Alan Boyle has a roundup of links on the latest Soyuz entry mishap. I think that this is going to have an effect on policy, but it's unclear what it will be, so far.
The cause of the mishap is unknown at the moment, or ‘they’re not telling. - and would they tell us anyway? It is, after all, politicly sensitive and will echo through the decisions to retire the Space Shuttle.
... Read More
9 Comments
Leland wrote:
The posturing on both sides is a concern. I think NASA should play a role in the investigation. After all, NASA is paying for much of the flight (if not all), and thus it has a vested interest on what the failure was. Perhaps it is a rumor the vehicle entered upside down, but it still landed 250 miles up range. The customer deserves to know why.
As for the NASA alternatives to Soyuz... No amount of funding to CEV will make it happen faster with the problems that AresI has. NASA should reject extending the shuttle program, because of the severe impact to CEV, but politically, Congress will like to save the jobs in a down economy. Unfortunately, few outside a very close community know the achievements of private space companies, so it will be easy, politically, to dismiss that option. I hope I'm wrong on that.
Edward Wright wrote:
politically, Congress will like to save the jobs in a down economy.
Okay, everyone loves a good urban legend but it's time to put this one to bed.
According to NASA's own economic impact study, the Shuttle program accounts for less than 3% of all jobs in the central Florida area and less than 1% in other communities.
The Shuttle program is a very inefficient way of creating jobs. Congress could create more jobs by paying people to dig holes and fill them in again (as Keynes once suggested).
Leland wrote:
Ed,
Are you suggesting Congress is efficient, or trying to imply that I made such a suggestion? I hope the answer is "no" for both.
If yes for either, do you require links to Congressmen'sstatements that show a political willingness to protect jobs at NASA?
Of course, my position is clearly stated above.
Edward Wright wrote:
Are you suggesting Congress is efficient, or trying to imply that I made such a suggestion? I hope the answer is "no" for both.
No, I am suggesting -- okay, now actually stating -- that the importance of NASA in creating jobs is highly overrated by the space community.
If yes for either, do you require links to Congressmen's statements that show a political willingness to protect jobs at NASA?
Not at all, although those statements confirm what I said. Dave Weldon says, "at least 6,400 jobs eliminated between FY 08 and FY 2011 at Kennedy Space Center alone." Nick Lampson wants to add $2 billion to the NASA budget to save those jobs. Simple math shows that it will cost over $300,000 per year to protect one job.
I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for Congress as a whole. If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee. Two Congressmen championing their local interests proves very little. I'm sure the representative from Hershey, Pennsylvania makes similar statements on behalf of the chocolate industry -- but he isn't asking for $2 billion, and I doubt Lampson will get the $2 billion he's asking for.
(Lampson asked for a $1.3 billion increase last year, and he didn't get that, either.)
Leland wrote:
A couple of comments:
I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for Congress as a whole.
Congress rarely is unanimous, and thus "speak for Congress as a whole" is somewhat an utopian belief.
If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee.
NASA's budget doesn't fall under the Education and Labor Committee. I'm almost curious what you think the "Labor Committee" does.
Two Congressmen championing their local interests proves very little.
Simple math would allow you to count all 30 of the Congressmen, who signed Nick Lampson's letter.
At this point, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to jump into another thread where I comment and claim that I'm wrong. It does seem to be your standard technique. My point was Congress will likely do what is politically expedient, and sure enough, 30 Congress members signed a letter just 2 days ago wanting to give more money to NASA to narrow the gap between Shuttle and CEV. It appears your argument is that I should be getting my facts on NASA from a Labor Committee that doesn't have jurisdiction. You also seem to be in agreement with me that Congress spending on government programs isn't an efficient means to improve the economy and create jobs.
I have no idea what your stance is on the Soyuz crash and its effect on NASA.
Edward Wright wrote:
> I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and
> Lampson speak for Congress as a whole.
Congress rarely is unanimous, and thus "speak for Congress as a whole" is somewhat an utopian belief.
Okay, Leland, let me put it this way: I think you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for a majority of Congress.
If they did, Lampson would have easily passed his $1.3 billion budget increase last year. I wouldn't bet on his chances of passing a $2 billion increase this year, either.
If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee.
NASA's budget doesn't fall under the Education and Labor Committee.
And why is that, Leland? If NASA is that important to job creation, wouldn't it make sense to put it under Labor rather than Science, which hasn't provided the agency with the budget it wants?
You keep skewering your own point.
Simple math would allow you to count all 30 of the Congressmen, who signed Nick Lampson's letter.
It's a poor politician who can't find 30 friends to sign a letter, regardless of the subject. Simple math should show you that 30 Congressmen is not enough to pass the $2 billion budget increase he is asking for.
At this point, I'm not sure what your point is,
The point is quite simple, Leland. Once again:
NASA does NOT create a lot of jobs, relative to the amount of money it spends. The figures in NASA's own economic impact study confirm that. If you have any figures to the contrary, I invite you to share them.
The jobs NASA does create are mostly confined to a small number of Congressional districts, such as Weldon's and Lampson's. That is why people who think NASA is important to job creation invariably quote Weldon and Lampson rather than some random Congressman from Middle America. If you ask the 300+ representatives who didn't sign that letter, very few of them would tell you NASA is important in their districts.
My point was Congress will likely do what is politically expedient, and sure enough, 30 Congress members signed a letter just 2 days ago wanting to give more money to NASA to narrow the gap between Shuttle and CEV
Yes, and not too long ago, Mike Griffin tried to cut the Space Grant program to accelerate his beloved CEV and close the "gap." Guess what happened? Congress handed Griffin his head, and he hasn't tried to touch Space Grant again. Political expedience causes Congress. That's because unlike CEV, which generates jobs in parts of Florida and Texas, Space Grant program is in all 50 states. Political expedience generally causes Congressmen to look to their own districts. That's why 30 Representatives signed that letter and 300+ didn't.
Edward Wright wrote:
Leland, some more figures for you to consider:
Today's news reports that the government added 76,800 jobs in the last three months -- the greatest increase since 2002.
If "compassionate conservatives" continue to grow government at the current rate, there will be an additional 920,000 government employees by 2011.
The loss of 6,400 Shuttle jobs during the same period is hardly "draconian." For every Shuttle worker lost, there will be 144 CIA agents, firefighters, school teachers, city managers, DMV clerks, etc. hired. Even if you believe it's government's function to create jobs, there's no reason for Congress to panic.
Leland wrote:
Ed,
The only point I'm skewering is your dumbass strawman argument that I think Congress creates job. I've said no such thing.
What I said is that Congress shouldn't spend more money on NASA. but they'll likely do it anyway in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy.
I see now that you didn't comprehend this. Perhaps the distinction between me writing about "what Congress will do" versus "what I think they should do" isn't clear to you?
Anyone else, I would be concerned about the clarity of my writing. However, since you always seem to be the only person that consistently doesn't comprehend it; I don't see how that as a loss on my part.
Edward Wright wrote:
What I said is that Congress shouldn't spend more money on NASA. but they'll likely do it anyway in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy.
Yes, you have said it. Repeatedly. There is still no evidence that it's true.
Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon asking for an additional $2 billion does not mean Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon will get an additional $2 billion.
What you fail to grasp is that there are *many* things Congress could do "in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy." Giving more money to NASA is not their only option or their most likely option even if it's the option that two members of Congress (who happen to represent NASA's largest centers) prefer.
Perhaps the distinction between me writing about "what Congress will do" versus "what I think they should do" isn't clear to you?
Wrong, Leland. It's very clear to me. It's also very clear that what Congress will do is likely to be very different from what Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon think Congress should do. Just as it was last year.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on April 29, 2008 6:16 AM.
The posturing on both sides is a concern. I think NASA should play a role in the investigation. After all, NASA is paying for much of the flight (if not all), and thus it has a vested interest on what the failure was. Perhaps it is a rumor the vehicle entered upside down, but it still landed 250 miles up range. The customer deserves to know why.
As for the NASA alternatives to Soyuz... No amount of funding to CEV will make it happen faster with the problems that AresI has. NASA should reject extending the shuttle program, because of the severe impact to CEV, but politically, Congress will like to save the jobs in a down economy. Unfortunately, few outside a very close community know the achievements of private space companies, so it will be easy, politically, to dismiss that option. I hope I'm wrong on that.
politically, Congress will like to save the jobs in a down economy.
Okay, everyone loves a good urban legend but it's time to put this one to bed.
According to NASA's own economic impact study, the Shuttle program accounts for less than 3% of all jobs in the central Florida area and less than 1% in other communities.
The Shuttle program is a very inefficient way of creating jobs. Congress could create more jobs by paying people to dig holes and fill them in again (as Keynes once suggested).
Ed,
Are you suggesting Congress is efficient, or trying to imply that I made such a suggestion? I hope the answer is "no" for both.
If yes for either, do you require links to Congressmen's statements that show a political willingness to protect jobs at NASA?
Of course, my position is clearly stated above.
Are you suggesting Congress is efficient, or trying to imply that I made such a suggestion? I hope the answer is "no" for both.
No, I am suggesting -- okay, now actually stating -- that the importance of NASA in creating jobs is highly overrated by the space community.
If yes for either, do you require links to Congressmen's statements that show a political willingness to protect jobs at NASA?
Not at all, although those statements confirm what I said. Dave Weldon says, "at least 6,400 jobs eliminated between FY 08 and FY 2011 at Kennedy Space Center alone." Nick Lampson wants to add $2 billion to the NASA budget to save those jobs. Simple math shows that it will cost over $300,000 per year to protect one job.
I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for Congress as a whole. If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee. Two Congressmen championing their local interests proves very little. I'm sure the representative from Hershey, Pennsylvania makes similar statements on behalf of the chocolate industry -- but he isn't asking for $2 billion, and I doubt Lampson will get the $2 billion he's asking for.
(Lampson asked for a $1.3 billion increase last year, and he didn't get that, either.)
