Slashdot Mirror
A Congressman and an Astronaut Propose a New Plan For NASA
MarkWhittington writes "Reflecting a rising discontent with the state of the U.S. space program in the wake of the last space shuttle mission, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham have proposed a new space plan that addresses space exploration, the role of commercial space, and reform of NASA."
FOREVER.
I'd like for them to do this, it'll help advance more efficiently and be more open to other possibilities
FTFA: "Instead, NASA was directed to pursue a riskier course, diverting billions of dollars to a group of companies– most devoid of experience in manned space vehicles"
Ah, Republicans, all for market solutions, as long as the money goes to the your preferred part of the market.
(Even better, they're blaming Obama for wasting $9b on the ridiculous Constellation.)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Some Texas Republican wants to spend money on something? But this week Texas Republicans are smashing the US economy against the debt they ran up for 30 years. Who's going to pay for their insanity?
--
make install -not war
If Russia can default and still fly to space, maybe the US can.
Only a call to create a plan. The article is wrongfully disdainful of private rocket companies. Nine years ago, SpaceX started developing their launch systems. They started from scratch. They Spent maybe 10% of the equivalent NASA budget for Constellation. And they have something to show for it - several successful launches, a space capsule that has successfully returned form orbit and is being fitted for a manned launch, and a heavy launch vehicle in the works. NASA, in the mean time, was creating a *derived* system and yet ran into technological problems and have yet to produce a single piece of hardware that can do anything. Obama is diverting funds from a slow-moving, conservative, wasteful government agency and cancelled an under-performing, over-budget, technologically conservative (and yet riddled with problems) program. The money was diverted to the free market. And yet, all the space-loving republicans who touted the free market's ability to compete with NASA are now howling and complaining. Why? cause it's OBAMA, that's why.
You will, who else?
The congressman is not our savior. He's just another crony trying to funnel money to his district. He doesn't care if it's a shuttle or an unmanned rocket.
If on the other hand, he was doing this because science is important and necessary, I would support him..
He claims the commericial companies that are now supposed to do the space race have little experience in manned space flight... well so did NASA at the time of JFK decleration. Further more, he claims Obama changed the plans but forgets to mention that this started under republican leadership and that with the huge debt republican leadership gave to Obama, the guy has little choice.
This is just about pork pure and simple. Oh and JFK was a democrat as well. Guess from which side of the political spectrum he got a lot of opposition for state funded space exploration? Gosh, you guessed right!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Is anyone willing to do it for free? Because at a moment when the US are struggling to stay afloat and are likely to default payments in the next 2 months, I don't think anyone in your Congress will allow for a 20+ bn USD program...
> In coming weeks we, with others committed to the HSF program, will offer a more detailed plan to return to flight.
So... what? Do they have a plan already, and the just aren't ready to tell us? Or are they still thinking about it? What's the point of even making an announcement like this if all you've got to say is a few extremely general talking points?
Basically, we have a TX congressman who wants to get the pork flowing back to his deep-pocket-donor pals in the military/industrial complex. [yawn]
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same Olson who never met a program he didn't want to cut, or a tax expenditure (ie. loophole) for the oil industry he didn't want to protect? It's natural for a Congressional Rep to protect local industry, so I'm not surprised he's looking to replace his pork funding stream.
The days when a noticeable fraction of the US GDP goes into NASA are long over. Unless someone discovers an asteroid that shits tax breaks, private industry is going to stick with shooting sats into orbit. It's been a nice ride, but US man-in-space is basically over for the rest of my lifetime. I'll be interested to see how far the Chinese and Indians go before they hit their own limits.
The snarky title refers to Rep. Olson's largest campaign contributor, and I think it safe to say that the Kochs' could give a rat's behind about space flight.
Luke, help me take this mask off
No, but it did use a lot of shuttle pieces & parts (like SRB's) which would keep certain contractors flush with money.
I agree with the GP (Michael_gr) that it's nice to see SpaceX showing us how it should be done. The authors of this article are either ignorant of SpaceX or deliberately disregarding it. Notice that they published this piece in Politico, where many non-geek readers are likely to be unaware of SpaceX's success.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
If Representative Olson can identify a source of revenue (i.e. a tax) to raise to fully fund his plan for NASA, he might have a worthwhile plan. Otherwise, everybody should rightly ignore him. Because if he cannot find at least one good reason why even a billionaire hedge fund manager currently paying a maximum of 15% in federal tax (and often much less) should pay -- a ra then his plan for NASA really isn't worth paying for. And if it isn't worth paying for, it isn't worth doing.
Some of you have no idea what you are talking about and are just rambling about whatever you feel like rambling about. I feel that China is going to just manhandle space soon enough. With NASAs budget we could have a few space stations around the world to make space travel common and more efficient for commuters as well as Astronauts and Astrologist to do their work. It's really just a more efficient way of working. With space being a big deal governments and people don't really think of the possibilities as they should because they fell there are people higher than them doing what is best, but in reality NASA is so big that people don't question it as often or make suggestions and give ideas. Even 1 space station big enough to work in and hold about 500 people. You can have people there working and studying and also engineers building new ships and equipment without wasting billions in gas money. People could actually travel around Space in a big barrel with 2 fans on the back to move them through space.... Science is Science. Nothing will change except for what they do with the money they already get/have. Money isn't really a factor if you get down to the point, they already have a lot of the utilities and equipment to do this... and in the long run it will save and in many ways will produce a lot of money and possible revenues by discovering new elements and slanging moon rocks to the rockheads.
To be honest, I prefer Obama's "let the private sector do it" approach to manned space travel than the Texas Republican's "only big government can do it" manifesto. (I hope the irony is not lost on anyone.) In general, we need do de-emphasize human missions. These are largely vanity projects and don't generate anywhere near as much science as things like Wmap and the Mars rovers. The first question that any NASA proposal should begin with is: What do we want to learn about space? And what's the safest and most cost-effective way to learn it? These guys are still stuck in the old "wouldn't it be cool if we launched a guy to ...?"
Sounds like the start of a great joke :)
and the bartender says: "hey! no deadbeats allowed, getoutta here ya bums"
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
From TFA:
Return to the earlier NASA model of success: Adopt best practices to reform contracting, foster better communication between centers, eliminate activities not essential for space exploration and clear away bureaucracy.
Straight from the campaign stump speech. Of course, it's easy to identify the significant waste, fraud, and abuse, and then get everyone to agree to make the cuts and move on with the program, right?
...than the Texas Republican's "only big government can do it" manifesto. ...?"
The irony is not lost, but for the less-perceptive individuals out there on slashdot, perhaps putting "Republican" and "big-government" in the same sentence only serves to confuse and inflame their fervor.
Clearly, a man with his finger on the pulse of the latest scientific thinking.
In the first paragraph the writer praises JFK because it was not the actual trip to the moon part that would be good for the country, but the technology development to get there.(and everything that entails) Then in short order he calls the $9billion spent on constellation development "a waste". Well? Which is it? Technology was developed(if not finished) just like for the Apollo program. Why is the development process the real success of one program and "a waste" in the other program? If the process of trying to accomplish a goal is good for Murrica, reaching that goal should be immaterial.(per the authors reasoning, I'm not saying reaching a goal is unimportant)
If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector.
How is NASA "vitally important"? We could close NASA tomorrow, and still could launch all of our rockets at USAF facilities such as Vandenberg AFB. The only thing NASA gave us that the Air Force couldn't do was Space Shuttle facilities, and we've retired that program anyway.
I'm all for retiring NASA... and all of our Cold War military, intelligence, and technology institutions born from it... and starting over with an eye on future needs. We'll need an Army and Navy of some kind (with air capabilities), but everything else should be put to this question: "What do we need, and what's the best way to do it allowable under the Constitution?".
Space launch shouldn't be a monopoly anyway, and for decades, that's essentially what NASA was. Let's put the science part in a "United States Science Institute" that helps coordinate research between universities, foundations, and companies, and then let the military and private sector do rocket launches.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
From scratch means SpaceX had developed their own rocket engines and systems to go along with them. Sure, they are using existing launch systems, why not?
The Falcon 1 rocket will earn them money by launching commercial satellites. The Falcon 9 along with the Dragon capsule will become the system to re-supply the ISS and ferry astronauts to and from the ISS. The upcoming Falcon 9 heavy has about half the weight lifting ability of the Saturn-V rocket. It uses a new concept of staging where the strap on tank-boosters transfer fuel back into the core during initial flight so when the boosters separate the core is still fully fueled. Also since the boosters are separated at a lower altitude and speed they should be re-usable. The Falcon 9 heavy is the result of a lot of new thinking, and will out perform existing Titan and Atlas based heavy lift systems. It will also provide the lowest cost to orbit per lb of ANY rocket system yet.
"Ironically, it seems those that live in cities seem to hate them most even though none are more dependent upon them then those same people"
Maybe it's BECAUSE they are dependent on corporations and know how well they serve the people (their customers)? Perhaps it's because corporations, in order to maximize profit, must minimize delivery? Competition, too, is minimized, by co-opting or eliminating competitors - that's the nature of the beast. Face it, corporations are not the ideal delivery mechanism for all things that citizens depend upon, despite republican and libertarian dogma to the contrary.
"We've all heard the horror stories of no-bid contracts, cost plus contracts, and just straight up cronyism as it regards these things"
And corporations are immune, of course. Wait. Stop. That IS corporate delivery of goods and services, doing what is natural to the corporation: minimizing competition as it interferes with profit. Maybe with more regulation the libertarian/republican model might be able to serve though...
"I question whether those that are against it do so because they don't believe it will be made a reality or whether they're just reflexively anti corporate"
ROFL - so people either believe the battle-cry to deliver space services for profit is a trick (possible, the current level of commercial technology cannot do the job), or they just hate commercial delivery of service for no reason at all? I put it to you that _premature_ commercial support of the space program is just as reflexive to those people that have dogmatic corporatist beliefs. You can't just 'have faith' in corporations; without proper regulation they are worse than government - and the libertarian/republican axis will never permit regulations as they want government to serve corporations, rather than have corporations serve the people.
Paranoia is a Survival Trait!
Guess that whole "created or saved" thing is out the window now. Funny how people thought it was important to save car companies that A) make crap and B) couldn't survive without taxpayer subsidies yet manned spaceflight which has a wealth of benefits isn't worth it. http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
Oh and JFK was a democrat as well. Guess from which side of the political spectrum he got a lot of opposition for state funded space exploration?
The Whigs?
Gosh, you guessed right!
Well flip my lid!
I've seen designs and plans for launchers that blow SpaceX out of the water. What SpaceX has is that they are an early mover and have actually demonstrated with real flight tests some actual hardware to prove they can do what they are claiming.
The engine I'm excited about coming from SpaceX, however, is the "F1-class" engine they are naming the "Merlin-2" engine. If what I'm reading is correct, it will have more rated thrust capacity than the F1 engine on the Saturn V, and in theory only one of these engines will be necessary on the Falcon 9 if used in that capacity. If they ever get around to building this engine together with clusters like they've done with the original "Merlin" engine, that will be one serious piece of launching apparatus moving stuff into space. The Falcon XX project (the preliminary design has already been developed) will eventually have the lift capacity to put a fully loaded 747 into orbit.
It makes you wonder why another $15 billion is going to be dumped on the SLS system.
From the article:
Rep. Pete Olson (R-Texas) is the former ranking member for the House Science Committee, Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee. He represents the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.
NASA has their own congressman? This is pure pork.
Space-X is more likely to produce a launch system than NASA. A few months ago, they sent a capsule to orbit and recovered it safely. Their first cargo delivery to the ISS is scheduled for later this year. They're working on an abort system so that their working Falcon-9 rocket can be man rated. And in 2012, they plan to launch the Falcon Heavy, with twice the payload of the Space Shuttle.
All this is being done at costs not only far below NASA's, but below China's. We just have to keep NASA from interfering with them.
NASA, on the other hand, hasn't designed and successfully flown a completely new launch system since the 1960s.
I think they are blaming Obama for cancelling the Constellation program, which inevitably turns the $9bn already invested in it into waste.
