X37C

Jim  Hillhouse of American Space March 5, 2014 at 7:19 pm · Reply Well, after talking to Capitol Hill staffers, they too are suffering the same head issues I am. At least I'm in good company. Rather than talk about what Congress will or will not pay for, let's review what Congress has done since 2010 on space funding. Congress has, on its own and despite both opposition from the Administration and aggressive delaying tactics on the SLS and Orion programs from NASA, appropriated those amounts needed to keep both Orion and SLS on track. And just as it's done since 2010, Congress is going to do what it wants on HSF, which is fund Orion and SLS fully. What Congress sees is not a justification for Commercial Crew. Far from it. Congressional staffers are well aware of the true progress of that program and no, none of those players are getting us to ISS anytime soon. That's largely NASA's fault since Congress has informed it that the CCP program needed to down-selected years ago to better focus limited resources for faster progress. But NASA's leadership didn't do that for political reasons. Loose Boeing and CCP looses luster and respectability. Loose Sierra Nevada and we working on three capsule programs. And if you want to make engineers working in GN&C or ELSS laugh, tell them that one of the CCP companies will be flying crews by 2016. Guffaws galore. And those in Congress specializing in space are well aware that, had getting independent access to ISS for our nation really been Job #1 for NASA's leadership, then the Administration would have approved Boeing's proposal for the X-37B follow-on, the 5 crew X-37C. We are talking about a dependable spacecraft that can sit in orbit for over a year and NASA said no to making it a crewed vehicle. Why? Strangely , no interest.     Jim  Hillhouse of American Space March 5, 2014 at 7:19 pm · Reply Well, after talking to Capitol Hill staffers, they too are suffering the same head issues I am. At least I'm in good company. Rather than talk about what Congress will or will not pay for, let's review what Congress has done since 2010 on space funding. Congress has, on its own and despite both opposition from the Administration and aggressive delaying tactics on the SLS and Orion programs from NASA, appropriated those amounts needed to keep both Orion and SLS on track. And just as it's done since 2010, Congress is going to do what it wants on HSF, which is fund Orion and SLS fully. What Congress sees is not a justification for Commercial Crew. Far from it. Congressional staffers are well aware of the true progress of that program and no, none of those players are getting us to ISS anytime soon. That's largely NASA's fault since Congress has informed it that the CCP program needed to down-selected years ago to better focus limited resources for faster progress. But NASA's leadership didn't do that for political reasons. Loose Boeing and CCP looses luster and respectability. Loose Sierra Nevada and we working on three capsule programs. And if you want to make engineers working in GN&C or ELSS laugh, tell them that one of the CCP companies will be flying crews by 2016. Guffaws galore. And those in Congress specializing in space are well aware that, had getting independent access to ISS for our nation really been Job #1 for NASA's leadership, then the Administration would have approved Boeing's proposal for the X-37B follow-on, the 5 crew X-37C. We are talking about a dependable spacecraft that can sit in orbit for over a year and NASA said no to making it a crewed vehicle. Why? I Posted This Earlier on My Facebook Page…Re-Posting Here for the Group on Your Original Post Plus A Few Others!!!! This Was One of The Many Derivative Paths studied By Some Advanced Design Groups @ NASA As A Logical Scaleable Path Building On Space Shuttle Orbiter Demonstrated Capabilities, Technology & Advanced Development Upgrades & Modernization Over 30 Yrs of Operation Which Also Had Continuous Improvements & Life Extensions To CY 2020 & Beyond!!!! The Space Shuttle Orbiter Also Was Much More Capable Of Delivering Greater Up Mass (65K), Rotational Crew Exchanges 7-10 Personel & Return Masses (32K)/Volume (15ft x 60ft) Which None of the Replacement Proposed Vehicles Can or Will Be As Competitive or Capable!!!! Given the Un-Timely & Unnecessary Cancellation of The Space Shuttle Orbiter; The Three Commercial Concepts Which Have Evolved & Their Development Times Extended Out To No Earlier Than 2017; This Boeing Proposal of X-37C Would Have Been The Better, More Capable & Faster Access To Human Crewed Flights To/From ISS In Low Earth Orbit!!!!  Also Could Have Served As An ISS Alternate Crew Return Vehicle (ala X-38 vs Soyuz Only), Space Exploration Return Vehicle with ISS As A Way Point, Rendezvous & Docking, Refueling Station or Direct Launch To Hubble/Webb Servicing/Repair Vehicle & Other Satellite Servicing Missions With A Little Innovative & Out of The Box Critical Thinking!!!! In the Absense of A NASA Integrated Missions Strategic & Evolutionary Long Range Planning; There Are Indications DARPA & DOD Are Giving This Approach Serious Consideration For Their "Unknown" Future Missions Planning Concepts For Unmanned & Manned Vehicles Since They Were Allowed To "Divorce" NASA/Space Shuttle Earlier "Shot-Gun Wedding" After Challenger Mission Failure & Stand-Down Coupled With The Eventutual & Unnecessary Cancellation of Space Shuttle with No NASA Replacements; Now Only Relying on Russian Antiquated Soyuz Technology & Commercial Start Up Companies For the Most Critical Tasks of Human Access To Space!!!! X37B ---Boeing proposal--Shuttle Replacement http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/03/x-37b-expanded-capabilities-iss-missions/