“I put things in constant dollars and push the space station and shuttle programs together because the only reason to keep flying the shuttle was to finish the space station. “

I didn’t realize you were including the shuttle program, that said I believe it would be a bit more than 200 mil. I was only counting the marginal cost of the roughly 35 shuttle flights used to hoist the station parts.

For the basic shuttle flights that were just bringing up crew I chopped part of the cost because the payload was used for something else like a sat launch.

as it played a part in the loss of Challenger and its crew.>>

NO it did not RGO

“Reagan’s foolish push to commercialize government space operations, particularly shuttle operations, proved to be quite literally disasterous as it played a part in the loss of Challenger and its crew.”

You are confused. This is nothing new, but I thought I better say it right up front so you can understand it.

Reagan called for the commercialization of launch services, whereas you are confusing that with NASA contracting for services (something every agency does). Reagan specifically stated that NASA would continue to be solely responsible for Shuttle operations. Here is a legal analysis of what Reagan implemented:

“NASA’s role was further redefined in early 1988 by President Reagan’s new Space Policy. The Space Policy stated, “NASA will continue the lead role within the Federal Government for advancing space science, exploration, and appropriate applications through the conduct of activities for research, technology, development, and related operations ….”NASA will also continue to have full responsibility for all non-military Space Transportation Systems (STS) (the space shuttle program). However, NASA will not maintain expendable launch vehicle systems adjunct to the shuttle. In addition, the Space Policy reaffirmed that NASA will provide launch services on the shuttle for commercial payloads only where the payloads need to be on a manned mission, require other unique qualities of the shuttle, or are important for national security.”

The Shuttle was never commercialized.

Regarding the Challenger disaster:

“The Rogers Commission found NASA’s organizational culture and decision-making processes had been key contributing factors to the accident. NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRBs contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the O-rings since 1977, but failed to address it properly. They also disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posed by the low temperatures of that morning and had failed to adequately report these technical concerns to their superiors.”

NASA owned the Shuttle, and was ultimately responsible for it’s operations.

As usual, you don’t know what you are talking about.

Low information voters will never understand that but independents might be able to grasp it if presented with the facts. I’m not sure that this is the winning issue that the Houston Chronicle imagines it to be.

The Houston Chronicle is pandering to a particular demographic they hope to sell newspaper subscriptions. They couldn’t care less if it’s true or not.

“Reagan laid the policy foundation for the commercial launch industry, which is what will ultimately get us off the planet.”

Inaccurate. In FACT, ‘we’ have been getting off this planet since April, 1961 and humans have maintained semi-to-permanent presence off it since the earliets space stations lofted by both the Soviets and the United States. And, of course, Reagan’s foolish push to commercialize government space operations, particularly shuttle operations, proved to be quite literally disasterous as it played a part in the loss of Challenger and its crew.

I put things in constant dollars and push the space station and shuttle programs together because the only reason to keep flying the shuttle was to finish the space station. The numbers might be a tad high, but in the end they are around 100 billion just for the station if you put things in constant dollars and then work them out from the moment Reagan said “go”.

100 billion over thirty years…is about 3 billion in real dollars a year. RGO

“the space station project/program etc has been spending money in large amounts since 1984 in epic amounts”

Even if you backed it up to 1984, you would still be looking at over 8 billion a year on the ISS. Wasn’t it the Freedom station back then and still on the drawing board?

Now if NASA had to spend 8 billion a year, every year, year in and year out, since 1984, where did it get the 8 billion if the total NASA budget was only 7 billion and change in 1984? Same as in 1985 under 8 billion.

Here is some budget date from 1984, can you find the “epic” spending for a space station? I sure couldn’t find it.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/…/documents/Budgets/o3490366_1984_pt_1.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/…/documents/Budgets/o3490366_1984_pt_2.pdf

Doug…I was tempted to move this to the Mars thread…because I think that the same results are in play there.

Look I dont speak for the administration nor do I really have a clue what their political theory is…but ..

by looking at their approach to other issues.

In my view the greatest failing of the Obama administration is that they really dont have a clue or at least state it publically how they intend to reform the federal government on a “government” scale much less individual agencies who have either outlived their usefullness or who are in massive need of “reorg”.

That is a failing but other then “they would cut government” no one really running for POTUS has done anything like it either…and I think I understand why (at least on the administrations part) …aside from the possibility that they might not have a clue…I think that they believe that any massive reorg effort of any agency will be meet by stubborn GOP (and some Dem) opposition in large measure just to oppose things…but also to protect their individual pork pies.

One can I think see this in their space policy. I honestly think that they were stupid here…but they were genuinely surprised that the opposition to their space policy came not from “anti space” people but from people whose only intent was not to advocate a space effort but to protect their pork.

There is a space program for humans to be had using both EELV’s and new rockets that could be done for the 1.8 billion spent this cycle on SLS or the 3.0 billion spent on SLS/Orion…but the pork folks would rather define their space program as building SLS/Orion then actually doing anything IN SPACE.

I think that the Congress as a whole would pass some sort of human exploration “effort” that consumed 3.0 billion and actually flew people and hardware…but the pork folks who represent individual districts prefer to have aa build program rather then one that actually does things. I think that surprised Bolden…I am told by buddies of his that this surprised him.

As long as building things (or at least planning on building them) is what the interest want as a program…there is no other program to be had.

Robert