Priorities in government and space

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hetrevillion"
wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
> >
> > On Jul 30, 2006, at 3:26 PM, Robert wrote:
> >
> > > how about the savings over extra trips in overaged vehicles that are
> > > becoming more unreliable with each trip. thats what the thing is
> > > about. If we dont finish the structure on time, it will require
using
> > > the shuttle more after the time they should be retired. those
> > > experiments can be carried up in the new shuttle after they are
built.
> > > If they dont cut back on the experiments, they would have to cut
back
> > > on the launches. or something else which might be even more vital.
> >
> > Has anyone heard or read a reasonable cost estimate of the new Space
> > Shuttles, err... I mean Orion's cost per launch? The STS was
supposed
> > to cost $20 million per launch and fly something like 100 times per
> > year. Obviously it missed both projections.
> >
> > While I don't expect "Orion" to be the cost effective solution to
> > enable space settlements, If saving money now gets us to a more
> > affordable, reliable system sooner, then I guess I'm all for it.
> >
> > The real problem is, these are supposed to be one year temporary
> > cuts, but how do we know they won't be even deeper next year? And
the
> > year after that.....
> >
> > doug
> >
> I agree with you Doug,
>
> The government would see NASA cut its own budget to finish
> construction and would then cut NASA's budget to save more money in
> the Federal budget. They have done it before and killed the expendable
> launchers of the 1960's and '70's. The Saturn V was a monster lifter
> that could still be used and would have been enhanced over the years.
> NASA has proven over the years that they over-estimate capabilities
> and under-estimate costs, especially when Congress requires changes of
> the programs for compatability with USAF military programs.
>
> NASA needs to get into research and development and allow competing
> commercial firms to provide actual services with the technologies by
> licensing. The corporations should not be given 'cost plus' contracts
> as is now the standard mode of operation, but should be given a set of
> requirements for various missions and allowed to develop the hardware
> for a fixed cost per mission. This would ensure that the corporations
> actually produce the hardware at a reasonable cost instead of allowing
> cost over-runs due to 'required accounting and other overhead charges'
> to ensure the 'cost plus' status of the program.
>
> Just my 2 cents.
>
> Harvey
>

Orion a shuttle? hummm from NASA artwork looks a lot more like a no
frills rocket and capsule to me... Which I take more of a sign that
NASA is wanting something simple and cheap as a stop gap till private
space launch vehicle/s is available and meets their needs for low
earth orbit, than Orion can be kept for heavy lift and interplanetary
missions... Seems the days of NASA building shuttles are over, or at
least paying billions to have them built. If NASA is truly serious
about returning to the Moon and finely getting to Mars than a rocket
is the most efficient means of doing this... I believe project Orion
is the right step.. Now question is will it end up being another big
disappointment from NASA in a long line of disappointments..

As far as I see it NASA wont abandon the ISS or cut any more from its
budget than it has to, for any longer than it has to. Way to large of
an investment of the American people and the other countries involved..
Lets just say heads will roll if such a thing happened. I believe the
heads of NASA will find them selfs in a political gilitean..

Gun Fighter