More interesting news:Nelson Wants To Revisit Senate Appropriations Committee’s Stricter Commercial Crew Oversight
Optimism about completing congressional action on at least some FY2015 appropriations bills earlier than usual hit a wall today (June 19) when the Senate postponed action on a set of three appropriations bills, including those that fund NASA, NOAA and the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Substantive issues underlie the disagreement, but they are unrelated to the space program and are being manifested in procedural moves.
Marcia S. Smith gives a good explanation of status of the minibus on spacepolicyonline.Senate Appropriations Process Hits a Snag, Minibus Derailed for NowQuote from: From the articleOptimism about completing congressional action on at least some FY2015 appropriations bills earlier than usual hit a wall today (June 19) when the Senate postponed action on a set of three appropriations bills, including those that fund NASA, NOAA and the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation. Substantive issues underlie the disagreement, but they are unrelated to the space program and are being manifested in procedural moves.Really appreciate the way Marcia explains procedural issues.
Yesterday (June 18), Shelby, a long-standing critic of the commercial crew program, defended the language on the Senate floor saying its intent was “not to up-end a fixed-price contract: rather the goal is to make certain that the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development expenditures.
From the article:If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
Or cripple everyone who's not geared up to handle those reporting requirements IE Everyone not Boeing.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/20/2014 06:06 pmOr cripple everyone who's not geared up to handle those reporting requirements IE Everyone not Boeing.SNC says they can. Blue Origin probably can too. Orbital/ATK definitely can.This is a specific attack at SpaceX.
Well, since SpaceX and Boeing are realistically the only two contenders for the commercial crew contract, that's not all that surprising.
Quote from: spacetraveler on 06/20/2014 11:20 pmWell, since SpaceX and Boeing are realistically the only two contenders for the commercial crew contract, that's not all that surprising.Nah. It's an open competition.
From the article:QuoteYesterday (June 18), Shelby, a long-standing critic of the commercial crew program, defended the language on the Senate floor saying its intent was “not to up-end a fixed-price contract: rather the goal is to make certain that the price NASA has agreed to pay for vehicle development matches actual development expenditures. If it's a fixed-price contract, what difference does it make what the actual supplier expenses are? The cost to the government is the same whatever the supplier's expenses might be. If the expenses were so high that the supplier went out of business, then yes it would be an issue, but that possibility is negligible. Shelby is just fishing for a semi-plausible excuse to kill commercial crew.
QuoteThe Senate provides no specific FY 2015 funding for a mission to Europe, which is believed to have a substantial ocean beneath its frozen surface.That would be an interesting find...
The Senate provides no specific FY 2015 funding for a mission to Europe, which is believed to have a substantial ocean beneath its frozen surface.
CSF continuing to criticize Shelb's anti-commercial crew language:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-lopezalegria/new-restrictions-on-nasa-_b_5526013.html?1403626891
Flying our astronauts should be a national strategic priority, and NASA should be free to continue expanding its use of public-private partnerships and building on its successes. NASA will always lead our nation's exploration of space, but it must empower all the members of the team that makes that happen, including commercial companies. If Congress can ensure that NASA is cutting bureaucracy and getting the most value for its money, our nation will have a bright future of space exploration ahead of it. If not, our human spaceflight program may be a disappointment for years to come.
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/18/2014 01:32 pmI also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crewhttp://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-lossThis isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either. I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way? It's not pretty, but it's perfectly reasonable corporate behavior. I'd say, in fact, that Boeing's management has a fiduciary obligation to its shareholders to at least consider the use of all legal means at its disposal to win the contract.
I also noticed this little gem about Boeing's approach to Commercial Crewhttp://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/40931boeing-preparing-layoff-notices-in-case-of-commercial-crew-lossThis isn't the first time Boeing have played the "Give us the Commercial Crew contract or the workforce gets it" routine either. I have to wonder did Boeing stockholders vote to behave this way?
Op-eds on the Shelby language:http://www.spacenews.com/article/opinion/41086focusing-on-priorities-in-human-access-to-leohttp://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Rockets-red-tape-5594148.phphttp://www.spacepolitics.com/2014/07/03/no-action-but-more-commentary-on-shelbys-commercial-crew-cost-language/
...at least they tried to keep the lights on.