Next time a senator lectures him about Newsweak’s “invention of the year” (that doesn’t exist yet) and how Ares I-X proved that Ares I will be safe and work great, he should point out that it damaged the part of the rocket that was supposed to be reusable due to a parachute failure, that we still don’t know if we can do parachutes of this size that operate reliably, that it caused severe damage to the launch pad from scorching, and that it contained no elements of an actual Ares I.
[Update a few minutes later]
A depressing thought from Clark Lindsey:
NASA should at least have some sort of fact sheet that lays out the basics and is presented and discussed with the committee members and/or staff beforehand, especially those like Mikulski who are still open to new input. The written testimony from Bolden is clearly not doing the trick.
Of course, a fact sheet can never be long enough to inform a Senator on an appropriations committee, of all places, who doesn’t know the difference between marginal cost and recurring cost.
It’s sobering to realize that the state of confusion and superficiality displayed so vividly in these hearings on NASA, which involves funding in the mere nineteen billion dollar range, must certainly occur with most every item in the budget, including those that involve “real money”.
I think we saw this on full display with both the failed “stimulus” and health care, in which we had to “pass the bill to find out what was in it.”