CSE Lobbies for 17B NASA Budget

[dobbins]

PRESS RELEASE<br />Date Released: Tuesday, November 22, 2005<br />Source: Coalition for Space Exploration<br /><br />November 22, 2005<br /><br />Mr. Andrew H. Card, Jr.<br />Assistant to the President and Chief of Staff<br />The White House<br />1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW<br />Washington, D.C. 20500<br /><br />Dear Mr. Card,<br /><br />The Coalition for Space Exploration, consisting of 42 aerospace companies and 11 industry associations, respectfully urges your support for an FY07 NASA budget of not less than $16.962B --- the funding proposed in the President's budget submittal last year for FY07. The Coalition fully supports the Vision for Space Exploration outlined by President Bush in January 2004. We urge you to consider the economic, competitiveness, educational, and national security value of this Presidential priority and we ask that you recommend a funding profile that ensures NASA is given adequate resources to move forward with the Vision for Space Exploration.<br /><br />When the President announced the Vision, he noted that this bold and necessary initiative would require a sustained commitment spanning decades. Now, barely two years into the journey, fiscal challenges appear to be already placing the Vision at risk. Thanks to the dedication and hard work of NASA's Federal and contractor workers, 70% of whom live and work in the Gulf Coast region, the steps laid out in the President's Vision for Space Exploration have begun. We believe those dedicated workers need your support now more than ever. Space is a critical economic driver in the Gulf. Thousands of aerospace workers, many without homes have continued on the job in the aftermath of the hurricanes that struck the region. NASA-related jobs are a key factor in making the U.S. a globally competitive economic power and also contribute billions to the economy.<br /><br />While the Coalition understands the tremendous budget pressures created by our military commitments and the impact of recent natural disasters, we b

 

[nacnud]

No Boeing? And who are A&%$#@! Aerospace? <br /><br />Doh Boeing is there are The Boeing Co. :s

 

[rubicondsrv]

Boeing is on the list <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

A S R C Aerospace. For some reason the SDC filter changed it when the letters were next to each other.<br />

 

[dobbins]

I guess they are off chasing dreams instead of joining almost everyone else in the space field who are backing the realistic approach of the VSE and ESAS.<br /><br />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I guess they are off chasing dreams instead of joining almost everyone else in the space field who are backing the realistic approach of the VSE and ESAS."</font><br /><br />Aw, come on, John. That was unnecessary. Perhaps they just haven't gotten around to joining. Why the negativity? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[dobbins]

The implication that a pair of start ups know more than most of the industry was also unnecessary. I get tired of the assumption from some people that these small companies know more than anyone, more than NASA, more than established aerospace companies.<br /><br />My gripe isn't so much with most of the start ups as it is with the two inch thick rose colored glasses that some space buffs insist on wearing when looking at them.<br /><br />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"The implication that a pair of start ups know more than most of the industry was also unnecessary. I get tired of the assumption from some people that these small companies know more than anyone, more than NASA, more than established aerospace companies."</font><br /><br />I'm sorry, I did not see where this was implied, but I tend to agree with what was said (I believe it was by spacester) in another thread concerning the frustration felt by many of us in not having been beyond LEO in over 30 years. Since NASA has pretty much been the only game in town for so long (at least in the US), it's only natural to focus that frustration on NASA. I find that pointless, especially now with Dr. Griffin in charge, but I understand why it is so.<br /><br />It's not that these companies (you use the term "start up" almost as a pejorative <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) know more than NASA, but that they have a little fire in their bellies. You can have all the expertise in the World, but if you have no motivation then you're not going to accomplish much. And it's not like these companies don't have the expertise needed to accomplish their goals. It's likely true that some do not, but, from what I've seen, I believe most do.<br /><br />It's equally true, of course, that without money, all the motivation in the World won't buy the tools to bend metal. And, as I've written elsewhere, there are certainly those that do not understand such things as politics, economics and, most importantly, physics and engineering.<br /><br />I don't see this as a problem. Many marketing types haven't got a clue about how to build and launch a rocket, but they can still sell a dozen or two of them. At one time, I was an IBM Systems Engineer. I used to inwardly cringe everytime one of the marketing reps would talk about technical capabilities to a customer because they tended to exaggerate and oversell. But they would sell the system! Consider that at least those with the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[najab]

><i> A S R C Aerospace. For some reason the SDC filter changed it when the letters were next to each other. </i><p>Because the letters S R and C are a HTML tag used to imbed images, something that the board code doesn't allow. That said, that's a pretty impressive list of companies!</p>

 

[dobbins]

NASA is correcting the Shuttle problems by replacing it. When you have a system that is deeply flawed the best way to correct the problem is by starting afresh with a clean sheet of paper.<br /><br />Why are you leaving the JPL out of the criticism? They pulled off the single dumbest boner that NASA has had in decades when they lost the Mars Climate Orbiter by mixing up Metric and English measurements.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That said, that's a pretty impressive list of companies! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yup, it's all the usual suspects that benefit from increased government spending, no wonder they support an increased NASA budget. It frankly makes me sick when I see listed companies hiding behind "vision" and "national priorities" to milk taxpayers for more money.<br /><br />Nasa should go back to them and say: We're going to buy 20 CEVs at $400 MM a piece. You finance, develop and build them.

 

[trailrider]

"Why are you leaving the JPL out of the criticism? They pulled off the single dumbest boner that NASA has had in decades when they lost the Mars Climate Orbiter by mixing up Metric and English measurements."<br /><br />Better include LockMart in that screwup! As the contractor, they should have asked JPL what measurement system was to be used. That should have been in the Contract Statement of Work! Since NASA had gone to metric no later than 1993 (and, I'm told, even earlier, though we were NOT using it in the SRB-Decelerator Subsystem contract from 1980-1983). I was the Contract Technical Requirements systems engineer and also working on the same contract out of the Systems Engineering shop later. Had I not been one of 3500 engineers "doorknobbed" in May 1989, and had the luck to have been assigned to the MCO program as the CTR, I would, in all IMmodesty probably have asked that question when the proposal was being written. But Martin Marietta or LockMart (I forget when the merger occurred), had nobody left with experience after the "massacree". <br /><br />On the other end of the Statement of Work, JPL's people should have also insured that everybody was on the same page and line. So there's probably equally-shared blame on that one! <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /><br /><br />What I'm not sure of is whether the Constellation program will be done in metric or English, or both. Manufacturing in the U.S. is still tied into the English system, though some manufacturers may be producing items using metrics, where required. Anybody KNOW to what spec system the aerospace companies are cutting chips?<br /><br />Ad Luna! Ad Aries! Ad Astra!

 

[dobbins]

"Yup, it's all the usual suspects that benefit from increased government spending"<br /><br />Yup, it's the usual knee jerk hostility towards the private sector. Let's eliminate them and ask Santa to bring us a space program!<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

hihi I wonder how many on the list are slated to get a piece of the VSE pie in the form of juicy contract or subcontract, damn right they're going to support it and ask the government for money in good old contractor fashion. Only this time they're wiser and doing it early in the process to prevent the program for being cancelled later on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Yup, it's the usual knee jerk hostility towards the private sector. Let's eliminate them and ask Santa to bring us a space program! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yup, it's the usual knee jerk hostility from Dobbins. Half your posts slang paper space planes. All these paper space planes were bad news for the space program, but wonderful financial news for many of the companies on the list. Yes, that's right. Many of these companies benefited handsomely from the multitude of space plane research contracts. And here they are again, begging bowl in hand, to cash in on the CEV program.<br /><br />Your knee jerk reaction has yet again failed to afford you the time to actual consider what I was saying. I am very much in favor of private sector involvement. If you can take the trouble to read my entire post, you'll see that I was advocating a pay for performance approach to these companies, instead of handing out large sums of money to develop yet another paper plane.

 

[najab]

><i>It frankly makes me sick when I see listed companies hiding behind "vision" and "national priorities" to milk taxpayers for more money.</i><p>Yeah, I know what you mean. I can't stand to see American companies getting contracts from the Government and pumping billions of dollars into the economy and providing thousands of high-quality jobs like that. Just burns me up.</p>

 

[dobbins]

Do you even realize how much hostility is involved in an accusation that the CSE, which includes advocacy groups as well as Aerospace companies, only purpose is "to milk taxpayers for more money."?<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

the real question is...how democratic is the CSE? I fear that the bigger companies there get to dictate the actions of that organization.<br />I might be wrong...but I might be right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Why would the little fish stay in an organization that only met the needs of the big fish?<br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you even realize how much hostility is involved in an accusation that the CSE...only purpose is "to milk taxpayers for more money."? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Again, let me say this clearly: READ POSTS COMPLETELY BEFORE RESPONDING. Kindly point out where I implied that the "only purpose" of the CSE is to milk taxpayers?

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I can't stand to see American companies getting contracts from the Government and pumping billions of dollars into the economy and providing thousands of high-quality jobs like that. Just burns me up. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The companies on that list have a stellar record of taking government money and not delivering. Now they are asking for a bump in funds. In the real private sector stakeholders (normally stockholders or VCs) would say you have all the money you're going to get. Now get the job done.<br /><br />They're quick to generate fancy little graphics - OSP, SLI, etc - and then run to congress begging-bowl in hand. They behave like African dictators, always asking for hand-outs from Uncle Sam. LockMart is probably the only one on that list that went out on a limb, when they self-funded a shortfall on the X-33. Instead of lobbying for more money, it would be great to see these companies go at-risk for a change and get paid for delivering a product, not for an intention to deliver a product.

 

[spacefire]

if you had read my earlier post, you would have seen the mention of subcontracts. For such large-scale projects, a lot of components are manufactured by 'little-fish' which the main contractor hires. Therefore it is in the best interest of the smaller companies who are hoping for a piece of the pie to be in line with the aerospace giants. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[dobbins]

"The companies on that list have a stellar record of taking government money and not delivering."<br /><br />They attempted to deliver what NASA asked for until the funding ran out. Are they supposed to deliver something that is only half paid for?<br /><br />Over and over it's been the same problem, NASA asks for yet another space plane and then runs out of money because space planes are expensive to develop and the current space plane is gobbling up available funds.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

X-Planes are the place to test new designs, not an OPERATIONAL spaceship. An operational spaceship actually has to work, a basic concept that gadget geeks seem to be incapable of grasping.<br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

your NASA has cancelled most of the promising X-Planes, and now it can barely afford to do any research because of this VSE idiocy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>