If we were to set aside natioanl security issues
I would prefer NASA buy Russian & Ukrainian boosters.

{ / wink }

No, the exceptions are quite specific.

> Anyway, NASA doesn’t own or operate ANY launchers, right?

No, wrong. NASA owns and operates the Shuttle — and you want to perpetuate that by developing yet another expensive national launch system.

> Shuttle derived B/C/Z or Ares could be owned and operated by the United Space Alliance (arguably a commerical provider

That’s sophistry. None of those vehicles have any commercial viability. Putting the deed in the contractor’s name to circumvent the law doesn’t change that.

> Why is this an issue?

Because NASA’s mandate is to “seek and encourage to the maximum extent possible the fullest commercial use of space.” NASA can do that by buying commercial launch services *as the law requires*. It cannot do it by squandering tens of billions on a new heavy lift vehicle that will make space access even more expensive, lead to more astronaut layoffs, and discourage the industry that NASA is suppose to encourage.

It’s against the law, it’s bad policy, it’s bad economics, it’s bad engineering, and it’s bad politics. Other than that, Bill — there’s nothing wrong with it.

(b) Exceptions

Upon any such determination, the Administrator shall, within 30 days, notify in writing the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of the determination and its rationale.

A 1st year law student could drive a truck through these exceptions. . .

Anyway, NASA doesn’t own or operate ANY launchers, right?

So what’s the issue?

Shuttle derived B/C/Z or Ares could be owned and operated by the United Space Alliance (arguably a commerical provider) and EELV+ (Delta IV super heavy) would be owned and operated by Boeing or Lockheed anyway.

Why is this an issue?

Bill, I’ve explained to you before, orbiter parts are not commercial launch services.

To comply with the law, you have to comply with all the words, not just pick the words you like.

I understand the analogy quite well. The problem is that at best a lunar base is like building a Fort at San Franscisco in say 1787.

The US had neither the money or the capabilities to protect and service it…and neither the sailing vessels of the time nor the RR’s had matured enough.

Its well “a fort to far”.

ISS is another matter.

Robert

The entire orbiter is composed of parts purchased from the private sector, right?

> Government isn’t the only one that CAN do it, government is just the only
> one that IS doing it.

Define “doing it.” Unless I’m mistaken, NASA doesn’t have any astronauts beyond LEO.

Do you mean “did it 30 years ago” — and if so, how is that relevant to today?

You mean, it’s not the question you want to answer. You’d rather attack private enterprise than defend the track record of the government vehicles you advocate. Why is that?

> I know that NASA has been involved, but why has NASA involvement hindered private industry
> from “doing it right”?

Because it prevents NASA from buying private launch services, as the law requires.

> Whilst NASA fumbled why didn’t private industry prove it could be done better?

Because NASA distorts the market in ways that make it very hard for private industry to enter.

That’s why Congress passed the Launch Services Purchase Act.

> The aerospace company that does develop cheap access could take over the launch market,
> so what don’t they just doe it if it is so simple?

Because it isn’t that simple. A company can’t just walk into NASA Headquarters and demand to “take over” all of NASA’s business.

Again, that’s why Congress passed the Launch Services Purchase Act.

Now, why do you think NASA should develop its own vehicles instead of buying commercial launch services *as the law requires*?

Posted by Dogsbd at October 28, 2004 04:14 PM