3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX

An anonymous reader writes: Phil Plait reports that a trio of U.S. Congressmen are asking NASA to investigate what they call "an epidemic of anomalies" at SpaceX. They sent a memo (PDF) demanding that SpaceX be held accountable to taxpayers for mission delays stemming from the development of new rockets. Plait notes, "[A]s a contractor, the rules are different for them than they would be if NASA themselves built the rockets, just as the rules are for Boeing or any other contractor. In fact, as reported by Space News, NASA didn't actually pay for the development of the Falcon 9; Elon Musk did." He adds, "Another reason this is silly is that every rocket ever made has undergone problems; they are fiendishly complex machines and no design has ever gotten from the drafting board to the launch pad without issues. Sure, SpaceX has experienced launch delays and other problems, but the critical thing to remember is that those problems are noted, assessed, and fixed sometimes within hours or minutes." Plait accuses the congressmen of trying to bury private spaceflight under red tape in order to protect established industries in their own states.

Comments

What?

[cheesybagel]

rules are different for them than they would be if NASA themselves built the rockets

NASA does not build a damned thing. ULA (Lockheed Martin, Boeing) builds the EELV rockets. SLS is being build by ATK while Orion is built by Lockheed Martin.

This is just ULA being afraid they will lose their iron rice bowl.

Re:What?

[TWX]

It's always amused me when people are hypocrites. It also always saddens me when these hypocrites are in a position to do something terrible because of their hypocrisy.

It also strikes me as specious, at best, that they're complaining about a project that's arguably the most timely and successful-out-the-gate in the history of the American space program, if not humanity's combined space programs.

But I guess that when one can afford to buy a senator, one makes that senator bark whatever line one wants regardless of its veracity or even sense.

Re:What?

[starless]

NASA does not build a damned thing.

NASA builds lots of things, including scientific instruments and spacecraft. (Even if spacecraft are typically outsourced).
Although indeed it doesn't build launch vehicles.

Re:What?

[smooth wombat]

This is just ULA being afraid they will lose their iron rice bowl.

Well duh! Wouldn't you do the same thing? I mean, it's not like the government creates jobs or anything.

For those not getting the sarcasm, one side of the political spectrum repeatedly trots out the mantra that the government does not create jobs, yet, using this situation, quite clearly the government does create jobs or these Congressman wouldn't be trying to prevent layoffs at these companies if they were to lose government business from the space program.

Re:What?

[rahvin112]

I thought ULA convincing the government to advance purchase 2 years of launches (2billion dollars) a month before SpaceX qualified their rockets was an accurate picture of how Lockheed and Boeing intend to compete which is they intend to use government to prevent SpaceX from competing.

Re:What?

[Talderas]

Well duh! Wouldn't you do the same thing? I mean, it's not like the government creates jobs or anything.

For those not getting the sarcasm, one side of the political spectrum repeatedly trots out the mantra that the government does not create jobs, yet, using this situation, quite clearly the government does create jobs or these Congressman wouldn't be trying to prevent layoffs at these companies if they were to lose government business from the space program.

The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth. While you can look at defense contractors as the government creating jobs it is at best intellectually dishonest. The government doesn't create wealth, it acquires from other parties and redistributes it to further parties. Those first parties, from which the taxes are collected, would have been otherwise able to use those tax monies which would have stimulated other businesses and created the need and opportunities for jobs. Now these specific jobs probably wouldn't exist and the jobs that would be here may not be as well paying but in a climate where we consider part time jobs replacing full time positions to be job creation, I hardly think that matters.

Re:What?

[demonlapin]

No one argues that the government does not create specific jobs. The argument is that because the government must get its money from either borrowing or taxes, it is either bidding up the price of money or taking it directly from taxpayers' wallets. In either case, it makes it more difficult for private citizens to do what they want with their money by either increasing the cost of borrowing or directly taking it from them.

In this case, the fact that Congressmen are willing to fight very hard to keep a steady stream of federal money flowing into their districts does not mean that spending that money is a wise idea, nor that the federal government is spending that money in a more job-creating way than the taxpayers from whom it was taken would have.

Re:What?

[ColdWetDog]

It's easier to innovate while standing on the shoulders of giants. Without the space program there wouldn't be any technology available for SpaceX to build upon. Get over your Libertarian delusions.

It's not like Boeing, Lockheed and the ULA don't have access to 'those giant's shoulders' is it?

Re:What?

[NoKaOi]

rules are different for them than they would be if NASA themselves built the rockets

And if they were to follow their theory on the F-35, they would not only stop giving Lockheed Martin more money, but would charge Lockheed Martin money for every mission that they missed out on had it been delivered on time.

This breaks the model of every government contract that has ever been. And frankly, SpaceX is doing pretty frickin' well compared to other aerospace contracts.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhh, boeing and Lockheed had no opportunity, at all, to adjust the timing of that contract.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did have an opportunity to create a jointly held corporation to enter into that competition, such that there would be no actual competition between the two available competitors at the time...

Re:What?

[osu-neko]

Well, if you're going to go that route, the contractors don't build anything either, they just arrange/rearrange the materials they're given. By that standard, nothing's ever been built on Earth, we're just assembling stuff left over from the last local supernova.

By any reasonable definition, NASA builds a lot of stuff.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Republicans often DO make the argument that the "government doesn't create jobs".

While I don't agree with their claim, you are seriously misrepresenting their point. They aren't saying that the government doesn't hire people - that would be very stupid. They argue that the government has to take resources from someone else in order to pay that person. Those resources could be used otherwise in the economy, such that you are eliminating a job's worth of economic activity in order to create a job.

Boeing doesn't create wealth either.

They most certainly do! Every generation of plane that they have created is more efficient, safer, and easier to maintain than previous generations. The plane is a tool for other people to use to make money.

Where I part ways with the "government doesn't create jobs" people is that the view is too extreme. You can look hard and find instances of government creating wealth. They also completely ignore the fact that corporations are in fact granted a charter by the government and have very strong ties to the government. Their argument would better be stated as: in general, private enterprise is more efficient than government. That isn't as sexy, though. But don't completely dismiss their point, and if you do don't try to do it by playing games with language.

Re:What?

[Dishevel]

These "congressmen" (Shitholes) are not creating jobs. They are protecting jobs in their State at the expense of jobs outside of their State.

To do this they will lie, cheat, steal and create regulations till it is done.

Re:What?

[Trailer Trash]

The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth. While you can look at defense contractors as the government creating jobs it is at best intellectually dishonest. The government doesn't create wealth, it acquires from other parties and redistributes it to further parties. Those first parties, from which the taxes are collected, would have been otherwise able to use those tax monies which would have stimulated other businesses and created the need and opportunities for jobs. Now these specific jobs probably wouldn't exist and the jobs that would be here may not be as well paying but in a climate where we consider part time jobs replacing full time positions to be job creation, I hardly think that matters.

Those jobs are taken from companies like mine that paid the taxes being used to pay for those jobs. Therefore, no net jobs are created and, in fact, net jobs are lost. The government doesn't create wealth - with the caveat being "usually" but "certainly not in this case".

Re:What?

[osu-neko]

The argument is that the government doesn't create wealth.

Yes. The argument is that if you call a large organization a government, it doesn't create wealth, whereas if you call it a corporation, it magically does... by acquiring money from some parties and redistributing it to further parties. Those first parties will have had their money stimulate other business, instead of having had it been taxed, where the government would have then spent it, usually by giving it to businesses to do whatever job that needs to be done. In the end, the same amount of money is in the economy, and the same amount is in the hands of other businesses, all that's changed is which specific businesses have it, what work is actually done, and who benefits from the work done.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's a good thing I live in one of these select states. I'm getting my paycheck, how bout you?

Re:What?

[osu-neko]

In either case, it makes it more difficult for private citizens to do what they want with their money by either increasing the cost of borrowing or directly taking it from them.

For some specific individuals, yes. For "private citizens" in general, no. The citizens as a whole have the exact same amount of money either way. The government doesn't take the money from taxes and bury it in a hole somewhere, it spends it, usually on employees that are predominantly citizens, or companies that are usually located within the same country. Indeed, money spent by the government is more likely to be spent on in-country companies that money spent by non-governmental organizations. The idea that the people have less money when taxes are higher is absurd. They money is redistributed, not eliminated. The people as a whole have the same amount of money regardless of whether taxes go up or down.

Re:What?

[rahvin112]

You don't honestly think that contract was totally preplanned for years and that the government always purchases rockets in blocks that large do you?

IMO that contract originated because ULA went to their government handlers and cajoled them into releasing the RFP before SpaceX could qualify. It is my understanding that the government does buy rockets in groups, but a 2 year 20 rocket group is unheard of and that this was the largest rocket purchase the government has ever made. ULA's salespeople will have personal relationships with all the contracting people in government. My bet is that ULA hoped by locking SpaceX out of the market for 2 years they would go bankrupt before they could go after another contract.

There should be a massive investigation going on for how that contract originated, why it's so large and what the relationships are between the ULA people and the government contracting officers.

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

Yes. The argument is that if you call a large organization a government, it doesn't create wealth, whereas if you call it a corporation, it magically does... by acquiring money from some parties and redistributing it to further parties.

Yeah, the magic of labels.

That and the fact that the government collects that money by force, while the corporation has to give you enough value to make you voluntarily trade money for their product. Slightly different incentive structure there.

In the end, the same amount of money is in the economy, and the same amount is in the hands of other businesses, all that's changed is which specific businesses have it, what work is actually done, and who benefits from the work done.

It's all the same if you throw out all the differences.

Re:What?

[eth1]

This is just ULA being afraid they will lose their iron rice bowl.

Yes... The congressmen should be held accountable to taxpayers for allowing themselves to be bought by the existing bloated contractors.

Re:What?

[Teancum]

NASA does not build a damned thing. ULA (Lockheed Martin, Boeing) builds the EELV rockets. SLS is being build by ATK while Orion is built by Lockheed Martin.

This is just ULA being afraid they will lose their iron rice bowl.

NASA engineers are intimately involved with the development, procurement, and more important.... the R&D that is going into the the development of the SLS.

The EELV is a total red herring to your argument because the EELV program is something the Air Force, not NASA, created. NASA doesn't have anything to do with EELV rockets except to use them on occasions for flying payloads into space.... payloads that were originally supposed to be launched by the Space Shuttle but couldn't because it was thought that launching these payloads wasn't worth risking a crew (and a roughly 2% chance per flight of total loss of crew).

It is also a huge oversimplification that SLS is being built by ATK. Yes, ATK is a major contractor for the SLS, but literally hundreds of other contractors are involved too. But that doesn't even scratch the surface of this lie you have said by saying "NASA doesn't build a damn thing".

The most important thing to note is that NASA, through Congressional appropriations, is paying for the development of SLS. That is not true for the Falcon 9. While some NASA funds have been used for getting the commercial transport services contract going as well as the commercial crew program, that is a fixed price seed money contract where SpaceX is required to provide the bulk of the funding. More importantly, if there are any cost overruns, delays, or other problems... especially of a financial nature... SpaceX is required to take care of the difference from its own investors and cash reserves. If the SLS gets delayed by another decade and costs another $10 billion, that will be entirely paid for by taxpayers, not ULA, ATK, Aerojet, or any other contractor.

I think that difference is important, and something that is totally missed by your comment.

Re:What?

[qeveren]

Remember, the instant the government spends money, it vanishes down a black hole, disappearing entirely without any positive effect on the economy. The government paying companies to make things for them in no way creates any value whatsoever, nope. Better to just cut taxes because, as everyone knows, demand follows supply and not the other way around!

Re:What?

[Teancum]

For some specific individuals, yes. For "private citizens" in general, no. The citizens as a whole have the exact same amount of money either way.

The question that needs to be asked though is if the money confiscated from citizens at gunpoint and run through government contractors, with noted and acknowledged corruption that exists for all governments no matter how hard people try to stop that corruption, is better spent through the government or if private individuals acting on their own self-interest are going to be far more productive with the economic resources at their disposal and simply making a better life for themselves with those resources.

I'm not talking billionaires or even millionaires. I'm talking ordinary people living very ordinary lives. Is it better that somebody buys a Nintendo Wii instead of sending that money to Washington DC to be used to build a tank instead? What about paying for an NSA computer that monitors your phone calls?

There certainly are some very intelligent people who might know more than a typical average citizen about how money could be spent, but is even a committee of the smartest people in the world about economics necessarily going to be predicting the future about what even the immediate needs if not future needs of ordinary people might be than simply the collective intelligence of those ordinary citizens? I argue that ordinary citizens usually get it right far more often than that select super-committee of very bright people, no matter their IQ, education, or experience. Your argument is that the smart people know better and that we are better off as slaves to those smart people.

History has shown that planned economies simply fail to predict future consumption needs very well, even with very good intentions. That is pretty much all you are saying when you are insisting that government spending should happen.

I'll admit there are some things that simply must be done by a government for the collective good of society. Maintaining the rule of law (meaning those who are weaker than average get protection from the government so they can be productive in doing things that brawn can't necessarily accomplish), enforcing contracts, resolving territorial disputes in a peaceful manner, and preventing outsiders to that society from subverting and taking over the society are all proper functions of government. The question that needs to be asked though is if some of the things currently being done by a government, any government, is better done by that government or simply left alone and handled by private citizens? That is the real question, and one you are not answering in your reply.

Re:What?

[Teancum]

It would be amazing if Lockheed-Martin simply developed an advanced attack fighter and offered it up for sale to any government who wanted it. The problem with the F-35 program is that it has precisely a single customer, the U.S. government. This is really a monopsony situation where potentially many people could sell stuff to the government, but there is only one buyer.

If, on the other hand, every state's Air National Guard had the option of spending their portion of their military budget as they saw fit (to give an example), at least there would be multiple customers potentially for this airplane and be assured that they could sell at least a few of them. Or if the government of America wasn't so paranoid about potential future enemies of America getting advanced aircraft (like how Howard Hughes designed the Japanese Zeros that bombed Pearl Harbor), they might have other customers there as well.

Luckily for SpaceX, they have other customers for their launch services. So much so that over half of their manifest is for non-government contracts, not to mention about half of their launches to date have also been for non-government customers too. That is what makes the situation with SpaceX so different, and why ULA is having a hard time trying to compete with SpaceX to the point they are encouraging congressmen to write silly letters like the one mentioned in the original post. The European Space Agency, explicitly Arianespace (the manufacturer of the ESA's launch fleet), is definitely in a panic trying to figure out how to compete against SpaceX and win back the customers now lost to SpaceX. If they don't change, the ESA will be stuck launching only payloads for European governments alone... but that is precisely the situation that ULA sits in right now in terms of only flying payloads for the U.S. government.

Re:What?

[kpainter]

You ought to read this and the origins of ULA.
thespacereview.com
and this
seattle times

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> By any reasonable definition, NASA builds a lot of stuff.

What have they built then?

Re:What?

[khallow]

NASA does not build a damned thing. [...] SLS is being build by ATK while Orion is built by Lockheed Martin.

And ATK and Orion subcontract. So I guess nobody builds the SLS or Orion. I find it bizarre that people insist on this particular factoid as if it were relevant to anything or even true for that matter.

Re:What?

[khallow]

It's easier to innovate while standing on the shoulders of giants. Without the space program there wouldn't be any technology available for SpaceX to build upon.

Even if there were no government involvement at all, including military funding of ballistic missiles, you would still have the amateur rocketry groups. For example, a considerable bit of the development of hybrid motors was done by amateur groups over forty years. And those groups tended to focus on hybrids because the more popular liquid-fueled rockets were vastly dominated by government projects.

Get over your Libertarian delusions.

Complaining about blatant hypocrisy and the buying of politicians is "Libertarian"? Maybe you should be "Libertarian" as well.

I find it interesting how some people will completely ignore legitimate complaints and good ideas merely because there's a slight, even imaginary whiff of some ideology they happen to disagree with.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just curious, did Phil Plait(D) complain about any of the Congressmen(R) that are trying to bring the SpaceX launch facility to Texas?

Re:What?

[TapeCutter]

Where I part ways with the "government doesn't create jobs" people is that the view is too extreme.

Indeed without government there would be no property law and all trade would devolve into complex barter. Governments create markets, markets create jobs. Without modern markets (property law, etc) passenger planes would not exist. The most important role for the government is that of market umpire, the US senate abuses that role by manipulating the rules to favour the campaign sponsors. This practice makes it an "unfree" market in the sense that some people are more "free" to participate in the market than others.

Aside from defining and umpiring economic markets, federal governments should assist business by building and maintaining the infrastructure that allows them to compete on an international level, road, rails, bridges, ports, spaceports, research centers, etc. It's actually more efficient from a taxpayer POV to let the government do these things (plus health care). However the US Senate doesn't work like that, questions such as; do we beef up the levies in new orleans or build a bridge to nowhere in Alaska are answered by asking who's sponsor gets the contract, the social need for the project is all but irrelevant.

Re:What?

[complete loony]

... the government doesn't create wealth.

Only if you assume;

“A network of intergenerational transfers makes the typical person a part of an extended family that goes on indefinitely. In this setting, households capitalise the entire array of expected future taxes, and thereby plan effectively with an infinite horizon” Robert Barro

When you actually dig into the assumptions of economic theories like that, they usually turn out to be completely absurd. Of course governments can create wealth. Running a deficit creates both income and money for the rest of the economy.

Banks have the same effect when they issue loans. But they can't do that forever, which is why we're having so much trouble returning the economy to "normal".

Re:What?

[lgw]

Money spent by individuals in consumer spending produces more economic activity (more jobs overall) than public sector spending. This has been well studied for defense spending (same principle as the broken windows fallacy - not all economic activity is created equal). There are good reasons IMO to take money out of the pockets of individuals and spend it on e.g. defense or infrastructure or research, but that comes at a cost. The government can do some worthwhile things, but economic stimulus via tax-and-spend just isn't one of them.

Re:What?

[demonlapin]

By this logic, the Soviet Union should have succeeded, and government corruption should be irrelevant.

Your analysis doesn't allow for deadweight losses or economically unproductive overhead. Some activity is productive. Some isn't, even if it's necessary to allow the productive activity to occur. The more of your economy is spent on nonproductive (or even negatively productive) activity, the weaker it will be. Ideally, you would have nonproductive activities reduced to the point at which they exactly pay for themselves - if they spent more, they would begin to detract from productive activities, and if they spent less, they would be overlooking potential productivity improvements. The more hands money passes through, the more instances of unproductive activity you will have to deal with.

Re:What?

[sumdumass]

I was kind of thinking about that same rabbit but going down a different hole.

If the same logic is applied to home building, you coukd say ghe home wasn't built by the builders but assembled too. Nature grows the lumber and a mill makes it useful. Companies make shingles and sinks and so on, all the builder does is install them or directs domeobe else to do it. Yet we say fhe home was built not assembled. The GP is limiting the definitiion of build way too much

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have any trouble believing that government contracting is full of graft, but can you cite some sources for me that show past rocket purchases so we have actual data to compare with? It would make your point stronger. I don't happen to know where to look up that sort of thing.

Re:What?

[catchblue22]

Thank you. That was an excellent article.

Re:What?

[sumdumass]

How about we print a bunch of money and give everyone a governmeny job. We can even have the government buy everything the private sector produces too.

Government essentially robs petter to pay paul. Yes, those payments may have a positive impact on the economy but not near as much as private enterprise or the people keeping and spending the money will. Even if they save it, it still goes into loan pools that helps others.

Anything over essential government services and it becomes highly inneficient fast.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations are chartered by government because the government commands a charter. Corporations have very strong ties to the government because the government reallocates resources by force, and with enough arm twisting, to them. In both cases you have put the cart before the horse.

Re:What?

[gl4ss]

furthermore, the tradition has been that the taxpayer pays for the delays.. ..or is it somehow not so with everything from b2 to jsf?

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

They argue that the government has to take resources from someone else in order to pay that person.

Fuck, which is it.. Are they printing it, or stealing it?

And furthermore, I'd like to figure out how these companies that are hiring people are doing so without obtaining that money from someone else.

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

Ah, the good ol' "We can't hire more people because we're taxed too much" argument.

Do you by any chance know a corporate, or even small-business accountant? You should ask him/her what portion of revenue tax is paid on.

This is, unless of course, you're speaking of FICA withholding, which doesn't go to these sorts of programs, at all.

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

Not remotely relevant. If acquires for , hires people to do work, and the resulting product is worth , they have created wealth. The only real difference is who owns the generated wealth.

There's also the fact that only a fucking moron would claim one can reasonably live in modern society without being indirectly forced into purchasing quite a few products from corporations; of course, should someone do this, they won't need money for very much, and thus won't have to work, and thus won't be taxed... Shit. They really are the goddamn same. Do you know when elections are for my local power company representative?

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

If [organization] acquires [asset] for [value], hires people to do work, and the resulting product is worth [more_than_value]...

Tag brackets were probably a poor choice, there.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to remind you that all that wealth they redistributed is the origin of the space age. Any technology, science (and technology derived from that science) that comes from space exists because of the government's investment. So YES, governments create wealth and prosperity, long term wealth and prosperity that is absolutely out of private sector's reach (and sight). You need a strong private sector and a visionary government in order to create prosperity.

Re:What?

[ultranova]

That and the fact that the government collects that money by force, while the corporation has to give you enough value to make you voluntarily trade money for their product.

Government needs to give you enough bang for your buck to get re-elected. Also, countries compete with one another, and less effective ones disappear into history. But that doesn't fit Libertarian narrative, so it gets ignored.

Then again, no description of government fits Libertarian narrative, because it requires an organization that's simultaneously an ultra-effective oppressor and utterly incompetent at any task.

Slightly different incentive structure there.

Just as you'd expect from organizations pursuing different goals.

Re:What?

[ultranova]

If, on the other hand, every state's Air National Guard had the option of spending their portion of their military budget as they saw fit (to give an example), at least there would be multiple customers potentially for this airplane and be assured that they could sell at least a few of them.

And the end result would be a logistical nightmare. Fighter planes aren't self-contained, they require an infrastructure to maintain, refuel and rearm them. Aircraft carriers - and even military bases - have limited space available for personnel and supplies, so it very quickly devolves into total chaos. And of course this is assuming that individual states even attempt to provide meaningful military contribution, rather than using their portion as a handout to their local corporations and hoping the other states will pick up the slack.

Free market is an economic optimization algorithm, nothing less, nothing more. One has to enforce constraints ("credible defence", "100% employment at living wage", etc) to get results that satisfy them.

Re:What?

[DavidMZ]

You don't have to look hard to find instances where the government is creating wealth: infrastructures, education, defense,... A road creates wealth as it allows better communication and transportation and goods; schools create wealth by educating individuals who will turn to be more productive than their non-educated fellows; soldiers create wealth by defending our territory and defending our interests abroad.

As for the higher efficiency of private enterprise, it is in true only as far as there is a healthy competition, and there are lots of instances (such as this ULA case) where this is questionable

Re:What?

[ultranova]

I find it interesting how some people will completely ignore legitimate complaints and good ideas merely because there's a slight, even imaginary whiff of some ideology they happen to disagree with.

Not "some people", but almost everyone in the US, does so. If it's not Libertarianism (Fascism) it's Socialism (Stalinism). And Obama, as we all know, is an Atheist Muslim Nazi Communist with a fake birth certificate, and the Antichrist besides, working to dismantle the US for the sake of Hydra in their cover as United Nations.

The problem is, this bullshit has been repeated so much that even the people who made up these absurd lies are starting to believe them, so your political process is outright delusional at every level. That the results are less than stellar should be a surprise to no one. But of course that just makes everyone dig deeper into their fantasy world of choice.

Oh well, at least it results in some hilarious political propaganda.

Re:What?

[Cytotoxic]

When I had a small business a while back the numbers were pretty sobering. Between sales tax collected, property taxes, income taxes, FICA, etc. the government took over twice as much away from my business as I received. In a highly competitive, low margin business the government often takes a larger percentage than the principals.

Factor in the accounting and other recordkeeping required for compliance with tax and other regulatory laws taking over a third of my time and it just wasn't worth it. Absent all of the layers of government I had a nice little business. But after a couple of years it became apparent that you have to be above a certain size to make a go of it. Anything less and the resources devoted to compliance and taxes are just too great to make it worth the effort.

So I gave up and joined someone else's startup that had more growth potential. We managed to break through the small business trap and grow to a midsized company. Even so, we were often right at the cusp of going under. Several times we were forced to make bad deals just to get the cash flow to make payroll. And you don't think that an extra few million bucks a year would have made a difference on how many people we could hire?

Any added expense makes it more difficult to hire more people. Very few businesses are flush with cash like Microsoft and Apple.

Re:What?

[Cytotoxic]

I don't think libertarian means what you think it means. You seem to have replaced the "neocon" boogeyman word from the 90's with "libertarian". They are not the same thing. In fact, they are in many ways diametrically opposed.

Libertarians are those wackos who are so far to the left that they fall of the map. Or so far to the right. It's hard to tell. They have this nutty notion that if they want to smoke dope in their gay polyamorous collective while shooting guns and drinking unpasturized milk during their worship of the sun-god - well, they should be left alone to their own devices. Kind of a "if you aren't free to make stupid choices, then you have no freedom" sort of ideal.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

planet earth and property laws create wealth, not businesses, government, or any large fiscal entity. I'm sure we're not creating more than we had to start with on this planet, and I'm sure that how we dress it up and creatively reorganize people's access to content and resources doesn't make any difference.

normally this would be too abstract a view, for most people, but in the case of spaceflight, which is about the advancement of civilization as a whole, i could care less which labor pool is doing it, as long as we're pushing forward and spending our time/effort/natural resources on something other than cranking out the myriad useless products we've burned up untold amounts of resources creating. The government should be investing in the future of mankind with spaceflight, and it should come out of taxes, which should be based on public support for these programs, which is the whole purpose of a democracy.

corporations have a responsibility to move as many transactions into thier piggy bank as possible, but that's not the creation of anything, its the redistribution of imaginary currency to the people that already have a lot of currency, which, if anything, creates a massive barrier to access for resources needed to build new or innovative things that do more than play music, watch videos, or revolutionize some sort of electronic payment process. sure, there's good things about corporations, but they're definitely not democracies, and in an democratic society, they really should be.

Re:What?

[khallow]

The problem is, this bullshit has been repeated so much that even the people who made up these absurd lies are starting to believe them

I think the problem with US propaganda is that the dealers have been using the product for a long time. It's not a recent thing. Well, I guess that's only a problem if you're trying to believe it.

Re:What?

[Cytotoxic]

All of that also assumes that there is no corruption, no good ol' boy's network, no cronyism. The bigger the pile of money there is to redistribute, the greater the incentives to corruption - which of course leads to more inefficient use of resources.

This is why the nutty people on the extreme left (those anti-corporation, anti-corporate-control nutballs) and the crazy extremists on the right (those anti-government, cold-dead-hand-gun-totin' crazies) have common cause in creating the smallest government possible. A government with little power and little wealth to spread around is not attractive to corporate lobbyists.

Of course, without all that lobbyist support they have a snowball's chance in hell of electing any of their candidates.

Re:What?

[Cytotoxic]

They money is redistributed, not eliminated. The people as a whole have the same amount of money regardless of whether taxes go up or down.

This is why the wealthiest counties in America are all clustered around Washington DC.

Here's the top of the list:

Falls Church City, Va.
Loudoun County, Va.
Los Alamos County, N.M.
Howard County, Md.
Fairfax County, Va.
Hunterdon County, N.J.
Arlington County, Va.

None of these DC counties were on the list in the 90's when government spending was out of control at nearly a trillion dollars. At 3 trillion, look at where all of the wealth is concentrated.

Re:What?

[SimplyGeek]

Sssshhh! You're going against the "I've never run a business, but know that corporates are evil, maaaaaan." mantra

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

but that's not the creation of anything

I completely disagree. A hammer is objectively more useful than the rock that it was extracted from, and the person who possesses it is more wealthy than the person who possessed the rock. But the beauty is that once the hammer can be made from the rock, the rock itself also becomes more valuable. A hammer-making corporation thus creates a lot of wealth from nothing but rock.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

You don't have to look hard to find instances where the government is creating wealth

That is true and perhaps I used a poor choice of words. But we spend a depressingly small amount on those things compared to the overall federal budget.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Even the USSR "created wealth" - it's just they did so with far less efficiency than the "private" sector would have.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Printing it is the same thing. It devalues everyone's currency a little bit, which is no different than taxing except that it is not at all progressive.

I'd like to figure out how these companies that are hiring people are doing so without obtaining that money from someone else.

In commerce, money is just a stand-in for barter. You hand over your money in exchange for something else - usually something that you could not economically produce yourself. The best private-market analogy to government is probably insurance - you pay for some protection should you fall down the social ladder or get invaded. The government also builds roads and such, but those items barely register on the federal budget.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

Actually, I pretty much agree with you. I don't really see a firm line between government and corporations. I think there SHOULD be a line, but I digress.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

How in the world did you get a "Flamebait" mod?

Anyway, I think that all Republicans - and for that matter Libertarians - would not object at all if the government restricted itself to umpire. I hear very few objections to even huge intrusions in the private market; limited liability and intellectual property are these massive government regulations that have profound effects on the market, yet you don't hear much objection except from the most ideological Libertarians. Most Libertarians all but throw a "right to property" in with the 3 natural rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I am neither really Republican or Libertarian, so I happen to think that government is perfectly fine doing some of the things you describe. But the smaller government folks certainly do have a point about efficiency... it's just you don't always need efficiency as the top objective.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well considering that Boeing built the first stage of the Saturn-V, "those giant's shoulders" would be their own...

Re:What?

[jpapon]

Of course the government creates wealth when it spends money on projects. Any spending creates wealth, it doesn't matter if it's a private company spending the money or the government. Either way, someone gets money and someone else gets a product. So where before you only had money, now you have money and some product (say, a rocket). Thus "creating wealth". Where did you get this idea that the government doesn't create wealth just like any other investor?

Re:What?

[ultranova]

Libertarians are those wackos who are so far to the left that they fall of the map. Or so far to the right. It's hard to tell. They have this nutty notion that if they want to smoke dope in their gay polyamorous collective while shooting guns and drinking unpasturized milk during their worship of the sun-god - well, they should be left alone to their own devices.

No, those are neo-pagans. Libertarians are those wackos who claim that having to label pasteurized and unpasteurized milk as such is government oppression. It's a cult too, but it replaces orgies with whining about taxes. Should the two groups overlap, they're those creeps who launch into a rant about robbery whenever someone suggests they should pay their share of the rent and other expenses.

Kind of a "if you aren't free to make stupid choices, then you have no freedom" sort of ideal.

You are free to make stupid choices. You aren't free to enjoy all the fruits of civilization yet refuse to pull your weight when it comes time to maintain them. Whether libertarians do so because they're simply using their ideology as an excuse to be selfish twats, or because they honestly don't comprehend that roads, public order, property law etc. are not the natural state of things but require constant effort to maintain, I don't know; but whatever the reason is, the one thing that stays consistent from libertarian to libertarian is claiming that paying taxes is equivalent to being robbed.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

> By any reasonable definition, NASA builds a lot of stuff.

What have they built then?

> NASA builds lots of things, including scientific instruments and spacecraft. (Even if spacecraft are typically outsourced).

Although indeed it doesn't build launch vehicles.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

What about the muslim outreach program?

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

hires people to do work, ... they have created wealth

Not all work is equal. Money spent doesn't necessarily cause net wealth to be created, or no company would ever go bankrupt.

When a company goes bankrupt, they cease engaging in non-wealth producing activities.

Governments do not suffer the same restriction. Some governments do go bankrupt; but they are able to use their monopoly on violent force to keep things going for longer than they should.

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

Government needs to give you enough bang for your buck to get re-elected. Also, countries compete with one another, and less effective ones disappear into history. But that doesn't fit Libertarian narrative, so it gets ignored.

A democratic government does get feedback from its people, but over a 1/2/4/6 year election cycle, depending on the exact country you live.

The longer feedback loop allows a lot more inefficiency than a short one. Those inefficiencies add up and result in government activity not producing wealth where a profit-minded business could have.

It's easy to not tip or not give business to a restaurant with poor food/service. It's not so easy to elect a new government to improve DMV service.

Just as you'd expect from organizations pursuing different goals.

Which makes it important to give the right work to the right organization.

Re:What?

[david_thornley]

The bulk of the Federal budget is actually transfer payments, which is basically moving money from one person to another using surprisingly efficient means considering the scale involved. This typically creates wealth, in that it tends to transfer dollars from people for whom a dollar has less marginal value to people for whom a dollar has more marginal value, but that's a very small effect.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as simply as that. For some things, governments are more efficient than corporations, for other things it's all the way around. But for a few specific things, the only way they will get done is by government intervention. The space race is one of them. If it weren't for government involvement we would have never seen things like satellites or the greatest achievements in particle physics. Some of them because they don't have economic interest (but strategic or social instead), some of them because of the sheer volume of money they need but mainly because the private sector never shows interest for anything that doesn't make profit in the short term. Try to fund a company with the idea (of a possibility) of making money in 10 to 20 years and see what happens... Leaving everything in the hands of corporations is every bit as STUPID as leaving everything in the hands of the government.

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

There's also the fact that only a fucking moron would claim one can reasonably live in modern society without being indirectly forced into purchasing quite a few products from corporations; of course, should someone do this, they won't need money for very much, and thus won't have to work, and thus won't be taxed... Shit. They really are the goddamn same. Do you know when elections are for my local power company representative?

Who do you think gave your power company a local monopoly? It may well be the most practical solution, but you can't ignore that government is involved and is enforcing that particular solution. Power company goons don't come to your house to force you to do business with them. Your local/state government passed laws regulating how power is sold in your area, how it will be connected, to what power standards, and uses its police power to enforce those laws.

Re:What?

[david_thornley]

FWIW, that's exactly how much warplane development was done in WWII. The P-51 Mustang is an excellent example: the British were trying to buy license-built P-40s from North American, and North American said, "Hey, we've been working on our own fighter, and it's better than the P-40. How about you buy our fighter from us?" The US government decided it also wanted some. (Later on, the British figured "Hey, this thing would be great if it had a Merlin engine instead of what it's got now" and a legend was born.)

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

Correct, my local government does grant that monopoly.

But don't think they did it without being asked/persuaded (corruption) to.

In the complete absence of a representative government, that I can at least vote for, a corporation would form to serve its same function, without representation. We saw this with the earliest corporate charters in the early Age of Exploration empires. We saw this in the West in the US, even. Where there is a power void, something will fill it. Corporations (large groups of pooled resources) are powerful. Wouldn't you at least like to be able to have a say in the most powerful one overall? (Government)

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Printing it is the same thing. It devalues everyone's currency a little bit, which is no different than taxing except that it is not at all progressive.

Sadly, it actually is progressive. The net worth of about half of Americans is negative, so inflation actually makes them better off!

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

That is why I added the caveat of: "the resulting product is worth [more_than_value]".

I have no intention of addressing failed business models, in Government or any other business. I'm addressing the fallacious claim that Government cannot create wealth, that it just redistributes it. Any argument for that applies equally to a large number of powerful corporations.

I will definitely concede the great point you've made about bankruptcy- Government certainly has a favorable stance with regard to its business, but I think I'd prefer it that way. Improved electoral processes could curb that.

The monopoly you cite on violent force is only a monopoly in recent times. In ye olden days (100 years ago, and less in cases), violent force has been employed with impunity by corporate entities. In my eye, the Government is simply the biggest Corporation on the block, and one we're lucky enough to be able to vote for representation in (ignoring the obvious problems with the electoral process in the US)

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

I completely agree. Not all of humankind's goals can be measured with economics. Perhaps exploring space has proven to be profitable, but that is not why we do it.

Re:What?

[MightyYar]

This typically creates wealth, in that it tends to transfer dollars from people for whom a dollar has less marginal value to people for whom a dollar has more marginal value

I might agree if Social Security and Medicare were financed with income taxes, but they are funded with a flat tax on paychecks... working people, not the rich. Actually, it isn't even flat since it is regressive in that there is an income cap! Add defense spending to the mix, which is not a transfer of wealth, and you have a large proportion of the federal budget.

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

But don't think they did it without being asked/persuaded (corruption) to.

Men aren't angels, and the ones in government are no exception. Just to clarify that this is not innocent government corrupted by evil corporations, but men in both government and corporations working for their own selfish benefit.

In the complete absence of a representative government, that I can at least vote for, a corporation would form to serve its same function, without representation. We saw this with the earliest corporate charters in the early Age of Exploration empires.

Charters are acquired from some authority. Like a government.

With government's monopoly on force, all corporations that force their customers to buy their products do so by bribing or becoming the government. (rent/buy monopoly on violence)

To get back to wealth creation, the distinction is between the wealth creation of voluntary and involuntary transactions.

Voluntary transactions requires an offer of greater value to entice agreement. Involuntary transactions can resort to strongarm tactics, and so offering greater value is a lesser concern and often skipped. .

Re:What?

[SillyHamster]

I have no intention of addressing failed business models, in Government or any other business. I'm addressing the fallacious claim that Government cannot create wealth, that it just redistributes it. Any argument for that applies equally to a large number of powerful corporations.

[more_than_value] is a priority to entice an opposing party to voluntarily agree to pay for product/services rendered.

Not so for government, since it can claim its taxes from individuals involuntarily. Where do I get to choose not to pay taxes to stop supporting the current political insanity?

The monopoly you cite on violent force is only a monopoly in recent times. In ye olden days (100 years ago, and less in cases), violent force has been employed with impunity by corporate entities. In my eye, the Government is simply the biggest Corporation on the block, and one we're lucky enough to be able to vote for representation in (ignoring the obvious problems with the electoral process in the US)

Governments have been around for much longer than corporations. They are hardly a reaction to corporate violence.

But I agree that governments are in practice a sort of mega-national-corporation. Which demonstrates the folly of trusting government to reign in corporations - it's asking a wolf to police the wolves. Government is the greatest threat to your liberty; keep it on a short leash.

Microsoft can offer you a crappy OS with every PC you buy, but the government is the one that can put you in jail. Expanding government power to protect you from the Microsofts and Apples of the world is counter-productive.

Re:What?

[Rakarra]

Sure, but the government has to be a broker, since the power companies need to work on property that isn't theirs. We can't have any company tearing up the streets at their leisure. Or any company laying lines underground under a private residence. It requires a government to be a coordinator and arbiter.

Re:What?

[DamnOregonian]

Men aren't angels, and the ones in government are no exception. Just to clarify that this is not innocent government corrupted by evil corporations, but men in both government and corporations working for their own selfish benefit.

Completely agree.

Charters are acquired from some authority. Like a government.

Yes, and where government doesn't exist to grant said charter with limitations, groups of people will form their own entity and might will make right. Hope you're a shareholder.

Voluntary transactions requires an offer of greater value to entice agreement. Involuntary transactions can resort to strongarm tactics, and so offering greater value is a lesser concern and often skipped. .

Taxation is a voluntary transaction for me, and I have the ability (and right) to be represented in the decision making process that leads to it, de jure anyway. De facto is admittedly a different scenario.
I pay taxes so that I will have a better infrastructure where I live. Living in Seattle, Washington, southern Oregon, and northwest Arkansas, I will choose taxation over not, and gladly.

I understand that you are individually speaking impacted by taxes, but you are at least represented in that decision making process (again, de jure)
Where there is not strong government to contest the power of Corporations, they can and will exercise their power extrajudiciously. They will not be bound by law. They will shit in the water, they will shit in the air, they will put a bullet in your kid's head for getting too close to their transport truck. They WILL. They DO. I understand the need and desire for a strongly controlled government, I really do... but a weak one? That terrifies me.

Re:What?

[AK Marc]

The problem is that FICA, etc. is listed as an "employee" tax when talking to employees, and an employer tax when talking to employers.

Also, a small business owner does not "pay" sales tax. It collects sales tax paid by the end user, then passes it on to the "government". Counting that is a lie.

Also "the government" changes depending on the situation. Property taxes are paid to the local government (possibly state, in some places). Sales tax is "collected" for the local and state governments, and income taxes/FICA are paid to the feds.

So the question is, what was (business income tax)/(total gross revenue)*100%?

That's the number that's interesting to most people, and it's usually under 1%. The largest payer of corporate income tax last year was Exxon. They paid about 7% income tax (based on gross revenue, the way "people" are charged).

Re:What?

[Cytotoxic]

That is all just ballocks. The number people care about when they buy a blanket is "how much money do I hand to the shopkeep." Yes, sales tax are "collected on behalf of the government". This is a distinction without a difference. If I collect 10 bucks for a blanket and send 80 cents to the local government it doesn't matter what you label it. If my cost of goods sold is $8 and 0.80 goes to local taxes that leaves a buck twenty for me. Of which the state and federal government take another bite - 13% for FICA, 8% for medicare, 30% for income tax - call it 0.60 just for the sake of argument. That leaves me with 60 cents in my pocket.

So you can whack it up anyway you like, put any labels on it you like, but the final result is that the government takes away twice as much from that sale as I do.

Most small businesses don't have special set-asides in the tax code that allow them to offset income with special incentives stuck in the code by their favorite congressmen. They don't pay taxes on gross revenue any more than you do. You have a line called "adjusted gross income" on your tax return. You get special interest set-asides for things like owning a home, having kids or being a refugee immigrant farmer who is an elementary school teacher. Big corporations get similar set-asides designed just for them, particularly if they are in insurance, banking, energy, farming or the automotive sector. Exxon pays the full tax rate based on their adjusted income, just like you do. The "unfair" part isn't what the final number is, it is in all of the special tax incentives that are put in place just for Exxon and their cohort.

Re:What?

[AK Marc]

This is a distinction without a difference. If I collect 10 bucks for a blanket and send 80 cents to the local government it doesn't matter what you label it.

I agree. What you label the price on the item is what you call it. If you say it's $9.20, then you can legally get no more than $9.20 for it. That you collect $0.80 extra and pass that through to the government is irrelevant to the price of the item. It's not yours. You don't deduct it as taxes paid. You didn't "pay" it. The buyer did.

What is the "price" of the item on the receipt you give the customer? $9.20 or $10?

You get special interest set-asides for things like owning a home,

Wow, you are as good with individual taxes as business taxes. No, there is no deduction for "owning" a home. There are some home related expenses which are deductible, but none for "owning" it.

Re:What?

[Sciath]

If you're fool enough to buy the philosophy that government doesn't create value, then please stay off the paved highways, the bridges, stay out of airports (most owned and/or operated by municipals agents), turn in you vehicle license plate, don't drink or bathe in the water from your municipal authority, don't go fishing or motorboating at any public beaches or waterways, don't go vacationing at any of your regional forests or national parks, have a whole-house air filtration system installed in your place of residence because everyone else has fucked up all the outside air (like in China?), don't fly (on) any aircraft in the public skies, don't utilize any public walkways, stop at every single traffic intersection to check traffic (because of a lack of traffic flow management with public traffic signals), etc. That's the problem with libertarians/conservatives, you don't see "value" in anything unless someone had to invent it. There's no value in preserving what all ready was/is. Your type are so enthralled with private product/service "creation" you have no appreciation for protecting the conditions that permitted the evolution of our and thousands of other species. Only "progress" has value to the narcissistic miscreants that promote the supremacy of Friedmanism. A sad commentary on the understanding of the concept of "value" on the part of the free-marketeers .

Re:What?

[Teancum]

The problem with each state's air guard buying a separate kind of fighter as it sees fit is mainly a volume issue, not a logistical one that you are noting. It would be presumed that if a local national guard unit would "buy" a fighter plane, that it would including all of the infrastructure to service that plane too. Most state guard units would buy just a couple to perhaps a couple dozen instead of making a block buy purchase of several thousand (like is being done with the F-35). There are definitely some economies of scale that come from making a larger purchase at once.

As for the chaos that would happen if all of the various state guard units needed to come together with different equipment and organizational charts.... that is sort of what happened during the Spanish-American War and World War I. Yes, it was chaos.... a very intentional and American chaos that was there because citizens didn't trust the federal government to have a large standing army at the time. It took some time to put the whole army together to fight those wars... something that was thought to be perhaps dangerous during the Cold War when the whole war could potentially be over in a matter of hours or perhaps just days. I don't know if that assessment is correct or not about the Cold War, but that is one of the reasons why state governments aren't given more freedom in organizing their guard units.

This also is no different than dealing the the various air forces in Europe, many from countries smaller than most American states both in terms of population as well as comparing the size of their national armies or air forces to state national guard units in America. The Belgian Air Force certainly is a part of NATO, but they also have a fiercely independent air force from any other national military organization and feel free to buy whatever weapons or aircraft that they and their national legislative body wants to purchase.

Re:What?

[Overzeetop]

That's not what I meant - contractors really do assemble everything at NASA. There are isolated areas where actual federal employees are manning the milling machines or putting assemblies together, but I've seen no moves in the past 15 years (since I was at NASA) that has put more federal workers (actual NASA employees) in place to build anything. There are, of course, exceptions- but the rule is that NASA employees either administrate or direct teams of primarily contractor employees to do everything. I spent 9 years on the NASA side and 2 on the contractor side.

Re:What?

[Overzeetop]

Actually, there are very few "builders" who do everything these days, too. Builders have become simple managers - hiring subcontractors to do essentially all of the work except that involving papers to the various building authorities. There are true artisan buillers out there, and some larger builders with everything in house, but they're very rare.

Having worked for NASA, NASA contractors, and since I now run a firm which does design for Architectural and building clients, I happen to have seen the inside of both operations pretty completely. Though apparently the truth came out trollish in the eyes of /.

You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, about that F-35 fighterplane - will we have a working/function version before it becomes obsolete? And how many more trillions of dollars do you need to complete it?

Re:You don't say....

[jfdavis668]

If the F35 is obsolete, all other aircraft in the world are also. To make an aircraft which is not already obsolete requires trillions of dollars. No one has come up with a way to build a war winning aircraft which is not complicated and expensive.

Re:You don't say....

[torkus]

If the SpaceX rocket is obsolete(or too trouble-prone), all other rockets in the world are also. To make a space rocket which is not already obsolete (or too trouble-prone) requires trillions of dollars*. No one has come up with a way to build a practical space rocket which is not complicated and expensive.

*actually if you build the thing on your own instead of doing things the "right" way per the US gov't you can drop that by a few orders of magnitude.

Re: You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is that we may have discovered a way to not build an aircraft that also extremely expensive.

Re:You don't say....

[jcr]

If the F35 is obsolete, all other aircraft in the world are also.

No, just all other fighter aircraft.

The F35 is a cold-war relic. A world war two P47 could do just a good a job at bouncing the rubble in a village in Afghanistan.

-jcr

Re:You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

if the F35 is obsolete, all other aircraft in the world are also.

But but if we don't build the F35, bin laden's airforce will overpower us all!!1!eleventy

Re:You don't say....

[angel'o'sphere]

Actually a WWII biplane or triplane would shot down a F35 quite easily.
Superior manouverability ... invisible on radar, no heat emissions for sidewinder like heat seaking missiles, not lockable by radar.
Well, a F35 pilot would be a fool to engage one, he need to fly at bare minimum of his speed to still be in the air.
Nevertheless ... there are plenty of air craft concepts that are cheap and superior to a multi billion, trillion even, modern craft. Alpha Jets, e.g, also, already 30 years outdated, just capable of doing roughly Mach 1, one of the most maneuverable air craft ever. In a dog fight it would likely shoot down everything. Well, was only used as a training craft, and was imagined as a light surveillance craft.
If you are a billionaire and want a fighter jet, Imrather advice to look into an Alpha Jet than into a russian plane (americans are only nice for the wows anyway) or take the hard side and train for a Harrier/Sea Harrier.

Re:You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a WWII biplane or triplane would shot down a F35 quite easily.

At 438km/h for a Fiat CR.42 (the fastest WWII biplane) versus 1930km/h, I don't think so. Also range 780km range versus 2200km, lost'n'a'fantasy. Also 9000m ceiling versus 15240m. So thoroughly outclassed, a modern opponent might just send in a helicopter and a machine gun.

Re:You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

No one has come up with a way to win a war. They just keep going until one side gets tired of it and gives up.

Re:You don't say....

[geogob]

Regardless of the exaggeration (I doubt a P47 would do the job), you hit the nail on the head. There's nothing like gaining air superiority with fighters/interceptor. That works only well in Hollywood blockbusters. For the current state of warfare (or at least what I get from it from afar), it seems that workhorses like the A-10 and AC-130 are much more appropriate. The only good thing about a fast multi role aircraft is that you can get of from a carrier and get somewhere fast for time critical precision strikes. But even that can be done through other, much cheaper means.

In the end, the F-35 has little more use than the flag poles and fanfares. It's a power demonstration that serves no purpose in modern warfare. But that shows also how off topic this subject is. I can't help myself frowning when I read about the F-35 in a discussion about NASA, launchers and SpaceX. While the F-35 is a purely ideological endeavor, the design and operation of space launchers plays a crucial role in our society. We are highly dependent on space systems and really need good and reliable launchers. I feel that comparing anything that has to do with space launchers with the F-35 is like comparing the building of new roads with a city (hypothetically) buying a few Ferrari for marketing purposes.

Re:You don't say....

[Anonymous Coward]

Air Tractor's Crop-Duster, Other Planes Revamped for Military Use

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-08-29/air-tractors-crop-duster-other-planes-revamped-for-military-use

Air Tractor President Jim Hirsch isn’t in the business of making pretty airplanes. His crop-dusters are big, slow, and sturdy—perfect for flying low over cornfields and landing on dirt airstrips. He’s betting that means they’re pretty well suited to blowing up terrorists, too. The company is affixing armor plating, sensors, and weapons ranging from .50 caliber machine guns to air-to-ground missiles onto planes originally designed to douse cropland with chemicals and spray water on brush fires. It’s sold 24 of the aircraft to the United Arab Emirates air force and last year hired a marketing executive to travel the world in search of additional sales.

Re:You don't say....

[suutar]

The F35's best weapon against a WW1-2 biplane might be the sonic boom. (There was a story along these lines in some issue of Analog in I think the 70s.)

Re:You don't say....

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, perhpas it could even try to ram it ... I guess a F35 is pretty sturdy.

Re:You don't say....

[suutar]

it's probably sturdier than the biplane, but you don't want the fragments to get sucked into the jet; the F35 only has one engine :)

Re:You don't say....

[angel'o'sphere]

Come on, stop the nitpicking! The biplane has only one engine, too!

He he ... but there are some late models, perhaps still in production, with two engines, made of aluminium ... thought there is a Russian version, but just confirmed the An-2 only had the typical one engine.

Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[gurps_npc]

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

Does the (R) after name stand for "Reprobate"?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[gstoddart]

Amazing how often what they say contradicts what they actually do.

Republicans are as much about red tape and regulation as anybody else -- the only difference is what they think they should be free from regulation, and what they feel they should be able to impose on others through regulation.

They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they are republicans doesn't mean their for small government these days..

In fact, there are many that are no better than their big government wanna-be democratic counterparts. Just one big happy family.

In most cases the (D) after anything stands for dipstick.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Bodhammer]

It stands for RINO - these clowns are being bought off by ULA (http://www.ulalaunch.com/) just like the bought and paid for dems (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057934) . SpaceX is threat for those that suckle at the big government teat...

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

And apparently Democrats think that sweeping generalizations are appropriate. Oh no, looks like its contagious!

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[JackieBrown]

Which is why we have the Tea Party now. People were fed up with the Republicans... even other Republicans.

That said, the media have done a great job painting every extremist as the face of the Tea Party (even when that extremist isn't even part of the Tea Party.)

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I assure ypu, Democrats do not want to open the can of worms of "who grants the most rent-seeking" laws and red tape to protect interests.

That's why they seek power in both parties. To get in the way to benefit someone, or extort someone.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[ShanghaiBill]

There is nothing wrong with being an extremist. Most problems in America are caused by the centrists, not the extremists.
Extreme right: Cut spending to equal revenue.
Extreme left: Raise revenue to equal spending.
Center: Continue to give everyone whatever they want, and borrow money from China to pay for it.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is why we have the Tea Party now. People were fed up with the Republicans...

Because as everyone knows, the solution to excessive self-serving hypocrisy is EVEN MORE self-serving hypocrisy! With an added dose of bat-shit-crazy added in for spice.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

The tea-party needs to be their own party, not a group trying to change the republican party.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

No, retard.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

The tea-party needs to be their own party, not a group trying to change the republican party.

I believe you mis-spelled "hijack".

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone attempt to demonize the non-extremists.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called profiling.

please get your terms of demographic generalization and prejudice correct.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

No Shit.

I had to read it twice to make sure.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[thaylin]

I am pretty sure the centralist argument is raise revenue and cut spending, not borrow money from china, that is pretty extreme.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[fustakrakich]

RINO

Why in name only? This is the very essence the party, both sides. An unsold politician has no influence whatsoever. It's a shame to see the voters reward this behavior. Nothing will change until they do.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[mi]

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government"

At least, we know of their party-affiliation from the article. Had the gentlemen been Democrats, the affiliation would've been omitted.

insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do

This is not, in itself outrageous or even stupid. Should an orbit-bound rocket lose control, for example, the results may well be far more disastrous than 9/11...

even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

Perhaps, they borrowed the illogic from the Labor Unions? You know, the guys, who insist, foreign manufacturing be following the same procedures and workers be paid the same as in here?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[mi]

There is nothing wrong with being an extremist.

There may well be in certain cases — but it is not (or should not be) a dirty word, I agree.

Yes, although one point of view may be better than another, a compromise is often worse than either of the "extremes"...

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[mellon]

And yet... OP has a point! Dunno why someone modded that flamebait.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[David_Hart]

Which is why we have the Tea Party now. People were fed up with the Republicans... even other Republicans.

That said, the media have done a great job painting every extremist as the face of the Tea Party (even when that extremist isn't even part of the Tea Party.)

The Tea Party was originally formed by a combination of Republicans and Democrats who were fed up with both parties. The point was to build a party that was all about less spending, smaller government, balanced budgets, debt reduction, etc. It then became co-opted by Republicans and enough right-wing extremists to drive away most moderates and all right-leaning Democrats.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Registered Coward v2]

All three are Republicans that claim to want "small government", yet they insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do - even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.

Does the (R) after name stand for "Reprobate"?

No, it stands for Rented.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a reason some of us use the term "RINO" to describe them.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[DoomSprinkles]

Fuck this republicant/democant shit... they are all greedy incompetent peices of shit who are a waste of air they breathe. They make me embarassed of our otherwise great country.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I checked, the extreme right still thinks they can "starve the beast" by cutting revenue and leaving spending alone. I certainly haven't seen Ted Cruz float any bills to cancel any of these overreaching government regulatory bodies other than yet another bill to undo Obamacare.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[jythie]

They want to ensure business and (their) religion is protected, and everybody else is on their own.

Unfortunately, that is kinda the point of a representative, or at least a major element. Getting the best deals and most support for their constituents. In a way this is small government in action, loyalty to their state rather then the country. If they can protect companies in their state at the expense of companies in other states, that benefits their people.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[jythie]

Extremists make sense to each other, they can easily set up a binary comparison since there are direct differences. Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[jythie]

I have been hearing that argument for decades, but it rarely seems to actually play out that way. It always seemed like little more then a rationalization for why one is unwilling to compromise then an actual reasoned strategy.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Zancarius]

It then became co-opted by Republicans and enough right-wing extremists to drive away most moderates and all right-leaning Democrats.

Or more to the point: It became co-opted and taken over partially by Karl Rove and his cronies and then successfully painted by establishment Republicans and their Democratic peers as an extremist movement. All this because entrenched Republicans and Democrats neither want to be disrupted from their position of power or ousted by outsiders. Government by and for the government.

While third parties have historically done poorly in US elections, given how little functional difference there is between the two ruling parties, we're sorely in need of change.

Although my voter registration says "Republican," I have increasingly less and less respect for most "Republicans," including Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, many of the establishment incumbents, and dozens of others who happen to be as big (or bigger) spenders as their DNC compatriots they rail against. It's like someone else said earlier in the thread: It's not that either party is opposed to regulation, they just can't agree on what needs regulating.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[ShanghaiBill]

I am pretty sure the centralist argument is raise revenue and cut spending, not borrow money from china, that is pretty extreme.

It doesn't matter what they "argue", it only matters what they do. Centrists don't argue for deficit spending, but they certainly vote for it.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[painandgreed]

The tea-party needs to be their own party, not a group trying to change the republican party.

They had one. They were called the Dixiecrats. Nixon invited them to join the Republican party as part of his campaign plan.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Bodhammer]

RINO

This is the very essence of the parties, both of them. An unsold politician has no influence whatsoever. It's a shame to see the voters reward this behavior. Nothing will change until they do.

TFTFY

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[painandgreed]

It stands for RINO - these clowns are being bought off by ULA (http://www.ulalaunch.com/) just like the bought and paid for dems (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000057934) . SpaceX is threat for those that suckle at the big government teat...

The Republicans, the party of Lincoln that preserved the Union, has never been a small government party. The only RINOs are the Dixiecrats that joined the Republican Party under Nixon, were cultivated for their money and votes by Reagan, and now call themselves the Tea Party. How else do you think there came to be a Republican party that rules the South, claims to be state's rights, and is angry there is a black man as president?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

> That said, the media have done a great job painting every extremist as the face of the Tea Party (even when that extremist isn't even part of the Tea Party.)

That's because the media is beholden to the Democratic party for the most part, other than Fox, which is mostly nuts. Sane, unbiased media is pretty much a fantasy. It's funny to compare domestic media to foreign media, as you really get a sense of what sort of blinders domestic media has. Sometimes they report major world events in tiny articles that are difficult to find under the deluge of celebrity idiocy.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[fustakrakich]

No, essentially there is only one party, with a singular goal. The factions argue over methodology.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you'd be better off to focus on who "all three" are as people instead of a party? Let's face facts, both of the major parties are liars, thieves and hypocrites. By bashing one party or banging the drum of another you're allowing... no, BEGGING, for the two party scam to continue.
 
Oh, and do you plan on doing anything more than crying about it here on Slashdot? If not then you're even more a part of the problem than I first suspected.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[infinitelink]

Amazing how you tell the truth and get modded "flamebait." By the time I post a reply I'm hoping you'll have been modded more positively up, though.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[JackieBrown]

This is wrong - Karl Rove has been very vocal against the tea party and has consistently supported whichever candidate that was not part of the tea party.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the way you snuck in the race card at the very end, that was clever. Now run on back to Al Sharpton show on MSNBC...

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[captbob2002]

Not everything is black or white - what a concept.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[afidel]

When you're getting capital at below the rate of inflation you'd be stupid not to take the money so long as you have something useful to do with it.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[ShanghaiBill]

Not everything is black or white - what a concept.

Not everything is black and white. But many things are. Compromise and moderation are often worse than either extreme, and an indecisive "muddle up the middle" is often the worst policy. You can cross a river with a bridge, or a boat. But you cannot cross it with half a bridge and half a boat.

"Should array indices start at 0 or 1? My compromise of 0.5 was rejected without, I thought, proper consideration." — Stan Kelly-Bootle

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice misrepresentation. The actual center view is "cut some. tax some".

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Could I trouble you to actually NAME these three senators?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Zynder]

You can cross a river with a bridge, or a boat. But you cannot cross it with half a bridge and half a boat.

These guys would like to have a word with you!

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[spitzak]

No, the center says "you can both cut spending and raise revenue".

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[rahvin112]

Who are these "centrists" you keep talking about? Your argument appears to be the same one tea party people use with RINO and Liberal which is you define those categories as slur you use against people who think differently than you.

Your argument is silly. Republicans had filibuster proof control of Congress and the presidents office for 6 years, the policy at the time was tax cut and spend. The democrats had similar control though less sure (2 independents) during the first two years of Obama's term, their policy was mostly tax and spend though the republicans wouldn't let them do the tax part so it became just spend. The last time real negotiating took place and centrist views dominated was during the Clinton administration when Republicans controlled congress (during Gingrich's term) when neither party got what they wanted but they managed to balance the budget, eliminate welfare and reduce military spending to workable levels.

My impression of the tea party is that originally it was a group of people that were mad about out of control spending. Almost immediately it was taken over by fringe Republicans like the Koch organizations and it turned away from balanced budget toward tax cuts and no compromise government shut down. Around the same time the anti-Obama language (birthers, etc) drew in all the stormfront and other racists and rather than turn them away as kooks the tea party embraced them but works aggressively to keep them out of sight on TV (but are very apparent if you go to any actual rallies). I'd be a tea partier if they were actually interested in a balanced budget and doing whatever it took to get there (including raising taxes) but the whole idea of responsible governance isn't what the tea party is about, nor has it been since about 6 months after it's founding.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Bodhammer]

Just found this today - easy way to follow the money: http://allaregreen.us/

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[wiredlogic]

The tea partiers traded a big/incumbent business agenda for zealotry. It's not a move in a positive direction because you can't negotiate with zealots.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Bing Tsher E]

You're askinga bunch of liberals on Slashdot to be honest about what the Tea Party is.

They don't know, and if they did, they'd not want to tell you.

Welcome to the parody show. Enjoy our puppets.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Mo Brooks is a Conservative who formerly worked at the Redstone Arsenal (has ties to Marshall Spaceflight Center). He likely has friends and family involved in the SLS/Orion programs and (like ANY member of congress) concerns about jobs for his voters; i.e. a trashing of SLS and a shift of funds to "commercial" would probably cost his voters their jobs (lost homes, lost cars, lost retirement programs, divorces, etc) which would cause them to ask what he had "done for them".

Mike Coffman is a military vet representing the home state of ULA. He probably has great faith in their products, given that he has had to entrust his life to their products and, like any member of congress, he is properly looking out for the jobs of the people in his district who work at ULA or ULA suppliers.

Cory Gardner is similarly representing his Colorado (ULA home) voters who's jobs are threatened by SpaceX (it's not just ULA jobs but also jobs of people at firms who support ULA).

TEA Party and "conservative" are NOT the same thing, though they overlap on SOME issues. Probably all three of the above get the votes of TEA partiers over their positions on many issues (like taxes, immigration, the EPA, the DOE, etc), but Coffman and Gardner were elected to congress before the TEA Party arose, and the big-government-big-corporation play (which is normal for members of congress) is not likely to "win them support" from TEA Partiers nut is rather going to be tolerated given that they are superior to any Democrat on most of the rest of what TEA Partiers are concerned about Any Democrat running against any of these guys would likely support gun control (an anti-constitutional play), support Obamacare (an anti-constitutional play), support "comprehensive immigration reform" (an anti-rule-of-law and anti-soverienty play), etc and therefore drive TEA Partiers to support these guys.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

"there is a black man as president"
No there is not, he is mulatto...
He had a white mom, Ann Dunnam...
You can read all about it in his ghost written book (by William Airs (how ever his name is spelled)) "dreams from my father"...
He is no Allen West, Keys. or that god father pizza guy...

And don't get me started about the communism that runs in his family...
With that said, not happy with all of the rinos in the ranks of the party...
I think SpaceX is doing ok all things considering...

Napervillian

aka kcim

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[gurps_npc]

Unless the article was on a FOX news TV show. Then it would show a (D) next to their name no matter what party they actually belonged to. (Fox news routinely puts the letters (D) after Republican's names if they are in trouble, but strangely enough not if the Republicans are doing something good.)

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[lgw]

The two parties have very different sets of pockets they compete to fill with taxpayer dollars. Their methods are the same, it's only the pockets that vary.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[infinitelink]

xD HAHA I got modded down for the supportive comment!

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[infinitelink]

Centrists feel 'off', their views are more complicated, harder to grasp.

Or they don't really think that hard about them at all, just go what's known and comfortable. The linear view of politics and social issues misses that it's not an either-or with an in-between; those who actually are centrists are therefore pretty...sad creatures, especially when the "extremes" are often questioning the foundation of the views of the polar opposites...of the mainstream.

I'm sure you have plenty of experience with what is sadly the majority of Americans: "whatever as long as I can get my check to get my choice for hits in life."

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, gee, if the National Review says the media is left-biased and does that, then it must be true. Sure!

I remember reading about all of these scandals and the party-affiliation of the politicians involved. I track this kind of stuff carefully, because I have a friend who always plays the "left wing" media card and he and I have challenged each other to prove our points. Now I'm not saying there is zero bias in media and that this stuff doesn't happen on occasion, but to say there's a larger, intentional trend of this is likely just playing to the National Review's readers' biases.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[dunkelfalke]

Extreme left?
I didn't know that CPUSA is relevant enough to cause actual problems. Any proof for that?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[someone1234]

So a senator coming from Texas, shooting these guys, will be doing exactly what a representative should do?

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[TFloore]

Extreme right: Cut spending to equal revenue.
Extreme left: Raise revenue to equal spending.
Center: Continue to give everyone whatever they want, and borrow money from China to pay for it.

Really?

I thought the Extreme Right plan was cut revenue to destroy government, the Extreme Left plan was raise revenue while raising spending more, and the Center just looks left and right with a bewildered expression while muttering "Don't you people have any brains???"

Most Extreme Right seem to want government services without paying for them, and/or want a system that is only good for the rich and lucky. I'm middle class with manageable debt, good job and health insurance, and no real medical problems. That counts as "lucky" in America.

Most Extreme Left seem to want the government to take most of the roles of family, and some of the roles of community (while usually not admitting that community used to equal church).

150 years ago it wasn't that unusual for 3 generations of a family to live in one house. That covered retirement for the old, child care for the young, and consolidated housing expenses that made life possible. We don't do that so much any more, and we are still trying to figure out how to make our new system work.

I admire the problem, but I don't have a good solution that scales to 300 million people.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[mi]

Fox news routinely puts the letters (D) after Republican's names if they are in trouble

Citation needed.

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[Anonymous Coward]

These days it's more like:
Extreme right: We should drown 100 puppies!
Extreme left: We should drown one puppy!
Center: We should drown 50 puppies!
Libertarian: The government should get out of the puppy-drowning business; corporations are already drowning thousands of puppies a year for half the cost!
Tea party: We should lower my taxes and drown 100 puppies!
Anarchist: I'm going to loot this shop! What's a puppy?
Green: Drowning puppies is murder! We should humanely euthanize them.
Academic: Drowning puppies has not been shown to be an effective policy supported by any empirical evidence. [Extreme right sues academic for misuse of public funds.]

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[david_thornley]

You know, I miss pre-Reagan republicans. Before Reagan, Republicans tended to avoid deficits if they could, and they liked balanced budgets. From Reagan on, Republicans have been the "who cares about the deficit?" guys (except, of course, when they could blame deficits on the Democrats).

Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he

[mick129]

Not many districts have such "extreme" candidates available. And even if they do, the deficit spending issue is wrapped up with all the other issues of the candidate. I think it's fairer to say that centrist voters do not often choose deficit spending as their key issue.

Kick their asses!

[Roblimo]

I wrote to my Congressman, Vern Buchanan, earlier today and told him to kick these guys in the ass for me.

Re:Kick their asses!

[WindBourne]

LOL
He will not. He is as much a part of this as the other Rs.

Implausible.

[Sox2]

Plait accuses the congressmen of trying to bury private spaceflight under red tape in order to protect established industries in their own states

This seems highly unlikely - I can't think of a single example of congressmen doing something like this before.

Re:Implausible.

[torkus]

...especially not to another of Elon's companies.

Sometimes the best measure of success is how hard other people try to hold you back or stop you.

Re:Implausible.

[LWATCDR]

" in order to protect established industries in their own states"
That is what Congress people do. Nobody wants to see nice high paying jobs to go bye bye.
Heck my Democratic congress person fought long and hard to make the Navy keep the USS Forrestal when the Navy wanted to scrape it to save money. The reason was simple jobs in Jacksonville.
A congress person doing this is not evil but a part of the give and take of government. That is why mission control was moved to Houston from Florida. It is expected that every member of congress will fight to put jobs into their state and it is up to the group to work out a good compromise. What you want is for your congress people to fight this to save tax money from their folks.

Re:Implausible.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what Congress people do. Nobody wants to see nice high paying jobs to go bye bye.

That doesn't make it less dishonest and abusive. If you believe in free market you have to man up and compete or get the fuck out when other companies are doing better than you. Using your influence in the government (illegal in most european countries, btw) to use their power to crush your competence is anything but capitalism.

Re:Implausible.

[LWATCDR]

It is the free market. It is a variation of buying local.
Frankly a completely free market is a terrible idea anyway as it will almost always lead to monopoly that is bad for the consumer.

The way that the system needs to work is for the market to be free enough to allow competition while being regulated enough to prevent abuses. In this case the regulations look to be slanted to give an unfair advantage. The problem is ULA also has plants in the same states as SpaceX so they seem to be staying out of it. So now the correct tactic is publicity to bring this to light and for people to write their congress people to not let it happen. There is just no need to get too worked up about it or shocked. It is the way the system works and if you want it to work properly people need to give it some guidance.

The rules are different for contractors

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/27/military.electrocutions/

I'd love to see how these congressmen responded to the well-noted failures of KBR and other military contractors...

seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

who are these do nothing congressmen and why are they getting involved? more importantly why is anyone listening to people from a division of government with a 16%!!!!! approval rating, can they really find nothing better to do or are they just being paid under the table too much to bring up these pointless issues and waste even more time/money

gg congress gg

Re:seriously?

[esampson]

. . .more importantly why is anyone listening to people from a division of government with a 16%!!!!! approval rating. . .

Because crappy approval rating or not they are still the legislative branch of our government. That means that they are the ones who actually make the laws. The President only has the power to execute laws and other decisions of Congress* and the Supreme Court only has the power to interpret those laws (part of that power, however, means they could decide a law violates the Constitution and is unenforcable, but in such a case they are still interpreting law).

Congress actually has much more power than the President. The thing is that the power is divided up between 535 people so the office of the President is still more powerful than any one of them.

*The President does also hold a few other powers such as Veto but pretty much all of these powers can be overridden by Congress.

Re:seriously?

[thaylin]

Actually the president has lots of power outside the laws congress makes. He can veto as you stated. He can pardon people of crimes against those laws. He can direct how money is spent at the micro level below what congress states. He can appoint people who will make decisions on how the law is implemented.

Re:seriously?

[esampson]

Yeah. Like I said, he's not completely powerless. It is simply that the office has less power than Congress' (though again, it isn't divided up). I didn't really mean to turn this into a major discussion of Presidential power. It was more an answer to 'why do people listen to Congress?'. Because we have to.

Re:seriously?

[thaylin]

it is not less, it is different. no branch has more power than the others, although that is debatable I am sure.

Re:seriously?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because someone paid them off to interfere with SpaceX.

Re:seriously?

[Talderas]

Congressional approval rating is a bogus statistic that is used to create headlines from nothing. It is generally indicative of average opinion of the 532 senators and representatives that they have no influence over.

Re:seriously?

[Teancum]

Because someone paid them off to interfere with SpaceX.

I think a flat out bribe is unlikely, but it is very likely that one of their campaign contributors (most notably ULA or its parent companies of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin) have gone to these congressmen with this list of complaints, pointing out the problems that SpaceX has had trying to get into space, and definitely blown those problems way out of proportion to those members of congress. They aren't tech geeks, but when a group of tech geeks from your district come into your office (that they can get at any time due to those previously mentioned campaign contributions) with a complaint that has a whole bunch of techno-geek language, they gloss over the other problems and simply think "jobs" and "re-election".

The campaign contributions really are a legalized form of bribing, but what can be done to change that?

HB Gary

[techsoldaten]

I will give credence to these Congressmen's words when I see them come out against HB Gary (or whatever it's called now) in a similar way.

3 Republicans against

[MarkWegman]

I think it's not a coincidence that these are 3 Republicans who probably hate the Space X is owned by Elon Musk who is promoting an electric car.

Re:3 Republicans against

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations on making it a partisan issue. You deserve a pat on the back.

Re:3 Republicans against

[JackieBrown]

Yeah - I'm sure that is the reason behind this. That's why the Republicans target Apple so much... oh wait, they don't.

But way to stretch to find a link. You're way of thinking really explains how the terror watch list is so big ("that person knows someone who's brother's friend once went to a "terrorist" website!")

Re:3 Republicans against

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to be better informed...

Washington Examiner, May 22, 2013:
Senators are angry that tech giant Apple isn't paying its fair share.

I'm not talking about taxes. This is about campaign contributions and lobbying fees.

An investigation by Sen. Carl Levin and a grilling of Apple CEO Tim Cook on Tuesday by the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations were ostensibly about Apple's low tax bill. But nobody accused Apple of breaking the law. The company moved money around to minimize the tax it owed and then paid the amount the law required. Apple didn't write the tax law or even lobby very hard to shape it.

And that's just the problem. The grilling of Apple is best understood as a shakedown by politicians upset with Apple for not playing the Washington game that yields contributions, power, and personal wealth for congressmen and their aides.

Apple doesn't have a political action committee to fund incumbents' re-elections. Apple doesn't hire many congressional staff or any former congressmen as lobbyists. Apple mostly minds its own business -- and how does that help the political class?

The Beltway Shakedown is an old game. Microsoft may be its most famous victim. In the 1990s, while the Federal Trade Commission investigated the software giant for supposed antitrust violations, the Senate Judiciary Committee, run by Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, held hearings to beat up CEO Bill Gates.

Microsoft's crime? "I have given [Microsoft] advice, and they don't pay any attention to it," fumed Hatch, who described this as "knuckle-headed and hard-nosed."

"The industry had an attitude that government should do what it needs to do but 'leave us alone,' " a congressional aide complained to Businessweek at the time. "Their hands-off approach to Washington will come back to haunt them."

Microsoft got the message and ramped up its lobbying and campaign spending. From $2 million on lobbying in 1997, the company's lobby shop grew to nearly $10 million by 2004. From less than $50,000 in contributions in the 1996 cycle, Microsoft's PAC grew twentyfold in two cycles, to $1.2 million 2000 and $2.3 million in 2012.

Hatch, in 2000, made sure others learned from Microsoft's experience, telling a tech conference, "If you want to get involved in business, you should get involved in politics."

Re:3 Republicans against

[suutar]

I think until you establish that they dislike electric cars, it's very difficult to declare that a coincidence or not. Now, since it's established that their states contain a number of established NASA contractors, notably Boeing and (something like) United Launch, that we can say _that's_ not a coincidence.

Alabama

[OverlordQ]

Alabama, home of the Marshall Space Flight Center, which is NASAs rocketry and spacecraft research center. Nah, no way this is a political move to protect their investment.

Re:Alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a winner!

Re:Alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Alabama I can understand. But why Colorado, the state shared by two of the Congressmen?

Re:Alabama

[Bo'Bob'O]

Which just shows how short-sighted this is. With the logistics of launchers and launch services off of NASA's plate, NASA should be more busy then ever looking to go back to it's main business: pushing the bleeding edge of space, science and aeronautics. Something that that center will no doubt play a large part of. Certainly a lot more then just buying all the hard stuff from Russia.

I think it's still just as likely this is really just about protecting the interests of big contractors who find large profits to be made in building disposable, multimillion dollar rockets. Will SpaceX deliver everything it's promising? I don't know. I think it's fair to not just to put all our eggs in that basket just yet, but the government money that has been spent on SpaceX seems to have been a good deal so far. They seem to have a real vision of moving forward and I think that's a risk worth investing in.

Re:Alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind, I saw elsewhere that United Launch Alliance is based in Colorado. Makes perfect sense.

Re:Alabama

[Anonymous Coward]

Specifically their district too. Mike Coffman is the Rep for the 6th District of Colorado, which includes the town of Centennial, CO and is the headquarters of United Launch Alliance. Cory Gardner is the Rep for the 6th District of Colorado, which while mostly rural borders Centennial so much of ULA's workforce probably lives in his district.

Mo Brooks represents the 4th District of Alabama, which includes the Huntsville-Decatur Metropolitan complex which the GP mentioned has the Marshall Flight Space Center. However, because Marshall is there, ULA also has a major research and engineering arm in the area, as the area is also a high tech corridor.

Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers.

[Anonymous Coward]

It would destroy their credibility and undermine the slave system they have us all trapped under keeping their controlled economy and slave labor force in check and locked into planetary resources.

Re:Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers.

[powerlord]

Obviously these people have read something besides 1984 and are trying to stop the logic next steps.

When a place gets crowded enough to require ID's, social collapse is not far away. It is time to go elsewhere. The best thing about space travel is that it made it possible to go elsewhere. -- Lazarus Long

Re:Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers.

[fustakrakich]

Um, we hardly need to go into space for more resources. We're still only scratching the surface here, literally. We go to space for the view.

Re:Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers.

[Nimey]

slave system

Spot the Randroid.

Re:Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but resources in space are "Theoreticly" easier to get at, then ones near the core of the earth or under miles of ocean. The #1 resource theoretically easier to get at in space is. ENERGY.

Are they

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the (R) after name stand for "Reprobate"?

I think is stands for Retarded.

Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[meerling]

"...ranging from “multiple” helium leaks..."
It's not a balloon, it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium, though they are know to use huge quantities of Liquid Hydrogen.

"...release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency..."
Do you mean like you have all other PRIVATE CONTRACTORS do? Oh wait, you don't. Of course, as stated, no huge system is ever without issues. The real question is are they fixed, and in a timely manner. In the case of SpaceX, yes. And by the way, SpaceX hasn't had 3 different crews killed in accidents, unlike NASA.

"Again, because the vehicles in question were funded by American taxpayer dollars, there should be no issue in making this report publicly available,"
Wrong again douchebag, they were funded by Elon Musk, not the government.

As to the question I posed in the subject line, I don't actually know the answer, but I suspect it's "all of the above".

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[Anonymous Coward]

On February 25, 2010, SpaceX's first flight stack was set vertical at Space Launch Complex 40, Cape Canaveral,[18] and on March 9, SpaceX performed a static fire test, where the first stage was to be fired without taking off. The test aborted at T-2 seconds due to a failure in the system designed to pump high-pressure helium from the launch pad into the first stage turbopumps

What were you saying about ignorance?

Ever hear the saying about fools running their mouths?

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[torkus]

You can thank how easily and readily the news are manipulated for this type of nonsense.

"NASA buys rocket launches from SpaceX with tax dollars. Therefore tax dollars fund SpaceX. Therefore SpaceX should be subject to the same scrutiny as any government-funded project"

Derp.

Apply the same logic to the other option - buying launches from Russia - and see how hard they laugh. Oh wait...didn't they stop or curtail launches for the US already because we're being assholes?

Re: Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[thaylin]

When the problem relates to what they get the money for you will have a point. But as long as the company is spending its own money on the product the government should have no say so in it as long as it is not breaking the law.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/helium-info.htm

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[jklovanc]

And by the way, SpaceX hasn't had 3 different crews killed in accidents, unlike NASA.

SpaceX hasn't flown crew yet. They also have not fired off as many rockets as NASA.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm not aware of them using Helium, though they are know to use huge quantities of Liquid Hydrogen.

Actually, I think you're off.

They use Helium at launch to prime the turbo-pumps that pump the fuel. I don't think they use Liquid Hydrogen for fuel--they use a special mixture of kerosene.

The Shuttle Main Engines (and the basis of the SLS) use liquid hydrogen for fuel.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[thaylin]

I think the shuttle uses Hydrazine (internal) and Aluminum with PBAN or HTPB (SRB)

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[fustakrakich]

Ignorant and stupid they are not. I wish I could say the same for the people that elect them.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Not only that, SpaceX keeps avoiding liquid hydrogen on purpose.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[sconeu]

Shuttle used H2 for the SSMEs. Maneuvering thrusters used Hydrazine.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[Talderas]

Used.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[cheesybagel]

The Space Shuttle Main Engines used Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen which was stored in the External Tank. The Solid Rocket Boosters are the ones which used Aluminum. Hydrazine was used in the Reaction Control System and Orbit Maneuvering System.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[jfdavis668]

and NASA gave up on the LEO mission, and decided to contract it out. Spacex is much farther along on that mission than anyone else.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[Anonymous Coward]

Until they've had three crews killed like NASA they should be prohibited from flying.

Re:Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[sound vision]

Not to mention NASA has been flying manned missions on a regular, consistent basis for about 55 years now. Three failures over 5 decades isn't bad, considering this is literally "rocket science" and "a moonshot", which had never been done before. These phrases have entered public consciousness as synonyms for difficulty for good reason.

Lost on Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

3 Congress men want to hold SpaceX accountable to the taxpayers for delays? So did they forget when Congress shutdown? Its ok for Congress to delay, but not advances in science? PFFFFFTTTTTTTT. Lets hold those 3 accountable for their actions.

Come on guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, this isn't rocket sci- ...nevermind.

This gave me a chuckle

[tibit]

"an epidemic of anomalies" ha ha, good one. Falcon 9 had 11/11 primary mission successes on the first 11 flights. That sort of a track record is very, very rare. Space Shuttle did it. What other launcher had the same record? Never mind the overall cost of achieving it. If one adjusts for successes per dollar of development costs, Falcon 9 will have everyone beat for a long, long time, if they keep at it.

Re:This gave me a chuckle

[torkus]

I'm pretty sure at this rate the Falcon 9 beats every other space delivery system in cost by far (both development and recurring) and reliability (so far at least).

Granted they've had the entire history of space exploration as a guide towards their design...but then again any other company in the space game has access to at least the same information. I'm pretty sure the contractors and companies that built the shuttle and other rockets actually have significantly MORE information than is publicly available on top of it.

Yet who do we see actually DOING this? Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. It amazes me that the 'leadership' in the US can't understand that basic axiom.

Re:This gave me a chuckle

[Anonymous Coward]

Falcon 9 will have everyone beat for a long, long time, if they keep at it.

I'm pretty sure that's what has the Congressmen worried.

Re:This gave me a chuckle

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically, SpaceX has had a number of anomalies, including the loss of a secondary payload on CRS-1 (after surviving an engine failure, but NASA disallowed a course correction that would have allowed the secondary payload to reach orbit). There was also a thruster anomaly on the Dragon on CRS-2. Not to mention the numerous scrubs due to problems discovered at the last second (sometimes literally). They've also had problems with water getting into the Dragon capsule on the return splashdown.

On the whole, though, SpaceX has been very cautious dealing with these anomalies and has never lost a primary payload on the Falcon 9, which is a very good track record for a brand new rocket.

Re:This gave me a chuckle

[Rakarra]

"an epidemic of anomalies" ha ha, good one. Falcon 9 had 11/11 primary mission successes on the first 11 flights. That sort of a track record is very, very rare. Space Shuttle did it.

Yeah, but the Space Shuttles had some flawed designs resulting in a few orbiter losses. Completing 11/11 launches isn't a good enough record, they should shoot for 12/11 or 13/11.

Re:This gave me a chuckle

[tibit]

Ah, I see you've been to Soviet Union, then, comrade. They always did 150% of the norm!

Outsource to Russia

[Major Byte]

Perhaps these representatives imagine American taxpayers prefer US space exploration remain outsourced to Russia? The reps in question are: Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.)

Re:Outsource to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

The reps in question...

I think you mean the traitors to the american people.

Re:Outsource to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if the old Lockheed-Martin (nee Martin-Marietta) facility at Deer Creek south of Denver still manufactures launch vehicles (they built Titan II's back in the day, and some old-timers around here remember back when they'd test rocket engines), but United Launch Alliance still has a pretty big presence in Colorado.

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that two of those reps are Coloradan.

Re:Outsource to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

So we know AT LEAST two of those congressmen were high...

Re:Outsource to Russia

[Anonymous Coward]

What if you could poll the taxpayers and they said exactly that? The space program is, by far, not very popular outside of the geek circles. Just because you might have social circles where space is a big deal or at least tolerated as a good investment doesn't mean the rest of the population agrees with you.
 
I do public star parties in an area that probably has over 200,000 people in a 10 mile radius of the location that we host these events at. Most nights that we have these events we don't get much more than 150 visitors or so and most of them are repeats and school kids getting extra credit for school. And this isn't some guys with a couple of scopes in a field with a small Facebook following; we have an actual facility that has been in use for over 2 decades with a couple of respectable scopes, knowledgeable staff including a former senior astronomer from a fairly well-known national observatory, we have publicity from the media and the county government and about a dozen personal scopes in the observing field and none of them are your local hobby shop 200 dollar jobs.
 
People just aren't that interested at this point in time. Astronomy clubs are tripping over themselves to find young members. For all the "science!" hype there is going on out there it just doesn't seem that even most would-be-geeks want to get off their butts and do more than play video games and watch sci-fi movies.
 
The next time a Star Trek film comes out it'll probably draw more people to the local theater on opening weekend than unique guests that we see in an entire 16 star party season.

Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that SpaceX is given a free pass for standards that the other major DoD contractors are not being given. That's the real issue. Musk, et al, is gaming the system by trying to not be held to the same safety and reliability standards because he used private money, while at the same time complaining that he's not got a level playing field because there are safety standards. So, taxpayers take it in the ass three times, once to pay for ULA launches, once to pay for Musk's protest, and ULA's counter protest, and then the third time to pay for satellites the SpaceX blows up.

We understand that new rockets tend to blow up regularly. However, the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay twice for rocket development when we've already developed rockets that no longer blow up regularly. The taxpayers got stuck with the first bill (to boeing, loral, Lockheed, Grumman et al), and we've got a reliable set of launch vehicles. There's no goodness in paying again for SpaceX to learn the same lessons and re-accomplish the same development. Let private customers roll the dice on their satellites getting blown up, and when SpaceX develops mature launch vehicles, then compete on a level playing field, instead of Musk's political stunts. ... that or let Musk pay for the public satellites he blows up with his "lower cost" less reliable satellite.

Re:Not So Fast...

[tibit]

I keep hearing this nonsense, and I can't help but imagine that it's coming straight from the ULA puppets. Nobody is given any free passes. They are contracted to deliver stuff to orbit, not to build rockets for the government. The safety and reliability standards are of not much use if you're being paid (or not) for service. The only ones hurting if a Falcon blows up are SpaceX and cargo insurers: the former won't get paid, the latter will have to pay up. That's all there's to it.

So far, Falcon 9 hasn't blown up once. You're just repeating the stupid ULA nonsense. Stop it.

Re:Not So Fast...

[jfdavis668]

Um, what satellite has Spacex blown up? They had 3 test failures of the Falcon 1, which is retired. The Falcon 9 has yet to fail. That's a better record than anyone else.

Re:Not So Fast...

[thaylin]

What satellite blew up on spaceX. And if spaceX is using private money to develop the rocket where is that kicking taxpayers? also thanks to the stupidity of the patent system not everything developed and paid for by the taxpayers can be used without paying other private companies.

Re:Not So Fast...

[mbkennel]

| So, taxpayers take it in the ass three times, once to pay for ULA launches, once to pay for Musk's protest, and ULA's counter protest, and then the third time to pay for satellites the SpaceX blows up.

And save so so so so so so so so so much more when SpaceX's rockets cost so much less, and when there's a competitive market instead of a monopoly for the next 40 years.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a result of this failure they were unable to deploy their payload. The satellite burned up on reentry.

Re:Not So Fast...

[joh]

Only the secondary payload (a small satellite). The primary payload (a Dragon capsule to the ISS) was delivered without a hitch.

Re:Not So Fast...

[WindBourne]

Yes, a SECONDARY load that was not to go into production was not placed in the correct orbit. However, it was because NASA said that F9 could not correct for an issue.
In addition, the company decided to continue with SpaceX because they had done such a good job.

Re:Not So Fast...

[jfdavis668]

But, it was NASA who wouldn't let them deploy it, due to safety limits placed on ISS support missions. The company who contracted them to launch the satellite knew that was a possibility before the launch, and were willing to take the risk. They gambled on getting a discount on the launch, and the risk didn't pay off. That isn't Spacex' fault. The Falcon 9 could have done both, but doing so would have violated NASA's huge safety margin.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like a pretty bad example to use, since it still successfully delivered it's payload to ISS. Did you even read the linked article?

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Lost is lost and Space X failed.

Re:Not So Fast...

[umghhh]

that is only partially true. If these things fail (which they may) this most likely destroys the payload which even if insured i.e. does not bring too much damage financially, still costs time to rebuild, even if 3d printer can do it all. so safety standards do matter unless there are replacement parts for payload objects that you can buy in walmart. I am not saying this is going to happen or that spaceX uses substandard safety standards or not at all but that is a valid concern that matters for spaceX and its customers.

the golden 3 are most likely corrupt till bone mark or maybe just silly not sure which one is more damaging - I guess this works best if combined!

Re:Not So Fast...

[WindBourne]

Well, he is not going to. We have several ACs running around that obviously work for ULA and are desperate for their jobs. GothMolly is one of those POS that will continue to troll and astroturf.
In the end, if these ppl are Americans, they are traitors in that they will lie about other companies/ppl to protect their jobs and continue to push BILLIONS to Putin.

Re:Not So Fast...

[WindBourne]

LOL. And yet, it is not a failure for your company when they lose a secondary load esp. when money was not transferred.

Re:Not So Fast...

[cheesybagel]

That was a partial failure and the only reason the satellite was not deployed at the proper orbit was because NASA, which had the primary payload in that mission, requested that their payload not be delayed to deploy that satellite. That was a test satellite, the launch cost was peanuts as it was deployed as a secondary payload, and they still managed to test most of its systems in space before it crashed down. So to call it a mission failure is a misnomer.

Re:Not So Fast...

[cheesybagel]

In fact the customer of that secondary payload which crashed on reentry was NOT the government but a private company called Orbcomm. They were so dissatisfied with SpaceX in that case, which was covered by insurance BTW, that they continued their contract their SpaceX. SpaceX successfully launched 6 of those same satellites for Orbcomm on July 14.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, actually despise Lockheed, but, well, I'm siding with honesty instead political advocacy. Your argument about cargo insurers demonstrates that you didn't read what I wrote. Private satellites are insured. Public ones are not. Just because you don't like what I say doesn't make it untrue. At the time of the RFPs and contract awards, SpaceX had not demonstrated any reasonable level of performance, much less the required level of performance. That's federal acquisitions regulations, not rent seeking. Araine had, but didn't compete for that award.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Areyoukiddingme]

Well, he is not going to. We have several ACs running around that obviously work for ULA and are desperate for their jobs. GothMolly is one of those POS that will continue to troll and astroturf.

I haven't seen nearly as much out of those people in the last several threads about SpaceX. Now that Falcon 9 is one of only four rocket families ever developed that have had 11/11 successful launches, the ULA partisans have very little to talk about.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a result of this failure they were unable to deploy their payload. The satellite burned up on reentry. [arstechnica.com]

I don't understand, are you sarcastically agreeing with jfdavis or do you not understand how reading works? The mission was completed successfully, according to the article you linked...

Re:Not So Fast...

[wiredlogic]

That's complete bullshit coming from ULA proxies. From day 1 SpaceX has designed their hardware with an eye toward future upgrades to man-rated status. The progress on Dragon V2 shows that they have every intent of putting people on their launcher and will be damn sure it is safe for them. Just because they don't buy components from the rest of the space industrial complex doesn't mean that they are cutting corners unsafely.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Teancum]

It was a secondary payload that was even capable of having its mission completed. The one glitch is that there was an outside chance (more like one in a hundred thousand possibility or something like that, but still a possibility) that by firing up the 2nd stage to deliver that secondary payload to its previously agreed to flight parameters that if subsequently there was a failure of the 2nd stage engine during that burn, the satellite and that 2nd stage could have potentially crashed into the International Space Station.

It was NASA that prevented SpaceX from completing that secondary payload burn. Admittedly if the first stage had worked perfectly without the loss of engine event that for most other rockets would have resulted in a complete mission failure (especially at that stage of the launch), SpaceX would have even avoided the problem with the ISS. I can also understand NASA's paranoia about the ISS, as a hundred billion dollar investment is definitely worth more than a mere satellite costing tens of millions, not to mention potential loss of life on the ISS. But to call this a failure on the part of SpaceX is just over the top and silly. If only all space related problems were this minor.

Re:Not So Fast...

[WindBourne]

Oh, I am seeing more than ever from them. In fact, about 4 years ago, there were FEW ACs that would knock SpaceX. Instead, it was individuals that either do/had worked in space environment.
Now, I see loads of ACs, of which over and over, it appears to be 2-4 ppl that are trolling. Based on their writing and what I recall, it seems like 2-3 of them are only on the SpaceX stories, though it seems like the other couple also post about Tesla.

Re:Not So Fast...

[thaylin]

So if I tell you to stop the race you failed and I did not make you fail?

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah i have to agree if the engine hadnt had to shut down then NASA would have presumably allowed them to complete the mission. The failure was the result of a failed engine and not NASA. They had to make the call as to weather to allow a malfunctioning vehicle make a controlled burn during which failure could potentially risk the lives and material of the ISS.

Re:Not So Fast...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's your cries and lies and then there's reality, stubborn and hard to overlook, that says you're full of shit. 11 out of 11 and every company with an interest in space scheduling launches with SpaceX. Sure, they haven't demonstrated anything...

Re:Not So Fast...

[tibit]

Look, if you want so desperately to do something to the payload as long as it's done on time, I'll just go and bash the shit out of it for $1M per paylod, mmkay? I can even use a $50k hammer to do it. What a steal. Cost plus of course.

Now, in the real world, is the "reasonable level of performance" you speak of the same performance USA (United Space Alliance, ULA precursor) had with getting the Shuttles into orbit? Because that was, lest we forget, a major farcical opus every time it didn't happen. But so is space flight, and SpaceX is going in exactly the right direction to change it.

Anyway, so far we don't care about lack of insurance. The damn things get whey they are supposed to. Never mind that I'd like a citation for that lack of insurance of public payloads.

Follow the money

[director_mr]

I think you will find that those Republicans have industries that compete with Space X in their districts. This means Space X is doing so well they feel the industries in their own districts will lose money. Perhaps you could appeal to Republicans who don't have competing space industries in their district. But complaining about this as if its just republicans doing this is disingenuous. Politicians do this to give industries in their state and edge all the time.

Phil Plait:
"That’s why this whole thing looks to me to be a transparent attempt from members of our Congress to hinder a privately owned company that threatens their own interests. I’ll note that Boeing (the major SLS contractor) has a big plant in Alabama, Brooks’ (and Shelby’s) home state, and United Launch Alliance has its HQ in Colorado, home to Gardner and Coffman (it’s even in Coffman’s district). This sounds more like they’re trying to protect their own turf more than honestly wanting transparency from SpaceX."

You can read that here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...

Re:Follow the money

[Xaedalus]

Those senators are doing exactly what they should be doing: protecting the interests of their constituents. If SpaceX continues to be effective and successful, then Boeing and ULA will start losing money, and that means they'll start cutting back on employment at those factories, which are in the jurisdiction of those senators. Which means unemployed voters, and large amounts of unemployed voters trump any economic benefit that cheaper spaceflight may bring. Especially when we're talking working class people who are unable to migrate to new jobs/locations. Before that happens, a lot of the potentially affected voters (and their employers) are hiring lobbyists to advocate on their behalf to stop SpaceX by any means necessary. This is exactly how democracy functions, and those senators are doing their jobs--as much as we may dislike it.

Re:Follow the money

[Pascoea]

I don't feel as though it is the gov'ts job to be running interference for it's constituents. Actively sabotaging somebody else's constituents, so that their constituents have an easier path to success, is not the American way. Well, it is the American way, but it isn't supposed to be.

Re:Follow the money

[Xaedalus]

The WASP community has been doing that to minorities for over a hundred years now. Redlining, anti-Catholic leagues, race riots targeting Chinese, marijuana laws... take your pick. Those were all legally valid (or overlooked) political tactics used by government and/or WASPs to screw over Americans who weren't like them.

Re:Follow the money

[Teancum]

I find it sort of funny how the Texas delegation to Congress is now becoming very supportive of SpaceX and its activities. The Florida delegation also is no longer playing favorites and trying to at least be neutral with regards to the ULA-SpaceX disputes and PR battles. California has long been in the tank with SpaceX (especially Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who just happens to have the Hawthorn, CA plant in his district), so it isn't like SpaceX is without allies in Congress either.

SpaceX is spreading stuff to other districts, and it is helping out, including non-geeks who are angry that tax dollars are being spent to prop up ULA. give it time and ULA will really start to lose political capital in a hurry.

Re:Follow the money

[EmperorArthur]

Speaking as someone who's lived in Huntsville, AL, do you really think all those people joined NASA just because it's a job? Sure some of the contractors may think that way, but plenty of people I know who work on that stuff in Huntsville are cheering SpaceX on. We want cheap Human spaceflight, and we want it now dammit.

An important thing to remember is that people who are affected by something like this are smart. In many cases they actually are "rocket scientists." The politicians are listening to the corporations, NOT their constituents.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

Those senators are doing exactly what they should be doing: protecting the short-term interests of their constituents.

FTFY, and you're wrong.

Withholding the advancement of the entire nation in order to save the short-term prospects of a relatively small group of people is doing it wrong.
The correct action would be to either look for ways in which to leverage the existing infrastructure and manpower to capture some of the new market. Either by taking what SpaceX has learned and try to compete, or by partnering with other more effective industries.

Oh, but that takes work and actual leadership.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

what?!
you mean democracy is just about protecting your turf using dirty tactics and hired guns?
and you are ok with that?
You keep your job planting logic bombs and kill switches in your software, obfuscating your code, ... In order to be un-firable?
Frankly, fu*ck off, I don't like your psycho world.

Re:Follow the money

[Xaedalus]

I agree with you in principle, but the rocket scientists are outnumbered by the businessmen (primarily Finance) and the blue-collar voters who do the grunt work. They're the ones who stand to lose the most because they both benefit from an inefficient economic structure like that of ULA or a government contractor firm in general. The executives get to charge astounding amounts of money, and the blue collar workers get a protected job that's shielded more than most from economic fluctuations prevalent in private industry. Hmmm... now that I think about it, you could cast this as a caste struggle: the upper and lower class uniting against the middle class. White collar workers like yourself are cheering on SpaceX, but SpaceX would undo the economic structure that benefits the upper class and the working class.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

"If SpaceX continues to be effective and successful, then Boeing and ULA will start losing money, and that means they'll start cutting back on employment at those factories,"

Would it kill Boeing to just copy SpaceX's effort and build cheaper AND better?

Re:Repukes Hate America

[angel'o'sphere]

Perhaps they are replicants?

Traitors to the American Dream

[BenJeremy]

It's high time we started calling out these "representatives of the people" who are really nothing of the sort. Republican or Democrat, nobody in Washington seems to be concerned for the welfare of the American PEOPLE. They only seem interested in doing whatever the lobbyists who line their pockets tell them to do.

Re:Traitors to the American Dream

[gstoddart]

They only seem interested in doing whatever the lobbyists who line their pockets tell them to do.

Hey, if corporations are people, and money is speech, they're only listening to their constituents.

If you want to be listened to, you will need more money.

You expect what you want to matter any if you don't have any cash to back it up? Sorry, no money, no speech -- it's the American way now, SCOTUS said so.

Why are you against free(*) speech? Democracy doesn't grow on trees you know.

(*) Free as in "go ahead if you have the resources to afford it".

Re:Traitors to the American Dream

[esampson]

At the risk of defending them (because really, I don't like these guys any more than you do), the are representatives of the people -who elected them-. That means the people in their district, so protecting businesses that bring money to those districts (and thus to the people they represent) isn't -completely- without merit.

Please note that I'm not advocating that they protect those businesses at the expense of their people by loosening regulations or anything like that. I'm just saying that in -this instance- some argument can be made that they are protecting and representing their people, at least in the short run, and it is almost impossible for anyone to get elected appealing to people on the grounds of 'yes, this is going to cost you money, but in fifty years from now you children will really benefit'.

This kind of action is more a symptom of what needs to be fixed than an illness in and of itself. Unfortunately going the other way and creating a system where representatives only look at the big picture instead of their smaller constituent group causes its own problems.

Re:Traitors to the American Dream

[umghhh]

I suppose that is an aspect of the societal development that the grounding fathers tried hard to prevent from occurring and failed miserably. You know all these scumbags kings and nobles from old Europe that did whatever they pleased to complete their murky plans on the costs of the society on which these parasites fed. Now you have your own 'nobles' and funny thing is - most of them most of you never know that they exist - they are that far from the rest of the society.

Re:Traitors to the American Dream

[Xaedalus]

Gotta second this--there is no such thing as The American People. There is no singular voice of authority and righteousness that has coalesced from a totalitarian and enlightened gestalt of minds. Rather, there are the American Peoples, many of whom bear conflicting interests and actively fight their disagreements out using the political theater. Those Senators are representing people who will be directly harmed by SpaceX's success. Those people and their employers have hired lobbyists to advocate on their behalf, which is totally within their constitutional rights. We just don't like it because their needs directly conflict with ours.

Re:Traitors to the American Dream

[esampson]

I don't like it because I think that it is an illustration of a broken system. It's like someone in a race who is throwing things to tangle up the other people's feet. Yes, they represent their people but that doesn't necessarily excuse their actions. It merely explains them.

Their actions are no more righteous than if the people of their districts directly voted to put obstructions in the way of SpaceX in order to protect their own interests. I only raised the issue of who they represent because the claim was made that they were not representing the American people (which is true).

Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen?

[close_wait]

it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium

Rockets often use compressed helium to maintain pressure in the fuel tanks as they empty

Space-X is running behind on launches

[Animats]

Compare Space-X's launch manifest from a year ago with their current launch manifest. They're six months to a year behind their launch schedule. There were supposed to be three Space-X ISS resupply flights this year, #4, #5, and #6. Flight #4 is currently scheduled for September. There are five commercial customers waiting for their scheduled 2014 launches.

Some of this isn't Space-X's fault, and some of it is. All these are Falcon-9 launches, some with the Dragon capsule. No major new hardware is involved. It's not clear where the holdup is coming from. There have been problems with scheduling at Canaveral. 2014 was supposed to be the year that Space-X caught up on their launch manifest, but that's not happening. Unclear why.

Re:Space-X is running behind on launches

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the only way you can make space flight cheap is by cutting corners to do a bunch of launches. They tried it with the space shuttle and Challenger happened. Right now Space X has a bunch of former NASA people working for them that forced the company to quit cutting corners. Hence the delays. It also means that Space X is no longer profitable.

Re:Space-X is running behind on launches

[WindBourne]

LOL.
I hate to point this out to you, but it took Boeing/L-Mart/ULA well over a decade to get their launches for Atlas V/Delta IV going on schedule.
And SpaceX being even 12 months behind is actually pretty darn good.
SpaceX is moving at a rate of 1-2 launches / month, which is better than what ULA does.

Re:Space-X is running behind on launches

[cheesybagel]

Arianespace is the premier commercial launch company in the world and they delay launches all the time. It is better to delay a launch than to have an unsuccessful launch. Quite often the launch company has to wait for the satellites to be completed before the launch and I bet that is where a lot of the delays are. Also SpaceX has needed to ramp up production and procure more launch sites to satisfy their quite hefty order log. That cannot be done in an instant.

Re:Space-X is running behind on launches

[Areyoukiddingme]

Right now Space X has a bunch of former NASA people working for them...

Has since the very beginning. Elon Musk is no Tony Stark. He doesn't design it all himself. He pays people who know what they're doing to design things, and he decides which option to take if there are several choices, and he uses criteria like reliability, manufacturability, and cost to make his choices, instead of "which lobbyist will give me the best vacation package to Aruba this year."

It also means that Space X is no longer profitable.

Anonymous Coward, just makin' shit up.

You keep using that word

[gman003]

In the letter, they keep going on about anomalies. They don't understand what those are.

Anomalies are not (necessarily) defects, or errors, or problems. Anomalies are deviations from the norm - something that isn't perfect.

I tried to find an example Space Shuttle mission that I could use to compare, but I can't even find a comprehensive list of "anomalies". I can find rollbacks, where the problem required bringing the vehicle back to the assembly building, but I can't find a list even of countdown stops.

Rockets are expensive. When you see a potential problem, you fix it even if there's a 90% chance of it being fine anyways. You don't take risks. For SpaceX, their caution has paid off in a near-100% success rate (one secondary payload was lost after an engine failed on CRS-1. NASA forbade the second burn to insert the secondary payload because the engine failure had reduced the odds of success to 95%).

Further, these are civilian launch vehicles, not missiles. A missile, you expect to be high-reliability, low-maintenance and weather-tolerant. You can't cancel a battle just because a hurricane is coming and you're not sure it can stand up to the wind. But these are civilian rockets - the increased payload and decreased cost you get from not having to battle-harden everything is worth the cost of having to delay the launch if something looks a bit iffy and they want to make sure it's not going to break and wreck your multi-million-dollar payload.

Oh, and then they somehow argue that having several billion dollars worth of flights sold is a bad thing. They frame it as "SpaceX is too slow to keep up with demand", when really it's "the demand is too high for SpaceX to keep up". They have missions sold out to 2019, and on many of them the payload isn't even ready yet. Replace SpaceX with even a perfect ideal, with an infinite supply of ready-to-launch rockets, and those seven Iridium-NEXT launches won't be happening until the actual payloads are done, the next five ISS resupply missions won't happen until the ISS needs the supplies, and the Falcon 9 Heavy test launch won't happen until that rocket is ready.

Re:You keep using that word

[Areyoukiddingme]

...and the Falcon 9 Heavy test launch won't happen until that rocket is ready.

And in any case, the US government isn't paying a nickel for Falcon Heavy design or manufacturing or that test launch.[1] So they have absolutely nothing to complain about.

Re:You keep using that word

[0123456]

I tried to find an example Space Shuttle mission that I could use to compare, but I can't even find a comprehensive list of "anomalies".

NASA has all the shuttle anomaly reports available. Some of them are pretty long.

Just to take the first mission as an example, the body flap went outside design limits during launch, and the commander later said that, if he'd known that at the time, he would have bailed out rather than go to orbit and risk re-entry. The toilet didn't work. Tiles fell off various parts of the exterior. The re-entry software had an incorrect aerodynamic model, requiring them to fly it manually through part of the re-entry. There was partial burn-through on some metal components where the tiles had fallen off. And that's just what I can list from memory.

Rocket science is still Rocket Science at this point.

Re:You keep using that word

[Teancum]

I tried to find an example Space Shuttle mission that I could use to compare, but I can't even find a comprehensive list of "anomalies". I can find rollbacks, where the problem required bringing the vehicle back to the assembly building, but I can't find a list even of countdown stops.

The problem is that nearly every Shuttle flight had significant "anomalies". These were all reported in-house with things like this report for what in this case was very late in the flight history of the Shuttle program. For that matter, I don't think you could find a single flight by anybody other than perhaps North Korea (because you know how excellent the aerospace engineers are that work for that country) which didn't have at least some sort of technical problem on each and every flight.

BTW, I agree with the rest of your statement here too. This letter by these congressmen is in fact fodder for an opponent to really crucify them, assuming that the general public cared much about space policy in the first place.

Republicans Congress want dead Astronauts

[Anonymous Coward]

Brooks, Coffman, and Gardner want less delays, and their impatience will cost the lives of astronauts.

Re:Republicans Congress want dead Astronauts

[WindBourne]

They do NOT want less delays. The GOP is setting up to find fault with NASA's upcoming selection of SpaceX.

Want to bet

[Anonymous Coward]

that all these criticisms would evaporate if Musk announced he will buy rocket parts from contractors in these congressmen's states ?

Re:Want to bet

[WindBourne]

you will note that Texas CONgress critters have been a big fighter against SpaceX.
However, this time, they did not participate in this. Why?

Re:Want to bet

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy, Spacex just announced a launch site to be built near Brownsville Texas.

Re:Want to bet

[WindBourne]

Exactly. Yet, Texas had the test area of SpaceX as well.
However, I think that because of gigafactory, combined with the new launch site, that the texas GOP dropped out of all this and left it up to my 2 CONgress critters and the Alabama bozo.

Say it isn't so!!!!

[Ronin Developer]

"Plait accuses the congressmen of trying to bury private spaceflight under red tape in order to protect established industries in their own states."

Ya, think?

Re:Say it isn't so!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be at all surprised!

Follow the funding

[pr0t0]

Thanks to the awesome new browser plug-in called Greenhouse (how has this not been on slashdot?), here's a little context.

Congressman Mo Brooks gets his biggest financial contributions from the aerospace industry. Among his top-10 contributors are Lockheed Martin (1), Northrup Grumman (2), Boeing (6), and Raytheon(10).

Both congressmen Coffman and Gardner have Koch Industries in their top-10 at 7 and 5 respectively. At first, this didn't mean much to me, but I found the coincidence intriguing so I dug deeper. Koch Industries purchased Molex, Inc. in December for $7.2 billion. Among other things, Molex makes wiring and connectors for defense and aerospace. Is that enough to push a couple of congress critters to voice concerns about Space X? I don't know, but following the money is usually a good first step in determining motive.

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet a Jew is involved somehow too!

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet more Christians are involved than Jews. Suck on that, anti-semite!

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't understand how this kind of bullshit is allowed to happen.

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this a knee jerk reaction? This is /. not a place you post real information!

Re:Follow the funding

[WindBourne]

Actually, ULA is here in Colorado.
RIght now, it is obvius that SpaceX is going to win the up and coming NASA human launch. All of these GOP were part of the group that told NASA to cut the private space funding from 3 down to 1, expecting that it would be Boeing. However, it has backfired VERY BADLY for them, and they are working hard to block the contract going to SpaceX.
Once SpaceX wins it, we will see the GOP basically but forward a bill telling NASA to either award it to Boeing, OR, they will more likely fully fund all 3, if not 4 (ATX with Liberty), companies.

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

I posted Greenhouse to slashdot but it never made the first page. I have the plugin installed. I see where Mo Brooks has top funding from the aerospace industry, how do you use the plugin to find who the contributors are??

Re:Follow the funding

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes... Molex is probably raking in the cash from this...
 
Molex makes enough money from the rest of their business to make it not worthwhile to worry about their aerospace contacts and I'm pretty sure that SpaceX also uses Molex.
 
Get your head out of your ass.

Re:Follow the funding

[mirix]

Well, the Molex bit is kind of a stretch, to me. They make connectors for _everything_, not just aerospace. I'd imagine aerospace is a pretty small amount of their business?

Looks like molex runs about 10% of the global connector market. 70% of which they generate outside of the US. Kinda surprised me their share is that small.

I think defense and areospace use more connectors by Amphenol, or Cannon (now ITT). At least they did 40 years ago.

Re:Follow the funding

[Eravnrekaree]

Molex, those were connectors that every PC builder fondly knows about from the power supply connections.

Re:Follow the funding

[nucrash]

Give me about 100 million in campaign funding, and I will show you how at the federal congressional level. Give me a billion or so if you want to find out at the presidential level.

Mericans

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't fight them, sue them.

Term Limits for Congress

[Anonymous Coward]

NOW can we have term limits for congress? Pretty please? Jesus, these entrenched motherfuckers are pissing me off.

Re:Term Limits for Congress

[Nimey]

Don't be ridiculous. New representatives and senators can be bought just as easily as those who've been there for 20 years.

Re:Term Limits for Congress

[whistlingtony]

I used to be all about term limits too. Then, really, I came upon this mode of thought. They're interchangable robots, for the most part. It's rare to get one with a spine. It's hard to get elected without buckets of money to buy grassroots organizing (ha! grassroots my !@#$). Anyway...

What we NEED to do is get money out of politics. wolf-pac.com

Re:Term Limits for Congress

[jxander]

At least with term limits, you've a chance to get some honest ones every so often, if only by accident.

As it stands now, the big corps just find one guy who's easily purchased and bankroll him until he croaks.

Personally, I think term limits are only half of the solution. The other half is a "none of the above" voting option. In any candidate race, there should be a "None of the above" option. If that option wins, the seat is vacated and a special election is held with new candidates. Repeat as necessary until an actual winner emerges.

Su-35

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su-35

Re:Su-35

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Funny how if the price tag is real, the US could buy thousands of those for the money thrown at F-35.

Re:Su-35

[jfdavis668]

The Su35 is an obsolete design. It may be new, but it is based on a very old aircraft design. It would be like saying that the F15E is state of the art. And, the Su35 is so great that no one but the Russians even want it. And the Russians only have 34. There are about 150 F35s completed or being finished.

Re:Su-35

[Luckyo]

The "aircraft completed while dysfunctional and unable to enter active duty" part is downright crazy and it's very strange that anyone could argue it to be a good thing.

The aircraft that is going to be ready will need to be at the very least upgraded several times, and likely torn apart and rebuilt completely before they are operational. As I understood the program, those built ones are simply so that LM can pretend it delivered something in exchange for massive amount of money sunk into the program so far. While in reality they deliver nothing that actually functions at all, and it ends up costing more because the already built aircraft while base development work is still not complete will mandate spending more to actually get the aircraft operational.

Re:Su-35

[Areyoukiddingme]

...already built aircraft while base development work is still not complete will mandate spending more to actually get the aircraft operational.

By design. Spending more is very much the point of the exercise.

Or does somebody really think we're going to fight in WWIII with these planes?

Re:Su-35

[TubeSteak]

It would be like saying that the F15E is state of the art.

The military has been slowly outfitting the entire F-15 C/D/E fleet with new radar and electronic warfare systems.
So yes, the F-15 will have state of the art systems in it.

With avionics upgrades, most of America's older jets are more than capable of meeting today's threats.
With engine upgrades (very unlikely) the F-15 would be competitive with 4.5 and 5th gen airplanes.

Old != bad

Re:Su-35

[angel'o'sphere]

Russian aircrafts have no problem standing on an air field for a month in mid winter of siberia and launch (without external power and compressed air)

I doubt an american plane even can fly there ... certainly it would not launch after a single night with -30 degrees centigrade.

Re:Su-35

[david_thornley]

You do realize that military airbases have to have, at the very least, fuel and munitions. Adding some external power and compressed air isn't going to be a problem, and if such an external requirement makes it possible to make better warplanes then why not?

Re:Su-35

[angel'o'sphere]

My point is that crafts, aircrafts are made for certain conditions.
In siberia american planes never would fly, plain simple. At least not after a night in the cold.
Nevertheless they are the proclaimed pinnacles of war planes :)

Re:Su-35

[david_thornley]

Why would you think US aircraft wouldn't fly at -30C? That's pretty cold around here, but it normally gets that cold at least once a winter where I live (North Central USA). Countries like Norway and Canada use US warplanes, and I haven't heard them complain that US warplanes are useless in the winter.

All you need to know about this story.

[T.E.D.]

The congressmen in question are Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.).

SpaceX is "competing" (or rather beating the pants off of) a Lockheed Martin / Boeing joint operation called United Launch Alliance (ULA). From their webpage:

ULA program management, engineering, test, and mission support functions are headquartered in Denver, Colo. Manufacturing, assembly and integration operations are located at Decatur, Ala., and...

This is essentially congressmen performing constituent services for their district, albeit in the most cynical way possible.

Re:All you need to know about this story.

[jxander]

I get what you're saying, but I can't buy the "Constituent Services" line, even at it's most cynical.

The only constituents that will feel the pinch here are the upper management of Lockheed/Boeing. The vast majority of workers should have transferable skills. Boeing is bleeding out? Well then, there should be some job openings at Space-X

If these Congress Critters really wanted to help their constituents, they'd be passing legislature that smoothed this transition. Maybe tax breaks for a company that hires local talent, or something like that. Give Space-X some incentives to pick up the slack from Lockheed and Boeing. But those constituents aren't the ones supplying the hookers and blow, so nevermind.

Re:All you need to know about this story.

[T.E.D.]

Well then, there should be some job openings at Space-X

Not in those two cities there aren't. And even if every engineer happily picked up stakes and left their homes for new jobs in other states, what does that do to the rest of the community that suddenly loses all those high paying jobs? Housing prices drop, the local service industry takes a hit (possibly causing more job losses). In general less money is flowing around the district, hurting the local economy, which hurts everyone. Losing lots of high-paying jobs in a community is a BFD. Ask anyone from Detroit, if you don't believe me.

Re:All you need to know about this story.

[jxander]

Actually Detroit is a perfect example to bolster my original point.

The auto industry had such deep connections to Capitol Hill that they never had to worry about much competition. German and Japanese automobiles were stymied and lobbied and mudslung at every opportunity. The whole thing was propped up artificially by red tape and legislature. Ultimately, it wasn't sustainable. Detroit was so far behind the times that everything came crashing down around them, and we're left with the wasteland that it is today.

Had the congress critters removed themselves from the equation, and let Detroit suffer earlier, the suffering could have been significantly lower. American cars would have started to lose ground sooner, hopefully before they were completely lost causes, and just maybe caused manufacturers to get with the times and keep themselves competitive. At least they would've had a chance. Yeah, it would still have been painful. But at least the city would've stood a chance.

Now we're starting the same song and dance with Space-X. If Congress puts up the same fight for Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop that they did for GM, Ford and Chrysler, expect similar results (cough*F-35*cough) Space-X will eventually get tired of the BS and pack up. Musk is from South Africa, and he's half Canadian and half Brit... so I think he can find somewhere else to setup shop if the US government gives him enough crap. At which point, he can just sell the rockets to NASA if they're still interested, siphoning American dollars into whichever country he's working from. Oh, and this is the guy trying to revolutionize the auto industry at the same time, AND build that giga-factory which might help create some jobs... but na, lets keep the short sighted approach and make sure the middle managers in these 3 peoples' towns stay well employed, and keep their property values high.

11 out of 11

[gman003]

Let's see...
Ariane 1 - second and fifth launches failed
Ariane 2 - only 6 launches, first failed
Ariane 3 - fifth launch failed
Ariane 4 - eighth launch failed
Ariane 5 - first launch failed, two partial failures in first 11
Atlas A - only 8 launches, 5 failed
Atlas B - only 10 launches, 3 failed
Atlas C - only 6 launches, 2 failed
Delta - first launch failed
Delta II - first eleven successful
Falcon 1 - only five launches, first three failed
Falcon 9 - first eleven launches successful, although a secondary payload on the fourth launch was aborted as a precaution
Long March 1 - only 2 launches, both successful
Long March 2 - first launch failed
Long March 3 - no complete failures in first 11, but 1 and 8 were partial failures
N-1 - only four launches, all failed horribly
Proton - third launch failed
Proton-K - second, third, fourth and sixth launches failed
Proton-M - eleventh launch failed
Saturn I - only ten launches, all successful
Saturn IB - only nine launches, all successful (unless you count Apollo 1 - it didn't launch but still killed three astronauts)
Saturn V - second launch (Apollo 6) failed, Apollo 13 doesn't count because it was a payload, not launcher, failure
Soyuz - third launch failed, with fatalities
Soyuz-U - seventh launch failed
Soyuz-FG - first eleven launches successful
Space Shuttle - first eleven successful (19th was first partial failure (ATO), 25th was first full failure)
Titan I - fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth and tenth launches failed
Titan II - ninth and eleventh launches failed
Titan III - first and sixth launches failed
Titan IV - seventh launch failed
Zenit-2 - first and second launches failed

Yep, getting zero failures in your first eleven launches is pretty damn rare.

Re:11 out of 11

[thrich81]

Great list, thanks for doing the research, but I don't think you can pin Apollo 1 on the Saturn 1B at all -- that fire was 100% due to faults in the payload, the Apollo Command Module. In your list I would say the most impressive run is the Saturn 1 -- ten out of ten successes back in the old days, first launch in 1961, and they were using a very early model liquid hydrogen upper stage in the last six flights. If you count the Saturn 1B as just an upgraded Saturn 1, then it was 19 straight successes -- 19 out of 19 attempts.

Ridiculousness

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hear them cry when another country welcomes SpaceX, their technology and business.

Big Govt Republican hypocrites

[andydread]

Mike Coffman R-CO 6th District, Mo Brooks R-AL 5th District, and Cory Gardner R-CO 4th District. Like to talk about the evil big govt until they start to sing the praises for big govt to build their own rockets. Yet Govt has always used contractors to build rockets. What a bunch of pathetic hypocrites. And the great unwashed keep voting these clowns back in.

So do something

[whistlingtony]

Don't complain about it here. Don't argue about Republicans vs. Democrats on a forum. That's useless. Reach out. Make yourself heard. If you're a constituent of these guys, ruin their names a little bit.... Talk to your neighbors about them, and then TELL THEM YOU'RE DOING IT. Representative democracy only works if you make the representatives listen to you.

Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) : http://coffman.house.gov/ Phone: 202.225.7882

Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) : http://brooks.house.gov/ Phone: 202.225.4801 Snicker. That's the War on Whites guy. :D

Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) : http://gardner.house.gov/ Phone: (202) 225-4676

I listed the DC phone numbers, but you can go to the bottom of their web pages and call their home offices too. Ask them why they're trying to bury one of America's leading space companies in red tape. Ask them why they appear to be using big government against a private company. Ask them how they justify that as Republicans. Ask them if they were paid to do so by large companies. :D

Re:So do something

[whistlingtony]

OMG that's so fun... the poor schlubs answering the phone get so flummoxed. :D

Beware ignorance. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

Helium is used as a pressurant for the LOX and RP-1 (rocket-grade kerosene) propellants. It has the advantage of not contaminating the LOX and gaseous nitrogen can, but it's a bear to work with, being a minuscule monoatomic gas. Additionally, SpaceX had a helium COPV (composite overwrapped pressure vessel) or its fittings fail on a recent launch campaign, which did cause some delays.

SpaceX has never used liquid hydrogen and is not planning to. Their current main engines use LOX/RP-1, and their smaller engines use hypergolics. Their next-generation engine project, now early in development, will use LOX and liquid methane, and the rocket designed around those new Raptor engines will not use gaseous helium as a pressurant according to present knowledge.

This is a prelude to SpaceX's winning.

[WindBourne]

Right now, there is a major contest going on with NASA. Basically, SpaceX, Boeing, and SNC are battling to win a contract to provide human launches for NASA. Interestingly, this was to go to all 3 companies, but it was the GOP that insisted that it be narrowed down to 1 company. Now, they are nervous that the obvious winner is SpaceX and are going to great lengths to block this.
Hopefully, SpaceX will win this contest, because I have no doubt that the house GOP will change their minds and suddenly fund all 3 companies.
Sadly, the corruption and treason runs very deep in the GOP.

Tea Party needs to stick to message.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am very empathic to the Tea Party's orginal message. Centrist democrat here who DOES understand that currrent spending isn't sustainable. It sucks being a Liberal with economics training :)

But when they, the Tea Party, allow liars like Sean Hannity and the other asshats from Fox News and Talk Radio asshats to commandeer the message, then you have lost.

Tea Party candidates need to say, "This is about small government, limited spending, and low taxes. Period end of story. NO abortion. NO religion. NO immagration. NO anything else."

OK.

The ORIGINAL MESSAGE touched a LOT of people but it was taken over by assholes.

So, it wasn't just the media - the media was GIVEN the ammunition.

Re:Tea Party needs to stick to message.

[JackieBrown]

Tea Party candidates need to say, "This is about small government, limited spending, and low taxes. Period end of story. NO abortion. NO religion. NO immagration. NO anything else."

That's crap. When they say small government, the left make it a social issue by dragging in funding for plan parenthood, welfare, and other causes.

Where exactly do you want to cut spending? I'm guessing only the military, right? Funny thing is that when a Republican suggests this (Paul comes to mind), they are then called isolationists who don't care about the suffering of peoples in non-white countries.

All government spending is tied - at least indirectly - with social issues

Atlas (sic) Shrugged

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, this is going to get the Randroids up in a lather. Congress is trying to drag down ubermensch Elon Musk to line the pockets of their cronies.

Re:Atlas (sic) Shrugged

[sound vision]

In this case, it sounds like they're right and relevant.

hypocrites or no

[Presto Vivace]

whatever their motivation, it might not be a bad idea to drive a spoke in Elon Musk's wheel. SpaceX Hit with Second Suit from Employees, Allege Unpaid Wages

WE LOVE BUSINESS!

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they pay us - if they're truly independent upstart businesses, we want no part of them.

See: SpaceX vs. Boeing, Tesla vs. Car Dealers Associations, etc...

Sadly, those gentlemen are from my district

[Anonymous Coward]

In their defense, they are asking NASA to provide information, not SpaceX.

The tone of what they are asking seems silly given the complexity of 'rocket science' and the unique funding situation of SpaceX.

Assuming that SpaceX is a real contender, the questions should be easy to dismiss with hard facts.
In which case, the gentlemen may get answers that make them wish they had not brought this question to light.

On the other hand, it these question show a real problem where SpaceX is way behind other launch options, then this would be useful as well.

This should be a real comparison comparing proposed versus actual schedules and success rates.
Think initial Shuttle schedules versus what it actually flew.

Given fair ground rules for comparison, I'd bet on SpaceX in this.

Devleopment Risk Management

[Baldrson]

As a person credited with launch service privatizing legislation by Congressman (Ron Packard, R-Ca), in his introduction of my congressional testimony on private space development, the Congressman who sponsored that legislation, let me weigh in:

If your own money is at stake, you approach risk management in a very different way than when someone else's money is at stake.

Public funds for development results in a very different sort of risk management than private funds for risk management.

The typical argument for public funding of development is that the risk management under private funding is to, basically, not bother taking the risk at all -- and that therefore the public must.

Well... this has as its unspoken assumption that the downstream benefit is so great that it is clearly justifiable to take the risk. OK, let's go with that assumption and then let us further ask: Why is it that the capital markets are failing in their primary reason for existence: To manage investment risk?

The folks arguing for public funding of development need to provide answers for that question taking the form either of, a renunciation of the primary principle of capitalism -- since the public becomes more competent at investment the less risk there is -- or, proposals to correct the statutory regime under which investment is made so that the capital markets function properly.

In my role promoting private over public investment in launch services development, I was aware that there was, indeed, a capital market failure that needed to be fixed through statutory changes in the tax system. Yet I proceeded to promote private over public investment. Why? Because in the foregoing discussion of trade offs between private vs public risk management there goes unspoken the risk that a positive feedback system can easily develop where political action is funded by tax dollars, however indirect. This positive feedback system results in a body politic that excludes from political influence those who are not receiving tax dollars -- such as inventors in the garages who are trying to bring even incremental improvements to the market. Moreover, this lack of political influence is compounded by the fact that such inventors are seen as business risks by those whose political action is predicated on the technical ignorance of politicians -- hence government funds not only fund political action, but actively suppress improvement.

There is simply no way out of this mess but to, first, turn off the funding sources if at all possible, so that it is possible to then address the real underlying capital market failure that results in lack of investment in viable technologies of great value.

The role guys like Musk should be taking on here is to point out the capital market failure and recommend appropriate fixes in the statutory environment so that there is no place for the public sector rent-seeking of government funded political agencies, posing as technology companies, to hide.

One year after I gave my testimony before Congress, I did make a proposal for just such a reform in the tax and regulatory code in the form of a white paper which I sent to various think-tanks in the beltway. The problem is those think-tanks are, themselves, now funded by the same positive feedback loop that actively supports existing cash flows and their expansion -- which includes avoiding any reforms that would correct the capital market failures to which technosocialist political agencies point to justify their receipt of taxpayer money.

Here's what Musk needs to promote:

Replace all taxes on economic activity with a single tax on net liquidation value of assets. This is rational in that those assets enjoy government protection in a manner similar to the protection provided by property insurance corporations. In other words, taxes become a service fee equivalent to the i

Re:Devleopment Risk Management

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like Mr. Musk providing funding coupled with NASA as an anchor tenant is working for SpaceX.

Changing the rules might help other entrants into this market.
Which might be good for space but bad for SpaceX.

I can see why others might want to do this, but I don't see why Mr. Musk should advocate for this?

Re:Devleopment Risk Management

[Baldrson]

I'm taking Musk at his word that he wants to see fair and open competition as his self-interest is based on a belief in his own superiority in a "may the best man win" spirit. I see no indication from Musk, as yet, that he is engaged in public sector rent seeking, so I tend to take him at his word here.

Re:Devleopment Risk Management

[jafac]

I find your ideas intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter!

Wrong desired function for congresscritters

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I read a post here about the congresscritters being responsible for bring back tax dollars ( federal funding ).
I really DO NOT agree with that as a primary purpose. I seem to mistakenly believe that they are there to
represent MY WILL in terms of law, oversight of other federal beauracracies, and to be responsible for control of money
(in the sense of " This needs to be done and is the right thing" versus " I want this to go here and I'll agree to allow
this other to got there").
      In other words, not a deal-maker, but a real attempt to do the right thing for the country, regardless of the
effects on individual states/cities/congresscritters buddies.... and to STAY BOUGHT.
( we, the people, bought them with our votes ).
      What we have are congresscritters who make the local used-car dealers seem rather pristine.

Signatures.

[Anonymous Coward]

I like how they sign their names in marker.

I guess that's a step up from crayons.

Leftist drive

[Anonymous Coward]

Your tax scheme will destroy every company that thinks long-term enough to be able to survive a hiccup. It also means that they'll pull cute shenanigans to avoid taxes. I'll just transfer all of my capital assets to the city of Detroit, whos politicians I own, and lease it back with a poisoned contract. Poof, now I'm paying no taxes, and I've got the city by the nuts, because this also means that they've screwed if they piss me off.

Like all simplistic approaches, yours falls prey to easy tricks.

Re:Leftist drive

[Baldrson]

Anon writes: "Your tax scheme will destroy every company that thinks long-term enough to be able to survive a hiccup."

Argument by assertion.

"I'll just transfer all of my capital assets to the city of Detroit"

It doesn't matter to whom you transfer the assets for lease-back. They'll be assessed on the market value of the assets and you'll be assessed on the market value of the lease. Any attempt to void the requirement of liquidation through, say, an asset that self-destructs if it isn't biometrically linked to your "shrewd" butt will be seen for what it is: Interference in the liquidation of the asset, which will result in criminal and civil damages exactly equivalent to doing damages, with criminal intent, to any public good.

, whos politicians I own, and lease it back with a poisoned contract. Poof, now I'm paying no taxes, and I've got the city by the nuts, because this also means that they've screwed if they piss me off.

Re:Leftist drive

[Anonymous Coward]

poof, your "simple" system just got complex and SCO level litigous.

Re:why stop at the Su-35

[maroberts]

The closest thing at a similar stage of development is the PAK-FA T-50, which looks as though it will get flying before the F-35

A P-47 could not...

[maroberts]

...carry 8,000lb+ of bombs to target as your typical modern F-16 can. Also I'll take a 20mm Vulcan cannon with LCOS over 8 machine guns any day.

Anyway if you're going to bounce rubble, do it properly with a BUFF and clean up anything left with an A-10!!

Re:A P-47 could not...

[jcr]

.carry 8,000lb+ of bombs to target

How many thousands of pounds of explosives does it take to blow up five dudes in a VW bus?

-jcr

Re:A P-47 could not...

[maroberts]

It is not how much explosives it takes to blow up a bus, it is how many buses you can take out in one mission. :-)

Your "facts" are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's just ONE example: you said "The problem with the F-35 program is that it has precisely a single customer, the U.S. government"

In fact, the following countries are deeply involved (contributing money, involved in setting the requirements, manufacturing subassemblies and taking deliveries for deployment): [1] United Kingdom [2] Italy [3] Netherlands [4] Turkey [5] Canda [6] Australia [7] Denmark and [8] Norway.>/p>

Incidentally, this is another reason why the American taxpayer should NOT be buying this plane. It will be the most expensive plane in history and will NOT provide "air superiority" since 8 other countries will get it at the same time and they will have their own security issues and diplomatic ties etc. The fact that Turkey will have a servicing center and all the documents and spare parts means that Iran will have the F35 in short order. The justification for Turkey is that they are a secular Muslim state that is in NATO - but the old rules in Turkey have been broken; the current leadership in Turkey is Muslim-brotherhood aligned and has repeatedly shirked its alliance with the US.

Oh, and Howard Hughes did NOT design the Japanere Zero. You probably are confusing a few bits of history you have heard. The Zero DID use an engine nacelle design produced by NACA (the US government aviation research agency that preceded NASA) and like all aviation manufacturers, Mitsubishi learned by observing other aviation pioneers around the world (EVERYBODY in aviation was admiring some of the things Hughes did, just as everybody looked at what other guys in aviation were doing). Werner Von Braun and his "friends", for example, studied what Robert Goddard was doing with rockets in the US, but this does not mean that Goddard designed the V-2 for Von Braun.

Re:Your "facts" are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points, I agree that Turkey has become a concern.

Re:Your "facts" are wrong

[Teancum]

I would note that all of the other countries buying the F-35 (a stupid proposition in my book BTW) all do so contingent upon the U.S. government buying them. I'll also point out that Lockheed-Martin is not funding the design and construction of this airplane. It is simply the U.S. taxpayers alone. If anything, it is the U.S. government who is in effect offering its design to other countries... as a means to offset the development cost.

It's about PorkBarrel

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to RTFA to know that this is just about Pork Barrel spending.

The guy behind this is Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama. Where does ULA have it's factory? That's right, Alabama.

So now, we have the Alabama congressman Mo Brooks jumping on the bandwagon. Where to those two Colorado guys come from? Oh, yeah they represent me, in Centennial Colorado, where ULA happens to have its headquarters.

Fuck these guys. They're holding the whole country back for corporate welfare. Of course, when poor folks need a hand...

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[sillybilly]

I think they are just trying to better our space future, when Earth is full, with a few ten billions of people, and the rest of the 100 trillion people have to take up residence in outer space, as farmers on space stations. Property tax should be cheap where property value is low, because there is an abundance of it. There is a limited amount of 2D real estate down on this planet, but there is a whole lot of 3D real estate in outer space, if we only had the technology and economic means.
And btw, the problem with costs and engineers these days is that everything is overcomputerized, and then you're locked into some stupid little limited world, provided to you by the software, and it's very inflexible. Like it's standard to use MS Office, and Excel for spreadsheets, and it's quick to make a graph, but the graphs look very dull, and lack efficiency, style, flair and spirit compared to the manual do whatever you want paper and pencil ways of 1935, where the graphs are vibrant, full of style, efficiency, flair and spirit. Same goes for all the other super expensive computer 3d modeling bullcrap they must be using at Lockheed and the like, plus the overcomplicated designs they feel they have to come up with simply to look smart, like they are earning their money, like they know what they are doing. Like a whole bunch of scientific articles these days are way overcomplicated, lack a good effective point that everyone cares about, and are loaded with crappy math that even the authors don't understand, but they hope nobody else does, so they look intelligent. Same goes with space design that's too complex just to make the authors look smart. They all give you complexity failure issues. These engineers all need to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[sillybilly]

They also need to read this page: http://www.spaceacts.com/STARS...

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[sillybilly]

People like to fuck and make babies. But it leads to overpopulation problems, and massive extinction of other species in nature. The solution is to escape to outer space, where it's gonna take a while to run out of room. You can start with sending the prisoners first if people are reluctant to go and lack an adventurous spirit, just like the British did to their penal colonies in Australia. In Australia there were indigenous people, same in the Americas, but such an issue should not arise in outer space, and there are no moral cock blocks against a full invasion of outer space from Earth. The only issue is cost and economics, and for that a Lunar base for materials obtained in a low gravity well is a prime strategic objective. Fuck Mars and the asteroids, the Moon is a lot closer to invade. And unlike on Antarctica, that's nobody's land, there is plenty of high energy sunshine, and energy is the stuff of life, it is convertible to motion like a heartbeat, or to structure, like a green leaf.

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[whistlingtony]

There's one more issue. None of the nearby planets (yes, this includes mars) has a magnetosphere, and hence they have no protection from radiation stripping off their atmosphere.

There will be no terraforming of mars. If we ever live on mars, it will be in underground bunkers...

Also, why would we spend that much on prisoners? The only part of your post that was accurate was the fucking and the massive extinction. (even the overpopulation was wrong. Food abundance, not fucking, leads to overpopulation.)

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[david_thornley]

While there is a whole lot of room in outer space, there's darn few places where it's possible to survive outside artificial environment, and all those places are in roughly a eight thousand mile radius from my chair here.

Also, we're not solving population issues by throwing people off-planet. Right now, we're increasing the population at maybe seventy million per year (assuming 1% growth, which I think is somewhere near on target). That's roughly two per second, every second of every hour, every hour of every day, every day of the year, and these people have to be continuously in environments that provide air and radiation shielding. If you take a look at Space-X's most optimistic projected costs for low Earth orbit, you can see this simply isn't going to happen.

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[AK Marc]

None of the nearby planets (yes, this includes mars) has a magnetosphere, and hence they have no protection from radiation stripping off their atmosphere.

So Venus has no protection of its atmosphere? I guess that's why it's so thin.

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[magarity]

Of course, when poor folks need a hand...

You lost perspective in this last sentence; income redistribution account for the lion's share of the entire federal budget next to which the price of these rockets isn't even a rounding error.

Re:It's about PorkBarrel

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

really, the best place on Mars to colonize would be the middle-planet canyons. Plenty of caves, and eventually we could build a cover over parts of it and begin transforming the canyon system itself.

Re:Old DOES = Bad

[NemoinSpace]

Hate to break the news to you son. Old geezers have been sending the kids to fight their wars for centuries. You might also consider the average geezer has been messing with women longer then you've been alive. Now THAT is stamina.
Don't take this the wrong way. We admire our youth. I just hope you live long enough to become one of us.

ah, but in modern America

[Anonymous Coward]

the unionized (Democrat) teachers and the (Democrat) media have propagandized the younger generations to focus on all the wrong things. People have been taught to fear "extremism" (without reference to WHAT they are extreme about) and "radicalism" (again, the level of commitment rather than the substance) and "fundamentalism" (same stupidity).

There is a MASSIVE difference between a "radical libertarian" and a "radical Muslim". (the libertarian won't kill you for flying a kite, playing music, or being gay)

There is an enourmous difference between a "Christian Fundamentalist" and a "Muslim Fundamentalist" (hint for the ignorant: only ONE saws off peoples' heads, and while the Christian will oppose gay marriage and say "homosexuality is a sin", the other guy will hang a gay guy from the nearest tall structure and demand that anybody else convert to Islam, pay a special tax and live as a second-class citizen, or die)

In any conflict between an "Extreme Amish" and an "Extreme Shiite Muslim", you probably should select the guy in the buggy with the straw hat as your friend

When confronted by a Star Wars fanatic and a Muslim fanatic, you are probably better-off hanging out with the guy in the storm trooper costume.

It turns out that "extremist episcopals" and "extremist methodists" don't hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

This is all a way that multicultural fools have come up with to try to deny the reality that some cultures and belief systems really are more dangerous and toxic than others. It's an act of anti-intellectual wishful thinking to believe that WHAT people believe does not matter as long as nobody believes anything with any intensity (which is the lunacy this generation has been brainwashed into). WHAT people believe actually matters; it's actually the most-important thing about ANY human being. Once you know WHAT somebody believes, you THEN can decide how good or bad the intensity of their beliefs is.

The Democrats played-up this nonesense in the 1964 Presidential election when Barry Goldwater said "Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice." They pretended that this made him a dangerous fanatic who might harm people's liberty (even though that's precisely contrary to the basic logic of the statement). Barry Goldwater was a libertarian - the guy supported "gay rights" and was wary of "social conservatives". The left hated Barry so much they voted for LBJ and they got the Vietnam War and the military draft. Some things never change, and one of those things is that the left finds it easy to manipulate young voters to vote for the wrong guy based on rhetoric rather than substance...

It should be tied up

[EmagGeek]

Let me put it this way. When I hire an engineer, do I want to hire the guy who gets stuff right the first time, and thoroughly validates and identifies and fixes little issues before publishing results? Or, do I want to hire the guy that gets it done, hurries to publish results with tons of niggling little problems, and ultimately gets it right after several iterations of fixing minor problems?

Of course I want the first guy. Yes, lots of development has issues, but if the government is finding all of these little issues that can be fixed "within hours," you'd think SpaceX would have a good enough process in place to find and fix those trivial errors before releasing results or product.

Re:It should be tied up

[dbIII]

That first guy doesn't exist unless he's had others make the mistakes for him, taken credit for the work of others or kept quiet about the development process.
That bridge of a new type that doesn't fall down was not designed flawlessly overnight. The nice thing with engineering is we can make a lot of mistakes on paper and fix them before construction commences.

Re:It should be tied up

[village fool]

If you are not making mistakes, you are not making anything at all!

Re:It should be tied up

[EmagGeek]

You missed my point entirely. I'm not saying people don't make mistakes. I'm saying I want the guy who does validation work and debugs his shit BEFORE handing it over to the customer, not AFTER.

Protecting Russian industry

[dbIII]

When it gets down to it these Congressmen are protecting Russian industry by messing about this way. I wonder how they would handle being confronted by that unintended consequence given the current sabre rattling by and against Putin?
If they want to escalate into stupid games then rub their noses in the stupid consequences.

Watch out for ULA Propaganda

[catchblue22]

I have posted before that there is evidence that ULA has initiated a propaganda campaign against Space X. From what I have read, Shockey Scofield Solutions, which is a PR firm hired by ULA is tightly linked with congressional lobbyist culture...they know how to pull particular strings in Washington. This seems to have their fingerprints all over it.

We should really be aware of the reason why ULA was formed in the first place. A few years ago the government decided to bring competition into launch procurement, by creating a bidding process. The dominant/only American players, Boeing and Lockheed responded by merging their launch products into the United Launch Alliance so that in almost all cases there would be only one bidder for American launches. This resulted in an increase in launch costs.

Enter SpaceX, which looks to be a real competitor. ULA can't absorb Space X, so they seem to be doing everything they can to sabotage them instead. From proposing financial rules on bidding companies that are biased against smaller players, to focussing on trivial "anomolies" that put uncertainty in the (simple) minds of Congressional lawmakers, to floating fanciful speculative stories about future vaporware "Space Planes" that will leapfrog SpaceX's cheaper launch platforms, to calling Elon Musk a corporate welfare bum (as if ULA wasn't the queen of queens of welfare queens).

The simple fact is that Space X has taken older proven technology and molded it into what promises to be a robust and reliable launch platform. ULA knows this, and the only thing they know how to do is to make this a gutter fight. They are despicable.

spacex has cheap payloads, ULA expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

SpaceX and ULA are serving 2 different markets. SpaceX is serving the low cost, don't care if rocket blows up market.

In contrast, ULA serves the US military, billion dollar satellite, must be very reliable market. ULA really should be launching astronauts at the point.

So, Spacex should release info on its technical failures. Its customers shouldn't care. But, when Elon talks about putting people into orbit, I think there is some delusion on his part.

Same Sick Crap

[JimSadler]

Like most of the House and Senate we have an example here of people wanting to sell out their nation in order to bag some money for their home boys. To them it doesn't matter if tax dollars are wasted or progress is ruined such that other nations get ahead of us. It only matters if they drag the bacon through the dirt back to their nest. I wonder how much Dick Cheney gets paid from this sort of theft. No bid contracts are really suspicious.

3==1

[Anonymous Coward]

3 Republican Congressmen
1 braincell

Good small Government Republicans

[Ol Olsoc]

Patriotic, God fearing, Right thinking, Small Government, free marketeers are true to their principles, except when they aren't.

You shoulda kept quiet and been presumed smart

[Anonymous Coward]

Having posted, we all now know you are an idiot

The TEA Party only arose recently and has NO concern over the President's skin color. Some of the most well-known TEA Party leaders are minorities and a few of the political people they support are black. Just a few TEA Party faves:

Ted Cruz (Hispanic)

Dr. Carson (Black)

Colonel West (Black)

Mia Love (Black)

It's long been a very dishonest "talking point" among Democrats that Nixon's "Southern Strategy" was to embrace racists in the south and lure them away from the Democrats. The facts are a tad inconventient for the party of race (the Democrats, who owned every single slave in US History and have ALWAYS fixated on skin colors). The GOP provided the votes that put the civil rights bills "over-the-top" in congress - and then we're supposed to believe that all the racists in the south immediately decided to rebel against that legislation ... by joining the GOP?!?!?!? Nope. The old racist democrats of the south stayed in the Democrat party where they chose a new strategy for keeping black people down: give them enough govt aid and housing (in concentrated govt-run slums) to keep them addicted to the aid but withdraw the aid from any black person who started to rise toward self-sufficiency. No, the southern dems who switched to the GOP were the social conservatives and the patriotic types who, in the 1969 timeframe, saw the hard-left hippies dope smokers and flag burners taking over that party.

The TEA PArty types have NOTHING to do with Nixon or any "Southern Strategy" anyway... they got their start when Bush went full-on crony-capitalist in 2008 and bailed-out rich Wall St bankers and car companies and then the new left-wing president entered office in 2009 and tripled-down on the cronyism. Obamacare is a brilliant example: The Democrats gathered on capitol hill behind closed and locked doors with lobbyists for the big insurance companies and the big drug companies to pass a law requiring all Americans to buy specific products from those companies (which the government gives for free to other citizens). TOTAL crony-capitalist play! THAT is why TEA Partiers despise Obama - NOT his flipping skin color!!!!!

Term Limits

[village fool]

TERM LIMITS! We need term limits! They are only in it for themselves. There is no reason any of us can't represent our district. Send them up there for a term and then send someone new! Representing the people and making laws is not rocket science, you know. Time to "right size" congress. It made sense to have districts when we had only horses. Now with modern communication, we can cut the number of "representatives" way down. Think of the savings!

You did say that

[dbIII]

do I want to hire the guy who gets stuff right the first time

That guy is the one that is just lucky or takes credit for the work of others and is going to start making his first mistakes on your time later. Even a damn good prototype that gets a job done generally sucks compared with what you can do with even a little more work on the rough edges.
If you want instant perfection of something new the people pretending to be perfect win over someone that is really approaching it.

Three Republicans from Colorado and Alabama

[nucrash]

So these guys are clearly on the payroll of Boeing and Lockheed.

Does this surprise anyone that this trio of tards is obstructing progress that could be detrimental to their profits?
Considering the cost overruns that Lockheed and Boeing have had as both military contractors and NASA contractors, is anyone surprised that we have representatives trying to prevent the end of their gravy train?

Ayn Rand come to life

[SimplyGeek]

Someone's been reading Atlas Shrugged. Using government to tie up your competitors with burdensome rules to protect established interests even pre-dates Rand.

1st I've Heard of it !

[Anonymous Coward]

Technical problems? Really? How big are these problemS? Space X has NEVER LOST ANYTHING IN SPACE. No rocket has ever exploded on the launch pad. I don't see a big problem here ....

Simply, It's Political

[BenderTheRobot]

Musk supported Obama. So, the Republicans retaliate. That's how it's done in politics. (Democrats too.) Oh, and don't be surprised if the Republicans were supported by SpaceX competitors. If so, this tying-up is what politicians are SUPPOSED to do.

Real Issue

[pmeoliver]

The issue is not who built the rocket or who paid to build the rocket. The issue is transparency relative to the anomalies that SpaceX has incurred during countdowns and flights. When ULA or Boeing or Antares has a problem with a launch or a flight, there is a full investigation and the government gets briefed on the problems, their causes and their solutions. Have we seen the same from the SpaceX problems? That is what the letter is about. Nothing else. Martin O.

Damn Teabaggers/Republitards

[Gruff 2005]

They will never understand science or how it works. They would rather point fingers at imagined enemies.

I understand what they are doing and know that is

[Anonymous Coward]

When the BRILLIANT Burt Rutan received the coveted Collier Trophy in reference to Spaceship One, he properly roasted NASA for almost making it not happen. NASA has influence over contractors whom in turn have control over job sites and the jobs issued to those sites. Do YOU think NASA has any pull with Congressmen ? The answer my friends...is blowing in the winds.

ABS

[Anonymous Coward]

Anthony David Photography Greece Absinthia Stacy