NASA Breaking Ties With Russian Space Agency, Frames Choice as Between ‘Fully Funding’ NASA Program or Sending ‘Millions of Dollars to the Russians’

наличные деньгиNASAThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) wants to end its "reluctant co-dependence" with the Russian space agency Roscosmos, because of Russia's actions in Ukraine. Yesterday The Verge reported, based on an internal memo, that NASA had suspended all contact with Russian government officials but that operations surrounding the International Space Station (ISS) were excepted. NASA then issued a statement confirming the suspensions, reiterating its intention to continue cooperating on the ISS, and adding a pitch for the Obama administration. Via Google Plus:

NASA is laser focused on a plan to return human spaceflight launches to American soil, and end our reliance on Russia to get into space.  This has been a top priority of the Obama Administration's for the past five years, and had our plan been fully funded, we would have returned American human spaceflight launches – and the jobs they support – back to the United States next year.  With the reduced level of funding approved by Congress, we're now looking at launching from U.S. soil in 2017.  The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians.  It's that simple.  The Obama Administration chooses to invest in America – and we are hopeful that Congress will do the same.

Richard Nixon announced NASA would be working on a space shuttle system in 1972. With the first flight in 1981, the program was supposed to operate for 15 years. It was scheduled for a 2010 retirement by George Bush in 2004, but Congress extended funding for flights through 2011. NASA's current plan has been to shift to commercial spacecraft, something Congress has been reluctant to do. NASA already relies on commercial spacecraft for supplying the ISS—will any company be interested in meeting the demand for ferrying astronauts to low Earth orbit absent the subsidies that NASA's "full funding" provides?

Check out Reason's February 2012 space issue here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    The choice here is between fully funding the plan to bring space launches back to America or continuing to send millions of dollars to the Russians. It's that simple.

    Pretty sure there's a third option.

  • ||

    Pretty sure there's a third option.

    You mean recognizing that funding a space agency isn't one of Congress's enumerated powers?

  • Hyperion||

    It's one of the things that I actually wouldn't mind paying taxes for, if they would actually get off their asses and do something like they did in the late 60s and early 70s.

    But if they can't do better than get stuck in low earth orbit for 50 years or some environmental bullshit, then defund them now and let the private sector run with this.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Old, actually doing stuff NASA was pretty expensive. I suppose it could serve a kind of DARPA role in trying to help kickstart cheap access to space, but I don't see much point in that. All the government really needs to do is to get out of the way.

  • tres||

    "All the government really needs to do is to get out of the way."

    That's hilarious. You here all week?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Regulations and questions about owning resources in space are an impediment to a truly private space industry. There's actually been some movement in Congress and at the FAA to remove some of those impediments, at least for now, but those are baby steps.

  • Agammamon||

    Both of which are caused by previous government interventions.

    Regulations are, by definition, all government.

    Who can own what is caused by the damn agreements we made with other countries that no-one could own anything in space.

    Otherwise there's a whole area of pre-existing law and precedent concerning salvage and claiming previously unclaimed resources and resolving disputes surrounding those claims.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Thank the stars we didn't sign the Moon Treaty.

  • Agammamon||

    And it won't even do that - back when NASA was 'doing stuff' they fought tooth and nail to protect their monopoly on American space exploration.

    It wasn't until they got their budget slashed to the ground and had to massively scale back operations that private groups were able to muscle them out of the way.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If NASA were shut down, we'd have a robust spaceflight industry in no time flat, just because of the need to service, replace, and expand the satellites in orbit.

  • Spaceno93||

    First, thanks for trying to put me out of a job. I work at the Johnson Space Center On ISS.

    Really? That's funny. How many satellites has NASA launched? How about serviced? Replaced? 1 - Hubble.

    Airforce launches GPS and TDRS. Commerical launches TV satellites.

    No one repairs a damn satellite up there.

    In fact, ISS has the problem that it has to dodge all the crap from satellites that are left (and rockets, etc).

    Spaceflight is risky and costly. Maybe now commerical is ready to take some of the risk. But it is interesting to see what happens on the first human life accident.

  • croaker||

    And when the Apollo program was shut down NASA shredded all the blueprints.

