4 ms·

Cancel SLS. Cancel Orion. Mass produce satellites and space station modules instead.

wil421 9y ago
These programs for NASA are just as much a job creation program as it is a mission. I think with Trump the easiest sell would be more American manufacturing than a Uranus mission.
- searine 9y ago
  Constellation/SLS was important when there wasn't a commercial launch market because the programs maintained technical and manufacturing know-how. Now that there are several competitive and reliable commercial launch providers who maintain that know-how, we need to stop subsidizing bloated defense contractors and instead spend that money on buying launches and making satellites.
  - wil421 9y ago
    Why would the US give up all of their launch capabilities to private companies? From a strategic point of view it’s not a good approach. I’m sure someone in Washington is making a similar case. I agree there should be a balence but NASA shouldn’t have to solely rely on the likes of Space X. Bloated defense contractors are a symptom of the problem, look at the scope creep of the F35. Is it the government contractors or unclear/ever changing requirements?
    - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
      I don't know that NASA has ever built a heavy launch system in-house without contractor help. What's missing is a few more start-ups like SpaceX to totally crowd out the likes of Boeing from the contractor feeding trough.
      - wil421 9y ago
        No they don’t build in house. Like I said it’s as much of a job creation program as it is a space one.
    - valuearb 9y ago
      Why did the US give up all their airplane manufacturing capabilities to private companies?
      - wil421 9y ago
        You are confused on what I am saying. They shouldn’t just rely on booking flights with some private company. They will never build in house and never have. Just like the military some large contractor will build the plane or spaceship according to their specs. Boeing doesn’t create a figther jet and then sell it to someone. If space goes private it would be like this.

These programs for NASA are just as much a job creation program as it is a mission. I think with Trump the easiest sell would be more American manufacturing than a Uranus mission.

searine 9y ago
Constellation/SLS was important when there wasn't a commercial launch market because the programs maintained technical and manufacturing know-how. Now that there are several competitive and reliable commercial launch providers who maintain that know-how, we need to stop subsidizing bloated defense contractors and instead spend that money on buying launches and making satellites.
- wil421 9y ago
  Why would the US give up all of their launch capabilities to private companies? From a strategic point of view it’s not a good approach. I’m sure someone in Washington is making a similar case. I agree there should be a balence but NASA shouldn’t have to solely rely on the likes of Space X. Bloated defense contractors are a symptom of the problem, look at the scope creep of the F35. Is it the government contractors or unclear/ever changing requirements?
  - elsonrodriguez 9y ago
    I don't know that NASA has ever built a heavy launch system in-house without contractor help. What's missing is a few more start-ups like SpaceX to totally crowd out the likes of Boeing from the contractor feeding trough.
    - wil421 9y ago
      No they don’t build in house. Like I said it’s as much of a job creation program as it is a space one.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    Why did the US give up all their airplane manufacturing capabilities to private companies?
    - wil421 9y ago
      You are confused on what I am saying. They shouldn’t just rely on booking flights with some private company. They will never build in house and never have. Just like the military some large contractor will build the plane or spaceship according to their specs. Boeing doesn’t create a figther jet and then sell it to someone. If space goes private it would be like this.