An amusing tweet from Jeff Foust, before what looks like an interesting panel discussion:
Overheard pre-event chatter: “Democrats don’t think capitalism works below the atmosphere and Republicans don’t think it works above it.”
Sad but true.
53 thoughts on “Irony”
Comments are closed.
I’m not sure either of them believe it works in space. Or at least for getting to space.
The assumption being that commercial crew is pure market-driven capitalism. But really its only replacing one set of government contractors with another one. Or even the same ones in the case of EELV derived systems.
Now if the launch firms had designed their launch systems for commercial markets using only private capital (no COTS subsidies) and then NASA just purchased seats on systems already built, at the existing commercial rate, you could claim it was pure market-driven capitalism.
For example. Spaceshiptwo is clearly intended for the commercial market and was built entirely with private funds. If NASA purchases a few seats at the market price of $200,000, without requiring any human rating certification then you could claim the policy and practice is pure capitalism.
But giving firms billions over the next few years to design systems to specifically meet NASA human spaceflight needs and human rating specs its basically no different then the system that has been in place since the 1960’s. All that changes is the ownership of the vehicles and who assumes the risk when something goes wrong.
And of course the lucky firms selected will crowd out investment or any interest in the losers launch systems (as happened with X-33) dooming them to slow extinction via starvation of capital. So any opportunities for new systems beyond the lucky winners will be basically over. Why do you think Blue Origin has come out of stealth mode to become one of the Merchant 7? So they won’t have to compete against government subsidized competitor without getting their own piece of the subsidy pie.
Remember, pure market-driven capitalism is where a competitive market picks winners, not when the government picks winners. And the new space policy, by using the bait of government subsidies is basically undermining the creation of a commercial market driven orbital launch industry but picking the “winners”.
So if NASA decides one-shot water splash down capsules with a 4 person crew is what it needs then that is the only “flavor” of human spaceflight you will see for the next decade or so.
You may have pretty viewgraphs showing better systems, but without the NASA seal of approval no one will invest in them.
This is why the new policy will not have the intended results as New Space advocates believe but instead will kill off the New Space orbital industry beyond the firms “chosen” to be the New NASA contractors.
Now if that is what New Space advocates want, fine, but at least go into it with eyes wide open instead of chatting slogans like “capitalism rules!” when its not really capitalism but a form of creeping socialism that is slowing engulfing the New Space industry with its focus on NASA money.
Think of the Turkey being led into the trap by the bait of a trail of really good tasting corn… That is where the New Space industry is at the moment with this policy š
Tom
And of course the lucky firms selected will crowd out investment or any interest in the losers launch systems (as happened with X-33) dooming them to slow extinction via starvation of capital.
Why would that be the case if, as you claim, NASA supervision is going to drive up their costs and make them uncompetitive?
Rand, as long as NASA is the only buyer, pleasing NASA is all that matters.
Rand, as long as NASA is the only buyer, pleasing NASA is all that matters.
That is both true and irrelevant, since NASA is not the only buyer.
Eh, when did Bigelow launch their human capable station?
Did I miss a Fox News Special Alert? š
Eh, when did Bigelow launch their human capable station?
When did NASA purchase crew launch services? I predict Bigelow will launch his human-capable station first.
Rand,
[[[That is both true and irrelevant, since NASA is not the only buyer.]]]
Given that no one has purchased a ticket to fly on the Dragon, or other orbital system, that sounds more like a statement of faith versus fact.
And it will continue to be a statement of faith until After NASA selects the winners and their systems become operational. Then it will be seen if other customers buy tickets to orbit, or if the winners of the commercial crew even have excess capacity to sell them.
Rand,
[[[When did NASA purchase crew launch services? I predict Bigelow will launch his human-capable station first.]]]
Under the new policy the winners for commercial crew appears to be scheduled to be determined next year. From what I have seen the RFP will released as soon as the new human rating guidelines are developed by NASA so they will be able to be included in it.
