Adam Keiper (who edited and published my recent piece in The New Atlantis, as well as previous ones) contrasts my approach with Bob Zubrin’s, though (as Glenn Reynolds points out) I’m not sure that “conservative” is a useful label for either. I’m basically a libertarian (though to be fair he does talk about “conservatives and libertarians”) who doesn’t think that the goal of space development has been, or ever will be, well served by a massive centralized government program. My policy advice is predicated on the assumption that it will continue to be funded, regardless, and as a space development (and ultimately space settlement) advocate, I’m just trying to funnel the funds in the most productive direction to those ends. I’m not sure how to characterize that position, politically, and I’m not sure that it really matters.
[Update late afternoon]
Sigh. Where to start with Mark Whittington’s latest uncomprehending blather?
NASA alone wastes money and is buffeted by political shifts as its budget is cut or shifted around according to whim. The private sector is simply not capable of mounting expeditions to the Moon or beyond or constructing settlements in the foreseeable future. Together, though, NASA and what people are taking to calling “new space” can do anything.
How to mesh the two so that the strengths are brought to bear is a fundamental problem of our time. I don’t think Rand, for all he praise he has gotten for his New Atlantis article, has answered that question.
Mark (as usual) confuses his inability to comprehend my answer to the question with a failure to answer it.
Part of the reason is a flawed understanding of the history of the space age; Rand has a simplistic notion of why things happened and why they did not.
Hilarious. Perhaps Mark can provide us with his oh-so-much-more sophisticated notion of “why things happened and why they did not,” and thus enlighten us (not to mention actually make a case for this kind of nonsense — something he never does). Perhaps he could even do it so well that he would be invited to write for a publication such as, well, perhaps Mad Magazine, if not The New Atlantis.
Rand also demonstrates a bias against government and an excessive impatience toward its fundamental inefficiencies that seems to foreclose any notion that NASA has any role but servicing the commercial sector.
A complete mischaracterization of my position, (again, as usual) providing zero evidence for it.
A government space effort, while it should be commercial friendly, is much more than just a conduit toward space faring corporate welfare.
So he ends with (what else?) an idiotic straw man.
[Friday morning update]
Per some thoughts in comments, I went to check Technorati, and Mark has a grand total of seven links in the last couple months. All but one are from either me or Jon Goff (the other blogger whose arguments he fantasizes about)l, and most from me, always in response to some outrageous misinterpretation of what we wrote. So maybe I should stop feeding the troll. His hittage might improve if he’s forced to write intelligent things to get hits, and we stop rewarding him for this behavior. Assuming, of course, that he’s capable of it.
“My policy advice is predicated on the assumption that it will continue to be funded, regardless, and as a space development (and ultimately space settlement) advocate, I’m just trying to funnel the funds in the most productive direction to those ends.”
And funnel, commercial regulation, political footballs, pork barrel politics, public opinion, tax payer expectation, investor perceptions, etc., along with it. Unfortunately government funding is not just a funding source, and one has to accept all the distortions and distractions that come with it. While the pot of gold there is currently much bigger, it is a much harder, more distracted and dangerous game.
Sometimes I wonder why an enterprising company, aimed at achieving a lasting, profitable, commercial space presence doesn’t just bribe the snot out of some needy country along the equator and get it done there. Ecuador, spaceport for the world…
Sometimes I wonder why an enterprising company, aimed at achieving a lasting, profitable, commercial space presence doesn’t just bribe the snot out of some needy country along the equator and get it done there. Ecuador, spaceport for the world…
A needy country, or a greedy one.
I have started touting the idea that Singapore would be a terrific place to obtain a flag of convenience for an EML-1 transfer station augmented with fuel depots and a fully reusable lunar lander (RLL)
You need to bribe two or more countries so that you can play them off against each other. Otherwise, you’ll get squeezed sooner or later.
Well, the short answer why not is technology export control regimes. Certainly an American could not do it, and anyone from a country adhering to the Missile Technology Control Regime (i.e., most industrialized countries) couldn’t. A sufficiently rich person willing to give up his citizenship in any MTCR nation, get a flag-of-convenience passport, expatriate his money successfully, and work entirely with Russian or Chinese hardware might be able to. If Russia or China were willing to sell — both those nations have reasons not to gratuitously piss off the US for somebody else’s benefit.
Whittington is glowing bright green with envy:
“I don’t think Rand, for all he praise he has gotten for his New Atlantis article…”
Whittington’s envy is so bad that it’s making him leap the length of his chain.
Of course, this is par for the course for a member of the emotional Internet Rocketeers Club.
What an idiot…
Rand, why do you bother with Mark? Is it a mental exercise like cross word puzzles only with misspellings and malapropisms instead?
Rand, why do you bother with Mark?
I don’t generally, but I do respond when he spouts nonsense about me and what I believe.
Beware Rand, people respond to incentives – especially attention-hungry idiots like Mark. You’re just giving him what he wants.
——
As for the topic at hand, Zubrin puzzles me. I get the fascination with Mars (I’m pretty fascinated by it too), but why the obsession with having NASA send a flags & footprints mission? What did Apollo really get us other than victory over the USSR (a worthy goal, but hardly relevant in today’s world)? Tang and velcro? I can’t believe he’s driven by the second-order engineering discoveries of space programs, but even if he was the money would be better spent just increasing the grants to Ph.D. candidates at MIT and Stanford. It certainly didn’t get us a Moonbase or a lasting presence in space.
I wonder if Zubrin himself wants to go to Mars, or if he just assumes it can’t happen? Because other than in the incredibly unlikely event that Zubrin is chosen by NASA for the mission, his best chance for climbing Olympus Mons personally lies with Rand’s strategy.
Have to agree w/ Brock and Tom. Whittington is jealously eager to attach himself to your notoriety; the only way he can is by throwing rocks. He’s a wannabe, and in his mind your recognition confers legitimacy.
Trying to bring him to a basic understanding of English or Engineering is like mud-wrestling a pig: you both get dirty and after a while you figure out the pig likes it.
As much as I enjoy watching you and Mark argue like an old married couple, any time you want to stop is fine with me.
On topic, first off: I think that the method Rand’s talked about with multiple launch providers and propellant depots with long-duration storage capability is the way to go for long-term sustainable space access. I’ve written about it several times and “get it”
That said, I know Bob Zubrin, and understand part of his argument. If a mission is declared for Mars, hardware built for that purpose could handle many of the destinations described (NEO’s, L’s, etc) and probably would carry out such missions as confidence is gained in the hardware. I get the arguments that it’s not sustainable, or commercially enabling without more cash or COTS-like efforts.
I think the monolithic planning appeals to NASA, because it’s the way they’ve always done it. Besides, how much have we heard “We need less government control” in any area of life recently?
I think its time to put Mark in the same ignore filter as Gaetano Marano. There’s very little difference in their rantings….
I think its time to put Mark in the same ignore filter as Gaetano Marano.
That’s not fair. At least Mark doesn’t pretend to understand the technical issues. He just thinks that he can pontificate about policy and others’ opinions about it without doing so.