Author Topic: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech  (Read 382311 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #520 on: 04/20/2010 12:16 pm »

Let's just get this on record. You are claiming that the EELVs are human rated to NASA 1.4?

Show the requirement for it.  It is not in NPR 8705.2B.  It was removed when Ares I couldn't meet it.

And what says that 1.4 is needed for human rating vs 1.25?  It is an arbitrary number. 
« Last Edit: 04/20/2010 12:18 pm by Jim »

Offline Cog_in_the_machine

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1232
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #521 on: 04/20/2010 12:21 pm »
This is the exact question that A LOT of us, including many in the Congress, asked the day that the Obama budget came out.

I asked this before but didn't get an answer:
Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess? Aren't the congressmen that haven't been vocal also a factor in the decision? I really want to know since it seems somewhat important to me.
^^ Warning! Contains opinions. ^^ 

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #522 on: 04/20/2010 12:31 pm »
I asked this before but didn't get an answer:
Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess?

Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, Arizona and more.


Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1409
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #523 on: 04/20/2010 12:40 pm »
In reading some of the post on here stating how shuttle is too expensive, commercial is so much cheaper, etc. I'm going to try to clarify my point that I'm trying to make here.

I'm not advocating anyway that shuttle would be cheaper that commercial. I'm not even trying to argue cost here. That is an area way outside of my area of knowledge. I'm trying to speak, again, from a common sense standpoint. Why would you stop operating your primary supply vessel, when you have personnel in space that depend on being supplied with consumables and parts, and put all of your faith that these other options, with their good faith promises of this much capability by this time at this cost, will be able to step up to the plate and deliver as promised? I seem to recall that the shuttle itself had it's own promises that fell short (30+ launches a year, cheap to maIntain and operate, safe enough to carry congressmen and passengers, etc.) shuttle even dabbled in commercial itself pre-Challenger. For an agency that prides itself in putting soooo much emphasis on having backup systems, backup plans, and contingincies, I just can't believe that NASA, aka. Bolden and Garver, would just fall in line with this "plan"
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline dad2059

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 198
    • Dad2059's Webzine of Science-Fiction, Science Fact and Esoterica
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #524 on: 04/20/2010 12:41 pm »
I asked this before but didn't get an answer:
Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess?

Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, Arizona and more.



Colorado - Orion, soon to be Orion super-lite

Louisiana - Michoud

Utah - ATK

Don't know about Arizona or 'others.'
NASA needs some good ol' fashioned 'singularity tech'

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #525 on: 04/20/2010 01:22 pm »
I have yet to see a demonstrated need for downmass from the ISS. But if one should occur, then we have the Soyuz now and will have the ATV and the COTS entries later. Second, the ATV and HTV may launch once a year now, but they don't need to launch once a year later.


STS-131 should land tomorrow.  The MPLM is not empty.

What's in it? Reading around, I just get "micrometeor shields for the Quest's airlock". I can't even find what Digitalman talks about. I imagine most of it is refuse from the station. If you're going to claim it contains valuable stuff, then you should at least say more than "not empty".

Quote
When will this ATV capability be available, or for that matter more importantly, these COTS entries?  Their schedules have slipped already, after all this business is difficult, and per the original milestones SpaceX should be flying by now.

I gather by 2015. They'll be much more likely to achieve it, if the Shuttle isn't flying though. That's the nature of bureaucracy.

Quote
Who funds the additional ATV and HTV capability?  What will that cost be?  What is the lead time from signing the contract for additional cargo vehicles and flight?

I imagine the NASA part of it will come from the savings achieved by canceling the Shuttle. The rest will come from the ESA and JAXA.

My view is that continuing the Shuttle just adds to a long series of bad decisions. It's too bad that the ISS is in a risky state. But I think we will actually increase  the risk of operating the ISS (as well as more than double the cost of its maintenance, once you include Shuttle costs) by continuing to fly the Shuttle at such a low flight rate. As I've said before, I don't believe anyone on the planet could fly the Shuttles twice a year and maintain their current reliability. You can't maintain experience and readiness of the launch support staff with very infrequent launches.
Karl Hallowell

Offline Garrett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1134
  • France
  • Liked: 128
  • Likes Given: 113
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #526 on: 04/20/2010 02:02 pm »
As I've said before, I don't believe anyone on the planet could fly the Shuttles twice a year and maintain their current reliability. You can't maintain experience and readiness of the launch support staff with very infrequent launches.
Question: how does one define frequent/infrequent?
- "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." - Indiana Jones

Offline zerm

  • Hypergolic cartoonist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1319
    • GWS Books dot com
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #527 on: 04/20/2010 02:05 pm »
This is the exact question that A LOT of us, including many in the Congress, asked the day that the Obama budget came out.

I asked this before but didn't get an answer:
Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess? Aren't the congressmen that haven't been vocal also a factor in the decision? I really want to know since it seems somewhat important to me.

51D Mascot addressed that question earlier.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #528 on: 04/20/2010 02:16 pm »
DGH noted,
"I would also point out that NASA turned down PlanetSpace even though they where cheaper because they where using a ULA rocket.
None of this gives me any confidence that they will go with the proven ULA rockets.
Instead they seem more likely to provide seed funds for several more new unproven rockets."


Jim argued,
"That was under the old administration, who didn't want competition for Ares I.
NASA fully embraces ULA and is not going to fund more new rockets."


Does anyone really think NASA's leadership/adiministration/policy/whatever won't spin again like a weather vane when the wind starts to blow from a new direction?

If "NASA fully embraces ULA" then if ULA is wise it should slip out of the embrace... Funny world, isn't it?  :)

Cheers!

   
« Last Edit: 04/20/2010 11:46 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #529 on: 04/20/2010 02:22 pm »
(1) Shuttle is not the only system serving ISS. There are four other vehicle/spacecraft combinations doing that as well. We don't need the capacity or the capabilities of the Shuttle.

(2) The Shuttle is a billion dollars or more per flight for something we don't need. Further, a sunk cost is not an investment. Just because we spent a hundred billion dollars...

(3) Finally, we come to return on investment. If the ISS really were a hundred billion dollar investment...

(1) There's something wrong with this statement:  Many other voices are insisting that there is an up and downmass shortfall, beginning next year, should the shuttle be retired.  They say that the other servicing systems are inadequate.  Why do you allege that these analyses are incorrect?

(2) There's too many numbers games going on regarding cost, too many arguments that not only is $1B/launch too much, but that it is also too little.  While this might irritate me to little effect, many taxpayers, businesses, and politicians who all have greater say than I do, are irritated that there are no agreed upon cost figures.  Even the NASA website, at what $450M/launch?, is spreading FUD on the cost issue.  Even so, it is a fact that a sunk cost is not an investment.

(3) Common sense would argue against gracefully allowing ISS to burn up in the atmo without a more full utilization is grand folly.  At the same time, where's the beef?  That is, where is the science that provides the return on investment that should be a part of the calculation?

The biggest, closest object in the sky from the POV of the ISS, is Earth.  There is no question in my mind that we should be looking carefully at the planet, and this aspect of the budget proposal is well thought out.

We simply do not know the truth about AGW with sufficient accuracy to silence the howling FUD proponents on either side of this issue.  Our newest cloud of volcanic ash promises to cool things down a bit this summer.  We should be packing the ISS with observational instrumentation for Earth science.

The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to awaken to the value of the ISS as well.  Why are some pathogens so much more virulent in zero-gee?  This is a good area to study.

The complaints about the less desirable inclination of the ISS are valid as well.  The talk about VASIMIR drives shortening the Mars trip to "days" is wild exaggeration, even tho theoretically feasible.  These drives could nudge the ISS to a better inclination.  New solar panels could power them.  Less propellant would need to be brought up.  Reducing servicing costs, and proving technology is a fine way to begin recouping investment.  Somehow, the Russians will manage, althought tourist prices might inflate.

Furthermore, American tourism could be encouraged.  Bigelow seems to be on the ground floor here.  Virgin Galactic is not going to be content with the relatively static market of sub-orbital flights.  These guys have capital to do their part.  NASA's the anchor tenant, with a one star hotel.  Only this would be a real star, not just a little silver sticky, like in Fodor's.

And what about prop transfer and crew transfer?  We need astros up there to get out the kinks in the system.  Really, the ISS should be getting bigger and more useful, and perhaps in a higher orbit as well.

