Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

A Better Way To Open The Solar System

40 Comments

I see that Culberson just essentially wrote into law that SLS must be used for the Europa mission. Which means that he probably just doomed it.

Because of micromanagement by Congress, NASA’s plans for exploring (forget about developing) the solar system are FUBAR, at least in terms of human spaceflight. The NRC report last summer, and even the more recent JPL/Aerospace study are economically and programmatically insane, because they are compelled to use a vehicle that will probably never get built, and if it does, will be a drag of billions per year on the NASA budget.

I’ve got some free time right now, and a need for some income. I’m thinking about doing a new Kickstarter to show what could be done with that same budget over decades, if relieved of the shackles that Congress places on it. I think that the output would put any current plans to shame, in terms of what could be accomplished. It would be a handy document to have when the subject comes up for debate again, in the next administration.

Who would support it?

40 thoughts on “A Better Way To Open The Solar System”

  3. You mean we would pay you to reveal how you would run the space program should, in some low probability universe, you be given dictatorial powers to do whatever you wanted? I suggest writing an alternate history novel. It might well sell.

    1. You mean we would pay you to reveal how you would run the space program should, in some low probability universe, you be given dictatorial powers to do whatever you wanted?

      No. Once again, your reading comprehension underwhelms.

        1. It is what I said, to show an example of how much more could be accomplished with the amount of money that NASA gets if Congress didn’t force them to waste it.

          I’m trying to imagine why you would object to such a thing, but I’ve long ago given up attempting to understand the workings of your mind.

          1. That still involves other people shelling out money. Mind, I don’t object to it at all. If you can get people to actually fork over, more power to you. I just doubt the value of the product being offered.

    3. This is one of the more annoying things about such criticism. The US has spent over a trillion dollars to showcase NASA’s (and the political establishment which funds NASA) immense incompetence and negligence. But should anyone attempt to point out a better way, they get belittled on the grounds that they don’t receive twenty billion dollars a year to screw up.

      So what if Rand doesn’t get to take charge of NASA? Why are we supposed to ignore NASA and its half century of squandered opportunity rather than do something productive about it?

  4. Strange WordPress issue- on the main page, it claims that there are four comments on this post, but when I drill down there are none. Will it show this post? Stay tuned…

      1. My experience with government is with telecommunications. They went from a person ordering services over the phone to (at the time) the fourth largest phone company in the country (they did not have to.) I worked on a contract that would move them back toward that original situation.

        Government just naturally wants to build fiefdoms. Getting them out of any business is always fighting against the flow.

    2. DIRECT was a noble effort at damage mitigation, not anything like an ideal – since “ideal” would be, as Rand says, no more government run launchers (unless the launchers got warheads on ’em).

      DIRECT was based on the premise that Shuttle NASA and contractor jobs had to be mostly preserved, and seeing what was the least bad, most affordable pieces of launch hardware you could build within that constraint. That premise is…no longer applicable now, Shuttle tooling being long gone.

      I’d love to see what Rand could come up with.

  6. Include “WTF are they doing throwing mass -off- the ISS?” please.

    As amusing as it is, I’d buy that -bleep-.

  8. Count me in. That would be interesting. Would you look at Mars and the moon both?

      1. I’m assuming Jeff Greason’s “island hopping” strategy and James Bennett’s “Space Guard” idea play a big part.

  11. …the output would put any current plans to shame, in terms of what could be accomplished.

    That’s setting a low bar!

    Of course I support you Rand, however I can.

  12. That sounds very interesting, Mr. Simberg. I’m definitely in, maybe for more than last time.

  13. I suggest you just do a poster with some visual comparisons of what you get with SLS or traditional budgeting vs what you get with your approach. It will take less time and probably have more impact. But it might require some external help.

    You could give prints in different sizes to the Kickstarter funders.

    If the poster is successful enough then you can expand on that with a short book.

  14. Pingback: Clearing The Road To Mars | Transterrestrial Musings

  15. I got my copy of Safe Is Not An Option (surprisingly, not on the list of books literally all white guys have on their bookshelves), and read and enjoyed it. However, it was preaching to the choirboy.

    Did you manage to get wide distribution to congressional staffers? Because that’s who really needed to read the book.

  17. Some thoughts on this subject and wonder if you share them Rand:

    1) NASA == Not A Surface Agency
    I don’t think NASA is the proper agency to handle space exploitation. Neither starting nor operating surface colonies on Moon or Mars. This is properly left to the NGO’s that are interested in them. Either private companies, societies like the Planetary Society, National Geographical Society, etc. or maybe a university consortium. The idea that space is too expensive to open without the massive resources available to governments through coercive taxation puts the focus on the wrong place. Not that governments should be spending massive money, but that the cost should come down in order to enable the NGO’s to be able to it themselves.

    2) NASA should not be competing against private industry for transport infrastructure, but should be a resource companies can use to advance their own technology. This is the “going back to its NACA roots” mantra. And it’s a good one. I’m pretty sure you will be writing about this too.

    3) NASA should be advancing transport infrastructure in space. NASA should a a kickstarter in its own right. When it comes to items like fuel depots, grand touring vehicles like the Nautilus-X, etc. I draw a distinction between crewed EXPLORATION vs EXPLOTATION. I’ve no problem with NASA wanting to send out explorers, but colonists? No. Not their role. Like the opening to the west, they can provide the scouts and the wagon train bosses. But no, they shouldn’t be the ones selling the land leases, nor providing the wagons, nor horses.

    If you are following up on these themes, you’ll have my support. Just say where and when on Kickstarter…

    Dave

  18. I picked up dinner check last time, and thought that would be my early contribution. But let me know when you get it going, and I’ll be in.

      1. See if you can get a hold of & use the rocket “launch” footage from the 1965 SciFi B-movie “Crack in the World” or a least see if you can use a screen capture of one of the gantry scenes as a still.

        Pretty much sums up where we are going with SLS.

        Dave

Comments are closed.