16 thoughts on “Spasibo, Congress”

  1. Direct hit. Good article.

    This is exactly why the government pays higher contracting costs. Anyplace else, a contract is a contract and you can sue for performance. But what recourse is there when the government cancels a contract.

    The good news is SpaceX has enough non government contracts (the kind that are honored) that they can continue forward with crew even if at a slower pace.

  3. You are mistaken. The gap wasn’t about station construction. It was always defined as the period between the time the Shuttle retired (after ISS completion) and the CEV started to fly.

    And I’m not saying that relying on the Russians is a bad thing. I’m saying that if you believe that, then this bill is a bad thing, and that the House members who are pushing it because they fear dependence on the Russians are shooting themselves in the foot, on full auto.

  4. Rand, your statement was that it was about getting US crews to the station which is simply impossible because the Shuttle isn’t used for that, the Soyuz is, so either the Columbia gap was about construction and resupply or there simply was no gap. Similarly with the Shuttle-CEV gap.

    What I think is more honest is to refer to the gap in the workforce utilization. Retirement of the Shuttle puts a lot of people out of work unless you’ve got something to transition them to. This is what a lot of people refer to as “the gap”, and sending astronauts for visits to the ISS is just a cover. I believe you are for that gap, in that jobs shouldn’t be the deciding factor for what comes after Shuttle.

  5. I am not surprised Obama caved on this. You should have expected it, Rand. He has no interest in space.

    You should have asked yourself: “why is a person with no interest in space proposing this sensible policy change?” The reason, I believe, is because it was (1) a plausible and justifiable policy, and (2) because it ran contrary to the selfish interests of other politicians. (1) meant he could propose the policy with some strength, and (2) meant he could obtain political capital by eventually trading it away.

    The new policy was always meant to be abandoned, after he got enough private concessions from the porkmeisters for doing so.

  6. The new policy was always meant to be abandoned, after he got enough private concessions from the porkmeisters for doing so.

    That’s what I suspect too, but why did he abandon it now? What precisely did he get in return?

  7. Rand, your statement was that it was about getting US crews to the station which is simply impossible because the Shuttle isn’t used for that, the Soyuz is, so either the Columbia gap was about construction and resupply or there simply was no gap.

    But the Shuttle could be used for that. The gap is about the inability to do so, whether we currently are or not.

    I am not surprised Obama caved on this.

    He hasn’t caved (yet) on the House bill.

    You should have expected it, Rand. He has no interest in space.

    I know that. I’ve been saying it myself.

    The new policy was always meant to be abandoned, after he got enough private concessions from the porkmeisters for doing so.

    I think you’re overthinking it, and inferring more strategic thinking and competence than other administration actions would justify.

  8. He hasn’t abandoned the policy. That won’t happen until he signs a bill that is substantially different than the policy. We remain a long way from the end game.

  9. According to NASA Watch “Word has it that there are big worries at NASA and Northrop Grumman with regard to Webb Space Telescope. If NASA ends up operating under a Continuing Resolution – one that does not provide the increased funds that Webb requires – there is a fear that large layoffs may be in the near-term forecast. Stay tuned.”

    That may explain why Mikulski is eager to strike a deal soon.

  10. The Shuttle could be used to take expedition crew members to the ISS? I guess so, if you were to drop the requirement that every crew member have a seat on a lifeboat, or fly empty seats on Soyuz up to the station, or come up with some other lifeboat that you fly to the station with empty seats.

    None of those options are talked about though, because it doesn’t matter *why* you’re flying people into space.. you still get the prestige and the jobs program even if they’re only in orbit for a week. But I never thought I’d see Rand Simberg advocating make work and bemoaning the loss of prestige..

  11. But I never thought I’d see Rand Simberg advocating make work and bemoaning the loss of prestige.

    I am not advocating or bemoaning anything, other than the huge waste of taxpayer dollars on a NASA-owned-and-operated launcher. I’m simply pointing out to the morons in Congress that if their goal is really to end dependence on the Russians ASAP, that the House bill is insane. I don’t believe that’s really their goal — as I said, the only real goal is preserving pork — but it’s useful to point out their hypocrisy and stupidity.

  12. Rand, then you should make it clear that their understanding of the facts is lacking, not support their bullshit reasoning by repeating it.

    Please, let me restate this one more time because I don’t think you’re listening: the Soyuz is the vehicle that takes expedition crew members to the station because it doubles as a lifeboat. The Shuttle doesn’t because it can’t double as a lifeboat. It has always been that way. It makes no sense to claim that retirement of the Shuttle, and unavailability of a follow on vehicle, has anything to do with getting expedition crew members to the station.

    If you want to point out hypocrisy and stupidity, point this out.

  13. It makes no sense to claim that retirement of the Shuttle, and unavailability of a follow on vehicle, has anything to do with getting expedition crew members to the station.

    If we wanted to take expedition crew on the Shuttle we could, and simply launch a Soyuz unmanned for the lifeboat. Or just leave the last one up there (though there’s probably an on-orbit life limitation that no one really knows). And in theory, the follow-on vehicle could replace the Soyuz in that capacity.

  15. Or you could do like they did when we were using STS to rotate US crew members – Soyuz tourists in the third seat.

    And yes, Soyuz does have an on-orbit lifetime – approx. 6 months (it’s actually measured in days but I can’t remember the number right now).

  16. They’ve been leaving Soyuz capsules in space for 6 month intervals for years, perhaps dating back to the Mir days. I have no doubt it could stay up there far longer than 6 months but with decreased safety margins.

Comments are closed.