Thoughts from George Will:
Forever seeking Archimedean levers for prying the world in directions they prefer, progressives say they embrace high-speed rail for many reasons—to improve the climate, increase competitiveness, enhance national security, reduce congestion, and rationalize land use. The length of the list of reasons, and the flimsiness of each, points to this conclusion: the real reason for progressives’ passion for trains is their goal of diminishing Americans’ individualism in order to make them more amenable to collectivism.
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles, which are subversive of the deference on which progressivism depends. Automobiles go hither and yon, wherever and whenever the driver desires, without timetables. Automobiles encourage people to think they—unsupervised, untutored, and unscripted—are masters of their fates. The automobile encourages people in delusions of adequacy, which make them resistant to government by experts who know what choices people should make.
Stupid proles.
By the way, just to preempt any further commentary along these lines, comparisons between my opposition to government-subsidized high-speed rail and my support for smarter government spending on space transportation are spurious and idiotic. Not that this will prevent them, of course.
How many seats on the Soyuz could NASA just buy with the money being assigned for developing “commercial” systems?
Wrong question. You assign no value to either having redundant capability, or to the national security implications of being reliant on an often-unfriendly nation that continues to aid our enemies in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, because we have to continually waive the INKSNA requirements in order to continue to purchase services from them at inflated prices. That is…foolish.
Noting also that after paying for the development of those systems it will still be paying for access on a per seat basis to the winners of the competition.
Unless NASA is no longer going to send humans into space into the indefinite future, the net present value of no longer being reliant on the Russians and driving down costs through competition among American companies is greatly positive, even ignoring the issue above.
You do understand the concept of net present value, right?
Curt Thomson,
Not a surprise. That is why Railroads fought for years to get rid of passenger trains. They were losing money. But folks wanted to ride the train so rather then subsidizing railroads the government just offered to take over passenger service over. Hence Amtrak.
But really, if private firms couldn’t close a business model why would you expect government to? Especially since an Amtrak stop in their District is considered a “critical need” by many members of Congress. Pork by any other name is still Pork.
You continue to foolishly think that this is about “subsidizing” commercial industry when in fact it is about getting much more bang for our space buck. You also pretend that NASA isn’t going to waste many billions more if it doesn’t go this route, in developing its own costly system. I know that commercial will come along without this, but if NASA is going to spend billions on access to space, as I said, I’d prefer that they do it smart instead of stupid, and make it happen sooner. I can’t figure out what the hell you want.
Rand,
[[[Wrong question. You assign no value to either having redundant capability, or to the national security implications of being reliant on an often-unfriendly nation that continues to aid our enemies in their pursuit of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, because we have to continually waive the INKSNA requirements in order to continue to purchase services from them at inflated prices. That is…foolish.]]]
AH! Now you have hit on an argument that the Tea Party may just buy – National Security. It is necessary to subsidize commercial systems because its a critical need to reach the Great White Elephant in the sky to prevent the Russians from taking it over…
[[[You do understand the concept of net present value, right?]]]
As a equation to assist in decision making. So fill in the numbers please showing which NPV is higher, Soyuz or Competitive Crew, or admit its just a normative argument you are cloaking as a positive one.
So fill in the numbers please showing which NPV is higher, Soyuz or Competitive Crew, or admit its just a normative argument you are cloaking as a positive one.
I can’t do that unless you tell me what you want to do in space.
If we want to do anything beyond operate ISS for a few years, the difference in NPV is humungous, and it’s crazy to continue to rely on the Soyuz, even ignoring the national security and launch resiliency considerations. I don’t understand why you are so obtuse on this issue.
Rand,
[[[You also pretend that NASA isn’t going to waste many billions more if it doesn’t go this route, in developing its own costly system.]]]
Or you could just close down the HSF portion and allow NASA to simply return to its R&D roots while doing robotic science. And by doing so clear the way to Bigelow and friends to beyond NASA and create a true commercial HSF market.
But don’t confuse the issue of how NASA wastes money on HSF with how that could be used to move commercial HSF forward. Its not going to. NASA is not a short cut to anything. That is one of the lessons of the Shuttle and the X-33 and the RLV fiasco in the 1990’s should have drove that lesson home to space advocates. Give SpaceX another five years and it will become just like Orbital Sciences, which also started out with big dreams and an independent spirit, until it got addicted to government money. And space advocates will then be back to waiting for their next big hero to open space.
[[[I can’t figure out what the hell you want.]]]
To get Space Advocates like you to to move beyond looking to NASA as the solution, as the Sub-Orbital industry was doing before NASA started dangling the $75 million in front of them. And what Elon Musk was doing before COTS was dangled in front of him as a distraction.
Neither the railroad industry nor the commercial airliner industry in their heyday looked to the government for guidance and/or funding. Which was why they were successful. (and note that the traditional railroads want nothing to do with high speed rail or even passenger trains. In fact they wish Amtrak would get off their tracks…).
Its time for the space commerce industry to grow up and also look beyond government. Yes, its hard since many in the industry grew up on government contracts and learning how to earn their own way in a commercial world is not easy. But its the only hope for real progress in space access, progress no longer prisoner to government funding cycles, or politics.
As it stands now it looks like the orbital HSF industry is going to be like the U.S. commercial ship building industry, completely dependent on the government for its existence. Why anyone who wants to open the high frontier to settlement and development would want that outcome is beyond me.
To get Space Advocates like you to to move beyond looking to NASA as the solution
I have never looked to NASA as a solution to anything. I am viewing this as a taxpayer, and demanding that it stop spending my money stupidly on things that I consider important. I guess that doesn’t bother you, though. And I see that you want to continue to refuse to acknowledge either the economics or other issues associated with this. The Russians are charging fifty million dollars per seat. You do the math. If you know how.
Rand,
[[[If we want to do anything beyond operate ISS for a few years, the difference in NPV is humungous, and it’s crazy to continue to rely on the Soyuz, even ignoring the national security and launch resiliency considerations. I don’t understand why you are so obtuse on this issue.]]]
Maybe because I have been looking at it far longer then you. That is why I left engineering in the early 1980’s to study business, marketing, economics and history in order to understand why some industries succeed and other fail in different countries under different conditions. To understand what are the factors that determine long run survival and progress. Key is the level of and structure of government involvement. The more involvement the less likely an industry will survive and prosper in global markets.
Going to NASA for funding for commercial HSF will just get you a NASA rocket by a different method. In this case the performance requirements placed in the contracts. But it will be just as unsuitable for the needs of commercial activities in space as if NASA designed it by itself.
Rand,
Actually in the new contract its closer to 80 million, but we will use your figure.
NASA needs Four seats a year for crew rotation for the next 9 years. At $50 million a seat that is 1.8 billion dollars. (4*9*50 million)
NASA is going to spend how many billion on privately developed crew systems between now and 2015? $3 Billion? $4 billion? And then how many to buy seats from 2015 to 2020? That’s 24 seats. Let’s say they are half what the Russians are charging. The total is $3.6 billion. (3 billion +(4*6*25million).
Last I looked 3.6 billion is twice as much as 1.8 billion…
Rand,
NASA would have to limit development costs to a TOTAL of 1.2 billion to break even with buying from the Russians to support ISS needs. And wouldn’t be able to even buy seats until 2015.
So, you are saying that you don’t want anything to happen except sending a few astronauts to ISS until 2020.
What then? As I said, I can’t tell you whether or not it’s a good deal unless you tell me what you want to do. For instance, if seats are cheaper, they might want to buy more (that’s called price-demand elasticity). They might want to send some people to Bigelow facilities as well. They might even (gasp) send people beyond earth orbit. But they have no hope of doing any of that if they continue to have to waste their money on SLS and Orion.
NASA would have to limit development costs to a TOTAL of 1.2 billion to break even with buying from the Russians to support ISS needs.
If you are so blinkered as to think that this is about nothing except ISS needs through 2020, and that there is zero value in developing redundant means of getting Americans to orbit, or to addressing the national security issues associated with reliance on the Russians as a single provider, then you are indeed too obtuse to discuss this any further.
There’s also the fact that spending on domestic commercial space systems keeps the money and technology development in the US, whereas every dollar spent in Russia stays in Russia, and even requires us to spend offsetting dollars to keep up.
If we want to maintain cheap access to space for the Russians then we should fund Soyuz to the exclusion of our own systems.
Personally, I wouldn’t part with a wet food stamp for NASA to buy pony rides. Yet as a present and future consumer of national defense for the next few decades, I’d consider the FedGov to be remising in their duties if they neglected the pursuit of Space Supremacy given all the entrepreneurism presently at their disposal. X-Wings with the American flag on the side would be nice…
Rand,
[[[So, you are saying that you don’t want anything to happen except sending a few astronauts to ISS until 2020. ]]]
I don’t care IF NASA doesn’t do anything but send astronauts to ISS. I don’t care about NASA except when it gets involved and mucks it up. And I don’t care what NASA groupies advocate as long as they are not trying to get NASA involved in space commerce as you are.
NASA is not the begin all and end all to space. And that is the big flaw I see with the majority of space advocates, believing space begins and ends with NASA. News flash it doesn’t any more then marine technology development begins and ends with NOAA.
Hmmm, maybe NOAA should start a COTS program for deep ocean drilling to show the oil firms the right to build safe offshore oil rigs. It would make as much sense as the current COTS program…
What I want to see is the develop of a commercial HSF industry that matches the existing Space Commerce industry in size and extent. Note that over 75% of ALL global space spending is already commercial and NASA had only a very limited role in creating that activity decades ago. Basically strictly limited to technology support and providing ELV launches at cost until the commercial launch industry emerged with Arianne. But it never pretended to be a “comemrcial” customer for the comsat firms…
And today, with an existing commercial launch industry there is even less need for NASA to be involved in creating a commercial HSF industry.
No, Rand, if ALL you want to see is astronauts going to ISS then keep advocating for “commercial crew” because that will be the result. Yes, you will get some tourists to it, but you already have tourists going there, on Soyuz. And ten years from now you will be wondering what went wrong….
But if you REALLY want to see a vigorous and economically viable commercial HSF then keep NASA away from it. NASA and space commerce just does NOT mix. How many failed schemes like Shuttle, X-33 and the Launch Purchase Act do you need to see before you understand that basic reality?
Tell, why do the libertarians in the space movement want the government to let business alone except in space where they are begging the government to fund everything? Why are the market economics of space so different then other industries? Why are they so blind on this one industry?
Titus,
[[[Yet as a present and future consumer of national defense for the next few decades, I’d consider the FedGov to be remising in their duties if they neglected the pursuit of Space Supremacy given all the entrepreneurism presently at their disposal.]]]
If that is what you want then you need to keep NASA out of it. DOD maybe as their needs do have overlap with commercial launch needs, just as the Army Air Force needs in the 1930’s had overlaps with commercial avaition.
But NASA is not going to get you space supremacy. It will just get you a privately owned expendable version of the Shuttle…
Rand,
This
[[[I don’t care IF NASA doesn’t do anything but send astronauts to ISS. I don’t care about NASA except when it gets involved and mucks it up. And I don’t care what NASA groupies advocate as long as they are not trying to get NASA involved in space commerce as you are.]]]
Should read
I don’t care IF NASA doesn’t do anything but send astronauts to ISS. I don’t care about NASA except when it gets involved in space commerce and mucks it up. And I don’t care what NASA groupies advocate as long as they are not trying to get NASA involved in space commerce as you are.
Rand,
[[[to addressing the national security issues associated with reliance on the Russians as a single provider]]]
Yes, what a major national security risk, NASA astronauts not being able to fly to the ISS. Gee, do you think the Republic will survive that dark day? (Rolling eyes…)
Yes, what a major national security risk, NASA astronauts not being able to fly to the ISS.
Tom, I’m ignoring all of your other nonsense that indicates that you haven’t read a word that I actually write, but I’ll just point out that I’ve never seen so many straw men in a single comment thread from one person. I hope you’re very happy in your alternate reality, since you seem determined to live there.
Good thing I wasn’t putting NASA in it… /eyeroll
Rand,
You are not the one reading what I wrote. You ignore past failures to turn NASA in the trigger for a New Space Age like the Launch Purchases Act and X-33 and believe somehow this time it will turn out different. It won’t.
When the smoke clears Competitive Crew will be strangled by NASA safety requirements while MSFC pulls in all the money from it with its new HLV. And the Tea Party will cheer them on just because its the opposite of President’s Obama’s policy and believe space is one of the few things the government spaceflight should dump money into…
By I guess you will only learn by experience…
Give SpaceX another five years and it will become just like Orbital Sciences, which also started out with big dreams and an independent spirit, until it got addicted to government money.
This is a question of perception. I see an independent company willing to take advantage where it can but having it’s own goals. They’ve stayed the course so far. In five years they will still be making progress toward their goals regardless of government involvement.
I’d be very happy if NASA closed up shop today, this very moment, because I don’t see them as being the driving force in space in the future. We now have companies with real products and services to sell that have nothing to do with NASA. Bigelow’s business plan doesn’t require anything from NASA.
So why can’t you understand that if NASA is going to spend money, they should do it for the benefit of this country? You say it will cost half as much to give it to Russia as to benefit an American company but your analysis is flawed because it doesn’t look beyond an artificial horizon. The world doesn’t stop spinning where your analysis ends. You end right at the good part… the future.
Ken Anthony,
I also hope SpaceX is not going down the Orbital Sciences path, but I am worried about their cost estimates for the Dragon LAS – $150 million, and their unwillingness to go forward with it without a firm promise of NASA money even though Dragon is suppose to service commercial HSF markets as well. And folks like Bigelow DO need it now for the customers waiting for his habitats.
If I recall Elon Musk developed the Falcon 1, including test launches for around $100 million. It really seems strange that a LAS would cost far more to develop then a complete orbital launch system. Either the PR of the actual cost of Falcon 1 is wrong or SpaceX is learning to play the government contracting game…
Remember, nothing corrupts a firm to leave the harsh competitive world of the free markets quicker than nice fat government contracts. Its much easier to keep a couple friends in Congress happy then having to understand and serve the needs of dozens of different customers who want performance, not excuses.
[[[So why can’t you understand that if NASA is going to spend money, they should do it for the benefit of this country? ]]]
This is the typical zero-sum thinking of government contractors. If the government must spend this money and they may as well give it to my firm then someone else. But the real question is why spend it at all?
And the question of “is this spending necessary?” is far more likely to be asked by Congress if the money is going to Russia then to U.S. contractors. Which means that maybe, just maybe, the U.S. will decide to let go of the ISS tar baby so the field if clear for Bigelow and friends to develop a real infrastructure for commercial HSF, one independent of Congressional budget cycles and federal waste. And it will be a far easier decision for Congress to make to abandon the ISS Tar Baby if their are already commercial Bigelow habitats being used by commercial customers.
To me that is a FAR brighter future than turning the emerging commercial HSF industry into another industry dependent on Congressional budget cycles and government contracts…
Reasons High Speed Rail makes sense for _certain_ corridors: (Yes, Andrea the US is BIG, but parts of the US where it would make sense are SMALL mmmkay?)
1) City center to city center journey times matter. Schlepping to SFO or SJC to catch a commuter hopper to LAX or SAN adds a solid couple of hours to what is a 40-50 minute flight. Fiddling with security in airports is a nightmare, doesn’t seem to be getting better either. Same goes for a number of east coast hubs that are only a few hundred miles apart.
2) Commuter flights take up flight slots at busy airports and make flying even worse than it needs to be. I invite anybody to take American Eagle from LAX to SJC or SFO – the Eagle terminal is 10-15 minutes on a bus INSIDE LAX. LaGuardia and JFK (neither terribly conveniently located for the city they serve) are full of flights that aren’t helped by local hops.
Except in the febrile imaginations of the Libertarian anti-train crowd is anybody advocating a national high speed rail network – as Andrea points out America is BIG really BIG. But in certain densely populated corridors the lack of a decent alternative to flight makes flying and driving horrific.
I’ve seen how this can work on the London-Paris Eurostar line. It’s MUCH better than flying from one of the London airports to one of the Paris ones and then having to get a train ANYWAY.
Finally, subsidies. I’ll tell you what. Let’s remove ALL government subsidy from all travel and see how it goes. So no more tax breaks on fuel for airlines, charge the actual cost of road maintenance and support to drivers and so forth.
(Regarding Federal Subsidy for 250mph train development) For technology development maybe. Not to build it.
Er… why on Earth should the government subsidize research into something that’s already routinely done all over the planet? That’s barking mad.
Now 400mph train technologies, maybe. But having the government pay for research into stuff the French alone have been doing for decades is silly.
Oh and while it’s a Friday and I’ve got my rant on:
To progressives, the best thing about railroads is that people riding them are not in automobiles
What a pile of nonsense. The best thing about railroads is they go from A to B very fast without having to be delayed by all the other idiots who want to go hither and thon and generally get in the way of those of use who would like to get from A to B quickly.
My wife used to have to go from Capitol Hill Seattle to the Overlake Transit Center in Redmond – so did about 15,000 other people. There is nothing collective about preferring to sit on a train for 30 minutes reading or dozing or whatever compared to sitting in a car for 60+ while you try to get across the bottleneck that is Lake Washington.
While on that subject, I wouldn’t mind going out in Bellevue and Kirkland occasionally, but if I go to a fine restaurant I’m wont to have a couple of glasses of wine and I’m kinda strange that I don’t think people should be drinking a few large glasses of wine and getting behind the wheel of a tonne of steel moving at 60mph.
Daveon,
[[[Er… why on Earth should the government subsidize research into something that’s already routinely done all over the planet? That’s barking mad.]]]
You mean like paying American firms to develop a capsule on an rocket when the Russians already have one? Well, its simple. It not an American system… It must be an American system.
Daveon, Seattle makes perfect sense.
“Finally, subsidies. I’ll tell you what. Let’s remove ALL government subsidy from all travel and see how it goes. So no more tax breaks on fuel for airlines, charge the actual cost of road maintenance and support to drivers and so forth.”
Great idea!! We’ll fire all those gov’t workers too and lower taxes. Oh, good luck finding a private company to build your HSR, given the actual cost of a ticket. Which is how it should be, you snarky peckerwood.