Casting motives, implying evilness, etc, on Shelby without knowing the facts is disingenuous. These same people who feel so free to do that upon their "alter of righteousness" would be up in arms (and were recently) if questions about Musk's motives and character were raised that goes against what the mythic perception wants it to be. Fact is funding for commercial crew went up, there seems to be no happiness about that at all.
If this language stays I don't really see SpaceX competing. They'd fly solo and wait for the next round of contracts.
Here is more on this issue (a second alert from Space Access):http://www.space-access.org/updates/sasalert060514.htmlhttps://twitter.com/Stratocumulus/status/474788962314502144
Its really disturbing when "experts" weigh in and say that "Group J" doesn't know what they are talking about... after all "its just a tweet".
The truth of the matter is that it is somewhere in the middle of the two points is reality. Maybe closer to Point A or maybe closer to Point B. It is the struggle to get to point A or point B.
What we do know is NASA is being royally screwed by congress. I am a tea party conservative and (almost) every liberal Democrat will agree with me that House Republicans, some Senate Democrats and one Senate Republican are completely screwing over Commercial Crew. Its not even debatable anymore.Richard ShelbyBarbara MikulskiWild Bill NelsonLamar SmithFrank WolfSteven PalazzoTeam AlabamaAs for the interpretation it will cause the most mature designer to at least pause and look to see how it will impact their development. It simply may be too much of a PITA to comply with the FAR. These policy armchair rocket wizards who we elect every couple of years are paranoid of the ramifications of Commercial Crew. They are not stupid. Billions of dollars every year since 1960 flood into MSFC, KSC, JSC, and GSFC. What happens when you don't need MSFC?What happens when you hear "Hawthorne" and not "Houston"?What happens when you launch from Texas and not KSC or CCAFS?
If you really think SpaceX and Bigelow are just going to stop at LEO you just need to stop now. The first 150 mile up is the hard part. The private sector will take on much more risk once we go BEO. I know, I have been told by those who make decisions on this. If Company K has a failure and a crew is lost somewhere past L2 it sucks - but they all knew it was a possibility. However, it will be privately funded and while Congress may hold hearings it won't cause another Challenger or Columbia length delay.
Sorry for the rant but some of the condescending comments needed to be rebutted.
Post by Houston Chronicle Eric Berger on his blog re: Shelby language: "It's just bad policy".http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/06/nasa-budget-bill-could-include-a-poison-pill-for-spacex-other-commercial-companies/#22787101=0
"I had a chance to speak with four-time astronaut Michael Lopez-Alegria, who heads up the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, about the effect of this language. He explains:This was introduced by Senator Shelby, and to comply with this you have to have an infrastructure in place in your company to do that, which a company like Boeing certainly has, but SpaceX certainly does not have. More importantly if it became law on Oct. 1, and they hadn’t awarded the commercial crew contract by then, they would probably have to recompete it."
Commercial space advocates concerned about NASA spending bill:http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/2014/06/05/commercial-space-advocates-concerned-nasa-spending-bill/10035713/https://twitter.com/csf_spaceflight/status/474711787787808768
The Senate's CJS bill has now been posted (NASA starts at page 68):http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s2437pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s2437pcs.pdf
That not less than- 1.2B for Orion MPCV- 2.05B for SLS which shall have a lift capability of not less than 130 mT and shall have an upper stage and other core elements developed simultaneously- 1.7B for SLS, 351M for ground systems- JCL for SLS below 70% documented, submit request to achieve 70% JCL- 805M for commercial flight, 311M for exploration research- Space Operations 3.8B
It was so obviously the way to go by designing in the hooks for crew carriage from day one.
The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.
In reading OpsAnalyst and Rocket Science's posts above, Shelby's secret plan to put humans on Mars became clear.In two years we shall stand upon the resultant pile of paperwork generated by the commercial crew program every quarter and simply step off of the pile to the surface of mars. Brilliant!
... What so many of these groups and even folks on here and elsewhere don't realize is that you are your own worse enemy. These advocacy groups, and the vocal bloggers here and elsewhere who tend to view things from only their desired perspective, are contributing to ripping things apart.
Having fought a few of these battles on behalf of my own company over the years (I've always insisted on invoking FAR 15 for work packages that involve requirements analysis and report production, which we did on an FFP basis), it might be worth pointing out that the language is actually more proscriptive in the portion referring to quarterly reporting than to the FAR, _if_ a "strict" reading of the latter is applied. To wit:[...]
Bolden to Shelby:"You cannot fund enough to get SLS to a 70% JCL and I don't want you to do that."
Quote from: john smith 19 on 06/05/2014 10:20 pmIt was so obviously the way to go by designing in the hooks for crew carriage from day one.Remember that intelligent design is a religious figment of the imagination.
From:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113srpt181/pdf/CRPT-113srpt181.pdfQuoteThe Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on acommercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contract that allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.The clear implication being that an SAA contract wouldn't, in principle, allow for any safety requirements whatsoever. Not only that, but in principle, any SAA contract, could not, by some mystery, be even worded to accomodate safety.The contractural system wasn't broke, so they now propose to fix it. All Cretans are liars.
Commercial Crew.—The Committee has been consistent in its directionthat NASA use a FAR-based contract for the developmentof a domestic crew capability. The use of the FAR was considerednecessary due to the risks associated with transporting humans.Additionally, the Committee felt that a FAR-based contract was theonly contracting vehicle that would provide NASA the transparencynecessary to ensure the appropriateness of cost and pricing dataand the insight into the ongoing work. While NASA has chosen touse a FAR-based contract, it has also waived significant portionsof the standard FAR-based contract, including verifiable cost data,capping repayment of funds in case of inability to perform, andrights in data. NASA has informed the Committee that these deviationswere necessary to ensure competition. However, with multipleentrants that collectively have extensive Federal contractingexperience, the Committee questions the true need to waive thesetraditional requirements.While the Committee appreciates NASA’s commitment to a firm,fixed-price contract for a commercial crew launch vehicle, it remainsconcerned that NASA may use other funding vehicles to provideadditional resources. Given the importance of the commercialcrew program to the long-term viability of the International SpaceStation, the need for transparency only grows in importance. Aswith any such project, the technical risk and probability for costgrowth is high. Without the proper foundation and necessary requirementsfor certified cost and pricing data, NASA will have noinsight into ongoing cost growth that could jeopardize the viabilityof the program.In order for NASA and Congress to have the appropriate level oftransparency to ensure that the cost of the program is in line withthe activities undertaken and that it does not grow exponentially,the Committee directs NASA to maintain FAR 15.403–4, related tocertified cost and pricing data for prime contractors, for any contractsentered into to support the development of a commercialcrew vehicle. Further, NASA shall require quarterly reports to besubmitted to NASA and the Committee that detail the funds investedby NASA and by the awardees during the previous quarterand cumulatively, including legacy launch systems that may be integratedwith the crew vehicle.The Committee agrees with concern expressed by the AerospaceSafety Advisory Panel, the OIG, and others that Space Act agreementsmay not give NASA sufficient oversight to correct safety defects.The Committee directs NASA to only place astronauts on a--118--commercial crew vehicle that NASA acquired under a FAR contractthat allows NASA to require the company to meet all safety requirements.The Committee encourages NASA to continue workingclosely with commercial companies, even under Space Act agreements,so that those companies know what will be acceptableshould NASA eventually contract for crew transportation servicesaboard those companies’ vehicles. The Committee encouragesNASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testinginfrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensurethat these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensureconsistency in testing across all potential vehicles.
As NASA begins soliciting participants for the second round of cargo resupply missions, certified cost and pricing data should be required and made available to NASA.
"The Committee encourages NASA to develop plans to fully utilize NASA-owned rocket testinginfrastructure for commercially developed launch vehicles to ensure that these vehicles are not only tested in the same manner as Government-developed launch vehicles but at the same facilities to ensure consistency in testing across all potential vehicles."