Slashdot Mirror
Air Force Wants Commercial Spacecraft
coondoggie writes "The US Air Force is preparing to take a long look at how commercial space technology can help it better operate in the cosmos. The Air Force today said it will host a space test program meeting next week ahead of expected contract offerings, or Broad Agency Announcements looking to recruit commercial space providers."
NASA and the military have always relied on commercial companies to design and build their spacecraft/aircraft. All this really does is add launch and maintenance to the mix.
Of course, on the downside, this leaves them more dependent than ever on private contractors--which will only strengthen a military/industrial complex that is already draining U.S. coffers dry. But hey, a credit card is just as good as cash as long as they keep giving you credit, right?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Is this really where tax dollars need to be spent? I'm all for space, but I'd rather that budget go to NASA to get some exploring done, not to hire a private contractor to put an F-16 in orbit to defend against... what exactly?
No, it's time time to invade space because look at all that black stuff, it's probably oil.
These guys have it totally handled. Give them a contract, already!
+1 Funny. Anonymous Coward making statements about honor and discipline.
This post comes with a double-your-money-back guarantee!
Any offense taken to this post is at your sole discretion.
A government agency wants a 'commercial' product that does not really exist? So what makes that product 'commercial'?
If there is a commercial product and a government agency decides to buy from the manufacturer - well, that's one thing. Good for the manufacturer if he lands the tender. However if the product does not exist because the market hasn't found the reason/money/customers for it yet and the government then comes and says: here is a bunch of money, go build us a 'commercial' solution - well then, there will be a solution. But it will have NOTHING to do with market. The government money comes in, creates the demand, but except that government demand there is no private demand, so the solution will be totally inefficient, unusable under normal market conditions (without government subsidies).
What I am saying is this: government wants to prop up yet another bunch of companies and call it 'commercial', well, don't be fooled. Sure, they'll subsidize something there with fake money, like they always do, but it won't help the economy in any way, as the demand is artificial, as the money is not coming out of savings but instead creates more inflation, because it's printed and as the economy goes into worse trouble, because debts are increased and not repaid.
Don't call it 'commercial' if government pays for all the demand, it ain't no such thing.
You can't handle the truth.
Anonymous Cowards is almost correct. That's from the PROPOSED budget for 2012. What Anonymous coward forgot was that Social Security and Medicare is only 44% of the next proposed budget. The final 35% is discretionary, down from around 38% in 2008.
The 44% is nearly non-negotiable mandated spending. You can't really cut mandated spending except to streamline the programs. You can't just cut parts out you don't like. Not in the budgetary process, at least (or they're not supposed to, anyways).
The defense budget is entirely different. It is not mandatory, but it is not discretionary either. You CAN cut parts out you don't like with the wave of a budgetary wand... you just piss representatives off who lose military and defense contractor jobs in their districts. On the whole, military spending has no real "net gain". There is no financial return on $1 million Tomahawk missiles, whether fired or sitting in storage. It's therefore harder to justify investments in technology.
This doesn't mean such investments aren't needed. What liberals rail at is that we spend more than all of NATO combined on our military, and more than any single country. Our military spending is so large that it makes even China look minuscule. Conservatives point out that the reason our allies don't spend as much is that they rely on us for their security for the most part. Nobody is invading France, Britain, or Germany without having to deal with us.
However, as history tells us, spending too much on your military and not enough on your economy will lead to your downfall. While Sparta eventually defeated Athens, it was unable to take on the economic burden left by the spoils of war which lead to its downfall.
We could be the next Spartans, and China the next Athens. Sure, we can whip their ass, but in 30 years if we're paying $5 a gallon because we didn't go all electirc, and China did... who cares?
Nukes were supposed to level the field. It's not like we're going to have a ground war with any other nuclear power. We'll all glow in the dark long before then.
I8-D
I'll be curious to know if the officer in charge of issuing this report has any contacts with private industry or ends up in a 7-figure job at Boeing or Lockheed.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!