Slashdot Mirror


Senators Demand NASA Continue Spending On Ares

FleaPlus writes "Senators Richard Shelby (R-AL and ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee handling NASA funding) and Robert Bennett (R-UT) have added an amendment onto an emergency spending bill for military operations in Afghanistan, reiterating that NASA must continue spending its funds on the Constellation program, particularly the medium-lift Ares I rocket. Alabama and Utah have strong ties to Ares/Constellation contractors, and both senators are opposed to the new direction for NASA, with Shelby describing it as a 'death march' for US spaceflight and criticizing the emphasis on commercial rockets."

41 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Science and Politics by Herkum01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And this is why the US is such trouble. When politicians are eagerly representing a companies views rather than the country.

    1. Re:Science and Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How's that wrong? America isn't made up of people. It's made up of corporations. And those corporations need representation, dammit. Thankfully, the Republican and Democrat parties realize this, and do everything to support these True Americans, and allow them to participate in democracy.

    2. Re:Science and Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You mean that Alabama and Arizona senators vote for things that benefit Alabama and Arizona? Shocking. Next you'll probably tell me that most people are interested in themselves first and others second.

    3. Re:Science and Politics by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's not forget that pork often produces jobs.

      You'd get more employment (and "stimulate" the economy more) if that same amount of pork was used simply to pay people at the bottom of the economic ladder to work on various things (perhaps even to go to school). But then you wouldn't be able to direct the money to your favorite political donors.

    4. Re:Science and Politics by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You'd get more employment (and "stimulate" the economy more) if that same amount of pork was used simply to pay people at the bottom of the economic ladder to work on various things (perhaps even to go to school). But then you wouldn't be able to direct the money to your favorite political donors.

      And I never suggested otherwise. I was describing the full motive. It's not just for corporate welfare. Until we root out corporatism, the majority of the money WILL go to the corporations. Given that, the politician's job is not to fight corporatism (although I'd like to see that, it only works if enough of them are united, and good luck with that) but to steer it towards the benefit of their constituents.

      Yes, I find the whole thing alternately angers and depresses me, too.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:Science and Politics by Raven_Stark · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How about creating jobs that also produce a product that is more useful to the entire country?

      --
      http://www.marxist.com/
    6. Re:Science and Politics by Dishevel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Dummy.

      Republicans represent the rich and corporations.

      Democrats represent illegal aliens and unions.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:Science and Politics by maxume · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You could also frame it in terms of the populace being so easily manipulated that the other 98 Senators (or maybe 96...) can't just laugh the damned amendment off the floor.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Science and Politics by timeOday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, personally, I'm thrilled they're trying to keep NASA alive.

      NASA'S new direction is not a budget cut. What they are doing is directing money towards unmanned space flight. IMHO it is a simple question of whether to keep pouring money into the failed Ares program, or redirect it to something more promising.

    9. Re:Science and Politics by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, both parties have a Terry Pratchett-esque gentleman's agreement on the "illegal immigration" issue. The Republicans agree to keep keep cheap foreign labor illegal so long as the Democrats don't try to enforce the law. The Democrats agree to let cheap foreign labor into the country so long as we pretend they aren't supposed to be here.

      The Republicans then rail against the illegality of the cheap labor they crave. The Democrats rail against the inhumanity of the Republicans toward "undocumented workers", while at the same time being complicit in the legal fiction that strips those workers of basic legal protections.

      The poor bastards living in a hole in the friggin' ground with no running water just want a roof of their family's head and drinking water that won't kill their children. They want to work create wealth, and better their lives. And they know blatant hypocrisy when they see it.

      If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Science and Politics by HangingChad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When politicians are eagerly representing a companies views rather than the country.

      The party of "no" suddenly doesn't want to cut spending...when it's in their state. Apparently spending cuts are things that happen in someone else's district.

      That's why we have more aircraft carriers than some countries have ships in their entire navy, because no senator wants to give up the funding.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    11. Re:Science and Politics by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you want to secure the border, there's two things that you have to do. First, you have to increase the number of legal immigrants so they can provide the cheap labor which our economy is dependent upon. The second is you have to support economic development in the places they come from. You can't keep them out with walls or border patrols, much less laws written down in books they'll never read. You've got to reduce the force that drives them over the border, then reduce the economic incentive for subverting the border.

      Uh, all you have to do is fine the businesses that hire them severely until hiring illegal aliens is no longer economically viable.

      --
      'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
    12. Re:Science and Politics by hey! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there were the political will to do that.

      But there isn't. That demonstrates that the real policy aim isn't protecting American jobs or securing American borders. It's the kind of problem that both sides perpetuate because they both profit from it.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    13. Re:Science and Politics by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2, Informative

      You actually hit that right on the head, funny or not.
      What counts is raising money to stay in power,
      and both parties are dirty to the tops of their eyeballs
      Democratic Party: Top Industries
      Republican Party: Top Industries

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  2. Pork! Pork! Pork! by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Budget be damned! Hold funding for the troops hostage to a steaming helping of pork. I thought Republicans where supposed to support the troops and be against deficit spending.

    These actions speak louder than words, and I hope the voters are listening this November.

    1. Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! by fermion · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is on the same order as the amendment to deny viagra to sex offenders or to fire workers who download porn once. Besides the fat that no one should vote for these because they are overly broad and badly written laws, these are clearly junk amendments that waste our money. We pay these freaks, and when they act like freaks playing games, they waste our money.

      In this case the harm is clear. We have people in Afghanistan and we have a much harder job to do with less money to do it because we wated 8 years in Iraq. The attack in times square shows the frivolity of spending a trillion dollars in Iraq while Laden was working with the Taliban to destroy America. But because Obama wants to fight a war for victory, instead of the Bush war for Haliburton profits, the republican guard all of the sudden can't support it.

      What is even more silly is that the amendment is an attack on fiscal responsibility and the free market. We don't need a city of bureaucrats running the government mandated spae program. Yes it is going to hurt. Yes, some people, who have no skills and have been living the high life at the tax payers expense, are going to suffer. Yes, some government funded luxury neighborhoods will be in deep trouble. But I hardly think it is my responsibility to keep otherwise unskilled persons living in the style to which they have become accustomed.

      Which is not to say I don't think we need a manned space program. A scaled down shuttle program, two launches a year, transitional to private launches to LEO and multinationally funded human spec launches to the solar system would be quite adequate.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    2. Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Informative

      These actions speak louder than words, and I hope the voters are listening this November.

      You don't have to wait until November. Bennet already lost his party's nomination.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    3. Re:Pork! Pork! Pork! by rubycodez · · Score: 5, Interesting

      hahahaha! you certainly drank the "wah on tarrah" kool-aid

      you imagine the troops haven't been hostage for the last eight years, using their blood to grease the skids for the defense contracting industry and for a political rallying point? that's ALL they've been bleeding and dying for! That's all this "war" is about.

      Here's some reality for you. The "Taliban" that hosted bin Laden is long gone, today the "Taliban" is any disgruntled afghan with a gun. We dropped the ball on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, put it on the back burner, and instead went for war in Iraq to further defense contractor profit enhancement and gain another neocon agenda rallying point.

      We need to drop the budget to zero on these pointless wars now. budget be damned, indeed.

  3. Yes they are listening by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes they are listening, just through republican ears. These are highly tuned and will hear roughly the following: Democrats who vote against this are against funding our troops, republicans who vote for this are voting for our space program!

    Really, politics is a lot simpler then people think.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  4. NASA is Military Spending by segedunum · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I don't know what they're talking about. NASA is military spending because most of NASA's contractors contract for the military. NASA is also a military organisation, believe it or not. It has been and continues to be a massive white elephant black hole for money. Whereas military contracts are for the military military contractors have also made tidy sums out of NASA's supposedly 'civilian' spending.

