Rohrabacher calls for emergency commercial funding

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

“We need to get on with the task of building affordable launch systems
to meet our nation’s needs for access to low Earth orbit, instead of
promoting grandiose concepts which keep us vulnerable in the short and
medium terms. The most responsible course of action for the United
States is to dramatically accelerate the commercial crew systems
already under development.

“I am calling on General Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to propose an
emergency transfer of funding from unobligated balances in other
programs, including the Space Launch System, to NASA’s commercial crew
initiative. Funding should be used to speed up the efforts of the
four current industry partners to develop their systems and
potentially expand the recent awards to include the best applicants
for launch vehicle development."

On 08/30/2011 09:04 AM, Hop wrote:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

Rohrabacher is a "he".

On Aug 30, 7:07*am, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
On 08/30/2011 09:04 AM, Hop wrote:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

Rohrabacher is a "he".

Thanks for the correction. I guess Dana is a name like "Chris", could
be male or female.

I like his support for commercial crew.

Le 30/08/11 16:04, Hop a écrit :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

“We need to get on with the task of building affordable launch systems
to meet our nation’s needs for access to low Earth orbit, instead of
promoting grandiose concepts which keep us vulnerable in the short and
medium terms. The most responsible course of action for the United
States is to dramatically accelerate the commercial crew systems
already under development.

“I am calling on General Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to propose an
emergency transfer of funding from unobligated balances in other
programs, including the Space Launch System, to NASA’s commercial crew
initiative. Funding should be used to speed up the efforts of the
four current industry partners to develop their systems and
potentially expand the recent awards to include the best applicants
for launch vehicle development."

I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

Either the private entreprise is private and shareholders share the
profits and the looses, or it is public and the taxpayers pays for it
and reaps the rewards.

As you would have it, the profits are private and the risk and
investments should be payed by the taxpayers.

??

In article , says...

Le 30/08/11 16:04, Hop a écrit :
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=26560.0

She suggests transferring money from SLS to help fund commercial crew:

?We need to get on with the task of building affordable launch systems
to meet our nation?s needs for access to low Earth orbit, instead of
promoting grandiose concepts which keep us vulnerable in the short and
medium terms. The most responsible course of action for the United
States is to dramatically accelerate the commercial crew systems
already under development.

?I am calling on General Bolden, the NASA Administrator, to propose an
emergency transfer of funding from unobligated balances in other
programs, including the Space Launch System, to NASA?s commercial crew
initiative. Funding should be used to speed up the efforts of the
four current industry partners to develop their systems and
potentially expand the recent awards to include the best applicants
for launch vehicle development."

I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

Either the private entreprise is private and shareholders share the
profits and the looses, or it is public and the taxpayers pays for it
and reaps the rewards.

As you would have it, the profits are private and the risk and
investments should be payed by the taxpayers.

??

The alternative, in the US, appears to be Orion, which is an all
government owned and operated vehicle. How would that be better?

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

Le 30/08/11 19:43, Jeff Findley a écrit :

The alternative, in the US, appears to be Orion, which is an all
government owned and operated vehicle. How would that be better?

Jeff

It would be better than nothing, as is the plan now.

You can argue as many have done that private entreprise is more
"efficient" (i.e. cheaper) than state owned programs but I have
serious doubts about that. Until now, private entreprise has not
a lot to show.

On 31/08/2011 1:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:


I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

You mean like the money that's given to Boeing, Lockheed etc?

Le 30/08/11 19:57, Alan Erskine a écrit :
On 31/08/2011 1:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:


I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

You mean like the money that's given to Boeing, Lockheed etc?

You have a point here.

Boing, Lockheed, should build planes, not rockets. Since the government
is the only cuomer for rockets it would make sense if the government
built those.


You must stop at a certain point though. Rockets need computers, should
the govt build those also? What about food that the astronauts need in
their trips?

On 31/08/2011 8:27 PM, jacob navia wrote:
Le 30/08/11 19:57, Alan Erskine a écrit :
On 31/08/2011 1:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:


I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

You mean like the money that's given to Boeing, Lockheed etc?

You have a point here.

Boing, Lockheed, should build planes, not rockets. Since the government
is the only cuomer for rockets it would make sense if the government
built those.


You must stop at a certain point though. Rockets need computers, should
the govt build those also? What about food that the astronauts need in
their trips?


The government is not the only customer of rockets; all large
communications companies rely on launch vehicles to get their satellites
into Geostationary orbit (or, at least GTO). In no way did I intend for
it to sound like Boeing or LockMart should stop receiving funding.

On Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:27:55 +0200, jacob navia
wrote, perhaps among other things:

Le 30/08/11 19:57, Alan Erskine a écrit :
On 31/08/2011 1:26 AM, jacob navia wrote:


I still do not understand the logic behind giving public founds to
private entreprises.

You mean like the money that's given to Boeing, Lockheed etc?

You have a point here.

Boing, Lockheed, should build planes, not rockets. Since the government
is the only cuomer for rockets it would make sense if the government
built those.


You must stop at a certain point though. Rockets need computers, should
the govt build those also? What about food that the astronauts need in
their trips?

They would probably get tired of Senate Bean Soup day in and day out.
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey