Author Topic: May 18 Senate Hearing - Contributions of Space to National Imperatives  (Read 47712 times)

Offline 2552

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
  • Liked: 42
  • Likes Given: 522
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Hearings&ContentRecord_id=e4be0fb4-01f5-4416-8a85-350ff5b77a43&ContentType_id=14f995b9-dfa5-407a-9d35-56cc7152a7ed&Group_id=b06c39af-e033-4cba-9221-de668ca1978a&MonthDisplay=5&YearDisplay=2011

Quote
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today announced a Science and Space Subcommittee hearing on the contributions of space to national imperatives.

Quote
Witness Panel 1

    Mr. Elliot Holokauahi Pulham
    Chief Executive Officer
    Space Foundation

    Mr. Frank Slazer
    Vice President of Space Systems
    Aerospace Industries Association

    Dr. Christopher F. Chyba
    Professor of Astrophysics and International Affairs
    Director, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University
 
   Capt. Frank L. Culbertson Jr. (U.S. Navy, ret.)
    Commander
    International Space Station Expedition 3, Astronaut (ret.)

Being live tweeted by talkingspace now.

Edit: hearing over
« Last Edit: 05/18/2011 04:27 pm by 2552 »

Offline notherspacexfan

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 121
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 5
Nelson asked Chyba about the "Rocket to Nowhere" headlines.

Chyba's response:
Apolo vision is not working for nasa.
What is needed
1. LEO ecosystem/infrustructure
-comercial / station as destination
2. HLV capability

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Nelson asked Chyba about the "Rocket to Nowhere" headlines.

Chyba's response:
Apolo vision is not working for nasa.
What is needed
1. LEO ecosystem/infrustructure
-comercial / station as destination
2. HLV capability

Which begs the question - HLV capability for what?

 - Ed Kyle

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Sen KBH was saying things such as "what is taking so long?" when it comes to implementing the current law. I thought these were good statements.

But then it stood in contrast to what she was just saying about the balance with commercial. She said "measured and safe" progress don't rush, when it comes to commercial pursuits.

This is the first time in a while watching one of these hearings. Interesting to see these Senators saying what I've been reading in these forums the last few months/years.

How are these guests picked? Is it Senator Nelson's final choice?
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Dr. Chyba getting specific on Flexible Path

1. Before answering where it is going, it needs to be seen if it can be done at all.
2. Suspects Near Earth Asteroid as first destination. Speaking why this is an important mission.
3. Mars is the final goal.

Flexible path kicks the can down the road toward Mars cause some tech is not feasible yet but might be feasible in the future, to get there.

Flex to return to Moon if nation desires.
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Nelson asked and Capt. Culbertson discussing the importance international cooperation with Russia/Soviets, in the 70s and more recently.  wonder if this might be leading toward any discussion of China, since US-Chinese cooperation (or lack of) has been a recent story (not that I feel strongly that we should or need to).

No, it seems they might be moving on to discussion of lack of US tech exports (ITAR?)
« Last Edit: 05/18/2011 04:17 pm by majormajor42 »
...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline majormajor42

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 531
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 230
Dr. Chyba concludes with comments near the very end of the hearing that his most recent brightest aerospace graduate student did not want to work for NASA because that student felt it has become a dinosaur, and that he wanted to work for one of the start-ups instead. Dr. Chyba hopes that that will change again.

...water is life and it is out there, where we intend to go. I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man or machine on a body such as the Moon and harvest a cup of water for a human to drink or process into fuel for their craft.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Listening to the replay.

00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.

Appendix B of the recent NASA report on commercial crew and cargo, concluding that SpaceX was able to develop Falcon 9 vastly less expensively is brought up by Prof. Chyba about 89:00.  This seems to get quite a bit of play, with everybody except Sen. Hutchison pretty enthusiastic.  Sen. Nelson reiterates that NASA is required to look into this.

Asked to by Sen. Boozeman to justify HLV (essentially), Elliott Pulham of the Space Foundation overs quite an odd reply, in my view.  The only thing he mentions is that Ariane V will launch JWST.  So what?  Ariane V is not what anybody would call an HLV.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2011 04:37 am by Proponent »

Offline Jeff Bingham

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • aka "51-D Mascot"
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 56
Listening to the replay.

00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.



And you seem determined to forget that the purpose of AMS is to identify the existence of and attempt to characterize the UNKNOWN phenomena of Dark Matter and dark Energy; things that have only been largely theorized about to date. Until it is in fact observed and its behavior understood, no one--certainly not you--can predict what it may or may not be able to be "harnessed" to do, if anything. Therefore, as Dr. Ting told a group of Senators six years ago when discussing AMS--a discussion which, by the way led directly to the efforts by Senator Hutchison to ensure AMS would be flown by including language in the 2008 NASA Authorization bill to mandate that mission--efforts without which it would NOT have been manifested and would NOT be on orbit today--the question of what it may discover, and what those discoveries will reveal about what its implications or potential uses may be, can not be predicted at his point. So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.
Offering only my own views and experience as a long-time "Space Cadet."

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Sorry 51D but that seems like a pretty weak argument.  Yes the phenomenon of dark energy and dark matter is unknown but I think most scientists would agree that 'harnessing' it as a source of energy is extremely unlikely to happen.

