backtop


Print 48 comment(s) - last by monkeyman1140.. on Jun 16 at 4:41 AM

Pres. Obama still wants to end the Constellation space program, which will cost NASA millions

As NASA prepares to wind down its manned shuttle mission, the U.S. space agency is telling contractors to prepare for a slowdown in manned moon research.  In addition to the anticipated job loss, ending the Constellation program will cost NASA millions in cancellation fees on top of the billions already invested in the project.

Over the past five years, NASA has racked up $10 billion in space research and development to try and take astronauts back to the moon.  The most recent budget includes a clause put in by Congress to ensure that President Obama is unable to end the Constellation program without approval.

If Constellation ends, NASA believes as many as two-thirds of the current 7,800 contractors involved in the project could end up unemployed.  It'll cost almost $1 billion to pay cancellation costs to Lockheed Martin, Alliant Techsystems, and other contractors currently working for NASA.

Neither company is expected to receive additional funds, but it's an issue that NASA needs to figure out.

"In a brief check with people more knowledgeable than me, NASA has never held contractors' liable for termination liability," said Dr. Scott Pace, former NASA associate administrator and Space Policy Institute Director.  “If this is to be the new agency policy and practice, then NASA should shift responsibility for termination liability on all of its current contracts, not simply Constellation.  “As it stands, this appears to be purposefully punitive against a specific set of NASA contractors.” 

Obama is expected to discuss the topic further with Congress and current space experts, but it's unknown what must be done for both sides to reach a working agreement.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 1969...
By knutjb on 6/15/2010 1:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Considering that he actually increased military spending, and escalated the conflict in Afghanistan your rant is absolutely baseless.
I said if he could but there is this little war thing going on. The war supplementals and personnel pay are what keep military spending high. The DoD is looking at everything to cut spending but congress keeps pumping up their pet projects. http://www.slate.com/id/2243297 Other than NASA and the military where else are we cutting spending?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/lawmakers...

The usual left response to over spending, cut from the military. They don't want to even think about looking at all areas for redundancies or improper or useless social programs. Only the conflict is getting funded the rest is being cut. Show me any social program that does what it claims to do. Obama's stimulus plan alone is wasting more money than Bush spent on both wars in his tenure. 787 vs 687 and that doesn't even include the health care fiasco.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/pentagon-military-...

But Obama was sure up to cutting soldier pay; they cannot be unionized by law. Any other pay cuts in the government, not that I've seen or heard.

If it weren't for the war Obama would have gutted the military since it is such a large pot to raid for social programs... Clinton did

Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. Franklin and others.

There is no silver or bronze medal in war, just the gold. Obama is stuck in a very hard place, on one side his far left ideologies of social welfare dependence and on the other the realities of the world, terrorism, and war. The left loves moral relativism to marginalize opposing views.


RE: 1969...
By maven81 on 6/15/2010 2:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
"I said if he could but there is this little war thing going on."

You said "he would take more if he could" which means he's already taking some now, get it? This is blatantly false as the budget for the military was increased. Presented with actual facts, you pulled the usual wingnut tricks of 1. turning it into a hypothetical (well if there wasn't a war going on...) 2. Saying he'd do something because Clinton did and 3. Lying. (as a matter of fact he has proposed cuts in government spending, and that's not always a good thing).

This is childish stuff that's not even on topic. You want to blame him for something? Blame him for things he actually has done that are not hypothetical, such as going back on campaign promises or taking a hands off approach on a large crisis. Now let's get back to NASA.


RE: 1969...
By knutjb on 6/15/2010 10:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
I have listened to what Obama has SAID and watched what he has DONE. Like the Joe the plumber comment of taking from the wealthy to give to the poor. What I have said is based on what I have learned from the past and what I believe he will do. You said
quote:
3. Lying. (as a matter of fact he has proposed cuts in government spending, and that's not always a good thing).
Oh yeah that big Whitehouse working group to cut what was it 100,000,000.00 after throwing out 787,000,000,000.00 in cronyism. Yes cronyism, because the law forces companies to use union labor or they are ineligible for any of the contracts.

http://mises.org/daily/3788 Read this source or others but do read. Cutting government has proven to be very productive, expanding social welfare has proven to damage the economy.

A damaged economy creates the conditions that lead to events like NASA having to shrink. Raising taxes and careless talk of increasing taxes will continue the bad economy because companies hold onto their money and not expand. That is what happened after the 29 meltdown through WWII. Watch what happens when the Bush tax cuts expire.

Once naive, twice stupid. He is going to push Cap & Tax before we know what happened, take over BP or a part thereof (if he doesn't run the company into the ground first like Schummer did with IndyMac Bank), it is someones fault but never his own, he doesn't want to do it but the crisis forces him to take emergency action, never let a crisis go to waste, its still Bush's fault for (insert problem here), though he says he is taking responsibility little happens, and on it goes.

Put your head in the sand if you choose. Failing to be skeptical of all politicians methods and motives that they use to manipulate people to push through unpopular political ideologies that will lead to dire consequences. I know this because it has happened before and will do so again if we allow it to.

Personally I find Obama's Progressivism not original nor creative but very damaging to the country, just like Woodrow Wilson. Obama is creating an "us and them" society, rich and not rich, and the rich are his bad guys to beat up on regardless of how much they pay in taxes. I think I have seen that happen a couple times in the past...

Money has power, particularly with the scale of the government. NASA has money. Obama wants more and bigger social programs, he has said and done so. After NASA falls then the military. As soon as he can get the troops out he will start cutting, I know because I have seen it before. Social programs and areas heavy with union labor, mostly civil servants, will not see decreases in funding so long as the Dems hold the House and Senate. He has said so. The most recent 50,000,000,000.00 safety net, stimulus, unemployment benefits, or what ever he chooses to call it, that is going through congress is to save union jobs.

Sure some of it is hypothetical but my hypothesis based on previous events and that we have a very bad habit of repeating ourselves. Yes the military budget did increase but that is not what he wanted to do, why because he said so and did try to reduce military pay but the blow back was unpalatable.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki