3 Congressmen Trying To Tie Up SpaceX 393
An anonymous reader writes: Phil Plait reports that a trio of U.S. Congressmen are asking NASA to investigate what they call "an epidemic of anomalies" at SpaceX. They sent a memo (PDF) demanding that SpaceX be held accountable to taxpayers for mission delays stemming from the development of new rockets. Plait notes, "[A]s a contractor, the rules are different for them than they would be if NASA themselves built the rockets, just as the rules are for Boeing or any other contractor. In fact, as reported by Space News, NASA didn't actually pay for the development of the Falcon 9; Elon Musk did." He adds, "Another reason this is silly is that every rocket ever made has undergone problems; they are fiendishly complex machines and no design has ever gotten from the drafting board to the launch pad without issues. Sure, SpaceX has experienced launch delays and other problems, but the critical thing to remember is that those problems are noted, assessed, and fixed sometimes within hours or minutes." Plait accuses the congressmen of trying to bury private spaceflight under red tape in order to protect established industries in their own states.
Government Elites do not want SPACE frontiers. (Score:2, Interesting)
It would destroy their credibility and undermine the slave system they have us all trapped under keeping their controlled economy and slave labor force in check and locked into planetary resources.
Politicians - Ignorant, Stupid, or Conmen? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not a balloon, it's a rocket. I'm not aware of them using Helium, though they are know to use huge quantities of Liquid Hydrogen.
"...release all anomalies and mishap information, un-redacted, so that Congress can gain a better understanding of what has occurred and ensure full transparency..."
Do you mean like you have all other PRIVATE CONTRACTORS do? Oh wait, you don't. Of course, as stated, no huge system is ever without issues. The real question is are they fixed, and in a timely manner. In the case of SpaceX, yes. And by the way, SpaceX hasn't had 3 different crews killed in accidents, unlike NASA.
"Again, because the vehicles in question were funded by American taxpayer dollars, there should be no issue in making this report publicly available,"
Wrong again douchebag, they were funded by Elon Musk, not the government.
As to the question I posed in the subject line, I don't actually know the answer, but I suspect it's "all of the above".
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
It also strikes me as specious, at best, that they're complaining about a project that's arguably the most timely and successful-out-the-gate in the history of the American space program, if not humanity's combined space programs.
But I guess that when one can afford to buy a senator, one makes that senator bark whatever line one wants regardless of its veracity or even sense.
Re:You don't say.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the SpaceX rocket is obsolete(or too trouble-prone), all other rockets in the world are also. To make a space rocket which is not already obsolete (or too trouble-prone) requires trillions of dollars*. No one has come up with a way to build a practical space rocket which is not complicated and expensive.
*actually if you build the thing on your own instead of doing things the "right" way per the US gov't you can drop that by a few orders of magnitude.
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA does not build a damned thing.
NASA builds lots of things, including scientific instruments and spacecraft. (Even if spacecraft are typically outsourced).
Although indeed it doesn't build launch vehicles.
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well duh! Wouldn't you do the same thing? I mean, it's not like the government creates jobs or anything.
For those not getting the sarcasm, one side of the political spectrum repeatedly trots out the mantra that the government does not create jobs, yet, using this situation, quite clearly the government does create jobs or these Congressman wouldn't be trying to prevent layoffs at these companies if they were to lose government business from the space program.
Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he (Score:4, Interesting)
There may well be in certain cases — but it is not (or should not be) a dirty word, I agree.
Yes, although one point of view may be better than another, a compromise is often worse than either of the "extremes"...
This is a prelude to SpaceX's winning. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully, SpaceX will win this contest, because I have no doubt that the house GOP will change their minds and suddenly fund all 3 companies.
Sadly, the corruption and treason runs very deep in the GOP.
Re:Are they "small government" republicans ? he he (Score:5, Interesting)
I am pretty sure the centralist argument is raise revenue and cut spending, not borrow money from china, that is pretty extreme.
It doesn't matter what they "argue", it only matters what they do. Centrists don't argue for deficit spending, but they certainly vote for it.
It's about PorkBarrel (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't have to RTFA to know that this is just about Pork Barrel spending.
The guy behind this is Sen. Richard Shelby from Alabama. Where does ULA have it's factory? That's right, Alabama [madeinalabama.com].
So now, we have the Alabama congressman Mo Brooks jumping on the bandwagon. Where to those two Colorado guys come from? Oh, yeah they represent me, in Centennial Colorado, where ULA happens to have its headquarters.
Fuck these guys. They're holding the whole country back for corporate welfare. Of course, when poor folks need a hand...
Watch out for ULA Propaganda (Score:5, Interesting)
I have posted before [slashdot.org] that there is evidence that ULA has initiated a propaganda campaign against Space X. From what I have read, Shockey Scofield Solutions, which is a PR firm hired by ULA is tightly linked with congressional lobbyist culture...they know how to pull particular strings in Washington. This seems to have their fingerprints all over it.
We should really be aware of the reason why ULA was formed in the first place. A few years ago the government decided to bring competition into launch procurement, by creating a bidding process. The dominant/only American players, Boeing and Lockheed responded by merging their launch products into the United Launch Alliance so that in almost all cases there would be only one bidder for American launches. This resulted in an increase in launch costs.
Enter SpaceX, which looks to be a real competitor. ULA can't absorb Space X, so they seem to be doing everything they can to sabotage them instead. From proposing financial rules on bidding companies that are biased against smaller players, to focussing on trivial "anomolies" that put uncertainty in the (simple) minds of Congressional lawmakers, to floating fanciful speculative stories about future vaporware "Space Planes" that will leapfrog SpaceX's cheaper launch platforms, to calling Elon Musk a corporate welfare bum (as if ULA wasn't the queen of queens of welfare queens).
The simple fact is that Space X has taken older proven technology and molded it into what promises to be a robust and reliable launch platform. ULA knows this, and the only thing they know how to do is to make this a gutter fight. They are despicable.
Re:Your "facts" are wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
I would note that all of the other countries buying the F-35 (a stupid proposition in my book BTW) all do so contingent upon the U.S. government buying them. I'll also point out that Lockheed-Martin is not funding the design and construction of this airplane. It is simply the U.S. taxpayers alone. If anything, it is the U.S. government who is in effect offering its design to other countries... as a means to offset the development cost.