Offline alexw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1230
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Listening to the replay.
00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.
And you seem determined to forget that the purpose of AMS is to identify the existence of and attempt to characterize the UNKNOWN phenomena of Dark Matter and dark Energy; things that have only been largely theorized about to date.
     No, AMS is an antimatter experiment re-purposed to search for dark matter, not dark energy. "Dark energy" doesn't have a whole lot to do with dark matter other than the work "dark".

     It would probably be better to understand some of the fundamental physics differences before making the inflammatory accusation of "foaming at the mouth."

    Proponent is on solid technical ground when asserting that AMS is not practical energy research by the conventional public understanding of the term "energy sources".  AMS is no more (and no less) research into "energy sources" than the particle accelerators at Fermilab or Brookhaven or the French-Suiss border. Do you support funding the Tevatron and RHIC and the LHC on the grounds that they are "research into energy sources"? How about Hubble, or JWST, or Chandra space telescopes? How about the telescopes on the mountaintops of Hawaii, Chile, and the Canary Islands?

     -Alex     

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf.  If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons.  That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.

So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.

May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is.  Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so.  I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.

You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth."  My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject.  I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.

EDIT:  Grammar.
« Last Edit: 05/19/2011 06:24 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Nelson asked Chyba about the "Rocket to Nowhere" headlines.

Chyba's response:
Apolo vision is not working for nasa.
What is needed
1. LEO ecosystem/infrustructure
-comercial / station as destination
2. HLV capability

And he put the two very firmly in that order in his opening statement.  Specifically, at 46:30 he says:

Quote from: Prof. Chyba
We'll want to ensure that funding to maintain this core capability [the government HLV] does not prevent the development of a commercial ecosystem in LEO, that may be our best longer-term hope for a robust human future in space.  If there's one place where new resources should be targeted to mitigate NASA's budget dilemma, it may be here.

In fact, in his opening statement, he does not actually endorse heavy lift at all; he merely notes that the 2010 NASA authorization calls for it.

One other general observation:  if I'm not mistaken, both Committee members and witnesses, Prof. Chyba in particular, say that Congress has selected the Augustine Committee's flexible-path option (though Sen. at first seems to suggest that it was the Augustine Committee that made that choice, but he's corrected by Prof. Chyba).  But Congress clearly has not done so, for that option called for a $3-billion-per-year boost to NASA's budget, which has never even been seriously mooted.

EDIT:  "NASA" -> "NASA's";  added crucial missing "not" in the sentence after the quotation.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2011 06:26 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
How are these guests picked? Is it Senator Nelson's final choice?

Very good question, for that determines the range of viewpoints that can be aired in the hearing.

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Yes, both the Congress and the White House claim they have chosen the flexible path option of the Augustine report and that the other hasn't.

In reality both and neither have chosen it.  Don't ya love politics?!
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Would not such claims require the party so claiming to have proposed a $3-billion-per-annum plus-up?
« Last Edit: 05/19/2011 08:08 am by Proponent »

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf.  If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons.  That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.

So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.

May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is.  Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so.  I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.

You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth."  My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject.  I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.

EDIT:  Grammar.

She's a politician!  Postulating nebulous connections in order to justify spending huge gobs of money is what they do.

Even when they believe a thing is justified in and of itself,  they still have to spin it to counter arguments from those who don't subscribe to the same world view.

Besides, no Research is truly 'pure'. I doubt Rutherford was thinking of nuclear reactors and solar panels.

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
00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is ... as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.

KBH has mentioned "energy" several times in the context of AMS.  I haven't heard every last word she has said on the subject, but each time I have heard her, it sounded like she spoke of a source for energy in the sense that coal is a source for energy, rather than in the sense that matter/anti-matter annihilation is a source of energy.

This is why I don't have a problem with Proponent's "GAH!".  Spin to the contrary notwithstanding.

In general, all of these congress critters should become more educated regarding science.  Overlooking all the political insider stuff for the moment, they are not well informed on, or else they do not choose to demonstrate their compentence in, these subjects in general, and therefore their decisions tend to be faulty. 
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
00:35  GAH!  Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is ... as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab.   She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.

KBH has mentioned "energy" several times in the context of AMS.  I haven't heard every last word she has said on the subject, but each time I have heard her, it sounded like she spoke of a source for energy in the sense that coal is a source for energy, rather than in the sense that matter/anti-matter annihilation is a source of energy.

This is why I don't have a problem with Proponent's "GAH!".  Spin to the contrary notwithstanding.

In general, all of these congress critters should become more educated regarding science.  Overlooking all the political insider stuff for the moment, they are not well informed on, or else they do not choose to demonstrate their compentence in, these subjects in general, and therefore their decisions tend to be faulty. 

AMS2 will lead us to warp drive technology... ;)
« Last Edit: 05/19/2011 02:18 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf.  If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons.  That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.

She's a politician!  Postulating nebulous connections in order to justify spending huge gobs of money is what they do.

I guess I have a more positive view of elected representatives than you do.  I think many have demonstrated adequate grasp of the technical issues that the must handle.  I'm also neither surprised nor appalled that few politicians have much technical knowledge.  I do insist, though, that those representatives who take leadership positions in science or technology should inform themselves about the relevant subjects to at least the level of an interested high-school student.  A party leadership that allows a member to hold such a position with out this minimal knowledge is, in my view, acting carelessly on a very important matter.

Quote
Even when they believe a thing is justified in and of itself, they still have to spin it to counter arguments from those who don't subscribe to the same world view.

It strikes me there's a difference between spinning and just plain being wrong.
« Last Edit: 05/20/2011 06:27 am by Proponent »

Tags:
 

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