Slashdot Mirror
Texas Lawmakers Press NASA To Base Lunar Lander Program In Houston (arstechnica.com)
Eric Berger writes via Ars Technica: The Apollo missions that flew to the Moon during the 1960s were designed and controlled by what is now known as Johnson Space Center, the home of the famous "Mission Control." Moreover, the astronauts that flew to the Moon all lived in Houston. It would stand to reason, therefore, that as NASA gears up to return to the Moon, major elements of this program would likewise be controlled from the Texas metropolis that styles itself "Space City." Times change, however. In recent months, the politically well-positioned Marshall Space Flight Center, in Huntsville, Alabama, has been quietly pressing leaders with NASA Headquarters for program management of mid- to large-size landers to the lunar surface, which would evolve into human landers. Sources indicated this effort was having some success.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
However, Texas legislators have now begun to push back. On Tuesday, both of Texas' senators (John Cornyn and Ted Cruz), as well as three representatives with space-related committee chairs (John Culberson, Lamar Smith, and Brian Babin), wrote a letter to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "We support NASA's focus on returning to the Moon and using it as part of a stepping stone approach to place American boots on the surface of Mars in the 2030s," the Texas Republicans wrote. "As NASA reviews solicitations for lunar landers, we write to express our strong support for the establishment of NASA's lunar lander program at the Johnson Space Center." The letter reminds Bridenstine of Houston's strong spaceflight heritage.
If you want Houston back in the thick of space missions, start voting for a reduction in military budgets and a transfer of funding into the sciences.
Or, talk to the DOD about building a US Space Force facility in Houston.
Or, Texas can fund it's own space program. If that sounds silly to you then consider that Texas has more people and money than many nations on the planet, and some of those nations smaller than Texas sent stuff into space. The government doesn't have to fund everything, just make some deals with private companies to get them to launch from there and use Houston as a base of operations.
Just voting money out of the military and into space exploration won't necessarily make missions to the moon orbit around Houston. If they want to be in on the deal then they need to make an offer that NASA cannot refuse. I'm thinking that means government spending on the state, county, and municipal levels, not federal. Texas is a big state but they don't have enough votes to divert federal funds on their own.
When it comes down to it the REAL money isn't in the budget for NASA, or even in the total budget for the federal government. The real money is in the private sector. Get private businesses interested in missions to the moon, make Houston a good place to do business, and people will be standing in line to hand out money.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Cody shows how far the stars are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The government doesn't create jobs. We're told this over and over. The Cato Institute says so. And they're not alone. A quick search shows a multitude of people all saying the government can't create jobs.
So why the big fuss over where a non-job producing venture is to be placed? It's not like anyone is going to get a job out of this.
How about letting NASA decide where it is best to do things, regardless of political desires. This would allow them to select the best site based on personnel availability, existing resources, potential expansion costs, and a host of other factors.
Keep in mind that the space shuttle Challenger was lost in part due to congressional delegation pressure from Utah. Its Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) were manufactured in Utah which required the SRBs to be built in segments due to the maximum length of a rail car. It is possible to build the SRBs near the ocean thereby avoiding the complications of segmenting the SRBs. This would have reduced the weight and complexity of the SRB as well as improved its safety.
NASA has a history of being used as a cash cow for states with political clout. Just keep in mind that this can have impacts that go beyond getting the best value for the taxpayer.