POLL: House spending proposal Good or Bad?

POLL: House proposal Good or Bad?

  • 1.) House Spending proposal is good for NASA

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • 2.) House spending proposal is bad for NASA

    Votes: 10 83.3%

  • Total voters
    12
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sftommy

Guest
Personally, I think this is one of the worst spending proposals that could have been come up with.

What do you think?

and if you'd care to add, why?
 
Z

ZiraldoAerospace

Guest
Not enough commercial funding, too much pandering to the shuttle companies (i.e. keeping the SRBs? who would do that???) But I don't like any of the other plans either... I say that NASA should stop trying to build its own rockets and stuff and just buy rides on commercial flights...
 
R

robotical

Guest
Good lord, if anyone needed evidence that all congress cares about is itself, this is it. Instead of encouraging a robust private space industry that could provide vastly more jobs and growth, we're going to spend money on keeping a few favored constituencies employed. Yay!
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Good or bad compared to what? Its vastly superior to the administration's plan. Not as good as the Senate plan.

I think the thing that absolutely undermined the administration's plan was the proposal to sit on our thumbs till 2015. That's just wrong on so many levels. My preference would be the Senate version, as it tends to leave more of the design to NASA. Absent the Senate approach, then the house is better than nothing.

Sloth is NOT the final frontier.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
robotical":1mguuvxp said:
Good lord, if anyone needed evidence that all congress cares about is itself, this is it. Instead of encouraging a robust private space industry that could provide vastly more jobs and growth, we're going to spend money on keeping a few favored constituencies employed. Yay!

AMEN.

Congress is going to spend our country into oblivion for nothing but a few decades of votes. We need to send a message this fall and oust all of em. And dont get me talkin about Bart Gordon as a Tennessean its like al gore all over agin :cry:
 
R

robotical

Guest
rcsplinters":16ew2iqo said:
I think the thing that absolutely undermined the administration's plan was the proposal to sit on our thumbs till 2015. That's just wrong on so many levels.

Um, Ares I was projected for crewed flight for 2017-2019 at the earliest.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
robotical":1ku4wb3b said:
rcsplinters":1ku4wb3b said:
I think the thing that absolutely undermined the administration's plan was the proposal to sit on our thumbs till 2015. That's just wrong on so many levels.

Um, Ares I was projected for crewed flight for 2017-2019 at the earliest.


I'm not quite sure how that's relevent to anything, but if you want to drag the non-HLV ARES I into the discussion, those dates (rather bogus, as NASA was figuring 2015 - 2016 or even a year earlier IF they could get some decent funding) were one speculation from the Augustine Report based on level funding. The administration could have salvaged the entire mess simply by elevating the funding of the portion of Constellation which related to the ARES family of boosters. As it is, it seems Congress is going to put things back on track and we'll still have a heavy lift vehicle based on shuttle technologies, ultimately probably not so different from ARES V. The president's contribution will be to delay NASA worse than any shuttle explosion.

There was never any "game changing technology" for heavy lift coming in 2015. He knows that. This debacle was just the first step in a realignment of funding which would make siphoning money later much easier. Hopefully we start behaving a bit more like the United States with the Senate version of the bill. If not, then the House version will take us much further than this administration would ever like us to go. All you need do is step back and look at the politics. It doesn't appear the administration is going to fight the Senate bill. The only way this obstinate president would ever back down is if he realized he was backing a dead horse and his horse was on its last legs.
 
V

Valcan

Guest
rcsplinters":3hmafq3r said:
robotical":3hmafq3r said:

Yes but ares 1 was pretty much worthless sense there were going to be many launchers which could perform it job. We dont need a AAres 1-4 we could use a 5 but even that isnt a must have.
 
R

robotical

Guest
The point regarding Ares I was that it was currently the only manned launcher under development by NASA that would become operational anytime soon. The 2017-19 date is based on current budget trajectories, not 'ifs'.

I guess this all depends on what we want going forwards. Do we want a truly space faring species or what amount to stunts and are at high risk of being changed or canceled on the whims of politicians?

The only way to get the former is to encourage the commercial development of space. The economics look like they have finally reached a point favorable to private enterprise judging by the number of new space companies. What they really need right now is demand. Holding off on grand trips and concentrating on nurturing and accelerating the growth of a robust private space sector will be far more beneficial to NASA, the United States, and humanity in the long run. Instead of being the play thing of politicians, NASA will be the pathfinder and supporter of an expanding major industry.

All the House plan is is a flashy new distraction that will get canceled as soon as congress gets bored.
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Well, this ain't Star Trek.

We aren't a space faring species. In fact, I'm not sure we're much past the reed boat stage. Its a difficult, profoundly expensive and deadly business. That's why only a very few superpowers have succeeded in actually putting a man in space. To think that commercializing something is going to somehow change the physics of deed, well, this ain't Star Trek.

Its necessary to ask ourselves the following. If the commercial market potential is so strong. If the solutions are so straightforward. If the profits are so solid, why do they need public money? Where's the investment capital from the private sector to make this go? Such a sure thing should have investors lined up to receive their share of the pie. That private money would be flowing if a solid business model were in the wings. I'm a die hard capitalist by nature. If the government has to bail you out or pay your way to get started, you don't have a business, you have a charity. I think both houses of congress are simply saying, let us see you succeed before we bet the future of such an important capability on something with no history of success. Congress, for once, is just being smart.

Lastly, the only nation to make a go of privatized manned space flight (though its heavily government subsidized) are the Russians. They've used existing technology, relatively unchanged, for years and years. So what are we trying to do here? Leverage existing technology that has proven itself, finally, to be dependable. For the Russians it works, for us it doesn't. Somehow that just doesn't make sense. I agree that greed and pork lays at the bottom of this barrel, but its in the form if public funds subsidizing private ventures.

We need to give NASA the money it takes to continue our leadership in human space flight. The senate and house seem to understand this. I can support either of the two bills.
 
R

rockett

Guest
I personally see no reason for the uproar, and all the crying about it. The Commercial Calvery is not just gonna ride over the hill and magically transform space exploration. If you think it is, you have been sold a bill of goods.

It COSTS a LOT. It is a risky business at best. It takes LOTS of R&D. As things scale up to even limited NASA capability, you will watch those costs increase dramatically, simply because to get X amount of mass to LEO, requires Y amount of fuel, support facilities, spacecraft structure, etc. Many of the current players have been around since X-Prize days, yet not one made orbit until the lure of government subsidies. They have had 50 YEARS to develop an industry, yet no one has. Why? That's because they CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING.

So, what's the difference? Instead of ATK, Lockmart, Boeing, or any of the established players, you are just putting it in different pockets, that's all. Which is kind of silly, cause they have the most practical experience.

I personally also favor the Senate Bill, and hope the outcome is in it's favor. If for no other reason that unlike the House Bill, it's not such a blatent Constellation redux.
 
M

MarkStanaway

Guest
rockett":5uk8kc9v said:
They have had 50 YEARS to develop an industry, yet no one has. Why? That's because they CAN'T MAKE A PROFIT WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FUNDING.
I personally also favor the Senate Bill, and hope the outcome is in it's favor. If for no other reason that unlike the House Bill, it's not such a blatent Constellation redux.

Attempts to commercialise space go back a long way. You hear about the proposals with a great deal of publicity at the time but then they just fade away and never get mentioned again.
Whatever happened to Robert Trusk and his plan to launch a single person on a suborbital mission back in the early 80's?
Then there was Conestoga. They made a couple of launch attempts about 20 years ago but I never heard anything more.
Also there was OTRAG that West German outfit that was working with clustered modular rocket tubes to build a range of cheap boosters. After a few tests conducted in Africa they just seem to slip off the radar.
I am guessing they just turned into bottomless money pits with little return.

If the Senate Bill gets the nod ironically full scale HLV development will begin just about the same time it was proposed by President Bush with the VSE back in 2004. Back then with the Shuttle scheduled to retire in 2010 it was proposed that the funds freed up would be used to begin full scale development of Ares 5 in 2011. The only missing piece now is Altair.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
It is a 'food fight', sort of reality flash, it's just so surreal ..

It is obviously not yet time to let go of Apollo dreams. Perhaps they should decide that NASA should make antigravity drive in 5 years, and all problems were solved. Project would, of course, not get any money to do it, even if that were possible, but there would be many chances to talk big and say nothing, at the elections of their choice. Ups, i forgot, NASA doesn't do advanced tech and research, they just watch sky, build heavy rockets, for a lot of money, just to keep busy.

Let's hope this is not the end of this story - it is very illustrative, though depressing how top politics doesn't trust their own industry, when they are trying to get country out of the mess, which they helped to create.
Perhaps that's why, perhaps more change is needed.

This proposal might be good for NASA, but i think it's bad for space.
 
S

sftommy

Guest
The saving grace to the House proposal is the verbage on launch vehicles:

"(1) The plan shall make maximum practicable use of the design, development, and test work completed to date on the Orion crew exploration vehicle, Ares I crew launch vehicle, heavy lift launch vehicle system, and associated ground support and exploration enabling systems and take best advantage of investments and contracts implemented to date."

If I were the NASA Administrator, I would use the phrase "to take best advantage of" literally and scrap those parts that offer no advantage-like SRBs.
 
