Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Senators Want Big Rocket Instead of New Tech, Commercial Transportation

Posted by Soulskill on from the space-programs-don't-win-fights-against-bureaucracy dept.

FleaPlus writes "Members of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation are drafting a bill (due this week) which slashes NASA technology development/demonstrations, commercial space transportation, and new robotic missions to a small fraction of what the White House proposed earlier this year. The bill would instead redirect NASA funds to 'immediate' development of a government-designed heavy lift rocket, although it's still unclear if NASA can afford a heavy lifter in the long term or if (with the new technology the Senators seek to cut, like in-space refueling) it actually needs such a rocket. The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload of 75mT to orbit, uses the existing Ares contracts and Shuttle infrastructure as much as possible, and forces use of the solid rocket motors produced by Utah arms manufacturer ATK."

54 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. In Other Words... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pork.

    1. Re:In Other Words... by epiphani · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Naw, this is just a case of NASA being a political punching bag. It will never get anything done ever again.

      Not because it isn't capable - but because every four years someone new comes along that thinks they know how to run things. They gut everything that has been happening, and refocus the organization. Thus, there are a good dozen projects that got half done. Some of the early X33 work had a lot of potential, and I remember reading about how the rocket nozzle work could be qualified as a major breakthrough. But it got scrapped. NASA isn't suffering from a lack of vision. It's suffering from too many visions that change too often.

      --
      .
    2. Re:In Other Words... by infalliable · · Score: 2, Insightful

      whenever the senate states you must use XYZ product as a critical subcomponent in a large engineering project before it's started, you know there are going to be problems.

    3. Re:In Other Words... by magsol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't comment personally, but I've heard through friends who have done internships at NASA that the working atmosphere there is terrible. It's depressing, it's uninspired, and I suspect it has to do with exactly what you just mentioned: entire mission changes with every single administration.

      NASA is good at what it does, it just needs to be allowed to follow through.

      --
      "I'd just like to emphasise that taking a million years isn't a metaphor here..." -Rich Bradshaw
    4. Re:In Other Words... by FleaPlus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NASA isn't suffering from a lack of vision. It's suffering from too many visions that change too often.

      That's why it's important that the "first leg" of access to LEO is decoupled from the political process as much as possible. This has already been done for unmanned launch for a couple decades now, and the new plan is to do the same for manned launches as well, so that even when political whims change NASA will still have an existing launch infrastructure it can use.

      That's also why NASA should be spending its money on technological development and demonstrations rather than building new mega-rockets. If funding on your mega-rocket costing tens of billions of dollars is cancelled due to political whims when development is only 25% complete, you have nothing. If technology development is cancelled after only a few years, you've still made a bunch of short-term technological advances that increase the capabilities and sustainability of later exploration.

    5. Re:In Other Words... by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Eh, thats more of a ticket puncher (military reference) or seagull manager (fly in, crap all over everything, fly out).

      Look at this quote and try to explain how its not ticket punching or seagull management:

      because every four years someone new comes along that thinks they know how to run things. They gut everything that has been happening, and refocus the organization

      Obviously NASA was supposed to be a technical organization, but now its just a MBA stepping stone.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    6. Re:In Other Words... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      whenever the manager states you must use XYZ product as a critical subcomponent in a large engineering project before it's started, you know there are going to be problems.

      Fixed it for you.

    7. Re:In Other Words... by RichMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not pork.

      Male manhood symbol.

      America needs to have the biggest rocket.

      Can't be less than Russia, China, India, ....

    8. Re:In Other Words... by dmgxmichael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would be true if the point was the biggest rocket. But no, the point is a rocket built in Utah and Alabama regardless of size.

    9. Re:In Other Words... by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I've heard through friends who have done internships at NASA that the working atmosphere there is terrible.

      I've heard through (probably completely different) friends that the working atmosphere FOR THE SCIENTIST / ENGINEER / "PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR" personnel is as terrible as you report, but the MBA types love it, because they coincidentally just happen to be the ones in charge and have created a paradise for themselves.

      Not a culture of equations and test tubes, but power point and office politics.

      Different strokes for different folks, etc. The scientists are on their way out, and they are well aware of it, and unhappy about it, so I'm told. The unwritten goal is to eventually have nothing but management and PR personnel on staff. Not unlike most American companies.

      NASA is good at what it does

      Like I said, powerpoints and office politics. I am told they're pretty good at those subjects. If you have the mistaken idea that it's like Bell Labs half a century ago, well, illusions don't always work in the real world.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    10. Re:In Other Words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nah, in light of their new mission of Muslim outreach it cannot be pork.

    11. Re:In Other Words... by shadowofwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having worked there, I think the problem at NASA has more to do with the way job security is decoupled from performance. The organization just rots. Unfortunately, there's no easy fix for that, since if you try to establish stronger "merit based" criteria for pay and retention, the definition of merit just gets politicized and corrupted.

    12. Re:In Other Words... by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've worked my share of government and private sector jobs. More than enough to be able to say that your attempt at generalization fails. Business struggle and fail all the time because of pervading "that's the way we've always done it" attitudes. Can you say "U.S. auto makers"? And I've seen government entities that were managed by competent leaders who were not interested in "burning days until retirement". Google "Chief Alan Brunacini" for a sterling example of such a leader. Stereotypes such as those you've trotted out don't add to an intelligent discussion.

    13. Re:In Other Words... by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's only natural to be depressed and unproductive when experience suggests that no matter how well you do you will find that the plug is pulled and you are re-assigned just before your project gets off the ground (literally). All the morso when you know the new project will suffer the same fate and you'll be re-re-assigned to the current project only with just enough changes that you have to start back at square 1 in order to incorporate one or more inappropriate pieces of "technology"

    14. Re:In Other Words... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stereotypes such as those you've trotted out don't add to an intelligent discussion.

      I'll agree with this. My anecdote is only that, and not data. Let's roll through government agencies that have less than spectacular results, shall we?

      Minerals Management (Gulf Oil Disaster)
      the VA (with regards to the complete lack of care provided to returning soldiers)
      FEMA (Katrina/New Orleans)
      the TSA (instituted as merely security theater)
      NASA ($500 million per shuttle launch, yet the total cost SpaceX spent to develop their lift vehicle)
      the USPTO (and their utter incompetence at properly vetting patent applications for prior art)
      the USPS (who is bleeding money, but congress hamstrings them against making the needed service cuts)

      I could continue. But, I'm sure my list speaks for itself. Government has it's place, I completely believe that. Unfortunately, after working for the government, I simply have more faith in private organizations that don't accept/promote mediocrity. Call it "ruthless efficiency". It's something the government simply can't do.

    15. Re:In Other Words... by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, there's Social Security, which is about 10 times more efficient of a low-risk mutual fund than you'll find in the private sector. You can bitch and complain endlessly about what they spend the money on, but as a pure mutual fund, they are cheaper, by far, than anything the private sector puts up.

      Or there are all sorts of Enron stories. Just that Enron was the largest such sham. But then, since you blame the government for BP's negligence, I'm sure you'll find some way of blaming the government for Enron and not blame the officers that deliberately committed fraud to steal billions (well, steal multiple millions by inventing billions then selling pieces of those fictitious billions for millions). Or even devolve it into a condemnation of CA's energy market.

      Or the banking system, who cheats the system every chance they can, sometimes to the point of getting away with the same thing twice (the S&L scandal of the 80s is almost exactly the same as the subprime issue that we are still hurting from - banks make purposefully bad investments, lie about it, sell the results of it to each other, and then when the bad investments default at rates around what's expected, they blame those who they expected to default for defaulting, rather than their fraudulent banking practices for purposefully over-valuing the known high-risk loans and multiple layers of fraud to hide that risk). Oh no, that's all the government's fault too, for not better regulating the banking industry they know is deliberately evil.

      Any existing government regulation is evil. Every bad thing done because the government lifted a regulation or failed to place or enforce one well enough id because the government is evil. Companies do no wrong, but the government is evil whether it does or does not do anything.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    16. Re:In Other Words... by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A customer can choose not to do business with said business. I cannot choose not to pay taxes to the US government.