    Whoever ordered that should be run through a wood chipper until he's mush.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Dynetics and Pratt Whitney Rocketdyne recently took an old unused F1 engine from the Saturn V's apart and completely re-engineered the thing. So we've got at least some of that knowledge back.

    http://arstechnica.com/science.....of-thrust/

  • Spaceno93||

    Yes, that pisses alot of us off here. Most of us want to go to the moon or Mars. Push the envelope..but we can't.

  • Agammamon||

    It's one of the things that I actually wouldn't mind paying taxes for, if they would actually get off their asses and do something like they did in the late 60s and early 70s.

    Nononononononono

    Unless you want a lot of glitzy shit that doesn't actually accomplish anything of (practical) worth and does so at a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge markup.

    We put a man on the Moon - what, exactly did we get in return for it? The bragging rights to say we did it first? Is that really worth public money *coerced* from people to do?

    I mean, is there one single thing the ISS provides that can't be provided better and cheaper by unmanned satellites.

    I'm a huge space nut but I have to bow down to practicality - there is *nothing* in space that, right now, won't cost far more to get than its worth.

    That even goes for the unmanned probes we send out to collect information - the info they collect is 'nice to have' stuff, not anything that is bringing home the bacon.

  • Pro Libertate||

    What would the hundred plus billion spent on the ISS buy us if we were developing low-cost systems for accessing orbit? Shit, that's might almost be space-elevator territory.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Wouldn't that be nice? I can't see it happening though when gov't spends $6BB on just the fucking capsule. SpaceX did the rocket and has flown the capsule already for less than that.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Regardless of whether you think it is a legit role of government, NASA's scientific and astronomical arm has helped make some pretty amazing discoveries.

  • Agammamon||

    Like what? Tang Velcro?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Nailing down the age of the Universe to within a few hundred million years, detecting the acceleration of the Universe's expansion, measuring the parameters of dark energy and dark matter to within a couple percent, the discovery of gamma-ray bursts, Kepler's discovery of 1000s of planets and the ensuing improvements in our estimates of the number of Earth-like planets in the Galaxy, the discovery of likely subsurface oceans on Europa, and now Encelaudus, which are probably the best places to look for life in the Solar System (other than Earth, obviously). And those are just some of the more headline-grabbing ones.

  • Pro Libertate||

    NASA has achieved plenty, but the cost and the waste, not to mention the politics were unnecessary baggage.

  • Spaceno93||

    PR is not one of their strong suits.

    http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinof.....ff2013.pdf

  • Spaceno93||

    PR is not one of their strong suits.

    http://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinof.....ff2013.pdf

  • Rich||

    Bringing back the Old Negro Space Program?

  • ||

    Bringing back the Old Negro Space Program?

    Glad I hadn't just taken a swig of coffee when I read that.

  • Loki||

    Send millions of dollars to the Chinese?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think I'd rather take Dragon, even without a lot of testing for manned spaceflight.

    You have to think NASA has already discussed accelerating manned tests of Dragon with SpaceX, though probably off the record.

  • Agammamon||

    They'd rather take Russian (and probably Chinese) hardware rather than give the private space industry a boost.

    The political class at NASA is quite aware of the danger to them that private industry poses.

  • Pro Libertate||

    But why? NASA could serve a role in deep-space and planetary research, not to mention a DARPA-like role for more cutting-edge research. Not that I think that's necessary, but they could operate in that niche. And might be less of a political football if they got out of the "JOBS PROGRAM" business.

  • Agammamon||

    Because once private space operations start really moving the political impetus to keep funding NASA for 'basic research' will disappear.

  • Pro Libertate||

    We could accomplish great things if we weren't so stupid.

  • LynchPin1477||

    And another domino falls in the politicization and war on science perpetrated by the Bush administration.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    Sarcasm?

  • LynchPin1477||

    Everything I type is sarcastic.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Shouldn't that be "No, I'm never sarcastic, ever", then?

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Maybe that post was sarcastic, too.

  • RannedPall||

    Sarc-ception

  • Loki||

    NASA is laser focused on a plan to return human spaceflight launches to American soil, and end our reliance on Russia to get into space. This has been a top priority of the Obama Administration's for the past five years

    Top priority? This is a joke, right?

    Also, which plan? Do they mean throwing more money at Spacex for the Dragon* or throwing more money at LM for the MPCV, or whatever they're calling the Orion capsule this week, and at Boeing and ATK for the big rocket that they'll never actually use?

    *Keep in mind when NASA talks about "commercial space flight" the only real difference between that and the way they've always done things is that Spacex (or whoever) will own and operate the vehicle and NASA is just paying for and owning and operating the service as opposed to paying for the vehicle itself.

  • Loki||

    paying for and owning and operating the service as opposed to paying for and owning and operating the vehicle itself.

    That's what I get for trying to edit my comment before hitting submit.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    I'd like to express my personal support for the "throwing money at Dragon" option.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think that asterisk is a bigger deal than some think. While we can certainly agree that the government probably has no business doing much in space, except maybe military stuff like nuking the Moon, to the extent that it does operate there, I have no problem with it paying a company to ferry men and materials to space. It's like a government inspector flying Delta to Cincinnati from DC or sending a package via FedEx.

    I so look forward to the day that SpaceX and other companies (even the traditional aerospace companies, if they jump in) have a lot of clients, of which the government is just a tiny part of.

  • Loki||

    I so look forward to the day that SpaceX and other companies (even the traditional aerospace companies, if they jump in) have a lot of clients, of which the government is just a tiny part of.

    I suspect this is the real key to realizing massive savings in "cost per astronaut launched." In truth the future of commercial space flight rests not in fairying government employees to the government owned and operated ISS, but in private citizens to a privately owned space station, either for space tourism or for privately funded space research efforts. Bigelow Aerospace is the real key to all of this.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Yep, I was thinking of Bigelow, too. I think that's going to be huge, once they have a mechanism for getting the inflatables to orbit and personnel and guests as well.

  • ||

    fairying government employees

    Turning govt. employers into fairies, then ferrying them to space?

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Dragon will save our asses. It had better because there's really no backup. I'm sure that won't stop us from paying for a bunch of astronauts to go sit in Orion while it remains on the ground, though.

  • Spaceno93||

    Orion is a joke....Dragon..maybe but honestly safe concerns. They do great things but sometimes they don't know how close they are to a major failure.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    NASA has become a colossal joke. The level of politicization is far beyond the regular old "wave the flag" of yesteryear. They have fully latched onto the DNC in the hopes that their budget will be saved.

  • ||

    The level of politicization is far beyond the regular old "wave the flag" of yesteryear.

    I spent most of last year dating a NASA engineer. She really and truly believed that America's space program was essential to national-security interests, and that not increasing their funding was pretty much surrending to al Qaeda. She hated when I posted stuff on Facebook supporting Edward Snowden.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Al Qaeda has a space program? Wow, the things I don't know.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    You'd be suprised how far a suicide bomber's head travels.

  • Sevo||

    And that's only the first stage!

  • Ice Cream Man||

    I can't tell if your trolling or not.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    NASA isn't really a space program. It's a federal job program that happens to occasionally emit space travel as a waste product.

  • Steve G||

    exhibit A:
    http://www.policymic.com/artic.....ood-for-us
    Of course, this could conveniently fit in the category of waste product, jobs product, politicized product, or all of the above.

  • Steve G||

    ...but naturally NASA distanced itself from the study 2 days after the story broke, I am now discovering.

  • Loki||

    Is it just me, or have we been "a few decades" from complete collapse for quite some time now?

  • Steve G||

    No, peak oil is tomorrow, hadn't you heard? Of course, my info is about 30 yrs old.

  • ||

    And Jimmy Carter ran out of Naural Gas about 20 years ago

  • Loki||

    The funny thing is, it used to be the perception that Republicans were more likely to spend more money on NASA because of the tenuous (at best) link between NASA (rocket) funding and military funding.

    And in truth, NASA's budget hasn't been slashed by any means, congress just isn't ponying up as much as they'd like for the commercial crew (CC Dev) program while also earmarking money to keep the zombie Orion program and the big rocket (Space Launch System, or SLS, IIRC) alive.

