I think that today is the thirty-eighth anniversary of the day that Gene Cernan climbed back into the LEM and headed off to lunar orbit with Jack Schmitt to meet up with the command module for the trip back to earth (perhaps depending on what time zone you use). Humans haven’t walked on the moon since, for many reasons, but foremost because too many people think that the only way to return was the way we went the first time, with massive government expenditures and a big rocket. This false perception has held us back for almost four decades now.
27 thoughts on “A Sad Anniversary”
Comments are closed.
Well, its 34 years since last lunar landing, period. Pretty pathetic for a civilization claiming to have a foothold in space.
…but foremost because too many people think that the only way to return was the way we went the first time, with massive government expenditures and a big rocket.
What were the people who didn’t think this was the way to return to the moon doing during the last 38 years?
The “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” people weren’t the only ones who didn’t get to the moon in last 38 years.
The lack of humans on the moon in the last 38 years is a result of the marketplace in action. No shooting of the “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” fish in a barrel can gloss over this fact.
Jim, see the long and sordid history of NASA and DoD trashing and co-opting the private sector. Random example: Orbital Sciences used to be a NewSpace company.
The “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” people weren’t the only ones who didn’t get to the moon in last 38 years.
No, but they were the only ones who got significant amounts of taxpayers’ money.
I think Jim Davis scores the decisive point. I’ve never met anyone or seen a comment (outside of space-related sites like this) arguing that the US should have continued to explore and ultimately exploit the moon with smaller rockets and a smaller budget. Invariably people who are scornful of the Apollo program are scornful of the entire manned-space enterprise — the whole notion of getting humans into space strikes them as senseless, no matter how cheaply it might be done, no matter who might be doing it.
I’ve never met anyone or seen a comment (outside of space-related sites like this) arguing that the US should have continued to explore and ultimately exploit the moon with smaller rockets and a smaller budget.
NASA had an opportunity six years ago to get the nation started on a sustainable path back to the moon. Mike Griffin blew it.
umm.. your average slub has no idea how to even get to the Moon.. and from what I can see, the average slub in NASA management doesn’t either.
Trent said:
Jim, see the long and sordid history of NASA and DoD trashing and co-opting the private sector.
See how NASA handled new space flight opportunities at Pournelle’s site:
DC/X was later named Space Clipper Graham after General Graham’s death. It was the first vertical takeoff vertical landing (VTVL) rocket ship successfully flown, and demonstrated the feasibility of many of the concepts for Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) flight. It flew successfully for USAF, then was transferred to NASA. It flew successfully for NASA but fell over on landing because a technician had disconnected the control mechanism to lower one of the four landing gears and didn’t reconnect it before the flight. There was no redundancy and no gear status sensor. There wasn’t much quality control in the flight check, either.
No shooting of the “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” fish in a barrel can gloss over this fact.
Those fish seem to be rather elusive. I think Denny Crain would use a shotgun, but I don’t know if even he could put them down. They have half-lives of
fill-in-the-blankforever. See JP’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.The “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” people weren’t the only ones who didn’t get to the moon in last 38 years.
The interesting thing is, when it is done it will seem mundane and Jim will be right there saying “of course.” NASA has hindered and not followed their charter. It takes people with actual vision to demonstrate that the NASA way is not the only way. It doesn’t matter who believes the truth, the naysayers will be there every step of the way.
After the successful recovery of a craft that easily could have put a person in orbit and safely returned? “but they haven’t proved they can put a person in orbit and safely return them.”
Ya gotta love those ignorant bastards.
I’m pretty sure most people couldn’t describe how we went to the Moon the first time in a way that even remotely makes sense.
Ya gotta love those ignorant bastards.
Name calling seems to be your argument of choice, Ken.
Jim, if the shoe fits..
1950s visions of the road to the Moon were a gradual buildup. First a significant presence in LEO or perhaps a bit higher (1000km or so, to save station-keeping fuel) in a structure suitable for long-terms stays – the spinning wheel. Along with fully-reusable launchers, perhaps using nuke plants for energy and hydrogen propellant. Then gradual progress towards a Moon shot, using orbital fuel depots to save launch weight.
