
Senate Passes Bill to Boost Competitiveness of U.S. Space Industry - walterbell
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=47294
======
Amorymeltzer
This bill sounds fine based on the summary, but if the senate wants to boost
US space competitiveness maybe don't play politics with NASA's funding.[1] Let
the scientists draft and decide missions, let the engineers decide feasibility
and utility, and let the astronauts and robots carry them out. Do what you can
to reign in costs, but don't turn NASA into a bureaucratic pork bonanza.

1: Just one such example
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-3...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-
monument-to-its-drift/)

~~~
bediger4000
There's some merit in what you're saying. NASA shepherded the Thor IRBM into
the Delta launch vehicle over quite a long period, probably because NASA
administrators don't have an 18-month tenure like Air Force Generals do. NASA
could make incremental improvements for years, and that led to the occasional
major improvement.

Compare tje Delta's LEO capability to the Air Force launch vehicle, the Titan,
and you'll see the difference.

------
jreimers
To be globally competitive in the long run, ITAR restrictions around space
vehicles need to be reassessed. Right now to work for a US aerospace company
you need to be a US citizen. This excludes a huge part of the available talent
pool [1].

[1] [http://paulgraham.com/95.html](http://paulgraham.com/95.html)

~~~
jzawodn
So true. It's very frustrating the way things are currently restricted. ITAR
is really over-reaching in a lot of areas.

------
artifaxx
The general improvements they mention do look good for the U.S. space
industry. It says something about the recent state of congress that my first
question is quite cynical: What compromises and hidden gotchas aren't we
hearing about in this bill?

------
Animats
Does this mean the Commercial Crew Program, where Space-X finishes their
manned launch capability, is back on?

~~~
Ankaios
Commercial Crew never stopped. Congress is not funding it well, though.

~~~
Animats
That's the point. Congress cut funding so NASA and ULA could catch up to
Space-X. Does this bill add funding?

~~~
Ankaios
That's not why Congress is funding Commercial Crew insufficiently. They're up
to a different game. Delaying Commercial Crew won't help ULA much—the looming
(latest) threat to ULA by SpaceX is reusability of the Falcon 9 first stage,
and that is going to happen soon regardless of Commercial Crew. Also, NASA
doesn't need to "catch up" to SpaceX—NASA is _wants_ SpaceX and Boeing to get
these vehicles flying by 2017 and has loudly and sincerely requested full
funding for the Commercial Crew Program to that end.

There's another pair of elephants (well, pigs) in the room that together are
devouring $3 billion worth of resources per year that could be better spent on
other space investments, including the Commercial Crew Program.

------
bediger4000
What, did they declare the United Launch Alliance an illegal monopoly or
something, and then break it up?

