Bloomberg: revamping US space policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

docm

Guest
<p>Link....</p><p><strong><font size="2"><span class="news_story_title">Obama Moves to Counter China in Space With Pentagon-NASA Link </span><br /></font></strong></p><p>By Demian McLean</p><p>Jan. 2 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.&rsquo;s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China. </p><p>Obama&rsquo;s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency&rsquo;s planned launch vehicle, which isn&rsquo;t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who&rsquo;ve discussed the idea with the Obama team. </p><p>The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China&rsquo;s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military. </p><p>&ldquo;The Obama administration will have all those issues on the table,&rdquo; said Neal Lane, who served as President Bill Clinton&rsquo;s science adviser and wrote recently that Obama must make early decisions critical to retaining U.S. space dominance. &ldquo;The foreign affairs and national security implications have to be considered.&rdquo; </p><p>China, which destroyed one of its aging satellites in a surprise missile test in 2007, is making strides in its spaceflight program. The military-run effort carried out a first spacewalk in September and aims to land a robotic rover on the moon in 2012, with a human mission several years later. </p><p>A Level of Proficiency </p><p>&ldquo;If China puts a man on the moon, that in itself isn&rsquo;t necessarily a threat to the U.S.,&rdquo; said Dean Cheng, a senior Asia analyst with CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Virginia-based national-security research firm. &ldquo;But it would suggest that China had reached a level of proficiency in space comparable to that of the United States.&rdquo; </p><p>Obama has said the Pentagon&rsquo;s space program -- which spent about $22 billion in fiscal year 2008, almost a third more than NASA&rsquo;s budget -- could be tapped to speed the civilian agency toward its goals as the recession pressures federal spending. </p><p>NASA faces a five-year gap between the retirement of the space shuttle in 2010 and the first launch of Orion, the six- person craft that will carry astronauts to the International Space Station and eventually the moon. Obama has said he would like to narrow that gap, during which the U.S. will pay Russia to ferry astronauts to the station. </p><p>NASA Resistance </p><p>The Obama team has asked NASA officials about the costs and savings of scrapping the agency&rsquo;s new Ares I rocket, which is being developed by Chicago-based Boeing Co. and Minneapolis-based Alliant Techsystems Inc. </p><p>NASA chief Michael Griffin opposes the idea and told Obama&rsquo;s transition team leader, Lori Garver, that her colleagues lack the engineering background to evaluate rocket options, agency spokesman Chris Shank said. Garver and other advisers declined to comment. </p><p>At the Pentagon, there may be support for Obama&rsquo;s vision. While NASA hasn&rsquo;t recently approached the Pentagon about using its Delta IV and Atlas V rockets, building them for manned missions could allow for cost sharing, said Steven Huybrechts, the director of space programs and policy in the office of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is staying on into the new administration. </p><p>The Delta IV and Atlas V are built by United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin Corp., and typically are used to carry satellites. </p><p>Already Developed </p><p>&ldquo;No one really has a firm idea what NASA&rsquo;s cost savings might be, but the military&rsquo;s launch vehicles are basically developed,&rdquo; said John Logsdon, a policy expert at Washington&rsquo;s National Air and Space Museum who has conferred with Obama&rsquo;s transition advisers. &ldquo;You don&rsquo;t have to build them from scratch.&rdquo; </p><p>Meanwhile, Chinese state-owned companies already are assembling heavy-lift rockets that could reach the moon, with a first launch scheduled for 2013. All that would be left to build for a manned mission is an Apollo-style lunar lander, said Griffin, who visited the Chinese space program in 2006. </p><p>Griffin said in July that he believes China will be able to put people on the moon before the U.S. goes back in 2020. The last Apollo mission left the lunar surface in 1972. </p><p>&ldquo;The moon landing is an extremely challenging and sophisticated task, and it is also a strategically important technological field,&rdquo; Wang Zhaoyao, a spokesman for China&rsquo;s space program, said in September, according to the state-run Xinhua news agency. </p><p>Docking </p><p>China plans to dock two spacecraft in orbit in 2010, a skill required for a lunar mission. </p><p>&ldquo;An automated rendezvous does all sorts of things for your missile accuracy and anti-satellite programs,&rdquo; said John Sheldon, a visiting professor of advanced air and space studies at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. &ldquo;The manned effort is about prestige, but it&rsquo;s also a good way of testing technologies that have defense applications.&rdquo; </p><p>China&rsquo;s investments in anti-satellite warfare and in &ldquo;cyberwarfare,&rdquo; ballistic missiles and other weaponry &ldquo;could threaten the United States&rsquo; primary means to project its power and help its allies in the Pacific: bases, air and sea assets, and the networks that support them,&rdquo; Gates wrote in the current issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. </p><p>China is designing satellites that, once launched, could catch up with and destroy U.S. spy and communication satellites, said a Nov. 20 report to Congress from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China&rsquo;s State Council Information Office declined to comment on the nation&rsquo;s anti-satellite or manned programs. </p><p>To boost cooperation between NASA and the Pentagon, Obama has promised to revive the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which oversaw the entire space arena for four presidents, most actively from 1958 to 1973. </p><p>The move would build ties between agencies with different cultures and agendas. </p><p>&ldquo;Whether such cooperation would succeed remains to be seen,&rdquo; said Scott Pace, a former NASA official who heads the Washington-based Space Policy Institute. &ldquo;But the questions are exactly the ones the Obama team needs to ask.&rdquo; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
W

