My thoughts on the Utah delegation’s selective fiscal conservatism, when it comes to NASA, over at PJM.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bobby Block and Mark Matthews have a story on the latest twist in space policy, about Lockmart’s proposal to test fly Orion on a Delta IV. The Utah porkers are still at it:
“I hate to see different entities try to cannibalize the process,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R- Utah, a staunch supporter of his state’s solid-rocket industry. “There is money to move forward on [a heavy-lift rocket using solid-rocket motors], as well as the capsule, as long as NASA budgets its money wisely and doesn’t waste it on wild goose chases.”
…In meetings last week, Bishop told NASA chief Charlie Bolden he was concerned that NASA was dragging its feet transitioning from Constellation to the new heavy-lift program that ensured a role for Utah’s solid-rocket motor industry. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he called the meeting “to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation’s interest in ensuring that Utah’s solid-rocket motor industry is protected.”
You know what’s a “wild goose chase”? Expecting to get an affordable or sustainable program with an expensive, monopolistic NASA-developed vehicle from legacy hardware. You have to give Orrin Hatch points for honesty, though.
Well, with the Federal budget in surplus, the Social Security trust fund so overflowing that they’re wondering what to do with it, and us selling far more to China than we’re buying from them, we can certainly afford to waste money on the solid rocket motors as well as have a real space program. I mean, what’s a few tens of billions these days?
However, just to avoid the SRM work impacting the real program, as it’s starting to do with their silly statements, we should detach all SRM work from NASA and have it managed by the Department of Health and Human Services, and require its funds to be dispersed through local welfare offices. That will make it clear what’s actually going on, since some people seem to be in denial about the whole issue.
There’s another way of looking at it. Do you prefer an SLS with 5 seg boosters that is cancelled or an SLS with Atlas-derived kerolox boosters that isn’t? I prefer the former. Cancelling it right now and deciding there isn’t going to be an HLV unless some commercial entity develops it on its own dime would be even better of course.
Rand,
I noticed that a commenter by the screen name of Longfellow has posted the following comment under your Pajamas article.
“A few facts that aren’t mentioned in the article. Mr. Simberg is a strong supporter of the Obama administration’s redirection of NASA that effectively will kill US manned spaceflight for a generation.”
He goes on to spout other status quo B.S. that Constellation huggers have been putting out for so long.
“The pork that the Utah politicians are trying to protect is jobs in the strategically vital solid propulsion industry. Here are a few facts about that industry:
The technology to design and build large solid rocket boosters for space launch is the same as for strategic missiles. There has been no appreciable new design work in this area for over 25 years. This US industry once boasted five companies employing about 35,000 people. Today there are only two companies left employing about 4,000. Without new design work, employment will drop to about 3,000. the average age of the employees is approaching 50. Critical engineering expertise, nearly impossible to replace (which the US spent 50 years and hundreds of billions to develop), is being lost on a weekly basis.”
Yes, I responded briefly over there.
I responded to that one as well. For one thing, I thanked him for honestly admitting that it’s a jobs program rather than a space program.
I used to say this tongue-in-cheek but now I’m serious: Why can’t we just pay ATK its current revenue stream but require that it do nothing other than keep itself ready in case its needed? Simply give ATK whatever its Constellation revenue stream was minus the costs of actually building the boosters. The risk to the company would be lower and its margins would be much higher.
Senior management would have to take the deal or else its shareholder would sue because it would materially affect the value of their stock.
The USG has done this in the past with military contracts where they wanted to keep the assembly line in a warm “standby” mode.
Michael, you know the answer: it’s about the jobs.
Trent,
Correct. I’m suggesting you keep the jobs as they are. Don’t lay off a single person. Just don’t have them build anything…
Michael has a valid suggestion. This could be extended to the entire STS standing army.
Just have them all build hobby projects with their free time. All in all, its going to create more wealth, i guess.
Mike, what would that solve though? As we’ve already established, the jobs are what makes all the costs so high. The fact that any actual talent already left that pool long ago is just further reason why the jobs is what need to be cut.
I think NASA just needs some more fail.. and they will provide it. Eventually they’ve *gotta* get the massive budget cut they deserve.. it’s just on Congress time. It looks like Holdren has learned his lesson and won’t be pushing the programs with any chance of succeeding into the spotlight anymore, so keep that dog and pony show going and hope they don’t notice the scraps that are being fed to the real space industry under the table.
Or just write off those government dollars as necessarily inefficient.
I hate to be fatalist but it’s a long habit when it comes to NASA.
Eventually they’ve *gotta* get the massive budget cut they deserve..
Oh, the optimists ..