Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
Sat Feb 1, 2014, 11:08 PM Feb 2014

NASA is supposed to build machines that launch into space,not structures that stay grounded on Earth

NASA is supposed to build machines that launch into space, not structures that stay grounded on Earth and send spending into the stratosphere.

But that is exactly what is happening this year as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration completes the $350 million rocket-engine testing A-3 tower at its research facility in Mississippi. There is just one problem: The space exploration agency doesn’t want it.

Instead, NASA is forced to complete the project — which now won’t be put to use — because of legislation handed down from Congress in what critics say is a classic example of earmarking.

“Because the Constellation Program was cancelled in 2010 the A-3’s unique testing capabilities will not be needed and the stand will be mothballed upon completion,” NASA’s internal watchdog, the inspector general, said this month.

Bloomberg News, which first reported the issue this week, called the structure “an example of how U.S. lawmakers thwart efforts to cut costs and eliminate government waste, even as they criticize agencies for failing to do so.”

NASA does not expect to use the tower after construction but is compelled by legislation from Sen. Roger F. Wicker, Mississippi Republican, who wants to ensure the project is completed

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/30/golden-hammer-350-million-nasa-project-to-be-compl/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NASA is supposed to build machines that launch into space,not structures that stay grounded on Earth (Original Post) FarCenter Feb 2014 OP
Wicker needs to be tossed out. Timez Squarez Feb 2014 #1
not the first time this has happened... lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #2
So, it's really just another issue of "contractor pork" kentauros Feb 2014 #3
Too much of it is subsidizing military stuff though. joshcryer Feb 2014 #4
This was to test rocket engines for the canceled Constellation Program FarCenter Feb 2014 #5
I understand that. kentauros Feb 2014 #6
Is there nothing President Obama can do to stop this outrageous GOP Pork? red dog 1 Feb 2014 #7
 

Timez Squarez

(262 posts)
1. Wicker needs to be tossed out.
Sat Feb 1, 2014, 11:11 PM
Feb 2014

This is exactly why pork projects are VERY bad idea.

Republicans should respect the agencies wishes and shut down the project and use the $350 million to pay up for what they screwed the poor for - major tax credits, free education for every American child attending schools and much more.

Just because one idiot Republican wants to pocket some cash that doesn't belong to him that we have to suffer for it.

lapfog_1

(29,192 posts)
2. not the first time this has happened...
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 01:22 AM
Feb 2014

NASA Houston is only in Houston because LBJ.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Verification_and_Validation_Facility

and this facility in West Virginia is only there because of Senator Byrd.

When it was built, NASA didn't want it... for a while I was given the task to see if we could use it as part of EOSDIS (Earth Observation System - Distributed Information System). But I just couldn't see how to make it work (the cost in the 1990s of transporting the Gigabits/sec of information was prohibitive).

Anyway, this sort of shit happens.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
3. So, it's really just another issue of "contractor pork"
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 03:00 AM
Feb 2014
which happens everywhere in the government.

It's also too bad that journalists conveniently forget the second word in the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration" as if the only research NASA does is related to space. And then there's the fact that plenty of research for both areas must take place on the ground before they can get into the air and into space.

Spin-offs, anyone?

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
4. Too much of it is subsidizing military stuff though.
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 03:06 AM
Feb 2014

For instance, the Space Shuttle's solid rocket boosters allowed the corporation making solid rocket boosters for military use 'cheaper.' Granted, it's more an accounting thing in reality, but if NASA wasn't subsidizing military launchers, then their real cost would be realized in the accounting.

This is why I am for privatizing space launches and getting rid of "cost plus" contracting (ie, the government pays regardless of success and deliverable). Note: space launch is already privatized, it is just getting rid of the cruft I am advocating.

 

FarCenter

(19,429 posts)
5. This was to test rocket engines for the canceled Constellation Program
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 12:36 PM
Feb 2014

It is a white elephant with no foreseeable use.

kentauros

(29,414 posts)
6. I understand that.
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 06:42 PM
Feb 2014

Which is why I call that contractor pork. Someone in the government still had to create the program, and approve it, and get a contractor to build and operate the thing, same with any other government-pork.

NASA still does some wonderful research in so many areas that it's difficult to list them all, whether you support the government going into space or not.

red dog 1

(27,771 posts)
7. Is there nothing President Obama can do to stop this outrageous GOP Pork?
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 07:40 PM
Feb 2014

There must be some way POTUS can stop this $350 million dollar boondoggle.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NASA is supposed to build...