« Centanni and Wiig Freed | Main | Emmy Plane Crash Spoof »
Out of this World
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently announced that it has awarded $500 million to two start-up rocket companies, Space X and Rocketplane-Kistler, to develop the capability to resupply the International Space Station.
As a taxpayer, I have two major problems with this decision. First, if resupplying the international space station is not in NASA job description then what is? This is like a teacher outsourcing the instruction of her students. By the way, Congress gives this teacher almost $7 billion annually to do this part of her job.
Furthermore, NASA choose two inexperienced companies to develop their resupply technologies. NASA appears to understand the technical challenges associated with this complex mission:
Getting to and from space is difficult. Doing it safely, reliably, and cost effectively is even more difficult.
So why is NASA placing its bets on two rockets that have never flown (or even been built yet)? Alternatively, why didn’t NASA even consider the companies that do this best, especially since the US Government already subsidizes the only two rocket providers (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) with hundreds of millions of dollars annually?
As taxpayers, you should be concerned that NASA is sending two kids to college (not even medical school) instead of simply going to the most qualified and experienced doctors in the world.
Handcrafted by Gindu on August 27, 2006 |
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572653ef00d834ac109153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Out of this World:
» Propecia merck propecia online uk. from Propecia.
Buy propecia. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 11, 2008 10:38:04 AM
» Xanax. from Xanax.
Xanax. Xanax effect. Xanax during pregnancy. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 11, 2008 11:52:27 AM
» Phentermine tablet. from Cheapest phentermine online.
Phentermine info. Phentermine no prescription. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 12, 2008 2:45:46 AM
» Side effects of xanax. from Xanax.
Buy xanax. Beer and xanax. Half-life of xanax. Xanax. Side effects of xanax. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 12, 2008 10:30:38 AM
» Buy xanax without prescription. from Buy xanax.
Buy xanax online. Buy xanax without prescription in usa. Xanax buy at discount. [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 21, 2008 6:44:35 PM
Comments
As usual, I enjoy your posts. But this one appears to be a little lite on fact. Just looking at the SpaceX website (assuming you can believe at least part of it). The company is staffed with very bright and competent people with a long history of success in each of their respective areas. This could actually be a pretty bright move by NASA. The teacher seems to be bringing in a true "up-and-comer" to teach the class. Might also be similar to the teacher going to an inservice with the actual intent of learning something new to make her more efficient. Oh well, it was your analogy.Posted by: Jim M | Aug 28, 2006 1:06:51 PM
Jim, I appreciate the comment and I don't doubt that Space X has competent folks. (BTW, Elon Musk is the king of spin so don't take every press release at face value.) ISS resupply would be a technical challenge for SpaceX even if Falcon 9 was built and flight tested (it's done neither). Space X has only launched one booster, which was delayed about a year and represents about 10-20% the complexity of the planned Falcon 9, and it failed due to a bad bolt. Additionally, SpaceX has yet to gain telemetry on a stage separation or second stage performance, much less orbit injection. I'm all for bringing new ideas to the forefront, but I'm also a free market guy. Shouldn't NASA have used a Project Constellation (think X Prize) approach so that the competition is wide open?Posted by: Gindu | Aug 28, 2006 1:49:47 PM
Love your approach, but on this.... The problem with NASA is that they go to the iron triangle mafia for everything. They design everything in house or together with the major contractors and keep everything as a monstrous government bureaucracy. That is not the stated mission of NASA and not what we want the Feds to be doing. This isn't France with state owned industries. This is a small first step to encourage real private space operations and with the ultimate goal of taking NASA out of the space operations business. The best analogy is to the wacky and questionable spending by the post office on experimental planes. They contracted out to loons and quacks to encourage the development of a real private air industry and after a while air travel was a commercial prospect that the post office could piggy back on rather than having to develop and run a fleet of planes. We're still at the government run fleet of vehicles 40 some years after real functional space travel. Something different needs to be done and this is a good try.Posted by: Hey | Aug 30, 2006 11:18:23 AM

