So why was Sen. Mel Martinez brandishing a copy of the Washington Post Wednesday morning?
He was referring to a front-page article about the rise of other countries in space as he started his remarks at a Capitol Hill event organized by Women In Aerospace. “The United States needs to recommit to spaceflight, needs to recommit to a future of exploration where we have led the way,” he said. “What’s going in the next several years I consider to be not only a threat to our national security and sovereignty but also a real honest-to-goodness challenge.”
During his remarks, and a brief question-and-answer session that followed, he expressed his concerns about the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the introduction of Constellation and the several thousand jobs predicted to be lost at the Kennedy Space Center. “As a nation, a five-year gap in spaceflight is just too long,” he said. “It isn’t right, is isn’t what America’s about. So I would love for us to somehow find a way to shrink that gap.” He didn’t specify how that gap should be shortened, but did say, “if we were to add a billion dollars to the NASA budget, we could substantially shorten the gap.” (He may want to check with Jeff Hanley about that.)
Asked if he felt the agency’s current direction, including human missions to the Moon and eventually Mars, was the right way forward, Martinez admitted that he did not personally find current work on the space station that exciting. “I don’t know what happens up there. I mean, I keep up with it, but I don’t know of anything I can relate to. I can’t get anybody excited about the thought of, ‘Man, I’m going to go up there and stay for six months and do whatever they do.’ That’s not quite it.” Therefore, he said, “visiting other places” like the Moon might be much more exciting to the public.
Martinez was also asked if he talked with John McCain or others in his campaign about his economic proposals, including a discretionary budget freeze that, coupled with the likelihood of a continuing resolution for part or even all of FY 2009, would seem to exacerbate the gap and the potential job losses on the Space Coast. “You know, I have not, and I need to do it; that’s a very good point,” Martinez said. He then pointed to a staffer in the back of the room. “You know, Michael, that’s something we should pursue.”
(Disclosures: 1) The Post article includes references to work performed by my employer, and a quote from the company president. 2) I am an officer in Women in Aerospace.)
There’s always Shuttle-C. Oops, no sole source development contract for ATK with that one. What was I thinking?
This endless preaching about the gap and how important it is to return to the Moon is getting really really old. I still have yet to see any rationale why this is important, especially in light of more important issues, such as energy, the lagging economy, waning U.S. economic competitiveness and social security.
The U.S. government provides 81% of all global government investments in space. In addition to our immense orbital national security infrastructure, we have spacecraft on the way to Mercury, Ceres/Vesta and Pluto. We have stationary and mobile science stations in orbit and on the surface of Mars, and one of the most sophisticated spacecraft in history in orbit about Saturn.
We still launch the Shuttle on a regular basis and are the majority shareholder of the International Space Station.
Bottom line…quit the Chicken Little exhortations about how the U.S. is falling behind in space to the Chinese, Indians, Europeans, Brazilians, etc., etc. It merely makes the U.S. look like a third-rate paranoiac state, and the U.S. public doesn’t buy it.
.
in my opinion, this is the “right” way:
1. within 2010, just modify the Shuttles to have a 30+ mT “smart” cargo/assembly/repair/bring-back-to-Earth vehicle ( gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html ) until the Ares-1 (30 mT “dumb” cargo) rocket will be ready to fly around 2015 (or LATER…)
2. within 2015, furher modify the Shuttles to be SAFER for the astronauts ( gaetanomarano.it/articles/015safeShuttle.html ) then STILL use it as crew, cargo or crew+cargo vehicle for orbital and ISS missions and fill the space access GAP until the Orion will be ready to fly in 2016 (or one-two years LATER…)
3. scrap ALL new/bad/expensive devices from the ESAS plan, like the 5/5.5/6 segments SRB, the J-2X, etc.
4. start develop something BIGGER and BETTER (but simpler and cheaper) using ONLY ready available engines and motors… something like (e.g.) the Ares 5+ (or Ares_33) … http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts/032ares5srb3.html
5. don’t change the (already flawed and underpowered) Ares-5 with the (much more flawed) Direct “dwarf-rocket” if you did not want to land just a new collection of flags on the Moon…
.
Fellow Watchers Of The Skies –
sc220 had an excellent question:
This endless preaching about the gap and how important it is to return to the Moon is getting really really old. I still have yet to see any rationale why this is important, [snip]
We still launch the Shuttle on a regular basis and are the majority shareholder of the International Space Station.
I think he was asking about two things – why is The Gap important, and why is the return to the Moon important.
I would defer my opinion about The Gap to a later paragraph, where we talk about the US being the majority shareholder in the International Space Station.
A return to the Moon is [big sigh here] not important for our economy, our security, etc. It is a big Nice To Have. I am eager to return to the Moon and go on to Mars, but not at the price of overwhelming our ability to pay for it.
Bottom Line – The Gap is important since we have spent so much on the ISS. If we do not have the capability to launch people to the ISS, will the Russians permit (and I am very serious here, not just shooting from the lip) us to send people to the ISS??? Will we be faced with the US doing lots of sustaining engineering of a Station that we see the rest of the world profiting from?? We could see Europe and Japan paying Russia to send their people to ISS, while we have lots of people here keeping the systems alive.
Then, would we be making decisions about whether to turn off support or asking the Russians to contribute to our costs? What would the taxpayer say to that, while we are struggling to pay for costs of a new capability that is running over budget, running behind schedule, etc? By the way, all technology projects run over budget and behind schedule – count on this one doing the same.
I think we’re all underestimating just how important the word “image” is when it comes to space, politics, or anything remotely of the sort. You see it in nature all the time: even if the bug is just a bug, if it looks big, than other bugs don’t mess with it. It the same thing when it comes to politics. Yes, even if China gets to the Moon firsts, even if Russia becomes “ascendant” in some way, America will (hopefully) have the best science, the most advanced space craft, etc. etc. But we still need to look good on the space stage. If we’re just a bunch of second-raters (or look that way from the outside) who’s only interest is “we got neat robots, isn’t that cool kids?” then suddenly we become something of a laughing stock. And in future generation, who’s going to want to work for a space program that’s only interest is cool pictures and orbital space station flights?
To better understand the “politics” side of the whole “space-politics” deal, you’ve got to think like a politician. And politicians, especially when it comes to science/technology are more concerned with how these things benefit the nation. Sorry, but nifty robots and cool space stations really aren’t doing much but science. Science is great! (I’m a science student). But unless that science looks good and exciting, it’s not doing much for the politicians. And politicians write the checks.
So the reason closing that Gap is important, the reason manned space exploration is important, is because it serves our national image. Hence space-POLITICS.
So, yeah, I understand Sen. Mel Martinez’s plight. And it’s important, something that shouldn’t be taken lightly.
It’s important to note that Senator Martinez represents Florida (i.e. Kennedy Space Center).
A billion dollars isn’t going to help much to reduce the gap if it’s used for Ares 1 and Orion, as Jeff’s link indicates.
However, it has a good chance to reduce the gap significantly if used as an incentive to develop commercial crew transportation systems, such as with a COTS phase D competition.
A billion dollars is double the full proposed amount of NASA incentives for 2 independent COTS cargo systems. We would have to see what proposals were sent in to know more details, but the general approach has promise.
Competing systems could benefit from existing EELVs, current COTS efforts, Shuttle infrastructure, new NewSpace innovations, and even existing foreign components if allowed by the competition rules. The competition would involve shared investment by the commercial competitors, which would save NASA money. The resulting transportation system(s) would also tend to help with other economic, science, and security concerns to the extent that they develop new capabilities like cost-effective launchers that can address these areas, or to the extent that they share costs with existing systems that address these areas. Addressing these “other” uses, whether commercial transport to Bigelow stations, launching unmanned payloads, or addressing other markets, may be even more important to the country as a whole than solving NASA’s ISS crew transportation problem.
Plus, NASA wouldn’t have to pay the incentives until the competitors met their milestones.
If these new transportation systems launch out of Florida, all the better for Senator Martinez’s constituents. In the meantime, Ares 1 and Orion would still have their budgets, would still eventually be a backup for ISS crew transportation without requiring a crash program to meet that need, and would still eventually head to the Moon.
[…] Space Politics » Martinez: “find a way to shrink that gap†[…]
[…] Space Politics » Martinez: “find a way to shrink that gap†[…]
The good Senator is few years late with his battle cry. Those guys knew about a gap 3 years ago if they did business as usual.
The Orion gap doesn’t bother me so much as the much bigger gap for the CaLV. I’ll guess that its about 2 or 3 to one compared to Orion. I think its likely that the ISS will soak up Nasa’s funding intended for the CaLV once the CEV and CLV are in production. It will probably take about 8 years to get the CaLV into production so sometime around 2028 we’ll be ready to lob it to the moon. By then, the Chinese and others might be there to greet us. Perhaps they’ll send their congratulations from Mars? Does that matter?
Red: I like your thoughts about the COTS program. I do think it’s a very important, revolutionary concept and could very well be the last hope for NASA. The agency isn’t doing very well at all these days. Duh. The question is can it be saved? That’s where things get tricky. I’d say no, it can’t. I’d say NASA’s on its last legs here; therefore, it needs to find some good way of passing the torch. COTS might be the start of that, but I think the only way NASA’s going to get through this is by showing more and more support for private/independent space ventures. And not just by saying “hey, we love you guys!” No, NASA needs to start taking advantage of all these opportunities and employing independent vehicles, and one day maybe even independent crew. Who knows how this will develop or look in the future, but the so-call “private space industry” is really the only way out I see. We talk about space being inspirational. Well, if your everyman now has access to space and its fruits, isn’t that inspirational? Isn’t the prospect of becoming an “independent astronaut” inspirational? And God knows this will only grow and expand in the future. We talk about space and economy. If you have safe, well run, and relatively cheap (cheaper than they are at the moment, anyway) spaceflight opportunities, then people from all over the world would flock to the “spaceports.” And if we have best, the cheapest, the most effective, the safest, and the most high-profile private space industry, not only do we look good at home, we look good across the world too. So private space I think is really vital all across the board and is really what makes the difference in the long run.
So, in conclusion to my no doubt over-long comment, I think we should be focusing on passing on the torch to more and more private and independent space. NASA may hang in there for a while yet. And who knows, maybe it will even be saved in the end, in some form or another. But the agency really needs to step back and rethink its options. COTS is good move and a step in the right direction. But it needs to go further still if we’re going to push on.
The big problem with The Gap is that it puts us at the mercy of Russia, which doesn’t seem to have much mercy for those who disagree with its policies lately. Note this article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/12/world/europe/12czech.html?hp
MOSCOW — Three days after the Czech Republic signed an agreement with the United States to host a tracking radar for an antiballistic missile system that Russia vehemently opposes, the authorities in Prague said the flow of Russian oil to their country was beginning to dwindle.
Does anyone here believe Russia wouldn’t cheerfully do like wise for U.S. access to the ISS if we displease the new Czars?
Global politics have changed since the decision was made to retire the Shuttle. U.S. space policy needs to change in response to it.
Keep the Shuttle flying until a replacement is flying and do a crash program on putting capsules on the EELV to ensure we have one. And also give Elon a cost-plus contract (Yes you will need to do a proper RFP for it…) so he will be able to accelerate the Dragon. That is the best combination.
Or else you will see the headline, “Russia announnces No Room on Soyuz for NASA Astronaut after missile defense system is deployed”…
Someone: Nicely put. Russia and China both I think pose admittedly dangerous threats. If US presence in space dwindles or fades on the PUBLIC radar, than we might be in huge trouble. In politics, what the people see is of great, great importance. Even if you’re a really bad politician, if the public thinks you’re great, then you’ll get reelected again. Same goes for NASA and space in general. When public support for a program, like NASA, fades, then so does that program. We need to at least be active enough, stay in the running, so that we don’t drop out of the minds of the populace. If we fall behind, not only Russia, but China now has a lot more leeway. The US needs to keep its lead not only in space, but in science and technology in general. What happens when suddenly all our science and engineering jobs go overseas too? That would not only damage our economy. It would also damage our global reputation, our national pride (what little of it is left anyway), our education system, and myriad of other things that we just can’t afford to lose. And NASA is the key point, the center piece of American scientific and technological achievement. If we lose that, then I’ll bet that a whole ton of other things would follow. And then America just becomes a laughing stock, and that could be very, very, VERY dangerous in the long run. Then other rival and hostile nations decide to start test just how big and bad the US still is. We could a whole lot more wars and conflicts on our hands then we could deal with. This may be an extreme possibility, but even still, anything short of that could be just as bad. So, yes, America has GOT to stay in the lead. Closing the Gap, or filling it with private space opportunities is most certainly an important element to consider.