...It was not promised money, it assumed money was going to be there....

I agree, but would split the hair even finer: It was sham money.  I agree in general about moving on, tho I would urge a manifest extension to finish up the last of the tanks and other consumables.

...seemingly for the wrong reasons....

No seeming about it.  They are the wrong reasons.

...The "apparent" absence of "Facts" seems to be on the side of those who seem to want to bury their head in the sand and ignore them. Such as:

(1) It is a FACT that, had Soyuz not been available in 2003...

(2) It is a FACT that, without a redundant capability...

(3) It is a FACT that ...commercially-developed vehicles--simply will lose the very foundation of its business case...

(4) So it is a FACT that the Obama plan, by failing to address those NEAR-TERM concerns, are exposing their alternative of choice for future US human spaceflight to complete and utter fasilure....

(5) With no reliable sustainable destination, they lose any foundation upon which to attract venture capital to their activities....

(6) And, by the way, I think I can lay claim to not really being considered a "layman" on these issues, but I have no intention of trying to prove that to you or anyone else here, for that matter...

Indeed.

(1) The Russians are crucial partners, and should get far more respect than the hoighty-toighty ones around here give.

(2) Redundancy is a necessary fact.

(3) Absolutely.  Which is why I keep getting the disagreeable feeling that I hear the quacking of a duck who wants us to stay on-planet.  Until when?

(4) Obama is where the buck stops.  Just like Bush was where the buck, and progress, stopped under VSE.  The prez has limited power, but to date, he seems to act more like the bemused parent who is mildly wondering about the ruckus on the elementary school playground.  A tipping point is like a fulcrum; should the HSF fulcrum be removed, small as it is, the future of our country becomes less assured.  Why do I keep hearing quacking noises?

(5) The next frontier for personal wealth and personal freedom is up and out.

(6) The laymen are running the show, which is as it should be.  Not surprisingly, they are susceptible to the same foibles as a human rocket scientist is subject to.  Congress has exceeded the standards of cesspools, and is rapidly beoming overtly corrupt.

It's well known there's a spare array...These are basic, and very well known facts.

The various spares talked about are basic facts indeed, but they are not well known.  A link would support this opinion.  Natch, it's real easy to tell the layman to "do his own homework".  So tell it to Congress, and be sure to use a supercilious attitude.   I would say, spread the info out as much as possible.  Make it widely known.  Answer the factual questions as many times to as many people as possible.  Spread truth. 

I have read the 8th floor notes sporadically.  They are great, and you really feel informed after reading.  Is there a compendium of 8th floor notes for public consumption?  If not, why not?

...Don't you think the public, and some politicians, will be asking the all important question, WHY? Why are we giving NASA all of this extra money when we aren't launching anything...

Like, yeah, like?  And you said the C-word.

...Wow.

Like, yeah, like?  And you didn't say the C-word.

...Why would you stop operating your primary supply vessel...

You're not allowed to ask that question, apparently.  In order to answer it, one would have to admit to intention.  And I didn't say the C-word.

...What's in it?...

Can you say "trash truck"?  Operated by "waste management artisans"?  It's an important, humble function of downmass.  Please pardon my frustration.

More facts, less FUD.  Kinda like: wag more, bark less.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #530 on: 04/20/2010 02:27 pm »

Does anyone really think NASA's leadership/adiministration/policy/whatever won't spin again like a weather vane when the wind starts to blow from a new direction?


It won't be going back that direction.  NASA is stuck with ULA.

Offline MP99

I imagine the NASA part of it will come from the savings achieved by canceling the Shuttle. The rest will come from the ESA and JAXA.

No, that pays for R&D, I think.

cheers, Martin

Offline mmoulder

  • Member
  • Posts: 37
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #532 on: 04/20/2010 02:43 pm »

I honestly don't understand why government cannot see this?  Is money really that tight?  How about another 1% of federal budget to Nasa?  Is that too much to ask?


Yes.

Jorge,

Well put.  At least there is one straight answer coming from government eh?  To me that is the sad and frustrating part. 

At least they are getting $6b more over the next few years.

