Taylor Dinerman has responded (sort of) to my Corner post. I say “sort of” because it doesn’t really respond to many of my points, and seems to be mostly a regurgitation of the standard flawed Constellation advocate talking points. It’s late, and I’m kind of beat from plumbing and painting all day, so I can’t really respond properly, but I’ll try to tackle it before bed:
The issue is, should America go back to the Moon?
No. That is an issue, but the issue is how we should do so if we choose to go back to the moon, or anywhere else beyond LEO.
The Obama administration’s handpicked Commission claimed that under their 2010 budget plan, NASA would not be able to get back to the Moon’s surface until the 2030s without a large budget increase. That finding was disputed by former NASA administrator Mike Griffin. In fact, no one really knows. Projecting program costs over a couple of years is hard enough; doing it over a couple of decades is nonsense.
These are interesting word choices. There’s an obvious implication in damning the Augustine panel as the administration’s “handpicked Commission” (it wasn’t a commission, by the way). There is a certain conspiratorial bent among some Constellation supporters that this nonsense feeds. Of course the administration selected the panel members. So? Were they unqualified? Did they have some kind of secret hidden agenda? Tell us, please? And provide data. And is Mike Griffin supposed to be above the fray, and totally objective?
The “commission’s” assessment of the budget needs was based on inputs from NASA, Aerospace, and others. Yes, it is difficult to project budgets in the out years, as demonstrated by the fact that NASA’s own estimates of Ares development costs ballooned over time, as they learned more about how many snakes were in the bag that they chose five years ago. Can Taylor provide an example of a major NASA program whose costs were less, and schedule shorter, than the original estimate?
Mike Griffin was determined to avoid the mistakes made in the 1970s when the Shuttle was starved of development funds and survived on a shoestring. He poured money into the Ares 1 rocket and the Orion capsule because he was determined to make them the safest and most reliable vehicles possible. The administration claims that this involved “old” technology, yet it will now rely on even older Russian Soyuz systems for human access to space.
First of all, as I pointed out in my Corner piece (to which Taylor doesn’t actually respond), it is a misallocation of resources to spend tens of billions to make the launch vehicle safe, not just because it’s an exercise in futility (as Shuttle demonstrated) but because launch is actually already the safest portion of a lunar mission. Much of that money should be spent on making the rest of the trip safe.
Second, as I’ve written recently, if safety is the highest value, it indicates that what we’re doing isn’t very important, and we might as well just stay home.
The point that we are using the old technology of Russian vehicles is disingenuous in the extreme, because that was always the plan under the VSE, but only temporarily until we could develop a home-grown solution. That remains the case under the administration’s new direction. And that new direction is likely to close the gap much sooner than Ares would have (again, per the Augustine report).
And of course the Russians have good reason to use old technology — it works for them, and has for decades, and they can’t afford to develop new systems. A NASA that proposes to spend over thirty billion dollars on a new system has no such excuse.
OK, next comes the obligatory SpaceX bashing (while conveniently ignoring Lockheed Martin, Boeing and United Launch Alliance):
To imagine that this will create a new commercial space industry is a stretch. After almost a decade of work, SpaceX has managed to get one customer’s satellite into orbit. Their Falcon 9 vehicle is at least six months late. We’ll see if they can meet their obligations under the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) contract they signed.
“Almost a decade.”
Well, I guess you could call seven years “almost a decade,” but it would require an inappropriate rounding up. You could more accurately call it, “over half a decade.” It all depends on whether you’re trying to convey that it’s taking an unreasonably long time, or not so much.
And the Falcon 9 is six whole months late? Cancel their contract! Pay no attention to the rocket behind the curtain that was originally supposed to be flying in 2014, but hasn’t yet made it through Preliminary Design Review (not Critical Design Review — Preliminary) and now has a low confidence of flying in 2017, even if funding continues, that will cost a hundred times as much as SpaceX has spent to date.
And as for their meeting their COTS obligations, they haven’t missed one yet. Why the skepticism that they will continue to do so in the future? And unlike the Ares contractors, they only get paid when they meet them, instead of simply being reimbursed for their costs plus profit.
That in fact is the big difference between the new plan and the old. The old was business as usual, with contractors being paid regardless of program success. The new is pay for performance, with competition. It’s not about contractors (Boeing is playing in the new system, wth CCDev), it’s about the nature of the contracts. Again, which should a conservative support?
These firms may have the potential to be useful service providers, but they cannot get us to the Moon.
This is a completely unsubstantiated assertion. It is also fraught with unstated assumptions, most of which are probably wrong.
The worst thing about scrapping Constellation is that it will destroy or disable large parts of the U.S. space industry, in particular our large-solid-rocket–manufacturing capability. Someday we are going to have to replace our long-range missiles, and if the expertise is gone it will take years and billions of dollars to replace it.
I see. So we should continue an overpriced, late in schedule, paint mixer from hell, for an ostensibly civilian space agency, so that we can maintain a critical national defense capability?
Let me state that I do not believe that the nation will be out of the solid business if we don’t continue to pay ATK to build gargantuan four- or five-segment solids, though I’m sure that they’d like you to believe that. Last time I checked, Taurus, Atlas, Minotaur and other vehicles use solids.
But suppose that it’s really true. Then why should it come from NASA’s budget? Why should we have to suffer from a terrible design, that will cost billions per flight to fly a few elite astronauts per year ad infinitum, so that the Pentagon will be able to develop a new generation of ICBMs if they ever get the funding to do so? Why pervert the civilian space program for this, and take it out of NASA’s budget hide? Why not make the five-sided building pay for it?
Was this really supposed to be a rebuttal that the Program of Record is a “conservative” one?
It would be wonderful if space exploration could be done by private enterprise, but that is simply not going to happen.
While I don’t think it unreasonable that space exploration will eventually be done by private enterprise (as in they pay for it, and that in fact is how this nation was largely explored), that’s not the point. Space exploration will continue for now to be funded by the government. The issue is how we do exploration.
Certainly not until launch costs are reduced to a tiny fraction of what they are today.
This is one of the most common confusions about launch costs. They will never fall to a tiny fraction of what they are today as long as NASA is developing and operating its own monolithic systems for its own use. That will happen only with competition and markets. What the new policy does is have the government create these, as it did with the airmail for the aviation industry eighty years ago. And it will finally do this, over half a century after the misbegotten start of the space age, driven by a cold war that circumvented a more natural development of private enterprise in space. Again, if conservatives don’t like this new policy, it’s either because it was proposed by Barack Obama, or because of misplaced nostalgia for Apollo and an inability to recognize any human exploration program that doesn’t look like it. Or both.
I have been disappointed in how most allegedly conservative web sites are very poorly informed on aerospace matters. Without naming anybody, one prominent web site really should register as a lobbyist for Boeing because of their views on the tanker issue, several others are anti-space period, and others who claim to be financially libertarian act as if NASA is the only game in town. There are more than a few that only want robots, not people, in space. At times, there are a few lefty sites that actually make some sense on space and aerospace matters.
Rand, regarding Obama’s approach to space policy, I wonder if he is trying to privatize space not because he feels that the commercial sector can do a better job, but because he believes that it will fail. I have seen NO signs that anyone in this administration believes in the free enterprise system. If this view is correct, then he can turn NASA into another lefty organization and fill it with eco-crazies and neo-luddites, while mouthing sweet nothings that mean absolutely zilch.
“They will never fall to a tiny fraction of what they are today as long as NASA is developing and operating its own monolithic systems for its own use.” Surely you must recognize that you are being disingenuous here. There has been a public/private partnership in space for the past couple of years now. SpaceX has an existing contract with NASA to service the ISS for crying out loud! NASA has been encouraging companies to develop spacecraft as you must surely know. It seems quite reasonable to continue this practice to see if private companies can fulfill the contracts they already have in the next few years. If they do so, then more of the burden can be placed on their shoulders. The 2010 budget could have encouraged this continued collaboration. But to suddenly decide that the space program is going all-private, upending everything in a desire to change the game, reminds me very much of the current health care mess. The Obama administration foolishly decided they needed a “game-changing” policy in that case, too. But it was just a pie in the sky dream without a real plan behind it. And a year later we are left with a mess. Now it’s the space program’s turn to be revolutionized. There will now be a year of needless battles, souring the relationship between NASA, private industry, and Congress. We will have lost a year. For what?
