Comments on: Centennial Challenges setback

By: michael laine

michael laine — Thu, 08 Jul 2004 00:00:58 +0000

thanks for noticing this. i had not seen it, and it really matters to me. i went to the workshop they had a few weeks ago, and everything was ‘great’. they said they had the money….

i am working on the space elevator. there were 4 or 5 technologies that we needed for the SE, that were being considered for competition. i am really hoping they put that money back. and then expand it – a lot.

also, it is interesting (to me) to note that mollohan stopped this…. because he is the guy sponsoring $2.5m to go to his state for SE research.

take care. mjl

By: Dwayne A. Day

Dwayne A. Day — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 15:14:43 +0000

There is a short note on page 4 of the June 28 issue of Space News stating that the Air Force has hired the X-Prize Foundation to explore the possibility of using prizes for Air Force space missions.

By: Al terego

Al terego — Mon, 05 Jul 2004 07:20:23 +0000

In re the Kistler contact, NASA did everything it could to work with Kistler. Their award of the contract was successfully challenged on the grounds of it not being competitively sourced, and so they were forced to rescind it. Cant say this is such a bad thing. NASA was trying to do what they could to save Kistler, but Im not sure that Kistler was worth saving.

By: J. Rohrich

J. Rohrich — Sun, 04 Jul 2004 21:30:27 +0000

A Democrat and Republican suffering from HUA. Rand is right… it does suck.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:58:18 +0000

“When has this been your policy on anything?”

Believe me, if it wasn’t my policy on at least some things, I’d have no time to do anything else other than run things down, and I’d die with a huge backlog.

“I suspect that the hold up in CC funds may have less to do with concern about NASA moving ahead on the Vision and may be more tied up with overall congressional budget politics.”

Either way, it sucks. I take it personally, because I was expecting some needed consulting work on it this fall (not CC, but the exploration activities in general).

By: Dwayne A. Day

Dwayne A. Day — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:44:21 +0000

Mr. Malkin wrote:
“I have to agree with Mr. Day,”

Great! Two points for me!

“I have actually been impressed by the speed they move.”

Erp, I never said that they were fast. I just said that they have a rather standard schedule and these things move by that schedule. Making things even worse this year is the fact that the Republicans are having problems getting their entire budget moving.

It helps if you can develop the sense of thinking of time in chunks of calendar. Every political process takes a certain amount of calendar time, and when there is a delay, the entire chunk gets pushed back. It’s not like a single date is being changed, it is that date, plus all the other things that follow. For instance, last week the House Science Committee was supposed to hold a hearing on the Aldridge Commission report. They canceled that at the last minute (I still don’t know why). Once they did so, all the other stuff that is happening in Congress intercedes. For instance, Congress leaves town over the Fourth of July holiday, so when they canceled the hearing, it imposed an inevitable delay of at least a couple of weeks before it could be scheduled again.

I suspect that the hold up in CC funds may have less to do with concern about NASA moving ahead on the Vision and may be more tied up with overall congressional budget politics.

By: Dwayne A. Day

Dwayne A. Day — Sat, 03 Jul 2004 01:30:46 +0000

Mr. Simberg wrote:
“Anyway, when it comes to Kistler, I follow the old motto of “if you don’t have anything good to say…””

When has this been your policy on anything?

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:56:59 +0000

Also, I should say that the Kistler thing wasn’t unnoticed, at least not by me. I’ve just been too busy to commment. Anyway, when it comes to Kistler, I follow the old motto of “if you don’t have anything good to say…”

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:54:39 +0000

Out of a twenty billion dollars budget, the Chairman wants to hold up two million dollars on something that could have huge leverage on reducing future costs, regardless of the specifics of NASA’s plans. How far ahead is “too far ahead”?

This is idiotic micromanagement.

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Fri, 02 Jul 2004 22:20:23 +0000

I have to agree with Mr. Day, I have actually been impressed by the speed they move. Another thing both Republicans and Democrates are working together. Any vision or policy that congress develops should be dynamic but it needs look down the road at least 30 years.

As I understand that if NASA was made a department, NASA would have more control over allocation of its money. Is this true?