What Happened at the House Committee Hearing on Commercial Crew
From Spacepolitics.com-
Wednesday’s hearing by the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee on NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) programdidn’t yield any major breakthroughs or other significant news. Industry members in the hearing’s first panel expressed their confidence to develop systems to transport NASA astronauts and serve other markets in the next several years, provided adequate funding. NASA’s associate administrator Bill Gerstenmaier also backed the program, while NASA inspector general Paul Martin covered some of the challenges the program faces. Two themes did emerge from the nearly three-hour hearing, though.
1. Congressional skepticism is about markets, not capabilities:During the hearing several members of congress, including committee chairman Rep. Ralph Hall (R-TX) and ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), expressed their doubts that CCDev would unfold as NASA and industry claim…
…CCDev’s FY12 budget is looking increasingly likely to be no more than $500 million: As NASA deputy administrator Lori Garver warned last week, Gerstenmaier said that funding CCDev at $500 million (the current Senate mark) rather than the administration’s request of $850 million would result in a one-year delay in vehicles entering service, to 2017, with the result that NASA would have to pay $480 million to Russia for an additional year of flight services. However, when asked by committee members, Gerstenmaier said that one-year delay would be the only major impact provided the program was adequately funded in future years. He added that NASA was still about a year away from making a decision to buy additional Soyuz seats…
Nasawatch has links to statements from John Elbon, Boeing, Steve Lindsey, Sierra Nevada, Elon Musk, SpaceX, Charles Precourt, George Sowers, United Launch Alliance, Paul Martin, Inspector General, and Bill Gerstenmaier, HEOMD, NASA.
Share
Its called nickel and diming ( taxpayer subsidized ) an industry that barely exists. But they have to ant-up and spread the wealth in order keep up the charade.
“…provided the program was adequately funded in future years.”
Or if the Russians cut them a better deal.
It’s time someone in America, come forward and fund the 2-seat Eclipse spacecraft. Based on NASA proven technology, this “21st century Gemini” could be flying next year. Our national prestige, inspiration of our youth, and maintaing our leadership in technology are just a few reasons we must act now.
Delay of U.S. manned spaceflight capability, SHOULD NOT BE AN OPTION!
Craig-
I think it’s a good idea and deserves as much attention as the others.
Unfortunately the way things seem to work here is that the US keeps going with new and expensive ideas, while the Russians did about what you are proposing-take what works and just fly it.
Why go cheap when you can get a bazillin dollar contract, right?
I hate to be negative, but somebody must ….
At this point the “national prestige” part of building and operating a space station is pretty well used up. Granted, maybe a nice film about the life of astronauts coupled with some star charts showing what that bright light moving so quickly across the night sky is may impress some white suburban 4th or 5th graders, but for the rest of us, this is yesterday’s news. There aren’t Soviet generals anymore who will quake in their boots at the vast power of the Amerikanskis (in fact, these days there aren’t any Soviet generals, period); there aren’t any ignorant but sage tribal leaders of small communities in the African bush who will nod and smile toothlessly for photographers on being apprised of this fact by European journalists; there aren’t any aging-but-ever-so-canny high school grads on county commissions in far off Georgia or Tennessee who will admit surprise any longer at what high-faluting nonsense Yankee college professors will get up to when taxpayers foot the bills. The high school students in those far off communities will have heard of astronauts and rocketships, even if they aren’t particularly good at explaining how the machinery all works; understandably their major interests will be drugs, jobs, and sex; the students and drop outs in cities are equally informed, and equally consumed by drugs, jobs, and sex — as no doubt their parents are. Even in deepest, darkest, downtown Washington D.C. sleepy Senators and laid-back lobbyists and rapacious Representatives have heard mention of space programs over the years.
There’s no propaganda gain in doing stuff at a ten year old space station, I’m trying to say. Now maybe Elon Musk can send up a Space-X vessel with three astronauts who freeze to death while on orbit. Perhaps Boeing can toss up a capsule which manages to wipe out half the solar panels at the ISS. And it’s always possible that the Russians will scratch three Soyuz deliveries in a row. Congress or the Obama administration might decide to cut and run and give up entirely on sending people or supplies to the ISS. That’d all get attention for sure. Good publicity, no. But it’s always possible to get BAD publicity from an on-going program.
Any program that one can imagine with our present day financial constraints and technological capabilitiy is NOT going to enhance our national prestige, is NOT going to excite and inspire school children (or adults), and is probably NOT going to intimidate our rivals or discourage them from trying to beat our efforts.
This isn’t to say that the USA shouldn’t have a manned space program, even if limiited to earth order. The point is just that there’s no “soft power”/public relations payoff in a standpat program. Which seems to be all that’s on the cards for the next decade or so.