This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Double Standards and Sour Grapes From the Romney/Griffin Camp

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 29, 2012
Filed under , , , , , ,

SpaceX’s Dragon capsule docks with international space station, Washington post
“On Friday, Musk said that SpaceX could be ready to fly people into space by 2015. But Scott Pace, a space policy expert at George Washington University and an adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, said the company first needs a track record. “They need to fly [cargo] six or seven times consecutively,” he said.”
Keith’s note: More Griffin era, out-of-date, sour grapes thinking from a Romney campaign advisor. Please tell me, Scott, where are the legal or agency requirements or 6 or 7 cargo flights prior to crew flights on Falcon 9/Dragon? Answer: there are no such requirements. You are just throwing imaginary hurdles in front of SpaceX so as to make their successes look less impressive than they are. And where is a precedent for such hurdles? Certainly not in the historical record of American human spaceflight. Why was the Space Shuttle allowed to fly with a crew on its very first flight? Human crews flew on the third Gemini/Titan II flight, Apollo crews flew on the third Saturn V flight, etc. How many cargo-only Ares 1/Orion flights were you and Mike going to have before you flew crews? Certainly not “six or seven times consecutively”. So why are you suddenly calling for SpaceX to meet criteria never levied upon NASA by you or anyone else?
Keith’s update: Curiously, you see a markedly different (and reasoned) tone than the dour stance taken by Mike Griffin and Scott Pace from another individual identified as a space supporter of the Romney campaign:
“Mark Albrecht, a former Republican space-policy maker who also previously ran Lockheed Martin Corp.’s international rocket business, called the launch “a watershed event” and a “Sputnik moment for the U.S. space program and the entire aerospace industry.” Large aerospace rivals need to “take heed, adapt or go the way of the electric typewriter,” he said.”
So … who speaks for Gov. Romney – and who does not? With Griffin and Pace there always seems to be a lingering “what if” bitterness – of the sort often associated with talking about having lost some big game way back in high school.
Obama to Romney: Will You Fire Mike Griffin?, earlier post
Partisan Romney Space Advisor To Call For Non-Partisan Space Policy, earlier post
Obama Campaign Issues Space Policy Fact Sheet, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

133 responses to “Double Standards and Sour Grapes From the Romney/Griffin Camp”

  1. DJBREIT says:
    0
    0

    Don’t worry by the time there ready to fly the first crew they should have that many if not more launches under their belt. They already have three F9 launches.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Why is Liberty considered to be human rated when it has never even flown?

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Because of the false premise that their solids flight history have something to do with Shuttle RSRMs and are thus “human rated” by default.

        Everything about Liberty is like this – misleading and disingenuous to “game” commercial, to “move to intercept” SpaceX/others before they detour arsenal space out of NASA HSF.

        Too late.

    • John I says:
      0
      0

       No, they don’t have three.  Falcon 9 v1.1 is enough different than the version flying now that these three and the two v1.0 launches to follow do not count.  It is not even close to the same rocket.  Basically if you are keeping a tally, they have one successful Dragon launch and zero booster launches.  But, don’t fret.   Baring a disaster SpaceX will crank out the 6 or 7 V1.1 vehicles in no time. 

      Also, who is stopping SpaceX from orbiting their own Astronauts/test pilots?  These requirements are for launch NASA astronauts to the ISS…

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “Falcon 9 v1.1 is enough different than the version flying now that these three and the two v1.0 launches to follow do not count.  It is not even close to the same rocket.”

        As Keith said, but ATK wants to claim Liberty is based on “flight-proven” shuttle technology?

  2. Christopher Miles says:
    0
    0

    Anyone know how John Logsdon feels about Space X and astronaut capability?

    I don’t really care about what the new fella at GW thinks. Space X has continued to change the paradigm- Cots combination flight seems to be going like clockwork.

    I am continually amazed that folks who are supposedly all about the private sector seem to always cheer for the good ol’ boys. Private, as long as it means slower, bigger, more expensive. As the old adage goes, no one ever got fired by doing the safe thing and buying from IBM. It can be argued however, that given IBM intransigence in the 80’s- maybe someone should have.
    Simply put

    Airbus makes Boeing better.
    So too will Space X.

    Let’s let NASA and the Astronaut corps decide exactly what they feel comfortable flying- and lets hold each contractor to a set of specs with a margin of safety far higher than anything that came before.

    Space X either meets the high specs or no- but when and if they do meet those specs (and I bet they do it by 2015) let them fly! If they meet spec, then Dragon is no more risky than Boeing’s never flown CST.

    Worried about lack of proven data for the Dragon/Falcon 9? Fine- fly the heck out of the system by using it to resupply the station and launch Iridium 2.0 – Which is exactly the plan.

    We’ve actually accepted much more risk before:

    We need to remember that  Shuttle flew 2 humans in ’81 with no previous automated launches, and no actual launch data for the combined Shuttle stack.

    How did Thiokol’s “experience” help in January of ’86?

    And going as far back as the 60’s,  Space, Inc. was full of space newbies. How much did Grumman’s A6 have in common with the LEM, really?

    Given the mission critical nature of a proper Space Suit- How much Space Experience did Playtex have?

    We need to be agnostic about the builder and look to creating a phenomenal set of requirements and choose a vendor with proven ability to meet or exceed those requirements reliably. All else is superfluous nonsense.

    • don says:
      0
      0

      I believe you mean tolerant about the builder, not agnostic, that means without knowledge and I think we want a lot of knowledge about the builders.

      I tend to move the other way in regarding “a phenomenal set of requirements”.

      According to Wayne Hale the gemini capsule had 25 pages of requirements, the apollo capsule 50 but when it came to the shuttle it became encyclopedic.

      “We need something that can do X, give us a bid”

      “We want to place a NASA lunar geology on the moon, what is the per seat cost?”

      “We want a bed, bunk and a bathroom in living quarters on the moon for 4 NASA researchers, how much per month per person?”

      “We want a lunar research vehicle for EVA’s must be self sustained for two weeks, how much to lease it?”

      I would much prefer a NASA like that then having everything NASA does go through the congressional pork machine first.  

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “Agnostic” is pretty standard techie slang for “without preference”. Ie, “Vendor agnostic”, “platform agnostic”. Taken from the common use of the term (without religious preference) rather than the 19th century academic meaning.

        Other than that anti-pedantic pedantry, I agree with your point.

        I’d like to see Obama announce that he’s officially directing NASA to conduct all future SLS work using the same “proven model” as COTS. Multi-vendor, fixed-price, fixed-milestone. Specifying only the bare minimum requirements necessary to get the job done.

        He could make a point of comparing the funding SpaceX received under COTS with the funding received by SLS contractors. (<5%?) Congratulate Bolden on reigning in Constellation’s out of control budget/schedule via his new “streamlined” SLS program, and direct him to take the next “bold leap” to the commercial model.

        From memory, the language of the SLS authorisation would allow this while still following the letter of the law, so he wouldn’t need Congressional authorisation. And if Congress changes the language to prevent it, he has the power to veto, as he threatened to do (finally!) when they recently tried to choke CCDev.

        It would certainly stir things up.

        (Also, $3b/yr for a COTS-like Big Rocket contest? Woof!)

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      The success of COTS is in having the  provider  be “the decider” – how to get there with what particulars.

      As they explain to NASA why it meets NASA’s concerns, and NASA feeds back its experience to modulate how to best deal with those concerns. Far better than the RFQ/RFP acquisition process to vendors.

      Because the provider can consider a much broader range of things than the constrained, preordained ones NASA must only consider.

      add:
      Ask John yourself – logsdon “aat” gwu dot edu .

    • DocM says:
      0
      0

      Christopher Miles asked: Anyone know how John Logsdon feels about Space X and astronaut capability?

      John Logsdon:

      “This demonstration flight for NASA’s COTS program provides valuable
      experience for SpaceX, but also for NASA and the entire industry that
      will be carrying cargo and eventually crew to the International Space
      Station,” said John Logsdon, professor emeritus at the George Washington
      University’s Space Policy Institute, in a statement. “Congratulations
      to SpaceX for extending their streak of successful Falcon 9 launches.”

      http://www.bostonherald.com

  3. mattblak says:
    0
    0

    I should think that three consecutive, successful cargo flights to ISS would be enough to justify man-rating Dragon. Claiming ‘6 or 7’ only would be enough is obfuscation, ‘Not invented here’ or even propoganda.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      The number of freight flights isn’t much of an issue. It will take about that long for DragonRider to be built and wrung out. Once it is, I suspect SpaceX will fly (perhaps) one automated unmanned mission (which will no doubt include tests of both life support and of the escape system’s landing function), then go directly to crewed flight. In other words, crewed flight will probably begin almost as soon as a crew-rated capsule is available. I don’t foresee SpaceX wasting much time.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        OS,

        I agree; they won’t waste much time. I’m assuming that no on here has absolute knowledge of everything that SpaceX is working on day to day, or what their cash flow situation is week to week, so they might just spring it on us sooner than everyone is guessing. That seems consistent with Musk’s style. But, I do suspect that SpaceX will be a little more conservative in their own predictions in the future. My bottom line: don’t count flights; SpaceX will be ready for HSF when they say they are — and hopefully not too much longer after they say they will — and I highly doubt they’ll consult with Romney, Griffin, Scott Pace or anyone else in the political arena.

        Steve

  4. Joe Cooper says:
    0
    0

    They just did their first cargo flight. Aren’t they going to have done six or seven by 2015?

  5. DocM says:
    0
    0

     I agree to a degree, but this Falcon 9 (version 1.0) only has 2-3 flights left before it’s superseded by the Falcon 9 v. 1.1 – the stretched F9 that will also be the common core with Falcon Heavy.  If it’s anywhere near as smooth a ride as F9 1.0  before a 2015 crew flight that core will have flown most of its 12 ISS resupply missions plus several satellite launches and who knows how many Falcon Heavy launches.  Seems that 7 straight of of that many launches is low hanging fruit.

    • John I says:
      0
      0

       Exactly.  Falcon 9 V1.1 is a major improvement over v1.0 in almost every aspect.  Seven launches is not a lot to expect from SpaceX – especially when they were not designed in concert/with/by NASA as those other launchers such as the Shuttle.  Look at Atlas V for instance.  It is currently a way more reliable rocket than Falcon, proven through MANY flights and it is still having to jump through many expensive hoops to become man rated. 

      I sure hope that we don’t have to continually be deluged with Keith’s hard core Democrat/liberal bias through the entire election cycle.   Please just post these interesting stories and maintain this great website without the one-sided stupidity.  And yes, I would be saying the same thing if he was hard over on the right wing side too.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        “Keith’s hard core Democrat/liberal bias”

        And you somehow managed to not noticed all the Bolden bashing articles he’s posted over the last few years? Seriously? It’s easy to see bias everywhere when you’ve got one eye closed.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          I was not particularly liked in the Clinton White House either (Dan Goldin anyone?)

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

             Kieth:
             
            LOL, so right! I remember that.

            As far as I’ve seen, you seem to take aim at all legitimate targets and rarely miss. If you have a bias, it would be toward having a successful American space program regardless of how or who does it. Only fair to go after anyone who stands in the way of this lofty goal, regardless of politics of affiliation.

            Maybe John mistakes your stories about ‘workers rights’ as some sort of lefty pinko attitude instead of being something everyone should care about. 😉

            tinker

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            Justatinker: and when I posted comments in support of private sector and commercial efforts by Bush II’s administrator O’Keefe (not normally something us lefties support, right?) people questioned whether I was a real democrat. But when I question why pro-business Republicans appointed by Bush II (Griffin) oppose private sector and space commercial efforts I am – what a pro-business leftie? I have a headache. Like  you said, I want to see the best American space program – regardless of what party does it.

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Keith:

            What should we call folks like us then?

             Up wing? 8D

            tinker

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        Yawn – and you can’t even show a little spine and use your real name … if you do not like NASA Watch then stop reading it. You will feel better, I promise.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           Keith, you are an “equal opportunity offender”. You raise issues that make many uncomfortable for a variety of reasons.

          Keep doing so.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Stop reading NASA Watch?  You’re kidding!?  I’d give up dessert first.  Keith, please keep on calling them as you see them.

    • don says:
      0
      0

      I rather like the idea that SpaceX innovates often. One of the problems with the space shuttle is it was to expensive of beast to allow additional funding for the next gen, altough they tried.

  6. Joe Cooper says:
    0
    0

    Maybe they just want a name-brand, in which case I’ve got a proposal. Skip Boeing and go straight to the biggest name of ’em all; Cocacola.

    There have been literally thousands of Coke bottle flights using auqajet technology and they’re developing a more advanced propulsion system based on Diet Coke and Mentos.

    SpaceX thinks they’re on to something with their lower ISP fuels to simplify operations, but you don’t get lower and simpler than fetching some dry ice from the local Baskin Robins and dropping it into a bottle of Aquafina.

  7. SkyKing_rocketmail says:
    0
    0

    Sounds like Scott Pace has a simple minded view of how vehicles should be certified. Shuttle had 24 successful flights and was certified for flight every time, but on the 25th they found a significant design flaw and the crew was killed. Actually it had been certified even though they were aware of the design flaw before the accident because it hadnt killed anyone yet. Columbia followed the same pattern. NASA was fully aware of the design and hardware issues with the foam, but certified it anyway since it hadn’t yet caused an accident. Read Diane Vaughn’s book or the report on the Challenger accident investigation. 

    I also wouldn’t be too interested in what Logsdon has to say on this. He’s a historian, not an engineer or certification specialist, and he had no clue of the status of Shuttle’s certification and really a poor understanding of how the design configuration was established in the first place. Maybe he should stick with his narrow area of specialization, Kennedy and the moon decision. The Columbia accident investigation in my opinion was not as accurate or insightful because of erroneous ‘opinions’ like Logsdon’s instead of unbiased fact.

    Certification is done in a lot of ways and over a period of time. It can be done through design, through test, through flights…We know the Dragon and Falcon design works. We need to hear and see the paperwork about whether there have been technical issues and if so how they were fixed. 

    I hope and suspect that Space-X has done a better job on certification of its vehicles than Boeing did for instance with ISS. Since Space-X did most of their own manufacturing and testing, hopefully they have the records in hand. When ISS elements were to be certified (15 years ago), we found lots of missing documentation, and the plants responsible for the construction, testing and certification had been closed, people had moved on, and traceability was suspect. Boeing thought no one would notice.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      NASA’s fundamental safety problem is the institutional belief that
      enough people sitting around a table looking at paperwork can figure out everything that can go wrong. This led to the fundamental problem with Shuttle; the design was chosen without any prototype testing except in the most trivial part of the flight regimen.

      Certification has its uses, but paperwork doesn’t keep you alive at Mach 25. NASA certification procedures tend to involve expensive reviews by large groups of people with little hands-on experience who feel obligated to prove they are doing something useful by requiring changes. They feel obligated to push “safety” by requiring  things that can be seen on a block diagram, like additional levels of redundancy, which is ineffective in preventing deterministic failures, most historical failures in LVs, because the redundant systems share the common failure mode. Certification tends to make design improvements slow and expensive so we are tempted to fly with the old design even when we know there are problems. We know it is safe, because it is “certified”. 

      SpaceX has learned about problems that were not anticipated in design analysis on every single flight and made immediate hardware improvements. Before it carries people the Falcon will have a dozen flights under its belt with all detected problems corrected at the design level, not with mitigation. That is much better evidence of reliability than any level of analysis, indeed ULA has made the same point regarding the Atlas. NASA’s big concern over the flight software paperwork that delayed the Dragon launch does not (SFAIK) seem to have resulted in any changes at all in the actual flight hardware or software though it produced considerable paperwork.

      However I agree that it doesn’t make sense to be launching station modules after the plant has been closed and the people dispersed. Not much opportunity for design evolution there. Hopefully commercial crew won’t have this problem.

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Having it all under one roof vastly simplifies certification. Also, having a small staff size relative to the scale of the undertaking makes it easier to maintain uniform provenance.

  8. William Bormann says:
    0
    0

    I think I heard a variation on this question at the first Falcon 9 abort for this mission.  The question was how many Falcon 9 launches did SpaceX want before they tried a crewed mission.  As I recall, SpaceX was looking at more than 10 launches before they tried sending people into orbit.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      If SpaceX stated they were planning on 10 or more unmanned launches before a crewed launch, then it seems that they are in agreement with Scott Pace.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Not really. Elon simply said that a goodly number of freight missions would have flown before DragonRider was ready to test. Could be five, could be ten, but Mr. Pace wasn’t a factor in Musk’s projections, which were made beginning as long as two years ago.

        • John Thomas says:
          0
          0

          I agree that Musk said that on his own before Pace’s comment. It just seems that there’s no disagreement between the two that there will be a good number of unmanned flights before a crewed flight. Just going by the SpaceX contract, I think they have 12 flights scheduled by 2015 or so anyway so it seems that the question is moot.

  9. bhspace says:
    0
    0

    I do commend Space X for the most recent misson success.   It is critical to control the design and software if this is to be a reliable system.   I would not commit to flying humans until all the process controls are verfied to make sure changes don’t creep into the sytem that will reduce its reliablity.  As soon as that is verified and the changes are controlled and well documented and verified I would feel good about flying humans.  

  10. David_McEwen says:
    0
    0

    I’ll be curious to see if SpaceX launches it’s own private crew before a NASA crew. Having a private crew in orbit, or even docking with the ISS, would be another major first.

    • don says:
      0
      0

      I believe Musk mentioned that a private crew would make a test flight.

      • David_McEwen says:
        0
        0

        If the first launch of a crewed Dragon is in 2015, I hope SpaceX chooses March 23. That is day for the first crewed Gemini mission in 1965. It would be cool if exactly 50 years later, a commercial crewed mission was launched.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          I suspect they could fly sooner if Elon is willing to commit. Assuming a private crew, of course. Flying NASA personnel promises to be somewhat more…complicated.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            I hope Elon flys private crew first. And hope Bigelow gets some stations up and running where they can get free of some of this. Sure seems like we can be safetied to having no space future at all. Reading these posts sounds like NASA could just become a big weight making man space fight impossible.

        • mfwright says:
          0
          0

          As cool it would be (STS-1 20 years after Gagarin’s flight) but schedules should be set for technical reasons not . Let’s not let Dragon-1 end like Soyuz-1 (I think Politburo wanted it 10 years after Sputnik1 and ended killing one of their best cosmonauts).

          • mfwright says:
            0
            0

            oops, I pressed ‘enter’ too quick. I meant to say, “…set for technical reasons not political reasons.”

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

            No one’s rushing, unlike with STS-1 where we almost lost the Shuttle – we’re not seeing manned test flights of all up new LV + RV.

            Test flights are where you gain tons of engineering data, and don’t do anything else.

            Orion’s EFT-1 is intended to be a partially outfitted capsule bolted to a EELV upper stage, with the stages preprogrammed flight path in its own controller – so the long pole that Dragon had of avionics, software, prox ops, rendezvous … are nowhere to be seen.

            It’s basically a heat shield and recovery test. Less than the prior COTS 1 test(Orion won’t have a SM for EFT-1), except for a higher boost to simulate lunar recovery.