I meant the 2011 budget, of course. Apologies.
I think we should go back to the Moon, and make it a kind of Coventry (as in the Heinlein story of the same name) for statists. Want to use coercion to inflict your version of what’s Right and Just on the rest of us? Here’s a ticket to the moon, pal. Once all the coercionists are up there they can all coerce each other to death and kill each other off, or starve to death from the effects of their stupid economic policies.
I would hate to give the people in coventry the high ground over the Earth. As I have said elsewhere, I am not at all sure the Obama Administration has arrived at this decision through because they like the private sector. I think this is something like benign neglect. Their main goal is to revamp and change the domestic economy and politics to make it nearly impossible to revert to a more liberty and free enterprise-oriented system, thereby making it nearly impossible for their side to lose power. So they don’t care that much about NASA and are happy to reorient it toward education and earth observation, and all that. I tend to think they are throwing the free market stuff in as a bone to the conservatives to blunt charges that they are gutting American lanch capabilities. But regardless of how or why they arrived at a their decision, I do believe that this is the best, most forward-looking approach. ONce you solve the problem of putting things in orbit at an affodable price, then, shazzam! getting to the moon and elsewhere suddenly becomes possible. And I doubt that anyone seriously thinks that the ARES or Constellation programs were going to achieve that goal. Sure, Elon may be an egomaniac. Sure, he wants to drink at the government trough. But, well, he HAS flown a rocket that launched a satellite, and he did not have the IRS come extract the money he used from my pocket. ANd, while SpaceX may be 6 months behind on their larger rocket, that’s nothing in the NASA scheme of things.
There are others who can compete to provide affordable launches and systems, including XCOR, Masten, Armadillo, and others. ANd guess what? ATK, Boeing, and the established guys have the same opportunities as anyone else to build cost-efficient launchers.
From your Corner post: getting to and from orbit is not the most dangerous part of a space mission
I have to admit I found this assertion puzzling, given that all the loss of life during the Shuttle program occurred getting to and from LEO, and none of it in space. It took me writing most of a post about how it didn’t make sense until I realized that the Shuttle never went beyond LEO, did it? (click!)
Whereas Apollo did, and if I understand your point, it was that the to/from LEO record of Apollo was perfect, while the BEO record was nearly marred during Apollo XIII, hence BEO danger > to/from LEO danger. Okay. And apparently the danger curve of future BEO missions is expected to more resemble that of Apollo than the Shuttle, if I’m still following, which also makes sense given that the Shuttle is an orbiter and not a BEO craft.
I would venture to say that this is a subtle point for folks outside the NASA brain bubble to grasp. (The fact that sagacious Dr. K.’s got it wrong is ample testament to that.) I wonder how many other Corner readers were as confused as I.
Reading between the lines, it seems likely that this is primarily a Garver policy, which she crafted working from the parameters identified by the Augustine panel, which in turn worked from real numbers and realistic assumptions to a degree that, frankly, astonishes people accustomed to the business-as-usual fantasy projections common in Washington. It is a nice compromise between what must be done to keep NASA happy (the SDLV), what can realistically be afforded given the priorities of the Administration, and what might actually assist the development of space by Americans, as opposed the “The American (government) space program.” About as good as we can get, in reality. All this pissing and moaning doesn’t get around the simple truth pointed out by Jeff Greason — we couldn’t afford to fly Constellation even if somebody gave it to us for free.
The real agenda of the business-as-usual crowd was, get started on Constellation, and eventually the system would pony up the extra tens or hundreds of billions it would need. But that dog won’t hunt anymore.
So Obama said yes to Lori’s plan? More credit to Lori for crafting it astutely. Given that Obama got elected, we’re lucky that she’s where she is.
I am compelled to _strongly_ disagree. Here are immediate thoughts:
If you view it purely economically, then in the long run it may make the most sense to use the free market.
However, that disregards the short-term transient, as well as other benefits and costs.
– I can’t imagine who would invest the many billions to get to the moon and beyond. I can’t imagine how this will be “profitable” in the next 100 years – the only customer could be government anyway (and no company is that philanthropic). Why would they develop a vehicle and capability to go to the moon if their money comes from launching satellites which can be done much more profitably with a much much smaller (unmanned) system? Further it cannot be done without government involvement anyway (national secrets/technology/expenditure). So it is likely there will still be waste and abuse at taxpayer expense.