A couple of comments:
I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for Congress as a whole.
Congress rarely is unanimous, and thus "speak for Congress as a whole" is somewhat an utopian belief.
If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee.
NASA's budget doesn't fall under the Education and Labor Committee. I'm almost curious what you think the "Labor Committee" does.
Two Congressmen championing their local interests proves very little.
Simple math would allow you to count all 30 of the Congressmen, who signed Nick Lampson's letter.
At this point, I'm not sure what your point is, other than to jump into another thread where I comment and claim that I'm wrong. It does seem to be your standard technique. My point was Congress will likely do what is politically expedient, and sure enough, 30 Congress members signed a letter just 2 days ago wanting to give more money to NASA to narrow the gap between Shuttle and CEV. It appears your argument is that I should be getting my facts on NASA from a Labor Committee that doesn't have jurisdiction. You also seem to be in agreement with me that Congress spending on government programs isn't an efficient means to improve the economy and create jobs.
I have no idea what your stance is on the Soyuz crash and its effect on NASA.
> I also believe you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and
> Lampson speak for Congress as a whole.
Congress rarely is unanimous, and thus "speak for Congress as a whole" is somewhat an utopian belief.
Okay, Leland, let me put it this way: I think you're mistaken in believing that Weldon and Lampson speak for a majority of Congress.
If they did, Lampson would have easily passed his $1.3 billion budget increase last year. I wouldn't bet on his chances of passing a $2 billion increase this year, either.
If NASA were really important to creating jobs, you would be pointing to statements from people on the Labor committee.
NASA's budget doesn't fall under the Education and Labor Committee.
And why is that, Leland? If NASA is that important to job creation, wouldn't it make sense to put it under Labor rather than Science, which hasn't provided the agency with the budget it wants?
You keep skewering your own point.
Simple math would allow you to count all 30 of the Congressmen, who signed Nick Lampson's letter.
It's a poor politician who can't find 30 friends to sign a letter, regardless of the subject. Simple math should show you that 30 Congressmen is not enough to pass the $2 billion budget increase he is asking for.
At this point, I'm not sure what your point is,
The point is quite simple, Leland. Once again:
NASA does NOT create a lot of jobs, relative to the amount of money it spends. The figures in NASA's own economic impact study confirm that. If you have any figures to the contrary, I invite you to share them.
The jobs NASA does create are mostly confined to a small number of Congressional districts, such as Weldon's and Lampson's. That is why people who think NASA is important to job creation invariably quote Weldon and Lampson rather than some random Congressman from Middle America. If you ask the 300+ representatives who didn't sign that letter, very few of them would tell you NASA is important in their districts.
My point was Congress will likely do what is politically expedient, and sure enough, 30 Congress members signed a letter just 2 days ago wanting to give more money to NASA to narrow the gap between Shuttle and CEV
Yes, and not too long ago, Mike Griffin tried to cut the Space Grant program to accelerate his beloved CEV and close the "gap." Guess what happened? Congress handed Griffin his head, and he hasn't tried to touch Space Grant again. Political expedience causes Congress. That's because unlike CEV, which generates jobs in parts of Florida and Texas, Space Grant program is in all 50 states. Political expedience generally causes Congressmen to look to their own districts. That's why 30 Representatives signed that letter and 300+ didn't.
Leland, some more figures for you to consider:
Today's news reports that the government added 76,800 jobs in the last three months -- the greatest increase since 2002.
If "compassionate conservatives" continue to grow government at the current rate, there will be an additional 920,000 government employees by 2011.
The loss of 6,400 Shuttle jobs during the same period is hardly "draconian." For every Shuttle worker lost, there will be 144 CIA agents, firefighters, school teachers, city managers, DMV clerks, etc. hired. Even if you believe it's government's function to create jobs, there's no reason for Congress to panic.
Ed,
The only point I'm skewering is your dumbass strawman argument that I think Congress creates job. I've said no such thing.
What I said is that Congress shouldn't spend more money on NASA. but they'll likely do it anyway in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy.
I see now that you didn't comprehend this. Perhaps the distinction between me writing about "what Congress will do" versus "what I think they should do" isn't clear to you?
Anyone else, I would be concerned about the clarity of my writing. However, since you always seem to be the only person that consistently doesn't comprehend it; I don't see how that as a loss on my part.
What I said is that Congress shouldn't spend more money on NASA. but they'll likely do it anyway in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy.
Yes, you have said it. Repeatedly. There is still no evidence that it's true.
Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon asking for an additional $2 billion does not mean Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon will get an additional $2 billion.
What you fail to grasp is that there are *many* things Congress could do "in the name of protecting jobs in a down economy." Giving more money to NASA is not their only option or their most likely option even if it's the option that two members of Congress (who happen to represent NASA's largest centers) prefer.
Perhaps the distinction between me writing about "what Congress will do" versus "what I think they should do" isn't clear to you?
Wrong, Leland. It's very clear to me. It's also very clear that what Congress will do is likely to be very different from what Nick Lampson and Dave Weldon think Congress should do. Just as it was last year.