SpaceX Organizes NO on H.R. 5781 Effort

Not surprised

H.R.5781
Title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010
Sponsor: Rep Gordon, Bart [TN-6] (introduced 7/20/2010) Cosponsors (3)
Latest Major Action: 7/28/2010 Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 333.
House Reports: 111-576
COSPONSORS(3), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)

Rep Giffords, Gabrielle [AZ-8] - 7/20/2010
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 7/20/2010
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] - 7/20/2010

Send the funds to Texas PLEASE! Keep the US astronaut office just the way it is... I will make the call of non-support now!

Shouldn't he be able to float on his own steam? Isn't that the whole concept behind his privatized space for "everyone" view? And to bring up the loss of jobs is ridiculous, there are losses on both sides...I know I was one of them.

Already talked to the staff of a few congressmen in my state asking them to vote FOR the bill. That makes the senate bill the likely compromise candidate.

It is kind've depressing to think that we put more faith (and thus $$) in the Russians and their Soyuz than our own American technology.

Capitalism is alive and well, don't give money to them give it to me...

I do applaud Mr. Musk, it is rallying like this that makes me proud to be a free American.

It would have helped if Elon had 100,000 employees all over the country developing a rocket transportation system for 1/10th the cost that other contractors charge, but that is not realistic.

The problem I see Elon facing is the numbers game. Because he does not have the numbers, he won't get the votes in the House to cancel the bill which slashes commercial space funding. If he proves me wrong, then he has the power needed to go all the way and then charge the customer anything he wants to put the chosen people in space.

Looks like the DIRECT team is asking the House to support the Senate bill language as well:

http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/DIRECT-Press-Release-29-July-2010.pdf

SpaceX is more than able of floating on its own steam, it's a matter of how much money NASA wastes on another government-operated system that costs an order of magnitude more to develop and operate than the alternatives. Also, Elon Musk has said previously that he doesn't expect SpaceX to be the primary winner of a commercial crew competition -- if anything they'd be getting a smaller portion of the contract than Boeing/ULA.

LMAO! You should work on making your car affordable for the average citizen first.
Average citizen in space? lmao
Just when Griffins whiney ass is fadeding away...
lmao average american in space!!!

It's also worthwhile to remind people that the Senate bill includes funds for an additional Space Shuttle flight, which the House bill does not.

LMAO
http://www.toyotatesla.com/
You should work on making your car affordable for the average citizen first.
get a clue.
Average citizen in space?
The FAA is the responsible agency for making this happen via regulations. NASA is working on the this via technology. The DOD is supportive of the efforts and has a spacecraft on orbit to show for this.

The back to the moon effort from 1961 is in the dumpster LMAO!
I can only hope the bill is voted down! LMAO pork barrel politics.
Given all the crying about jobs and the loss of work in Florida, Alabama and Texas it is time to clean house in the corrupt HSF efforts within the agency. Send the funds to the Russians so then can in turn sell hardware to China based on US technology.

If commercial space were really the game changer it claims, the February budget proposal should have made investors and customers both appear as key supporters. We haven't seen any increased sign of either one.

If the average American has a better chance of going to space, why are w still relying on a 10 year old market study that identifies the super-affluent as the customers? And why should the dem administration be interested in subsidizing the super-affluent anyway?

Just some questions ....

There is nothing wrong with charging government for services, especially when the cost of the same services provided by NASA itself is so much higher.

Charging for services, at a fixed cost, is not the same as asking for handouts, which is what the cost-plus contractors are doing.

This whole anti-SpaceX sentiment is just politics and job security masquerading as concern for HSF. Sad to watch, really.

Heres another link.
http://www.edmunds.com/tesla/roadster/2010/index.html?mktcat=tesla-roadster-performance&kw=tesla+roadster+motor&mktid=ov52888492
Now the average citizen has bought his 109 thousand dollar roadster. He might have paid cash for his car who knows? How much will it coast the average Joe to take a trip into space?
SpaceX has been putting up some pretty easy to pick apart arguments on it's greatness. Beside this average American appeal, the chest thumping about their 2 hour turn around from their test abort was another instant classic.
Also are we not funding a company owned by a foreign national?

