35 thoughts on “My Press Conference”

  4. Wow. If that doesn’t make you a fan of Bill Whittle, nothing will. Rand, if you spend any time with him during your DC visit, please pass on this space geek’s highest regards.

  6. I agree. Excellent job. While there are some pessimists there who think government will find a way to block progress in space, I’m more optimistic. The federal government may find ways to make US space flight uncompetitive in many ways with foreign competition, but I doubt it can strangle human space flight or economic activity in space.

    I think the current generation will ultimately succeed or fail on their merits and flaws, not the machinations of government.

  7. Nice video, even if it IMO over-emphasizes SS1 and it going into “OUTER SPACE” (repeated several times) :-).

    It also makes the erroneous claim that HSF was ended by the gov’t after Shuttle, and it has no way (or plans) to get back. Sure there are plans. Expensive and unrealistic, but still plans. It just comes dangerously close to certain arguments that you have been fighting repeatedly, Rand.

    There are some other niggling nitpicks to make, but still a nice effort.

  9. Really excellent video. So how do we get that video a few million hits on youtube? I shared it on my facebook, thats a start…

  10. Rand Simberg Says: February 8th, 2011 at 11:14 am

    Huh… I wonder how I got the impression that you were in DC? Oh, I think it was: “…but we had one on the Hill this morning.” I read that as you actually being on Capitol Hill this morning.

  12. Great video, particularly some of the b-roll 🙂

    I pretty much agree with Bill on every point. NASA can still lead, they just need to leave the support functions to fixed-price contractors, while the NASA centers manage the cool stuff going farther out. There’s still lots of room for government cost-plus contracting at the top of the market.

  16. > Nice video, even if it IMO over-emphasizes SS1 and it going into “OUTER SPACE” (repeated several times) :).

    Yes, but by emphasizing things that need runways, maybe I can successfully lobby my state legislators to emulate New Mexico and get rid of any state regulatory barriers for a local space port. There is a really big old military runway near Salina, Kansas, which I believe was Shuttle landing capable. We have lots of aircraft manufacturing in Wichita, Kansas. KU and K-State, IIRC, both offer aeronautical engineering degrees. There might be some old missile silos around for vertical launch. We even have the Cosmosphere (a museum) in Hutchinson. I bet their people would help me lobby. I don’t think we can really beat Mohave, but it would be nice to beat Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and Illinois, for example. Not to mention Oklahoma, which was making space port noises of it’s own, IIRC.

    Yours,
    Tom

    P. S. Can you try a different plug in for preview. I’m not a fast typist, and your plug in can’t keep up.

  21. Your press conference was the topic of conversation on The Space Show a few minutes ago (around 19:50 PST).

    Can you call in before 20:30 PST and let us know what’s going on in DC?

  22. Incidentally, I noticed at the beginning that Bill said “Hi everybody, welcome to the Free Frontier”. That seems to leave open the possibility that maybe this is part of a series like his “What We Believe” series rather than a one off piece like his “The Narrative”.

  24. Bill, I saw 3 people comment on your politics after watching this video. I suggested to them that they watch your What We Believe series, and tell me that they couldn’t find at least one thing they agreed with.. so they did, and they couldn’t. I call that progress.

  25. You know, I have to agree with Keith Cowing

    I agree about the heads up too. But the rest of it…

    I asked the CAGW how they can reconcile statements in in support of commercial transport to the ISS when they have derided the ISS as a boondoggle for more than a decade. They said that they saw no contradiction.

    Scroll down Keith’s page and we find this post:
    Using the ISS: Once Again NASA Has Been Left in the Dust
    Pull quote:
    So much for the official story NASA has told for 20 years that the ISS is crucial for such work.

    So it seems Keith doesn’t believe the “official story” about the ISS. How’s that different from Rand not believing everything the President says?

    But there’s another factor here. The ISS is now a sunk cost. We, the taxpayers, already paid for its existence. The ISS isn’t necessary as a national lab, Keith just told us so. So if we already paid for it, and it doesn’t need to be a national lab; what else can we do with it? Just give it to the Russians to use as a tourist destination?

  26. [[[So if we already paid for it, and it doesn’t need to be a national lab; what else can we do with it? Just give it to the Russians to use as a tourist destination?]]]

    Sell to the Chinese? They could give us $100 billion or so (about 10% of what we owe them..) of what we owe them for it. And China, Russia and EU will then get to play nice in space. Without the ISS NASA saves 2-3 billion a year in ISS and HSF costs. Plus it could close and sell off JSC, MSFC and Stennis to developers for maybe another 20-30 billion. And the field is now clear for Bigelow to build his commercial stations without NASA competition. Sounds like a win-win all the way around for the Tea Party’s goals of reducing both the deficit and the debt 🙂

  27. Tom G.

    Do what we did in New Mexico in the early 90’s to get the ball rolling. Put a group together to do a feasibility study then present it to the local legislators. Just be sure to use the RIMS multipliers to show the impact on the community in terms of $$$. That is what gets their attention.

  29. Leland,

    I doubt anyone in the space industry will support it because of self-interest, especially that NASA is now bribing Bigelow into joining its sphere of control…

    But hey, isn’t the Tea Party suppose to be about limiting Washington’s influence and control on the economy? Instead of expanding it? 🙂

  31. Trent,

    Not necessarily… You are thinking of operational decisions. In terms of withdrawal Article 28 dominates.

    http://www.spacelaw.olemiss.edu/library/space/International_Agreements/Mulilateral/ISS_IGA/1998%20-%20Agreement%20Among%20Canada,%20ESA%20States,%20Japan,%20Russia,%20and%20the%20United.pdf

    Article 28

    [[[1. Any Partner State may withdraw from this Agreement at any time by giving to the Depositary at least one year’s prior written notice. Withdrawal by a European Partner State shall not affect the rights and obligations of the European Partner under this Agreement.

    2. If a Partner gives notice of withdrawal from this Agreement, with a view toward ensuring the continuation of the overall program, the Partners shall endeavor to reach agreement concerning the terms and conditions of that Partner’s withdrawal before the effective date of withdrawal.]]]

    So although the U.S. is required to try to reach an agreement before withdrawal its not required. However if no agreement is reached the U.S. will still be liable for any damages resulting from ISS operations.

    [[[5. Withdrawal by any Partner State shall not affect that Partner State’s continuing rights and obligations under Articles 16, 17, and 19, unless otherwise agreed in a withdrawal agreement pursuant to paragraph 2 or 3 above.]]]

    So it would be in their best interests of all if the the deal accepted instead of having the huge gap in funding/support.

  34. But hey, isn’t the Tea Party suppose to be about limiting Washington’s influence and control on the economy? Instead of expanding it?

    Maybe you should watch the video.

  35. Leland,

    I have and basically its about the government stimulating an industry by buying services to do things it that the federal government, under the Tea Party’s proposed strict interpretation of Article 8 of the Constitution, shouldn’t be doing. In Article 8 the only mention of science and technology is to stimulate it by issuing patents and copyrights, not by spending directly on it other then when it has direct applications for the national defense.

    So what is the national defense function of the ISS? Or HSF at NASA?

Comments are closed.