Can anyone care to enlighten me on why no one(either Bolden, Garver, Obama, OTSP..etc) will commit to saying flat out, in a fairly certain way:

"Shuttle is done. 

Constellation is done.

Direct and SD-HLV off table for now...but will use as starting point for "groundbreaking" tech because it is a starting point...for a HLV (Sparky)

We are salvaging some programs from Constellation (Orion, etc) to be used for future use.

We are going to use ULA, take EELV rockets that are proven, man rate, and make available for LEO to space station.

We are going to use CRV plan to demonstrate we can launch an Orion capsule on top of EELV rocket and dock with space station as proof of concept. Once we prove that we move to launch astronauts on OUR rockets and capsules...in 'X' years time


Elon can keep up his work, we will support it.  Let Bigelow make balloon space stations, it looks like a good idea.  ;)  "

It seems to me this is the way things are shaping up.  Personally, as an outsider to the space community, I would be fine with this.  We already messed up by not having a craft ready or in the pipeline; so a gap is inevitable, but we do have vehicles that can get us into orbit...no? 

Why not a FIRM plan...this is what we are going to do, this is how we plan on doing it...lets get everyone back to work and start sending up rockets.  Seems to me everyone is missing the big pic on the hill. 

So Constellation project as a whole didn't go over well. We lost 9 billion dollars...it is gone...I figure the worst that came out of that program was incredible insight on a possible new way to launch an SRB. And yet another way to get to LEO, among other incredible technologies!

It just seems to me that we need a set plan...and no one is willing to commit.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #533 on: 04/20/2010 02:55 pm »
I don't have time to track down the article right now, but if I recall correctly, it was an experiment with mice.


STS-131 should land tomorrow.  The MPLM is not empty.

What's in it? Reading around, I just get "micrometeor shields for the Quest's airlock". I can't even find what Digitalman talks about. I imagine most of it is refuse from the station. If you're going to claim it contains valuable stuff, then you should at least say more than "not empty".


Offline pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #534 on: 04/20/2010 03:04 pm »
In reading some of the post on here stating how shuttle is too expensive, commercial is so much cheaper, etc. I'm going to try to clarify my point that I'm trying to make here.

I'm not advocating anyway that shuttle would be cheaper that commercial. I'm not even trying to argue cost here. That is an area way outside of my area of knowledge. I'm trying to speak, again, from a common sense standpoint. Why would you stop operating your primary supply vessel, when you have personnel in space that depend on being supplied with consumables and parts, and put all of your faith that these other options, with their good faith promises of this much capability by this time at this cost, will be able to step up to the plate and deliver as promised? I seem to recall that the shuttle itself had it's own promises that fell short (30+ launches a year, cheap to maIntain and operate, safe enough to carry congressmen and passengers, etc.) shuttle even dabbled in commercial itself pre-Challenger. For an agency that prides itself in putting soooo much emphasis on having backup systems, backup plans, and contingincies, I just can't believe that NASA, aka. Bolden and Garver, would just fall in line with this "plan"

Here is the problem. The shuttle for all it's glory is almost 30 years old. There are only 3 left and it needs replacement. Every launch is a risk and one more disaster would shut down the program. Don’t get me wrong, I am going to miss them when they stop flying but it is like making a 1950’s car your daily driver(possible, but it would be simpler/cheaper to run/safer to get something more modern).

  In 2005ish Bush/Griffon sought to build that replacement. (Constellation).  However they began to shutdown the shuttle also (long lead items have been shut down, no missions past 2010 planned). Well griffon and company did succeed at shutting down the shuttle but not at getting the replacement up in a reasonable timeframe. If we followed the old plan shuttle would be shut down and the US would have no space flight till 2016 at least and there would be no ISS to go to after 2015 but we would get to the moon by 2030! Not tenable. We would have a space capsule with not much to do from 2016 till 2025 or so at best. The original idea was to shut the shuttle down and have Orion up by 2012, but they fell 3 years behind and needed additional funding to even get it done 3 years late.

I also get the feeling that NASA management may have been less than honest about the status of the program or that people may be waking from denial. That two year gap would have seen layoffs. NASA would need people until the last shuttle mission then, layoff. Where as the people in question need jobs ASAP (not compatible with NASA’s aim of getting all planned shuttle flights in). 

Obama\Bolden got stuck cleaning up the mess. Basically the only way to restart the shuttle is not politically pretty. It will take 2-3 years and a big infusion of cash to get long lead items put back into production.  The shuttle can fly in a limited manner (about 4 missions) for the two years but there are no missions planned (more cash). And the slow rate makes (no more than 2 flights a year) makes is even more unattractive politically (i.e. you will be paying a standing army of workers to do less work than usual). 

It is possible the shuttle will be extended but I wouldn’t bet the house on it. The odds of it being restarted are even worse.

 The other big problem is if you extend the shuttle you have not solved the replacement problem. Which also requires more cash. Asking for huge increases at NASA is not politically viable when the whole country is hurting economically and local school district are having funding problems.

Basically to end the shuttle and put money toward constellation is the cheapest government only option. However constellation could not be ready much before 2016(per Augustine report) even with all the money in the world.  Commercial is further along than that and the only way a government program could get it done before 2016 is to put Orion on an EELV(which also hurts the shuttle workforce).

So far the plan is to turn manned access over to commercial and if that fails Orion as lifeboat becomes Orion as manned capsule. Basically NASA under griffon was damaged and he left no back up plans. He comes out smelling like roses to people who have not been following the space program closely. I feel sorry for Bolden. 


Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #535 on: 04/20/2010 03:20 pm »
It is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.

It is a FACT that are no spare solar arrays or radiators, so even if Shuttle were extended, there would be no hardware for the Shuttle to bring to ISS in this scenario.


You're embarrassing yourself with some of the 'facts' you're stating. It's well known there's a spare array. It was used in the ground troubleshooting when the P6 4B solar array suffered problems during deploy.

These are basic, and very well known facts.

Well, that's news to me too!

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #536 on: 04/20/2010 03:22 pm »
It is a FACT that, without the shuttle payload capability for delivery of large items, if a solar array or radiator (one of each of which is already suffering from damage which could lead to failure or at least degradation of performance beyond acceptable limits. At the very least, a loss of power would mean reduction in research capability, and a loss of thermal control could result in rendering the station uninhabitable.

It is a FACT that are no spare solar arrays or radiators, so even if Shuttle were extended, there would be no hardware for the Shuttle to bring to ISS in this scenario.



And wrong again on the radiators. A replacement for S1 is not required at this time. There's 8th Floor notes on this very site about how it was already being considered for a shuttle mission when concerns were higher.

Umm...I though the spare set of radiators was going up on an upcoming mission? I'll have to check L2 for that change...

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #537 on: 04/20/2010 03:29 pm »
I would also argue that Constellation was conceived based upon sound engineering principles rather than ideological notions that "private enterprise is better than a government run option", even though that government run option has actually made this work and has been doing it for 50 years with over 100 successful manned launches whereas commercial spaceflight hasn't even sent one human into orbit yet.

(emphasis mine) You call that track record admirable? A hundred or so manned launches in 50 years is a success of manned spaceflight so much that there is absolutely no reason to even think about changing the approach?

Wow.
Yeah !!   manned launches do cost money and are extremely difficult to do safely.  It costs X dollars for Y pounds to orbit,  that can be somewhat improved, but it wont be an order of magnitude better.   That's just the way it is.   For now, we have nothing. No flights, no HSF program.

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #538 on: 04/20/2010 03:30 pm »
EELV are "manrated" according to the new requirements.   And besides "man rating" is a smoke screen.  The vehicles are not going to change for commercial crew.

Let's just get this on record. You are claiming that the EELVs are human rated to NASA 1.4?
They sure were not during Augustine !

Offline dks13827

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
  • Phoenix
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Post-speech discussion about Obama's April 15 KSC speech
« Reply #539 on: 04/20/2010 03:31 pm »
I asked this before but didn't get an answer:
Who besides the congressmen with NASA centers in their districts has spoken out against the plan or even shown any interest in this mess?

Colorado, Louisiana, Utah, Arizona and more.



Colorado - Orion, soon to be Orion super-lite

Louisiana - Michoud

Utah - ATK

Don't know about Arizona or 'others.'

AZ has congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, wife of Mark Kelly.
« Last Edit: 04/20/2010 03:35 pm by dks13827 »

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1