3 ms·

Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pul

Oh please. Sure, they'll authorize money for some big things right now, then in a year or two they'll change their minds (after new people are elected) and pull the plug on it. They've done it over and over. The only way the US can get anything done in space exploration is if it can be fully funded and completed in less than 2 years. So a little probe here and there is completely doable, but a Space Shuttle replacement or manned Mars mission or any other big project is a complete no-go. It won't ever happen.

ceejayoz 10y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Congressional waffling, presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy, etc. have all done this many times. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
- nickff 10y ago
  The current president killed Constellation, it wasn't Congress. The next president is likely to kill SLS, or perhaps just 'limit' it, so that SLS preserves the jobs, but loses the missions.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    Congress was one of two scenarios I mentioned. The other, "presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy", is exactly what Constellation was - both in its inception, and its cancellation.
nugga 10y ago
Some people call SLS the senate launch system [1] because it's a blatant jobs program. It'll be inefficient and overprized project to deliver stuff that the private sector could handle much better. [1] http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/ http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-sys...
- whyenot 10y ago
  "Some people" in this care are the Competitive Space Task Force, a "coalition of leading conservative and libertarian thinkers from organizations committed to creating a free and competitive market for U.S. spaceflight". As one would expect from an organization with that particular point of view, they believe the SLS is a complete boondoggle and private industry should do the work. I wish there were a more neutral source of information. The best I have found is Wikipedia, which obviously has its own limitations. Bill Nye is for it, the Planetary Society was against it, but is no longer against it. I don't know. Why it is necessary for US taxpayers to pay for this OR subsidize companies like SpaceX is a mystery to me. Spend the money on something that will have a greater impact on the lives of those paying the bill.
  - greglindahl 10y ago
    NASA paid SpaceX & OSC in advance to produce cost-effective vehicles that NASA then bought. Paying in advance to create new products like this is a standard commercial transaction, and it saved NASA a lot of money compared to buying what was already available, according to NASA. Sounds like you don't want to fund space at all, but that's a different discussion.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      It's not even unique. NASA didn't even build the F-5 rocket engines that sent men to the Moon; Rocketdyne did. That's the way government contracting has pretty much always worked. The government typically does a bunch of R&D work, and works with commercial companies to actually build things, especially in quantity.

ceejayoz 10y ago

Not sure why you're getting downvoted for this. Congressional waffling, presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy, etc. have all done this many times. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program

nickff 10y ago
The current president killed Constellation, it wasn't Congress. The next president is likely to kill SLS, or perhaps just 'limit' it, so that SLS preserves the jobs, but loses the missions.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  Congress was one of two scenarios I mentioned. The other, "presidents wanting to make their own mark on space policy", is exactly what Constellation was - both in its inception, and its cancellation.

nugga 10y ago

Some people call SLS the senate launch system [1] because it's a blatant jobs program. It'll be inefficient and overprized project to deliver stuff that the private sector could handle much better. [1] http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-system/ http://www.competitivespace.org/issues/the-senate-launch-sys...

whyenot 10y ago
"Some people" in this care are the Competitive Space Task Force, a "coalition of leading conservative and libertarian thinkers from organizations committed to creating a free and competitive market for U.S. spaceflight". As one would expect from an organization with that particular point of view, they believe the SLS is a complete boondoggle and private industry should do the work. I wish there were a more neutral source of information. The best I have found is Wikipedia, which obviously has its own limitations. Bill Nye is for it, the Planetary Society was against it, but is no longer against it. I don't know. Why it is necessary for US taxpayers to pay for this OR subsidize companies like SpaceX is a mystery to me. Spend the money on something that will have a greater impact on the lives of those paying the bill.
- greglindahl 10y ago
  NASA paid SpaceX & OSC in advance to produce cost-effective vehicles that NASA then bought. Paying in advance to create new products like this is a standard commercial transaction, and it saved NASA a lot of money compared to buying what was already available, according to NASA. Sounds like you don't want to fund space at all, but that's a different discussion.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    It's not even unique. NASA didn't even build the F-5 rocket engines that sent men to the Moon; Rocketdyne did. That's the way government contracting has pretty much always worked. The government typically does a bunch of R&D work, and works with commercial companies to actually build things, especially in quantity.