windnwar

Guest
<p>They could be launching Orion on a man rated Atlas or Delta IV heavy long before they figure out how to fly an Ares-1 and it actually fly in a safe manner. </p><p>I think it'd be a good fit and a good option for ISS flights while they hopefully go with Direct 2.0 for the heavy lift approach, something that would take little time to get ready but definately more time then it would take to fly an EELV. The two offer redundancy, reduced program cost and helps spread development costs from NASA to the DOD which has a far larger budget. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font size="2" color="#0000ff">""Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein"</font></p> </div>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p>Meanwhile, Chinese state-owned companies already are assembling heavy-lift rockets that could reach the moon, with a first launch scheduled for 2013. All that would be left to build for a manned mission is an Apollo-style lunar lander, said Griffin, who visited the Chinese space program in 2006.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>I do not find ANYTHING to substantiate this passage. Long March 5 will just be an Ariane V class rocket. Long March 6 is a small booster.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>http://www.sinodefence.com/space/missile/space-launch-vehicle.asp
 
N

nec208

Guest
If NASA got more money they could go to the moon in 2015 not 2020. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

job1207

Guest
<p>That is interesting. DOD, spends more money on space than NASA. I wonder if they are planning any missions to the moon, to secure territory. </p><p>Seriously, even in space terms, given what tasks are before DOD, that is a lot of money. That is probably NOT even considering the NRO budget, which is totally spy work, and separate from the DOD.&nbsp;</p><p>Right now DOD is getting more money to do more things than they will need for the next four wars, anyway. There is going to be a LOT fo money coming out of DOD.&nbsp;</p><p>Also, the Washington Post this morning declared victory in Iraq.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><h6> A LETTER FROM BAGHDAD </h6> <h1><font size="1">In Iraq, the Day After</font></h1> <h2 style="margin-bottom:10px"><font size="1">The War, in a Sense, Is Over. But a New Struggle Begins As Citizens Ask the Inevitable Question: What Next?</font></h2><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/01/AR2009010102079.html?hpid=topnews</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<strong>This is exactly what the U.S. needs, a kick in the a$$ from the Chinese.&nbsp; I disagree&nbsp;with using Delta and Atlas.&nbsp; They don't have the payload (supply) capacity to serve 4 astronauts on a lunar mission.&nbsp; Where as, Jupiter 120 has excess capacity.&nbsp; Delta and Atlas will only get us to the ISS.&nbsp; Jupiter 120 and Ares V will get us to the moon and back, with reserve capacity.&nbsp; </strong><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p>I don't like this option.</p><p>Yes, the Pentagon gets more in budgetary allotments for military missions than NASA gets for its civilian (peaceful) operations.&nbsp; However, that does NOT mean that NASA will get more money when/if the two agencies are combined.&nbsp; After all, do we expect the military to stand idly by while their funds are appropriated?&nbsp; Heck no!&nbsp; If anything, it could put risks on what would have been NASA's funding - The Military is NOT noted for being cost efficient after all.&nbsp; What happens when a project goes over budget - Dig a little deeper even if it is in someone else's pocket...&nbsp; So, just because military space budgets are a bit fatter than NASA's doesn't mean they're going to be able to access more funds for peaceful projects.&nbsp; I think that even writing a suggestion they would intrinsically benefit from this budgetary re-organization is misleading and intellectually insulting.