Delays in COTS2/3

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.

--
a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

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.


The article goes on to say...

"...Provided that Musk can continue to make good on his promises, money spent
on SpaceX rockets should deliver a lot more lift than money spent on ordinary
NASA/ULA projects. Commercial space funding should not be cut if the aim is
really to save money: rather it would make more sense to get rid of
fantastically costly and questionable efforts such as the planned Space Launch
System, a massive rocket based on recycled Shuttle and Apollo-era hydrogen
technology which looks set to swallow up so much cash that NASA will be able
to afford almost nothing else.

But politically it would be better if federal cash turned not into lift, but
into jobs - and this is where ULA is a better buy than SpaceX. So it seems
quite plausible that commercial-space budgets will take a disproportionate
share of the NASA cuts now being deliberated upon."


In other words, we should put the cart in front of the horse in order to
provide an incentive to the horse. Or was that a pig?

We won't consider the fact that potentially lowering the cost to orbit might
actually (in the long run) create more jobs in the space sector than either
NASA or ULA could do own their own using taxpayer supported subsidies.


Dave

"
In other words, we should put the cart in front of the horse in order to
provide an incentive to the horse. Or was that a pig?

We won't consider the fact that potentially lowering the cost to orbit
might actually (in the long run) create more jobs in the space sector than
either NASA or ULA could do own their own using taxpayer supported
subsidies.


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.

Val Kraut

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.

Dave

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

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.

Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

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.

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?

Programs for aerospace don't create a cycle of dependency on anything
like the same scale.

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.

"Mr. Smith goes to Washington" should be required viewing in all High School
civics classes.

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

Dave

Doug Freyburger wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
says...

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.

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?

Programs for aerospace don't create a cycle of dependency on anything
like the same scale.

I see. Aerospace subsidies are more like Methadone than Heroin.

OK, sure, yeah that's the ticket... :-)

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.

I'm not sure I believe it, but that gives us a pill that is whole lot easier
to swallow than the argument that mainlining space tax dollars is not wasting
a much as mainlining homeless shelter tax dollars.

Dave

On Nov 18, 3:12*pm, 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.

"Mr. Smith goes to Washington" should be required viewing in all High School
civics classes.

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

Dave

congress campaigns should largely publically funded, with
contributions limited to 20 bucks per person. lobbyists perks should
be limited to a token amount of money say 100 bucks max.

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

all federal laws should apply to congress too