Watergate the Sequel' Is Good Business for Boeing

Townhall.com ^ | January 30, 2020 | Ross Marchand

[Kaslin]

Spend enough time around Capitol Hill and you’ll inevitably hear phrases like “Worse than Watergate,” or worse yet, “The Ukraine.” But, while the American people are being forced to watch the underwhelming, direct-to-DVD sequel of Watergate, some companies are taking advantage of the distraction to craft legislation that would be a boon to their bottom lines – and a disaster for everybody else, especially taxpayers.

In particular, struggling mega-corporation Boeing is stealthily trying to use the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as its own personal piggy-bank while leaving taxpayers in the lurch by getting lawmakers to craft legislation giving Boeing an unfair advantage in future missions. Americans deserve a functional government that focuses on the future and keeps cronyism at bay. But as long as Congress embraces its low-budget storylines while giving high budgets to favored companies, everyone will lose out.

The current goal, dubbed the “Artemis Program,” is to get humans back to the Moon by 2024 and use a newly-constructed lunar outpost as a launching point for a Mars expedition. The Moon phase alone will likely cost taxpayers more than $50 billion. Administration and NASA leadership have indicated that there will be some competitive outsourcing to private space companies. The agency wants companies to compete for taxpayer dollars, asking aerospace businesses such as Blue Origin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and SpaceX to design lunar landers capable of getting astronauts back to the Moon.

The hope expressed by officials such as NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine is that, even if America’s next generation space race is expensive, at least some good ol’ fashioned bidding wars can ease up costs for taxpayers. But, relying on markets and competition doesn’t suit Boeing, which has so far failed to produce practical, cost-effective spaceships and capsules. The company is still licking its wounds after trying and failing to dock its Starliner capsule onto the International Space Station (ISS). And the old adage “you get what you pay for” doesn’t work here because Starliner’s $90 million price-tag for transporting each astronaut to the ISS is more than 60 percent higher than what SpaceX will be charging for their rival Crew Dragon ship.

Boeing’s pricing and quality problems don’t bode well for its chances to develop a cost-competitive lunar lander. This brings to mind another adage: “when you can’t beat ‘em, write laws to rig the process.” An authorization act for NASA currently being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives does just that, “refining” the space agency’s plans to knee-cap competition and make Boeing the only game in town. Interestingly, the bill calls for “an integrated lunar landing system carried on an Exploration Upper Stage-enhanced Space Launch System for the human lunar landing missions.” In plain English, lawmakers are trying to micromanage the Moon landing process and ensure that the journey to and from the lunar surface is undertaken with just one rocket launch.

And curiously enough, Boeing is the only company to have submitted a proposal that would have an “integrated lunar landing system” taking astronauts to and from the Moon…with a single rocket launch. It could, of course, be cheaper to go with the a la carte approach of multiple rocket launches instead of the all-inclusive lander package. But Boeing doesn’t care to have NASA – or taxpayers – find out which approach is the cheapest. Boeing would much rather take advantage of the excitement and intrigue enveloping Capitol Hill to quietly pass their preferred legislation. And, this cronyism will almost certainly be ignored, even though it’s far more alarming than anything happening in “The Ukraine.” Some things, it turns out, are actually “Worse than Watergate.”

[Jumper]

Trump should announce he wants a Space Plane for the 2021 budget so the Space Force can put up 27 planes in orbits unmanned that are identical to the manned version that will carry one Major General , and three Colonels so that each flight of nine will have a 10th human flight commander for every shift.

I remember Popular Mechanics proposed or wrote of a proposal that would do so.

Trump should also ask for a Space Cargo/Troop Carrier Plane to augment the “fighter/bomber” force in the 2022 budget.

Imagine a USA Space Force that has three flight groups with 10 space planes in orbit 365 days a year. Nine that stay up indefinitely as unmanned vehicles with one actual human commander flying either a 12 or 8 hour shift as squadron commander; a total of 30 Space Planes in orbit at once.

These Space Planes could track all space and orbiting objects around the planet, as well as provide a constant platform for NSA to monitor below, above and at the surface level of planet. The Military would have a look down shoot down capability.

Supremacy in Space.

[minnesota_bound]

I understand that Boeing installed a MCAS system in the Starliner MAX.....

[cpdiii]

Sending a man to Mars or back to the moon is stupid. We can gather much more scientific data via robotic missions at a fraction of the cost. It is all about the cost of lifting payload. The payload that is required for a maned mission is far greater than a robotic mission. In addition the safety requirements for a robotic mission are far less thus the mission on a pound for pound basis and thus cheaper.

I would like man to walk on the moon again and perhaps Mars. If this it is done it should be because the human is necessary for the mission. This is not such today.

If in the future we can lift great payloads to the moon and or Mars at reasonable costs with a human do it. Only do it, if the human is necessary for the Mission. Based on our present technology with robotics, the man would be a great detriment to the scientific payload. Less science would be learned as most of the payload would be devoted to keeping the human alive.

The Apollo program to the moon was a great feat of engineering and science and bravery. It was a political program of JFK to demonstrate our great superiority and it did. The science it obtained was at great cost compared to what we could have done with robotic missions.

Considering the times of the Cold War, it was a good call by JFK. The science was minimal. The stature it gave our nation was great.