33 thoughts on “Congress’s Commercial Crew Antics”

  1. This is no more cause for outrage than the fact that the sun rises in the East.

    The New Space movement chose to put its fate entirely in the hands of politicians and is now shocked, shocked to find politics going on. What reason did you have to expect anything else?

    1. It must be a burden being the *only* correct person on the Internet, Ed. Such a cross to bear!

        1. I really enjoyed your Selenian Boondocks when you stepped in for Jon Goff, John. I know you’re a co-blogger at SB. Do you operate a blog of your own? Would love to read more of your stuff. -P.S.

          1. What little blogging I do is on Selenian Boondocks. I post when I have an idea that I like, and they tend to come at unpredictable intervals. Most of my recent thoughts on the subject are esoteric enough to have limited appeal to others. Thanks for the mention.

      1. I’m hardly the only person who feels that way, Most have gotten tired of sanctimonious personal attacks like that from true believers — which have been going on for more than a decade now. Rather than argue with those who know the One True Way, they’ve simply dropped out of the space movement.

        1. You’re preaching to the choir, Ed – I’m on your side. When are the rest of the New Space Cadets going to come their sentences and worship Jeff Greason at the altar of the Lynx like you and I?

  2. I’ve been outraged about this for years; it’s an ongoing abomination.

    As for Shelby, he’s the worst kind of scum; buying votes for himself with taxpayer money. And he’s far from alone in that.

    I’m a fiscal conservative, so I generally support budget cutting. However, only an abject moron (or a corrupt bastard) would support a budget cut of (for example) 200 million in a fiscal year that’s going to cost you 500 million in additional payments to Russia. There’s also the political dynamic of remaining dependent upon an enemy.

    1. only an abject moron (or a corrupt bastard) would support a budget cut of (for example) 200 million in a fiscal year that’s going to cost you 500 million in additional payments to Russia.

      But, at the same time, we’re told that ISS research is more important than the national security implications of financing Putin.

      No one can tell us what ISS is doing that’s worth $3-4 billion a year, yet they’re *sure* it’s doing *something* that’s worth that much.

      NewSpace lobbyists are sending a mixed message: Congress should fund CCDev so it can stop supporting Putin, but it should extend US participation in ISS indefinitely so we can continue working with Putin. Congress interprets this to mean: “We don’t really think Putin is important. We’ll use the national security argument when it suits our purpose and ignore it when it doesn’t.”

      1. But, at the same time, we’re told that ISS research is more important than the national security implications of financing Putin.

        No one can tell us what ISS is doing that’s worth $3-4 billion a year, yet they’re *sure* it’s doing *something* that’s worth that much.

        IMHO, whether or not the ongoing costs of ISS are worth it is a worthwhile debate (and thus, of course, whether commercial crew itself is needed). I can see people having reasonable opinions on both sides. What outrages me is that cutting commercial crew under current circumstances (which are that ISS will continue) is actually costing far more money than it saves, plus shipping yet another half billion to the enemy.

        My personal take on ISS; take a good hard look at what it accomplishes, both directly and in secondary effects, and see if it’s worth it. As for my own opinion, I’m not familiar enough with the research going on to have an opinion on that at the moment. But like everything else, it should be a cost/benefit analysis.

      2. Sharing the ISS with the Russians is quite different from giving them money to carry people up.

        In the long run a lot of us think the ISS is going to be de-orbited but we will still need the astronaut transportation capability for the replacement space station(s).

        I have always thought the ISS was just a way to get human spaceflight going in a an era of diminished space and defense budgets after the end of the Cold War. I see the ISS project as a way to bootstrap the capabilities of the private sector to take on the mantle in the future. Once Dragon V2, Falcon 9 Heavy, Bigelow Aerospace inflatable structures are proven there will be a very small barrier to having private space stations in LEO.

        1. There’s nothing magic about cash. Barter deals simply make it easier for politicians to hide/deny the corruption. Either Putin is our enemy, and we shouldn’t give him *any* kind of aid and comfort, or he isn’t.

          If the goal of CCDev is to develop space transportation for Bigelow, why does that require maintaining ISS — and extending its life indefinitely, in competition with Bigelow? There are much more cost-effective ways for NASA to support Bigelow.

          1. “why does that require maintaining ISS — and extending its life indefinitely, in competition with Bigelow?”

            Good question. There was a recent story about NASA using SLS to fly commercial payloads. How would the price structure be set up? I don’t think it would happen without acting as a way to heavily subsidize commercial launches with public money, which would kick SpaceX and other companies in the nuts.

            The same thing applies to Bigelow. NASA acting as competitor and subsidizer will make it harder for Bigelow to compete but there is more demand for research time on the ISS than can be currently met. So maybe, Bigelow wont have an issue attracting customers because NASA can’t meet the demand and doesn’t really care to.

          2. there is more demand for research time on the ISS than can be currently met.

            Which is why SFF and PoliSpace called for NASA to expand the size of ISS. The question is, why is supplying research time to commmercial customers a proper function of government, rather than the private sector?

          3. During their last appearance on The Space Show, James Pura and Aaron Oesterle called for doubling the size of the ISS crew. You can listen to the recording on the Space Show website.

            At the last Space Access, Jim Mincy went way off the deep end, talking about 1000 people living and working aboard ISS.

          4. SFF has been pushing the vision of an expanded ISS (which they call “AlphaTown”) since the 1990’s. Is this the first time you’ve heard of it?

          5. I’ve heard of Alphatown for many years. My sense was that they meant there would be a cluster of private facilities co-orbital with ISS, not an expanded ISS.

          6. My sense was that they meant there would be a cluster of private facilities co-orbital with ISS, not an expanded ISS.

            That may be what they *meant* to happen, but after spending tens of billions on ISS, what is the result?

            Have you heard the one about good intentions?

          7. The medical profession has a maxim: “First do no harm.”

            Those who prescribe a government policy should consider not just desired outcome but also the possible side effects.

          8. If the goal is as you suggest, creating tax incentives for private co-orbiting facilities would be a more effective way to achieve it. Doubling the size of ISS would simply create more government-subsidized competition for such facilities.

      3. Head of ISS research was recently on the Space Show, http://www.thespaceshow.com/detail.asp?q=2517

        One of the callers, err emailers, asked about productivity and she was a little offended. She thinks the ISS is very productive but due to the nature of the work, it takes several years for papers to be published. She also noted that there is no shortage of experiments waiting to fly.

        It was a bit of a dodge though because the question wasn’t really about whether the ISS was productive or not but rather if production could be increased. It sounded like they had read Rand’s writing on the subject.

        Whether or not the ISS is worth $N is purely subjective. The ISS isn’t a business and isn’t run like one. The money spent on the ISS is an ideological expenditure and competes with other items congress determines are ideologically important enough to spend other people’s money on.

        1. Whether or not the ISS is worth $N is purely subjective. The ISS isn’t a business and isn’t run like one.

          NASA and its advocacy community disagree with you. They have repeatedly said that “ISS is finally showing a return on investment.” That’s the stated rationale for extending the life of the station — and building ISS 2 on the Moon.

    2. “As for Shelby, he’s the worst kind of scum; buying votes for himself with taxpayer money. And he’s far from alone in that.”

      That would be all politicians at every level of government.

  3. Rand, how’s the report coming? I hope disgust is a good motivator!
    Do you think you’ll be able to publish it or at least parts of it as a magazine serial? Word needs to get out. I suspect 90% of the voters don’t know just how bad things have gotten.

    1. “Do you think you’ll be able to publish it or at least parts of it as a magazine serial?”

      Could work good for raising awareness, and sales, over a period of time.

  4. Put me in the camp that thinks this isn’t what’s holding things up. They were waiting on the new docking adapter, which went poof. Now, they are waiting on the replacement. Maybe someone with better knowledge will correct me (please), but that looks like the bottleneck.

    Whatever issues dragging this process on, I bet money isn’t the biggest reason.

  5. Hey look, more unthinking party line bullsh*t. Since when does the administration of NASA get to dictate the budget of any program? Congress decides the budget and it’s the administration’s job to modify scope or schedule to fit that budget. For years, Bolden has chosen to extend the schedule while ignore the scope. This had the obvious effect of pushing first flight of commercial crew beyond his term and now that there’s no reason for him to care if these vehicles ever fly he’s free to attack Congress in the press, thus contributing to this administration’s attack on the separation of powers.

    Of all the blogs I frequent, I thought this one would get that.

  6. Money is being spent that could do great things. Is there nobody in govt. capable of spending some of it wisely?

Comments are closed.