Bill Whittle has an Afterburner about space, on the eve of the forty-first anniversary of the first moon landing.
26 thoughts on “The Space Age, Old And New”
Comments are closed.
Bill Whittle has an Afterburner about space, on the eve of the forty-first anniversary of the first moon landing.
Comments are closed.
The line near the end about NASCAR and product placement is priceless.
Whittle is another child of Apollo. I love the line about stealing 21st century technology to make it work, and that’s why we didn’t get to keep it. Very poetic.
I nearly turned it off in the first minute… I get that he’s trying to sell himself as independently right wing crazy getting the truth out about the “liberal media” but doesn’t he understand that he could do all that without being so overt about it? If he didn’t put the position statement at the beginning he could have liberal viewers get halfway through – and nodding their heads – before he delivers his position.
I nearly turned it off in the first minute
While he talked about the moon base exhibit at Futurama? You detected an evil right-wing message which you and your hysterical lefty pals need to run shrieking from in that part?
The odd quantification just to show how far off the economic ball NASA is might also be appropriate, like Falcon 9 being a better rocket than Ares I for around a tenth to a hundredth the cost. And Falcon 9 being an old/new space hybrid of around ten times the fundamental cost of what the new space companies are developing for.
NASA HSF is not ~50% more expensive than the private sector, which might be acceptable for other government departments – it is a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive. As such NASA HSF probably takes the lead – by a rather large margin, for the most incompetent government department, can any other government department come close to matching this level of inefficiency?
Waterhouse, I dunno about others who weren’t logged in, but the first minute to me was the host explaining that he used to work in public television and collected money to keep the “liberal media” on the air.. then went on to ask for a subscription. As a result I wouldn’t be surprised if half the people who went there said “oh, this is Fox News? *click*”. It’s simple: not everyone agrees with your politics, so don’t announce your politics in your first breath otherwise they’re unlikely to listen to you – even if you have something important or interesting to say.
Ahem.. Trent, that was Scott Ott (you did reconize that the first speaker and the one in the main clip weren’t the same person, right?) doing an advertising blurb to raise $ for PJTV. All PJTV clips, AFAIK, start with a clip promoting another PJTV pundit etc.
Kinda touchy aren’t we?
can any other government department come close to matching this level of inefficiency
Department of Energy? Department of Education? What has either of those ever accomplished with the $ they dispose of?
“can any other government department come close to matching this level of inefficiency?”
Department of Energy? Department of Education? What has either of those ever accomplished with the $ they dispose of?
Can you give some general examples? Consistent billions of dollar investments with a compared to the private sector direct value returned for each dollar spent being in the $0.01-$0.1 range seems difficult to beat.
It’s simple: not everyone agrees with your politics, so don’t announce your politics in your first breath otherwise they’re unlikely to listen to you.
Perhaps you should consider your own advice.
Well, I can’t reach billion dollar investment for Pete. Dept of Ed is 3 times NASA’s budget and makes public education 3 times the cost of a private education for far less results. Still, we are talking about government spending, so inefficiencies abound everywhere. I point you now to the Bell City Manager.
“Ahem.. Trent, that was Scott Ott (you did reconize that the first speaker and the one in the main clip weren’t the same person, right?”
Hilarious.
Uh, oh. I fear that Trent is one a them there racist fellas who thinks all caucasians look alike.
Hey, I think I found a response to Pete’s question about order of magnitude waste of taxpayer dollars in the billions:
Now the Obama administration is backing a Congressional effort to dole out $6 billion more in subsidies to promote EVs through more battery research, building of home charging devices, and tax credits for EV buyers. The government has already poured $2.8 billion into battery research, begun doling out $25 billion in loans to auto makers for EV programs, and continues with $7,500 tax credits to EV purchasers. This is accompanied by vast and vague promises to wean us off our “petroleum dependency.”
Pete,
[[[NASA HSF is not ~50% more expensive than the private sector, which might be acceptable for other government departments – it is a couple of orders of magnitude more expensive.]]]
