Comments on: Mikulski wants to up the new budget to flat

By: Hiram

Hiram — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:10:17 +0000

I’m happy to think that human space flight might have a solid rationale, but none has yet appeared. If a solid rationale doesn’t appear, a guided descent into going out of business is likely and deserved. The prospect of colonization of the cosmos, say, for some sort of species insurance, is one that naturally justifies human space flight (I mean, you can’t do that with robots) but there are no arguments why that needs to be done NOW. The geopolitical arguments for human spaceflight are wholly fanciful, but at least they bear on problems that currently exist.

Now, one has to say that space science doesn’t necessarily bear on existing problems, but the potential opportunities for serendipitous discovery that might revolutionize our understanding of the physical world (and we’ve seen some of these already) simply dwarfs any potential advantages of human spaceflight.

But no, you don’t argue for “up budgets”. You argue for capability and need. The fact that dollars are dropping is not, in itself, a need. It’s sort of like the sunk cost fallacy. We’ve had this spending power for ages, so … shazzam … we need to keep it.

By: James

James — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 23:22:27 +0000

I don’t doubt the reality of ‘flat’ being the new ‘up’. But flat budgets are simply a guided decent into going out of business. The cost of everything goes up with inflation, and the cost of NASA missions goes up because NASA is a creaky ,old, can’t get with the times, bureaucracy that doesn’t know its shooting itself in the foot.

The combination of all those factors makes flat the up that leads to decline.

I don’t think there is any justification or rationale for Manned Space Flight, so as far as I am concerned they can go out of business.

It’s the Space Science, especially planetary division, that is developing new technologies and advancing our understanding of our universe.. And the discoveries made will certainly benefit all of human kind, even though its hard to predict what those discoveries will be and how we’ll benefit.

Space Science needs to make the case for at least an ‘up’ budget that keeps pace with inflation and recognizes the increased costs of missions.

By: John Malkin

John Malkin — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 21:16:53 +0000

Rocketplane Kistler is a good reason not to down select to a single company at this point. And in order to maintain redundancy, it would be prudent to have at least two providers. COTS was a resounding success despite much critical views comparing it to “faster, better, cheaper”. But it wasn’t the same because COTS forces the companies to have skin in the game. I think this is more important than even competition.

None of the CCDev competitors are in danger of missing the same milestone as Rocketplane. However, they could still have an issue with another milestone.

By: yg1968

yg1968 — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:03:08 +0000

Because competition means better prices and a better product for NASA.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:54:55 +0000

“That is loser talk.”

But maybe they’re just calling it like it is. Think they’re going to get more money by pretending that they’re due for a big bump? “Winner talk”, I guess? Everyone knows that at least with regard to human spaceflight rationale, NASA is running on empty. Flat is going to continue to be the new up until human spaceflight comes up with a real raison d’etre that demands action. In the absence of that, the rationale is keeping everyone employed.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 19:30:21 +0000

amightywind said:

“I am flummoxed that there is no response to budget reality.”

I know, really huh?

Building the biggest launcher in the world and not funding any payloads for it – we’re spending $Billions for no good reason. Is that insanity or what?

By: Malmesbury

Malmesbury — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:55:23 +0000

The issue is that a flat budget contains enough money for the pork deals. All that garbage (science, HSF, exploration etc) that the silly people are interested in can take a well deserved cut.

Watch the West Wing episode where the Senator throws his toys out of the pram because the White House cancels a weapon system that doesn’t and *can’t* work. Everyone treats the guy who cancelled it as the idiot…

By: James

James — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:36:56 +0000

There are those on the 9th floor that say ‘Flat is the new up” when it comes to the overall budget for NASA.

That is loser talk.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 11:51:27 +0000

The budget deal is made. If the drama is over a few measly millions, there isn’t much drama. Now that it is T-3 years and counting to the supposed launch of commercial crew, why doesn’t NASA focus what funds there are on fewer entrants, and actually get the mission done? I am flummoxed that there is no response to budget reality.