Can the Ares Program Be Salvaged? 245
MarkWhittington writes "The Augustine Commission has not officially presented its findings to the White House, but already a push back is starting to occur over the possibility that the Ares 1 rocket will be canceled after three billion dollars and over four years of development. According to a story in the Orlando Sentinel contractors involved in the development of the Ares 1 have started a quiet but persistent public relations campaign to save the Ares 1, criticized in some quarters because of cost and technical problems."
Re:The fallacy of sunk costs (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, and I hate to reply to myself, but from the article:
Augustine's views are well-known (Score:5, Informative)
Augustine's personal views on human spaceflight have been known since 1990:
--
In its original report, the [Augustine] committee ranked five space activities in order of priority:
1. Space science
2. Technology development
3. Earth science
4. Unmanned launch vehicle
5. Human spaceflight
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advisory_Committee_on_the_Future_of_the_United_States_Space_Program [wikipedia.org]
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/05/does_the_choice_1.html [chron.com]
No, it can't be "saved" (Score:2, Informative)
This was spelled out for you 15 months ago right here [slashdot.org] on Slashdot.
There is no saving Ares. Not because there is anything wrong with Ares. The "technical problems" are trumped up exaggerations of the engineering challenges that have emerged and been overcome. The "cost overruns" are fictional; Augustine is "finding" dramatic cost overruns because that helps justify killing the project. The reason there is no saving Ares is that the US voted in people that despise manned space flight. They have "better" places to spend money so whatever plans the US had for manned space flight are on hold for the indefinite future.
Lots of apologists appeared to muddy the waters but the bottom line is that the original plan to give the Constellation money to the NEA (a.k.a "early-education") was never repudiated by anyone in the Administration. We're just doing the necessary political push-ups to bury NASA's manned space flight capability.
It is amusing to watch as NASA and it's contractors make sweeping their work under the rug difficult; the engine test will be dramatic and will unavoidably appear in the news cycle. Ares I-X has a launch date and is being erected right now [wikipedia.org]... It's kinda hard to characterize all this as "failure."
Yes, but what does it need saving from?!? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:There is another option (Score:3, Informative)
Why NASA is completely dug in on Ares is mind boggling.
Also, the contractors won't really be affected: ATK would still make the SRBs
Think about how those two quotes, apparently intended to be in opposition to each other, yet strangely similar.
Senator Frank Moss has been out of office since before the first battlestar galactica series in the late 70s, and dead for six years. Its time to let the SRBs die, please. They've killed enough people.
In a similar manner, why keep all the same contractors doing the same old, same old, if all that changes is the project name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Moss_(politician) [wikipedia.org]
"Senator Helped Thiokol Win Shuttle Contract ."
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1367&dat=19860303&id=eM8VAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EhQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5585,719942 [google.com]
Re:Ares-V: Yes Ares-I: No (Score:2, Informative)
You fail to mention that the two are part of an architecture that you can't justify one without the other. Kill Ares-I and Ares-V will follow.
Re:Should it be salvaged? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush's rocket (Score:3, Informative)
race to the bottom (Score:3, Informative)
No. There are plenty of things we can do to stop it:
* Minimum wage
Minimum wages reduces demand for employees. I know when minimum wages go up small business owners may either have to fire employees or go out of business, both of which reduces demand for employees are therefore lowers wages.
Progressive income taxes
Why should I work my ass off to make more money, and increase demand for employees, if I have to pay more taxes on what I make? That's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Taxing capital gains as income
If worked right I support this, if not I don't. The devil is in the details. Otherwise I do not support income taxes. What I, and you, work to earn should not be taxed.
Strong unions for collective bargaining
Strong collective bargaining yes, strong unions though is a big no no. If I do not want to be a member of a union or have union dues taken from my paycheck I should not have to live with either one yet still have my job. In other words no closed shops [wikipedia.org], which some unions push for. Twenty two states [wikipedia.org] have right to work laws, which I support, that are supposed to prevent this.
Laws against unlawful termination
What? Laws make things unlawful, if there are no laws it not illegal.
Tariffs against nations with poor labor laws
Thus reducing demand for employees, see above. Without government interference markets will improve employee pay and labor conditions. Look at China and India for examples. Because of relatively free trade, though there still is government interference, throughout the 1990s and early 2000s to the recession both nations saw booming middle and upper classes rise up. Real wages in both nations increased. They both went from relative backwater economies to being major economic powerhouses. In competition with each other they now offer other nations assistance.
Now I'm not saying there should be no laws or regulations, the less there is the better, but the ones there are need to be smarter and if necessary reformed or eliminated.
These things worked here for 50 years, and they still work in Western Europe. What the hell is wrong with you when you argue against policies that benefit your own economic and social interests?
Oh but do they? If I go to France and want to start my own business employing people can I do so easily? I don't think so. A few years ago there were riots by the youth when government [personneltoday.com] proposed making it easier for employers to fire employees. I know I would not want to hire someone if I can't fire them because they cost me more than they make for me. It's in my own, and society's, interests to be able to easily fire a bad employee as well as get rid of them when they aren't needed.
And starting my own business is something I want to do. My sister already did, with friends of hers she started an accounting firm which now employees others.
Falcon
Re:Should it be salvaged? (Score:5, Informative)