Shelby's Contradictions Laid Bare For All To See

If ULA doesn't already they should make contributions to Shelby's campaign. SpaceX should do the same. Then we'll see if Shelby sings a different tune.

Senator Shelby is right on here. It is a fact that SpaceX is almost 2 years behind schedule. The Cx haters went crazy when IOC of Ares went from 2013 to 2015. And don't give me the argument that it is really 2017. That was a number from the Augustine commission. In fact Doug Cooke stated in his testimony last month that Ares was on schedule. So let's hold the commercial guys feet to the fire just like we do NASA. Why should the taxpayers should reward missed dates with more money?

As for Elon saying that ULA stands a better chance at getting a contract, that is just his way of deflecting the negative press from his close association with President Obama. Note that Elon said they had no problem with Cx until it started to affect commercial crew. Again, just more PR words to sway a vote or 2 in Congress.

Of course SpaceX is behind schedule (so was the DReamliner) but it is mostly on "Musk's" on money...he has gotten some federal dollars but the dollars he got wouldnt keep the Ares program in pencils (a modest joke but not all that off base).

Ares even if it were on schedule is costing an enormous amount (more then Atlas and Delta cost together probably could throw Falcon 1/9 in there as well) and is how many billion away from flying? What 10 or 12 billion from it...

And worse it is such a crummy performer that it is requiring Orion to shed mass.

It is not so much the schedule that is annoying, it is the cost. Why should taxpayers fund Ares 1 when Delta and Atlas (not to mention FAlcon 9) can do the job?

why?

Robert G. Oler

silver_snoopy is right. All that is needed is a few deep-pocketed individuals at ULA to make $ contributions to Shelby. That's all he really cares about. The max per individual is a little over $2000. However if you can get a significant number of people to contribute, then you can amass quite a wad. I'm actually surprised that ULA hasn't already worked this angle.

> "Senator Shelby is right on here. It is a fact that SpaceX is almost 2 years behind schedule. The Cx haters went crazy when IOC of Ares went from 2013 to 2015. {snip}"

The advertised first launch date for the Ares I was 2008. 2015 is a 7 year delay.

I would hope that Senator Shelby would support ULA's commercial crew project in order to promote business in Alabama, without regard to campaign contributions. If the Senator were to fund organizations in Alabama without regard to the quality of the output, he would utterly destroy such organizations. In fact this is the problem with communism, that people are rewarded according to their political connections, not based on the usefulness or quality of their work,
According to the Senator's website, his primary focus is on reducing the size of government,
"a smaller government can also be a more effective government."
so he could not in good faith support an expensive moon project such as Constellation. Of course hypocrisy is no longer a vice, it is a plank of the Republican platform.
I suggest we ask him whose taxes he wants to raise to get back to the moon.

Steve

if I were referee, ick to say it, but Shelby made an accurate statement on this (although he loses the point with CxP rocket backing):

"Space X has yet to deliver on the simple contract it has already signed with NASA," Graffeo said. "They are two years behind schedule and now are looking for more government funding to be successful."

Musk's retort in terms of who might get the most bucks just seemed so, billionairish.

ULA wins the point with:

"I think its important to note ... that the consolidation to form ULA was done in part because the commercial market projected in the late 1990's did not materialize as was originally expected and the remaining market was insufficient to sustain two healthy launch-service providers," Gass told Congress. "Therefore, we believe the nation's human access to space should not be dependent on the success of a future adjacent commercial market."

(and that non-existant commercial market was just for cargo, much less hsf)

So bad ideas for hsf commercial, CxP rocket, outsourcing to Russia - what's next?

If you will permit an outsider's comment. Could it be that all this "huffing and puffing" is to delay the resolution of the issue until after your mid term elections. With the Republicans in charge of the two chambers, would Sen. Shelby then be the Majority leader and able to wield more influence and garner more porcine related space products?
A more Machiavellian take would be that this is a pseudo-opposition in order to raise public awareness of the state of your space program. With Sen. Shelby selflessly taking on the traditional role of the 'black hatted' villian. If Congress were to add more money to NASA's budget the overwhelming support of the general public must be sought. Hence the "gutting, killing, fiendish Chinese, filthy Russian capitalist,..." rhetoric to appeal to the right and the "Change" to Constellation to appeal to the left.

Although, in passing, I must admit that the labyrinthine complexities of the American political system continues to amaze. When one adds the two year political cycle, one wonders how anything gets done?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order-in-Council

OTOH I was VERY taken with Sen. Mikulski performance. A firm hand at the wheel if ever I saw one. To paraphrase the Honourable Chairwoman: America indeed cannot afford to invent a new NASA every four years. However NASA cannot afford the POR!

Perhaps if the politics of space become more international then a more long term approach can be achieved. Thus in addition to spreading the cost of a cis/trans lunar transportation architecture also providing much needed stability to the technical development side. I think it was Admin. Bolden himself who stated that America was the last country he would choose to be a reliable partner in space.

Interesting times Keith and far better than any space soap opera* I have ever seen. One hopes that the general public become engaged, realises that NASA provides dollars on the dimes and clamours for increased spending!
*Dr Who doesn't count because the BBC does not have to sell soap!

I enjoy outsider's perspectives-especially these guys, they always seem to have an unusual perspective with humor, anybody read them much?

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/144624,top-10-dangerous-technologies.aspx

I think the ULA statement is throwing the arrogantly stated "Quite Franky, We've already been there" from Obama - right back at him, and deservedly so.

Anything think the Obama/Garver/Holdren/policy-smarties folks picked up on that?

Makes it all the worse too, that the been there-done that first time in the 90's was more about a failed Al Gore investment that he was apparently duped into (gee, they didn't have derivatives & shorts back then too did they?)

So, who's got the big money maker investment this time? Wouldn't be anybody on that "independent advisory council" paid for by the taxpayers would it?

"The advertised first launch date for the Ares I was 2008. 2015 is a 7 year delay."

Huh? Where did you get that from?

The ESAS study in Sept 2005 stated that the objective was to develop and fly the CEV no later than 2014 with a goal of 2012. So 2015 is a 1 year delay. As I understand it, this also laid out the budget for the program that also shows it was underfunded, not over budget.