&nbsp; Ain't nobody gonna cut "their" programs so's the other guy can have some more funding.. If Obama suggested this directly (which I don't know because I've been out of the loop for a few days) then he's an idiot, IMO. </p><p>There's a culture difference to be considered here as well.&nbsp; Some would argue that NASA could do with a "culture change."&nbsp; But, I don't know that introducing military contracting style culture and organization/operations would be beneficial for NASA.&nbsp; What is it that NASA's chief complaintants argued over in the past years?&nbsp; Mostly, it has to do with interdepartmental communication - One group trying to communicate to another in the same organization.&nbsp; It also has a bit to do with some bullheadedness and hubris in upper levels of the organization as well, IIRC.&nbsp; Who the heck thinks the military doesn't suffer from these afflictions as well?&nbsp; Frequently, one arm doesn't know what the other one is doing if they're not both involved in firing something.&nbsp; Even then, it's an iffy proposition and everyone has to be reminded to point in the same direction.&nbsp; "Military Precission" gets to be a bit more murky attribute as you progress up the chain.</p><p>I am not casting aspersions on miltary space operations.&nbsp; They're an animal unto themselves most of the time.&nbsp; They're pasty skinned guys with little green lines and numbers permanently etched on their eyeballs who only know what the Sun is because they read about it in daily solar reports.&nbsp; For all that, they're OUR pasty skinned guys protecting our interests and securing our country's safety and security and definitely worthy of significant praise.&nbsp; But, would their operations and culture meld well with NASA's?&nbsp; I don't think so. </p><p>(edit)</p><p>The one benefit some might tout is the combination of operations related resources.&nbsp; In that, I somewhat concur.&nbsp; But, the focus is somewhat different and I am not sure that the risks and difficulties in merging the two would be overcome by "potential" savings in operations costs.&nbsp; Simply put, mashing two things together requires "glue."&nbsp; That means it will cost money to pool those resources.&nbsp; Frequently, melding two dissimiliar things together results in a greater expense than if you just simply redesigned everything and built what you wanted from scratch. </p><p>IMO - This whole proposition is just a way to present a budget cut without saying it directly.&nbsp; It's not about China.&nbsp; It's about budget problems and seeing NASA as a potential source for a few bucks.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
<p>Assuming China wants to go to the moon it doesn't necessarily mean NASA needs a rocket other than Ares.&nbsp;&nbsp; If NASA chooses another rocket it will not be because of China.&nbsp; If NASA chooses an EELV it will not be because they are trying to combine with the military.&nbsp;&nbsp; It's too early to tell if Obama even has a space policy because the few things that are out there are so disjointed and conflicting that I don't think anybody can say what he or his handlers really think.</p>
 
S

samkent

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They could be launching Orion on a man rated Atlas or Delta IV heavy long before they figure out how to fly an Ares-1 and it actually fly in a safe manner.&nbsp; <br />Posted by windnwar</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;What makes you think they could man rate and test Atlas and Delta any quicker (or cheaper at this point) than Ares?<br /></p>
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;What makes you think they could man rate and test Atlas and Delta any quicker (or cheaper at this point) than Ares? <br />Posted by samkent</DIV><br /><br />Likely china is moving faster because they dont have their budget split between multiple agencies duplicating work.&nbsp; Our bureacracy is crippling us.. and that was supposed to be a weakness of communism.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rybanis

