Suitably Flip

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.

Comments

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.