Clark Lindsey has a suggestion for what he should say in Florida on Tax Day:
First give a clear account of the reasoning behind the new budget and the arithmetic that drove it. Then explain that the only way to save NASA’s human spaceflight program is to make spaceflight much less expensive. And the only way to make it less expensive is to encourage commercial companies to compete with innovative approaches. Lower cost spaceflight will not only enable NASA to do great things but also lead to lots of new jobs, new technologies, and new opportunities in space. This approach may not satisfy the local audience but I think it would play well with the broader public and with Congress.
Of course, if it doesn’t please the local audience, then it doesn’t make sense to give the speech there. It would be better done from DC. But it probably is important that he say something to support the new direction. It might work since, unlike most of his policy speeches, it will actually make sense.
Actually both you and Clark are dreaming if you think Obama can spin his way out of this one. Not only has he added to his unpopularity by being the President who wants to abandon the Moon, but he has actually made commercial space almost politically untenable by linking it to ending human space exploration in this country.
What Obama needs to do is to sit down with members of the Congress to hammer out a compromise that everyone can live with. He won’t, I suspect, because not unlike health care reform his attitude is that the peasants are just not getting it and need to have it explained in simple language.
“… is to make spaceflight much less expensive. And the only way to make it less expensive is to encourage commercial companies to compete with innovative approaches.” – like he’s doing with health care?
If Obama wants to reduce the cost of space flight he needs to mandate space flight for all Americans. Additionally, he needs to remove those profit seeking private companies from the equation. (I also suggest a commission.)
If Obama wants to reduce the cost of space flight he needs to mandate space flight for all Americans.
This was snark, but I can’t think of anything that would make us a space-faring civilization faster. Bring it on.
“Not only has he added to his unpopularity by being the President who wants to abandon the Moon,”
Where is the independent, scientific poll showing that the President’s favorability ratings have anything to with the space program?
Don’t make stuff up.
“but he has actually made commercial space almost politically untenable”
The draft Senate authorization bill endorses commercial crew and cargo as the preferred means of ISS transport. How is that “politically untenable”?
Don’t make stuff up.
“by linking it to ending human space exploration in this country.”
Human space exploration ended in 1972.
Don’t make stuff up.
I think the unpopularity remark deals with the soon-to-be unemployed in Florida and elsewhere.
“It would be better done from DC.”
It would actually be better done in Colorado Springs, since the ENTIRE WORLD’S space industry will be there on April 15th for the National Space Symposium. Just as they’ve been on that date for the past 25 years.
Always on top of things, that Obama…
PL–how many of those soon-to-be unemployed in FL, UT, AL, & TX would have ever voted for Barry O? how popular was he with them originally? What is the delta-popularity?
How is that “politically untenable”?
It’s politically untenable because Mark’s a Republican, and the new plan is supported by both Democrats and Republicans like Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, former Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker — not the sort of Republicans who Mark would want to associate with.
Imagine, Muffy, Republicans who support privatization and fiscal restraint! That’s just too, too droll! 🙂
It would actually be better done in Colorado Springs, since the ENTIRE WORLD’S space industry will be there on April 15th for the National Space Symposium. Just as they’ve been on that date for the past 25 years.
Always on top of things, that Obama…
Great point, MfK. It’s a demonstration of how disconnected from space policy (and how little consultation they take from NASA), and tone deaf in general the White House is.
It sort of confirms my thesis that the reason that we have good (relative to the past) space policy is because the administration hasn’t previously taken interest in it, and simply appointed good space policy people who happened to be Democrats. Now that they’ve decided they had to weigh in, it’s become a potential disaster.
It was snark – and you’re right, setting up a system of spaceflight for 300 million people would be much cheaper per person than setting up a system for 100 people. [IIRC, Rand’s used the difference between the shuttle and the 747 wherein the development costs are nearly the same but the passenger flights are completely different.]
I was just struck by the humor of it – and how the arguments for/against privatization change depending on what is being argued about.
> Mark R. Whittington Says:
> March 11th, 2010 at 11:55 am
>
> Actually both you and Clark are dreaming if you think
> Obama can spin his way out of this one. Not only has
> he added to his unpopularity by being the President
> who wants to abandon the Moon, but he has actually
> made commercial space almost politically untenable by
> linking it to ending human space exploration in this country.
Good opint, especialy since now the talk is about how commercials are incapable of doing even ISS taxi work — and given none are prepared now, nor have enough track record with anything to be a obvious trustable source (I mean Boeing and L/M do, but they don’t have anything far through a pipeline to really get adopted for a couple years). So when the moon program ends, most all major maned space program activities and, the astrounaut corp gets massive lay-offs, and the US is “forced” to pay to ride on the ex soviet Soyuz, Washnigton can blame it on trying to rely on evil corporate types who let the american public down.
