Constellation employed very little in the way of new technologies and did not create research new science. Ares I, for example, used Shuttle SRB technology that has existed for 30-odd years and Apollo-era engines that first flew 40-odd years ago.

FWIW…

In history it was always desirable to have the best technolgies, albeit most were in the arena of warfare, and to hold the high ground.

In the development of space flight, technologies have been developed that benefit our daily existence. Look up the Spinoff website and on the first page alone NASA research helped develop technologies for biohazard sensors, life rafts, bioreactors for producing healthy cells for cultures, and new more efficient air purifacation. Research done for any new program spawns new and beneficial discoveries.
And the high ground, you think if NASA gets out of manned spaceflight that other countries won’t see this as an opportunity for them to field their own program for the prestige, the discoveries, to have the whole world watching when they accomplish what we abondoned? Think of countries whose interests might be quite different from ours with control of the ultimate high ground. So much science is expended in the cause of war, yet one of our most challenging and beneficial accomplishments was for the very human desire to explore our world and beyond. NASA’s imaging of the world has been a great boon to science studying the earth’s climate, resources, and weather. The Hubble Telescope has moved our knowlege to the edges of space, to discovering new planets, to the understanding of our universe.

Last, think of your work, what ever work you do, how much of yourself is invested in it. Do all the research to diagnose and treat a disease, or design and plan a bridge over a river, a bridge to help people bring produts to market, or connect two countries, now that you have solved many of the problems, done the hard work of requirements, spent years on it, your company decides not to give you money to make the drug or build the bridge, but to give the money to some other company along with all your work, but make YOU responsible if something goes wrong.

The cancellation of Constellation is short-sighted, wasteful, and destructive to the very thing we need most to create new technologies, to the people whose work creates that science, and must depend on shifting sand of government funding. Cancel and we may lose the very people we need to create any kind of space program. They may discover other countries would be interested in their expertise, and when, or maybe it would truly be if , we change our minds again and want human spaceflight, we will have lost the confidence of the people we need to have that capability. They cannot exist in a vacuum, they have to have work that has meaning to them, and in even simpler terms a paycheck and work that uses their education and experience.

Please consider what this will mean to our future, to science, even to our security.

So if a Chinese company wants to buy a controlling interest in Space X, how would you feel about that?..

other then some legal aspects of it…it strikes me that this would be “hard” seeing how the company is held by Elon Musk and when the stock goes public (can hardly wait) I am just guessing here but it is fairly likely he and the employees will own a pretty good chunk of it.

I would find a more likely “scenario” where Boeing or Lockmart or some other “large” aerospace company makes a bid (with the same afore mentioned caveats).

Having said that “Musk” might in 10 or so years OWN the worlds largest rocket company.

why sale? Everything I see of SpaceX has the same feel as SWA…

Robert G. Oler

You’re right in that authorization bills are usually multiyear bills.

But the appropriations bills almost always underfund the spending ceilings set in the authorization bills by billions of dollars. Unless the authorizers are trying to reduce funding in an account (again, highly unlikely — a NASA congressman is probably not going to cut off their nose to spite their face), the authorizers have little real impact on the budget.

FWIW…

Just missing the good ole’ time of the Cold War…

The appropriators are where the action and real budget authority is.”

Pragmatically, I think that’s right, though the authorizers represent a segment of Congress that actually knows something about the details of the NASA plan. Most others don’t. As such, the auth bill is respected as a “sense of Congress” on the feasibility and sensibility of the proposed plan.

Sure, the appropriators hold the checkbook, but that checkbook is dated 2011. They have budget authority for just one year. They aren’t tasked with setting policy for the long haul.

Is Spacex even publicly traded? Did they have IPO that I missed? If they’re not public then they’re owned by Musk, and he doesn’t have to sell it if he doesn’t want to, I don’t think. Of course, IF they fail spectacualrly then he may have to, but who would want to buy it then? 2 cents…

I doubt they could. The interagency Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) reviews the national security implications of foreign investments of U.S. companies. For example, they have reviewed (or are reviewing) Aabar Investments proposed $280 million stake in Virgin Galactic.

And in addition to CFIUS, as Mr. Boozer points out, Congress often will take an interest in these sales.

FWIW…