NASA's New Mission?

[Pariel]

I wouldn't bet on that last bit PhrogLoop.

Places like Lockheed Martin are just going to be raking in more cash (specifically taxpayer dollars). I know a guy who's visited a sizable part of the world setting up facilities for communications satellites, and nothing I've heard suggests it's going away soon.

Low orbit isn't a great place as is though. Someone needs to go through with a streetsweeper.

 

[Flash]

Illegal immigration and much of the drug traffic are closely intertwined: same groups are involved to some degree, and much of the activity occurs in the same poorly guarded border regions. Closely monitoring the borders will have a positive effect on both issues.
The Arizona law will make the effort and expense of crossing the border less attractive, because of a greater potential for getting sent back; some of those sent back will be those illegals involved with the drug trade.

The Arizona law certainly does not address the entire issue, but it would help with a significant part of it. The same would be true of a hypothetical improved physical security of the actual border - it's not everything, but it is an important part.

And the federal government hasn't taken appropriate steps in either area.

I find it amusing that many see the Arizona law as a panacea when it does little more than what existing federal programs already do. I doubt that even if it was implemented it would make hardly any impact in the drug and illegal immigration trades. And I am a bit bewildered that you claim the federal government hasn't taken appropriate steps to counter the activity given the resources, monetary and personnel, put towards the issues. Like the Border Patrol doubling in size the past few years. I think the rhetoric and hyperbole are obscuring many of the facts on the ground.

IMHO, it's all smoke and mirrors for the fact that the Administration has decided to gut NASA and toss out its core missions. Hangar the shuttles, shelve Orion, fire the engineers and now you've got enough money to send Charlie Bolden and the remaining astronaut corps on speaking engagements. Which they will do happily because it might be their last paid gig having spent every waking minute of their lives working towards getting into space. It's truly sad. I love the short sighted fallacy of this plan. In a few years, we'll still be sending comm/nav/GPS satellites into space but there will not be an experienced cadre of space engineers to support and maintain them. Our low orbit will resemble our power grid: an outdated mess waiting for a disaster.

Since when were we firing all the engineers? There are plenty of space programs that employ all those engineers, all those satellites we continue to send up are being designed by someone. As for supporting and maintaining them, that is what we have the USAF 'Space Rangers' for. It's not like they were working on manned programs that much anyways, there was 30 years between the design of the Space Shuttle and Orion, which wasn't exactly breaking a lot of new ground. If anything is harming our space systems it is the absurd cost overruns in the development and building of them, among the worst in government, and that is saying something.

 

[exhelodrvr]

"when it does little more than what existing federal programs already do"

No, it does (or will do) what existing federal programs are supposed to do. Big difference. The facts on the ground speak for themselves - the situation is getting worse, not better. Thus, the steps aren't appropriate.

 

[Flash]

"when it does little more than what existing federal programs already do"

No, it does (or will do) what existing federal programs are supposed to do. Big difference. The facts on the ground speak for themselves - the situation is getting worse, not better. Thus, the steps aren't appropriate.

Since it will likely never go into effect, I guess we will never know.

 

[CAMike]

Since it will likely never go into effect, I guess we will never know.

I totally agree with a few comments made by Flash. The AZ law does little more than what existing federal law does.

That is exactly why this AZ law was created. Which is to have the state perform the duties that should be done by the federal government. What's even more outrageous is that you and I (tax payers) are footing the legal bill for the feds to challenge the AZ law. Obama is arguing a moot point and spending OUR money on a fight against something the majority of Americans support and what Arizonans demanded and legal acquired.

 

[exhelodrvr]

Since it will likely never go into effect, I guess we will never know.

Oh, we'll know. At least those of us in the border states. If the situation continues getting worse, then the steps being taken aren't appropriate. I know that's hard for you to understand.

 

[Flash]

Oh, we'll know. At least those of us in the border states. If the situation continues getting worse, then the steps being taken aren't appropriate. I know that's hard for you to understand.

What I meant is that we will likely never know if the Arizona law will ever help since I doubt it will ever take effect, with the whole Supremacy Clause thing likely making the whole exercise a moot point.

As for it getting worse in the border states you are right, I wouldn't know first hand. I am capable of understanding though, we have had our own significant issues with illegal immigration in my town. I just can't sympathize that much with a situation I think is a bit overblown and colored too much by politics and simple bias in some cases, call it a lack of empathy if you will. You can always move I suppose, never saw the appeal of living there anyways, too dry and dusty.

 

[PhrogLoop]

Since when were we firing all the engineers?

It's already started!

"With the shuttle's erstwhile successor - the problematic Constellation program - set for termination by President Barack Obama, no replacement is expected to be available in time to stem the space industry's job losses."

 

[Clux4]

It's already started!

"With the shuttle's erstwhile successor - the problematic Constellation program - set for termination by President Barack Obama, no replacement is expected to be available in time to stem the space industry's job losses."

What exactly are you suggesting; we keep the program so that we can produce jobs?

 

[PhrogLoop]

What exactly are you suggesting; we keep the program so that we can produce jobs?

I'm suggesting that we continue to fund and promote manned spaceflight (not necessarily Constellation) as long as we continue operating in space. And I'm suggesting that the engineers who support manned spaceflight constitute much of our nation's corporate knowledge and experience base for the entire space industry and that shelving manned programs with no replacement will have severely detrimental second and third order effects down the road.