            And Orion/MPCV is arguably the best part of the SLS nonsense. Even if they cut over to EELV’s for manned flight, they will never catch up with Dragon as a more mature, tested, reliable, flight history vehicle.

            Now we watch as the parade of fools attempts to advance SLS/Orion … by running down Falcon/Dragon.

            If they were smart, they’d find a way to leverage it’s success. Hundreds of ways to do so.

            But bitterness knows no end with these guys.

            add:
            Martijn,
            Sigh. Afraid/fear you’re right. Look, I’ve seen these guys do amazing things … in the dark past.

            You keep hoping like with an alcholic relative, that they’ll get better, and the past greatness will reemerge.

            But political “substance abuse” is just as addictive/destructive as others. It gave them a way to succor their bitterness.

            I would never have guessed how much bitterness could consume. Enough to have done a HSF Mars mission … that really, really hurts.

          • mmeijeri says:
            0
            0

            If they were smart, they’d find a way to leverage it’s success. Hundreds of ways to do so.

            But bitterness knows no end with these guys.

            That’s why I gave up on SDLV. It’s not that a workable compromise can’t be found (even though it would still be unjust), it’s that the SDLV crowd, from the politicos down to the fanboy morons, will never compromise.

            The beast must (and will) die. Its death throes will consume several more years and billions of dollars and may end up taking out most if not all funding for manned spaceflight. Not an unacceptable outcome if you believe in market forces and limited government, but still an enormous waste.

          • mmeijeri says:
            0
            0

            “You keep hoping like with an alcholic relative, that they’ll get better, and the past greatness will reemerge.”

            I suppose there is always hope. A combination of bad things (Osteoarthritis, loss of an unborn grandchild) and a wonderful thing (birth of a healthy granddaughter) made one close relative drop the booze. There is such a thing as redemption, but unfortunately it’s rare. It’s wonderful when it does happen.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      The extra seats that Dragon will have seems to open up some possibilities.  I wonder if SpaceX might provide one or two private crew members on every flight to act as pilots (even if Dragon is automated).  This would reduce the training time needed for Expedition crew members as they wouldn’t have to learn anything about Dragon operation other than basic safety procedures.  The SpaceX pilot(s) would fly a crew up to ISS on one Dragon capsule, then a few days later bring the returning Expedition crew members back on another.  Similar to Soyuz, Expedition crews would normally come back in the same Dragon capsule they came up on.  Although unlike Soyuz they won’t have to deal with the complication of seat liners in case someone winds up returning on a different capsule.

      And maybe there would be room once again for one or maybe even two space tourists who would be able to stay on ISS for a few days.  NASA seemed to start getting comfortable with the space tourist thing after they realized that it provides a lot of good PR and wasn’t causing any problems.  SpaceX could pay NASA a certain amount for “hosting” their guest on ISS, meanwhile SpaceX would be charging the tourist and be able to make a profit if they want to.

      Another interesting question – will cosmonauts sometimes go to/from ISS on Dragon?  If Russia prefers not to then I suppose we could wind up in a situation where Russia rotates their cosmonauts using Soyuz exclusively, while U.S./ESA/JAXA rotate using Dragon.   

      All of my speculation applies equally to any other commercial crew provider I just used SpaceX as an example.

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        Could work. DragonRider is being designed for long-duration missions and to serve as an ISS lifeboat. Ride up on the new, down on the old. I like it.

      • Brian_M2525 says:
        0
        0

        NASA started getting comfortable with space tourists once they realized there was nothing they could do to prevent the Russians from flying them.  Those who control the launch vehicle controls access.

  11. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    I dislike Griffin’s Constellation program as much as the next guy, but SpaceX’s results were a result of an initiative started under Griffin.  This part of the program has worked along the lines of what he wanted.  Granted, the next phase of exploration totally diverges.

    That said, it’s fun to watch the anti-SpaceXers:

    The past:

    * SpaceX starts

    “We’ll see if they can even launch a rocket”

    * Falcon launches

    “Yeah, but what about a spacecraft”

    * Dragon orbits

    “Sure, but wait until it gets to the ISS”

    * Dragon gets to the ISS

    “But it’s not carry people”

    The future:

    * Dragon carries people

    “Sure it’s just LEO, though”

    * Dragon lands on Mars

    “Let’s see it land on Venus”

     

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Anyone remember “nattering nabobs of negativism” ?

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Lolololol

      • Anonymous says:
        0
        0

        These people are called scoffers and are one of the lowest forms of life.  Now is the time to be bold and to move forward to the future.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           Absolutely fragging-lutely, sir!

          • Anonymous says:
            0
            0

            Rumor has it that one of the main scoffer’s today was in the past turned down in their demand for a huge salary by Elon and has not been a fan of SpaceX ever since.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          I absolutely agree Dennis.  The meek shall inherit the Earth.  And we’ll wave to them as we’re leaving.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Wasn’t the commercial initiative begun under Sean O’Keefe?

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        COTS was started under Sean O’Keefe. It had several other names though.

        • Anonymous says:
          0
          0

          I stand corrected.

          Still, back in 2006, Griffin did seem to be a strong supporter of COTS:

          http://www.space.com/2762-n

          Personally, I was actually surprised by these comments when I read them last week.  I had been so disappointed in Griffin’s time that I didn’t realize he sounded like this back then.  For all the discontent between former Administrators, this seems to be a case where a program managed to survive and flourish across NASA heads.

          • no one of consequence says:
            0
            0

             IMHO he expected it to fail.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Griffin’s statements are interesting but peculiar. He expected US participation in ISS itself  to be terminated at some point soon after assembly complete; the exact date varied but was never later than 2015. So he had no reason to believe COTS would be anything more than a temporary stopgap. He repeatedly expresses support for the concept, yet “As for how well the COTS initiative worked overall, Griffin said he had very limited engagement with the process.” 

            SpaceX had made its first (unsuccessful)  Falcon 1 launch months before yet when asked to identify entrepreneurs who he felt had gotten beyond the viewgraph stage,  Griffin identified only Burt Rutan, who was clearly not interested in competing for COTS. Curious.

  12. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    It’s a great day to be Spacex fanfolk! I saw over 3,500 stories listed on Google News after the hatch opening. Most of them were positive, some were “yes, but…” stories and a very few were out-right negative. The international press have picked it up as well, including the part about Congress trying to ram SLS down NASA’s throat while, at the same time, under-funding commercial crew. This cat’s not just out of the bag… it’s had kittens!

    Someone mentioned the New York Times article where Elon Musk said he’d reveal the baseline for Spacex’s super-heavy lifter within a year and fly it in two. This is obviously part of Musk’s Mars Colonization Strategy. It’s also obvious that he has some idea of what kinds of payloads this behemoth would loft. So, not only is Spacex going after cargo and crew to orbit, the entire commercial satellite launch market and the Air Force/NRO contracts, they’re going after SLS as well. They actually seem to have some sort of mission in mind to rationalize building such a monster launch vehicle too.

    Can someone give me a rational idea not to give such a plan all the help it can get, regardless of who’s idea it is?

    Kennedy challenged America to “…within a decade… send a man to the Moon and return him safely…”. America took on that challenge and delivered on it to the letter! Obligation fulfilled. Time to move on.

    So, instead of ‘Taking the Next Step’, as NASA proposes for it future human spaceflight missions, why not take a great leap instead? Instead of ‘going somewhere’ just to say we went further, let’s simply go!

    And stay… this time.

    tinker

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

      The strategy is to deny success and double down on the “earmarks”, oops, “bipartisanship”, oops again, “cost plus” acceleration to eliminate the gap after Shuttle, oops, “move the goal posts”, oops,  “blame SpaceX for budget/schedule overruns”, oops …

      For people who are always “right”, they make too many “left turns” …

      In a rational universe, we’d advance SpaceX’s Dragon to crew capability ASAP on the thesis of not being dependent on foreign providers.

      Then, because SpaceX hasn’t passed the test of time, we’d also fund 1-2 others taking very different approaches so as to backstop any potential “blind spot”.

      Again … in a rational universe. Not Congress.

      add:
      Arsenal space we go to last – because a) you want to keep your strategic capability unaffected because it is too important to risk messing it up, b) short timescale response is insufficient for cost/capability/program risk, and c) long timescale response is insufficient for cost(sharing/developmental)/schedule(interference with strategic).

      Which, by the way, was part of the decision process for doing things like COTS long, long time ago.

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Time for Elon to shove a real inner solar system railroad strategy right down their/our throats lolol

      Can’t wait to see him on Charley Rose Show!!!

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Tinker
      O
      Elon is not so special !!! He only tries to compete with bloated porky has bins. They are easy to beat!!!!!!! Lolololol

      I can build you heavy lift with a few billion and ELONS phone number lololololo

      Out!!!!!

      See you on Mars!!!!

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Tinker,

      Being realistic, there are some people/companies who may agree with this 110%, but still not be able to support it because their welfare/company depends on being in Congress’ good graces, because of other, unrelated investments/programs. When you are responsible for the jobs of large numbers of people (and therefore indirectly for the welfare of their dependents) you can’t really thumb your nose at Congress for the sake of a principle. Some might call this hypocritical; I’d call it simple survival in the jungle.

      As for the rest of us, I see absolutely no reason not to support any plan that might force, or at least encourage, Congress to act more rationally than they do, and more in line with the principles of democratic government that they supposedly represent. The question I have to ask when sanity-checking any such plan is: will we have to redo it every two years, or is there a more permanent “lesson” we can teach them?

      Steve

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Yup it is the Joe Q taxpayers like me against the the others that have been wasting my hard earned money NOT getting us to Space!!!!! That simple!!!

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          DTARS,

          I’m sorry my friend, but I don’t understand your comment (I guess I’m that simple).  Can you explain it for me, please?

          Steve

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Steve I wrote this before seeing your request for an explanation.

            Politicsl

            Lol I’m a middle of the roader, I’m a waffler.
            I find it funny that it seems that many that have worked for NASA  are conserative and claim to be against social programs yet work for one. I had relatative big business farmers that did the same. I think I agree, there is no government program that by nature doesn’t work over time by the simple fact that if you have a budget you will spend it to justify you getting it in the first place. On the other hand in our increasing robotic world, big business now has the power to do more without humans. I don’t buy the fact that technology will replace as many jobs as it takes away. 
            At some point we will have to have a socialistic like society that helps take care of the many and protect them from the few. A lesson learned while watching Mr. Musk, do his great things is do to his nature, NOT the free market or capitalism. Just as social programs don’t   work to well, neither does our corporate systems. Both sides are in need of great reform and both sides work together to not be reformed. Joe Qs like me are in the middle and we are in deep s$&@!!! I sure don’t know the answers but I’m looking.

            We are in an election year again!!! Has the guy in office had enough time! Should presidents terms be longer? Should congress critters have career limits like presidents?
            This cots model seems to work for now. Sure better than cost porky plus.

            All I know for sure that without Mr. Musk a little guy that looked at our broken down gamed system and said hummmm what opportunity I can beat this. I would have little hope. 

            What if Paul is right what if Obama has Bolden reform the NASA contracting model and forces these porkers to diet big time. Wouldn’t that be great?

            Steve it’s not just congress it’s our whole system which was originally designed to best coup with our rotten human nature but currently is failing to do the job, because they have figured how to game the system. How do you change reform it? I don’t know.

            Steve I hear left people and right people fussing on here. And it seems so silly to me. Because the sad fact is it makes little difference who I pull the lever for. Most likely I lose either way. How do we change things I don’t know.

            Maybe this explains why I enjoy watching Elon do his thing so much! 

            He found a way to make a difference.

            🙂

  13. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    The ‘gap’ between American vehicles visiting ISS was closed in eleven months! Not bad considering.

    tinker

    • no one of consequence says:
      0
      0

       Looking forward to CRS upscaling cargo to ISS and not paying for more Progress flights.

      • John Gardi says:
        0
        0

         noofcq

        Oh yeah! Dragon can start hauling ISS lab racks up and down too. Also, NASA can send Orbital Replacement Units that won’t fit into the Japanese HTV. Almost back to Space Shuttle logistics support.

        tinker

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

           Dragon can start hauling ISS lab racks up and down …To do so would require a custom modification and … uh … unique extraction/insertion/hold down modifications … that are do able.

          This brings up one of Dragon’s virtues – specialization, where you can make of it a temporary module of the ISS for given specialized purposes, returned, resultant extracted, refurbished, reused, reflown.

          Think about that as a model for ISS research utilization.

          Here’s an example of an experiment you couldn’t do on ISS (for various reasons) until now (includes Shuttle).  Animal testing of radiation pharmaceuticals – including primates. Use “glove box” – like technology for isolation, and have the ability for fast recovery/departure on need.

          Many, many more examples. Like … free flyers that can revisit ISS for sample change. Entire miniaturized semiconductor / MEMS fabs for next gen devices. Combustion/propulsion experiments.

          Lots of fun. Oh wait – arsenal system space politico’s say “wait, don’t look, don’t  touch … its ‘unclean'”.

          Who are you gonna believe – your eyes, or their ‘special interests’?

          Ya know, even the arsenal guys have some experiments they too could run on Dragon to enhance the arsenal industrial base … ain’t it a bitch?

        • Tina Thompson says:
          0
          0

           justatinker, don’t overlook the fact that environmental controls such as refrigeration are already part of the SpaceX/Dragon capability, something that Soyuz cannot do.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      We need to close the gap on crew as well, and this could take years. The Administration has repeatedly said that doing this efficiently and expeditiously will take $800M/yr. Congress has repeatedly slashed this in half while giving far greater sums to its pet contractors on SLS and Orion. NASA has a tough choice; We can have two affordable US manned vehicles quickly, or pay more for rides on Soyuz than we are saving by cutting Commercial Crew.

      We as taxpayers need to provide some guidance.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

         Projecting from Senator “Bad Mouth” Shelby, he’s for more Russian Progress flights, not “manufactured all in America” Dragon flights, or “assembled in America from Ukrainian, Russian, and Italian parts” Cygnus flights.

        So he’d likely prefer more Soyuz crew flights … over the expense of Commercial Crew.

        If only that bastard Obama didn’t cancel Ares I, everything would be just fine, and cheap at $9 billion expended and $ 25 billion to go. Ignore the flaming debris on pad abort, stainless steel parachutes might protect the crew …

        An example of American greatness?

