I don't think you guys know what the union actually does.
From all the appointments & talk by Trump, I have to wonder is NASA would be used as an advisory & technical assistance body, with commercial spaceflight taking the lead to move the USA out into space.Remember, we are looking at a President who wants to make America great again, put America first, make American business prosper, and CUT WASTE. I fear that NASA could be hit with a significant amount of cost cutting, mainly for the fact of unionized jobs limiting maximum production (unless he would get push to amend union labor laws).Just my 2 cents...
Quote from: Blackstar on 01/21/2017 09:34 pmI don't think you guys know what the union actually does.If it does more or differently than an Automaker or Transport Union, I would like your take on it edit: I am not being sarcastic, just a curious question, given your statement... I hold you in high esteem as a source here... ok
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 01/20/2017 07:48 pmPlus, just trying to fulfill the promises of "Repeal & Replace" is already looking like it will severely increase the national debt, and that is before trying to throw money at rebuilding our nations infrastructure...Call access-to-space infrastructure that needs rebuilding... not a stretch.
Plus, just trying to fulfill the promises of "Repeal & Replace" is already looking like it will severely increase the national debt, and that is before trying to throw money at rebuilding our nations infrastructure...
Doubt managing what is already on NASA's plate (or the USG's entire 'portfolio' for that matter) fits Trump's campaign slogan.
Expect change.
Remember, budgets are policy, so words about a trip to Mars while cutting the budget are not significant. We are all wondering what future NASA budgets will look like.In the past, presidents have made announcements about going to Mars, starting with George H.W. Bush in 1989, but have been reluctant to provide the necessary funding.
Quote from: Danderman on 01/22/2017 03:28 pmRemember, budgets are policy, so words about a trip to Mars while cutting the budget are not significant. We are all wondering what future NASA budgets will look like.In the past, presidents have made announcements about going to Mars, starting with George H.W. Bush in 1989, but have been reluctant to provide the necessary funding.You mean Congress has been reluctant to provide necessary funding. Presidents haven't seen the need to use political capital to get Congress to increase NASA funding. It's just not that high on the priorities list.
A large-scale HSF mission can be used tactically by those in power to distract the citizenry similar to what the Romans did with their area games... Remember our program began as a tool and it could be used again to serve a "great-again" illusion agenda...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/22/2017 11:00 pmA large-scale HSF mission can be used tactically by those in power to distract the citizenry similar to what the Romans did with their area games... Remember our program began as a tool and it could be used again to serve a "great-again" illusion agenda...If we look to Apollo, the Shuttle and the ISS those programs took years of spending before the public was able to see something to get excited about. Certainly longer than 4 years. And as we all know from the Apollo program, the public was against going to the Moon until we were close to actually going to the Moon.And I think most in Congress will understand this, so I don't think they will fund something new in the hopes of distracting the public, since anything big enough to be useful will require a LOT of funding - and Republican's are already going to running up a massive deficit, which the public won't like.I don't know, I just don't think it's a likely scenario...
Quote from: Rocket Science on 01/22/2017 11:00 pmA large-scale HSF mission can be used tactically by those in power to distract the citizenry similar to what the Romans did with their area games... Remember our program began as a tool and it could be used again to serve a "great-again" illusion agenda...Far better than the more common tactic of starting a pointless war somewhere. Even a large scale HSF mission is cheaper than a war, the number of people who can die is very low, it doesn't screw up a bunch of young people, and it doesn't make you look like a huge douche.
Yeah, war is bad.That really isn't the issue. The question is what programs will the Trump administration support via additional funding vs those that will be cancelled.Every incoming administration is accompanied by spacers claiming that this new president is going to send us to Mars or the Moon or wherever, and sometimes they even talk about doing that. The problem is that funding for such adventures never becomes a priority.
Quote from: Danderman on 01/23/2017 01:52 amYeah, war is bad.That really isn't the issue. The question is what programs will the Trump administration support via additional funding vs those that will be cancelled.Every incoming administration is accompanied by spacers claiming that this new president is going to send us to Mars or the Moon or wherever, and sometimes they even talk about doing that. The problem is that funding for such adventures never becomes a priority.Beating the 'more funding' drum will, get us no where. What is needed is to get more out of the funds that we have. NASA has become somewhat pathological in always vastly underestimating what projects will cost and how long they will take to deliver -- JWST being the classical example, Constellation/SLS being another. Rewarding programs that over-promise and under-produce must be curtailed.Find a new way of doing business that gets more bang for the buck.
Yes, what does the new administration both want to fund and can persuade congress to fund?There are clearly a lot of tensions/potential conflict between making government smaller/cutting spending/'draining the swamp' of vested interests etc vs the approach to the funding of large-scale NASA programmes that congress has been approving for years.Obama succeeded in cancelling constellation only for congress to ensure billions were spent on SLS instead (and more than the administration requested).Given the slow rate at which it appears the new administration is nominating and getting confirmation of new appointees across government, I think it could be quite a long time before there's any clarity on what may happen in terms of NASA funding (at least for HSF, other areas - climate research? - may be clearer rather sooner).