R

robotical

Guest
True, there have been space companies before, but the sheer number of them in the last decade is staggering. Not only are companies being founded, but they're building and launching hardware. This suggests that the economics of space travel has finally reached a tipping point. Hopefully, the industry is self sustaining, but the government could help it substantially by providing demand for its services. Instead of buying launch vehicles, NASA could be buying services. By contracting services, NASA increases competition within the industry and helps drive innovation and lower costs. Not only does this lower costs, but it provides flexibility in the event a rocket is grounded. As costs come down, it becomes more attractive for others to enter the market.

Now, a self-sustaining industry can occur on its own, but could be significantly accelerated by government demand. If it brings down costs, that means NASA can potentially more and bigger missions. The case for ambitious missions becomes far more compelling as well, since it could be justified as pushing the frontiers of a major industry. Such missions would also be harder to terminate once started.

Its a difficult, profoundly expensive and deadly business. That's why only a very few superpowers have succeeded in actually putting a man in space. To think that commercializing something is going to somehow change the physics of deed, well, this ain't Star Trek.

There are actually two ways to make something economically feasible:
A): Advance technology to bring costs down - what space supporters tend to focus on
-or-
B): Grow you economic base to the point that the costs become insignificant compared to the wider economy

Judging by the number of new start ups, A and B look like they've reached an adequate level.

If the solutions are so straightforward. If the profits are so solid, why do they need public money? Where's the investment capital from the private sector to make this go? Such a sure thing should have investors lined up to receive their share of the pie. That private money would be flowing if a solid business model were in the wings. I'm a die hard capitalist by nature. If the government has to bail you out or pay your way to get started, you don't have a business, you have a charity. I think both houses of congress are simply saying, let us see you succeed before we bet the future of such an important capability on something with no history of success. Congress, for once, is just being smart.

Government is good at two things:
A): Creating an initial capability
B): Providing initial demand for an industry, especially when there is a chicken/egg problem.

Government absolutely sucks at making something economic or finding the best uses for it after it's been created. We're not talking about paper rockets here; we're talking about rockets that are operational and companies that are more than willing to sell their services to the government. Building NASA's own rockets when there are private companies willing and able to do the same thing much sooner and cheaper is sheer stupidity.

Quite a few industries and ventures owe their start to government patronage. Settlement of the west was basically a giant government program. Frodo, in another thread, has pointed out that government provided the initial demand for both the continental railroad and interstate highway system. Many, many technologies were provided to government by companies before they found private uses (computers). A number of technologies that we use every day were invented privately, but used public money (the laser and transistor).

I do not understand this hostility to private spaceflight providing their services to government when so many other sectors of the economy owe their initial existence to government demand.

Companies are willing to provide their hardware to get people to the space station, use them!
 
R

rcsplinters

Guest
Theres's no hostility toward commercial manned space flight. I think it would be a great thing. I just don't believe public money should be used as start up capital for such a thing. If they have a product, let them produce and market it with private investment. The government has ZERO place in such activity except to be a consumer of the product.

I'd suggest that if you believe the market to be such a fabulous opportunity, take loans to the tune of several million and get in on the ground level. I'm not willing to make that sort of investment, with my own money or my taxes. We're a capitalist nation, we should know better.

I'd also note that government participation via technology transfer and actually purchasing capacity (seats) on private craft seems perfectly reasonable. That's much different than funding their start-up costs and getting nothing in return.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
I think the thing that absolutely undermined the administration's plan was the proposal to sit on our thumbs till 2015.
I would say the problem was that the major contractors and their congressional allies are only concerned about keeping their money, jobs, and power. As to commercialization, look at the curves of supply and demand. Only one or two seats a year can be sold at $20 million. For $100,000 even about 100 suborbital rides can be sold. For a viable market to LEO cost must probably be reduced to no more than $2 million per seat.

The most expensive item is manufacturing the expendable vehicle. The cost of fuel for launch vehicles is negligible, less than 1/2 of 1% of launch cost. So without a reusable vehicle launch cost cann ot be reduced significantly. The Shuttle was intended to accomplish this, but failure to get flight experience with prototypes before the design was finalized caused serious errors in predicted operating costs and reliabilty. Costs were ignored by Constellation and are still ignored by those who want to continue with Orion and SRB-based launch vehicles; instead it is sold as a government jobs program for Congressional leaders.

Rutan, Musk and others have a good grasp of commercial opportunities. From the standpoint of physics there is no reason the cost of spaceflight can't be reduced by an order of magnitude. But it isn't a problem that can be solved by one guy with a sketchpad, it takes real R&D. That was the plan Obama was trying to sell, and it has been sabotaged by those who just want to spend money for big rockets that won't do anything of practical value.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts