Comments on: Republicans who want to spend more (on NASA)

By: calculate multiplier effect

calculate multiplier effect — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:25:42 +0000

I’m still disheartened by how the NASA program is currently being treated, and this makes it even worse. I’m hoping that the cuts that are being pushed on them will be reworked into something that isn’t so restraining and won’t destroy their entire plan for the next decade.

By: Space Politics » More developments in the quest for a NASA administrator

Space Politics » More developments in the quest for a NASA administrator — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 11:10:00 +0000

[…] that the president announce a NASA administrator as soon as possible. The letter appears similar to the one Congressman Bill Posey sent last week; Posey is also a member of the NASA House Action […]

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:35:07 +0000

It remains difficult to understand Bushâ€™s rtionale of abandoning Shuttle and ISS in order to go to the moon with another crash program. Both shuttle and ISS were planned to continue at least until 2020.

Did you miss that little incident on February 1st, 2003?

Now it would be difficult to extend the Shuttle Program because so many spare parts contracts were cut off four years ago.

No matter how many “spare parts contracts” remained, the notion of flying a three-orbiter fleet through 2020 was recognized by everyone to be a dubious plan, not just “Bush.”

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:30:06 +0000

It remains difficult to understand Bush’s rtionale of abandoning Shuttle and ISS in order to go to the moon with another crash program. Both shuttle and ISS were planned to continue at least until 2020. Now it would be difficult to extend the Shuttle Program because so many spare parts contracts were cut off four years ago. And although both ISS and the lunar program are now in the schedule, there isn’t the money for both, and Americans are not willing to pay higher taxes. If we go to the moon by dropping ISS and borrowing from China, what will it prove?

I have difficulty understanding why we are in such a rush to go to the moon. Just a few years ago we wanted to do useful work on the ISS. Now we are on the verge of abandoning it. Are we just bored? If we go to the moon by borrowing $100B from China, what will it prove?

By: yg1968

yg1968 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:43:19 +0000

Republicans have always favoured spending on NASA and on defense. But they are against wasteful spending, social engineering or redistribution of wealth spending.

Both articles make commen sense arguments in favour of staying the course in order to reach the moon. Most people agree with their reasoning. It seems that Obama and Congress also agrees which is good news.

By: Terence Clark

Terence Clark — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:18:04 +0000

“All good arguments, but how likely is the president to be persuaded by a freshman representative of the opposing party?”

I agree with you, but then again, our president was a freshman senator of the opposition party less than half a year ago. Not that I necessarily think Obama owes particular attention to the new faces in congress due to his personal history, but there may be a warm spot in there somewhere for those with a similar background.

Obviously I’m all for more funding for NASA, but I think an argument can be made for holding the line at fully funding the planned robotic science missions and funding another shuttle flight or two. EvI haven’t heard much more than a 6 month deadline shift on the constellation program estimated based on any of the theoretical increases made in recent days. I think I’d keep the money in the bank for that marginal benefit.

By: Me

Me — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:29:39 +0000

Because they haven’t demonstrated anything to warrant such a thing. Let them get through the basic COTS first.

By: Mike Lorrey

Mike Lorrey — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:44:44 +0000

What about instead fully funding the COTS-D program so SpaceX can provide manned space launch services to NASA in the interim?