Me, "It's a big dilemma. You have all this money invested in the SLS Rocket NASA is building, yet when it was conceived no one realized you could reuse a rocket to the point of what SpaceX and Blue Origin are doing. Do you cancel it hoping you can rely on private industry to get you to Low Earth Orbit, The Moon, and Mars? Or, do you double down and hope its worth the money?
I believe private industry like SpaceX and Blue Origin are committed to bringing cheap access to space with reusable rockets. That said the thing that could pave their way is government seed money and maybe a new look at what NASA should be doing; instead of building rockets it should be like a college turning out world class astronauts for SpaceX and Blue Origin while if it wants to do manned missions buy a few seats on their rockets.
I feel bad for SLS. But is it really worth the money? (One rocket launch every few years because it costs a lot to build and launch) or many public-private missions that try and make the most out of their funding? Taking the SLS money and investing it in private companies with more encouragement deals could help them and us get out into deep space. What is more beneficial in the long run? Trump has a very hard decision to make. I know if I were in his shoes, it would be for me."
I believe private industry like SpaceX and Blue Origin are committed to bringing cheap access to space with reusable rockets. That said the thing that could pave their way is government seed money and maybe a new look at what NASA should be doing; instead of building rockets it should be like a college turning out world class astronauts for SpaceX and Blue Origin while if it wants to do manned missions buy a few seats on their rockets.
I feel bad for SLS. But is it really worth the money? (One rocket launch every few years because it costs a lot to build and launch) or many public-private missions that try and make the most out of their funding? Taking the SLS money and investing it in private companies with more encouragement deals could help them and us get out into deep space. What is more beneficial in the long run? Trump has a very hard decision to make. I know if I were in his shoes, it would be for me."
(NASA and its masters in Congress currently stand at a transition point, balancing two kinds of work: expensive and ambitious exploration missions done as cost-plus contracts...)
Me, "This is the problem, out of control spending contracts."
Continuing from article, (...by traditional firms like Boeing and Lockheed, and more prosaic near-Earth transit work performed as public-private partnerships with newer firms like SpaceX and Orbital ATK. Facing tight budgets, NASA’s efforts to split resources between the two have resulted in delays on all sides. The new administration promised a chance for advocates of both sides to re-litigate the pros and cons of each approach.
Trump’s comments on the campaign trail and his initial choice of advisers suggested that the businessman would lean toward reeling back NASA’s Mars ambitions and directing more resources to private companies operating in low-Earth orbit or, in the future, near the moon.)
Trump’s comments on the campaign trail and his initial choice of advisers suggested that the businessman would lean toward reeling back NASA’s Mars ambitions and directing more resources to private companies operating in low-Earth orbit or, in the future, near the moon.)
No comments:
Post a Comment