 127
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 55
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #27 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.

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4548
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #28 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
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2238
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #29 on: 02/25/2015 02:54 am »
When did Mike Massimino leave NASA? I obviously missed that announcement!?
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #30 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.

Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #31 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.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12092
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18181
  • Likes Given: 12139

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #33 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.

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #34 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.

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 862
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #35 on: 02/25/2015 01:18 pm »
Did you ever wonder why most folks are losing interest in HSF?

Pace
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 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.
« Last Edit: 02/27/2015 01:10 pm by muomega0 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17256
  • Liked: 7111
  • Likes Given: 3061
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #36 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.

Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #37 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.

Offline OpsAnalyst

Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #38 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?

Offline Borklund

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 560
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 140
Re: Senate subcommittee hearing (Feb. 24, 2015)
« Reply #39 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.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0