NASA Attempts To Cut Back Constellation 132
FleaPlus writes "In a surprise move in the battle between NASA and certain members of Congress over NASA's future direction, NASA has told its contractors to cut back nearly $1 billion on this year's Ares/Constellation program, stating that the cutback is necessary to remain in compliance with federal spending laws requiring contractors to withhold contract termination costs. While complying with budgeting laws (and in line with NASA's desire to cancel Constellation), this move is also potentially in violation of a 2010 appropriations amendment by Sen. Shelby (R-AL) and Sen. Bennett (R-UT) which prohibits NASA from terminating any Constellation contracts. If NASA's move goes through, the biggest liability is $500M for ATK, the contractor who is/was responsible for the first stage of the Ares I medium-lift rocket."
The German magic is gone (Score:4, Interesting)
You would think they would have passed on the 'how to keep your projects funded' secrets as well as engineering, medical and other useful data.
Re: NASA to cut back on Constellation (Score:3, Interesting)
This I agree with. I think NASA should be used as a governing body to be in charge of overall space operations (for now), but the private industry should be funded enough to do the research and build the vehicles. NASA shouldn't be gutted (on the contrary, I think its budget should still be increased), but its role needs to be looked at.
Not sure why you were modded down. Companies like Orbital (formally Fairchild) already build most of NASA's hardware anyway. Might as well make it official, know what I mean?
Re:Augh. (Score:2, Interesting)
First we need to prove that there are things to slaughter in outer space and then NASA funding will... increase greatly (should mod me for holding off using an obvious and terrible pun then)
Re:Augh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, the money IS there. Getting rid of a single jet fighter program or, you know...getting the fuck out of the middle east...would be enough to pay for this.
Re:Augh. (Score:4, Interesting)
I 100% agree...but you will never see the "Defense Budget" getting fitted for a hair cut. Never. All in the name of "national security".
We need to do only two things right now: secure our homeland, and fight people out in deserts. Funding our military as if the Cold War were still in full swing is not just stupid, but irresponsible.
What's the point of spending trillions of dollars to defend your country if there's no country left to defend?
spacex (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Augh. (Score:3, Interesting)
It pisses me off, too. Howzabout we stop spending money on killing people. Howzabout we just let them kill us for a change? Lemme know what u think. kthxbye.
Looking at the last 4 big, major wars we have been involved in (Vietnam, Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan), nobody was killing us before we injected ourselves into the conflict.
Re:Augh. (Score:3, Interesting)
Insurance not doctors. Doctors get paid w/ public option either way. TBH I think many of them would prefer it.
Mostly I was making a point that the AMA has lobbied to create an extreme barrier for entry into healthcare. While for certain positions a high barrier to entry IS useful (oncology, surgeons, OBGYNs, etc) There are other areas in which a trained, but not a full MD would be required (Evaluating non-serious fractures, evaluating if something is a bacterial or viral infection, prescribing an antibiotic for an ingrown toenail)
There is a lot in which a doctor has to be 'in the loop'. That isn't to say that you don't need doctors, I'm just saying that you don't need doctors in all situations.
Nurse Practitioners generally fall into this category of not doctors, but qualified enough to handle a lot more than we currently let them. (it varies state to state, but on the whole, I don't think they are given enough responsibility)