The Problem with Government Contracts and the positives of Private aerospace companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

Me, "This is what is the problem with government contracts. They plead, poor me poor me, costs have gone up, then explain all the jobs they are or have created, and the government rethinks killing a program. We need better contracts that raine in the extra costs of a program to a realistic amount. Doing more with less or what was negotiated should be the mantra of these companies. Not pay me more or forget the program. You want to talk threats? Sheesh! This is why I have lost confidence in the standard aerospace companies and believe private aerospace companies like SpaceX and Blue Origin are the future. They set a goal and meet it. They may take some government money but they produce results."

From article,  "Trump suggests he would ditch F-35 in favor of cheaper plane"

(President-elect Donald Trump piled on fresh criticism of the Pentagon’s most sophisticated aircraft on Thursday, suggesting that he might abandon the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in favor of a cheaper plane because of the F-35’s high costs.

In a message on Twitter, Trump said that cost overruns in Lockheed Martin’s $400 billion program to develop the stealth jet had prompted him to ask Boeing, another major aircraft manufacturer, to “price-out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet.”

Trump has blasted the F-35 before, saying the cost is “out of control” and promising that his administration would find savings in military hardware purchases. His criticism of Bethesda-based Lockheed Martin and Chicago-based Boeing has roiled the defense industry and laid down a marker for a hard line from the White House in dealings with major players doing business with the government.

Even before Trump launched his public assault, the F-35, the Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program, has come in for widespread criticism for design flaws and spiraling costs. While the current price for the various F-35 variants is at least $100 million per plane, the company has said that it will fall to $85 million each in four or five years.)

Reagan's Star Wars Again?

Me, "The whole problem with space based weapons is that most countries are afraid that if there's ever a war, their nuclear weapons would never reach the enemy's shores.  So, the thinking goes: You build a system of satellites that use lasers or small kinetic pebbles that can knock nuclear missiles out of the sky. The reasoning being that this shield will protect a country, so well, that Nuclear War will be averted. And the country with a Missile Defense will win. But let's look more deeply at this. 

Right now what we have is (M.A.D.) Mutually Assured Destruction. If we launch missile, they launch missiles and both sides lose. Now you enter with a nuclear shield and the game is changed. Well, not quite.

 If we build a shield, so can other countries and once again M.A.D. comes back into play. No side would ever be sure if their missile would reach their intended targets and so no country would launch missiles. 

Now of course there is also other sides to this equation. When President Reagan first proposed Star Wars, the technology for Laser weapons just wasn't there. But today you have lasers on ships, you have lasers on airplanes, on military vehicles and so laser are finally coming into their own and can be used in a realistic Space Missile Defense system. 

The whole point of Star Wars was an insurance policy. Not so much to protect but to prevent and right now with rogue countries like North Korea, Iran and the less expected terrorist groups, (Hey, they got access to Syria's chemical weapons so who knows) gaining hold of a nuclear missile, who could one day by accident, or deliberate intent, launch a nuclear missile at the U.S. I would feel safer with a fleet of defense satellites that could knock this missile out of the sky. And I am sure Russia and China would too. In fact as soon as we were to build our Space Based Defense they would be doing the same. We have to think what is in the best interests of the world? A rogue nuclear missile with no way to stop it or a missile defense system that can prevent a really bad day from happening."  

From article, " Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race"

(By removing a single word from legislation governing the military, Congress has laid the groundwork for both a major shift in U.S. nuclear defense doctrine and a costly effort to field space-based weaponry.

Experts say the changes, approved by overwhelming majorities in both the House and Senate, could aggravate tensions with Russia and China and prompt a renewed nuclear arms race. The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.

For decades, America’s defense against nuclear attack has rested on twin pillars: The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or “limited,” attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.)

The National Academy study, released in 2012, concluded that even a bare-bones space-based missile defense system would cost about $200 billion to put in place, and hundreds of billions to operate in subsequent years.

Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) said in an interview that he drew inspiration from President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, which was intended to use lasers and other space-based weaponry to render nuclear weapons “impotent and obsolete.” Known as “Star Wars,” the initiative cost taxpayers $30 billion, but no system was ever deployed.)