  14. punder says:
    0
    0

    What data supports your contention that Atlas V is way more reliable than Falcon 9?

    Both have a success rate of 100%.

    Atlas V wasn’t designed initially for crew flights, therefore it must be “man-rated” at great expense to ULA’s biggest investor–the taxpayer. F9 was designed at the outset to carry crew, and private money paid for almost all of its development.

    No, F9 doesn’t have the proven track record of Atlas V. It also doesn’t have the huge (and growing) price tag, or the Russian sourced engine.

    I don’t care for the leftward slant either, but I respect Keith and what he’s done with nasawatch (as do we all, I’m sure… kiss kiss!). As a conservative, I’m continually amazed at how little respect Musk gets from our side. You’d think a giant tax-sucking bureaucracy was all we ever wanted in a space program.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      I fail to see how approving of SpaceX is leftist. Someone will have to explain that to me.

      • no one of consequence says:
        0
        0

        Perception of HSF as a  arsenal system supplied proxy war.

        If budget isn’t going to arsenal primes, it’s “leftist”.

        Now, the  political contradiction present is … using arsenal money for Soyuz/Progress – which are products of the Russian arsenal system! You’d think the right would like to “buy American”. So they should applaud Dragon simply for that reason.

        One must realize – that the right believes that a dollar going to the arsenal system – even Russia’s (!) … is being denied to the leftist enemy.

        The right currently puts the “idiot” in ideology with this. Sometimes to the point where it begins to resemble something not serving America’s interest. Vexing.

        Note – not all the right is this way. The libertarian side finds it a political contradiction they laugh at all the time.

        Personally, I’d like the right and the left to not mess with the arsenal system as their budgetary battleground. Screws up national security needs when you conflate issues – this is a profound issue right now that the right trivializes.

        If they don’t want to fund space if not a proxy war, well then so be it. At least they’ll be more honest about it.

      • DocM says:
        0
        0

         “I fail to see how approving of SpaceX is leftist. Someone will have to explain that to me.”

        Because Obama obviously supports commercial and Musk is one of his campaign donors?  A=A.

        I’m pretty conservative, but this is one that Obama is right on.

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          Then you can’t be a conservative – nothing that Obama does can be “right”. Opening a door, going to the bathroom, breathing, eating …

          add:
          punder,
          I’ve worked longer / harder for Republicans. In the past. In my experience, they don’t listen unless you hit them with a hard hammer of a message. They eventually appreciate the “correction” because they know this about themselves.

          Unlike the Dems, who even the slightest push-back causes them to resent you forever, so you have to constantly “calibrate” / “tune” so as not to upset delicate feelings.

          Poor baby if you can’t take the message and instead assult the messenger. Who is very, very used to this. Can see you’re more like the Dems.

          • punder says:
            0
            0

            Amazing how “I don’t like his politics, but I agree with him on this” elicited so many openly hateful, bigoted responses about the Right.  We’re greedy, hating, stupid people, aren’t we?  Holding back progress, legislating physics.  Now that’s insightful thinking, and not at all offensive or simple-minded.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Ditto for me. Besides, everyone should realize by now that adding political (and pseudo-intellectual) terms to a space discussion only degrades it. It’s bad enough we have to deal with the politics and the politicians, let’s not poison our comments with nasty adjectives. Let’s just stay in the non-partisan middle and talk about space topics.

        Steve

        • no one of consequence says:
          0
          0

          It is to be expected. Note the failure to address specifics. It’s a simple “I hate X” … because I do.

          Just point the “hate ray” at something to make it die.

          An aspect of “be your own God”, “all knowing/seeing”, undisputed, “throwing lightening bolts”…

          Now ask yourself this question … do you want people like this involved in doing anything in space. Perhaps they’ll decide gravity works as they decide, not as a physical law. Unconstrained from reality.

          In the Saturn/Shuttle days, there was this worry that some might get so detached from reality that they would become a risk. It was this fear of detachment, and losing to the Russians in competition by such irrationality that it scared people … to not do this anymore.

          Take it for what its worth.

          add:

          Mr. Steve,
          I would otherwise, in other circumstances. agree with you to leave stuff that degrades the discussion out of it. Because that is sensible.

          Your thoughtful and sensible nature correctly suggests projecting forward to the future of political conflicts … beyond.

          However, it is impossible … to be thoughtful and sensible … about things that aren’t.

          With your example, as with the current example case … the issues are more about human nature and how groups can abuse it for ambiguous “gain”.

          Plenty of examples of this in history. All bad.

          Human nature is what we have to strive to overcome. Perhaps even after another million years.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Perhaps they’ll decide gravity works as they decide, not as a physical law.

            Mr. C,

            On one level, I’d say that’s a clear cut case of natural selection, in the Darwinian sense.

            This is something that has occurred to me time and again. It happens in fiction, so it’s probably just a matter of time before some politician in real life mandates the impossible somewhere in space and gets p