Are we going to mandate they go to the moon? seems we might end up getting back to where we are now.
– Also, is NASA just gonna open its file-cabinets to the public (nat. security issue?)? Or will 50 years of research have to be re-researched? In actuallity a lot of that knowledge and expertise resides in the personnel (although that is waning as well). It’s one of those things where it pays just to keep it going, as the start-up costs are ginormous.
– I feel also it is much more likely that a “mishap” will occur in a privately run mission (less resources spent on redundancy and double/triple-checking). I doubt most have any idea of what such a “mission” actually entails.
In my opinion, the reality is that such endeavors are of such a scale, like the military, that they should be done centrally, at least at this point in time.
= Other benefits (there are more reasons than this too):
R&D spinoffs which translate to advancement in other areas of our society. If all this research and development is done privately… do you think they are as likely to share it? No, it will be under lock-and-key. They will be competing with each other which while in general is good, costs more resources (in total sum – and again not likely profitable), and also will inject expediency and profit factors into decisions which would otherwise be based on safety issues, etc. (We are talking about human lives here).
So there would be minimized spurring effect and technology sharing.
– But the main overlooked benefit is: NATIONAL PRIDE
We all know what this is right? that motivational force which bleeds into all areas of our society and spurs us forward; the drive which causes children to aspire higher and pays dividends for decades to come.
Is “National Aeronautic and Space Administration” not a label which every American inherently can gather behind?
Will the country feel the same sense of pride and redemption when SpaceX first lands someone on the moon?
The fact that NASA is payed for by each and every citizen is what allows each to feel PART of the endeavor. Part of the sacrifice – part of the reward.
When was the last time Americans felt proud about the triumph of a Company?
Heck, half the country feels the private sector is just a demon.
So I fear that by looking only at the dollar amount, in reality we will be forsaking the “hidden” benefits, which in fact to me are the REAL reasons we undertake adventures such as going to the moon… its not going to “pay” anything in the next century – in the end it will still be taxpayer funded.
And please please please, let us not pretend that even 100 billion will save our country from bankruptcy. And to that point, who is to say that our nation as a whole has not gained more from Apollo in the years since than was put in; in dollars, and otherwise?
No… I strongly disagree that this issue should rest upon the immediate dollar cost. Forsight demands unintended consequences be considered.
Actually, I would argue that this isn’t the Empire Strikes Back
We are in the battle of Endor.
The question is, are the Ewoks on their way yet?
Don’s scenario was the first thing that came to my mind, as well. Obama has likely never read “The Fountainhead”, but you’d think he would have seen the comic version, “The Producers.” This may backfire on him by succeeding, with hilarious results.
Rand,
The government already has created space launch markets. Look up the history of Comsat.
The big question will be to see how many new space firms will actually profit from this. SpaceX may well if the Dragon works out. But I suspect what will happen is that Boeing and Lockheed Martin will just dust off their old OSP designs and sell them to NASA as commercial spacecraft. The only difference will be they will retain ownership instead of NASA but since NASA will be the main if not the only customer able to afford them ownership will likely be a moot point. They will still fly out of the Cape with government astronauts to a government destination (ISS) with an annual budget similar to the one now for human space flight.
I hope I am wrong, but markets develop as they do for economic reasons and if there were suffcient economic justification for private human orbital systems they would be in service today.
Historically transportation breakthroughs are a “pull” technology driven by demand. There was already commercial demand for airline service in 1925, the first commercial airline service having started in 1914. What the Air Mail Act did was simply add the stability and marginal revenue (i.e. subsidies) needed for the industry to accelerate its pace of development. But it also result in a pattern of government dependence and micro-regulation that lasted until the late 1970’s.
But the key point was demand was already there for the mail service thanks to the government creation of it in the years prior to its privatization. The same was true for the comsat industry, namely the demand for the launch services provided, and the value added by space, was sufficient for a commercial launch market to develop.
But other then an occasional tourist where is the sustainable demand for human spaceflight markets? That is what the success or failure of NASA’s new policy will hinge on. And if its really a step forward or a step backward.
