US AeroSpace: Policy & Politics [updates]

[DocM]

NASA comments from yesterday's FAA conference,

 

NASA willing to take more risks with cargo flights than Commercial Crew

 

NASA doesn't want to create another ISS. The plan is to turn LEO over to commercial stations with an overlap until ISS is decommissioned.

 

NASA plans to use commercial for Beyond Eearh Orbit cargo, using cislunar space as the proving ground.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Pentagon disputes ULA claim on why it didn’t bid for GPS 3 launch

 

Quote

WASHINGTON –  When United Launch Alliance announced Nov. 16 it would not bid on the U.S. Air Force’s first competitive launch contract in a decade, the company said it did not have the right  accounting system to assemble a “compliant proposal.”

 

But a Pentagon agency had approved ULA’s accounting system 10 days earlier, according to U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work.

 

“We disagree with any statements made by ULA that it did not have the accounting systems in place,” Work wrote in a Jan. 26 letter to Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.), “We have always contended that ULA had the ability to provide the required certification and believe that ULA would now be willing to make that certification.”

 

In addition, Defense Department and Air Force officials met with ULA leaders before the bid was due to discuss the issue, Work wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by SpaceNews.

 

Denver-based ULA disclosed Nov. 16 it declined to bid on the 2018 launch of a GPS 3 satellite. The move effectively ceded the contract to SpaceX and frustrated lawmakers and Defense Department leaders.

 

ULA cited several reasons for not bidding, including concerns about its future rights to  Russian-built RD-180 rocket engines for national security launches and an inability to certify that funds from other government programs would not contribute to the launch of the Air Force’s second GPS 3 satellite.

 

“The [request for proposals] requires ULA to certify that funds from other government contracts will not benefit the GPS III launch mission,” the company said in a statement sent to reporters Nov. 16. “ULA does not have the accounting systems in place to make that certification, and therefore cannot submit a compliant proposal.”

 

To meet the GPS 3-2 bidding requirements, ULA said it would have needed to modify its current accounting system, a move ULA  claimed would put the company in a state of noncompliance with its existing contracts.

 

But in the letter, Work said the Pentagon’s Defense Contract Audit Agency had approved ULA’s accounting system Nov. 6.  The agency completed an audit of ULA’s accounting system March 31 and then conducted a further “assessment” before giving the  system its seal of approval.

 

Work told McCain  ULA would not be “precluded” from bidding on future competitive launch contracts for accounting reasons.

 

The Air Force plans to put eight more  launch contracts out for bid by the end of 2017. The competitions likely will pit ULA against SpaceX  for launch contracts totaling upwards of $1 billion.

 

“ULA’s decision not to submit a proposal was based on its internal business and management deliberations, and the Department has no way to compel ULA to bid,” Work said. “We are not aware of any constraints that would preclude ULA from submitting a proposal in response” to any upcoming launch contracts.

 

ULA spokeswoman Jessica Rye declined to comment on Work’s assertions, referring SpaceNews to the company’s Nov. 6 statement.

http://spacenews.com/pentagon-disputes-ula-claim-on-why-it-didnt-bid-for-gps-3-launch/

 

Running out of excuses.....

[DocM]

There hasn't been an excuse for ULA's behavior wrt engine development since Putin started polishing his KGB medals.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

With the accounting issue found to be a mis-remembered event, it's out of the way. Now the next competition will be head to head...RD-180 or not...they have to compete.....

[DocM]

Uh-Oh....I see more SLS/Orion slips coming. FY 2017 budget proposal,

 

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Yes...and I was a bit worried about the "educational" losses, but apparently funds are "buried" around the "grand plan" ?

 

NASA Can't - and Won't - Say What They Spend on Education

 

Quote

Keith's note: In the budget media telecon today I asked NASA CFO David Radzanowski what NASA is spending on education in 2017. As is always the case, NASA can never tell you exactly what it spends on education - or what "education" means. Their budget charts talks about $100 Million in 2017 - a cut from $118 in 2016. But wait there's more: $25 million for education from Astrophysics and another $6 million from Earth science. So NASA is actually spending $131 million on education in FY 2017 - not the $100 million shown on their chart. But this is only STEM education according to Radzanowski. When I asked Radzanowski what NASA's total expenditure for education and outreach will be for 2017 he said "I don't have that number".

NASA never has that number - so they won't get back to me on that because (again) they never now that number. They don't know it on purpose (or at least they will never admit it). If they answer the question accurately about what is categorized as "education" then someone somewhere at OMB or in Congress will try and cut that item because it has been labeled as "education". So things get hidden inside of budgets. As a result, no one will ever know what NASA actually spends on education activities. It is like this all over NASA.

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2016/02/nasa-cant---and.html

 

[DocM]

There's another appropriation raising eyebrows: yearly appropriations totalling $1.2B in 2018 to the USAF for a new launcher. Odds are this is to keep Vulcan off life support. 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Yes, I was wondering what this was....makes sense now...

 

Quote

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force plans to invest more than $1.2 billion over the next five years to develop a new launch system that would aim to end the Defense Department’s reliance on a Russian rocket engine, according to budget documents set to be released Feb. 9.

 

Quote

In its last budget request for 2016, the Air Force had planned to spend about $208 million on a new liquid-fueled rocket engine from fiscal years 2017 to 2020, but now plans to spend more than a billion in the same time period on what’s described as an investment in a next generation launch system.

http://spacenews.com/white-house-requests-1-2-billion-for-new-rocket-in-air-force-budget/

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Here is the NASA Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Estimates....pdf...10.6 Mb  (710 pages)

 

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy_2017_budget_estimates.pdf

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Budget proposal offers big increases for small space offices

 

A SpaceX Falcon 9 lifts off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on a commercial mission. The FAA's 2017 budget request would increase funding for the office that oversees commercial launches by $2 million to deal with growing launch activity. Credit: SpaceX

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Three U.S. government offices that deal with commercial space issues, which combined received less than $20 million in 2016, would get large  increase — on a percentage basis, at least — in the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget.

 

The 2017 budget request, released Feb. 9, proposes $19.8 million for the Federal Aviation Administration’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), an increase of $2 million over what the office received in 2016. That 2016 figure was itself an increase of $1.2 million over 2015.

The office is responsible for licensing commercial launches and reentries, as well as the spaceports that host those activities. In recent years, as commercial launch activity has increased, both the FAA and industry have warned that the office needed more resources in order to keep pace with the growing demands for licenses and safety inspections.

 

In the FAA’s 2017 budget request, the agency noted that between 2006 and 2014 the “authorization index,” a measure of new launch licenses and permits granted by the office, increased by 550 percent, with safety inspections growing by 825 percent. AST’s staff, though, had increased by only 42 percent during that time.

 

“The funds in this request are necessary to enable AST to keep pace with the growth of the U.S. commercial space transportation industry,” the FAA stated in the budget request.

 

The increased funding would be used primarily to hire employees. The proposal calls for hiring 13 additional people in 2017, bringing the office’s staff to 119. That is on top of a planned increase of more than 20 people in 2016. The staff hired in 2017 would work on operations, including integrating launches and reentries into the national airspace, as well as other launch licensing and related work.

 

Industry advocates supported the proposed increase. “Any increase is welcome, but there’s been such a dearth in funding that there’s a lot of ground to make up,” Mike Gold, chairman of the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee, an industry group that advises AST, said in a Feb. 10 interview.

 

Gold and others in the industry have pushed to increase AST’s budget in recent years, citing concerns about the workload the office faces given projected increases in both orbital and suborbital launches. “It’s good to see the budget moving in the right direction,” he said. “Hopefully Congress will ensure AST’s resources match its missions.”

 

Besides the increase in AST’s operations budget, the FAA budget request increases funding for research and development activities coordinated by that office. The 2017 budget proposal offers nearly $3 million for that work, compared to $2 million in 2016.

 

Of that funding, $1 million would go towards the FAA’s Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation, a consortium of universities that performs academic research on various space transportation topics. The rest would support work on topics ranging from vehicle safety technologies to improved methods of incorporating launches into the national airspace system.

more at the link...

http://spacenews.com/white-house-budget-proposal-offers-big-increases-for-small-space-offices/

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

AF rolls out FY 2017 space budget

 

Quote

WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force leaders met with the media to discuss specifics of the service’s fiscal year 2017 space budget at the Pentagon Feb. 11.

 

Winston A. Beauchamp, the deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for space, and Maj. Gen. Roger Teague, the director of space programs for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, highlighted major themes of the space budget in relation to the Air Force’s strategic understanding of the space environment.

 

In fiscal 2016, the Air Force focused investments in space in two major areas. First, assuring the use of space in the face of increasing threats, and secondly providing capabilities to deter and defeat potential attacks.

 

Beauchamp said there have been no changes to that strategy in the past year.

 

“All of the threats we saw last year have continued to evolve. We remain postured to get ourselves on a path to make our systems more resilient,” said Beauchamp, who also serves as the director, principal Defense Department Space Advisor Staff. “In (fiscal 2017) the emphasis is on sustaining mission capabilities while improving resilience. To achieve this outcome we approach it with several lines of effort.”

 

Those efforts include determining appropriate investments, leveraging the base budget to improve resilience in programs of record, revaluating operational techniques, tactics and procedures, exploring innovative contract strategies such as public-private partnerships, and utilizing international cooperation.

 

The Air Force plans to invest in areas such as command and control, space situational awareness, the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle, and satellite communications in fiscal 2017 to enhance space mission assurance.  

 

“In command and control we know our potential adversaries are developing capabilities to deny, degrade and destroy our space capabilities,” Beauchamp said. “As countries around the world increasingly derive benefits from space, we have to join together with our allies to deal with those threats.”

 

For space situational awareness, the Air Force will continue its investment in the Space Fence, aiding the ability to perform collision detection and protecting those aboard the International Space Station and other manned space programs.

 

“We will preserve our ability to access space by investing in an indigenously produced launch capability.  This serves not only as a capability to replenish our space assets as they reach end of life, but also to improve our capabilities and reconstitute our forces,” Beauchamp said. “To that end, the (fiscal 2017) fully funds the (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) program.”

more at...

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/655151/af-rolls-out-fy-2017-space-budget.aspx

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

FAA The Annual Compendium
of Commercial Space
Transportation: 2016

 

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2016_Compendium.pdf

 

[DocM]

Congress issues a STOP WORK order on SLS's Centaur based and not human rated Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) for the SLS #1 Block 1 SLS mission in favor of using the human rated Exploration Upper Stage (EUS) from the beginning. 

 

The problem is that EUS may not be ready for SLS #1 in 2818-2019, it was to enter service on Block 1B in 2021-2023 (more likely 2024-2025), probably causing yet another slip. 

 

Sheeshhhh...someone please put a bullet in this thing

 

http://spacenews.com/sls-upper-stage-caught-in-political-tug-of-war/

[Unobscured Vision]

Please, please can Congress shuffle funding into something that isn't a damned money pit already?

 

Oh, wait -- it's an Election Year. Nothing gets done. Since nothing gets done anyway, business as usual.

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Air Force: Atlas 5 will be grounded if RD-180 is found to violate U.S. sanctions

 

Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, said the Air Force will follow the letter of the law if the Treasury Department finds Russian rocket engines violate U.S. sanctions. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Van De Ha.

 

Quote

WASHINGTON – A high-ranking Air Force official said Friday the service would stop launching national security satellites aboard United Launch Alliance’s Atlas 5 rocket if the Treasury Department finds that importing the rocket’s Russian engine violates U.S. sanctions.

 

Earlier this month, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) asked the Air Force to prove that Russia’s recent reorganization of its space industry does not put ULA’s purchase of RD-180 engines in violation of sanctions the United States imposed against Russian officials in 2014.

 

U.S. government agencies, led by the Treasury Department, are taking a fresh look at whether RD-180 imports still steer clear of the sanctions.

Lt. Gen. Samuel Greaves, commander of the Air Force’s Space and Missile Systems Center, said the service would abide by Treasury’s findings.

“If we’re not supposed to be flying the RD-180s, they’re grounded,” he said, during a breakfast here hosted by the Air Force Association. “If these folks are on the sanctioned list, if the Department of Treasury comes back and says that there’s a problem with that relationship, then we have to work with the Congress and others to move ahead. We will not violate the law.”

 

The Air Force relies on ULA’s Atlas 5 rocket to launch a majority of national security satellites. ULA buys the RD-180, the first stage engine for the rocket, from Florida-based RD-AMROSS, a joint venture between Energomash and Pratt and Whitney of Hartford, Connecticut. RD-AMROSS, in turn, buys the engines from NPO Energomash of Khimki, Russia.

 

The grounding of the Atlas 5 would create a significant obstacle for the Pentagon, where top officials say space is more valuable to their warfighting efforts than at any other time in history.

 

“We [would] have some decisions to make,” Greaves said.

McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, used the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016  to impose strict limits on the number of RD-180 engine ULA could order for future Air Force launches. But Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), wielding his clout on the Senate Appropriations Committee, used a must-pass spending bill to eliminate the RD-180 restrictions that had become law just weeks earlier.

 

McCain, joined by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), in late January introduced a standalone bill  to reinstate the RD-180 restrictions.

That same week, McCain chaired a military space launch hearing where he called for the Air Force to get a fresh legal opinion on whether RD-18o imports violate sanctions the U.S. imposed on a slew of Russian officials the wake of Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

In a Feb. 10 letter to Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James and Frank Kendall, the Pentagon’s acquisition czar, McCain singled out two high-ranking Russian officials whose newly given roles overseeing Russia’s state-run space sector warrant a closer look in light of the sanctions.

 

RD-AMROSS spokesman Bradley Akubuiro told SpaceNews the officials McCain named — Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin and Sergei Chemezov, an adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin —  are not members of the RD-AMROSS or NPO Energomash boards, nor do they financially benefit from RD-180 sales.

 

“With each new sanctions announcement, RD AMROSS works with its supply base, including NPO Energomash, to conduct the proper due diligence to ensure our compliance with the U.S. sanctions regime, and to date have identified no business relationships that implicate the U.S. sanctions regime,” Akubuiro said Feb. 16.

 

Spurred by a SpaceX lawsuit, federal authorities in 2014 examined the RD-180 purchases for violations of sanctions the United States imposed on dozens of Russian officials following Russia’s conflict with Ukraine.

 

Then, Treasury and Justice department officials said “to the best of our knowledge, purchases from and payments to NPO Energomash” do not constitute a violation.

 

But the government is taking another look at the issue following Putin’s Dec. 28 order reorganizing Russia’s space sector. This restructuring included placing the Russian space industry and the space agency Roscosmos under a new state corporation, also named Roscosmos.

 

“The situation has changed,” McCain wrote Feb. 10

 

In the near future, wrote McCain, the new Roscosmos is expected to merge with the state-owned United Rocket and Space Corporation. Because URSC owns about 75 percent of Energomash, such a move would make Energomash a subsidiary of Roscosmos, he said.

 

McCain pointed out that Roscosmos is now chaired by Rogozin; Chemezov is also on the Roscosmos board.

 

Rogozin and Chemezov were among the first Russian officials President Barack Obama slapped with sanctions during the Crimean crisis.  Neither Rogozin nor Chemezov are permitted to enter the United States and any U.S.-based assets they own were frozen.

 

“In overseeing Russia’s military, including its space and rocket industry and instructing Energomash’s board, Rogozin exercises control over companies like Energomash,” McCain told James and Kendall in his letter. “Like all Russian state corporations, Roscosmos will be governed by a board appointed by Putin from a pool of his closest associated and other government apparatchiks – some of whom the U.S. and the European Union have individually sanctioned.”

 

Rogozin said in 2014 that anyone who thought he benefited from the sale of the engine was a “moron.”

http://spacenews.com/one-of-several-u-s-senators-moscow-barred-from-russia-in-retaliation-for-the-2014-sanctions/

 

[DocM]

This is getting so stupid.

 

Now it appears NASA is keeping 3 sets of books wrt a crewed Orion flight,

 

Internal: 2021
Public: 2023
New: 2024-2025, currently being worked

 

Lord knows which "New" will replace, or if it'll remain a separate book. 

 

Meanwhile, SpaceNews runs an op-ed touting how "game-changing" SLS is. The author is Mary Lynne Dittmar, Exec. Director of an outfit named 'Coalition for Deep Space Exploration.' Who are they? 

 

The Usual Suspects,

 

Aerojet Rocketdyne
Orbital ATK
Boeing
Lockheed Martin
Northrop Grumman

 

http://spacenews.com/upon-closer-look-nasas-exploration-systems-are-game-changers/

[Unobscured Vision]

Yeah, I saw that. Pure garbage journalism. Ugh.

[Beittil]

It isn't even journalism, at least they let you know that because the title at least tells you that you are looking at somebodies opinion piece. But yeah, pretty much a 'sticking a feather into your own ass' piece

[Draggendrop Veteran]

We apparently have another "spam  piece" consisting of a space station with "friendlies" modules delivered by SLS.   Absolutely no mention of Bigelow, SpaceX, BO, ESA, Arianespace or the EU's moon plans.  

 

http://www.space.com/32014-human-outpost-near-moon-cislunar-space.html         (read at your own risk)

 

// seems that someone is pulling all the stops and trying to justify SLS to "those that don't know better".

[Draggendrop Veteran]

House bill would restructure NASA management to provide more stability

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Members of Congress and former NASA officials advocated Feb. 25 for long-shot legislation that would restructure the management of the space agency, a move they argue would provide stability for the agency during the transition to the next administration.

 

Republican members of the House Science Committee expressed support during a two-hour hearing for the Space Leadership Preservation Act, a bill that would create a board of directors for NASA who would select nominees for the position of NASA administrator, and give that administrator a fixed 10-year term.

 

“We simply have to give NASA greater stability,” said Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), the bill’s sponsor, in testimony at the committee meeting. “We need to make this agency less political and more professional.”

 

Culberson and others at the hearing cited as the primary reason for this legislation the shakeup in space policy created by the Obama administration when it sought to cancel the Constellation program in 2010 and end efforts to return humans to the moon, the goal set out by the previous administration and endorsed by Congress in two NASA authorization bills.

 

“Presidential transitions often have provided a challenge to NASA programs that require continuity and budget stability, but few have been as rocky as the administration change we experienced seven years ago,” said Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the committee, in his opening statement.

 

Some of the other witnesses at the hearing agreed with that assessment, and minced few words in doing so. “We were executing a powerful and compelling new plan” when the Obama administration took office, argued Mike Griffin, who served as NASA administrator from 2005 until 2009. “But by early 2010, just a year later, this strategy was in disarray.”

 

“I believe program cancellation decisions that are made by bureaucracies behind closed doors, without input by the people, are divisive, damaging, cowardly and many times more expensive in the long run,” said former astronaut Eileen Collins, the first woman to command a shuttle mission. She said she and others at NASA were “shocked” by the administration’s 2010 decision to cancel Constellation, despite months of public debate about the future of the agency’s human spaceflight program by a presidential commission in 2009.

 

Griffin, while endorsing the concept of providing stability to NASA, said he would first prefer to undo those changes and restore plans for a human return to the moon. “Our space policy is bankrupt,” he said. “While I certainly support the stability for NASA that is the topic of this hearing today, I would not want that desire to prevent us from correcting the problems that have been created over the last seven years.”

 

Not every member at the hearing supported the bill. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), ranking member of the committee and one of the few Democrats who participated in the hearing, said she doubted the bill would be effective. “I regret that the legislation being discussed today, while obviously well-intentioned, unfortunately is not likely to fix the fundamental causes of instability at NASA,” she said. Instead, she called for “budgetary stability” that Congress can provide through a regular appropriations process.

 

Among the concerns she raised about the bill was the composition of the proposed board of directors. Eight of its 11 members would be selected by Congress, three by the majority party and one by the minority party in each house. That approach, she said, “injects partisan politics into a board that ostensibly is supposed to insulate NASA from politics.”

 

Witnesses also raised issues with provisions of the bill. Collins was skeptical of the 10-year term for the NASA administrator, suggesting its length might dissuade potential candidates. “I think the concept is good, but it might be too long,” she said. “It may be hard to find somebody among all the qualified people out there who initially want to commit for 10 years.”

 

Griffin questioned the bill’s requirement that the board develop its own budget proposal, which it would deliver to Congress separately from the official budget proposal developed by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). “I would wonder where they would get their information,” he said of the board’s budget.

 

He added, though, that approach had the benefit, in his opinion, of getting around the OMB. “Anything that can be done to ameliorate and control the influence of the OMB on the process would be welcome,” he said.

