“Should’ve just let Ares continue, carve out $3 billion from the rest of the budget–which supports considerably fewer jobs and attracts far less interest from Congress–and used *that* to encourage commercial. Deal with the sinkhole when commercial delivers something that can compete.”

Ares I duplicates existing commercial alternatives, specifically Delta IV Heavy, and even Atlas V Heavy and Falcon 9 Heavy. There are no shortages of commercial alternatives to Ares I, and they are all an order of magnitude less expensive, and two of them are not SpaceX (in case you care).

Your jobs comments is pretty silly, since the same number and quality of jobs are going to be created no matter where you spend NASA’s money. It may affect WHERE the money goes, but so what? Why should any one area be carved out over another – are we socialists or capitalists? Let the free market decide, not politics.

“The thing is, we could vote out those porkers and replace them with someone out but the process would assure that their replacements wind up on those subcommittees and they’ll be pressured to go after the pork too for the reason you gave.”

That is the thing, but the congressional system we have today has survived a long time, so it’s unlikely to change.

I think this budget year is kind of exceptional since we have so much programmatic change going on within NASA’s budget, and all of that on top of a lousy economy. I’m OK with the Senate bill, since commercial crew has a chance to get more funding next year.

The funny thing is, is that those that don’t like SpaceX are making it really hard for any company other than SpaceX. Dragon will fly it’s CRS missions, all the while racking up both dollars and reliability data. As long as there are no major failures, the delayed congressional funding for commercial crew only makes the lead SpaceX has even bigger, both in actual accomplishment and schedule.

This is the unintended consequence of a politically driven decision process, which is sad, because I truly see the need for more than one U.S. commercial crew provider, and I would love a third (that’s where I put Dream Chaser).

Oh well…

The Major needs a history lesson;
So class for him is now in session.
NASA has been orbiting crew,
Since Glenn’s three revs in ’62.

Musk has not yet flown a soul;
And Falcon showed a rated roll;
The seasons change, the calendar flies,
But no manned Dragons cross our skies.

“In other words, go around NASA rather than through NASA. Create a competitor for NASA — Globetrotters and Generals, Wily E. Coyote and Roadrunner, etc . . .”

You have voiced this on a number of occasions, but I don’t agree with it. NASA uses contractors and suppliers today for those things that either NASA doesn’t have the experience or ability to do, or that it’s just cheaper to buy it. Pens & paper, commercial flights, Shuttle processing – there are lots of things that NASA is better off buying than doing themselves.

As an example, commercial crew to LEO is really just an extension of transportation services that take place on Earth. This will eventually happen, and then our grandkids can book their flights to LEO not through NASA, but through Southwest or American Airlines.

This is not competing with NASA, but relieving them of the routine tasks so that they can focus on the hard ones. Everyone has traditional roles to play, and there is no need to try and usurp NASA, or go around them.

Which is why it’s so important to get Congress out of the space rocket design business. Let the private sector build their rockets and then bid for specific government flights and missions. After all, the government doesn’t build its own staff cars. They go out to bid.

This captures the dilemma very nicely.

How do you propose to compel Congress to appropriate money for things they do not wish to appropriate money for? Under the US Constitution, no one can trump Congress when it come to spending dollars raised by taxation.

My solution is to be willing to embrace private revenue streams (tourism, entertainment and advertising dollars) but that cannot happen within NASA’s aegis, it must happen independently of NASA and may require playing to a global market.

In other words, go around NASA rather than through NASA. Create a competitor for NASA — Globetrotters and Generals, Wily E. Coyote and Roadrunner, etc . . .

In the DOD world, the large contractors have learned that you have to spread your project over as many relevant congressional districts as possible in order to keep a program from being considered for budget reductions.

The thing is, we could vote out those porkers and replace them with someone out but the process would assure that their replacements wind up on those subcommittees and they’ll be pressured to go after the pork too for the reason you gave.

Which is why it’s so important to get Congress out of the space rocket design business. Let the private sector build their rockets and then bid for specific government flights and missions. After all, the government doesn’t build its own staff cars. They go out to bid.

Ahh..that explains it. Thanx.

That’s too bad in a way, it shows that NASA has a large knowledge gap in it’s materials certification process.