Senator Hutchison cool to SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch; concerns remain about Obama NASA policy

The near universal acclaim that SpaceX has acquired for the successful launch of the first Falcon 9 is not shared within the United States Congress, which is still skeptical of many aspects of the Obama space plan, which includes reliance on companies like SpaceX for Earth to Low Earth Orbit transportation. The reaction illustrates for all the technical triumph that SpaceX has accomplished with the Falcon 9 launch, it still faces political problems.

“This first successful test flight of SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket is a belated sign that efforts to develop modest commercial space cargo capabilities are showing some promising signs. While this test flight was important, the program to demonstrate commercial cargo and crew transport capabilities, which I support, was intended to enhance not replace NASA's own proven abilities to deliver critical cargo and humans to low Earth orbit. Make no mistake, even this modest success is more than a year behind schedule, and the project deadlines of other private space companies continue to slip as well. This test does not change the fact that commercial space program are not ready to close the gap in human spaceflight if the space shuttle is retired this year with no proven replacement capability and the Constellation program is simultaneously cancelled as the President proposes."

Senator Hutchison’s reaction was as understandable as it was a little bit unfair. Several thousand jobs at Houston’s JSC are going away, largely thanks to the Obama space plan that confirms the end of the space shuttle program but also cancels the Constellation space exploration program that might have offset some of those jobs losses. Job retraining money, lavish for Florida aerospace workers, has not been forthcoming for Texas space employees.

At the same time, the Falcon 9 project is not unique for being behind schedule and over budget. That seems to be the rule for almost every large scale space technology development project.
SpaceX’s CEO Elon Musk’s reaction was quite caustic. According to Space.Com.

“Musk took offense at her complaints. ‘I don't understand why she's trying to hurt a Texas company,’ he said, pointing out that Hutchison represents Texas, and SpaceX has a large workforce in the state.

"’This is an important step in the advancement of commercial space,’ he maintained.”

Unfortunately, Elon Musk may have made a political misstep by being angry when he should have been conciliatory. The Texas jobs being generated by SpaceX go nowhere near to those being lost at the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

At the same time, unfair or not, Senator Hutchison has a considerable say in the future of Mr. Musk’s company. The Wall Street Journal suggests that it will take a billion dollars in government money to configure the Falcon 9 and the Dragon space craft for human space flight. If, as many expect, the Republicans take over Congress this year, that money will be controlled by Senator Hutchison and other Obamaspace skeptics such as Richard Shelby of Alabama, who was also cool to the launch of Falcon 9. Elon Musk will have to do better than he has already to convince Congress that his company deserves that kind of money.

It’s a good start!

Privatize NASA, then education, and the Postal Service and probably a hundred other departments and agencies. Thousands more could probably just be eliminated.

I always thought the ungainly and asymmetrical shuttle looked like a space vehicle designed by a committee of hacks. The problematic and fragile craft always seemed threatening to blow up...and in fact did.

Maybe now we’ll see various space related companies spring up and go into competition with each other.

If the govt wants to launch a special exploration mission, there will be plenty of R&D suppliers vying for the contracts.

Look, the reason I support NASA as a public institution is that it is not really a choice between public or private when it comes to government space projects, it’s a choice between public and military, between white and black budgets and between government science programs done by NASA or done by DARPA. The government will have a space program of some type , it already has other space projects under several different “hats”, military, CIA, DOD, and DARPA.

Realistically if the guys that worked at NASA were just interested in funding they would be more than happy to join up with one of the branches of the military or belong to some DOD black budget line item, but what would that mean for the actual science and technology that is developed out of those projects, how long would it take for that science to make it out of a black program and end up in a better toaster, medical equipment and improvements in materials science?

You look at these private space companies developing all this great stuff and a lot of it stated out life in NASA, and even the stuff at NASA didn’t start there, NASA doesn’t build anything, some company builds the stuff per their order, NASA doesn’t have a manufacturing plant, but Boeing and McDonald Douglas do.

I’ll give you another example an old NASA project and now a DARPA project is the Boeing X-37, now a black project, how much did it really cost, nobody will really know except some generals and DOD guys because it’s DARPA and how long till the really extraordinary science if there is any, comes out to the civilian market, it is secret after all.

I grant you some stuff that NASA is doing can be done better and cheaper by private companies, by contracting out what they want done then necessarily telling a company how they want it done and what the rocket that gets it there should look like and controlling how its all done, let the private companies handle all that, you just get pound A to point B let them worry how, and you get the bill.

“has offered to provide this service at the same price as SpaceX, with a 30 year old system or a new one for that matter?”

None have offered to do it with 30 year old technology, they are using modern technology and the price is the same.

“Which one do you work for?”

none of the above

I actually wasn’t criticizing your position, but the US had kind of a monopoly on commercial launches and space tourism.

I can see why they would need to act as kind of an orbital “air space controller” agency and perhaps a space junk monitor (maybe even farming out space junk cleanup)

And also they would need to preserve their role in military space applications maybe even retaining launch vehicles for that very purpose.

But I still think the shuttle looked like an ill conceived, poorly modified, problematic, dangerous, overpriced, obsolete albatross. (other than that it was fine)

I think a smaller and usable cargo capable orbiter launched from a supersonic launch “platform” which would then land, refuel and be ready to carry up the next orbiter would be far superior.

This would eliminate the months of rehab, and the massive effort now needed to get the shaky shuttle ready for its next launch.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.