I am hoping New Space will get a piece of this pie and it will deliver on its promises. But time will tell if by being forced to prematurely deliver the new space industry has only been set up to fail as was the case with SSTO in the 1990’s.
If this new policy forces NASA to shift from “cost-plus” contracts to fee for service, it’ll be a huge step forward in lowering costs. Lock-Mart and Boeing have no incentive to lower costs because they’re on cost-plus contracts. Any overruns simply get passed on to the taxpayers. On the other hand, if NASA says “we’ll pay $XXX to carry Y passengers to the ISS”, then the big boys will finally have an incentive to get their cost structures in line. Either that, or young upstarts like SpaceX will eat their lunch.
Someone doesn’t understand reality.
#1 ‘Launch companies won’t go to the moon’. A failure of imagination and an unsupported assertion. Launch companies will provide launch services. Other people that want to go to the moon for their own purposes will pay launch companies to go there. Launch companies don’t have to do it themselves. And why does government have to be involved? You never gave a real reason.
#2 ‘We’ll lose all NASA’s knowledge’. Apparently Someone has never heard of Intellectual property licensing, and has never changed jobs. If it is valuable information to someone, it will be purchased. In the same vein, NASA employees that still want to make rockets and have knowledge valuable to the private sector can be hired.
#3 ‘Privately run enterprises have more mishaps’. An irrational and unsupported assertion, perhaps baised by a reverence for big-brother government. The need for profit is the driving pressure of business, it needs it to sustain its life. Taking irrational risks contrary to the best technical course of action will sink a company. In government, politics is the dominant pressure. Taking irrational risks counter to the best technical course of action is often necessary to maintain political support (i.e. funding). Also, mishaps do not necessarily mean a significant decrease in funding (Challenger, Columbia). The technical and rational takes a backseat to vote buying power in the realm of government.
#4 ‘we won’t get the spin-offs from private industry – and they’ll cost more’. Spinoffs like Tang? The Microwave? Do these gifts of technology arrive at your doorstep courtesy of the government? Or do you buy them from private companies that created them? You comment does not square with reality. It is also untrue that they will ‘cost more’. As a matter of fact, items created by the public sector ‘cost’ less. The private sector creates value and offers it to customers – all the wealth they use, they have created. The government sector takes value from constituents – all the wealth it uses was created by others.
#5 ‘and don’t forget NATIONAL PRIDE’. Here is where we see the true form of Someone’s twisted world view. Perhaps it holds this view unconsciously, but that is no less immoral. The language Someone uses is so revealing of its psychology: bleeds, spurs, sacrifice, demons. “Is “National Aeronautic and Space Administration” not a label which every American inherently can gather behind?” it pleads? As if we should revel in the establishment of government organizations created to administer over any area of human endeavor. How about national health care? Our national education system? A national human recycling administration? This is an appeal to irrational jingoism, or a sad justification for failing to stand on principle. NASA is great because it has been created by the wealth that was taken from me and my neighbors by force? I should take pride in that? – that my rights were steamrolled by a government that tells me what is in my best interest without justification? It sounds eerily familiar to what the elites tell the starving repressed peoples of all the totalitarian regimes around the world, throughout history. It has the gall to insinuate that private companies that lack the force of government are demons.
Someone is either sorely mistaken about the irrational views it holds, or a vile oppressor that would choose to subjugate others for its own ends. In either case its advice should be rejected.
Larry,
Or the launch providers just say pay us XXX (their cost plus ROI) for each astronaut that we fly this year on our NASA approved system. And the cost adjusts (creeps up) each year.
After all you could buy spacecraft based on fixed cost contracts now but that hasn’t been the case in the past because fixed cost fell out of favor after World War II due to technological uncertainty making it difficult for contractors to estimate costs.
Remember you are assuming that cost is a major factor in government decision making. The real driver is that whoever makes the contract does Not want to have get in front of Congress and explain how they let cost get in the way of safety. That is why IBM had such an advantage among purchasing managers in government, if anything went wrong you could just say, well I thought I could trust IBM to do it right. And that was your cover. If is was a start-up you couldn’t use that excuse 🙂
So for this to work it will take more then a mere policy shift. It also requires a major shift in mindset in terms of purchasing AND a Congress willing to forgive when things go wrong. The first is possible. As for the latter, let’s just say its very unlikely. Congressional Hearings are just too good an opportunity for political grandstanding. Wait until Toyota gets called in to Congress over the problems its having…
Don’t you just love that perrenial program management cop-out?
