Comments on: More advocacy for and against the House NASA bill http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill Because sometimes the most important orbit is the Beltway... Wed, 17 Sep 2014 13:35:41 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.0.38 By: brobof http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329202 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 10:31:25 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329202 Guessing here: Quantum Field Theory?? (Bad guess.)

Quoted for truth. (Good guess.)

]]> By: Beancounter from Downunder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329197 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:34:39 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329197 Depends on who gets “Commercial” Crew. Pick two, say Boeing and SpaceX mainly ’cause they’ve shown interest.
Boeing want Bigalow’s business and have stated prices and SpaceX want both and has also stated prices. Boeing’s got development on a capsule underway and SpaceX has a capsule that requires only a bit of refinement and will most likely be demonstrating reliable transport next year.
That should prevent most of the bureacracy ‘creation’ with any luck.

]]> By: Beancounter from Downunder http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329196 Tue, 28 Sep 2010 07:28:31 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329196 QFT? Sorry probably obvious but it escapes me at this point!

]]> By: Wodun http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329143 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 22:50:44 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329143 Googaw wrote @ September 27th, 2010 at 2:28 pm

If “Commercial” Crew moves forward, it too will create an entrenched bureaucracy, whether inside NASA itself or inside a “commercial” contractor makes no difference, that will lobby and fund a coterie of politicians in order to perpetuate itself.

QFT :)

]]> By: sftommy http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329130 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:01:40 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329130 I’ll remind Pelosi that her constituency wants this moved along, along with several friends here have grown to share my enthusiasms if not for the Senate Bill per se, at least a robustly funded NASA.

I am amazed at times by the ability of some politicians to change their views and craft imaginative and workable compromises. I’m thinking mainly of Senator Nelson, but the jump just made by Rep. Gordon is a credit to him and every stubborn American who’s had to sacrifice a bit of what they believe America to be in the hope that America can become something even more than they imagined.

On the House appropriations committee, NASA has a number of friends, including Adam Schiff who labored so hard for commercial funding back in July.

As for Rep Wolf on the Republican side, I quote from a July 10th meeting with the STS-132 Crew:
“Wolf agreed that more investment was needed in math, science, creativity and imagination, and that the United States needed to maintain its leadership in space. “Once you lose it, you can’t get it back,” he said. ”

Will it happen before elections?

]]> By: Googaw http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329117 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 18:28:10 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329117 Pete is just doing what any establishment politician, Republican or Democrat, would do: protecting a large bureaucracy in his district that doesn’t want to change. He at least has to make a good show of trying to protect them or his campaign coffers dry up.

If “Commercial” Crew moves forward, it too will create an entrenched bureaucracy, whether inside NASA itself or inside a “commercial” contractor makes no difference, that will lobby and fund a coterie of politicians in order to perpetuate itself. To or on behalf of which they will feed back big chunks of the taxpayer funds they are getting. Fed back to protect that flow of taxed and borrowed money from impertinent outsiders like me who would prefer that my children actually get to keep some of the income they earn in the future instead of having it all taken out of their W-2 to pay back the Chinese.

]]> By: Robert G. Oler http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/27/more-advocacy-for-and-against-the-house-nasa-bill/#comment-329113 Mon, 27 Sep 2010 17:31:06 +0000 http://www.spacepolitics.com/?p=3945#comment-329113 Pete has been a dissapointment.

The trick in leadership on a “House” level is to figure out where events are going, events that you dont have the power to affect and then shape them locally to help ones constituents.

There are several places that Pete just failed his district.

Over the last two years, as “The 2008″ congressman, Pete should have helped NASA JSC manage the transition from aprogram Cx that was unsustainable into something that was better for his district. There were things he could do with the move away from Cx to have made the transition less painful, and he should have had the clout to go to the boneheads who run JSC and say “I love you all, but this is reality lets be a part of it”.

Second, Pete now could help shape where things go. Instead he rights (Or has written for him, its clearly not his work) a goofy op ed which does nothing but restate his positions, it doesnt reshape the debate.

In the end Pete is just going to be sitting on the sidelines as the future comes and less and less JSC is a part of it.

He had a lot of promise…regretfully he has floundered. He doesnt face significant opposition this year, but there is some out there for the future.

Robert G. Oler

]]>