Delays in COTS2/3

David Spain wrote:
bob haller wrote:

congress is doing exactly what its owners want.
we need strict term limits for congress immediately

All that accomplishes is upping the ante.
The owners will have to pay cash up front rather than on the installment plan.

The California legislature has had 10 year term limits for a while now.
When it first went into effect many of the rats left the sinking ship to
move to county and city jobs. Probably many are still there. It's
instructive to see what happened to the state government in California
in the two decades or so since that change.

I still support term limits but I am no longer the fan I once was.
Something different needs to be done to curb the power of corporate
lobbies.

Did you see 60 Minutes last Sunday? I particularly enjoyed the segment on how
Congress exempts itself from SEC self-dealing regulations.

Outrageous.

On Nov 18, 7:19*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 18, 8:24*am, Jeff Findley wrote:









In article , says...

Val Kraut wrote:
I have a basic problem with this whole situation - most agree the ISS is
providing nothing of use - what else is there in LEO that requires support
by manned launch systems. So what are these companies projecting for future
LEO related work. Boosters, Boosters everywhere but not a drop to lift.

I certainly don't disagree. The situation is truly bad and untenable.

But certainly there is the question hanging out there, how much do you want to
spend on your rockets to nowhere? $400+ million per launch or $13 million per
launch? Congress seems hell bent on making sure we pay a premium in getting to
LEO. Even if there is nothing to do once we get there.

It's welfare for aerospace workers.

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

congress is doing exactly what its owners want.

we need strict term limits for congress immediately

that is no answer, it just means they are more confused and
listen to the lobbists more closely.

patch up on patch and a hole in the centre..................Trig

On Nov 18, 11:43*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

congress campaigns should largely publically funded, with
contributions limited to 20 bucks per person.

It's not a 'contribution' if you take it from me at gunpoint, you
silly ****.

the purchasing of congress by lobbyists and special interest must end.
take the big bucks out of campaigns. or watch our country continue to
go down the tubes


lobbyists perks should
be limited to a token amount of money say 100 bucks max.

What are you talking about?

end extravagant spending by lobbyists to buy congress. limit max
amount of their gifts to 100 bucks.


to get congress to work for US take the big bucks out of the system.

Yeah, make it even MORE prone to outright corruption.



all federal laws should apply to congress too

And you prove that even a stopped clock can be right every once in a
while.

--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
*only stupid."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * -- Heinrich Heine

On 18/11/2011 6:11 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...y_funding_cut/

The Wall Street Journal reports on the problems facing the nascent
US space-launch private sector, saying that the mould-breaking
startup rocket firm, SpaceX, now doesn't expect to send its first
supply ship to the ISS until well into next year - perhaps as late
as April. The launch had been expected before the end of this
year.


I've got a feeling there'll be supplies (maybe cheese?) on the SpaceX
mission due to launch in nine days time.

We'll see if the WSJ has anything new to say. I think they just want
the status quo to continue.

David Spain wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote:

While that's true I ask which is more beneficial to society - Throwing
away money on engineers who cycle between government projects that
consume tax dollars and industrial products that create tax dollars? Or
undereducated folks on more blatant forms of welware?

I see. Aerospace subsidies are more like Methadone than Heroin.
OK, sure, yeah that's the ticket... :-)

There you go. You analyzed my stance down to a simple metaphor.

But Doug, I'm surprised you present us with this dichotomy, instead of
pointing out the "return on investment" argument. i.e. there is a study out
there that claims $1 "invested" in NASA returns $8 in benefit to our economy.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. How much of NASA is
research to count as that prevention? This is why I resist the spin-off
theory. If the purpose of space exploration were spinoffs then any sort
of research will work equally well. But any other sort of research will
not build towardss that day when humanity must leave the nest.

And to me that's the real benefit. Steer towards the direction you want
to go. Even more important during a skid that when commuting on a dry
straight road. Space exploration is the direction we *need* to go
eventually.

Doug Freyburger wrote:
And to me that's the real benefit. Steer towards the direction you want
to go. Even more important during a skid that when commuting on a dry
straight road. Space exploration is the direction we *need* to go
eventually.

Hmm. I'm not sure. When the words "want" and "need" are used somewhat
interchangeably, it reminds me of Mortimer Adler and how he used to expound
upon the philosophical difference that lies in the definition of the words
"need" and "want".

Space "exploitation" *may* be a "need" for humanity, others would claim we are
better off as a society if we can figure out how to live "within the means"
our Earth provides. If you like really long term thinking this won't work when
our Sun goes nova, but hey what's a few billions of years between friends?

Space "exploration" with no economic justification behind it is more of a
"want" than a "need". Unless you can somehow quantify the risk of leaving
space study as an "unknown" such that it would eventually drive a "need".
(Think of asteroid defense if you want a bad example of this argument).

Or you can go with a purist argument, the quest for space knowledge is a
"need" in and of itself as knowledge itself (and knowledge of outer space in
particular) is a virtue. Hence the "need" for space exploration. But we have
many needs and even more wants...

Dave