The following analogy is not perfect, but imagine if when the President tasked SECNAV with the long term oil spill response, he also slashed the Navy's operating budget, cancelled future purchases of ships and aircraft, and told the Navy that Power Projection and Deterrence were no longer part of its mission areas. We would necessarily turn the spigot down (or off) on pilot and SWO ascensions, retire ships and send aircraft to the boneyard. Wouldn't that then have severely detrimental second and third order effects on our future ability to conduct Power Projection and Deterrence once the next Administration (or world events) determined they were needed?

 

[Clux4]

I'm suggesting that we continue to fund and promote manned spaceflight (not necessarily Constellation) as long as we continue operating in space. And I'm suggesting that the engineers who support manned spaceflight constitute much of our nation's corporate knowledge and experience base for the entire space industry and that shelving manned programs with no replacement will have severely detrimental second and third order effects down the road.

There is nothing you have said that is much different from what the current administration is doing. Of course we can't keep everyone. Even the military gets rid of people/programs every now and again. Looks like we doing that right now. Using the second and third order arguement is just another attempt to make the decision look egregious. Let me ask you, what are these second and third order effects you speak off. Can you mention 3 without using google? It is a costly venture that has granted very little gain in the last 2 decades.

The following analogy is not perfect, but imagine if when the President tasked SECNAV with the long term oil spill response, he also slashed the Navy's operating budget, cancelled future purchases of ships and aircraft, and told the Navy that Power Projection and Deterrence were no longer part of its mission areas. We would necessarily turn the spigot down (or off) on pilot and SWO ascensions, retire ships and send aircraft to the boneyard. Wouldn't that then have severely detrimental second and third order effects on our future ability to conduct Power Projection and Deterrence once the next Administration (or world events) determined they were needed?

As you already alluded to, using the Navy example is poor because the US Navy and NASA are not on equal footing in terms of National Security. We are not cutting out the light and shutting the doors on NASA as you are some how portraying the issue. NASA will remain. We have just refused to fund expensive programs with no clear or pressing need. The orange is not worth the squeeze.

 

[Flash]

I'm suggesting that we continue to fund and promote manned spaceflight (not necessarily Constellation) as long as we continue operating in space. And I'm suggesting that the engineers who support manned spaceflight constitute much of our nation's corporate knowledge and experience base for the entire space industry and that shelving manned programs with no replacement will have severely detrimental second and third order effects down the road.

We are.

The following analogy is not perfect, but imagine if when the President tasked SECNAV with the long term oil spill response, he also slashed the Navy's operating budget, cancelled future purchases of ships and aircraft, and told the Navy that Power Projection and Deterrence were no longer part of its mission areas. We would necessarily turn the spigot down (or off) on pilot and SWO ascensions, retire ships and send aircraft to the boneyard. Wouldn't that then have severely detrimental second and third order effects on our future ability to conduct Power Projection and Deterrence once the next Administration (or world events) determined they were needed?

No, it certainly isn't but it is always fun to take a dig at the current administration no matter the subject, especially when loaded with inaccurate suppositions.

 

[PhrogLoop]

We are.



No, it certainly isn't but it is always fun to take a dig at the current administration no matter the subject, especially when loaded with inaccurate suppositions.

Space X is a great program and I'm all for it. But I'm concerned that when NASA outsources its systems and vehicles to THAT extent, it will only exist as a feeble shadow of its former self and will accordingly shift an excess of its responsibility, accountability, and liability to said contractors. When Challenger exploded, NASA may have been able to point to Thiokol for its faulty O-rings, but NASA was itself ultimately responsible for astronaut safety and mission completion. In this future model, NASA is just the entity who buys the ticket for astronauts to ride alongside wealthy space tourists. Not the same thing.

As for the Administration, you won't find me name-calling or making personal attacks, but I am concerned...

 

[jtmedli]

Since it will likely never go into effect, I guess we will never know.

What makes you think that it'll never see the light of day? The administration doesn't really have a legitimate reason to be making this big of a deal about this law. Obama would've been better off had he chosen to just leave it alone. We're yet to see any of the unity that his campaign promised and political posturing like these shenanigans are a big part of the reason why we won't.

 

[helolumpy]

Space X is a great program and I'm all for it. But I'm concerned that when NASA outsources its systems and vehicles to THAT extent, it will only exist as a feeble shadow of its former self and will accordingly shift an excess of its responsibility, accountability, and liability to said contractors.

One significant difference is that DOD does not design ships, aircraft or vehicles. They lay out the specifications and the companies competing for the contract submit their designs.
NASA took a different course with the Shuttle Program. NASA engineers design the systems and then let contracts for the parts.

When Challenger exploded, NASA may have been able to point to Thiokol for its faulty O-rings, but NASA was itself ultimately responsible for astronaut safety and mission completion.

NASA got equal blame on that O-ring failure as the manufacturer. From the Senate investigation: We also agree that the failure of the joint was due to a faulty design, and that neither NASA nor Thiokol fully understood the operation of the joint prior to the accident. Further, the joint test and certification programs were inadequate, and neither NASA nor Thiokol responded adequately to available warning signs that the joint design was defective.

The investigation also found that :

the Committee confirms that the safety, reliability, and quality assurance programs within ​

​

​

​

NASA were grossly inadequate, but in addition recommends that NASA review its risk management activities to define a complete risk management program.​

The second part is a huge blackeye for NASA. They were called unsafe for the Senate!!

The War College did a case study on the Challenger mishap to demonstrate the danger of group think when decisions are made.