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."
Wrong Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The fallacy of sunk costs (Score:5, Interesting)
Or a launch loop [wikipedia.org], which is a practical alternative to a space elevator that doesn't require exotic materials. Not that it'll happen in this "no we can't do it, think of the {amoebas,corporations,children}!" age.
The fallacy of the fallacy of sunk costs (Score:2, Interesting)
However, if the billions spent on every cancelled shuttle replacement had gone towards a real project, we would *actually have something*. Following your logic (and that of many politicians), we have spent billions upon billions and have fuck all to show for it.
Meanwhile, the smart money is on China to carry on the banner of human space exploration. They don't suffer from political paralysis.
I don't so much care if we do it, or not do it, but today we have the worst of both worlds. We spend the money but don't get the results. Let's make up our damn minds one way or the other already and stop waffling around for decades on end. Either it's not worth it to send humans into space, and then let's stop spending the money and just send up robots, or it's worth it for whatever other benefits it brings, and then let's just fucking get ourselves a shuttle replacement already.
Re:Should it be salvaged? (Score:5, Interesting)
Should NASA be in the space launch business?
On the basis of the stories coming out, I suspect NASA shouldn't even be in the rowing-boat launch business. Don't get me wrong. They do amazing things with the things they put up there, but they just seem unable to get a grip of launch costs. So it should be someone else's job, someone else (or even many someones) who can keep costs down so that NASA money can be spent on the bits that really inspire everyone.
Re:There is another option (Score:3, Interesting)
If you remove the SRBs then you will have to design a whole new engine, in the class of the Apollo era F-1s since each SRB puts out the equivalent thrust of almost TWO F-1 rocket engines each.
Or you could just buy RD-171s...
Re:There is another option (Score:3, Interesting)
That would have been the RS-84. Killed in 2004 by Bush and friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_Initiative [wikipedia.org]
Part of the problem is that every new president to come along insists on throwing out the last 4-8 years' worth of work and starting over. NASA can't see any projects through without orders from the commander-in-chief and budget from congress.
So remember that whatever Augustine says, it's merely a recommendation. The death of Constellation, if it comes, will be at the hands of Obama and Congress.
Re:The fallacy of sunk costs (Score:1, Interesting)
Small change, really, compared to the amount of money the government has blown on car companies and bailing out Wall Street.
To put that in perspective, 3 billion is the same amount the government dumped into "Cash for Clunkers"
Re:Yes, we are going to bicker over 3 billion (Score:3, Interesting)
government's duty under our social contract is to ensure the utilitarian welfare of all.
I'm not sure the government is aware of this. An impartial observer would say that the US government is steadily working to expand its control over US citizens and over foreign lands and foreign resources, with benefits channeled to select few corporations. I'm sure the government would have a good laugh at the notion of "social contract" of any sort. Most of government bureaucracy is not even elected.
It's perfectly legitimate for government to tax you in order to benefit society as a whole.
Troubles begin when your definition of "benefits" does not match their. How would you like a federal tax that is used for killing foreign dark-skinned people because ... [nobody remembers the cause any more.] How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it to bankers? How would you like a federal tax that takes your money and gives it as free money to your lazy neighbor so that he can buy a better car? You are paying all of these taxes and many more, most of them are useless at best, but usually destructive. That's the problem.
Also, progressive taxation can be justified by observing that as one earns more, each dollar is less useful.
Even if we focus on personal income and personal taxes, how is it that each dollar is less useful? I can spend a $50K on a house and it keeps 5 laborers employed. Or I can spend $500K on a house, and it keeps 50 laborers employed. I think dollars just don't have the attribute of usefulness; each dollar is equally useful in the economy.
On top of that, all the progressive taxation does is gives more of your money to the government, where it will be misused in millions of ways. They might build a mega-school where none are needed, or they can build a bridge to nowhere, or they can build an international airport in a fishing village, or they can just burn the cash up in some war. The money is taken out of your hands, this means you are denied the right to decide how to spend it. This reduces the desire to earn more; the opposite end of the spectrum is to earn nothing at all and live on social security or some illegal income.
some Scandinavian countries have begun to issue fines for traffic violations [...] as percentages of the violator's income
Yet another way found to deincentivize honest work. Work for cash only (as a pimp, for example,) run red lights all you want, and pay nothing. Great idea, just as most governments' ideas are.
The capital gains tax is a price for sitting on wealth. It's something we should discourage.
I feel a disconnect here. An example may be helpful. Your school needs repairs. The city issues a bond for $10M, which is an offer to potential creditors. I decide to help out and lend them $1M. A year later the city pays me back $1.1M when the bond matures. I have $100K of capital gain as a fee for the risk I took and for the use of my money (I couldn't hire more workers for my business, for example, when the money was lent.) How is it that this use of my money is not socially welcome? Am I some sort of villain for letting you use my money when you needed it?
I'm not proposing "socialism" in the way you think I am. I'm proposing that we make a market economy that works better through forcing all the participants to play fair.
And, with the right value of "fair", that is the definition of socialism.
Re:So we are going to bicker over 3 billion? (Score:1, Interesting)
Although I must say, the way the free market halfwits crashed the world's largest economy only 20 years or so after being handed partial control,
Oh, please. You can't lay this crash on a free market. It was caused by a totally distorted market.
A free market would let companies make any loans they want, to anyone they want, but would not bail out anyone for any reason. Prudent companies would make good loans, and would not float wads of bad debt as new "credit instruments".
The non-free market we had allowed banks substantial freedom to make loans, while pressuring them to make a bunch of loans to poor credit risks. The banks didn't kick much about the bad credit risks because it was assumed that house prices always rise, so the bank could always repossess the house and it would be worth more. The banks were free to make wild loans, knowing they would be bailed out.
And some large government entities (Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac) shoveled lots of bad debt, and a few corrupt politicians pocketed large bundles of cash.
You want a free market? How about personal computers. The government does not regulate what kinds of computers can be sold or bought, and does not bail out computer makers who make dumb decisions. And hey look, computers are damn affordable these days; today for $400 you can buy a computer that is hugely faster than anything you could buy for several thousand dollars ten years ago.
authoritarian command economies certainly seem to work better than laissez-faire free for alls.
Oh, for *uck's sake. Did you know that the USSR had a negative GDP? They took valuable raw materials like iron ore and turned them into shoddy USSR steel. Then they used that shoddy steel to make really shoddy cars. They would have been better off to have shipped their raw materials to Europe, sold them for cash, and used the cash to buy finished goods.
The USA hasn't been a laissez-faire free for all for many years now, but back in the days when it was closer to one than it is now, it never had a negative GDP.
I won't bother to comment on the rest of your diatribe. Maybe you could try reading a few books on how economics works, or something.
Have a nice life.