  2. Self-fulfilling prophecy by Haffner · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Senators are cutting NASA's budget because they don't think it will be a good use of money. Then, they underfund it, so that indeed, it is not.

    As an aside, replace "NASA" with "useful government program" of your choosing and the sentence still works.

    --
    "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
  3. The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload ... by jayveekay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why are Senators designing rockets?

    My guess is that they are not designing rockets so much as they are designing pork.

  4. Uh huh... by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was unaware that the Senate had members who were NASA engineers.

    ...forces use of the solid rocket motors produced by Utah campaign donor ATK.

    Maybe I'm just cynical, but that's how I read the last sentence.

    1. Re:Uh huh... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...forces use of the solid rocket motors produced by Utah _________ ATK.

      a) campaign donor
      b) jobs provider
      c) experienced rocket builder
      d) existing contract holder
      e) all of the above

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  5. Ugh. by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is the most brazen act of pork barrel politics since the Bridge to Nowhere. Actually, it *is* a bridge to nowhere.

    1. Re:Ugh. by Haffner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except the bridge to nowhere would have actually been useful for transporting a few people a day. This will be canceled halfway through and never get anything anywhere.

      --
      "Going to war without the French is like going deer hunting without your accordion." ~General Norman Schwarzkopf
    2. Re:Ugh. by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, it pretty much fucks Colorado and a few other states to favor Utah. The old Constellation program included, guess what, a government funded/designed heavy lifter.

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  6. Re:The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload by epiphani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree Senators should stfu - but dictating a payload capacity is a requirement, not a design.

    --
    .
  7. Safe solution? by vlm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and forces use of the solid rocket motors produced by Utah arms manufacturer ATK.

    There is no such thing as a truly man rated solid booster. They can put on their manager hat instead of their engineer hat and ram it thru for political reasons, but that doesn't make it true or safe.

    So, whats the technical solution?

    Politicians are pretty stupid and/or they don't care as long as their Utah connection gets some dough. They don't really care about the technical needs. So I have occasionally daydreamed they should be hired to produce two giant smoke grenades, or something like that. They'd be a "safety system" since the "boosters" would be dead weight and if the actual rocket had a problem, it could eject the dead weight boosters to gain quite a bit of performance.

    Or, rather than trying to generate net upward thrust, if they barely broke even with their own weight, maybe they'd be safer.

    Its an interesting technical solution to a political problem.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:Safe solution? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      > making a bad engineering decision that "wastes" $500M on a fireworks show, is morally equivalent to killing 500 people

      I am by no means pro-waste, but ridiculously bad logic doesn't help further your cause at all here. No, loss of some money (especially when spread out a lot) is not morally equivalent to murder. Neither is loss of small amounts of time per person. They're inconvenient, annoying, potentially damaging, but not murder. Otherwise extremely small slices, multiplied enough, would make lots and lots of things murder. Hell, the latency in every telecom activity technically costs us all a few minutes per person per year, meaning we've lost a few lifespans worth by now. Late bus/train/flight? Vending machine ate your quarter? Likewise X assaults doesn't add up to one murder, nor does a million accidentally bumping into someone add up to an assault, and so on.

      Wasting $500 million in taxes is morally equivalent to... wasting $500 million in taxes, and that's bad enough all by itself that it doesn't need extra rhetoric at all. Simple money-to-money comparisons ("that's 50 years worth of school system budget for my town!") suffice.

  8. Pigs in Spaaaaaace! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No wait, not the pigs, just the pork.

    I can't wait for all the interesting and new technology that would actually expand our capabilities to get canceled in favor of a appeasing a government contractor who wants us to keep doing what we've been doing and all the people who can't get past Size of Rocket = Size of Nation's Cock.

    News flash for the space mid-life-crisis crowd: Big rockets are really impressive... if you live in the 70s! You want NASA to regain it's mojo and reclaim the lead in space? Shuttle 2.0 ain't gonna do it. Everything that will be scrapped in favor of the pork project would.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  9. Politicians are not rocket scientists by Mashhaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They should therefore not be attempting to dictate the future of rocket science R/D in the appropriations bills. It's all fine and good to set lofty goals, but leave the nuts and bolts to the nuts and bolts people.

    What saddens me is that they're talking about spending ridiculous amounts on human spaceflight, and a comparative pittance on sending up more 'bots. You don't need to look much further than Hayabusa or Spirit and Opportunity to see the potential for real Science to get done is staggering when you don't have to worry about sustaining all those pesky biological systems. IMHO, we should be devoting at least a fifth of the budget to non-human spaceflight and exploration.

    Once we know what's up there, we can send the fleshbags.

  10. If they want boosters from Utah... by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... then they should look into a better way to get them to the launch sites, so they don't have to worry about railroad tunnels while designing rockets.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  11. Re:What else do you expect? by FleaPlus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > What else do you expect when the head of NASA says that his primary mission is to remind Muslims of all the contributions they made to science?

    Oh geeze, not this again. He was talking about "foremost" in the context of the interview, not NASA as a whole. Administrator Bolden needs to learn how to speak more like a politician and choose his words more carefully, but you'd have to be retarded to believe that he honestly thinks that's the primary mission of NASA.

  12. Re:The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload by Snarkalicious · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I am absolutely sure that nobody in the industry has submitted research on this subject and the numbers are purely arbitrary.

    Nobody on the Committee is from Utah, BTW. If this were a slaughterhouse order, it's more likely the big contracts would be proposed in New Mexico.

  13. Re:What else do you expect? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you honestly think some senators are demanding the use of a solid fuel booster made by a US arms contractor deep in Mormonland because of some Obamunist pro-muslim conspiracy?

    Even Glenn Beck couldn't come up with a conspiracy theory looney enough to link those two phenomena...

  14. When lawyers design spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when do a bunch of lawyers know dink about the best cost solution to any technical problem?

    Want NASA to provide a heavy-lift capability? Give NASA a broad goal (say for example to get to the moon in ten years), get the hell out of the way and have NASA produce a design study showing cost-benefit trades for all options studied (including whatever the engineers think might be feasable / possible / affordable - who knows, maybe those engineers actually know a thing or two about what they do). If the projected costs come within the realm of feasibility, authorize a multi-year funding profile (with offramps for failed performace), and get the hell out of the way. Otherwise, any effort is doomed to failure as a political football.

    - A Practicing Aerospace Engineer
    PS: N(a)SA, the National Space Administration; lack of adequate funding has already killed any useful Aeronautics they might have once accomplished

    1. Re:When lawyers design spacecraft by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since when do a bunch of business executives know dink about the best cost solution to any technical problem?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  15. Re:The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yeah, but "75mT"? It's nice to see US Senators trying to get to grips with this new fangled metric system when they specify their pork, but 75 milli-Tonnes would be 75KG. Perhaps NASA should fax their designated rocket motor supplier in Utah some of its own blueprints for a surface to air missile and just get on with whatever it is that NASA actually wants to do, which might actually be something useful.

    Alternatively, they could just claim to be catering to their stated directive about "reaching out to Muslims" and tell the not-so-honorable Senator from Utah "We don't do pork anymore as it might offend Muslims."

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  16. Lame. by crhylove · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd like to see better orbital insertion technologies pursued. Like a mag-lev cannon or something. Rockets CANNOT be the most efficient way to orbit. Especially Heavy lift rockets. Grrrr

    --
    I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  17. Well, that's it, then by wandazulu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The NASA I grew up with is truly dead and gone. NASA was about going somewhere; we could go to the moon, I can't wait to see what's next. It's so hard looking at the pictures at the Apollo Archive without feeling melancholy about what NASA was, back in the 60s, and has never been since.

    I wonder what Neil, Buzz and Michael are doing for fun these days.

  18. I bothered to read the fucking article by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What I noticed was that the article is against the new spending bill and that all the quoted sources in the article benefit from the current spending plan.

    Every single one of the named sources is attached to and gets money from commercial space interests in some way.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  19. From an Ares engineer: Let Ares die. by Anonymous+Freak · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heck, I have a friend who is/was an engineer on the Ares rocket / Orion spacecraft; and he WANTS Ares to die. He would prefer that NASA get out of the rocket design and LEO-transport businesses. He really wants to work on experimental stuff. He feels that THAT is what NASA should do. Leave the LEO stuff to private businesses. (Obviously, with the caveat that NASA buys the use of them when needed.)

    --
    Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
    The purpose of that site was not known.
    1. Re:From an Ares engineer: Let Ares die. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, what you are saying is that U.S. space policy should be decided by an engineer who would rather be working as a research engineer rather than a practical engineer.

      "He really wants to work on experimental stuff" as opposed to practical stuff that can be used today. Why doesn't he start his own experimental space technology company or go to work for a company is that is doing that kind of work rather than working for the government?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:From an Ares engineer: Let Ares die. by mrfrostee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I am also a NASA engineer that thinks it's best to let Ares go.

      NASA did a lot of research and science before the Constellation program sucked all the funds from everything else NASA does, and Constellation is still at least 3 billion dollars per year short of what it needs to actually get built. I don't see any of these senators proposing the borrowing or tax increases needed to realistically implement a manned return to the moon, so the chances of it happening are approximately zero. Meanwhile, it's killing all of NASA's other missions.

      Given that, it make sense to restore the balance back toward research and technology development and try to get cheaper commercial access to LEO going until we have the technology (fuel depots, electric propulsion) required to affordably go farther.

  20. Re:What else do you expect? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sorry, he was talking about the mission of NASA. I thought the mission of NASA should be something to do with space exploration. What does reaching out to muslim nations have to do whith NASA? That sounds more like a State Department job to me. The other things he listed in that particular quote as part of the mission of NASA didn't sound like they belonged on NASA's agenda either.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  21. Re:The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Apparently I mis-calibrated my sarcasm.

    I was attempting to satirize the fact that any sort of government spending on social programs tends to fall victim to the backlash against the terrifying(but largely unverified) "Welfare Queen"(which, again regardless of statistics, is an explicitly racially identified character); while even the most transparently pointless dicking around with porky corporate contracts does not arouse the same ire.

    Somehow, as long as the government spending results in some sort of corporate product(even if it is wholly ill-suited, grossly over budget, or simply canceled partway through) it avoids the dread stigma of being "welfare"(for some reason, farm subsidies also seem to escape this). On the other hand, if there is some chance that a poor person of the colored persuasion might get their hands on a thin slice, it instantly becomes "welfare", which is self-evidently an unsustainable "entitlement program" that is destroying America's moral fiber even as it wrecks its finances.

  22. and if the CCCP was still around then we may mars by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    and if the CCCP was still around then we may of been on mars by now!

  23. Re:The Senators' rocket design dictates a payload by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, but "75mT"? It's nice to see US Senators trying to get to grips with this new fangled metric system when they specify their pork, but 75 milli-Tonnes would be 75KG.

    ... is there a unit version of Muphry's law? Kelvin Gauss (KG) are not kilograms (kg)...

  24. Re:What is the need? by mbone · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Expecting sense out of David Vitter is like expecting valid legal advice from Slashdot. Yes, it might happen, but it's not the way to bet.

  25. 75 milliTeslas? by GumphMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seems a waste to develop a new rocket when 75 milliTeslas (75 mT) of magnetic flux density in the form of a neodymium magnet doesn't weigh much.

    One can only assume that the authors wished to express the SI related unit of 75 tonnes (75 t) or 75000 kg. Even in the US this unit is denoted by "t"

    "Metric System of Measurement: Interpretation of the International System of Units for the United States" (PDF). Federal Register 63 (144): 40333–40340. July 28, 1998. 63 FR 40333.

    --
    Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
  26. Can't really blame the congressmen... by sl3xd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's hardly surprising to see Utah fighting to keep the original contracts. There are entire cities whose fate is tied to ATK launch systems. In a representative government, you have to represent the interests of your constituents; or at least pretend to. If a decision is made that will send entire cities into unemployment, your job is to represent and fight for those who face unemployment.