;/
> What Obama needs to do is to sit down with members
> of the Congress to hammer out a compromise that
> everyone can live with. He won’t, I suspect, because
> not unlike health care reform his attitude is that the
> peasants are just not getting it and need to have it
> explained in simple language.
Oh yeah. It seems to be his core governance philosophy.
> MfK Says:
> March 11th, 2010 at 5:33 pm
> It would actually be better done in Colorado Springs,
> since the ENTIRE WORLD’S space industry will be there
> on April 15th for the National Space Symposium. ==
Go to a national convention filled with all the worlds space industry to exlpain when gutting US maned space is a good thing?
I’m not seeing that as the most receptive crowd he could choose.
Actually, its probably most noteworth that before Obama didn’t even think a major change in NASA and maned space even rated a speach or announcement from the White House (Ok it would not look cool, but “big O” loves to talk). Likely he eiather thought no one would care, or didn’t want his fingerprints n it. Now hes trying to force it through adn is puttnig his cred on the line.
> JAFAC Says:
>
>March 11th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
> I was just struck by the humor of it – and how the
> arguments for/against privatization change depending
> on what is being argued about.
To be fair, whats being argued abuot maters. For example commercializing something stuctured in a highly limited market size, with a lot of gov specific reqs, could raise prices. In this caseweer talknig about commercials developing custom equipment to fly a handfull of flights, but havnig to compete with 40 year old soviet era gear, and work in the shadow of shuttle capacities and costs. The commercials wouldn’t be allowed to use anythnig as crude and “safty chalenged” as the Soyuz, and developing new gear under NASA direction cost billions, and potentialy only fly a hadnfull of times. Cost per passenger could be hundreds of millions of dollars. Which could be used by Washington as a reasno to use Russian gear, and never rely on “gouging commercials” again.
Kelly,
The reason President Obama is going to Florida and not Colorado Springs is simple. Politics and control.
The Space Foundation Conference is a profession meeting. Media play outside of Colorado Springs would be limited. And Colorado is not expecting any massive layoffs from the new policy. By contrast the Florida economy will be hit hard by the new policy so space is an important political issue in Florida. This means he will get plenty of coverage on local stations which translates into good national coverage as well.
Also he has no control over the Attendees at the Space Foundation Conference or ways to determine their views. By contrast the White House will have complete control over who is invited to the Space Summit. Much less chance for a surprise that way for the cameras…
In short a Space Summit in Florida both shows President Obama’s is sensitive to Florida’s economic problems (which would not be the case if he delivered it from Washington or Colorado Springs) while giving him a carefully controlled media setting to communicate his talking points for his new space policy.
Also April 15 is likely to see a lot of protests on taxes by the Tea Party organizers, which will likely crowd out any negative media stories, or protests, about his space policy.
So it makes perfect sense politically.
Go to a national convention filled with all the worlds space industry to exlpain when gutting US maned space is a good thing?
Sounds reasonable to me, since “gutting” means continuing and expanding the International Space Station, enabling large numbers of scientists to fly on suborbital vehicles, opening up Low Earth Orbit to hundreds, then thousands of people; and preparing to send NASA astronauts to the asteroids, the Lagrange points, and eventually to Mars.
A lot of people might see value in that, Kelly, even if you don’t.
Obviously I, and a hell of a lot of other people, don’t see any of that being in the Obama proposals.
Ignoring that, even assuming that list is planed, the vast bulk of people in this nation and world world will see what Obamas doing as gutting NASA. NASA today flys a fleet of shuttles that have carried 2/3rds of all people adn half of al cargo tonage, to space. Constructed station, refit massive satelights, etc. A capacity well beyond anything any other nation has or plans to develop. “Officially” planing on returning to the moon, building a base, building systems to go beyond to Mars.
Add a couple years and all that stops. NASA will lose the vast bulk of capacity, most of its core staffs. will have no ability not only to build something like the station, but even to reach it. NASA will getting in line with the ISS tourists for a flight to ISS on a Soviet developed Soyuz, or a suborbital flight (perhaps) on Bransons SS2’s.
They may contract for tickets on commercial taxis to ISS, if it decides any are worthy.
Basically NASA becomes a (very small) participant in commercial space, but in all sences they abandon any semblance of being leaders or developers.
Obviously I, and a hell of a lot of other people, don’t see any of that being in the Obama proposals.
None so blind…
A hell of a lot of people think the sun goes around the earth.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> March 12th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
>> Obviously I, and a hell of a lot of other people, don’t see any
>> of that being in the Obama proposals.
> None so blind…
…as those viewing through rose colored glasses?
Your assuming a unprecidented number of things on your wish list alluded to will be delivered apon. I assume they fail to deliver that not promiosed or budgeted justlike always.
NASA today flys a fleet of shuttles that have carried 2/3rds of all people adn half of al cargo tonage, to space.
So what? At one time, dirigibles carried 2/3rds of all people who’d ever flown. Did the world come to an end when the US Navy stopped flying dirigibles? Did that mean The End Of The American Manned Air Flight Program?
A few years from now, 99% of all people who have flown in space will *not* have flown on the Shuttle. At any given time, there will be more people living and working in Earth orbit than ever flew on the Space Shuttle. Why is that something to be afraid of? What is this great disaster of which you speak?
Add a couple years and all that stops. NASA will lose the vast bulk of capacity, most of its core staffs. will have no ability not only to build something like the station, but even to reach it.
You’re fanatasizing. NASA will have far more options for reaching the station than it does today — and far more affordably. If you believe that’s a bad thing, fine, but stop making up nonsense.
NASA will getting in line with the ISS tourists
Horrors, no! The same way NASA employees have to get in line with the tourists at Hobby Airport? How awful!
Let me get this straight. You aren’t worried about the effect of radiation on NASA astronauts or prolonged weightlessness or space debris impacts or cabin fires or sudden loss of pressurization or even space sickness. The thing you fear the most is — HAVING TO FLY COMMERCIAL???
Basically NASA becomes a (very small) participant in commercial space, but in all sences they abandon any semblance of being leaders or developers.
Nonsense. The NACA was a very small participant in commercial aviation. Much smaller than NASA is. Do you think they weren’t a leader?
The idea that NASA can’t be a leader unless it has a monopoly on human spaceflight is inane.
> Edward Wright Says:
> March 12th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
>> NASA today flys a fleet of shuttles that have carried 2/3rds of
>> all people adn half of al cargo tonage, to space.
> So what? ==
It means NASA used to be and has a significant factor, status, adn capacity in space launch, and a tremendous capacity to do things in space. In a year or so they will cease to be a factor or have any any significant space capacities. Skills they spent decades developing are just being dumped.
>==A few years from now, 99% of all people who have flown in
> space will *not* have flown on the Shuttle. ==
Define few? Perhaps you mean few decades? No one currenty is working on any capacity to carry that kind of numbers of people in space.
>> Add a couple years and all that stops. NASA will lose the
>> vast bulk of capacity, most of its core staffs. will have no
>> ability not only to build something like the station, but even to reach it.
> You’re fanatasizing. NASA will have far more options for reaching
> the station than it does today — and far more affordably. ==
Now your fantasizing.
First, I mentioned capacities to do a lot of things – not just get to the station. No replacements are under work much less avalible.
Secound. The only other current options are Soyuz and SpaceX. Its debatable if SpaceX will be acceptable – even if it is – it has no intention to develop anything equivelent to NASA current abilities. And again NASA isself will lose the capacities, staffs, budgets, etc.
>> NASA will getting in line with the ISS tourists
> Horrors, no! The same way NASA employees have to get
> in line with the tourists at Hobby Airport? How awful!
Yes it is. It means as I’ve been saying – NASA ceases to be a space agency with launch or in space capacities. Your not exactly boldly going where no ones gone before, or doing what no one else can do, when your fly coach on someone elses ship.
A air force with no planes, is not a air force no mater how many plane tickets it buys.
>==
>>Basically NASA becomes a (very small) participant in commercial
>> space, but in all sences they abandon any semblance of being
>> leaders or developers.
> Nonsense. The NACA was a very small participant in commercial
> aviation. Much smaller than NASA is. Do you think they weren’t a leader?
Irrelivent. But NACA never was exploration or development agency, it was a research group that supported aerospace firms by expending the knowledge base used by aerospace.
> The idea that NASA can’t be a leader unless it has a monopoly on
> human spaceflight is inane.
I didn’t say they need a monopoly on human space fight, I said they are losing ALL capacities to do human space flight – or about anything major they used to do. So NASA has lost vitualy everything they had that was important related to what they did in space (or anyone did), and theUS adn world lost all those capabilities – since no one is capable – or intending to replicate the capabilities, they had.
Define few? Perhaps you mean few decades? No one currenty is working on any capacity to carry that kind of numbers of people in space.
You need to educate yourself, Kelly. Look up companies like Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, XCOR, Masten, Armadillo, Bigelow, Aerospace, for starters. Just you’re unaware of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Yes it is. It means as I’ve been saying – NASA ceases to be a space agency with launch or in space capacities.
Please stop displaying your ignorance. ISS is in space.
> Your not exactly boldly going where no ones gone before, or doing what no one else can do, when your fly coach on someone elses ship.
A air force with no planes, is not a air force no mater how many plane tickets it buys.
That is such a compendium of nonsense that I hardly know where to begin.
NASA is not the Air Force. The Air Force is military. NASA is civilian. They are not the same thing. When was the last time NASA went into action against a hostile enemy?
The Air Force contracts over 80% of its cargo and personnel transport to private companies. They don’t mind flying commercial. If it’s good enough for the Air Force, why isn’t it good enough for NASA?
The Air Force doesn’t “boldly go where no one has gone before.” You’re confusing the Air Force with Star Trek.
Under General Bolden’s plan, NASA will boldly go where no one has gone before. No one has ever gone to the asteroids, the Lagrange points, Venus, or the moons of Mars, have they?
Under Bush Vision, which you’re pining for, nobody was going to be going where no one has gone before. The Moon is not “where no one has gone before,” it is where Buzz and Neil went more than 40 years ago.
Irrelivent. But NACA never was exploration or development agency
That has to be the most ignorant statement you’ve made yet. Ask anyone in aviation about the “NACA cowl” — and who developed it.
So NASA has lost vitualy everything they had that was important related to what they did in space
Important to whom? I consider protecting the Earth from global extinction events to be important, even if you don’t. Along with conducting research into the biological effects of space travel, developing propellant depots and nuclear rocket engines, improving space construction techniques, expanding the International Space Station, searching for habitable exoplanets, studying the Sun, sending astronauts on exploratory missions throughout the inner solar system, stimulating the growth of commercial spaceflight, making space research available to larger numbers of scientists, developing improved spacesuits, proving techniques for in-situ resource use, and using space to inspire the next generation.
Is there anything in space that’s important to you, aside from having a government-owned single-payer system for getting there?
Going to FL to talk about the NASA jobs program, my bad, I mean space program fits perfectly with Obama’s modus operandi. He was just there in January to tout the billion$ to be spent on his railroad to nowhere program, that critical RR from Tampa to Orlando. Expect green jobs and climate study funding for NASA to be mentioned in his rant.
>Edward Wright Says:
> March 12th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
>> Define few? Perhaps you mean few decades? No one currenty
>> is working on any capacity to carry that kind of numbers of people in space.
> You need to educate yourself, Kelly. Look up companies like Scaled
> Composites, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, XCOR, Masten,
> Armadillo, Bigelow, Aerospace, for starters. ==
Scaled, Xcor, are are working on suborbital – Which I wasn’t suborbital. Though the Lyx sn’t a bad start to go toward orbital.
Masten, Armadillo, TGV, etc arn’t really getting much of anywhere
Blue was talking about orbital by now – but they are not getting anywhere near as far as they had planed to by now.
VG and scaled are taking about orbital when they get the money. Though Scaled, as part of Northrup is part of a very respectable old areo firm. So they certainly could do a orbital craft if someones got the money.
Bigelow doesn’t launch but was hoping (and took contract options) for dozens of launches a year, several folks a flight. A real busy decade could generate a thousand astrounaut flights a decade. So to get to your 99% number would take centuries
> Just you’re unaware of something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
>> Yes it is. It means as I’ve been saying – NASA ceases to be a
>> space agency with launch or in space capacities.
> Please stop displaying your ignorance. ISS is in space.
Try to curb your snide like a grown up. Calling caretaking a station you can’t even reach, much less do extensive servicing on, space capacity is really pushing it — especial given it supports my point that NASA capabilities are being gutted.
>> Your not exactly boldly going where no ones gone before, or
>> doing what no one else can do, when your fly coach on someone
>> elses ship.
>> A air force with no planes, is not a air force no mater how
>> many plane tickets it buys.
> That is such a compendium of nonsense that I hardly know where to begin.
Tru listening adn not rambling
> NASA is not the Air Force. The Air Force is military. NASA is civilian. =
Making a point would be good to.
> Under General Bolden’s plan, NASA will boldly go where no one
> has gone before.==
No it won’t, even Bolden puts the timelines for this way beyound his (or his plans) era, and that is irrelivent to the point! NASA is loesing its capacities. It may someday regain them, but thats not planed for any time soon.
> Under Bush Vision, which you’re pining for, ===
Wrong again Ed. The best you could say for Bush’s vision was he wanted routine sustainable ops — AND it was to re-certify NASA as having the capacity to do exploration. Return to the moon and build a base was mearly a test op for NASA. Now even thats being droped.
>> Irrelivent. But NACA never was exploration or development agency
> That has to be the most ignorant statement you’ve made yet.
> Ask anyone in aviation about the “NACA cowl” — and who developed it.
Do you have a problem with word or just attitude?
>> So NASA has lost vitualy everything they had that was important
>> related to what they did in space
> Important to whom?
To what is more the question. To who would really be most everyone in the world.
> I consider protecting the Earth from global extinction events to be important,==
Certainly would be — certainly isn’t anything they can do — and certainly are far less capable in the post shuttle era.
>== Along with conducting research into the biological effects of space travel, ==
Been done, and NASA wount really have the capability to do that eaither.
>== developing propellant depots and nuclear rocket engines,==
Please. The first isn’t cutting edge research its product development. Trivial to what NASA used to do. And nuclear rocket engines were fully developed nearl half a century ago. The first ones entered testing before sputnic flew!
Again -not exactly pushing the frounteers of knowledge. More just busy work.
> improving space construction techniques, expanding the
> International Space Station, ==
Those were abilities they had in space and now will virtualy totally lose.
> searching for habitable exoplanets, studying the Sun,
First is interesting – and a capacity they are losing.
> sending astronauts on exploratory missions throughout the inner solar system,
Laughably beyond current or planed near term NASA capacity.
> stimulating the growth of commercial spaceflight, ==
How? They are not puting any significant amount of money, nor looking to hire a significant number of flights.
Actually they are hurting commercial space – since they are going to be spending much less to commercial space firms, and flying fewer flights, with far fewer people per year.
> making space research available to larger numbers of scientists, ==
How? Fewer flights, fewer people flying, fewer missions… i’m not seeing larger numbers here?
>== developing improved spacesuits,
Like NASA is a innovator in that!
>== proving techniques for in-situ resource use, and using space to inspire the next generation.
This is going to inspire someone? NASA gutted and doing nothing but caretaking a station they wanted to throw away? NO launch capacity, most all its abilities to do anything in space terminated. All plans shoved off for a generation. Yeah thats NASA inspiring a new generation — to avoid areospace careers.
> Is there anything in space that’s important to you, ==
Yes. I want us doing something in space – not talking about the old days and bragging about restudying what we studied 50 years ago — but still not planing on using it!
I want a expansion of our abilities in space. If NASA was contracting for services to field a new RLV shuttle, with LEo refueling allowing it to go to and from GEo or LLO, eat the over head and let the builders market it at margin cost to develop space with launch cost 1/100th curent shuttle. That would be something! If they were doing X craft experiments with SSTOs, black swict like Hypersonics, alternate cutting edge launcher designs -THAT would be something! If they established a moon base capable of supporting dozens and providing free flights to acredited science teams – that would be something.
But gutting NASA, making happy face statements about some day in a few decades folks will go to Mars and beyond (the same vague statments they’ve been saying for half a century), droping their contracts for commercial launch services down to 2 taxi flights a year for a couple years, maybe a couple cargo flights, thats not developing space – thats turning away from it….
Scaled, Xcor, are are working on suborbital – Which I wasn’t suborbital.
Sneering is not an argument. People sneered at the first microcomputers, the first airplanes, and the first automobiles.
There’s a saying, “All progress begins it the low end.” In the 1960’s, NASA cut the bottom rungs off the ladder, then wondered why no one could climb up. NASA needs to learn from its mistake, not make the same mistake again.
> Please stop displaying your ignorance. ISS is in space.
Try to curb your snide like a grown up. Calling caretaking a station you can’t even reach, much less do extensive servicing on, space capacity is really pushing it — especial given it supports my point that NASA capabilities are being gutted.
ISS doesn’t have to “reach” space. ISS is already in space. Do you read your own statements, Kelly?
Repeating the same point over and over again doesn’t make it true. Expanding space capabilities is not “gutting” them, no matter how many times Kelly Stark says it is.
> Under General Bolden’s plan, NASA will boldly go where no one
> has gone before.==
No it won’t, even Bolden puts the timelines for this way beyound his (or his plans) era,
Griffin’s timeline for Constellation landed on the Moon went beyond his time in office, too. The difference is that General Bolden has come up with a plan that his successor will be able to afford.
> Ask anyone in aviation about the “NACA cowl” — and who developed it.
Do you have a problem with word or just attitude?
I have a problem with your historical ignorance.
> I consider protecting the Earth from global extinction events to be important,==
Certainly would be — certainly isn’t anything they can do — and certainly are far less capable in the post shuttle era.
NASA was doing nothing to defend the Earth against asteroids in the Shuttle era, Kelly. Previous Administrators didn’t even believe it was part of NASA’s mission. General Bolden is the first.
And nuclear rocket engines were fully developed nearl half a century ago. The first ones entered testing before sputnic flew!
Amazing. Please tell me the launch dates for all the nuclear rockets you think NASA flew. Or do you confuse static testing with a working capability?
> stimulating the growth of commercial spaceflight, ==
How? They are not puting any significant amount of money, nor looking to hire a significant number of flights.
Sigh. Could you at least read the budget you are criticizing? They’re putting up $6 billion.
> making space research available to larger numbers of scientists, ==
How? Fewer flights, fewer people flying, fewer missions… i’m not seeing larger numbers here?
Then open your eyes. CRUSR will enable hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists to fly their experiments on suborbital flights. Under Mike Griffin, there were no suborbital vehicles flying multiple times per day. Soon, there will be lots of them — and money to build experiments, too.
I want a expansion of our abilities in space. If NASA was contracting for services to field a new RLV shuttle, with LEo refueling allowing it to go to and from GEo or LLO
NASA is going to be doing that.
eat the over head and let the builders market it at margin cost to develop space with launch cost 1/100th curent shuttle.
In other words, you want NASA to use government money to subsidize launches and kill off commercial competition, just as it tried to do with original Shuttle.
No, NASA should not do that again. Once was more than enough.
If they established a moon base capable of supporting dozens and providing free flights to acredited science teams – that would be something.
It’s not NASA’s job to build hotels for scientists or anyone else. NASA isn’t very good at that. They tried it once, with ISS. There’s no need to repeat the mistake. NASA’s job is to explore the frontier, not to build cities.
You have the fixed idea that it’s NASA’s job to run everything in space. I can understand how you got that idea. Von Braun and his national socialists thought that way, and I’m sure it was pounded into your head when you worked at NASA. But that approach doesn’t work.
Private enterprise does work. In a capitalist economy, the government doesn’t have to do everything. It can focus its resources on the few things that only government can do, and let the private sector do everything else. We don’t need another national socialist space shuttle, and we don’t need NASA to play housesitter for scientists on the Moon. We need a paradigm shift that allows NASA to explore new regions of space, while the rocket companies and the real-estate developers provide the transportation and build cities in space.
> Edward Wright Says:
> March 13th, 2010 at 12:03 pm
>> Scaled, Xcor, are are working on suborbital – Which I wasn’t talking about.
> Sneering is not an argument. ==
Not sneering, just wasn’t what the conversation was about.
>>> Please stop displaying your ignorance. ISS is in space.
>> Try to curb your snide like a grown up. Calling caretaking a station you
>> can’t even reach, much less do extensive servicing on, space capacity is
>> really pushing it — especial given it supports my point that NASA capabilities
>> are being gutted.
> ISS doesn’t have to “reach” space. ==
I didn’t say ISS couldn’t reach space, I said NASA couldn’t reach space.
==
>>> Under General Bolden’s plan, NASA will boldly go where no one
>>> has gone before.==
>> No it won’t, even Bolden puts the timelines for this way beyound his (or his plans) era,
> Griffin’s timeline for Constellation landed on the Moon went beyond
>his time in office, too. ==
but it was in his planed time line — hence why I said it “..way beyound his (or his plans) era”
> The difference is that General Bolden has come up with a plan that his successor
> will be able to afford.
As a nit – its not Boldens plan. And its easyto afford doing nothing.
==
>>> I consider protecting the Earth from global extinction events to be important,==
>> Certainly would be — certainly isn’t anything they can do — and certainly are far less capable in the post shuttle era.
NASA was doing nothing to defend the Earth against asteroids in the Shuttle era, Kelly. Previous Administrators didn’t even believe it was part of NASA’s mission. General Bolden is the first.
> And nuclear rocket engines were fully developed nearl half a century ago.
> The first ones entered testing before sputnic flew!
==Or do you confuse static testing with a working capability?
One usually static tests engines to certify them for flight readiness?
>>> stimulating the growth of commercial spaceflight, ==
>> How? They are not puting any significant amount of money, nor
>> looking to hire a significant number of flights.
> Sigh. Could you at least read the budget you are criticizing? They’re putting up $6 billion.
Ah no Ed, their not. Read it – look.
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420990main_FY_201_%20Budget_Overview_1_Feb_2010.pdf
NASA will allocate these funds through competitive solicitations that support a range of
higher-and lower-programmatic risk systems and system components, such as human-rating
of existing launch vehicles and development of new spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch
vehicles. NASA will ensure that all systems meet the agency’s stringent human-rating
requirements
You think they are giving that to contract flights? Or grants to alt.space.?
Hell they are budgeting $10 billion on new Earth and climate studies!
>> making space research available to larger numbers of scientists, ==
>How? Fewer flights, fewer people flying, fewer missions… i’m not seeing larger numbers here?
> Then open your eyes. CRUSR will enable hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
> scientists to fly their experiments on suborbital flights==
That’s space research?
Ok – if that’s what you ment.
>> I want a expansion of our abilities in space. If NASA was contracting for services
>> to field a new RLV shuttle, with LEo refueling allowing it to go to and from Geo
>> or LLO
> NASA is going to be doing that.
Ah no. No shuttle – no RlV –
>> eat the over head and let the builders market it at margin cost to
>> develop space with launch cost 1/100th curent shuttle.
> In other words, you want NASA to use government money to subsidize
> launches and kill off commercial competition, ==
No, I want NASA to do what the gov did with the mail contracts. Foster a start. Get space past this chicken and egg where no commercial business can start at these launch costs, and no low cost launchers can start with no business. I’ld also like a NASA that’s pushing boundaries – not sulking back to redo what they did generations ago.
>==
>> If they established a moon base capable of supporting dozens and providing
>> free flights to acredited science teams – that would be something.
> It’s not NASA’s job to build hotels for scientists or anyone else.==
It is NASA’s job to move outward and open frounteers and foster science and advancement.
>==. NASA’s job is to explore the frontier, not to build cities.
Right now – a base on the moon (like the Antarctic south pole station)would be really pushing it for NASA.
> You have the fixed idea that it’s NASA’s job to run everything in space. ==
Nope not at all – but I want them doing SOMETHING! Not going off into labs for a couple decades doing analysis – until they figure they lrearned enough
> Private enterprise does work. ==
Assuming they have someone to sell to. And given NASA needs some ability to do thingsin space, it would be reasonable for them to really contract a company to provide it – not the Obama proposal where they do nothing and study to restart doing things themself without commercials.
>== We need a paradigm shift that allows NASA to explore new regions of
> space, while the rocket companies and the real-estate developers provide the
> transportation and build cities in space.
That’s what I’m talking about – that’s not what Obamas talking about. Itsnot what Boldens talking about or doing.
Reading this argument, I find myself in agreement with Edward. Today is probably the healthiest that the US space industry has been since the 50s and 60s, when NASA was a serious about manned space exploration.
To be blunt, I think it’s worth a modest risk transitioning NASA’s space capability to commercial space. The Space Shuttle simply never was a good choice. NASA didn’t need its capabilities and the cost per launch was too high, crowding out funding for other, more important activities.
Sure the current commercial markets aren’t as well developed as we’d like. But it makes sense to me to put those big sums of government money into commercial vendors rather than another expensive, unproductive government vehicle.
> Karl Hallowell Says:
> March 14th, 2010 at 9:55 am
>== Today is probably the healthiest that the US space industry
> has been since the 50s and 60s, when NASA was a serious about
> manned space exploration.
How? The bulk of the aerospace firms adn commercial capacity existing then is long gone – adn you even admitted they’ll be no attempt toretain NASA current capacities?
>== it makes sense to me to put those big sums of government money
> into commercial vendors rather than another expensive, unproductive
> government vehicle.
Actually all the money always was going into commercial vendors (who do you think built and operated the shuttles?) however far far less money will be going into maned space operations adn development, for fewer flights, of fewer people, with fewer inspace capabilities?
I think the big point of confusion here is the assumption among some that the NASA launch and maned space budget is going to be transferred largely in whole to new companies to redevelop capacities on the scale NASA used to have. Thats simply not the case. The intention is only to commercially hire a couple taxi fights per year from the Russias – and possibly later from commercials they choose. (Really likely the same ones they are paying now to operate the shuttles adn maned space efforts.)
Given actual costs of flying shuttles were a very small part of the shuttle program (about $60 million a peace, similar to a Falcon/Dragon) its not clear what cost savings NASA will see since it presumably will fight to not cut its overhead costs regardless of the launcher.
As a nit – its not Boldens plan.
Oh, please! Now you’re going to start channeling that misogynistic idiot from Florida?
If you aren’t man enough to attack Bolden openly, don’t go after his deputy just because she’s a woman.
You think they are giving that to contract flights?
I don’t think, I know. If you want to wallow in ignorance, that’s your choice.
Hell they are budgeting $10 billion on new Earth and climate studies!
The two are not mutually exclusive. NASA’s budget is large enough to do more than one thing.
==Or do you confuse static testing with a working capability?
One usually static tests engines to certify them for flight readiness?
Static testing a rocket engine is only one step toward developing an operational capability. If you don’t understand that, talk to a propulsion engineer. If you understand and are simply playing dumb, then please stop. If you have a rational argument for why NASA should not develop nuclear rocket engines, please present it.
> Then open your eyes. CRUSR will enable hundreds, perhaps thousands, of
> scientists to fly their experiments on suborbital flights==
That’s space research?
Yes, it’s scientific research, and it’s in space.
Playing dumb is no substitute for having a rational argument. It simply makes you look — well, dumb.
No, I want NASA to do what the gov did with the mail contracts.
General Bolden wants to do just that. I’m not sure you understand what air mail contracts were.
> It’s not NASA’s job to build hotels for scientists or anyone else.==
It is NASA’s job to move outward and open frounteers
Building a hotel on the Moon is not moving outward. NASA has already been to the Moon. “Outward” is beyond the Moon.
Nope not at all – but I want them doing SOMETHING!
Enabling thousands of people to live and work in LEO is doing something. Sending NASA astronauts to the Near Earth Asteroids, the Lagrange points, Venus, Mars, etc. is doing something. It might not be anything you are interested in, but it’s something.
In fact, it’s a lot more than the plan you are morning.
Actually all the money always was going into commercial vendors (who do you think built and operated the shuttles?)
Government contractors. If you don’t understand the difference, that explains a lot of things.
>Edward Wright Says:
>
> March 14th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
>> Actually all the money always was going into
>> commercial vendors (who do you think built
>> and operated the shuttles?)
> Government contractors. If you don’t understand
> the difference, that explains a lot of things.
And you expect federal law will be changed for the new contractors going to get crew taxi busness?
Do you even xepect different companies will get the crew Taxi busness then got shuttle etc ops busness?
And you expect federal law will be changed for the new contractors going to get crew taxi busness?
Sigh. No, Kelly, I don’t expect the law to be changed — but I know what the law is. The NASA charter specifically authorizes “other transactions” outside of traditional contracting. NASA and DARPA are the only Federal agencies that have Other Transaction Authority (OTA).
Do you even xepect different companies will get the crew Taxi busness then got shuttle etc ops busness?
The Shuttle is dead, Kelly. Deal with it.
>Edward Wright Says:
> March 15th, 2010 at 9:15 am
>> And you expect federal law will be changed for the
>> new contractors going to get crew taxi busness?
> Sigh. No, Kelly, I don’t expect the law to be changed
> — but I know what the law is. The NASA charter
> specifically authorizes “other transactions” outside
> of traditional contracting. NASA and DARPA are the
> only Federal agencies that have Other Transaction
> Authority (OTA).
Yeah because it was to give them some slack for X-craft – not operational craft.
>> Do you even xepect different companies will get the
>>crew Taxi busness then got shuttle etc ops busness?
> The Shuttle is dead, Kelly. Deal with it.
Teh shuttle contractors arn’t – and they build the EElVs that are the presumed (well pretty much assured) launchers for the taxis.
> Edward Wright Says:
> March 14th, 2010 at 3:52 pm
>> As a nit – its not Boldens plan.
> Oh, please! Now you’re going to start channeling that
> misogynistic idiot from Florida?
No, I’m going to point out Bolden’s statements under oath during hearings.
But hey, if your enjoying your kool-aid
>> You think they are giving that to contract flights?
> I don’t think, I know.==
I’m pretty sure your not that green – so I can only assume this is a act of faith thing.
>>> ==Or do you confuse static testing with a working capability?
>> One usually static tests engines to certify them for flight readiness?
> Static testing a rocket engine is only one step toward developing
> an operational capability. ==
yewah – the last one you can do before certifying them for flight.
>>> Then open your eyes. CRUSR will enable hundreds, perhaps thousands,
>>> of scientists to fly their experiments on suborbital flights==
>>That’s space research?
> Yes, it’s scientific research, and it’s in space.
Please!
>>No, I want NASA to do what the gov did with the mail contracts.
> General Bolden wants to do just that. ==
Funny how he doesn’t say that when pressed?
>>> It’s not NASA’s job to build hotels for scientists or anyone else.==
>> It is NASA’s job to move outward and open frounteers
> Building a hotel on the Moon is not moving outward. NASA
> has already been to the Moon. “Outward” is beyond the Moon.
Stoping by a couple times and dropping a flag is hardly exploring the place or do research there. Its the epitome of the worst of NASA as flags and footprints.
>> Nope not at all – but I want them doing SOMETHING!
> Enabling thousands of people to live and work in LEO is doing something.
> Sending NASA astronauts to the Near Earth Asteroids, the Lagrange
> points, Venus, Mars, etc. is doing something. ==
Theres not doing any of that = no intention to do any of that. If anything the US’ ability to even try to build toward that is taking a dive in a year or two, and no ones working toward restoring even our current abilities.
Beyond that baseline – Obama is proposing moving farther away from space. Limiting things even further, and tossing around enough crumbs to by off any protests.
In fact, it’s a lot more than the plan you are morning.