Senate Commerce Committee Executive and Congress Version - July 15 onwards

[robertross]

That's certainly a possibility, but then they are poor planners.

To be fair, you can put a number of countries (USA especially), and companies (like ULA) into that catagory.

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.

And the same could be said for investing in said company. Now everyone is playing catch-up. But that's a moot point now.

[Jim]

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.

That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.

[brihath]

There's been some talk about downmass capability after Shuttle retirement (or lack thereof) in this thread, so I found this article on spaceflightnow.com interesting:

Europe, Japan weigh cargo return from space station (http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1008/27cargoreturn/)

In it is some information about how both ESA and JAXA are studying/planning to add the cabaility to their ATV and HTV to return cargo through a capsule. Both are designs that could evolve into crew launchers eventually.

And that just goes to reinforce how valuable the shutte is for the ISS, and how critical downmass is. You don't embark on such an expensive venture unless there is a need.

Thanks for the link btw.

The problem is not just downmass from ISS, but how you do downmass.  The designs proposed by ESA or JAXA are capsule designs that can support return of experiment packages that can be loaded from the ISS interior.  Other items, such as large ORU's on the ISS exterior become more challenging, as they were specifically designed for Shuttle support, as Steve Lindsey mentioned during the Augustine Committee hearings.

We will not have the capability to return and refurbish items such as the recently failed ammonia pump module.  I haven't heard if ESA or JAXA are developing plans for those items.

[HappyMartian]

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.

That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.

If that was actually the view of the United Launch Alliance/EELV leadership folks, then they shouldn't complain if Elon Musk takes a big bite out of their market share. I respect the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance. I didn't understand how Elon Musk and the Falcon 9 launcher were going to compete with the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance.

If the President, Congress, and commercial customers want an all American rocket with a can-do company that is willing to pay for human rating its powerful launcher, maybe that is what Elon Musk will give them.

A company with limited vision suffers when things change. And things always change.

Cheers! 

[nooneofconsequence]

EELV would be at the top of the pile if they had invested their own money for Human Rating to the (then) NASA standards for Atlas and/or Delta. We might have had a different outcome.

That was not bad planning

There was no reason or incentive for them to do it.

If that was actually the view of the United Launch Alliance/EELV leadership folks, then they shouldn't complain if Elon Musk takes a big bite out of their market share. I respect the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance. I didn't understand how Elon Musk and the Falcon 9 launcher were going to compete with the Atlas launcher and the United Launch Alliance.

If the President, Congress, and commercial customers want an all American rocket with a can-do company that is willing to pay for human rating its powerful launcher, maybe that is what Elon Musk will give them.

A company with limited vision suffers when things change. And things always change.

Cheers! 

That's unfair.

The role ULA plays is very different and crucial. They provide reliable and predictable launch vehicle services for national security assets, unmanned interplanetary missions, and cost effective GTO/GSO. They have the best track record in this business, and have done it from the beginning. They are a national asset in that service.

They are also strung between two megacorps. This isn't an easy thing to do. But it does mean they can leverage massive resources too.

I'm a frequent critic of them. I'm ecstatic that Space-X and others provide them competition. My issues with them have to do with how they are managed due to the agreement that kept EELV's alive in the first place years back. I'm extremely pleased that they'd tighted up the footprint, that they've had the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots.

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

[robertross]

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

Again, this is all a moot point now.

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

But I digress. Flights of fancy of what might have been does not change the reality of now.

[M_Puckett]

MOOT Robert, MOOT.

[robertross]

Thanks, corrected.

[RocketEconomist327]

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?

[JosephB]

Interesting. Could anyone elaborate on the HR package?

EDIT: Does it relate to this?
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=31508

[HappyMartian]

That's unfair.


I'm extremely pleased that they'd tighted up the footprint, that they've had the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots.

nooneofconsequence's most famous words are, "no one is playing fair"...

Congress, the President, America, and the world need results. ULA has the best rockets, experience, and excuses. Both space and globalization are tough games. Space-X is trying hard, despite the stark fact that "no one is playing fair". 

Having "the balls to talk up an EELV lunar program using ACES and prop depots" means little unless ULA's parent companies are willing to walk the talk. Private money invested again and again in product improvement is one of the strengths of the competition game. Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing. Again and again and again. Lots of women are gutsy and have the balls that are needed to make their businesses successful. Lots of male CEOs and Boards of Directors could take some lessons from those female entrepreneurs who routinely take on real risks for the sake of generating a profit.

Jim has been writing for years about how the Atlas and Delta launchers could do many new and great things. It is true that they could, but they won't unless ULA competes full bore pedal to the metal. The Senate Commerce Committee and the the US economy should expect and actually see the can-do successes in space businesses that are needed to generate hope and confidence and those warm fuzzy feelings that can help us get through a patch of rough economic times.

