Posted on 02/26/2018 10:19:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Last week, the United States’ National Space Council met for the second time at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Vice President Mike Pence led the meeting, which was titled “Moon, Mars and Worlds Beyond: Winning the Next Frontier.” The focus of this gathering of government officials, national security experts, and space entrepreneurs was the ever-expanding commercial and scientific opportunity of the “next frontier.”
According to President Trump, the next frontier should include a return to the Moon with a subsequent trip to Mars. To fulfill this goal, the president’s budget includes $19.9 billion for NASA in the 2019 fiscal year, followed by annual allocations of $19.6 billion until 2023.
When the Space Council was relaunched last year, members emphasized their focus would be on efficiently spending tax dollars on achievable projects offered by space industry leaders with a reliable track record. Thankfully, the administration remained resolute in its original objectives. The desire to increase competition and innovation through objective deliberation and analysis is ostensibly why Pence appointed a 29-member advisory group in its second meeting, which included representatives from all the leading aerospace manufacturers, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and SpaceX.
The fact that the National Space Council stuck to its keys principles is relieving. After the recently successful inaugural launch of the SpaceX Falcon 9 Heavy rocket, some pundits – surprisingly, even a Trump administration adviser – have implicitly suggested that the Space Council alter its original objectives so companies like SpaceX can artificially receive more support.
This would be an odd switch for a council dedicated to competition. SpaceX’s recent track record highlights why such a shift would be ill-advised. While SpaceX is enjoying plenty of positive press after its latest successful launch, this exuberance is obscuring a rocky track record. As of last year, repeated failures and delays have resulted in it amassing 70 uncompleted missions worth a whopping $10 billion. And, the significant achievement of launching the cost-cutting Falcon Heavy this month occurred after almost five years of Falcon Heavy delays, a recent SpaceX engine explosion and launchpad malfunctions, and the postponement of yet another Falcon 9 rocket launch set for this weekend.
All these incidents have increased concerns about the durability of the SpaceX launch vehicles. In contrast, its only major competitor, the United Launch Alliance, has a perfect record after 12 years and 124 launches. These differences have not escaped the attention of the Defense Department’s Inspector General, who reported that SpaceX suffered from more “deviations from quality standards” than ULA – 50 percent more, to be precise.
This is not to say that SpaceX doesn’t have anything positive going for it, which could lead the company to deservingly earn contracts. Over the past few years, SpaceX has managed to successful cut the sticker prices of many launches, in some cases costing $50 million less than its leading competitor. However, the White House’s leading advisers in the space realm know that sticker price is just one factor in the decision-making process, as is dependability and the prospect of hidden costs, which come in the form of launch malfunctions. That’s why having an array of contractors at the government’s disposal is so important – so taxpayers always get the most bang for their buck and national security remains adequately protected. Any move by the council to artificially throw work towards any vendor would undermine its very mission.
The National Space Council has a tremendous opportunity to revitalize the space industry, and it is encouraging that it is receiving input from a wide variety of manufacturers. But it is also important that the council hold vendors accountable] for their failures and not just blindly throw contracts to vendors and call it competition. Competition only makes vendors more efficient when they are all held accountable to the same standard. This type of process truly puts America First in space, both from a national security standpoint and in safeguarding the precious financial resources of our country’s taxpayers.
What next, an electric pickup?
What a stupid reply
Close Nasa. We turned it over to free enterprise and it is great at 1/20th the cost. Can anyone explain to me why this totally broke country would go back to the moon? There is absolutely nothing there. The last time we went we gave it “to all mankind” but I dont remember them paying for it— WE DID. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
No, it is stupid to believe that are not stealing your money with this also. WAKE THE FUCK UP.
SpaceX’s recent track record highlights why such a shift would be ill-advised. While SpaceX is enjoying plenty of positive press after its latest successful launch, this exuberance is obscuring a rocky track record. As of last year, repeated failures and delays have resulted in it amassing 70 uncompleted missions worth a whopping $10 billion.
...
Baloney. The backlog is due to high demand. SpaceX is dominating the commercial launch market. They are launching more than anybody else and had a perfect track record last year.
What a stupid reply
...
Yep.
Your sentence makes as much sense is did your previous post. Sometimes it’s best not to say anything before making a fool of yourself, which you did twice in a row.
And, the significant achievement of launching the cost-cutting Falcon Heavy this month occurred after almost five years of Falcon Heavy delays,
...
The Falcon Heavy was almost cancelled three times because of big improvements in the lifting ability of the Falcon 9, which almost made the Falcon Heavy unnecessary. The Falcon Heavy is insurance in case the BFR is delayed longer than expected. There aren’t that many customers for it now, but perhaps some will come up with big projects now that the Falcon Heavy is operational.
Hope this program does not go the same way - another reason not to allow the Democrats to take any more seats in the 2018 Congressional elections.
I have watched the government create phony accounts for the last thirty and steal tax dollars I am the fool. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA No, you are are the idiot. It is time to wake up. We should have been back to the moon by now.
Free Market? When/where’s *that*.
Lost I heard, SpaceX was another one of those ‘private/public’ partnerships (IOW, We [the People] are still being robbed to support private enterprise).
US could build Hoover Dam, send a man to the Moon, but it can’t keep track of the visa violators (that IT gives out), secure the border, enforce the EXISTING Law(s) or even balance a budget.
Govt is only good for 2 things: writing laws and spending OPM (other people’s $$$). Many in both categories illegal/unconstitutional(ly).
Can anyone explain to me why this totally broke country would go back to the moon? There is absolutely nothing there.
Just the military high ground and material to totally dominate the entire Earth-Moon system.
Oh, and energy and material resources to exploit the solar system.
Why did we give that to “all mankind” . Did we just fumble? you don’t get mulligans with tax dollars. Let Space X go. Its soooo much cheaper.
Why did we give that to “all mankind” . Did we just fumble?
Because the idiots in the State Department and the Democrats in the Congress at the time were following the Obama theory of international politics.
It was one of the most stupid decisions the State Department ever came up with, and they have had many dozzies.
Fortunately, it has no enforcement mechanism.
My son and I saw last weeks Falcon 9 launch from Vandenberg. Great fun, though it was at 6 am!
With that launch, SpaceX lofted a Spanish satellite (”Paz”) something that would not have happened only a few years ago: a U.S. launch provider winning a commercial contract for a Euro satellite. The U.S. had almost zero presence in the market. Now SpaceX (and thus the USA) is the dominant player.
I think I share your concerns, but you’re only instigating fawning hypocrites here.
Free enterprise killed the Challenger crew. Free enterprise killed the Columbia crew. Manned mission to Mars - ROFLMAO - absent MAJOR technological advancement is a fantasy.
If we’re set to relegate pure science to the labs of those beholden to shareholders, then this is one extreme reaction to bureaucratic ineptitude no less outrageous than the restriction of Constitutional rights for security, IMHO.
No, I think internal politics killed those crews.
As to the first, I demur. As to the second, I demur. As to the third, I agree. And further, I can't even imagine what such an advancement might be. I'm open to suggestions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.