Guest
Just some (perhaps wishful) thinking...there is always the 7 core Delta IV. I think that would take care of the lift requirements. Boeing says they can build it, too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Likely china is moving faster because they dont have their budget split between multiple agencies duplicating work.&nbsp; Our bureacracy is crippling us.. and that was supposed to be a weakness of communism.. <br /> Posted by tampaDreamer</DIV></p><p>China has some really, really, really big problems looming ahead of them.&nbsp; They're going to take one of two directions: Focus their media on their space program and do everything there possible to distract their people away from their economic woes or... focus their media on bogus space projects that don't exist paid for by invisible money that doesn't exist while they scramble to save their economy.&nbsp; </p><p>China's growth has been their top priority in the past decade and that is seriously threatened right now.&nbsp; They are particularly vulnerable to economic downturns and this latest world-wide economic cesspit of trade has nudged them a little closer to the danger-zone of financial collapse.&nbsp; They must do all they can to sustain growth and stabilize it.&nbsp; I don't know that they're going to want to dedicate a large amount of capital towards a manned Moon mission. (Unless they figure out it's the only way to inspire their populace and get some nationalism-inspired enthusiasm going.) </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>China has some really, really, really big problems looming ahead of them.&nbsp; They're going to take one of two directions: Focus their media on their space program and do everything there possible to distract their people away from their economic woes or... focus their media on bogus space projects that don't exist paid for by invisible money that doesn't exist while they scramble to save their economy.&nbsp; China's growth has been their top priority in the past decade and that is seriously threatened right now.&nbsp; They are particularly vulnerable to economic downturns and this latest world-wide economic cesspit of trade has nudged them a little closer to the danger-zone of financial collapse.&nbsp; They must do all they can to sustain growth and stabilize it.&nbsp; I don't know that they're going to want to dedicate a large amount of capital towards a manned Moon mission. (Unless they figure out it's the only way to inspire their populace and get some nationalism-inspired enthusiasm going.) <br /> Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV></p><p>Yours is just the last post, so this is not in answer to your post.&nbsp; I do believe that a combination of the US military with NASA is appropriate for at least something that I consider to be of the greatest importance in human space development. </p><p>That is the identification, study of, and either the changing of the orbits of those NEO's that could greatly harm the US, and even the rest of the world besides.&nbsp; After all, is it not the job of the US military to protect US citizens from those that would do harm to them?&nbsp; To me this not only includes human terrorist organizations, but just as much the blind chance of a piece of the impartial solar system in the form of an NEO hitting the US anywhere, and causing huge damage to life and property?</p><p>In order to do this, we are going to need a truly vast amount of space launches, both robotic and human.&nbsp; NASA now has only about 0.5% of the current federal budget, whereas back in the Apollo era of the 1960's we&nbsp; (and I can say we, as I was a part of the program, a small part admittedly, but still a part) had some 2% as an average for every year of the 1960's, with the largest year being some 4% in 1965.&nbsp; And now they expect NASA to go back to the moon and beyond (without even getting involved in the NEO problem) with only about 0.5%, and that in the teeth of all the inflation since the 1960'S.&nbsp; It IS a joke in very poor taste if you ask this retired aerospace worker!!!</p><p>Not only should the military and NASA's budgets be combined, but then that budget should be raised by at least 10% above inflation every year for each year.&nbsp; We might just be able to then do all the things we should expect from these programs as American taxpayers.</p><p>Besides this, for an increase of the federal budget of only a few percentage points, we could be employing some 500,000 to 1.0 million new aerospace workers.&nbsp; Workers making at least a decent middle class wage, with middle class benefits.&nbsp; And those million or so would then be supporting at least 3 million others, just as we did back in the 1960's.&nbsp; Does anybody here besides myself remember how great the economy of this nation was back from about the end of WWII through the mid 1970's or so?</p><p>If this were not so, then why all the nostalgia that seems to now be generated for those times? </p><p>For such a small investment Barack Obama could actually turn this economy around.&nbsp; Feeding the greed of the financial industry at hundreds of billions of dollars is not going to do it.&nbsp; Only by actually making improvements to the average working man's life will we truly develop a strong new economy.&nbsp; To say nothing of making sure that this world (including the US) is protected from an event that would make 9/11 look like a tea party in comparison!!</p><p>Seems like the insurance bargain of human history to me!!!!! </p><p>&nbsp;</p>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p>Pardon me for asking, but the US military space budget has been greater than NASA's budget for a long time now. What is it that they actually send up there?</p><p>Their rockets seem very big and capable and there have been many launches. I would think that there are only so many reconnaissance and communication satellites needed by the military.</p><p>Is there any chance that they might already operate on the Moon to some capacity in the interest of national defence? &nbsp;</p>
 
D

docm

Guest
<p>Significant portions of the US recon satellite heard&nbsp;are badly in need replacement and there are too few for monitoring terrorists, so they'll be busy launching new ones&nbsp;for quite some time.&nbsp;Problem is not all these launches have been successful, the one that had to be shot down last year being an example.&nbsp;There have also been problems and cost overruns with the next-gen spy satellites. Commercial satellites have been used to cover the gaps, but much more is necessary for treaty monitoring. </p><p>The Russians are in even a worse pickle with just a few active. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p>China has some really, really, really big problems looming ahead of them.&nbsp; They're going to take one of two directions: Focus their media on their space program and do everything there possible to distract their people away from their economic woes or... focus their media on bogus space projects that don't exist paid for by invisible money that doesn't exist while they scramble to save their economy. </p><p>China is not engaging in a space race; they are progressing rather slowly and deliberately but have advanced steadily and have not had a failure in many years. The main role of their human flight program is to showcase their technology and market their commercial launch services. While they have financial problems, they have over a trillion in US currency reserves and their economy will not collapse. The question for the US is whether to invite China to join the ISS program.&nbsp; </p>
 
M

monkeyboyjtm

Guest
The DOD and NASA joint venture to space may work. Don't forget that the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo programs were based around the idea of military rockets. NASA took the military designs and modified them so that they could fit their purpose of carrying a human(s) into space. The military has been developing rockets for alot longer than NASA. Yes, I realize that NASA is a bunch of rocket scientist but ever since NASA got the shuttle working, they esentially stopped designing rockets since there was no need to at the time. And during NASA's shuttle period, the DoD has been researching and testing at a very rapid pace new designs&nbsp;for ICBMs and for the Missile Defense shield. And just to point out that the DoD has more than likely doing all of this in secret. Which means that a DoD and&nbsp;NASA partnership could open up a lot new possiblities and ideas for NASA scientist. &nbsp;
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...China is not engaging in a space race; they are progressing rather slowly and deliberately but have advanced steadily and have not had a failure in many years. The main role of their human flight program is to showcase their technology and market their commercial launch services. While they have financial problems, they have over a trillion in US currency reserves and their economy will not collapse. The question for the US is whether to invite China to join the ISS program.&nbsp; Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Their biggest problem they will face in the near future is sustaining growth.&nbsp; A failure there is almost as bad as an economic collapse.&nbsp; Think "coitus interruptus" economics and industry style...&nbsp; They're very wary about that and with some consumption declining in the West as people tighten their belts, they're going to get a bit paranoid about securing their growth. </p><p>I agree that China isn't in a true "space race" no matter how much they may publicize it.&nbsp; But, they've been touting their space capabilities increasingly for the past few years.&nbsp; Some has simply been military posturing, rattling their lightsabers so-to-speak.&nbsp; Some has also been simple nationalism and inspiring their people with their achievements.&nbsp; That's important as well and at least they seem to be a bit better at actually achieving it than some other countries who simply use the propaganda boost without much substance to it.&nbsp; </p><p>I think we all enjoy seeing efforts made by other countries in space.&nbsp; I know I do, regardless of who it is as long as its peaceful.&nbsp; My post was just in response to a possible "Moon Race" by China.&nbsp; I don't think they have the desire or economic ability right now to enter into that kind of endeavor. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
A

