> > On 21/12/2011 5:16 AM, Matt Wiser wrote:

> > > Total privatization is not politically possible. Like the Bobbert, if
> > > this guy tried selling it to Congress, they'd slam the door in his
> > > face. And if he was in a Committee room testifying, they'd laugh him
> > > out, hold the door open for him, and he'd get a kick in the ass on the
> > > way out.

> > Why?

> Because, Alan, there are NO Congresscritters on record as supporting
> total privatization of HSF. The only national-level politicians who
> want that are both running for POTUS: Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul-and
> neither of whom will be POTUS. (It'll either be Mitt Romney or Mr.
> Obama gets reelected). Remember the fury over the "outsourcing" of LEO
> to commercial crew that that disaster for NASA known as the FY 11
> Budget that was rolled out in a botched manner on 1 Feb 10 (among a
> lot of other stuff that drew Congressional fury)? Privatizing NASA
> would NEVER pass Congress, period. Cut and dry, that is it.

> The only Congresscritter who comes anywhere close is Rep. Dana
> Rohrabacher (R-CA) who's pushing CCDev and COTS-but his motives are
> not completely pure: Several Commercial Space (or NerdSpace, or
> ObamaSpace, call it whatever you please) outfits have facilities in
> SoCal (his district includes Hawthorne), and he's likely got
> constitutents who work at those firms. IF (and I do mean If) he'd been
> Chair of House Sci/Tech Committee, he'd be in a strong position to
> push his argument and try to influence matters. He's not, and that's
> that. The key members on the committees that deal with NASA are from
> "Space States", and they're the ones you have to convince. And the
> Commercial Crew folks haven't done a good job of that. They only got
> 45% of their requested funds for FY 12, and $100 mil of that is frozen
> pending NASA notifying Congress of firm exploration plans, missions,
> destinations, etc.