Observations From Today's SLS/Orion/Artemis Hearing

Based on today's testimony by @NASA the agency is incapable of setting a launch date for #Artemis 1 until one single personnel slot is filled. Until then the entire @NASA_SLS @NASA_Orion program and senior agency management are incapable and/or unwilling to make that decision.

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019

In other words the previous @NASA HEOMD AA was incapable of setting a #Artemis 1 launch date. The current acting AA is not able to do so. Now #NASA is searching for someone who is willing to take the job who can stand up and announce a launch date with a straight face. Got it. https://t.co/gBdqMB1TWV

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019

Of course Doug Cooke, Mike Griffin's "Apollo on Steroids" architect is just going to say this again and again as @NASA_SLS continues to be delayed and cost more - its almost as if NASA is more interested in developing a huge rocket than actually flying it. https://t.co/YRhubH4jHp

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019

Actually Doug Cooke the commercial efforts arose in great part in response to NASA's inability to do the Ares I/V thing and their need was spurred further by @NASA_SLS / @NASA_Orion delays and overruns. Just sayin' https://t.co/ACyi5FYFdi

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019

Here we are - many years and billions of dollars into the @NASA_Orion program - with its basic physical characteristics set long ago - and @NASA is still uncertain how they will move the spacecraft from one location to another to do routine tasks? Really? https://t.co/ddgNbmcmQw

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019

FWIW if you take total program costs to get to where @NASA_SLS @NASA_Orion need to get in order to do something then the words "cost effective" are simply irrelevant. This is about #NASA paying standing armies to develop things. Flying them is always "next year".

— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) September 18, 2019