“They’ve done things that worked before, so I trusted them [didn’t do my job this time]”.
And its all the companies fault that the gov program got screwed up…
Doug Graham Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 8:29 am
” Once you solve the problem of putting things in orbit at an affordable price, then, shazzam! getting to the moon and elsewhere suddenly becomes possible. ”
This surely sums up the whole spaceflight problem. It amazes me that more people don’t see it.
While I’ve been a long time spaceflight enthusiast I’m not disappointed by the new NASA direction as I had no faith in Orion/Constellation anyway as it wasn’t going to advance the above goal at all.
More power to Elon and SpaceX although I think the dark horse here is Blue Origin. I like Jeff Bezos’s spacecraft design and think it will lead by incremental development to an orbital RLV.
Or the launch providers just say pay us XXX (their cost plus ROI) for each astronaut that we fly this year on our NASA approved system. And the cost adjusts (creeps up) each year.
If there were a single provider then yes, they would have that kind of leverage. However, if there are multiple providers then the buyer has more leverage by being able to compete them against one another.
Remember you are assuming that cost is a major factor in government decision making. The real driver is that whoever makes the contract does Not want to have get in front of Congress and explain how they let cost get in the way of safety.
NASA poured money hand over fist for Apollo and still killed 3 astronauts. They didn’t skimp on the Shuttle and killed 14 more astronauts. Why should commercial vendors be held to a higher standard than NASA? Despite an amazing safety record, airliners still crash from time to time. The world doesn’t end.
Cost is a major factor in government decision making. I’m a defense contractor and see it all of the time. Frequently, they’ll go with a lowball bid thinking they’re getting a bargain only to end up paying far more due to overruns. When I was in the Air Force, I was on the receiving end of one of these cases (by IBM, no less). They won a contract called Data System Modernization (DSM) to completely overhaul how the military flew satellites. It was an $80 million open ended contract. Several years late and $800 million later, we finally were able to begin limited operations with DSM. It was a piece of crap and cost many millions more to actually make it usable.
Cost-plus contracts are legitimately used when the technical risk is high. However, NASA shouldn’t be paying for the commercial companies to develop their systems. They should go fee for service. If the fee is too low, no one will accept it any more than if you go to a new car lot and offer them $100. If the commercial companies jack up the price too high, it opens the window for someone else to undercut them.
Larry,
That would be good but organizational inertia is very hard to break.
[[[NASA poured money hand over fist for Apollo and still killed 3 astronauts. They didn’t skimp on the Shuttle and killed 14 more astronauts. Why should commercial vendors be held to a higher standard than NASA?]]]
Because Congress is always looking for sound bites and axes to grind. And easy targets.
Also they actually did skimp on the Shuttle. It was to be a TSTO to orbit, but Congress cut funds and to save money NASA had to replace the flyback first stage with the ET and SRB, the cause of both accidents. But of course Congress won’t hold itself responsible for the failures of Shuttle. Its more fun to point the fingers elsewhere in Congressional hearings 🙂
But as for competition in human spaceflight keeping costs down, it seems that was also the idea behind the EELV. But both EELVS are now united as ULA. I would not be shocked to see the same thing happen with commercial crew systems and for the same reason, lack of commercial demand for the ones designed to meet NASA’s “commercial” needs.
Tom
Just wanted to say some of us conservatives actually like this new direction!
Like Don I’ve had the thought that the 0 may be hoping for the private sector to fail. I’ve also had the though that the plan may involve ‘private’ aerospace as wholely owned subsidiaries of the government. Whatever the case, I expect there’s more to the ‘privatization’ plan.
Wow. Thanks for reading and replying to my comment Ryan.
Ryan Olcott Says:
February 4th, 2010 at 2:40 pm
# Someone doesn’t understand reality.
– More or less true*.
#1 ‘Launch companies won’t go to the moon’. A failure of imagination and an unsupported assertion. Launch companies will provide launch services. Other people that want to go to the moon for their own purposes will pay launch companies to go there**. Launch companies don’t have to do it themselves. And why does government have to be involved?*** You never gave a real reason.****
– I never said they won’t go. However that market will be single payer for the forseeable future. I predict the moon (and mars) wont be profitable until the first base is set there. That first step will be taxpayer (government) funded, one way or another. So lets call it what it is and be honest with the people (see below as to what this means).
#2 ‘We’ll lose all NASA’s knowledge’. Apparently Someone has never heard of Intellectual property licensing, and has never changed jobs. If it is valuable information to someone, it will be purchased. In the same vein, NASA employees that still want to make rockets and have knowledge valuable to the private sector can be hired.
– I didn’t mean to imply that. I said their will be some re-inventing the wheel and likely inefficiency and delay in information transfer, but its not a very significant point, besides the delay, I agree. However, if those employees leave… sounds like you are promoting the end of NASA as we know it and making it simply beaurocratic, or some alternate destiny (see end). I suppose the former might be a reasonable long-term strategy, and I am not opposed to it on principle, but I think we should not neglect the short term.
*** should we privatize the astronauts too?
[Will they plant both country and company flags?]
#3 ‘Privately run enterprises have more mishaps’. An irrational and unsupported assertion, perhaps baised by a reverence for big-brother government. The need for profit is the driving pressure of business, it needs it to sustain its life. Taking irrational risks contrary to the best technical course of action will sink a company. In government, politics is the dominant pressure. Taking irrational risks counter to the best technical course of action is often necessary to maintain political support (i.e. funding). Also, mishaps do not necessarily mean a significant decrease in funding (Challenger, Columbia). The technical and rational takes a backseat to vote buying power in the realm of government.
#4 ‘we won’t get the spin-offs from private industry – and they’ll cost more’. Spinoffs like Tang? The Microwave? Do these gifts of technology arrive at your doorstep courtesy of the government? Or do you buy them from private companies that created them? You comment does not square with reality. It is also untrue that they will ‘cost more’. As a matter of fact, items created by the public sector ‘cost’ less. The private sector creates value and offers it to customers – all the wealth they use, they have created. The government sector takes value from constituents – all the wealth it uses was created by others.
– Again you’re somehow characterizing this as a market system. It will not be in our lifetime.
A free market system is based on large numbers (marginal (and non <- this begets the flexibility) consumer + multitude of transactions). One (customer) is not large enough (Heck, 5 is sometimes not even enough (ref: current Health-Care market)). The supply-demand curve eventually becomes a point (may start as vertical line). That does not satisfy the prerequisites of said system type, as no part of it can explore the curve (<- this is what allows all the “invisible hand” stuff to occur). It is for the same reason that single payer is a disaster.
Your exacty right about the wealth generation. However, as per my claim above, the “initial investment” will not be returned to the taxpayers in dollars, but in something else (see below), and so I don’t think thats how it should be “sold” to the people, if thats what you want to do (if anything, long-term cost benefit – not jobs or wealth as it would be subsidized wealth, and we need less subsidies, not more).
NOTE: Now, we may find that the initial “charge” for a moon-shot may be lower (by what more than 2x? naw), however, after the first contract is rewarded… what happens to the competitors? Will the only customer, the government, be forced to support them all? or more likely, after a few contracts (and crucial experience gained – not shared) there will effectively be only one provider, as well.
My feeling is that this will have the short-term (~<50 year) result of generating a similar situation with a delay (at least 5-10 years no? conservative?) and have a new opaque layer of dealing (political ‘dealing’ similar to C17 whatnot), instead of the previous “transparent” one, if one wanted to call it that.
#5 ‘and don’t forget NATIONAL PRIDE’. Here is where we see the true form of Someone’s twisted world view. Perhaps it holds this view unconsciously, but that is no less immoral. The language Someone uses is so revealing of its psychology: bleeds, spurs, sacrifice, demons. “Is “National Aeronautic and Space Administration” not a label which every American inherently can gather behind?” it pleads? As if we should revel in the establishment of government organizations created to administer over any area of human endeavor. How about national health care? Our national education system? A national human recycling administration? This is an appeal to irrational jingoism, or a sad justification for failing to stand on principle.