As far as I know Bigelow is at least a couple of years away from launch since there is no point in launching without access to his station. And if Commercial Crew takes up all the capabilities for human orbital spaceflight as is possible that day may never come.
Rand,
[[[Why would that be the case if, as you claim, NASA supervision is going to drive up their costs and make them uncompetitive?]]]
Because it did happen with X-33. The perception being that since Lockheed Martin and NASA were behind it you would be competing with the government’s chosen system. Why do you think it will be any different with Commercial Crew?
Because a) commercial crew is not X-33 and b) that was then, this is now.
That statement is somewhat misleading. Opposition to Obamaspace is bi partisan and is based just as much on the heart burn of abandoning space exploration as it is on doubts with commercial space. Of course the great unmentioned is the fact that the administration is not going far enough on the latter. There is no talk of incentives to develop private markets for these new space companies which will be launching people into space any day now. If, by 2020, the only market is servicing ISS, then commercial space will have failed.
@ Rand
When did NASA purchase crew launch services? I predict Bigelow will launch his human-capable station first.
I would cheer this since I believe a privately owned LEO facility would do far more to stimulate genuine commercial human spaceflight than NASA buying supposedly commercial crew lift to ISS.
Bigelow seems very determined on this one. Though the financial realities may intrude, it’s more than a business model for him. He’s a true believer who is totally focused. I think Rand is right to bet on him.
When did NASA purchase crew launch services? I predict Bigelow will launch his human-capable station first.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense for Bigelow to launch his private space station until there is a means to get people there.
It makes sense for him to launch it ahead, so that bugs can be worked out before sending people to it. But he will probably wait until commercial crew appears imminent.
Sure, you want to work out the bugs before sending people there. Keep in mind that the modules will have a finite lifespan and they’ll gradually degrade whether anyone is in them or not. I’ve read some criticism of Bigelow (not here) for being behind schedule in launching his space station. Seeing as how it’ll likely be a few years before he can send anyone to his modules, it makes very little sense for him to launch anything other than testbeds until a passenger carrying capability is about ready. Part of the debugging process might involve sending his own employees to work out problems that can’t be fixed from the ground (see: Skylab).
Larry,
Yes, I was listening to Robert Bigelow on Coast to Coast a while back (2008) and he indicated he just planned to mothball his stations until an option becomes available to send humans to them when in orbit. Bigelow indicated on the show he was going to use Soyuz, until they raised the price on him in anticipation of NASA being dependent on Soyuz while the spaceflight gap is closed.
I really hope one of the New Space firms develops a commercial human spaceflight capability soon and I also hope NASA’s new focus on commercial crew don’t delay him further by taking control of the early demand for their spacecraft.
BTW I noticed in one of Ken Davidian Tweets that Clark Lindsey posted there was a discussion at the NASA Advisory Council Commercial Space Committee if the spacecraft for Commercial Crew would be treated as taxi cabs or rental cars. If the latter it would be a lot less likely there would be excess capacity for commercial markets like Bigelow.
That is why I like really Buzz Aldrin’s proposal to fly the Shuttle until 2015. Additional Shuttle flights would free up both Soyuz and Commercial Crew to serve Bigelow’s needs and in doing so accelerate the creation of a true commercial market for human spaceflight versus the pseudo-commercial market of NASA. That is why I think Aldrin’s proposal would advance commercial human spaceflight far more then the proposed Obama policy.
Opposition to Obamaspace is bi partisan and is based just as much on the heart burn of abandoning space exploration
Only among those who never want to see NASA do anything new and define missions to the asteroids, Lagrange points, Mars, etc. as “abandoning space exploration.”
M. Stanton Evans said that the United States had two political parties, the Evil Party which tries to pass evil legislation, and the Stupid Party which tried to pass stupid legislation. Every now and then, he said, they get together to pass something both evil and stupid. “That’s called bipartisanship.”
There is no talk of incentives to develop private markets for these new space companies which will be launching people into space any day now.