 

Culberson said he was open to changes to his bill. “I have welcomed suggestions or ideas on how we can modify this legislation, but I have put a lot of thought into this,” he said.

 

The hearing was the first action the House has taken on Culberson’s bill, which he introduced last April. The bill’s odds of passage in Congress this year are long, though, even if the House ultimately approves the bill. The Senate has taken little or no action on other NASA-related legislation, such as authorization bills, and there is limited time available in Congress in general this year because of the elections in November.

http://spacenews.com/house-bill-would-restructure-nasa-management-to-provide-more-stability/

[DocM]

So, money to both keep Atlas V flying with the AR-1 engine and give Vulcan a headcstart.

 

http://spacenews.com/aerojet-rocketdyne-ula-win-air-force-propulsion-contracts/#sthash.ZIYxnQhT.dpuf

 

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Air Force will invest up to $536 million in Aerojet Rocketdyne’s AR1 rocket engine and as much as $202 million in United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan rocket as a way to end dependence on the Russian rocket engine used to launch most U.S. national security payloads, according to a Feb. 29 announcement from the Pentagon. 

 

Aerojet Rocketdyne will use the money to help develop its AR1 rocket engine. ULA will develop a prototype of its Vulcan launch vehicle with the BE-4 engine and work on its next-generation upper stage engine known as the Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage, or ACES. The contracts are among the Air Force’s top space acquisition priorities for 2016. 
>

 

[Draggendrop Veteran]

Now this is an example of politicians who have no problem force feeding money to a concept, which presently doesn't need it, and, which in the end, will have little use due to prohibitive cost...(my opinion only)

 

Letter Urges Funding to Support NASA’s Orion Deep Space Exploration Missions

 

Quote

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Senators Gary Peters (D-MI) led a bipartisan group of 16 Senators to call for strong funding for NASA’s Orion spacecraft and Space Launch System (SLS) in a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. The Orion spacecraft and SLS rocket are the cornerstone programs of NASA’s ongoing human space exploration efforts.

 

“Exploring deep space is vital to inspiring our future innovators and stimulating our economy through technological innovation and development,” wrote the Senators in the letter. “These unparalleled space exploration systems will enable humans to travel farther into the solar system than ever before, spawn new scientific advancements, and result in unprecedented scientific discoveries about our universe.”

 

The Orion spacecraft and SLS are currently being built and tested in preparation for a 2018 launch to test the capabilities needed for human deep-space exploration. The first human-crewed mission for SLS and Orion is planned for 2021. Thousands of manufacturers and suppliers from across the country are building the components for the Orion systems, driving American innovation and supporting economic growth.

 

The letter was also signed by Senators Roger Wicker (R-MS), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), David Vitter (R-LA), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Edward Markey (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

more at the link...

http://www.peters.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/peters-leads-colleagues-in-calling-for-funding-to-support-first-mars-missions

 

Letter, pdf

[DocM]

The whole problem is that the Orion-SLS stack is too expensive and inadequate to the job of deep space exploration.  At best Orion is sized and powered for cislunar space, not a long mission like Mars, and for use as a re-entry vehicle for small crews.

 

To do Mars, Ceres etc. a deep space exploration architecture needs to be much larger so it can provide habitation, food and spare equipment stores, emergency medical treatment, a lander (or be a lander itself) etc.  Orion is an overpriced, undersized Yugo compared to what's needed.

 

OTOH, SpaceX is going big with BFR/BFS. Sooner or later a decision will have to be made as to if NASA will continue wasting money on the Rocket to Nowhere or coordinate with SpaceX.

[Unobscured Vision]

I'm still trying to figure out why in the blue blazes Debbie Stabenow of Michigan added her name to this letter. AFAIK there's no stake whatsoever that mine and DocM's State has in Orion or SLS that would warrant her involvement or interest. Our State hasn't contributed anything aside from Technical Expertise, for all the good that would serve this never-ending fiasco.

 

Hrmph.

[DocM]

Sen. Stabenow is absolutely not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but in this case the connection is clear.  One of Lockheed Martin's Orion subcontractors is General Dynamics, and they have a facility in Sterling Heights, Michigan.