Editor's note, some of you SpaceX haters just kill me. So "Biggio" (what kind of name is that anyway?) how many companies have you started and then sold for hundreds of millions of dollars? How many rockets have you built that have put things in orbit? How many cars have you built? yet you are somehow capable of passing judgement on someone who has done these thing? The thread is about Congress and NASA Authorization, not for you anonymous trolls to dump on SpaceX. Stay on topic.

And back on the topic of this authorization, how is it in the best interests of the United States to spend over five times as much to fly NASA astronauts on the Russian Soyuz than to develop an American commercial alternative such as Space X? Especially since Space X, unlike NASA, is meeting its goals.

"The only hope" for the "average citizen" to reach space is SpaceX? Doesn't that seem a bit hyperbolic to you?

It's simple: if you want Americans and American business in space, support the Senate bill. If you want a make-work jobs program, support the House bill

If you care about the future of American space exploration, your urgent help is necessary. The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress.
Biggio is the name of person along with 500 of his fellow employess recieved their WARN ACT notices today. (sixy days notice prior to lay off).
At this time with have a little a hope extending our empoyement out a year with both version of of the funding bills.
Now where I work at we were to build and transition to the Orion and the Ares1 upper stage programs. That hasn't worked out to well due too imho politics.
I stated that the "average citzen" in space was a weak argument I'll stand by that. On my side of the fence what I see Elon doing is no different than Mike Griffin's meedling.
You read this article from my perspective it's a here we go again moment. One of the greatest start up business models would have to be Henry Fords make a car his employees could afford but I will stay on subject.
I have worked 136 shuttle missions out on the floor hands on not from behind a desk since 1981.
Never built a car or owned a company. I am not trolling maybe just being snarky. It's your blog you call the shots. But unlike one of the NASA haters haters that post here I hope nobodys rockets blow up.

Keith,

While this is your website, could you please keep the personal attacks to a minimum. Biggio is an Italian name. Craig Biggio (from Houston) was one of the best baseball players that the Houston Astros ever had. Over 3000 hits - 19th all time. Maybe it's him.

Editor's note: What "personal attack"? How many people go around using a one word name? My home town has a large Italian-American population - it not like I never heard that last name before.

"SpaceX does not have the enormous lobbying power of the big government contractors to stop them"

This is kind of funny. Elon is connected. Who else has had the opportunity to take the President on a tour of their vehicle. Obama didn't even look at NASA's hardware, just one of his major contributor's.

The way not to have rockets blow up is, don't build rockets that will blow up. Big multi-segment solids, like those mandated by the House bill, are inherently unreliable. If the House bill passes we will spend billions building a rocket designed by Congressional committee, one that will almost certainly blow up. Nobody wants that.

I'm sorry that anyone is getting laid off. It's hard, I know it personally. But we can't go on propping up arthritic government bureaucracies and politically-connected companies to build flawed designs that don't work very well.

It is, a bit; can you blame him? It's his company, with a few hundred million of his own money at risk. Along with SpaceX there are several other private companies that offer ways of greatly expanding American presence in space (Virgin Galactic, Armadillo, Blue Origins, ...) through their work on reliable, less-expensive launchers and vehicles. Under the Old Way not even NASA astronauts had a guarantee of getting into space. Passing HR 5781 would lock us into that and cut off those other possibilities.

Ok, he obviously wasn't appealing to the NASA Watch crowd with his emphasis on space tourism (yes it is a weak short term argument). I guess he was using that as a way to get broader support. So ignore the space tourism part and just focus on how encouraging commercial space will lead to a renaissance in US spaceflight capability and improved competitiveness worldwide.

