House Science Committee Pushes Human Space Flight
Palazzo, Edwards Say Human Space Exploration Should Be Priority
“We are writing to express our strong support for a safe, focused and expeditious return of American astronauts to deep space exploration on an American rocket launched from American soil. Congress has done its part in helping to codify a future deep space exploration architecture in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (PL 111-267), and has followed with a robust funding commitment, as most recently expressed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. We are concerned, however, about the impact of shifting priorities for NASA and the resulting mixed signals this sends relative to the United States’ dedication and commitment to its leadership role in human deep spaceflight exploration. We urge you to chart and clearly state a vision and timeline for the nation in deep space exploration.”
A bunch of lawyers taking the name of science in vain while setting space policy. Oh yeah, this will turn out well.
Science is great. I love it, All of you on this forum love it. You can all see the benefits of the science. I can as well. However, the paying public, the constituents of these representatives, do not see the benefits of the science that NASA does as the point of NASA. For better or worse, NASA is synonymous with human space flight for the taxpayer. So if NASA is to get funding, or keep its programs working, the human spaceflight has to be the priority and for now BEO spaceflight is the only human spaceflight that NASA can lead. Put differently “No Buck Rogers, no bucks from the taxpayer.”
“Congress has done its part in helping to codify a future deep space exploration architecture in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (PL 111-267), and has followed with a robust funding commitment, as most recently expressed in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. “
Yep! We done our part!
Such kidders they are….
Let’s see, aren’t the Congress people the ones who are supposed to be providing the resources, $$, in order to be able to be able to do the implementation? So they are asking the President to define a plan, but the Congress has not yet funded commercial crew to ensure an indigenous US launch capability? Congress has funded continued development of an Orion capsule that has no mission and an SLS that has no payloads. Seems like these folks ought to figure out their own role.
“We urge you to chart and clearly state a vision and timeline for the nation in deep space exploration.”
I read in this statement that some are starting to be concerned about what SLS is going to be used for. The words of Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men” come to mind: “You can’t handle the truth.”
It’s easy to support some of the vague, feel-good, statements in this letter about STEM education, and so on. But, there’s no connection between the Space Launch System and achieving the goals that are described in the letter, as more and more people are pointing out (Kraft, Garver, etc.). SLS will surely be a fine rocket someday from a technical perspective. But, when these House members get the cost estimate and the timeline for how SLS would be used in the coming decades, there’s going to be some questions asked of those who forced NASA to swallow SLS.
We all want to explore, and eventually bring the solar system into our economic sphere, but all we are going to get is a litter of ritual monuments (to paraphrase former OSTP director John Marburger) – if even that – if we keep up this unsustainable direction. One can get inspiration, employment, and all of the things described in the letter while at the same time pursuing a course that is actually sustainable, affordable, and rational.
Someone needs to talk about the cost per pound to orbit, how many launches per year that is based on, what SLS is really needed for that no other launcher can provide, and the cost to develop those payloads (in time and dollars). Maybe once it is pointed out that the emperor has no clothes, we can readjust our trajectory, where competition and innovation can address needs, just as official U.S. National Space Transportation policy directs
What makes this a “fine rocket”? The price to the taxpayer?
What technical perspective?
Vladislaw – I hear you. The “perpetrators” are listed here: http://www.billnelson.senat…. The remark attributed to Bolden is telling: “Bolden emphasized that the rocket program will create jobs and help NASA retain its talent pool.”
I respect those (the entire NASA/contractor team) who are carrying out the “Prime Directive” that a few Congress people have contrived. I am sure those engineers will very competently play the hand that has been dealt to them, and the rocket will do what they intend it to – whether it does it anything remotely close to economically, or not.
I’d expect a quote like that from a guy bringing his best foot forward in an effort to be a team player.
Wow! While NASA deserves some criticism, the hypocrisy in Congress of saying “Congress has done its part…” is breathtaking. Even Keith seemed at a loss for words! In fact congress has destroyed any near term capability for US manned space flight by not supporting Space X and largely destroyed future US manned space flight capability with the SLS boondoggle which will always be in the future, much like manned expeditions to Mars.
It is ambiguous whether the committee is complaining about diversion of NASA funds from SLS/Orion to Commercial Crew or to something else. Any ideas?
Possibly divert the funds to an American made RD-180 and crew rate Delta to fly Orion to ISS instead.
“Well, maybe the next POTUS will be on board.”
Is there anyone you believe would actually increase NASA resources significantly beyond the current administration request? Difficult for me to see who would do so, or how it could be approved by Congress, regardless of who has the majority.