Any numbers to back up that, like cost per seat? Or is it just another example of New Space myth making?
Any numbers to back up that, like cost per seat?
Are you unfamiliar with the distinction between price and cost? The notion that a Falcon/Dragon flight will come within an order of magnitude of the cost of Ares/Orion is insane.
No, we will know the price per seat for the commercial space vendors because that is why they will charge NASA.
Really? You might do that, but I don’t think they’re as dumb as that. They wouldn’t make any money.
Rand,
[[[“No, we will know the price per seat for the commercial space vendors because that is why they will charge NASA.”
Really? You might do that, but I don’t think they’re as dumb as that. They wouldn’t make any money.]]]
Huh? Price is what you charge someone for a service when you provide a service. SpaceX price per seat be will be in their contracts with NASA and stated in the NASA budget. Cost is what it will cost SpaceX to provide the services and is an internal number which is confidential. It sounds like you are confusing the two…
Yes, I was confused by your other comment, in which you said that we would know what their costs were from their prices.
Rand,
[[[“Any numbers to back up that, like cost per seat?”
[[[Are you unfamiliar with the distinction between price and cost? The notion that a Falcon/Dragon flight will come within an order of magnitude of the cost of Ares/Orion is insane.]]]
Are you that unfamiliar with business terms? The price that SpaceX charges NASA is NASA’s cost per seat for commercial crew. The House Bill requires NASA to compare NASA’s out sourcing cost for commercial crew with NASA’s internal cost per seat using Orion.
Also when did Ares come back into the equation? There is nothing in either the House or Senate bill that specifically continues Ares I…. Ares I would only have a chance of survival under a CR. Orion will likely be launched by an EELV under the House bill. Indeed, with a hard deadline of the Crew Transportation System being operational by Dec. 31, 2015 it will likely be an EELV based system.
Please read the bill….
Rand Simberg Says:
[[[Yes, I was confused by your other comment, in which you said that we would know what their costs were from their prices.]]]
OK, that explains it. Yes, we know nothing about SpaceX costs from the prices they charge in their contracts. They may be making a huge profit, they may be losing a bunch of money. But as long as SpaceX is a private firm we know zero about their profitability as a firm. And so it should be.
There is nothing in either the House or Senate bill that specifically continues Ares I…. Ares I would only have a chance of survival under a CR.
It doesn’t take much reading between the lines of the House bill that they want to continue Ares I.
Rand,
Yes, the House does, but the Senate doesn’t. And neither does President Obama, so pushing for the Senate bill appears to be the best path to killing Ares I if that is your goal.
Hey, I think I found a response to Pete’s question about order of magnitude waste of taxpayer dollars in the billions:
Now the Obama administration is backing a Congressional effort to dole out $6 billion more in subsidies to promote EVs through more battery research, building of home charging devices, and tax credits for EV buyers.
I doubt research in to better batteries is particularly wasteful at this stage, the subsides would be much more wasteful but I doubt these subsidies are on the order of 1,000%-10,000% as they were/are/??? for a NASA derived Launch vehicle. Electric vehicles are actually somewhat useful and are likely generally leading somewhere – unlike a NASA derived launch vehicle.
Any other government departments being subsidized at higher rates than this? Presumably there must be at least some one off projects, like say a bridge to no where, that exceed this degree of tax payer dollar inefficiency.
Pete,
Subsidies are for private industry, you don’t subsidize government agencies, you fund them….
Thomas,
When government agencies are just jobs programs they are subsidized by the taxpayer. Much better salaries than unemployment benefits! No political stigma attached either.
Electric vehicles are actually somewhat useful and are likely generally leading somewhere – unlike a NASA derived launch vehicle.
Hey Pete, did you click the link or just read the quote I pulled. If you read the link, you’ll understand why your statement I quote now is not supported by history. That’s not to discount the knock on NASA, but rather EVs are more like NASA launch vehicles then you think.