I disagree. NASA wouldn't get the budget that it gets if it wasn't dominated by Florida and Texas politicians.
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/03/2015 01:33 pmThe GAO is fairly neutral and are generally supportive of NASA.You can't be neutral and supportive at the same time. I see them as just neutral.
The GAO is fairly neutral and are generally supportive of NASA.
Quote from: Rocket Science on 09/03/2015 04:09 pmJust as a side note: The President looks after the interest of the United States while Representatives primary concern is the state they represent... So those folks are just doing their job whether we like it or not...I agree that is what they do. Their job, however, is to propose and enact policies that benefit the nation. In the case of NASA, forcing the agency to continue to spend a large part of its budget on a launch system that is, as far as I can tell, too expensive to apply to any practical goal does not advance the national interests or even the exploration of space.
Just as a side note: The President looks after the interest of the United States while Representatives primary concern is the state they represent... So those folks are just doing their job whether we like it or not...
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/03/2015 01:35 pmI disagree. NASA wouldn't get the budget that it gets if it wasn't dominated by Florida and Texas politicians.One interpretation of that though, is that we wouldn't be wasting so much money on "certain programs" if not for "certain politicians".I for one am perfectly fine with NASA being funded because of the goals it's asked to meet, not the jobs it provides. If that means less money at different times, then so be it.
Or you might get a space program that focuses only on robotic exploration because most politicians believe that human exploration is too expensive and there are other more important needs than space.
I don't agree with that statement but that is the reason that human exploration isn't pursued in many other countries.
Here's a little more data relevant to this thread's title. The new senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner, has teemed up with fellow Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, to ask GAO to review NASA's commercial cargo contracts in light of this year's failures. Their letter to GAO is attached.This letter strikes me as less unreasonable than the one sent by Gardner (then in the House) and Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and Mike Coffman (R--Colorado) in 2014 alleging that SpaceX was covering up an "epidemic of anomalies". Still, if Gardner and Vitter truly believe that they must be "responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars in achieving our priorities and goals for spaceflight," to quote their letter, then how can they ignore, for example, the $2 billion annualy spent on uncompeted contracts for SLS when it has no well-defined purpose?
Quote from: yg1968 on 09/03/2015 11:15 pmOr you might get a space program that focuses only on robotic exploration because most politicians believe that human exploration is too expensive and there are other more important needs than space.And that may happen once the ISS is decommissioned, since I think the SLS program will be closed down prior to 2024 for lack of need, and there are currently no funded programs that require humans in space except for supporting the ISS.
Gerst indicated that NASA wil still have LEO needs after the ISS is splashed. He indicated that they could be interested in renting a Bigelow module (even before the ISS is splashed). I think that the general intent is to make LEO commercial. But commercial still means pursuing governement as clients. In any event, I think that's a step in the right direction.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) said Sept. 2 that despite assurances from the Air Force that it is keeping close tabs on SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket failure investigation, he remains “extremely concerned” by what he characterized as the service’s “hands-off” approach.
Quote from: Proponent on 09/03/2015 06:30 amHere's a little more data relevant to this thread's title. The new senator from Colorado, Cory Gardner, has teemed up with fellow Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, to ask GAO to review NASA's commercial cargo contracts in light of this year's failures. Their letter to GAO is attached.This letter strikes me as less unreasonable than the one sent by Gardner (then in the House) and Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Alabama) and Mike Coffman (R--Colorado) in 2014 alleging that SpaceX was covering up an "epidemic of anomalies". Still, if Gardner and Vitter truly believe that they must be "responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars in achieving our priorities and goals for spaceflight," to quote their letter, then how can they ignore, for example, the $2 billion annualy spent on uncompeted contracts for SLS when it has no well-defined purpose?The 'game' is now becoming silly. U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) has thrown his weight into this assault on CRS as well:http://spacenews.com/colorado-lawmaker-pushes-u-s-air-force-to-scrutinize-spacex/But he is specifically targeting SpaceX. Coffman being the representative from Colorado makes him anything but unpartial as his state is home to some of the biggest competitors of SpaceX.
Commercial Space Supporter Leading Candidate to Become Next House SpeakerWASHINGTON — The surprise announcement by House Speaker Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) that he would resign from Congress may clear the way for a staunch supporter of the commercial space industry to ascend to the top post in the chamber.>The leading candidate to succeed Boehner is House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is second only to Boehner in the House Republican leadership. His district includes the Mojave Air and Space Port, a commercial spaceport that is home to several space companies, including Masten Space Systems, Stratolaunch Systems and Virgin Galactic.>