Somewhere in there, there was the really bold concept, by which the moon reached by the end of 1969 might have been Enceladus rather than Earth’s Moon. (The real Orion!)
But all of that was thrown away for a programme useful for nothing at all except Cold War propaganda. Maybe that was necessary, but IMHO Apollo 11 ought to have been the last flight and the money spent on getting back to a practical concept.
40 years wasted now – how much longer?
Jim, if it helps, think of it as a term of endearment like those of Joy Behar?
Or perhaps you could notice the actual argument, which was after proving a thing, the naysayer actually proved he didn’t notice. Didn’t notice… hmmm seems to be a theme here.
Centralized bureaucracies — public or private — tend toward the authoritarian. Such cultures stop in their tracks new ideas. Most new ideas are wrong — but the ones that are right advance human knowledge and abilities in major ways. That’s why free, democratic societies perform better in the long run than authoritarian states. Interestingly enough, free democratic societies are much better at finding the weaknesses in new ideas as well.
Interesting coincidence. December 15th is also the anniversary date of the ratification of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Jim, if it helps, think of it as a term of endearment like those of Joy Behar?
Now that you mention it, it does help if I think of you as another Joy Behar type.
Or perhaps you could notice the actual argument…
Actually, Joy, excuse me, Ken, you didn’t make an argument.
You made:
1. A prediction that “it will be done” which I happen to agree with.
and also
2. Placed a bunch of words in my mouth and pretended I’d actually said something like it.
the naysayer
More name calling, Ken?
actually proved he didn’t notice
I was doing you a favor by ignoring your non argument, Ken.
Jim, if the shoe fits..
Do you think “ignorant bastard” describes me, Trent?
There are three indicators that the US (not the same as employees of NASA) is not serious about space exploration.
1) The US government has developed huge manned systems (the Shuttle and ISS) that consumed all allotted resources for manned space exploration. There’s is a question here of whether manned space flight is underfunded or whether it expands to fill all funding. I believe the latter to be the case. There were also solid demonstrations by 1990, that the Shuttle would not serve adequately as a manned launch vehicle. Those indications were ignored for at least ten years.
2) The space government-industrial complex has acted in many ways to sabotage and hinder competition. I attempted to link to the Transterrestrial discussion on this. But there’s quite a history of obstruction by NASA, NASA contractors, and Congress.
3) NASA does minimal space exploration. For example, if one looks at planned operating lifetimes, there’s never more than one US mission intended to be active on the surface of Mars, or in orbit about any planet or moon other than Mars or Earth. The same goes for space telescopes, launch vehicles, and space stations.
Even the simplest economy of scale, producing one or two extra spacecraft at build time, is rarely performed. For example, one copy of the Hubble telescope was considered worth 2.5 billion dollars (including $700 or so million in development costs). Yet despite the fact it’s been booked solid for its entire lifespan (which probably was expected), there was no interest in launching a second Hubble for $1.8 or so billion (the build and launch cost of the first Hubble).
In other words, the US has an “ante” in various space exploration niches, but no more than that.
What were the people who didn’t think this was the way to return to the moon doing during the last 38 years?
The “massive government expenditures and a big rocket” people weren’t the only ones who didn’t get to the moon in last 38 years.
There are several things to note here. First, as MPM noted, they’ve been outspent solidly by the “big rocket” people the entire time. Second, we didn’t even have private launch capability till the mid 80s (prior to 1984, by federal regulation, all private payloads had to go up on the Shuttle!). That’s roughly a third of your time frame wasted right there.
Finally, NASA has rarely studied technologies such as orbital propellant storage and handling, ISRU, aerocapture, or electric propulsion (solar or nuclear powered), that would threaten the big rocket approach.
So how would one demonstrate a competing approach to the “big rocket”? There’s little money available for a demonstration: you couldn’t even launch stuff on such a rocket prior to 1984; and your program might get sabotaged by NASA or Congress as has happened before.
First, as MPM noted, they’ve been outspent solidly by the “big rocket” people the entire time.
Sure, but that begs the question of why alternatives had such a hard time raising money if their approaches were so superior. The federal government is not the sole means of funding. And of course there are other countries besides the US.
Second, we didn’t even have private launch capability till the mid 80s (prior to 1984, by federal regulation, all private payloads had to go up on the Shuttle!). That’s roughly a third of your time frame wasted right there.
The four years from 1981 to 1984 are not a third of 38 years. And the US is not the entire world.
Finally, NASA has rarely studied technologies such as orbital propellant storage and handling, ISRU, aerocapture, or electric propulsion (solar or nuclear powered), that would threaten the big rocket approach.
But Rand’s thesis (which I agree with) is that NASA is not necessary to go to the moon. So what difference does it make what NASA spent the last 38 years studying?
I think the big rocket, big government, evil NASA mantra just obscures the real reason why there has been no humans on the moon for the last 38 years. The real reason is that there was no reward commensurate with the costs and risks involved regardless of whose money was spent and what approach was taken and who was managing the effort.
The four years from 1981 to 1984 are not a third of 38 years. And the US is not the entire world.
But the period from 1972 (when Apollo 17) flew to 1984 (when private launches became legal) is 1/3rd of the 38 years. I don’t know where you got the 1981 number.
Private companies need money to build stuff. When the only customer (by law, prior to 1984 in the US) is a government, then the government controls who has access. Investors aren’t likely to invest in something without a reasonable expectation of success. Government here and abroad can erect all sorts of barriers to an aspiring rocket company, such as restrictive ITAR regulations that make it hard to export your products and hinderances on securing launch sites from the US (as in SpaceX’s attempt to launch Falcon 1s from Vandenberg).
SpaceX had also hoped to make its first Falcon 1 launch from its Vandenberg launch site, but encountered delays while waiting for a Titan 4 rocket to deliver a classified National Reconnaissance Office payload into orbit. The firm also filed a lawsuit against Boeing and Lockheed Martin accusing the aerospace companies of violating antitrust laws for U.S. government launch services.
“Really, all we’re asking for in that lawsuit is the ability to compete on a level playing field,” Musk said.
The existing companies will do whatever they can to hinder competitors. This drives up costs for start-up companies. You can also count on the government dragging their feet either through corruption, laziness, bureaucratic inertia, or simple incompetence.
Larry,
[[[But the period from 1972 (when Apollo 17) flew to 1984 (when private launches became legal) is 1/3rd of the 38 years. I don’t know where you got the 1981 number.]]]
You need to read up on history. Private launches were NEVER illegal in the U.S.. Nobody simply funded one to 1981. The first successful private launch was on Sept. 9, 1982
http://www.astronautix.com/sites/matsland.htm
The function of the Commercial Space Act of 1984 was not to make them “legal”, but simply make the process of getting permits easier by providing a single contact point and procedure.
Ken, you didn’t make an argument
I did, but you ignored it.
You seem a bit sensitive today. Nobody called you a bastard or naysayer. Are you trying to imply the absurdity that there are no naysayers?
it does help if I think of you as another Joy Behar
Well good. If I can provide you with the mental crutch you need.
My argument of choice was simply that after proving something, others simply ignored the proof. SpaceX proved something more than others will admit. Am I wrong?
My argument of choice was simply that after proving something, others simply ignored the proof. SpaceX proved something more than others will admit. Am I wrong?
Yes, I have no doubt than there are people who are unaware of or are ignoring SpaceX’s recent triumphs. What does that have to do with me or with the fact there has been no humans on the moon for the last 38 years?
Now I understand. Jim, I owe you an apology. Although I quoted you, my comments were not specifically aimed at you, but the way I said them, that certainly could have been the impression you got.
Let me try to clarify. I did say… The interesting thing is, when it is done it will seem mundane and Jim will be right there saying “of course.”
That’s all the intended picking on you I meant (and I knew you could take it.) The rest was more general and triggered by a comment somewhere else. SpaceX has just done something phenomenal and this guy was blathering about how they hadn’t proved anything. I am sorry that it seemed I was heaping it all on you. My apology is sincere. I’m sure we will have other issues more worthy which will come up to fence over.