    The senators and congressmen of other states may not care what happens to thousands of people in Utah, it's not their job. On the other hand, you can't really fault the senators and congressmen of Utah for doing their job and fighting for the livelihood of thousands of their constituents.

    I'm sure the situation is the same for other Ares contractors.

    There's something to be said for honoring the contracts that have been signed for the constellation program. Otherwise, we end up with the same political patronage that plagued the presidencies of the early 1800's; states that favored the current president gets jobs, and states that didn't have jobs taken away. Whether justified or not (I bet it's not), one accusation being leveled against the Obama administration is that the decision was made to hurt states that didn't vote for him.

    The fact is that the Constellation program, while having NASA/government oversight, was designed by commercial entities, under contract. I just don't see how a rocket built designed and built by ATK & Boeing is "government", while SpaceX or Orbital is "commercial." They are both rockets designed and built by a corporation, and delivered to the government according to a contract.

    There actually is a commercial market for unmanned spaceflight. There is a market for sattelite launch.

    Manned spaceflight is a different matter entirely. There isn't a commercial reason to go to space - no untold fortunes to be had from resource collection (like metals or Helium-3), no riches to be had in exploring Mars or the moon... No interplanetary transportation of people between colonies, no transport of scientists to zero-g labs, etc. There are a few joy riders willing to spend a bit more than the launch cost, but that's not enough to justify the billions in investment. Truly "commercial" manned spaceflight shouldn't be completely dependent on the US Government. Sadly, that's all Oribal and SpaceX have for manned spaceflight. Trying to say they are somehow different from Boeing, Lockheed, or ATK is obfuscating the truth: That they are contractors to the government. Without the a government paying for manned spaceflight, SpaceX and Orbital have no way to turn a profit with manned spaceflight -- and neither does anybody else, for that matter.

    The SpaceX and Orbital are latecomers to the shuttle replacement game; they want a do-over because they were still exploding on the launch pad when the Ares contracts were given out. It seems to me that there's a lot of lobbying by SpaceX and Orbital to get government contracts taken from their competition, and reassigned to them. It's a money grab by SpaceX and Orbital, and a transparent one at that.

    If you weren't ready in time for the bidding, that's too bad; maybe next time.

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  27. Re:You forgot the 800lb Gorilla. by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I definitely fail to see how the VA's mission could be done better by the private sector

    Easily. You set performance targets and financially penalize organizations who fail to meet those targets. I'd consider it similar to how the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation works with grants.

  28. Re:Well shit by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's time to allow commercial flight.

    Allow commercial flight? Since when has anyone restricted commercial spaceflight? There's no law saying you can't send humans to space in commercial rockets. Commercial rockets (from companies like Orbital) already carry tons of commercial satellites to orbit.

    What's missing is technical capability and funding. Several firms like SpaceX and Armadillo Aerospace have been trying to develop spacecraft for humans, and haven't succeeded. No one's holding them back except their own lack of capability.

  29. Re:We'll never get back to the moon... by Grishnakh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its revolting that this country doesn't really DO anything anymore. We will never get back to the moon. Hell, I bet we never get anything rebuilt on the twin tower's site.

    They'll probably build a mosque there.

    The only country that seems to be really doing anything significant any more is China. Everyone else is just fumbling around, especially the US.

  30. Re:Well shit by Antisyzygy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dont understand how you can assume that private science is more responsible than public science. Just look at Monsanto and it will immediately discredit, in part, that idea. Do you not recognize the failures of capitalism? We are approaching 1920's levels in wealth disparity, the government and corporate upper management have a revolving door between eachother, and the recent recession was caused basically by greed of those who had more money than they deserved anyway.

    --
    That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
  31. Re:You forgot the 800lb Gorilla. by j-b0y · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love how 'mercenaries' has been replaced by 'private contractors' in the minds of people, it's just really scary how Orwell knew the workings of language.

    --
    Please remain calm, there is no reason to pani... wait, where are you all going?