– I suppose I did so because thats exactly what I think the issue is largely about, at least in so far as the vast majority of people are concerned. Do we think we grabbed moondust just for the scientists and/or scientific value (did we rush after sputnik for the scientific value?). Is that why JFK was able to mobilize behind Apollo? Its called justifiable sacrifice… all human societies revolve around them. I think we do such things because this is, by and large, a land of people that are driven to accel; and they are the ones who are paying. In fact to say this is for scientific value would in fact be an example of the “elitist” thinking, I think (ref: climategate) – for what material/knowledge benefits will it bring them or their children?… it will be much cheaper later, of course. And why not just let the other countries gather the knowledge for everyone?
Is it possible that we got more out of Apollo in the time up to and getting there, the video of the still flag and the bouncing-tubby, and returning safely home – and much less “value” thereafter? I say this because I think it shows the true reasons why we as a country do such things (sacrifice).
As to the rationality of the people.. well I suppose the question is what sacrifices they are trying to rationalize with what redemption (was JFK rational?).
# NASA is great because it has been created by the wealth that was taken from me and my neighbors by force? I should take pride in that? – that my rights were steamrolled by a government that tells me what is in my best interest without justification? It sounds eerily familiar to what the elites tell the starving repressed peoples of all the totalitarian regimes around the world, throughout history. It has the gall to insinuate that private companies that lack the force of government are demons.
– Actually, yes. I think you should have pride in the fact that America was the first to land a man on the moon and return home safely, and all within a decade. I can’t help but sense bitterness. Do you think JFK was wrong in his proclaimation? Was he elitist too? or was he, in that aspect, visionary? Did that help spur a generation of engineers and advancement? I have to imagine that the people were rallied behind the cause by their president, and his vision for the country. The president is just the loudest voice in the whole of the market of ideas. The peeople still have to buy it. case-n-point: ObamaCare.
# Someone is either sorely mistaken about the irrational views it holds, or a vile oppressor that would choose to subjugate others for its own ends. In either case its advice should be rejected.
What motivates you is not necessarily what motivates everyone else. Rather than elaborate more on the vagueries in the reference to ‘rationality’ and its significance in society/reality, consider:
* Were the People rational in their vote last election? (possible reality ‘check’).
I am sure NASA’s plans are sorely wasteful and inneficient. I’m all for outsourcing. And I am sure we all want things to be more efficient. And I would hope thats actually what happens. But in my reality, that is unavoidable at some level, for some time.
I would prefer (in the sense I bet it will be better, in all measures, for the nation) to start something on the moon before the other countries do (HLV, or no-HLV). Detailed opinions aside, thats what I think is really up for grabs here all else equal: national pride. It’s the build up to getting there and beyond, not the fooling around up there… and this ‘plan’ treats both lackadaisicaly.
(strictly speaking, I have a higher estimate, than you, of the “opportunity cost”)
Whether its 33 billion or 66 billion would not matter to me in the grand scheme of things as long as we get there (and back into orbit) asap. I think many dollars will be wasted either way and that the more prudent question is how to maximize the countries reward, as well as promote superiority in the future (whats the point of going this generation if not to be first? we have this deficit problem already). This plan does not do that I don’t think, but smells more of opposing that goal.
So, that being said, if I come to the realization that the current plan will get us there and beyond sooner (I admit to not really read into it in great detail)… well then I suppose I will then be for it. But right now all I can read into It is dis-interest and lack of intention (let alone the necessary motiviation – JFKless). If WE want to just punt on this and leave it for next gen, I could be ok with that too. But if the president is not even half into it (or tries to pass it off as something the private sector will pick up – another platitude), the People will not understand, and like you, feel bitter about the knowledge of paying for it and, thus, the endeavour.
– Now you may think thats just my reality, but remember this when His first term is over, and you realize he never intended or wanted (to allow) America to go back to the moon anytime soon. Or maybe you’ll reaize it when you realize NASA is slated to become a climate monitoring agency.
Again, thanks for sharing your perspective.
** My reality is still devoid of anything resembling a stable moon-shot client-base in the next 50 years. So I would prefer to call it for what it will be either way: subsidization. The other option is to let another country put down the investment cost, and our grand-kids can just hitch rides from them:
***** But then again LOE will always have priceless national-security value… so its likely we will never go long without our own vehicle, so why not put both feet in…