    The irony is that with Congress not giving them as much money, NASA has continued funding CC Dev through Space Act Agreements instead of traditional contracts. SAAs actually give the companies like Spacex more flexibility by waiving some of the FARs, which reduces overhead for them and saves NASA money in the long run. Seems they want congress to give them more money so they can shoot themselves and Spacex in the dicks. Bunch of morons.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Fucking dump Orion and SLS, throw open NASA's needs for access to orbit to contractors. Not to build to NASA specs or any of that nonsense, just "How much to send people and material to the ISS and to a few other destinations?"

    NASA as a paying customer, rather than as a jobs program and all the other crap, is a lot less offensive than what it is today.

    Want to exploit space in a big way? Lower launch costs. NASA will NEVER do that as things have been since the 1960s. So we need to let the private sector run amok.

  • Loki||

    Not to build to NASA specs or any of that nonsense, just "How much to send people and material to the ISS and to a few other destinations?"

    They'll never go that far. Without demanding that they build the vehicles to their specs, and demand all sorts of documentation and expensive testing upfront, how will they have "oversight" of the design process? Yeah, when it comes to NASA, it's pretty much a forgone conclusions that they'll demand "oversight" without ever considering why they need to. Most of their specifications are pretty much best engineering practice anyway, so most commercial space companies will follow them without being told to anyway. But... "oversight."

  • Pro Libertate||

    As far as spaceflight is concerned (I'll leave out research missions just to be nice), the sole goal for everyone should be cheap, reliable access to orbit. Manned, unmanned, doesn't matter. We crack that nut, and the solar system will soon be ours.

    Cheap access changes everything. Get it cheap enough, then all of those resources out there will become economically viable to exploit.

  • Spaceno93||

    Do cheap and reliable go together?

    NASA is a paying customer to Orbital and SpaceX.

    So who decides what corners to cut? I agree NASA should be pushing farther and doesn't take enough risks.

    Do you drive the cheapest car made and feel safe? Space is much less forgiven of a breakdown.

  • croaker||

    Had a science fiction author write a novel along those lines. It was a GEV mounting a SSTO. NASA sent a letter saying "welcome to the Commercial Space Program" and the President of the company used it for toilet paper.

  • RannedPall||

    Okay, did anyone google translate the Cyrillic alt-text? I'm in class, so too much time on my phone might alert the Hive.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Cash money?

  • RannedPall||

    Is that what it said? Or that's what you're demanding upon translation?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I think it's what it says. My Russian is limited to what the Internet tells me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    PL's right.

  • AlmightyJB||

    OT:Hunting With Noise Suppressors Passes Ohio House.

    http://www.nbc4i.com/story/251.....ohio-house

  • Stormy Dragon||

    If the anti-gun groups had any brains, they'd back a law requiring all guns to have supressors. Would make guns fare more expensive to buy and maintain, force people to stick to low power ammunition, and make concealed carry far more inconvenient.

  • ||

    Never realized you have to use low-pressure ammo with supressors, but I guess that makes sense. I would imagine that a supressor greatly increases chamber pressures, is that about right?

  • Almanian!||

    I didn't know about the low-pressure either.

    Of course, since suppressors are teh ILLEGAL in Michigan, it's not something I've had to worry about.

    And my Smith and Wesson runs +P, natch...

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    No.

    If you use a suppressor without sub-sonic ammunition, you still get a fairly loud CRACK as the bullet pushes past the sound barrier. In order for it to be truly suppressed, you need to use lower-pressure sub-sonic ammunition for most cartridges, except for older ones like .45ACP that don't actually break the sound barrier.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    There are also modern cartridges designed specifically to be used in suppressed firearms, such as the .300 Whisper, .300 Blackout, .300 AAC, etc. They usually have very large and heavy bullets with a high ballistic coefficient in order to maximize the amount of kinetic energy the bullet packs.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    Damn, need an edit button.... .300 AAC and .300 Blackout are the same cartridge.

  • Loki||

    That was my understanding as well. The bullet creates a small sonic boom as it passes the speed of sound that's still pretty audible even with a suppressor.

    Although I was curious if the shock wave was a concern, but I figure if it's not a problem for unsuppressed, then it wouldn't cause problems with a suppressor.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    but I figure if it's not a problem for unsuppressed, then it wouldn't cause problems with a suppressor.