    The focus on commercial spaceflight is right and proper because that's the only way things will move forward. Creating another Apollo craft forty to fifty years on to hop, skip and jump into space simply isn't going to work. We're at a stage in spaceflight right now where the Wright brothers were with flight, and we've been in that position for fifty years.

    Spaceflight has not turned into the everyday occurence that everyone thought it would around the time of the moon landing. Hell, 2001 was nine fucking years ago. I still can't get over that. Frankly, progress has been a failure.

    1. Re:NASA is Military Spending by pnewhook · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA is military spending because most of NASA's contractors contract for the military. NASA is also a military organisation, believe it or not

      Yes, most of NASAs contractors also contract for the military because it just makes sense, but that does not make NASA a military organization.

      Did you know that the Air Force budget for space development and operations actually exceeds that of the entire NASA budget?

      Speaking as a NASA contractor, NASA is definitely NOT military.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    2. Re:NASA is Military Spending by Nyeerrmm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have a complete misinterpretation of what 'commercial space' means in this case. The government is still buying the vehicles, launching missions, and deciding where to go -- NASA is in no way being dismantled. What we're doing is just changing how we pay for developing vehicles, and trying to set up a system thats less vulnerable to political disturbances.

      Clearly the current way of doing HSF is failing. The only viable option to keep flying on an American vehicle right now is to keep flying the shuttle, and probably kill another 7 astronauts in a few more years. NASA/MSFC has completely failed to develop a new manned vehicle since the shuttle. This is not the fault of the workers and engineers there, but rather constant requirement changes from on high and a focus on doing fancier things rather than keeping it simple.

      Doing the same things again and expecting new results is defined as insanity, and hoping that congress will become something other than a short-sighted political body is not a valid exploration plan. If you have a better plan than doing fixed price contracts with multiple vendors I'd like to hear them.

  5. Republicans have gone space crazy by pedropolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What planet did I wake up on today? Republicans criticizing the commercialization of low-orbit space flights? Demanding the return of a gigantic, overbudget, behind schedule rocket to nowhere? Obama for the privatization of space and Conservatives for the continuation of a government monopoly on space? Has everyone gone space crazy?!

    1. Re:Republicans have gone space crazy by znu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real motivation here is probably to maintain the flow of money to NASA contractors, who happen to also be politically connected defense contractors. In other words, it's the usual crony capitalism that the Republicans seem to favor over actual market competition these days.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    2. Re:Republicans have gone space crazy by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ``What planet did I wake up on today? Republicans criticizing the commercialization of low-orbit space flights? Demanding the return of a gigantic, overbudget, behind schedule rocket to nowhere? Obama for the privatization of space and Conservatives for the continuation of a government monopoly on space?''

      I actually think that if you look more deeply into what the Republican party and the Democratic party are really advocating, and where Liberals (in the American sense) and Conservatives (again, in the American sense) fall on various issues, you may be in for a few more surprises. Republican politicians voting for larger government, more government spending, and less room for enterprising individuals and companies is really nothing new.

      Many people _believe_ that the Republican party is for big business, less government control, hard-working people keeping their money, and sane economic policies, and many people _believe_ that the Democratic party is for more government control, higher taxes, taxing hard working people (or even handing out money to those too lazy to work), and running up budget deficits for future governments to clean up after. Many people _believe_ that Republican == Conservative and Democrat == Liberal.

      As far as I can tell, these beliefs are widely held by people all over the political spectrum. In actuality, things aren't quite as clear-cut. In fact, there are many cases where things are the exact opposite of what these beliefs would have you expect. For example, there are many cases where US national debt has decreased under Democratic presidents, and many cases where it has increased under Republican presidents. Also, American liberals largely vote for the Democratic party. They also tend to be wealthy and highly educated. This contradicts some of the things that many people say and believe. The moral of the story? Always check your assumptions, and check the actual program and voting record of the participants in the elections, lest you vote someone into office who is going to do the opposite of what you want ...

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  6. Astronaut Job Interview Question . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I take pride in NASA but it will be a sad day when the last shuttle lands and we have to rely solely on others for LEO travel.

    1960's: "Do you have the right stuff?"

    2010's: "How's your Russian?"

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  7. Retarded by durrr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spending truckloads of money on a super expensive brand-name rocket that not only do nothing more than the generic ones around but whose purpose of shuttling stuff to the ISS makes it entirely fucking retarded as by the time the rocket gets to orbit the atomized remains of the ISS will be floating in the pacific.
    This is the most apparent short sighted bill i've seen in a long fucking while. Someone should add a clause that draws the additional funding required from the pocket of the senators and the companies they are puppets for, perhaps they would be motivated to produce something that's a bit less shitty and budgethogging if they had to pay for it themself.

  8. It's about jobs in this economy by dammy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's those engineers and support personnel who are about to be out of a job in those states are the ones that need Ares funded. Although I do support the commercialization of space and getting NASA out of the manned LEO rides, I can sympathize with those who are about to be unemployed because of the budget reversal. My memories goes back to the mid 1970s when my father and his friends lost their jobs when Apollo 17 completed it's mission.

    Can I blame those GOP Senators for pushing for funding to keep jobs in their state? Nope, sure can't. Do I think it should be funded, nope, sure don't.

    1. Re:It's about jobs in this economy by jfengel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can I blame those GOP Senators for pushing for funding to keep jobs in their state?

      You can when they're also pushing for an end to earmarks, reduced government spending, and a generalized "the government can't do anything right" attitude.

      "Small government" is a valid position, but "reduce spending on everybody but me" is an attitude that merits blame.

    2. Re:It's about jobs in this economy by butlerm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can when they're also pushing for an end to earmarks, reduced government spending, and a generalized "the government can't do anything right" attitude.

      You know not of whom you speak. Senator Bennett recently lost out to two more conservative candidates for the opportunity to run in the Republican primary. Among other reasons, because he never saw an earmark he didn't like.

    3. Re:It's about jobs in this economy by butlerm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Worse, they didn't want to engage in rational discussion of the issues and were unwilling to consider compromise. They also seem to misunderstand what exactly one senator, or every Republican senator could do with respect to HCR. All you got was just a drumbeat about the "loving" the Constitution. This will get them nowhere in Congress.

      That is a poor generalization based on a few anecdotes. There were ~3500 state delegates and the idiosyncrasies of a small number of them does not a proper analysis make. The thing about Senator Bennett is he doesn't actually seem to get it.

      Conservative Republicans in the state haven't liked him very much for years. This year there were just a lot more conservative delegates - in large part due to horror at the prospect of trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see.

      Perhaps Bennett thinks earmarks for such projects as the "bridge to nowhere" are fine. Perhaps he thinks that sponsoring health care reform bills that have stronger individual mandates (at the federal level) than the bill that actually passed is legitimate. Perhaps he thinks that granting $800 billion to the Treasury department to spend as they saw fit was a good idea. Perhaps he thought that opposing reasonable reforms of Fannie Mae back in 2003 was a good idea.

      The merits of those positions notwithstanding, most of the delegates disagreed, and they chose two candidates (excellent candidates I might add) that more closely reflected their views. It has nothing to do with "anti incumbent" feeling. It has to do with the rise of movement conservatism, something that Senator Bennett doesn't seem to have much sympathy for. So the serious conservatives voted him out, and by a rather overwhelming margin at that. He couldn't command more than 27% of the vote.

  9. Re:People lose respect for a broken system by nschubach · · Score: 3, Funny

    We definitely need a reboot. We are so fragmented and corrupt right now. On one hand, we have our virtual memory being consumed at an alarming rate while we borrow more and more disk space to cover operation costs that we don't have the memory for. On the other, we have applications that demand more and more memory without regard to how much the system can handle. The common solution is to put in more memory, but that only makes each byte of memory that much more insignificant and applications will demand more and more until our whole system comes crashing to a halt. ;)

    --
    Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  10. Re:So much for "fiscal responsibility"... by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sorry, but it can't be summed up in six words.

    It's easy to say that the republicans are in the pockets of some big company.

    The Republicans and the Democrats are in the same people's pockets. If some big aerospace factories close, thousands of people lose jobs, and the local representative doesn't get re-elected. The difference between the Republican and the Democrat is that the Republican thinks it's the big company's responsibility to give those people a job, and the Democrat thinks it's the government's responsibility to make sure those workers don't need to worry about whether they have a job or not.

    Bottom line, it's always about the voters. Except that most of our citizens of voting age are so cynical about the process, and think it's all about the "money/power/big companies/cronyism" that they stay home and dilute the real power base.

    Get off your ass and go vote.

    Better yet. Understand what the people you're voting for actually stand for before you go vote. Otherwise you'll be surprised when the guy you voted for to change things starts supporting revoking Miranda rights, and sends more troops to the wars you don't support, and keeps an infamous prison open, and supports off-shore drilling, and signs a massive health care welfare bill into law just like the last guy did, and generally acts like a re-incarnation of George W. Bush, even though the writing was on the wall before the election, and everybody who pointed it out was routinely censored by the internet community.

  11. !Pork by yog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's not pork; it's R&D that's every bit as valid as anything else the Federal government spends money on, if not more so.

    It keeps thousands of aerospace engineers, scientists, and technicians productively employed.

    It restores funding to a project that is well underway and is built on known, working technology (Apollo).

    It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.

    It's a tiny investment; Nasa needs about $6 billion a year to keep Constellation going. It's literally a drop in the bucket compared to many other appropriations.

    The country needs a manned space program. Say what you will about the Shuttle and other manned spacecraft, they have been an inspiration to generations of young Americans to pursue science and engineering careers. While our private sector engineering jobs have dwindled along with our domestic industrial production, aerospace remains a promising field. Jet aircraft are just about the only big ticket industrial item America still exports, and aerospace technology from Nasa bleeds over to the jet transportation field all the time.

    Now consider what else the Feds spend our money on:

    $700+ billion economic stimulus - truly, this is almost all pork and includes various "jobs training programs", money for local construction projects, items like that which are traditionally considered bacon. Individually, these projects may have merit, but why should the federal government be funding them with a huge a deficit?

    $600+ billion for defense. Surely, 1% of this budget could be redirected to Nasa with no damage to our national security.

    $125+ billion per year for new healthcare obligations. That's roughly twenty times the sum Nasa needs, and it won't even cover all the uninsured. It basically is a payoff to medical providers to take care of the indigent or working poor who can't or won't provide for their own healthcare funding.

    We could easily cut a trillion or so dollars from our national budget and not even notice the difference. Maybe 25% of Pentagon funding, and a bunch of entitlements, and the economy would actually benefit from the expanded availability of lending capital.

    --
    it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
    1. Re:!Pork by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.

      Wrong. Constellation was facing huge technical issues, none of which had known fixes. And isn't relying on the private sector what the US should be doing? I mean, it's what I hear from every red-blooded republican.

      It's a tiny investment; Nasa needs about $6 billion a year to keep Constellation going.

      Is that the current R&D, or is that its projected operating cost? And considering that the NASA budget stands currently at $20B, $6B is anything but a tiny investment. In fact, it is the single largest component of the budget, on par with the current entire Space budget.

      The country needs a manned space program.

      No, it does not. The space shuttle has stopped being exciting long ago. I got a bigger kick out of the Mars Rover than any Space Shuttle launch in the last 10 years (save the Save the Hubble missions).

      We could easily cut a trillion or so dollars from our national budget and not even notice the difference.

      Really? I mean, REALLY? You could cut 25% of the Federal Budget without there being riots in the entire country? I'm sorry, that's just delusional. As a matter of fact, you can look at the hubbub that came from just cutting 0.1% of the budget through the nixing of Constellation program, and see that there is never any cut that is going to be unopposed.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:!Pork by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not pork; it's R&D that's every bit as valid as anything else the Federal government spends money on, if not more so.

      No, it's R&D towards producing a product that already exists or can't possibly exist. ARES-I is a 20MT launcher, just like the Delta-IV and the Atlas-V. ARES-V requires so many engines that the heat will cause the nozzles to melt. It is spending money for the sake of spending money.

      It keeps thousands of aerospace engineers, scientists, and technicians productively employed.

      There are better ways of keeping these folk productively employed. For example, by spending it on a launch system that is affordable.

      It restores funding to a project that is well underway and is built on known, working technology (Apollo).

      ARES-I did not meet its performance guidelines. At best it would put the Orion module into a suborbital trajectory. ARES-V was also not meeting its performance guidelines. It needed more engines, longer SRBs (thus breaking compatibility with ARES-I). We already have far better, safer, working technology: The Space Transport System (aka, the space shuttle system). It is the safest way into space bar none. We should be leveraging STS systems rather than taking a step back to the 60s.

      It gives us an American manned launch capability in the near future, versus the complete unknown of relying on the private sector.

      NASA was mismanaged something fierce. America should never have lost manned launch capability. Between budget cuts and administrators with pet projects, a shining beacon of ingenuity has become a flickering, sputtering candle of incompetence.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  12. Chang'e we can believe in by GodWasAnAlien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is the current direction of the space program ... in China

    Chang'e 2 - 2010, second lunar orbiter
    Chang'e 3 - 2013, lunar lander
    Chang'e 4 - 2017, return lunar sample to earth
    Chang'e 5 - 2020-2025 - manned mission

    Japan, India and Russia may also be competing for the 2020-2025 moon race.

  13. Admendmen is about spending, nothing else by mstrcat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So I almost lost my breakfast over this one. The amendment doesn't say word one about getting anything useful, only that the spending continue. The legislators in question don't seem to care if the money spent returns anything worthwhile, only that we keep spending. Barf! No wonder everyone hates politicians.

  14. Corporations are Evil--And so are you by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree that corporations have way too much influence over government policy. But that's not the problem here.

    You're oversimplifying things when you cast it as "the people" versus "corporations". In this particular case, the two are actually aligned. If Ares is canceled, it isn't just corporations in Utah and Alabama who will lose out there, it's all the people who work for these corporations, and everybody in the state who would be affected by the damage to the local economies. Which is just about everybody. Which is why "the people" are actually for Ares. But not all the people — just the ones that live in Utah and Alabama.

    To most of us, Ares is pure pork. But not to its supporters. The problem is not "us" versus "them", it's the fact that everybody wants their own bit of pork, and everybody thinks that somebody else is being too greedy. That attitude is screwing us up on every level: health care, physical infrastructure, education, you name it.

  15. wut? by J05H · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So a budget increase, a scope increase and general revitalization of a flagging agency are a death march? Only when some of the suffering is in your district. Obama is promising more NASA for more uses and the Republicans are screaming no.

    Ares I is slated to cost $35 BILLION to develop. This is for a basically existing design. Delta and Atlas EELV cost about $5-7G together and produced two families of light-medium-medium-heavy launchers. Ares is a joke and the sooner it dies the better.

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  16. Constellation may not be the worst use of funds... by voss · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but is it the best use of NASA funds???

    1) It's not a good design,
    2) there are already other off the shelf American launchers
    available that can do LEO for cargo for less money and are less expensive to make man rated including
    the Atlas V, Falcon 9, and Delta IV heavy. The Delta and the Atlas are already proven launch vehicles
    and the Falcon 9 will likely have proven itself in a month or so. Ares I would not be ready until 2018.
    3) Ares sucks money away from other more viable space exploration activities
    4) If you want to keep NASA employees productively employed let them work on missions that get us out of
    Low earth orbit instead of trying to reinvent apollo(on steroids, on crack, on lsd?)