Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
a $350 million rocket-engine testing tower at Stennis Space Center in Mississippi
compelled by legislation from Sen. Roger F. Wicker (R-MS)
will cost taxpayers $840,000 a year to maintain.
Hey let's pour money into my home state plzkthx
I have several friends that work at General Dynamics here in Metro Detroit and the government spending has them in a quandary: they are forced by politicians to create a bill as high as possible - mandatory junkets and overtime, even when there's nothing to do. "Research" projects are the only thing that they do and they just post youtube videos, cancel the project and start something new. None of them can quit, even though the economy has recovered, because they are being paid so well as a result of the requirement to bill taxpayers so much.
Does anyone know why the Republicans came right to the table on the sequester this time around? Because offense spending (thinly veiled as "defense" spending) was to be rolled back to 2003 levels. That is absolutely evil if you are a member of the Republicans.
...meet Bridge to Nowhere
I work for Lockheed-Martin (I work for a completely different program that is within budget) and I can say that we have to keep the Gov. from changing the rules to the game every few seconds. It is like playing "calvin-ball" with calvin (of calvin and hobbs). They come up with an idea, and all of the sudden another part must be added to keep another senator/representative happy (jobs in his/her state). If we could stick to ONE design for any true length of time we could be ahead of the game, but not when the rules get changed ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
But they only shower federal dollars on business owners in Mississippi. No medicaid expansion for the poor in Mississippi. Fuck the poor!
I see nothing but deflation right now.
Either you are not looking very hard, or you are basement dweller raiding your parents fridge. Seriously if you actually track what your spending on groceries, gasoline, clothing, and healthcare; I would be STUNNED if you still claim there is deflation.
The only deflation out there in recent years has been in heating costs (for folks using nat gas) and electricity in some areas. Housing had its big gaps down in 2008-2010, but has pretty well been inflating if slowly since that time. I don't rent but friends tell me rents have gone way up everywhere and its keeping them in their current apartments.
There has been no deflation in the things 99%ers spend their money on other than housing. I don't care what the FED claims; because their numbers are fucking retarded, I don't buy a new TV every week, I sure as hell do buy bread and gasoline though.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
May I introduce you to the Saturn V Dynamic Test Stand?
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"I see nothing but deflation right now."
Evidently, this guy doesn't get a cable bill.
Oh and yeah,we have weak inflation, not full deflation. So prices are rising, but lower than the 2% target inflation rate. The problem for 99%ers isnt inflation so much as a stagnant wage.
A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.
Maybe this facility is useless, maybe it's not.
NASA thinks it's useless, and I think they are the ones most likely to know.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Why did the rest of the senate go along with this? And what about the house?
They'll need his vote when a project in their state comes up...
Maybe they can rework it into a 300 statue of Jesus?
You tella car company that you're going to pay them a half million dollars for a special custom car. You sign the contract, which requires that you pay them $500000 and that they give you a car when it's completed. Halfway through the process you suddenly decide that you don't want the car after all.
Well, tough. You already signed the contract and they're already building the car. You have no choice but to pay for a car that you aren't going to use.
That's what goes on in vases like this. The government signed the contract saying that they'll pay. They can't renege on the deal just because they decided they didn't want what they were paying for any more, so instead they have to pay for it and let it gather dust once they have it. I can guarantee that if you or I signed a contract that said we'd pay for something we wouldn't be able to get out of it just because we no longer wanted what we were paying for.
This isn't so much about grandstanding politicians that want money for useless programs, but about grandstanding politicians who like to decide the government doesn't want something for which the contract has already been signed.
I work for Lockheed-Martin (I work for a completely different program that is within budget) and I can say that we have to keep the Gov. from changing the rules to the game every few seconds. It is like playing "calvin-ball" with calvin (of calvin and hobbs). They come up with an idea, and all of the sudden another part must be added to keep another senator/representative happy (jobs in his/her state). If we could stick to ONE design for any true length of time we could be ahead of the game, but not when the rules get changed ALL THE FREAKING TIME.
And why do you think this is? Do you not think it benefits Lockheed-Martin? Every time a requirement is changed and the contracts are re-written there is an opportunity to pack on some more lard. And do you think it is an accident or "neutral business planning decision" that the major aerospace contractors have subsidiaries and major suppliers in pretty much every state? Every time an unnecessary carbuncle is added to a project to satisfy a senator, the contractor has an opportunity to renegotiate costs, and also gains another ally who will not want to see the project die, no matter how irrelevant it becomes to the nation's needs. In some ways it's like bribery, except the cash is flowing in the opposite direction to normal...
Sure it might be irritating to an outcome-focussed engineering type who wants to work on technically successful projects, but from management's perspective a politically unkillable project that meanders on for decades, neither finishing or being allowed to fail, can be a far lower career risk.
SpaceX just cut a deal with stennis for testing of their new raptor family. The first engine of this family will be 1/3 of an F1. And yes, it is using these towers. So, this is wrong.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
We can use the vacuum test chamber to see how Time Warner Cable executives breathe at 100,000 feet altitude, film it and charge $1 pay per view. I'm thinking recovery of the 350 million won't take long.
no matter if it were a republican (low tax, low spend)
Ha, you're funny. As this article demonstrates, Republicans can spend (and/or waste) just as much, if not more than, Democrats. They just don't want to spend any of it on poor people or minorities.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The government's ability to repay debts is mainly based on its power to tax to raise the funds. Governments that rely on printing currency to repay debts or for general spending tend to end up in the history books (Weimar Republic) or the newspapers (Zimbabwe) as economic basket cases crippled by hyperinflation.
Apparently nobody with mod points is reading your sig.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Protip: decreased inflation != deflation. Intro to calculus would have taught you that much. The article you linked to mentioned fears about deflation, but no actual deflation. Being afraid of something doesn't make it manifest.
So basically your own source, were you to deem it credible, would serve to show that even the EU is still experiencing inflation.
At least any I've come across. Yes, the Gov't has to pay for work already performed, but it's a recognized fact that one Congress can't bind future ones to financial deals, and money to finish a particular contract may never arrive.
So by and large, as someone else pointed out, the Government has a clause in contracts allowing it to terminate the contract for convenience.
--PM
No. Much shorter.
.
Simple math says:
(1+10/100)^y = 4 =>
log (1.10^y) = log(4) =>
y * log(1.10) = log(4) =>
y = log(4) / log(1.10) = 14.54
After 14.54 years you quadruple; after 15 years you would have a 418% increase.
Didn't they teach you exponentials and logarithmics in high school?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
You obviously need to learn some comprehension, as well as math.
The poster above was disputing the fact that inflation has been hovering around 10% because of what that would imply about the price level since 2000.
1.1^13 = 3.45. So not quite quadrupling, but that would be pretty close.
And a 300% increase does in fact correspond to a quadrupling (a 100% increase is a doubling etc.)
QED
but a lone senator can't keep a program funded
Sure he can. Here's how: Put a hold on all legislation going through his committee. Any senator can do this, and the effect is to gum up the works so much that the rest of the Senate can either do as the one senator asks, or not be able to engage in any legislative activity at all that relates to whatever committee he's on. The other senators will likely decide that it's easier to fund his pork project than to deal with the hold.
I am officially gone from