a_lost_packet_

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>...Not only should the military and NASA's budgets be combined, but then that budget should be raised by at least 10% above inflation every year for each year.&nbsp; We might just be able to then do all the things we should expect from these programs as American taxpayers....Posted by frodo1008</DIV></p><p>See, I have a problem there.</p><p>I don't think we'd end up seeing such an increase.&nbsp; In fact, we might see more military spending instead of non-military NASA related programs.&nbsp; I surely don't see a budget increase for programs from any newly combined department either.&nbsp; There may be an increase in the budget slated for consolidation programs but, that's not going to get us a new rocket, probe or scientific program.</p><p>From a finance perspective, these are two different things.&nbsp; It's like having a chart of accounts and deciding to merge two separate headings into one when they really don't go together.&nbsp; Sure, they're both under "Space" but they deal with separate issues and have separate intents and uses.&nbsp; Combining some operations may produce a cost savings.&nbsp; That is something I may agree with.&nbsp; But, combining them under one banner just doesn't make sense to me as they stand, right now. </p><p>So, the Military gets xxx.xx funding and NASA gets xx.xx funding.&nbsp; Lump them together and who is going to win a war for funding for that department?&nbsp; Who is going to declare their programs more critical?&nbsp; Who is going to be "The Final Word" when it comes down to the wire?&nbsp; It's going to be the guys with brass on their shoulders and not the guy with the pocket protector begging for a few bucks so he can monitor a signal from a science probe.&nbsp; All it takes is one notable guy to scream "Terrorism!" or "Defense!" as an excuse and he'll get a rubber-stamp.</p><p>I just don't think the two cultures will mesh well either.&nbsp; I love the Military, don't get me wrong there.&nbsp; I also love NASA as well.&nbsp; But, I don't know that they share enough similarities in their operations and intent in order to end up forming a "better thing" if they were combined.</p><p>Regardless of my own doubts, I think that Obama publically suggesting that NASA be combined with MilSpace operations as being "beneficial" for NASA is a bit disengenuous.&nbsp; They may as well just come out and tell us what it's really about (IMO) - The Budget.&nbsp; In the end, it'll probably end up with less of a budget than it has now.&nbsp; I've never heard of a situation of combining dissimilar departments that was undertaken to improve one smaller department's budget or operation that ever actually achieved that.&nbsp; Usually, the smaller guy gets the stinky end of the stick until he disappears or gets his office moved to the basement.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I have a problem there.I don't think we'd end up seeing such an increase.&nbsp; In fact, we might see more military spending instead of non-military NASA related programs.&nbsp; I surely don't see a budget increase for programs from any newly combined department either.&nbsp; There may be an increase in the budget slated for consolidation programs but, that's not going to get us a new rocket, probe or scientific program.From a finance perspective, these are two different things.&nbsp; It's like having a chart of accounts and deciding to merge two separate headings into one when they really don't go together.&nbsp; Sure, they're both under "Space" but they deal with separate issues and have separate intents and uses.&nbsp; Combining some operations may produce a cost savings.&nbsp; That is something I may agree with.&nbsp; But, combining them under one banner just doesn't make sense to me as they stand, right now. So, the Military gets xxx.xx funding and NASA gets xx.xx funding.&nbsp; Lump them together and who is going to win a war for funding for that department?&nbsp; Who is going to declare their programs more critical?&nbsp; Who is going to be "The Final Word" when it comes down to the wire?&nbsp; It's going to be the guys with brass on their shoulders and not the guy with the pocket protector begging for a few bucks so he can monitor a signal from a science probe.&nbsp; All it takes is one notable guy to scream "Terrorism!" or "Defense!" as an excuse and he'll get a rubber-stamp.I just don't think the two cultures will mesh well either.&nbsp; I love the Military, don't get me wrong there.&nbsp; I also love NASA as well.&nbsp; But, I don't know that they share enough similarities in their operations and intent in order to end up forming a "better thing" if they were combined.Regardless of my own doubts, I think that Obama publically suggesting that NASA be combined with MilSpace operations as being "beneficial" for NASA is a bit disengenuous.&nbsp; They may as well just come out and tell us what it's really about (IMO) - The Budget.&nbsp; In the end, it'll probably end up with less of a budget than it has now.&nbsp; I've never heard of a situation of combining dissimilar departments that was undertaken to improve one smaller department's budget or operation that ever actually achieved that.&nbsp; Usually, the smaller guy gets the stinky end of the stick until he disappears or gets his office moved to the basement. <br />Posted by a_lost_packet_</DIV><br /><br />My 2c</p><p>&nbsp;It is not about money.&nbsp; It is about accountability.&nbsp; NASA has failed in its responsibility to manage the resources it has been given when it comes to deveoping new launch systems.&nbsp; Welcome to the real world....get the job done or your fired!!!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>We're facing trillion dollar deficits for the foreseeable future, folks. &nbsp;I would not be surprised to see all ISS supply missions outsourced from here on out and plans for humans returning to the Moon/Mars shelved for the time being.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

monkeyboyjtm

Guest
Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>My 2c&nbsp;It is not about money.&nbsp; It is about accountability.&nbsp; NASA has failed in its responsibility to manage the resources it has been given when it comes to deveoping new launch systems.&nbsp; Welcome to the real world....get the job done or your fired!!! <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />I have a problem with that. I'm almost positive that if you look at the DoD and NASA accountability records, you'll realize that the DoD is probably the worst government agency when it comes to accountability. NASA's main issue is getting those contractors to finish projects ON-TIME and UNDER BUDGET.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have a problem with that. I'm almost positive that if you look at the DoD and NASA accountability records, you'll realize that the DoD is probably the worst government agency when it comes to accountability. NASA's main issue is getting those contractors to finish projects ON-TIME and UNDER BUDGET. <br /> Posted by monkeyboyjtm</DIV></p><p>More fundamentally NASA has a problem deciding what it wants its contractors to do. The most productive NASA contract in recent years appears to be COTS, which gives contractors a lot of freedom but emphasizes new technology, as opposed to Constellation, which is defined down to the smallest detail, but isn't really developing anything new. </p>
 
B

BrianSlee

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I have a problem with that. I'm almost positive that if you look at the DoD and NASA accountability records, you'll realize that the DoD is probably the worst government agency when it comes to accountability. NASA's main issue is getting those contractors to finish projects ON-TIME and UNDER BUDGET. <br />Posted by monkeyboyjtm</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;Yea sure ,&nbsp;why don't I believe that</p><p>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090109/ap_on_re_us/nasa_watchdog</p><h1>Report: NASA inspector general not catching enough</h1><div class="yn-story-content"><p>WASHINGTON &ndash; Congressional auditors say that <span class="yshortcuts">NASA</span>'s in-house financial watchdog is doing little to unearth waste and abuse at the space agency.</p><p><span style="background:nonetransparentscrollrepeat0%0%;cursor:hand" class="yshortcuts">The Government Accountability Office</span> compared <span style="background:nonetransparentscrollrepeat0%0%;cursor:hand" class="yshortcuts">NASA's inspector general</span> to 27 other federal agencies and found it next to last. That's according to a report obtained by The Associated Press. NASA's financial watchdog saved taxpayers only 36 cents for every dollar spent. The average for <span style="background:nonetransparentscrollrepeat0%0%;cursor:hand" class="yshortcuts">federal inspectors general</span> was $9.49.</p><p>The GAO determined that NASA's inspector general didn't plan enough <span style="background:nonetransparentscrollrepeat0%0%;cursor:hand" class="yshortcuts">financial audits</span> and didn't seem independent enough from the space agency. In response, the <span class="yshortcuts">NASA inspector general</span> said the GAO misrepresented the NASA audits and that their report was flawed.</p><p>&nbsp;</p></div> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>"I am therefore I think" </p><p>"The only thing "I HAVE TO DO!!" is die, in everything else I have freewill" Brian P. Slee</p> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>More fundamentally NASA has a problem deciding what it wants its contractors to do. The most productive NASA contract in recent years appears to be COTS, which gives contractors a lot of freedom but emphasizes new technology, as opposed to Constellation, which is defined down to the smallest detail, but isn't really developing anything new. <br /> Posted by vulture4</DIV></p><p>Somebody here pointed out that simply getting to the Moon requires practically nothing new. It's what we do when we get there that requires a lot of new.</p><p>So the most important thing for now for human spaceflight would be to get the Moon thing going as quickly as possible. Continue the work that was started with Apollo to explore a new domain for the human race. </p><p>We need to establish a firm foothold on another heavenly body. President Kennedy understood this. For him it wasn't only about beating the commies. </p>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts