Senator Makes NASA Complete $350 Million Testing Tower That It Will Never Use

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Phillip Swarts reports in the Washington Times that NASA is completing a $350 million rocket-engine testing tower at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi that it doesn't want and will never use. 'Because the Constellation Program was canceled in 2010, the A-3's unique testing capabilities will not be needed and the stand will be mothballed upon completion (PDF),, said NASA's inspector general. The A-3 testing tower will stand 300 feet and be able to withstand 1 million pounds of thrust (PDF). The massive steel structure is designed to test how rocket engines operate at altitudes of up to 100,000 feet by creating a vacuum within the testing chamber to simulate the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Although NASA does not expect to use the tower after construction, it's compelled by legislation from Sen. Roger F. Wicker (R-MS), who says the testing tower will help maintain the research center's place at the forefront of U.S. space exploration. 'Stennis Space Center is the nation's premier rocket engine testing facility,' says Wicker. 'It is a magnet for public and private research investment because of infrastructure projects like the A-3 test stand. In 2010, I authored an amendment to require the completion of that particular project, ensuring the Stennis facility is prepared for ever-changing technologies and demands.' Others disagree, calling the project the 'Tower of Pork' and noting that the unused structure will cost taxpayers $840,000 a year to maintain. 'Current federal spending trends are not sustainable, and if NASA can make a relatively painless contribution to deficit reduction by shutting down an unwanted program, why not let it happen?' says Pete Sepp, executive vice president of the National Taxpayers Union. 'It's not rocket science, at least fiscally.'"

Comments

Re:BS

[buswolley]

The BS is that 'Current federal spending trends are not sustainable' I see nothing but deflation right now. Cutting spending does not lead to the end of deflation.

Re:BS

[buswolley]

Also I disagree to even the term 'deficit spending.' A net deficit in terms of taxes and spending means a net savings in the private sector. If the government spent less than it destroyed in taxes, the economy would shrink, no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend) or a Democrat (high tax, high spend) policy. In deflation, it should be a stimulus policy (low tax, high spend). Europe is stupid (high tax, low spend). Yeah it sucks over there because they are not using their power as a fiat currency to put more Euros into the economy.