Hear, Hear biggio, my hat is off to you. It's the educated, dedicated, experienced workforce which is being tinkered with here. The summer interns at the Center I worked were nervous and kept more to themselves this summer than ever before and I attribute this to the morale and disruption this administration has caused. How can we inspired when we are leaderless?

Now where I work at we were to build and transition to the Orion and the Ares1 upper stage programs. That hasn't worked out to well due too imho politics.

I though KSC was expert at playing Politics as usual. It is good to see change slapping you in the face. The stick is dead and Orion is a lifeboat!

SpaceX's reasons for fighting the Bill are there own, and we can only make assumptions about them.

However, I strongly feel that fighting H.R. 5781 is important. It's one thing for the politicians to mandate what programs/projects NASA will undertake, that's within their power to do. BUT, when they start to dictate elements of the design and sources of material ("thou shalt use solid rockets from ATK," etc.), that crosses the line from arrogance to (in my opinion) irresponsible stupidity.

When it doesn't happen as mandated; when it costs much more than budgeted; When More People Get Killed!, who will get the blame? House? Senate? Nonsense -- NASA will get blamed, again (déjà vu). I find it mind-blowing that all of these politicians involved appear to think they really know what they're talking about in this bill (or perhaps they just don't care).

I'm not an American (I'm Canadian), so I can't write to my congressman, etc. But if I were American, I'd be writing to every relevant political representative, and all of the lobby groups, and all of the involved companies (new and old) urging them to fight H.R. 5781 using any means at their disposal. And I would caution them to do it reasonably and factually (the logic is there), and not emotionally, as too many others have done.

This is not any more about destiny, inspiration, American leadership, or "average" people in space. At this point, to me, it's about jobs and the economy for sure, but much more it's about putting in place a sane, safe, realistic plan that won't get people hurt or killed. H.R. 5781 is the same old bull shit as before.

We all know how it's going to end, because no amount of mandate or magic is going to make it turn out any differently than the previous unrealistic, unsustainable, politically-massaged space "plans" that Congress micro-managed into oblivion.

If you really care about America's space future, I urge you to fight H.R. 5781 in any (reasonable) way that you can.

Steve

PS: If you're willing to write to congress people, etc., please use a spell checker and re-read your words before you send them! A lot of otherwise good commentary gets ignored -- or outright laughed at -- because its bad spelling and grammar make it look like a 10-year-old wrote it. If you really care, take the time to do it right. Thanks.

Not sure why you have to be so offensive to everyone on this board. And the "stick" isn't dead in either bill, just renamed and refactored into something else.

Editor's note: Yea, its called an SRB. There is no Ares 1-anything. Face it - the stick is indeed dead.

Both have languages of re-use for the Ares j2x engine at least. Also Orion isn't an lifeboat in either bill, it is fully restored and provides a much needed dose of realism to the commercial promises which have yet to discover that which they don't know.

It doesn't help me or most of my co-workers since my 3 years of work on Orion bought me a nice pink slip to my project, and a transfer off to something else after the Obama announcement and subsequent backdoor moves to shut the program down. But it is nice to see my work, my efforts, and the hard work of thousands finally being recognized by congress.

You really should take more care in your tone toward the fine men and women who work on these programs, and though space enthusiasts that post on these boards. I am surprised Keith continues to let your inflammatory comments and flippant behavior on this site.

"The only hope for the average citizen to one day travel to space is in danger due to the actions of certain members of Congress."

NASA has gone too far down a path that does not allow u-turns. They have lost a generation of support.

As the Apollo Program was in its heyday, the nation was captured by the possibilities. Sci-fi and comic books fed the furor of youth. The possibilities were as endless as space. Hotels on the moon, families routinely taking vacations there, “free” resources brought back for industry, etc. So, what happened? NASA, and the contractors feeding at the government trough, kept a stranglehold on space access. None of the possibilities for average Joe were available. Apollo-Soyuz looked good for NASA’s ability to work with international partners, but it did nothing to bring the public space access.

Then, they built the most complicated and capable launch vehicle ever. A virtual space truck. The Shuttle Program started out with lots of promise. Routine flights, large payload capability, etc. The public ate up the future possibilities. I remember seeing advertisements in magazines with pictures of Shuttles docked at space-station hotels and Shuttles where the payload bay was decked out with seats like an airliner. So, what happened? Same as before. The public was enthralled for about the first 10 flights. The first 5 were checkout flights and then the Program was called “operational”. The public expected the flight rate to ramp up and the system, mostly, to evolve commercially. Sure, NASA was carrying commercial satellites up, but no public passengers – still the same limited access for the public.

NASA seemed to try to open things up. They introduced mission/payload specialists…but they were the same “astronauts” to the public. Then, they sent some Congressional members. The public saw that as a payoff and not as opening up access to space.

Next, Challenger. The nation was riveted on that launch because of the teacher-in-space program. Kids from all over were watching live as things went terribly wrong. Sure, it inspired the nation to fund a replacement for the lost vehicle. But, for NASA and Congress, all it did was clamp down even more on the controls. No more commercial satellites. Cancel the launch pad at Vandenberg. The public saw this as an end to their dream and THEIR future in space. They turned their attention away.

Now, I think it will be up to the commercial efforts to inspire future generations about the possibilities. We are back to the dreams and possibilities of the late 60’s and early 70’s about what can happen in space. Commercial endeavours are going to need an HLV to fulfill those possibilities. If NASA builds it as a NASA controlled vehicle, hopes will once again be dashed. The SpaceX’s and OSC’s need govt support thru contracts to lift NASA payloads. But, it MUST be a commercial vehicle so they can build a true space industry/economy.

Just my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.

I agree with JohnK. Attacking a screen name as part of your "commentary" to contradict Biggio's opinion is hardly staying on topic yourself. Actually, childish behavior, one might say.

Editor's note: Oh grow up. What kind of name is "ncoder"? All of you folks get to come here and use fake names and dump on people - and I don't get to call you on that? If people were required to use their real names half of what is posted here would never get said to anyone's face.

No one that reads NASA Watch believes you are unbiased or they'd be naive.

As for myself, on topic, I too find it hard to consider seriously the opinions of Space X on this topic irregardless of how much of a contract they might hope to win.

If there was a viable commercial space program paid for by the affluent, they'd be funding space x.

You really should take more care in your tone toward the fine men and women who work on these programs, and though space enthusiasts that post on these boards. I am surprised Keith continues to let your inflammatory comments and flippant behavior on this site.

Ahh

What happen to start the steroid injection. cancel every program insight and peers reviewed grants that have multiagency support, cancel all agreements with NIH, FAA, NSF to start with. You do not remember the loss work and jobs and people being transfered to other work at different locations around the country?

My tone is because of the stupidity of management of this wonder program. I happen to work for the agency also, if you can't accept critical review of your unsustainable efforts do not read what I write.

> it is nice to see my work, my efforts, and the hard work of thousands finally being recognized by congress.
> You really should take more care in your tone toward the fine men and women who work on these programs

You should really take politics less personally. People like you, whose jobs are interrupted, get all the care and kindness and pity in the world. You pick what you call it.

When we talk about politics and policy we're talking about the big picture. We're NOT talking about you!

I strongly believe that " new space" meaning space X and others will and should have there day in the sun,However there will be "safety rules" and at first this will benefit the existing EELV fan boy universe.
this might make some since,if you are going with a heavy lifter that is also EELV evolved
but we are not going to get this it seems at least the heavy lifter sanes EELV so...............
"new space" keep lifting COTS, go after commercial fuel,Fuel depot? launch it even if it is built by EELV.
its commercial right? ( trade commission ruling VS ULA)
keep up the design work on human crew, in 2025 make sure commercial crew contract comes out for bid so that you can challenge EELV
get congress to fund at least two commercial crew,one EELV the other new space, at least a fly off between the two
loser goes on and fly commercial to Bigelow.