There’s plenty of talk about incentives, Mark. If you followed space policy at all, you would know that. Of course, you don’t follow space policy but simply make up “bipartisan” crap.
That is why I think Aldrinās proposal would advance commercial human spaceflight far more then the proposed Obama policy.
Tom, if you were paying attention, Buzz Aldrin has endorsed General Bolden’s plan.
(Funny how you guys refuse to even use General Bolden’s name, calling it the Obama policy, the Garver plan, anything except General Bolden’s. Would you burst into flames if you said the General’s name, Tom?)
Even if it is just replacing one government contractor with another, let us keep in mind two things. First, SpaceX is a better performer than Lockheed Martin. Second, the COTS contracts are not “cost plus”.
Edward,
First, in regards to Buzz Aldrin’s endorsement here is a recent op-ed by him on Obama’s Space Policy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-should-keep-flying_b_504324.html
[[[Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people. You know the very people whose experience we will need in the years ahead. Except if you lay them off now, they won’t be around in the next decade. Today’s Shuttle operation is made up of five elements. Here’s how we can put them all to use in a whole new space program. America, extend and transform the Shuttle, don’t end ’em.]]]
What Buzz Aldrin endorses is the end of the Constellation and the eventual use of commercial crew, but its not a blanket endorsement as he sees a need to keep the Shuttle flying, a SDV HLV and the transformation of Orion in the Exploration Vehicle (XV) that would only operate from the ISS, not return to Earth.
[[[(Funny how you guys refuse to even use General Boldenās name, calling it the Obama policy, the Garver plan, anything except General Boldenās. Would you burst into flames if you said the Generalās name, Tom?)]]]
Everyone one refers to President Obama’s new space policy as Obama’s Space Policy. No one has attached General Bolden (ret.) name to it. So why should I call it something different?
As a side note the Shuttles have the potential to play a significant role in the various flagship technology demonstrations under President Obama’s space policy. That is why I see it as a good compromise that would benefit both NASA and the New Space industry.
Karl,
First its a matter of opinion if SpaceX is a better performer. Time will tell.
Second, Lockheed Martin was originally a fixed price contractor when it first got involved with government contracts way back when, a;though they got burned pretty good on the X-33. They, along with the rest of the industry, only went cost plus when they lost significant amounts of money following the fix price route. In short they learned from experience. SpaceX will as well, just give them time to experience the downside of fixed price.
And the government endorsed cost plus as it eliminated the incentive to cut corners in fulfilling a contract. Read up on the early commercial airmail industry where companies “inflated” the lbs of mail carried (they were paid a fixed price per pound) by using a 2 lb lock on a 1 lb mailbag š
Tom
First its a matter of opinion if SpaceX is a better performer. Time will tell.
No, Tom. Time has already told. SpaceX has a vehicle on the pad, to launch in a few weeks, and has developed a pressurized module to go up on it, that can carry seven people (with the addition of life support and an escape system), for two orders of magnitude less than NASA wants to complete Ares I/Orion, seven years earlier. With all due respect, anyone who thinks that we need more “time to tell” is out of their mind.
Oh, and this:
…though they got burned pretty good on the X-33M
They didn’t get burned at all. They invested a little IR&D, reimbursed by the government, to ensure that no one, including themselves, would produce something that could put Atlas and Delta out of business. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they spent any money off their own bottom line on X-33? They achieved their political objectives the day they won the contract, and kept it away from Boeing and MacDac.
Just how naive are you?
The assumption being that commercial crew is pure market-driven capitalism.
No, Tom, that is not “the assumption.” That is the strawman. No one but you has ever claimed that.
Most people are capable of distinguishing between 80% market-driven capitalism and zero. Since you are such are such an extreme, black-and-white, no-shades-of-gray purist, can you please explain to me how your desire for a government-owned monopoly Lunar Development Corporation is “pure market-driven capitalism”? Or do you only demand that degree of perfection from outsiders, while Moonies are allowed to sin? š
For example. Spaceshiptwo is clearly intended for the commercial market and was built entirely with private funds.
You’re now a fan of SpaceShip Two? Great. So, you’re acknowledging that the Moon is not “the only place in space where commercial enterprise is possible”?
So if NASA decides one-shot water splash down capsules with a 4 person crew is what it needs then that is the only āflavorā of human spaceflight you will see for the next decade or so.
Tom, how is that worse than the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, which proposed a 6-person capsule as “the only way Americans will go into space for the next 40 years”?
Have you forgotten how many times you said the Columbia accident “proved” reusable vehicles were impossible and capsules were “the only safe way to go into space” (despite statistical evidence that capsules are no safer than the Shuttle)? You weren’t the only one, either — such statements were standard numbers in the Moonie hymnal. Why the suddent change of heart? Is it just because the Moon is no longer NASA’s sole destination?
Any rational analysis of space policy has to look ahead more than one generation. In biology, a success organism is the one that produces the most grandchildren. All of the first-generation systems will eventually fail or be replaced by something better. The vehicles that truly open the space frontier won’t be expendable capsules. More likely, they will be descendents of the reusable suborbital craft that are now in development. If we can create a policy that gives those descendents a chance to compete, it is a win, no matter what happens to Dragon or Orion Lite in the short term.
The new policy is a huge win simply by the fact NASA officials (and business professors) are no longer going around telling investors that the Orion capsule is the only way Americans will go into space for the next 40 years.
You may have pretty viewgraphs showing better systems, but without the NASA seal of approval no one will invest in them.
Refresh my memory, Tom. Did O’Keefe/Griffin give the NASA seal of approval to any system other than Constellation? Did the Moonies ever ask them to?
Tom, the views expressed in Buzz’s recent articles are substantially the same as those he expressed to me when we met in Phoenix two years ago.
His proposed Exploration Module is *not* equivalent to the Orion capsule in any way. It’s not a capsule at all; it’s a deep-space vehicle that’s designed to stay in space, not return to Earth.
Furthermore, he’s against NASA astronauts returning to the Moon, so he’d probably be burned at the stake if he ever showed up in your church. š
No one has attached General Bolden (ret.) name to it.
No one that you’re aware of, perhaps.
“There is only one budget and one plan, and it’s mine, it’s in the President’s budget, and I am implementing it.” — Maj. Gen. Charles Bolden
As a side note the Shuttles have the potential to play a significant role in the various flagship technology demonstrations under President Obamaās space policy. That is why I see it as a good compromise that would benefit both NASA and the New Space industry.
How would making space transportation more expensive benefit either NASA or the New Space industry?
That is one of the most bizarre dogmas of the Moonie Church — and the reason why you’re no closer to reaching the Moon, after spending $10 billion of taxpayers money.
Of course, you’ll get angry and say it’s everyone else’s fault but yours.
Rand,
[[[They didnāt get burned at all. They invested a little IR&D, reimbursed by the government, to ensure that no one, including themselves, would produce something that could put Atlas and Delta out of business. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that they spent any money off their own bottom line on X-33? They achieved their political objectives the day they won the contract, and kept it away from Boeing and MacDac.]]]
I have been hearing these conspiracy theories from New Spacers for decades. Do you have any actual proof? Or that NASA was part of the conspiracy by awarding them the X-33.
And if you actually believe in such conspiracies what evidence do you have that commercial crew won’t turn out the same way?
Also expense a firm has impacts the bottom line, so the mere fact they spent something on it would impact their bottom line to that extent.
Second, Lockheed Martin was originally a fixed price contractor when it first got involved with government contracts way back when, a;though they got burned pretty good on the X-33. They, along with the rest of the industry, only went cost plus when they lost significant amounts of money following the fix price route. In short they learned from experience. SpaceX will as well, just give them time to experience the downside of fixed price.
If they couldn’t handle fixed price contracts, then they shouldn’t have been in the business. I don’t buy it anyway. Cost plus is so much more profitable, and it’s not that expensive to buy a few congresscritters.
Edward,
I love the way you put words in peoples mouths.
[[[Have you forgotten how many times you said the Columbia accident āprovedā reusable vehicles were impossible and capsules were āthe only safe way to go into spaceā]]]
Evidence? Links?
[[[The vehicles that truly open the space frontier wonāt be expendable capsules. ]]]
So you saying Dragon is a waste? Then why are you supporting it?
[[[Tom, how is that worse than the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, which proposed a 6-person capsule as āthe only way Americans will go into space for the next 40 yearsā?]]]
If that was true why was NASA doing COTS and planning for COTS-D?
[[[Youāre now a fan of SpaceShip Two? ]]]
Being a fan has nothing to do with my example. I was just pointing if New Space advocates want to be true to their belief system they shouldn’t be looking for government subsidies for it but just allow it to develop on its own, as is the case with Spaceshiptwo. The fact that so many New Space advocates are pushing the Obama Space Policy shows how little faith they have in the markets they claim exist.
[[[His proposed Exploration Module is *not* equivalent to the Orion capsule in any way.]]]
Its far more in line with the CEV proposed by President Bush then the how Dr. Griffin interpreted it.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf
Page 7, Section C.
Space Transportation Capabilities Supporting Exploration
[[[Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;]]]
AND
[[[Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.]]]
There was nothing in the vision requiring the CEV to operate from or return to the Earth. Buzz Aldrin’s XV is perfectly aligned with this original goal for the VSE, as is commercial crew.
But extending the Shuttle and then supplementing it with a Shuttle C adds a lot more capability to NASA.
[[[Furthermore, heās against NASA astronauts returning to the Moon, so heād probably be burned at the stake if he ever showed up in your church.]]]
No, its against the Moon being NASA destination. You need to be clear there. He has no problem with America astronauts returning in partnership with other nations.
Note:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/a-different-kind-of-moon_b_317786.html
[[[I am proposing a different way back to the Moon: international collaboration. ]]]
[[[Last summer there was much talk about ways to honor those of us who journeyed to the Moon during the Apollo era. To do so doesn’t require rerunning a long-ago Cold War race in which America plays the role of a space-going Colonial power. Instead we should honor the words Neil and I left on the Moon in a tiny silver plaque that was affixed to a leg of our lunar lander, the Eagle. “We came in peace for all mankind”, it read.
I believe it’s time we took those words seriously, giving rise to a new age of international cooperation in space exploration.]]]
The key is its not the key focus of NASA, going beyond the Moon is. But NASA also uses its assets to work with other nations to return jointly to the Moon. And yes, a SDV HLV would be a major asset in doing so. So would the XV, both serving to move humans beyond LEO before 2020 while you are still waiting for sub-orbital space tourism to blossom into orbital tourism by the magic of commercial crew.
Karl,
[[[If they couldnāt handle fixed price contracts, then they shouldnāt have been in the business. I donāt buy it anyway. Cost plus is so much more profitable, and itās not that expensive to buy a few congresscritters.]]]
Lockheed Martin does many fixed price contracts, but learned they are not a good idea with NASA because of the uncertainties spacecraft development.
I would cheer this since I believe a privately owned LEO facility would do far more to stimulate genuine commercial human spaceflight than NASA buying supposedly commercial crew lift to ISS.
Oh I see. So it has nothing to do with the fact that NASA would then have no reason to sustain a LEO presence if it is purely commercial so that it can splash the ISS, dispense with procuring commercial crew taxis and use its “interim” HLV to do capsule-based missions in cis-lunar space? Hypocrites would then wring their hands and say “what a pity commercial didn’t work out, good thing we had the SDLV as a backup”.
Protecting existing contractors under the pretext of advocating pure market forces. Bah. How many SDLV proponents will be honest and say they want an SDLV for its own sake? I don’t know very many. The love for SDLV is a love that dare not speak its name.
I have been hearing these conspiracy theories from New Spacers for decades. Do you have any actual proof? Or that NASA was part of the conspiracy by awarding them the X-33.
Who said anything about a conspiracy? Besides you, that is?
Lockheed Martin does many fixed price contracts, but learned they are not a good idea with NASA because of the uncertainties spacecraft development.
I’m not disagreeing with Lockheed’s assessment. I’m just saying that indicates NASA should be giving those contracts to someone who can handle fixed price.
Rand,
[[[Who said anything about a conspiracy? Besides you, that is?]]]
Your statement below, that is was part of a strategy to kill RLVs implies that.
[[[They didnāt get burned at all. They invested a little IR&D, reimbursed by the government, to ensure that no one, including themselves, would produce something that could put Atlas and Delta out of business.]]]
The same stale idea that somehow the majors were out to kill RLVs. You are implying that Lockheed Martin took NASA money with the intention of making the project fail. That borders on conspiracy to commit fraud since it implies they did not intend to fulfill the contract and actually work to make the project to succeed. New Space advocates have been pushing this nutty theory for years, that NASA and the majors are against them, just as you did in your post above, but never offer any evidence to support it.
Karl,
[[[Iām not disagreeing with Lockheedās assessment. Iām just saying that indicates NASA should be giving those contracts to someone who can handle fixed price.]]]
Yep, until those firms wise up and decide not to take them. I give SpaceX about 3-5 years to move up the learning curve on government contracting although commercial crew may accelerate that.
The same stale idea that somehow the majors were out to kill RLVs.
No, not the “majors.” Just Lockheed Martin. Rockwell would have flown something. And it’s not a “conspiracy.” It’s a business strategy.
You are implying that Lockheed Martin took NASA money with the intention of making the project fail. That borders on conspiracy to commit fraud since it implies they did not intend to fulfill the contract and actually work to make the project to succeed.
No, I’m implying that whether it succeeded or not, they already won simply by winning the contract. If they succeeded, they’d be the ones to replace their own expendables. And if they failed, their expendables would continue (which they did). And NASA was negligent, almost criminally so, in not recognizing how nonsensical their “business plan” was.
There shouldn’t be a winner takes all system. The contract should be given to multiple vendors. Otherwise the state risks getting locked into a single vendor dictating terms to it and increasing the bill as it wants.
Haven’t they learned anything from the IBM single source contract to Microsoft for the OS, and multiple source contract to Intel, AMD and others on the CPU of the IBM PC?
Given the comments from Air Force personnel against shutting down Shuttle I lately have been wondering, how much vendor tacking of expenses on the Shuttle bill has been going around, and how costly the Shuttle actually is.
Also the government should insist on a flying demonstration of the system like the military do for their systems. It may not make the solution cheaper, but it sure makes it a lot more likely to actually be delivered since it forces the vendor to actually work on the problems and think of solutions earlier.
Karl Hallowell Says:
March 30th, 2010 at 3:02 pm
“Even if it is just replacing one government contractor with another, let us keep in mind two things. First, SpaceX is a better performer than Lockheed Martin. Second, the COTS contracts are not ācost plusā.”
This is the most important point. Cost plus contracts are the bane of government procurement and should be banned by a constitutional amendment.
The second bane of government programs are government employee unions.
You eliminate both of these banes and suddenly you are undercutting Soyuz prices. How did that happen, eh?
The third bane of government programs are an army of accountants, inspectors general, efficiency experts, and other assorted bean counters whose raison d’etre is to watchdog over how the taxpayers money is spent, but wind up costing more than they save. The government should have efficiency experts judging the efficiency of efficiency experts…. and limit their remit to be based on a fraction of the money they actually save the taxpayer and nothing more.
The fourth bane is a second army of watchdogs who make sure the union and the bean counters do their work in accordance with government safety, equal opportunity, and environmental standards. Unfortunately even private enterprise is saddled with these pinheads…. unless you base yourself in a former soviet republic…
Thomas Matula Says:
March 31st, 2010 at 7:24 am
Karl,
[[[Iām not disagreeing with Lockheedās assessment. Iām just saying that indicates NASA should be giving those contracts to someone who can handle fixed price.]]]
“Yep, until those firms wise up and decide not to take them. I give SpaceX about 3-5 years to move up the learning curve on government contracting although commercial crew may accelerate that.”
Sez you. No, SpaceX will give the government a learning curve of a la carte services, where each additional contract requirement costs x million more… and publish those openly in an online database so the public can see exactly what sort of big government inanity is bloating their nice efficient space program all to hell.
Regarding X-33 I thought it was really sick that the White House did not allow the Air Force to pick up the program after it was canceled assuming the rumors are true. The market is already quite small as it is, it does not need additional barriers, or discarding technology for political reasons.
I still think X-33 was a turkey with too much bleeding edge technology in it and preferred the DC-X design however. The X-33 seems, to me, to be an example of the second system effect.
Yep, until those firms wise up and decide not to take them. I give SpaceX about 3-5 years to move up the learning curve on government contracting although commercial crew may accelerate that.
First off, I doubt that will happen. Second, if it does, Boeing will be happy to take them. Either way, NASA and the taxpayers win.
Mike
Rand,
[[[No, not the āmajors.ā Just Lockheed Martin. Rockwell would have flown something. And itās not a āconspiracy.ā Itās a business strategy.]]]
An unethical one bordering on criminal IF it were true…
[[[And NASA was negligent, almost criminally so, in not recognizing how nonsensical their ābusiness planā was]]]
So someone should have filed a complaint with the NASA IG if that was the case.
Mike,
That was how the government did procurement in the 19th Century. Read the stories sometime of army rations full of meal worms or guns that didn’t work. Every procurement regulation you are against came about as a reform because of actual experience of contractors cheating the government.
Godzilla,
I agree. I was working with the Southwest Regional Spaceport group at the time and attended a number of briefings by USAF officers on their interest in the spaceport and the plans they had for RLVs. I even recall a meeting right after President Clinton vetoed the Military Space Plane. The Colonel got to a slide that showed the RLV he was talking about with the name military space plane on it and he remarked ” My aide missed that one, it should have the new name on it now…” š
That is why I am worried that the X-37 has popped up out on people’s radar scopes. I hope President Obama doesn’t kill it as its almost the last real hope for a TSTO RLV… Hopefully after the flight it will fade out of sight again.
BTW It seems to me it was New Space Advocates, including many from the Space Frontier Foundation that were advocating for NASA to take over RLV research. I recall one saying that space should not be militarized with a military vehicle. I should see if I have some of those emails in my archives. Seems the arguments were much like the ones used for the current Obama policy, that NASA taking over RLV development from the military would bring in some new “golden age” of New Space or whatever term they were calling it then.
As a side note I recall the first flight of the DC-XA after the NASA take over. The NASA chartered bus bringing us back from the WSTF on the WSMR broke down going over the pass and one of the USAF officers joked you could tell NASA was running the program now š
Evidence? Links?
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/02/more_fur_on_the_1.html
“I argued in 2002 on the old Space Policy DB that the replacement to the Shuttle would be a capsule… Now all see are capsule proposals, for the CEV, SpaceX and most likey for Bigelow. The space plane has just about disappeared except for the suborbital SpaceShipTwo, if they finally decide on a propulsion system for it… Of the course reason everyone is doing capsules is that they are cheap, quick and rugged, desirable qualities after a generation of failed proposals for SSTO and TSTO space planes.”
That was a little over two years ago. Now, you sit here and deny you ever said that???
So you saying Dragon is a waste? Then why are you supporting it?
I’m not supporting it. You’re confusing me with Elon Musk. I’m supporting an open, commercial competition. No, those aren’t the same thing, even if you believe they are.
[[[Tom, how is that worse than the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, which proposed a 6-person capsule as āthe only way Americans will go into space for the next 40 yearsā?]]]
If that was true why was NASA doing COTS and planning for COTS-D?
The Bush Administration never funded COTS-D, and COTS was only a technology development and demonstration program. The Bush Administration never funded NASA to buy any commercial cargo flights to ISS. Not even one. COTS was merely a consolation prize to keep Elon Musk from screaming when he wasn’t allowed to bid on building the CEV.
[[[His proposed Exploration Module is *not* equivalent to the Orion capsule in any way.]]]
Its far more in line with the CEV proposed by President Bush then the how Dr. Griffin interpreted it.
If you believe that, you don’t know the history of the CEV.
The CEV concept predated the Bush Vision of Space Exploration. “CEV” originally stood for “Crew Escape Vehicle” and was intended primarily to go back and forth from the Earth to ISS. It was former astronaut John Young (then deputy director of JSC) who first proposed that it should be a replica of the Apollo Command Module — again, this preceded the BVSE. George W. Bush even compared the CEV to the Apollo command module in his space policy address, when the BVSE was first announced.
All of that happened *before* Mike Griffin joined NASA.
[[[Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit;]]]
You’re selectively quoting only those parts of the policy that support your claims.
In his address to NASA, President Bush stated, “The crew exploration vehicle will be capable of ferrying astronauts and scientists to the space station after the shuttle is retired.”
And “provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth orbit” included providing crew transportation to low Earth orbit at the start of those missions — I’m sure you’re aware of that, even if you pretend not to be.
[[[Acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station, as required, after the Space Shuttle is retired from service.]]]
Correct. NASA planned to acquire crew transportation to and from the International Space Station by developing a crew exploration vehicle — just as President Bush stated in his speech.
There was nothing in the vision requiring the CEV to operate from or return to the Earth.
Except for the President’s own words.
It’s hilarious that you still claim to support the Bush Vision while ignoring Bush’s own words.
But extending the Shuttle and then supplementing it with a Shuttle C adds a lot more capability to NASA.
No, making space transportation more expensive does not add more capability to NASA. It subtracts capability. The Federal civil space budget is not an infinite sum game, no matter how badly you want it to be.
I am worried that the X-37 has popped up out on peopleās radar scopes. I hope President Obama doesnāt kill it as its almost the last real hope for a TSTO RLVā¦
I hardly know where to begin. X-37 was built to demonstrate autonomous reentry and landing — that is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for developing a TSTO RLV.
Additionally, the X-37 design was based on the Shuttle planform, for “risk mitigation” reasons. So, the only thing it will really demonstrate is that it’s possible to do autonomous reentry and landing with the Shuttle planform — something that the Soviets demonstrated with Buran long ago.
The Soviets built and flew similar models before flying Buran. In fact, one of the BOR-4 demonstrators showed up in Trade-A-Plane a few years ago. If NASA really needed to fly a subscale demonstator based on the Shuttle planform, they could simply have bought that one and saved the taxpayers over $100 million. Why anyone would call that “the last real hope for a TSTO RLVā¦” is a mystery to me.
Edward,
Wow, do you keep a file on everything I write. I am flattered.
However to refresh you memory you stated:
[[[Have you forgotten how many times you said the Columbia accident āprovedā reusable vehicles were impossible and capsules were āthe only safe way to go into spaceā]]]
Evidence? Links?
And I stated as you posted.
[[[Of the course reason everyone is doing capsules is that they are cheap, quick and rugged, desirable qualities after a generation of failed proposals for SSTO and TSTO space planes.ā]]]
No where did I state winged vehicles were impossible, just more difficult to build. If they weren’t then why is SpaceX doing a capsule?
How you reach….
Edward,
I am glad you are buying the X-37 story, it gives me hope š
Tom
Evidence? Links?
You just demonstrated that you don’t care about evidence, Tom. You just keep pushing your ideology and making up your own facts.
It’s impossible to have a meaningful conversation with someone who doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity to acknowledge things he has said in the (very recent) past.