It was Calvin Coolidge who noted, "The business of America is business." Stephen Hawking is a positive role model. If ULA and Space-X and NASA and each of us in our own little corner of the world push the envelope of what is possible as hard as Stephen Hawking does, we'll all feel pretty good about the future of our species and human spaceflight.

As Thomas Carlyle once noted, "So here hath been dawning a new blue day; think; wilt thou let it slip, useless, away?"

Cheers!

[Hop_David]

Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing.

Whether Musk's personal investment impresses Congress remains to be seen.

Until recently there were other vehicles approved for transporting humans. If the program of record has other plans, spending money to man rate an EELV wouldn't be an admirable show of initiative. Some congressmen might interpret it as a show of incompetence.

[HappyMartian]

Private money investments are what would impress Congress, the President, and commercial customers around the world. Real balls means you take the risk of failing.

 Some congressmen might interpret it as a show of incompetence.

And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

No guts, no glory. No foresight, no progress.   

Cheers!

[Hop_David]

And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

Eyup. Gabrielle Giffords sure seems impressed with Musk.

[HappyMartian]

And some business people and congresswomen might be impressed. Play for the ladies is what I say. The ladies will drag the men along.

Eyup. Gabrielle Giffords sure seems impressed with Musk.

We all might even be more impressed with ULA doing a full-court press to capture a larger share of the commercial space launch business.

Cheers!

Edited.

[Jim]

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?

There was no flight package, they just analyzed the data as though it was in a package.

[RocketEconomist327]

You  want to blame someone? Go back a few decades. But its unfair expecting them as a rational business WE DEPEND ON to wreck themselves for the whims of a not sane HSF that thrashes all over the place for decades.

<snip>

But notice that the last Atlas sent up had a HR package attached. Was that their own money? If it was, then apparently they want to join into the commercial crew market. But they could have done a while ago.

<snip>

Jim, know who paid for that?

There was no flight package, they just analyzed the data as though it was in a package.

tks^^

[OpsAnalyst]

In the end, however, there still is no real answer to the "gap" and the reliance on Soyuz as the only means of crew access for ANY of the partners. The ONLY short term answer for that between this time next year and whenever a new crew capability is available, whether NASA (SLS/MPCV) or commercial, is continued shuttle flights. You may recall that Senator Hutchison's bill introduced in March provided for the possibility of maintaining a two-flight-per-year option. I am still firmly convinced that could be accomplished for no more than $1.5 billion per year total cost; $2b per year at the max. But that simply is money that no one is willing, at this point, to provide as "new money", and so it would have to come out of the SLS/MPCV development, or Space and Earth Science, and none of those are acceptable options. That's one reason why that option did not carry into the Senate bill. But it remains, in my mind, to be an issue that we may well still have to seriously address (though NOT in this year's legislation) The recent failure highlighted that, and my guess is the ISS requirements analysis will likely suggest other steps might need to be taken.

But I personally believe it's a point that should be remembered as we move forward, that we do not have a perfect solution; we believe we have the best solution possible, however, under current circumstances.

Tried a couple of seconds ago to post - keyboard's dying; switched to new computer.  Apologies if you get garbage -

Question is back on topic - does anyone have any information about (or can 51D Mascot "speak" to) how negotiations are going during the recess?  Understand there's a reason not to broadcast them, but even a high-level characterization (going wel, challenging, etc.) if not problematic, would be of interest.  I defer, of course, to 51D Mascot's sense in this regard...

[yg1968]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

This Sentinel article seems more relevant to this thread (than the Direct thread). But to answer the question that was asked, this group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

[orbitjunkie]

Is this an attempt to remove the HLV funding from the conference bill?
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2010/08/nobel-laureates-and-astronauts-demand-changes-to-nasa-bill.html

<snip> this group of scientists seems to be lobbying the House to adopt a bill that is closer to the Senate bill.  I don't think that it says anything about the HLV.

[poorly informed speculation]
Based strictly on the text there, I would agree this isn't intrinsicly directed against HLV so much as it is directed towards tech dev and commercial crew. While it is true that destroying HLV is probably the only way to get their ideal funding level, it is also true that the House bill gives far less than the Senate bill to those goals (which of course is still far less than ObamaSpace). But it seems a bit telling to me that this effort is only directed at the House, not the Senate. That may suggest they can live with the Senate's version, but not the House's.

Surely they know that negotiations are (suposedly) currently underway and the House version will be moving towards the Senate's. Maybe this is just an attempt to make sure that happens?

Or maybe it is a hail-mary shot to try to get the House to advocate for FY11 and thus move the final bill even closer to FY11 than the Senate bill is!

Or perhaps they just want to be on the record for this issue.
[/poorly informed speculation]