The Senate hearings have begun. The first and last man on the moon will be testifying. While they’re certainly admirable men, I’m not sure what they have to contribute to this discussion. They know nothing about affordable or sustainable programs. They are in fact experts on those with the opposite characteristics. Here’s the webcast, and Alan Boyle is tweeting it.

[Update mid afternoon]

Sigh…

Cernan says it “might take as much as a full decade and would take 2-3 times as much” money as budgeted to launch new commercial spaceships.

When did Gene Cernan become a cost estimating expert? And this, from Cowing’s feed:

Cernan: had telecon last week; Bolden said comm space may need bailout like GM/Chrysler – may be largest bailout in history.

Bigger than TARP? Bigger than GM/Chrysler? Bigger than the thirty-five billion dollars that Ares I was projected to cost, if all went well? When SpaceX has spent less than a billion to date, and they’re most of the way there?

Words fail.

And of course, who can gainsay them? They walked on the moon.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I don’t know whether to be angry, or sad about this. Gene Cernan is up there spouting utter nonsense to senators. Did someone else give him these bizarre talking points, or is he just making it up? Either way, it tarnishes him badly.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Is someone going to ask Bolden to confirm this, or is he no longer a witness?

[Update a few minutes later]

Here’s another gem of innumeracy from Captain Cernan:

Cernan: Let’s put a box on the 1040 for taxpayers to give an extra penny to NASA. I bet we’d get enough $ to do all we wanted.

Let’s be generous and assume that there are a hundred and fifty million US taxpayers. By my accounting, that would give us a whopping $1.5M a year.

It’s like he’s just talking without thinking, and making this stuff up on the fly.

[Update a few minutes later]

I have more thoughts on “bail outs” here.

[Update late afternoon]

Clark has some brief thoughts, and links:

From Sen. Hutchison capturing cosmic rays for energy production to Sen. Rockefeller transporting Sir Isaac Newton to 1880s Baltimore, it was a typical Congressional hearing on a technical topic.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

[Update a few minutes later]

It was nice to see Senator Brownback saying sensible things. I just got an email from the Commercial Spaceflight Federation with a quote:

I am a strong supporter of NASA, as I mentioned, and of the commercial space industry … With the impending retirement of the Shuttle, NASA is now assuming a much different role than in our past space effort, and I think there is great opportunity to have a space program that leads the world but will be a space program that is firmly embedded in opportunity for all. By opening up commercial space, it ensures a strong future for the US and the competitive aerospace industry.

I think it helped that Pete Worden was on his staff for a while a few years ago.

[Evening update]

Alan Boyle has a story on the hearings today, and Clark Lindsey has expanded on his initial thoughts.

As I’ve been predicting for a few days, long-time space appropriations committee chair (and ranking member when his party was out of power) and corrupt representative Alan Mollohan is out.

So there is no doubt that there will be a new chair of that subcommittee next year. The only question now is, who? And what will it mean for space policy?

[Wednesday morning update]

Link is fixed now, sorry.

I have some thoughts over at AOL News today on the political uncertainty of the human spaceflight program.

There are two points about this letter from General Lyles to Frank Wolf about NASA’s funding priorities. First, if I were Congressman Wolf, I wouldn’t know what to do with it. It seems pretty vague on actual recommendations:

The burden of proof thus now lies with Congress and NASA to define and to develop a human spaceflight program that does not re-inflict damage on the breadth of NASA’s activities and that serves the nation well. It is possible to do this.

If you don’t think that such a program exists now, it would be helpful it if were a little more specific about in what way it’s deficient. If it’s possible to make it so, couldn’t the general have provided a little guidance? It’s not clear exactly what the source of his unhappiness is, other than that he thinks that manned space is now “under-resourced.” What does that mean? Just send more money?

The other interesting thing about the letter is that he sent it to Frank Wolf, the ranking member, rather than Alan Mollohan, the chairman (who may lose his primary tomorrow). Is this a sign, like David Obey’s resignation, that he expects Wolf to be committee chairman next year?

Langley’s Doris Hamill has some useful thoughts over at The Space Review about NASA’s challenge in changing its culture (and subcultures) for the new policy direction.