“Ray” over at Vision Restoration has a development approach to expanding human spaceflight beyond LEO that would actually work, and work within NASA’s constrained budget. Paul Spudis likes it, and has further comments.
Of course, it makes far too much sense to be adopted in Washington. But this is the approach that will be taken privately, regardless of what NASA does.
The other day I was a bit surprised when I came across an old comment I’d made on NSF which concluded with the words: “there will be no progress without the shuttle stack”. I still believe this is true, but unfortunately I’ve also become convinced there will be no progress with the shuttle stack either.
Maybe another train wreck (NASA appears to be leaning towards DIRECT/DIRECT++) is necessary before we can finally make the first statement false. And by then we will have lost another decade and none of us are getting any younger.
As I posted on the vision restoration article:
You seem to be missing the political point of NASA programs. NASA isn’t paid in $ its paid in congressional votes, and by lowering costs significantly, you lower the political value of the program significantly – which makes it harder, not easier, to get funded by Congress. This is why NASA always had to bundle programs up into “BattleStar Galactica” class.
Granted, Ares/Orion/Altair is a little to ridiculously overpriced (Ares-1/Orion at 100 times the cost of Falcon/Dragon? Program cost at least twice that of the space race), but with a dem congress looking for ways to cut costs, adn a expensive Bush era program that can’t be justified, the real option is just shut it all down. With no public support for the return to the moon, or NASA really, or public outcry against the US shutting down US maned launch capacity for most of a decade; whats the downside for them?
> Martijn Meijering Says:
> January 24th, 2010 at 10:20 am
>
> = Maybe another train wreck (NASA appears to be leaning towards
> DIRECT/DIRECT++) is necessary before we can finally make the first
> statement [“there will be no progress without the shuttle stack”.] false.
> And by then we will have lost another decade and none of us are getting
> any younger.
>
Ahmen.
When I started on the shuttle program in ’81, I never would have beleaved that by 2010 the shuttles were still never finished, and are being discontinued for a vastly more expensive and less capable, Apollo reenactment.
I could well see NASA if not being closed completely, simply never again having any significance in space development or exploration.
the real option is just shut it all down. With no public support for the return to the moon, or NASA really, or public outcry against the US shutting down US maned launch capacity for most of a decade; whats the downside for them?
Won’t happen. Federal programs never “get shut down” — they go on forever. Like toe fungus.
Your comment that the “public doesn’t support lunar return or NASA” is not quite correct — they are indifferent to them. Therefore, the agency is free to do the right thing and start establishing a real space faring infrastructure in cislunar space. True enough, the public won’t be “excited” but that’s a good thing; no excitement means no political pressure to cancel the program.
> Paul Spudis Says:
> January 24th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
>
>> the real option is just shut it all down. With no public support for
>> the return to the moon, or NASA really, or public outcry against the
>> US shutting down US maned launch capacity for most of a decade;
>> whats the downside for them?
>
> Won’t happen. Federal programs never “get shut down” ==
NASA was in the ’70’s. Staffs at the centers etc were decimated.
>Your comment that the “public doesn’t support lunar return or NASA”
> is not quite correct — they are indifferent to them. Therefore, the
> agency is free to do the right thing and start establishing a real
> space faring infrastructure in cislunar space.==
>
With rasmusen reports listing over 50% of folks polled support NASA budget cuts, I think even doesn’t support was being kind. More critically nASA is not free to “do it right” (and I’d debate if your cis-lunar architecture really is that), they have to serve the interests of Congress. If spending money in NASA doesn’t get congressmen and senators votes, particularly more votes then spending it somewhere else, or not spending it, then congress won’t spend it on NASA. Congress wants value to them for thir degree of effort and support. NASA doesn’t deliver, and theres a lot of other gov agencies in line after them.
Two small points of light:
1) commercial crew can still succeed (both technically and politically)
2) SDLV can still fail
In an era of budget cuts and more support for international cooperation that might help.
Still, we will not get back all the lost years. Some good people who are with us today will not be with us when what might have happened five to ten years from now finally does happen.
NASA was in the ’70’s. Staffs at the centers etc were decimated.
NASA is still with us — if that’s getting “shut down” it didn’t take. And as long as our tax dollars are being spent on it, we might as well try to do the correct things (and in my mind, that means value for money spent, with legacy space transportation infrastructure and technology.)
