Commercial space advocates late Wednesday criticized a White House deficit reduction commission’s recommendation to cut $1.2 billion in proposed NASA spending on the industry – a linchpin of the Obama Administration’s space policy. "This proposed cut would have disastrous consequences for NASA and the nation," Bretton Alexander, president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, said in a statement.
The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, led by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, released a draft plan listing 58 spending cuts that would save $200 billion by 2015.
No. 24: "Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight."
"This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights," the report says.
That view, the federation says, "appears to misunderstand the very nature of the Commercial Crew Program."
The 2011 NASA Authorization Act approved by Congress and signed into law last month cancelled development of the Constellation program's Ares I crew launch vehicle in favor of commercially developed crew taxis that might cost less over time and possibly be ready to fly sooner.
The federation says the policy is a "win-win for the American taxpayer," not a handout to industry. Read its full statement here.
IMAGE: Artist's rendering of a SpaceX Dragon spacecraft approaching the International Space Station. Credit: SpaceX
7 comments:
Finally someone is recognizing commercial manned space is a total failure and a a waiste of time and money!!!
"Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight."
Isn't commercial spaceflight what Obama said would take the place of Constellation and Orion in getting our own people in and out of orbit? Now that is being proposed to be eliminated? So we kill the shuttle to replace it with Constellation. Then we kill Constellation to replace it with commercial spaceflight. So if we kill commercial spaceflight--or at least funding for it--how are we going to get our own people up into orbit and to the ISS?
Please tell me I'm in error here. What am I missing?
The Republicans who favor small government and efficient private industry are fighting tooth and nail against the attempt by Obama, a Democrat, to eliminate a $200 billion monolithic government program created by George Bush that produces nothing useful, and allow competitive and efficient private companies like SpaceX to provide services, not just for astronauts, but to market actual commercial launch services for both satellites and tourists.
When's the last time we had a real commercial launch from the Cape? Bush killed everything except government operations. It just goes to show that most Space Coasters have only one venue; to blame Obama for everything, even when he raises the NASA budget and tries to force the organization to do something useful.
..."KSC workers are now in the real world of supply and demand." The Govt. sponsored, outdated, inefficient, NASA programs are over. If NASA had turned its management over to competent private entrepreneurs instead of their good ol' boy buddys the transition would be smoother and less painful. Sorry but that's the way it is in the real world. Ex astronauts are America's heroes and we are proud of them but their only role in the Space program should have been advisory and training only. They do not have the business skills or management acumen for most of the positions they fill. The waste in the system has caused it to be discontinued."
Funny how proposed cuts at NASA never raise much of an eyebrow. If only the Feds would go after other bloated government programs with such vigor as they do with NASA.
But, then, NASA has always been the whipping boy of the Federal government, starting right in 1970 when the congress cancelled the last three Apollo flights, simply to save money.
Rick Steele
Sarasota, Florida
Er who says that your "Real World" is the right real world then.?.! Business skills and acumen won't get you out to the moon and mars.Those destinations are MASSIVE undertakings and require NATIONAL effort ie GOVERNMENT BACKED NASA programmes and vehicles.What happens when the privateers run out of cash or go bust,you can't go running home to government to bail you out.And your space venture goes belly up.!! Those astronauts have something far far better EXPERIENCE.
Obama thinks you'll be on Mars by the mid 2030's Dream on, you haven't even got back out to the moon and learned to live out there yet. You have got to do that first,then you'll be ready to even attempt a two year round trip mars mission.You've got to live on mars for 18 months before you can get a window to return.
It appears that this article is misquoting the report. Thi article says: "'This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights,' the report says. "
Yet, the actual report, linked in this story says "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to invest in private sector development of space transportation capabilities, which
NASA plans to competitively purchase once available.54 Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015."
It is sad when these sort of misquotes show up.
Post a Comment