Musk: Why Does Shelby Oppose Commercial Space When ULA is Located in Alabama?
SpaceX's Falcon 9 on the pad at Cape Canaveral. (Credit: Chris Thompson/SpaceX)
Saying that it is a “certainty” that ULA will receive NASA contracts to launch humans into space, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk asked why Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby is so dead-set opposed to NASA’s commercialization plan:
“I don’t really understand why Senator Shelby is so opposed to commercial crew,” Musk said, “given that Atlas and Delta are right there in Alabama, because no one’s going to be a bigger winner in commercial crew than United Launch Alliance.”
Musk referred to the Boeing-Lockheed joint venture that builds Delta and Atlas rockets in Decatur for NASA, the military and commercial satellite customers.
ULA and SpaceX are among the commercial companies wanting NASA contracts to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station if President Barack Obama’s space program is approved by Congress.
“For ULA it’s a certainty,” Musk said of winning contracts. “For SpaceX it’s much more a question mark.”
It’s an excellent point. NASA is looking at multiple access to orbit. ULA’s rockets are flight proven and can be human rated. Using at least one of them would answer critics who worry about turning human spaceflight over to a start-up like SpaceX, whose rocket has not yet flow. ULA is backed by companies with 50 years of launch experience.
Read the full story.
2 responses to “Musk: Why Does Shelby Oppose Commercial Space When ULA is Located in Alabama?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It may be a good point, but it’s surprising coming from Musk. I don’t know if he really believes what he’s saying…
It’s not really a surprise. Shelby and company have made Musk the poster boy for why the policy is supposedly reckless: start-up, unproven rocket, no previous experience in human spaceflight, etc. etc. If the first Falcon 9 fails, they will tout it as proof positive that they are right.
It’s not fair. And I don’t think it’s an accurate reflection of Obama’s policy. I think NASA wants a ULA option. It may cost more, but Congress won’t care. They’d rather spend a bit more – and keep people employed – than go with the lowest cost provider. If they go with a ULA rocket as one option, they can reasonably say, ‘Hey, got something proven.’ And that gets them through Congress.
The other benefit here: NASA could end up paying for a lot of the technologies that makes Bigelow’s space station possible. Bigelow is interested in using a human-rated Atlas V. They also need a capsule. NASA needs both of these things as well. Much common interest here in deals that could really help ULA.