“do it right” (and I’d debate if your cis-lunar architecture really is that)
So what about it “isn’t right”?
And as long as our tax dollars are being spent on it, we might as well try to do the correct things (and in my mind, that means value for money spent, with legacy space transportation infrastructure and technology.)
In other words, “keep space expensive.”
So what about it “isn’t right”?
Willful ignorance of economics. There will be no “real space faring infrastructure in cislunar space” as long as there’s no way for anyone to get to space affordably.
The Bush Vision of Space Exploration, with its emphasis on huge budget increases rather than cost reductions, was never affordable. You should have learned that during your time as the number cheerleader for Mike Griffin’s ESAS, before he cut funding for your lab. You made your bed, but you don’t seem to have learned anything. Instead, you’re calling for another big rocket (Shuttle-C) that will make spaceflight even more expensive.
A few years ago, you were part of the committee that said human spaceflight would “remain the providence [sic] of government.” I’m not sure which was funner, your report confusing the Federal government with God or making that statement the week after Mike Melvill earned the first FAA Commercial Astronaut wings.
Once again, the Moonies remain their own worst enemies. Until you are willing to embrace innovative, incremental approaches, the Moon will remain “A Planet Too Far.”
As for the statement that government programs are never shut down, the Air Force recently eliminated all of its stealth fighters, with no replacement. The Navy eliminated al of its A-6 heavy attack squadrons, with no equivalent replacement. Military bases are closed on a regular basis.
And those were aircraft that performed useful military missions. They weren’t just “to keep the kiddies busy” (as Dennis Wingo once described Shuttle-C).
I am against Flexible Path to the Moon. That is basically what NASA planned to do after Apollo to begin with. Shuttle was built to construct and service a LEO space station, which was supposed to lead to later space stations in GEO or the Lagrange points. It never happened. The middle of nowhere is not a destination. You need to carry everything along. You can do no ISRU if there are no resources in the place to begin with! ISRU is a challenge that must be overcome to enable long term space exploration of the inner solar system.
I do not care if it is the Moon, Mars, Phobos, Deimos, or an asteroid. Heck, people complain lifting cargo to ISS is too expensive because it is in a cumbersome orbit. Imagine if they moved it to GEO or one of the Lagrange points!
Ed,
The Stealth fighters are still available in an emergency, they just mothballed them. But they were also replaced by the F-22 Raptor, a far more capable Stealth aircraft.
The A-6 was replaced with the FA-18.
I am still waiting for a second generation Shuttle.
> Paul Spudis Says:
> January 24th, 2010 at 1:50 pm
>
>> NASA was in the ’70’s. Staffs at the centers etc were decimated.
>
> NASA is still with us — if that’s getting “shut down” it didn’t take. =
>
It was restarted and rebuilt later for the shuttle program. But it was iffy that that would be done
>== And as long as our tax dollars are being spent on it, we might
> as well try to do the correct things (and in my mind, that means
> value for money spent, with legacy space transportation
> infrastructure and technology.)
>
Value for congress maters. Its not clear how this would benifit them as much as shuttling down NASA would.
>> “do it right” (and I’d debate if your cis-lunar architecture really is that)
> So what about it “isn’t right”?
Having been on the space station program, I’m not big on the extra cost to the US, adn the huge extra bureaucracy, of “international partnerships ” – just a nit.
More basic. Its to complicated. To much research and unnecessary side tasks.
Just focus on fielding a RLV with the needed capacity for LEO, and with on orbit refuel) GEO and LLO. NASA would not need (and shouldn’t) co develop it – just spec a advanced fully reusable RLV with very high reliability/safety serviceability, and on orbit refueling and restart capability, and TPS capable of, would give a craft with access to GEO or Lunar orbit. Just spec it out and issue a contract for 20 or more years of launch services with NASA as the ground facilities provider, and anchor tenant eating all the overhead. Sweeten it by demanding a craft that could turn around in under a week, but allow the provider to market all excess launch capacity based on the flights margin cost (NASA eats the overhead and upfrount cost in the long level of service contract).
Given the shuttles margin cost was about $60 million, and DC-X showed it was pretty straight forward to reduce servicing labor hours by a factor of 3000. With reliable resilient systems currently avalible (okyou need to contract for longer duration rockets) dropping the margin cost per flight by roughly a order of mag should be doable AS LONG AS ITS NOT A NASA DEVELOPED CRAFT.
Yes it does also develop a cis lunar capacity. But more critically it developes a very low cost launch capacity and opens up comercial potential to develop space in some scale. The telerobotics, lunar orbit space stations, lunar fuel depots, vigorous technology development program, ambitious robotic lunar precursor efforts, etc could be eliminated. We have enough tech to build the RLV, and even on orbit refueling is not a big enough step that a competent major aero firm would need assistence to develop it.
A lunar lander that can carry crew and or cargo from a orbiting RLV bay to lunar surface and back, would not be a big expensive addition.
The problem with “Flexible Path to the Moon” is that it does not so much get people to the Moon as it does do a lot of things to get ready to get people to go to the Moon. The key part of the plan that should give pause is that it defers a lander until “the budget allows.” It the real political world we live in that is translated to “never.”
In other words, another version of Look But Don’t Touch, focusing on the Moon instead of asteroids.
“…as it does do a lot of things to get ready to get people to go to the Moon.”
If the things to ‘get ready’ include a depot, or significant material lifts to orbit on a regular basis, I don’t think people will much care what NASA does at that point. They’ll be followers.
The Stealth fighters are still available in an emergency, they just mothballed them. But they were also replaced by the F-22 Raptor, a far more capable Stealth aircraft.
No, the F-22 is not a “far more capable Stealth aircraft,” Tom. The F-22 has very limited internal carriage. The only way it can match the F-117’s weapons load is by hanging bombs off the wings — at which point, it is no longer a stealth aircraft.
The A-6 was replaced with the FA-18.
The F/A-18 is not a replacement for A-6. It has neither the range nor the weapons load, nor does the Joint Strike Fighter for that matter. Read Admiral Gillchrist’s article from 10 years ago. Nothing has changed since.
http://www.flightjournal.com/Media/MediaManager/russian_fighters.pdf
The key part of the plan that should give pause is that it defers a lander until “the budget allows.” It the real political world we live in that is translated to “never.”
Mark, have you ever heard of the NASA Lunar Lander Challenge?
Fund the LLC at $20-30 million (as originally proposed), and there will be companies demonstrating lunar landers within a few years. Not 20 or 25 years from now, per the Bush Vision of Space Exploration.
In other words, another version of Look But Don’t Touch, focusing on the Moon instead of asteroids.
Please don’t make ignorance into a virtue. If you think NASA should just keep going back to the Moon every 50 years and never visit anyplace new, just say so. Calling exploration of the solar system “look but don’t touch” is not just dishonest, it makes you look dumb.
The Bush Vision of Space Exploration, with its emphasis on huge budget increases rather than cost reductions, was never affordable. You should have learned that during your time as the number cheerleader for Mike Griffin’s ESAS, before he cut funding for your lab. You made your bed, but you don’t seem to have learned anything. Instead, you’re calling for another big rocket (Shuttle-C) that will make spaceflight even more expensive.
Quite a mouthful of bullshit and half-truths, even for you. First, the original VSE did not require “huge budget increases” – it started with a one-time ~$1 B addition to the NASA budget and then grew it with inflation afterwards (and in contrast to internet mythology, they got all this funding). It’s NASA that came up with an unaffordable architecture, against the direction of the both White House and the recommendations of the Aldridge commission. I was never a “cheerleader for ESAS” — I said nothing whatsoever in public about it until May 2007 at ISDC, where I outlined its good and bad points. Mike never cut “funding for my lab” – the RLEP-2 mission was not flown, but APL still got money for lander development. I mentioned Shuttle-C was shown to be possible as the least expensive heavy lift by a NASA internal study in 2004. That’s not the same as “calling for” it (although I prefer it to sinking money into a whole new LV development).
You do snotty carping very well. Link me to some of your brilliant stuff. I’m an open book on my web site; anyone who wants to know what I’ve done for the last 30 years can see it and read it. What have you done?
First, the original VSE did not require “huge budget increases” – it started with a one-time ~$1 B addition to the NASA budget
$1 billion a year may not seem like a lot of money to you, Paul, but it is to ordinary people. If the government had put even a fraction of that amount into reducing the cost of space transportation through prizes, tax incentives, launch purchases, etc., we would be much closer to landing humans on the Moon and Mars today. The Bush Vision of Space Exploration included none of those things. Again, the Moonies and the Marsies are their own worst enemies.
It’s NASA that came up with an unaffordable architecture, against the direction of the both White House and the recommendations of the Aldridge commission.
Page 27 of the Aldridge Commission report (available on the web for anyone to download) states, “Although the Commission has not tried to prioritize a list of enabling technologies, we have been particularly concerned that NASA pay close attention to assessing options for a new heavy-lift space launch capability.” That statement appears in boldface, italics, and large type — and it’s in a red box. It appears to be an important recommendation.
Page 28 identifies 17 areas for initial development, including “Affordable heavy lift capability” and “launch site infrastructure and range capabilities for the crew exploration vehicle and advanced heavy lift vehicles.
Page 29 states, “Decisions about heavy lift will guide fundamental options about how to design and implement the early stages of the space exploration architecture.”
Page 30 states, “The missions to be undertaken as part of the exploration vision will likely require a lift capability beyond today’s Space Shuttle and EELVs”
ESAS did just what the Commission called for — developing a crew exploration and a huge new rocket, while attempting to preserve human spaceflight as the sole “providence” of government. The fact that ESAS turned out to be unaffordable is not surprising, but you did not say so at the beginning. Instead, you trashed me for saying that it would be unaffordable.
Mike never cut “funding for my lab” – the RLEP-2 mission was not flown, but APL still got money for lander development.
I’m sure you’re well aware that APL hoped to do far more than one lunar lander. (I recall statements that no fewer than 8 robotic missions were necessary to “prepare” for human landings — although, I was never able to get an explanation of why that was necessary, given that humans successfully landed on the Moon 40 years ago.) I also recall that RLEP 2 was a non-competive sole-source gift from NASA to APL. Are you saying that you never flew the lander but still got the full amount of money???
I mentioned Shuttle-C was shown to be possible as the least expensive heavy lift by a NASA internal study in 2004. That’s not the same as “calling for” it (although I prefer it to sinking money into a whole new LV development).
Shuttle-C is a “whole new LV development.” Are you talking about the same study NASA Watch cited when it claimed Shuttle-C would cost only $4 billion? I note that the Aerospace Corporation estimated the Shuttle-C option would cost over $30 billion.
anyone who wants to know what I’ve done for the last 30 years can see it and read it. What have you done?
For one thing, I’ve paid taxes that have enabled you to do those things for the last 30 years. So, please continue to regard me as an inferior life form, tell me I’m an idiot when I point out that a plan like ESAS is unaffordable, then disavow all of your previous statements when the plan craters. 🙂
“Mark, have you ever heard of the NASA Lunar Lander Challenge? ”
I’ve heard of it. I had not heard that it was designed to carry people back to the Moon.
“If you think NASA should just keep going back to the Moon every 50 years and never visit anyplace new, just say so. Calling exploration of the solar system “look but don’t touch” is not just dishonest, it makes you look dumb.”
I’m all in favor of visiting new places. Look But Don’t Touch really doesn’t do a lot of that. In any case, I favor focusing on the Moon first because that it the closest, easier place where people can live long term in space.
I’m even in favor of trying in space fuel depots, but as an add on rather than they being in the critical path.
Lame.
If the government had put even a fraction of that amount into reducing the cost of space transportation through prizes, tax incentives, launch purchases, etc., we would be much closer to landing humans on the Moon and Mars today.
You don’t know that. In any event, such a change in the agency’s business model is highly unlikely, given their institutional resistance to even the slightest changes. Take up your problem with Congress and NASA, not me.
Although the Commission has not tried to prioritize a list of enabling technologies, we have been particularly concerned that NASA pay close attention to assessing options for a new heavy-lift space launch capability.
Funny. To me, that section seems to be a recommendation to carefully assess options, not a direction to go down any particular path. Here is the full quote:
Exactly what about that paragraph is untrue? I guess English is not your first language. I would also suspect that you’ve never been a member of a study group and had to write a consensus report before, where all conclusions and wording are not necessarily within your own personal control. Given your style of discussion, I can see why.
I also recall that RLEP 2 was a non-competive sole-source gift from NASA to APL.
RLEP-2 was a study, not a mission. And it was competed; ESMD called for proposals from all the centers. We teamed with Goddard and Marshall on two different proposals, which ESMD combined into one study effort.
Are you talking about the same study NASA Watch cited when it claimed Shuttle-C would cost only $4 billion?
No, I’m not. But what difference does it make? You create your own facts anyway.
please continue to regard me as an inferior life form, tell me I’m an idiot
Based on the quality and factual accuracy of your posts to date, happy to oblige.
> Paul
>
> == It’s NASA that came up with an unaffordable architecture,
> against the direction of the both White House and the
> recommendations of the Aldridge commission. ==
True. Griffen embraced pork as a congressional goal and speced out a STAGERINGLY expensive archetecture. Bush specified that savings from the shuttle and the ISS program shutdowns were the noly funds NASA was to get for return to the moon, and stated the program was to be affordable and sustainable. Griffen ignored all that, and the White House walked away from it.
The problem with “Flexible Path to the Moon” is that it does not so much get people to the Moon as it does do a lot of things to get ready to get people to go to the Moon. The key part of the plan that should give pause is that it defers a lander until “the budget allows.” It the real political world we live in that is translated to “never.”
Mark, we don’t live in what you allege is the “real political world”. We live in the real world. Maybe in hindsight it will be obvious that this approach can’t be a pathway to landing on the Moon. But it’s worth noting that NASA once was able to achieve this sort of thing back in its early days (with a coherent exploration strategy that culminated with Apollo).
Further, you haven’t backed plans that would fare any better. For example, the Ares program, which you backed in the past, deferred development of a heavy lift vehicle for at least ten years. The Constellation program defers development of a lunar program for at least fifteen years. Both these programs are (or perhaps were) “deferred as the budget allows”.
I’m even in favor of trying in space fuel depots, but as an add on rather than they being in the critical path.
Low TRL of cryogenic propellant transfer and long term cryogenic storage cannot be used as an argument for HLV. You could either use storable propellant for landers and Mars transfer craft (TRL 9, >30 years of continuous operational experience) or you could stay in LEO until cryogenic depots are operational. Both would work well. The former would go beyond LEO sooner and because of that it would give more of a boost to commercial development of space, the latter would be cheaper but more technologically advanced.
Development of an HLV also cannot be used to justify delaying development of cryogenic depots. Depots are a critical spacefaring technology, whereas very few – if any – who are alive today will live to see a real need for HLV. Unless and until we’re ready to launch scores of people to space on each launch it will not be needed.
I’ve heard of it. I had not heard that it was designed to carry people back to the Moon.
No, it wasn’t. Like Flexible Path, it is designed to develop the technologies necessary to do so affordably. But you never seem interested in doing anything affordably, which is why the things you want to see happen never happen.
Ed,
The F22 is a fourth generation Stealth aircraft while the F-117 was only 2nd generation. They had major issues with the wing coatings on it which is why they needed to keep in always in a hanger out of the sun and weather when not flying. And it had no air-to-air capability. Not to mention is was loud and easily seen when it flew in the daylight. I know I lived in Organ NM and you could tell a Stealth was overhead by the noise while those sharp angles and color made it very visible.
The F-22 has low visibility and low noise as well as low radar.
In terms of payload many smart weapons were still in the R&D stage when it was developed so they gave it a payload larger then what was actually needed for ordnance on strike missions. And if you need something more you have the B-2 which was not available when the F-117 entered service.
The F/A-17 has the advantage of not needing fighter escort unlike the old A-6. Air to air refueling reduces the importance of range while reducing the number of aircraft types on a carrier reduce the costs of operation while increasing the flexibility.
Both designs represent steps forward in mission capability, being able to do more missions with the same airframe. Just as the Shuttle was a step forward from the CSM, being capable of more types of missions. The Orion, Dragon and other commercial designs are a step back, being little more then taxis to orbit. This is fine for space tourism but not for creating space infrastructure.
With the money spent on CATS and LEO systems the last 15 years a 2nd generation orbiter fleet could have easily been built, using new materials and new technology. Safer and cheaper then the 1st generation fleet. Flyback boosters replacing the SRBs would have reduced the cost even more. No breakthroughs needed.
Progress in space launch, like aviation, comes from evolution not revolution. Only when a radical new propulsion system comes along, as the Jet engine, do you need a revolution. There has been no such breakthrough in rocket launch since the 1960’s.
Like Flexible Path, it is designed to develop the technologies necessary to do so affordably.
And like Steidle’s spirals… From what I’ve seen the Augustine commission didn’t even consider the possibility that the previous plan might have been better after all. Amazing when you think about it. The option wasn’t even looked into. Was Steidle ever asked to testify?
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> January 25th, 2010 at 8:27 am
>
> The F22 is a fourth generation Stealth aircraft while the
> F-117 was only 2nd generation. ==
I beleave the F-22 was significantly stealthier then the 117’s?
>== Air to air refueling reduces the importance of range while
> reducing the number of aircraft types on a carrier reduce
> the costs of operation while increasing the flexibility.
As to fueling – doing mid air refueling in a ops zone hurts your operability adn stealth. F-18’s weer having trouble ni Aphgan and I think Iraq because their range was so short they had little loiter or search time, and had to keep runing out to a tanker. The F-14’s did a lot more work, since they had a lot more loiter time.
> == Just as the Shuttle was a step forward from the CSM,
> being capable of more types of missions. ==
And much cheaper to develop and operate.
> == The Orion, Dragon and other commercial designs are
> a step back, being little more then taxis to orbit. This is fine
> for space tourism but not for creating space infrastructure.
>
Major agree. With the shuttle retirement, NASA will be just another set of tourist buying a ride to the ISS on a Soyuz.
> With the money spent on CATS and LEO systems the last
> 15 years a 2nd generation orbiter fleet could have easily
> been built, using new materials and new technology. Safer
> and cheaper then the 1st generation fleet. Flyback boosters
> replacing the SRBs would have reduced the cost even
> more. No breakthroughs needed.
Another major agree, adn the 2nd gen orbiter would be much cheaper to develop the Orion/Ares-I – much less adding in the Ares-V requirements it likely could have replaced, and the cost savings no Altair if they weren’t all expendable..
The older (A-D models) F/A-18s were pretty short ranged but the newer E & F Super Hornets do much better. F-14s were good planes but they were maintenance hogs, especially towards the end of their service life.
As for the F-117 verses the F-22, the F-117 could only operate at night because it had no means of defending itself. That really limited it’s operational effectiveness. The F-22 can carry up to two 1,000 bombs or 8 Small Diameter Bombs internally, can defend itself, and can operate day or night. Having a powerful AESA radar, it reportedly can mess with an enemy’s electronic systems as well.
“But you never seem interested in doing anything affordably, which is why the things you want to see happen never happen.”
So how do you explain why the things *you * want to see happen never happen?
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how a budget increase from .5 percent to maybe .65 percent of the federal budget is somehow “unaffordable.” My view, buttressed by the findings of the Augustine Committee, is that things cost what they cost and wishing that it were not so is not going to change that.
As for the Google Lander competition somehow leading to landers that can carry people, the same principle applies. A decision has to be made and money has to be spent. My main criticism of “Look But Don’t Touch the Moon” is that the decision is put off to the idefinate future. If something like that scheme is ever implemented, development of a lunar lander has to be envisioned from the begiinning., not something that is put off
So how do you explain why the things *you * want to see happen never happen?
a) To date, it has been difficult to raise money for them, due to false myths promulgated by the NASA example, though that is now changing rapidly, and b) because there is no political interest in seeing them happen. NASA is primarily a jobs program, not an opening-up-space program, and that’s all that Congress in interested in.
I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how a budget increase from .5 percent to maybe .65 percent of the federal budget is somehow “unaffordable.”
It’s unaffordable in a relative sense, in that it isn’t viewed by most taxpayers (including me) as worth the money. If it actually starts producing results, that could change, but again, you seem to be more in favor of an expensive program with little useful output other than jobs in favored congressional districts.
My main criticism of “Look But Don’t Touch the Moon” is that the decision is put off to the idefinate [sic] future.
Any endeavor that requires ongoing support of the government is a decision put off to the indefinite future, if it takes longer than a congressional term. At least with a basic technology development program, money spent to date will still be useful, even if the funding is shut off, as opposed to the billions that have been wasted on a flawed concept like Ares.
And when are you going to start using Firefox, which would catch at least some of your often egregious spelling errors (including on your blog)?