That is a sunk cost. Under rational decision making, money already spent should not have any influence over forward looking financial decisions. The argument that "we've spend $X billions already which will go to waste" is fallacious logic. The money is gone regardless of whether any future benefit is realized. Only future expenditures matter. If a credible argument can be made that by spending an $Y additional dollars some benefit will be received that is worth $Y dollars, then the project should go ahead. One should NOT make the argument that it needs to have a benefit of $X + $Y because $X is a sunk cost. The money is gone and has no relevance regarding whether additional money should be invested.
Note I'm not making an argument as to whether Constellation is a good or bad program. I honestly have no idea either way. But the argument that we've spend billions already on a project is not a credible argument about why we should continue (or not continue) to spend additional dollars. Investment decisions necessarily should be forward looking.
How is NASA "vitally important"?
Research out of NASA has resulted in literally hundreds of billions of dollars of economic benefit. FAR more than the cost of NASA to the country.
The only thing NASA gave us that the Air Force couldn't do was Space Shuttle facilities, and we've retired that program anyway.
The Air Force has probes to explore other planets? Didn't know the Air Force had any interest in exploring Pluto.
will soon be as dry as the moon. Why do they need to go anywhere for the same effect? Lets save some money and let them build plastic replicas of lunar landing craft in West Texas. Of course, given that the federal government is broke, the craft shouldn't have the luxury of air conditioners.
The notion of privatizing space flight is practically a joke. The only impetus for it is government contracts which are given out to acheive it. Once these federal subsidizes are elminated for lack of budgetary authority, this whole "privatization" scheme will go belly up.
plz plz plz plz plz.
The United States can't even afford basic human rights, like universal healthcare. Why are they kidding themselves about spending money on space exploration. Ever since the cold war bankrupted the United States, they have somehow managed to limp along, with the pile of debt getting bigger by the second. It is time to pull the plug on that huge military, and accept subservience to the solvent nations of the world, under the same exploitative World Bank/IMF rules that the United States has imposed on the poor nations of the world.
This is just another example of Texas GOP socialism.
Thousands of workers out of space related jobs, and the authors state that NASA can do it better? With what? I RTFA, I know, a severe breach of etiquette; it sounded like a winy rant by a 1960's someone unaware. The authors view point surprised me in their description of commercial solutions verses their personal experiences. One only need review the first early launches of NASA to see that in the beginning, they to were naive about failed results; but NASA learned. Commercial space ventures are a lot lite Gigolos, "you won't get paid, if you can't get it up." It behooves any commercial enterprise,(pardon the pun), to be as successful as possible, if only for repeat business. Also, NASA's umbilical cord to the U.S. government means that they will always be at the mercy of the power core that directs government policy. Commercial will be at the mercy of the client, a very different kind of animal.
In the late 80s, after some experience with the current launchers, I would have liked NASA to continue its research into variants of reusable launchers, with various configurations of Shuttle launchers and equipment. Various alternate launchers could have been made and tested. A decade or two later, NASA could issue a gigantic report stating if reusable launchers were worthwhile, and if so, which parts should be reusable. The report would be full of technical details.
NASA would then get out of the launcher business, and corporations would be cost effective implementations.
I *hope* I'm wrong. I've prolly got another 30 or 40 years. I would like to live to see great things happen (again). I don't count suborbital space tourism as one of them.
Luke, help me take this mask off
many people think only top administration can come up with the good ideas, yet it always seems the best ones come from someone out of the loop or thinking outside the box
I disagree that "money already should not have any influence" on funding decisions. Past performance is a predictor of future performance.
I'm not talking about information gathered regarding likely performance. Obviously a track record of good (or bad) performance is a factor to consider. I'm talking ONLY about the mere fact that money was already spent. Basically the argument that "since we've already spend $X million it would be a shame to stop now". There needs to be information beyond simply money already spent.
Also bear in mind that past performance is demonstrably NOT always a reliable predictor of future performance. There is voluminous research into this by academics. If you need proof of this you merely have to look at the world of mutual fund managers. A good year one year in investing is absolutely no guarantee of a good year the following year. Even a string of good performance can turn bad quickly. (see Long Term Capital Management) Past performance may be the best information available, but that doesn't make it good information.