    Yeah; people still shoot super-sonic ammunition in suppressed weapons all the time. It's more economical than buying specialty ammunition, you don't lose nearly as much energy, and it still lessens the need for hearing protection (though you still probably should wear some).

  • Bam!||

    I was reading up on gun laws recently and read that laws outlawing suppressors stemmed from anti-poaching laws during the Great Depression.

    Not sure if it's true.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    That was the justification. Then, as now, it was still full of shit. Most poaching takes place in rural areas where no one will be around to hear gunshots anyway. And even if they do, most people either won't notice it or will disregard it, unless the yahoo is dumping a mag or something.

  • wwhorton||

    Well, shit, by that logic they should ban headlights.

  • ||

    At least hand held spotlights

  • Hyperion||

    Has anyone posted this yet?

    Former AGW fanatic turns on warmists

  • RannedPall||

    Wait, I thought the science was beyond settled? What about the polar bears?

  • Hyperion||

    It's just a good thing for this guy that he's old. Because now he's going to get excommunicated for his blasphemy.

  • RannedPall||

    Meh, excommunication will just give him more time to disseminate info on the AGW farce, unless he's taken out by a UN funded econazi hit squad.

  • Hyperion||

    That's always a possibility. He may have to hide from the ecotard hordes.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Polar bears? They don't find the evidence of AGW compelling, either.

  • Hyperion||

    How can we be sure? Let's send Al Gore to interview them.

  • Juice||

    The retort I have seen is "he's not a scientist so he doesn't know what he's talking about" (but he did before?) and "he's a loony metaphysical philosopher so why listen to him" (this one is true, and I have no reason to listen to him).

  • Hyperion||

    Exactly. He was a world renowned expert before, but now he's just a looney old guy.

    The house of cards is falling.

  • Sevo||

    He'll never get hired again in this town!

  • Almanian!||

    Cool story, bro

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Libertarians here only make the pragmatic arguments, but they must concede the ideological arguments to the feminists. They accept feminist ideological views, they desire a bizarre world where men and women are "equal" and believe in the blank slate theory. Tell me libertarians, how does prostitution NOT lead to inequality among the genders? It does, because men are the consumers and women are the product. You can only really debate feminist opposition to prostitution if you debate feminism itself.

  • Hyperion||

    Are you lost, dude?

  • Agammamon||

    What about rent boys?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    because men are the consumers and women are the product


    Except, when it's the other way around.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Which we all know is super common.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Define "super common". I mean you're the one who spoke in absolutes.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    It is somewhere between zero and one percent of the cases and much closer to zero than to one.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 7:39PM|#
    "It is somewhere between zero and one percent of the cases and much closer to zero than to one."

    Damn white crow!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    You say that with such confidence, as if you had the demographic statistics right in front of you. And even if your assertion is true, your premise was worded as an absolute. So by biting the bullet and admitting that things like female sex tourism exist, your premise has been proven false.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    "Humans have two arms"

    "You phrased that as an absolute, don't you know that some humans only have one arm?"

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • RannedPall||

    Lol wut

  • ||

    Wrong article.

  • ||

    Any more than a comment about hunting with sound suppressors?

  • Sevo||

    ..."men are the consumers and women are the product"....

    Well, no. We have a buyer and a seller; the 'product' is enjoyment. Sorta like the screen isn't the product when you watch a movie.
    But, hey, I understand that lefties aren't about to let mere definitions get in the way of their agenda.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    A distinction without a difference. More like renting a TV.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    The distinction is that women have moral agency, and are capable of deciding whether or not they want to become a prostitute; a "product" generally does not.

    So yes, there is a difference, and a rather big one at that.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    How is that distinction relevant to my comment?

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 7:15PM|#
    "A distinction without a difference"

    No, an absolute refutation of your claims.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    No idiot, it's a red herring, not relevant at all to the point about men and women not being equal.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 7:42PM|#
    "No idiot, it's a red herring,"...

    As a common brain-dead lefty, you have missed the point entirely.
    The TV is worthless without the content; the TV is not the product.
    Sorry, idjit; you're stupidity has been busted.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, it is extremely cogent. It seems that you're just not quick enough to comprehend how.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Fine, women's bodies for the purpose of sex are the product. Does that change the meaning of my comment? No it doesn't. It's a red herring.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ahhh...I see your problem.

    As a sociopath, you view women as mere living, breathing penis holes and thus cannot understand that when a normal man, being one who is able to experience the full spectrum of human emotion, hires a prostitute, he sometimes desires performative intimacy to induce emotional satisfaction as well as physical satisfaction.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Still, doesn't change the point of my initial comment, how many women pay for "the boyfriend experience?"

    And speaking of such things...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Still, doesn't change the point of my initial comment, how many women pay for "the boyfriend experience?"

    I answered that question above, and you responded by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "la-la-la". But that wasn't your original point anyway, and you're a liar if you claim it was.

    And since you admit to your sociopathy, I shall refrain from continuing this conversation. It would be like explaining the color red to a blind man. Although, I will note that linking to Heartiste is ipse dixit evidence that you're a frustrated, closeted homosexual. Jus' sayin'

  • Ice Cream Man||

    I like how you PROVED it was so so so fucking common.

    Everyone knows that White libertarians just can't keep the women off of them. In fact, women are paying to have White libertarians fucking them.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 8:01PM|#
    "Fine, women's bodies for the purpose of sex are the product."

    No, they choose to engage in sex to provide the product; the product being enjoyment. They are selling that product, so as in any free exchange, both parties benefit.
    You really do have a fixation on a fallacy, and it's probably a result of some silly 'victimhood' crap.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Just as I, being an Ice Cream Man, sell enjoyment. I don't sell Ice Cream.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 8:17PM|#
    "Just as I, being an Ice Cream Man, sell enjoyment. I don't sell Ice Cream."

    Yep.
    I've seen it argued that if a physical product changes hands, that becomes the product, but that's not absolutely true.
    Supermarkets aren't selling the food; you can get that at a farm. They're selling the convenience of getting all that stuff in one place.
    As another example, you can beat off if you don't want to pay a gal (or a guy, depending on taste) for the enjoyment.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    Go up to any guy on the street and ask him if supermarkets sell food. You love these word games because you think they make you look smart, really you just look like a dork.

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 8:42PM|#
    "Go up to any guy on the street and ask him if supermarkets sell food."

    Yeah, and I'm sure you learned everything you need to know in kindergarten. Sorry, not really interested in what "any guy on the street" thinks.
    If that were true, everybody would shop at Costco and Whole Foods would be out of business.

  • Ice Cream Man||

    You learn that in your physics class or did you just make it up?

  • Sevo||

    Ice Cream Man|4.3.14 @ 9:52PM|#
    "You learn that in your physics class or did you just make it up?"

    Gee, I'm sorry. I thought you had at least a high-school education.

  • wwhorton||

    So...massage therapists are actually rent-a-slaves? I think your analogy is more accurate if you say that sex is the product, the john is the consumer, and the prostitute is the vendor. In which case the rest of the premise sort of falls apart.

  • Almanian!||

    Again I say, cool story, bro

  • Spaceno93||

    Ok, as stated above, I work at Johnson Space Center (Contractor) for ISS.

    We would love to be out of the ISS business and onto pushing the frontier? Hell yes. Would I be more than happy to leave Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to commerical. Differently.

    Is NASA slim and trim? God no. There is bloat. Yes, it has alot of issues. I'm not a government fan - miltary, roads, and some other things. At the present time, yes oversight is needed. The experience is needed also (Some of that has been branching out. Hey we have done some things right!).

    Biglow - funny, they wanted NASA to donate them 8 rockets.
    Space X - how come no-one is talking about their 1 month slip because of issues (originally planned last year). Now it's April 14th - maybe.
    Orbital - was delayed.

    And yes, Shuttle was delayed because it was old and weather (Bad design honestly).

    I'm all for commerical. I want the reigns off of NASA so we can do big things. The problem is America - we, are short sighted. No-one wants to invest in something that isn't going to happen for 10 years because there is no immediate political benefit.

    Now excuse me as I get ready to work console and talk to my Russian counterpart. They have the thrusters on ISS after all (Another - bad NASA decision)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement