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.