And also give Elon a cost-plus contract (Yes you will need to do a proper RFP for it…) so he will be able to accelerate the Dragon.
What if he doesn’t want a cost-plus contract?
Because if he doesn’t want one then SpaceDev or Orbital Sciences will and he will have more competitors in a market that is already tight.
Also without a cost-plus contract he may be have to do an IPO to raise capital. His pockets are deep, but not that deep and he is learning how the game is played in aerospace. And I am betting given the choice between a cost-plus and IPO he would take the former to stay in control and keep SpaceX private.
SOMEONE: Also without a cost-plus contract he may be have to do an IPO to raise capital.
Dear Someone,
You are pushing a false choice. There are other options, including firm-fixed-price (FFP). Taking firm-fixed-price contracts off the table, without any discussion of the FFP option, suggests either ignorance or intentional obfuscation.
Mike Griffin is straight shooter on this issue, and he has been perfectly clear that bringing traditional industry into space, which means using FFP contracting (among other things), is a good thing. In Griffin’s Speech to the Space Transportation Association on 21 June 21 2005 he said:
GRIFFIN: in fact what I would offer is that we in the space business and in the government acquisition business in general, are the Non-Traditional procurers … the traditional providers are the ones who are working in the fashion that I’m describing and that I want to bring to the space business.
Why would Griffin want to do that?
Chris Shank, who recently became NASA’s new AA for Strategic Communications has previously said:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/07/
“We’ve run the budget and we can’t afford to do this with a traditional approach.”
Griffin and Shank are absolutely spot on on this issue (although I wish they would do more.)
Related to this, the current ISS cargo services procurement is FFP. The reason? FFP is required by law.
FWIW,
– Al
On second thought, since U.S. law requires that NASA procure space transportation services as FFP, the real choice for SpaceX is between accepting a FFP contract, or raising more private capital (NOTE: IPO, is only one of well over a dozen ways to raise private capital).
There is no such thing as a “proper RFP” for a cost-plus procurement of space transportation services.
FWIW,
– Al
Al,
I know alt.spacers see cost-plus as some sort of ultimate evil. But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus. And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used. If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
But I will submit a question to you since you are so knowledgeable. How many of the operational orbital launch vehicles in the U.S. inventory, current or historic, have been successfully developed under fixed price contracts? A list please with details.
As for proper RFP, I was referring to one that meant all the legal requirements for a RFP. I am not sure what you are trying to twist the meaning into.
Really its time to end the experimentation with procurement and go back to what has worked in the past to ensure America’s lead in space. These attempts to “save†money have only turned out to be more expensive, especially as they have failed to produce any Shuttle replacement.
Firm fixed vs. cost plus, what a laugh! We pay contractors a profit on every hour it takes to develop a new rocket. I sure hope they don’t run into any problems. It’s the same way we pay lawyers to handle divorce cases, so it must make sense.
But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus.
Only if by “successful,” you mean it eventually results in very expensive working hardware.
And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used.
Perhaps. At a cost to the taxpayer of billions. And probably a radically different vehicle than the one originally proposed.
If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
Perhaps. And likely just as big an economic disaster (and perhaps safety one as well) as the Shuttle.
We don’t like that form of procurement because historically, in terms of affordable access to space, it has repeatedly been proven not to work.
By the way, “Someone,” what makes you think that Pegasus was developed on a cost-plus contract?
[…] Martinez: “find a way to shrink that gap†– Space Politics […]
Are you claiming it wasn’t? That it was privately funded? Like COTS?
Wouldn’t that undermine the claim of New Spacers that SpaceShipOne was the first privately funded spacecraft to reach space?
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/20/1158681.aspx
This weekend marks four years since Burt Rutan and his team at Scaled Composites ushered in the age of privately developed spaceflight with the SpaceShipOne rocket plane.
And that COTS is some type of breakthrough model in government funding?
And wouldn’t that mean that private spaceflight has been around since 1990? But how could that be if Orbital Sciences is not a New Space firm? And if Burt Rutan invited private spaceflight as many New Spacers claim…
So is the New Space community making false claims about the history of private spaceflight? And that the first flight of Orbital Science’s Pegasus needs to get the honors as the first privately developed vehicle to reach space? And that April 5, 1990, not June 21, 2004 needs to be celebrated as the dawn of the New Space Age??? Inquiring minds want to know.
BTW yes it was expensive hardware, but it was hardware, not vaporware…
Rand,
It is clear that “Someone” thinks that unbelievably expensive, but working, hardware is a success.
Not sure what “Someone’s” goal is. Perhaps it is to persuade the American taxpayers to pay for more unbelievably expensive hardware to go into the pockets of non-traditional contractors? (If you are a non-traditional contractor, or work for one, this is a valid goal.)
Perhaps he finds the current situation — where we spend hundreds of billions and decades of time — to go around in circles?
Perhaps his goal is to protect his job, and those of his friends and family? (This is a valid goal for some people.)
There is no purpose to continuing this discussion until “someone” lays out what he thinks our national objective in space should be.
You can justify just about any road, if you don’t know (or don’t say) where you are going.
– Al
Are you claiming it wasn’t? That it was privately funded? Like COTS?
So, you’re completely unaware of the development history of Pegasus? And yet you pontificate here as though you are all knowing?
Wouldn’t that undermine the claim of New Spacers that SpaceShipOne was the first privately funded spacecraft to reach space?
First privately funded manned spacecraft to reach space.
yes it was expensive hardware, but it was hardware, not vaporware…
XCOR has built a lot of hardware. None of it was built on a cost-plus contract.
And none of XCOR hardware has reached space.
Rand,
I know exactly how Pegasus was funded which is why I am curious why you think fixed based contracts are the answer. It was also why I included it, to see if you would pick up on it and use it as a poster child for the superiority of fixed priced contracts
Pegasus was funded by a DARPA contract that paid roughly $36 million a launch for five launches, just like COTS. Since New Space hype and serial failures had not yet poisoned the investor perception (and created a giggle factor…) for entrepreneurial space firms Orbital Science was able to easily raise the money and build it in only three years. And quickly go to an nice IPO in 1990.
However Pegasus is also one of the more expensive ways to get a half of ton into orbit. That is why I find it so funny that you think that fixed priced contracts are some magic bullet that will produce low cost space access. If anything it will just stall the development of innovative solutions because firms will not want to take technical risks. The more technical risk, the more difficult it is to estimate your costs and the less attractive a fixed price contract is to a rational business firm. That is one driven by markets and investors, not philosophy.
Look at SpaceX Falcon 9. What is radical about it? n standard expendable launch vehicle with a 1960’s era capsule. Ditto for the other COTS entry, Orbital Science. Nothing innovative or cheap about them.
At $100 million a flight to ISS the Falcon 9/Dragon costs more then the Soyuz. Given a stated cargo payload of 2500 kg that is $40,000//kg or $88.000 lb. Some cost breakthrough.
I expect the cost figures for the Orbital Science won’t be much better.
So where is the great price breakthrough for the American taxpayers from fixed priced contract?
RLV and TSTO will required technical risk, and the firms capable of doing will require some assurance of a return on their investment. That is why cost-plus contracting is used for funding new rockets that are innovative, so firms are willing to be innovative.
Also Alan Boyle did not note in his hype piece it only marked the birth of private manned spaceflight, even the title stated “PRIVATE SPACE AGE TURNS 4†doesn’t quality it. But just go to any New Space event and they act like no one ever built and launched a private rocket before. Orbital Science is not considered a New Space company, but an Old Space one…
The only thing NEW about New Space is the Hype.
Al,
My agenda is to see the U.S. stay the leader in space. And that won’t happened if we are sending astronauts up as spam in a can, regardless if the can is supplied by a “capitalist†New Space corporation or by a “socialist†old space one. The U.S. needs a TSTO Shuttle and the only way to get one will be the old fashion way of a cost-plus contract so the technology is able to be forced forward.
No, the first generation TSTO will probably not be economical, but neither that the P-59 any smashing success.
It’s the second generation one that will create the cost breakthrough once the first generation one shows its possible to do it. The P-80 benefited from the lessons of the P-59 and was a classic.
But you won’t get that second generation one without building the first generation vehicle. And you won’t get it waiting for private enterprise to retire the risk. You only will get it by spending the money to build it.
Look at the 20 years wasted since Challenger with experimental private spacecraft and experimental funding models. Imagine if that had simply been applied to building a TSTO to replace the Shuttle in the early 1990’s. The height of stupidity is advocating the same ideas for 20 years that haven’t worked and expect that they will somehow, magically, work this time around.
That is my agenda now that I am retired. And no, there is no profit in it for me, just the satisfaction of seeing the U.S.A. stay number 1 in space instead of begging rides on thr Soyuz.
Now, what is YOUR agenda and why are you supporting the New Space hype? Are you working for one of the New Space firms?
I know exactly how Pegasus was funded which is why I am curious why you think fixed based contracts are the answer. It was also why I included it, to see if you would pick up on it and use it as a poster child for the superiority of fixed priced contracts
You know, you may think that you’re fooling some people with this BS, but it doesn’t fool me, or any other intelligent readers of this site. You had no idea how Pegasus was funded until I called you on it. You have hilariously exposed yourself as an ignorant fool on the history of space transportation development. Why should we take you seriously at all?
And none of XCOR hardware has reached space.
Just what is so mystical about reaching space that you think is only possible via cost-plus contracts? Oh, and by the way, SpaceShipOne, which did reach space, wasn’t built on a cost-plus contract (nor was Pegasus…).
Also, I not that you haven’t answered any of Al’s legitimate questions.
A question: Why do you continue to beclown yourself at a widely-read space web site? Are you simply a glutton for punishment?
Imagine if that had simply been applied to building a TSTO to replace the Shuttle in the early 1990’s.
You can imagine all kinds of things, but that would be fantasy, not reality.
First of all, what’s wrong with buying flights on the Soyuz from the Russians?
I fly on airbuses and international carriers all the time. Nothing new there.
Second, if the United States Government was truly interested in closing or reducing the GAP, then they would be putting small lightweight capsules on both of our EELVs, right now. These launch vehicles are clearly capable of reaching the ISS, with an intact upper stage and engine, which is equivalent to your so called TSTO space craft. This can be easily done RIGHT NOW.
This government, the Bush Administration, clearly in NOT INTERESTED in routine commercial and civilian spaceflight in any way shape or form.
Finally, in terms of second generation reusable spacecraft designs which you so covet, the United States government is in an admirable position of already having three such spacecraft, powered by 14 such engines (SSME) and could easily transition to a simple ground started SSME powered reusablity demonstrator in the form of a conventional rocket. The assets this administration has, including the ISS, was and still is, astonishing. The fact that they so thoroughly screwed up what was just a straighforward extrapolation of existing capabilities, outlines an intrinsic incompetence never before seen in the entire history of the United States of America.
So, what’s your excuse? My excuse was I was out of the country at the time.
Rand,
Good act, and good cover for not having any evidence to show that fixed price contracts are some magical solution to space access. but no one but your space libertarian friends are buying it. But then they will buy any New Space hype.
Fixed priced contracts are not some magical solution to CATS. The vehicles built under it to date are no more cost effective then those built under cost plus. The Pegasus and Taurus showed that and so will the Falcon once it gets operational. And you aren’t going to make any breakthroughs on one. Not on the order needed for a true RLV.
As for Al, I told him my agenda. I am still looking to see his.
Gap Buster
First of all, what’s wrong with buying flights on the Soyuz from the Russians?
I fly on airbuses and international carriers all the time. Nothing new there.
And yet when the USAF tried to buy Airbuses as tankers Congress threw a fit, even though they would be built mostly in the U.S. I wonder why…
As for the government being interested in routine commercial access to space, why should they be? What will space tourism do for the U.S. government, other then create another security headache. The government concern is military and NASA space access. Just as it is building military and research aircraft, not commercial ones.
And yet when the USAF tried to buy Airbuses as tankers Congress threw a fit, even though they would be built mostly in the U.S. I wonder why…
Because the United States government wants to OWN and OPERATE that particular service. Can you even attempt to begin to think for yourself, man?
Some people want to own and fly their own private jets. Some people want to build their own rockets. The US government want to control the world and the people who reside on it. Commercial and civilian space flight and reusable launch vehicles are not part of that particular paradigm which most authoritarian regimes pursue. You can come to your own conclusions.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, you can’t. When you think you can, do let us know, ok?
[…] to Florida’s other senator, Bill Nelson), but has spoken out on the topic from time to time, such as an event on Capitol Hill last summer on the need to shorten the Shuttle-Constellation gap and, during the presidential campaign last […]