The debate over the new space policy has been taking place in pretty much a logic-free and fact-free environment, at least on the part of those who oppose it. The Commercial Spaceflight Federation has released a fact sheet to dispel all of the Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD), much of it nonsensical, that opponents have been tossing up for months. Clark Lindsey has an HTML version.
I found it a little amusing that they counted Jake Garn as an “astronaut.” I doubt if many of the astronauts consider him (or Bill Nelson) one.
What is interesting is almost their entire argument is based on the success “Old Space” firms like Boeing and Lockheed had working under cost plus contracts for NASA. It will be interesting to see what happens with commercial crew if they decide to sit out the RFP and hold out for traditional cost contracts from NASA for it.
How are ULA launch contracts cost plus, Thomas?
I found it a little amusing that they counted Jake Garn as an “astronaut.” I doubt if many of the astronauts consider him (or Bill Nelson) one.
If you’ve been up more than 100km from the Earth’s surface, you’re an astronaut, whether you’re Neil Armstrong or Bill Nelson or Mike Melvil or Anousheh Ansari. It doesn’t matter how any of these people got up there, just as it won’t matter in a few years if you get up there on a Soyuz or a Dragon.
Over time, that will probably diminish the term “astronaut”. Good. Hopefully it will eventually become so commonplace that new terms need to be invented to differentiate between someone at the edge of exploration from those who merely live and work and raise their kids in space.
Doug,
I was not referring to ULA. I was referring to the Apollo and Shuttle era programs referred to create creditability for “commercial crew firms” like Boeing and Lockheed. Again, it will be interesting to see if they take part in the RFP when it finally comes out.
Here we go again,
“The debate over the new space policy has been taking place in pretty much a logic-free and fact-free environment, at least on the part of those who oppose it.”
At least on the part of those who oppose it? WTH? That must be some link. Here I go… Gee I thought for a moment that the link would talk about the new space policy instead of just the commercial crew subset of the policy. How underwhelming.
The fact Rand uses such a shorthand, new space policy = just commercial crew, both to support the entire policy and condemn the policy’s critics demonstrates the maddening distortions and unfair debate surrounding Obama’s bright new shining lie.
Is it really all or nothing for supporters of the Obama space policy? Can’t people fairly approve of parts of the Obama policy, while remaining critical of other parts? I’m awfully put off by accusations of logic-free and fact free under such conditions.
Isn’t anyone else suspicious that the totality of the new Obama plan for NASA is almost exactly the same as the original 2007 plan first put forward by the Obama team? Remember that? It was a big 5 year delay of BEO efforts put forth in the silly form of “delaying Constellation”, in order to spend more money for schools.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/11/26/4350953-space-vs-education
Naturally that plan drew a lot of heat from the pro-space crowd, until Garver came aboard the Obama team in 2008 to reassure people that something else would be the space policy instead. Yet look where we are today, 18 months after the shining One’s inauguration.
Yes, pro-commercial flight is good, and yes Constellation should be cancelled. But Obama hasn’t replaced Constellation with something better. All he has done is kick the ball five years down the road. Exactly like his team was promising to do back in 2007.
I’m astonished at people’s willingness to only see the pony and ignore the crap that is the Obama policy. What is it with that guy? Why do so many people only see what they want to see from Obama’s glittering false promises? His Presidency truly is the rorschach administration.
The fact Rand uses such a shorthand, new space policy = just commercial crew, both to support the entire policy and condemn the policy’s critics demonstrates the maddening distortions and unfair debate surrounding Obama’s bright new shining lie.
I don’t support the entire policy, and if you want to see an “unfair debate,” just watch some of the idiotic idiotic on the Hill, totally stacked with people who oppose the policy, but don’t understand it, but have celebrity names.
Yes, there is more to the new policy than commercial crew, but the arguments (well, actually, claims — it gives them too much credit to call them arguments) that it is “the end of human spaceflight,” and that we are “dismantling NASA” are just as egregiously nonsensical as the ones against commercial crew.
Isn’t anyone else suspicious that the totality of the new Obama plan for NASA is almost exactly the same as the original 2007 plan first put forward by the Obama team?
Well, I might be suspicious if that were true. That’s what I mean. It’s not only not “exactly the same,” it doesn’t bear any resemblance to it. That plan was to “delay” Constellation, which was appropriately derided as mindless. And it wasn’t a plan by “the Obama team.” It was a plan by a clueless education staffer, when the “team” wasn’t paying any attention to space policy.
Obama hasn’t replaced Constellation with something better.
Yes, he has. He has replaced it with a technology development program that will actually reduce the costs of doing space exploration. This is revolutionary for NASA. That the critics don’t understand that is their problem, not ours.
[Obama hasn’t replaced Constellation with something better.]
“Yes, he has. He has replaced it with a technology development program that will actually reduce the costs of doing space exploration. This is revolutionary for NASA. That the critics don’t understand that is their problem, not ours.”
Technology development is “revolutionary” for NASA? Aside from the Apollo missions that’s all NASA has done since it’s founding. What’s lacking is putting that development into flight hardware for a real new manned mission. Technology development is a comfortable old shoe for NASA, not revolutionary.
The new Obama schedule has a manned mission to the lunar region as early as 2021 and an asteroid mission in 2025. What new technology is going to reduce the cost of those missions? The new hydrocarbon HLV engine? There is no there there. Nothing new developed by NASA between now and then is going to reduce the costs of those missions.
These new Obama missions are as much a budgetary and scheduling fantasy as Constellation ever was. How is that any improvement?
Instead of the Apollo model of space exploration, now we have the ISS model of mandatory internationalism. How is that an improvement?
The reality is Obama has kicked the can five years down the road. He is getting his delay to manned exploration that he always wanted from the start. Only now he is getting some space fans to cheer instead of jeer the delay.
Aside from the Apollo missions that’s all NASA has done since it’s founding.
It has developed no technologies that have reduced the cost of spaceflight. In fact, Constellation was chosen to deliberately avoid the development of new technologies, because they introduce technical and schedule risk. Of course, the schedule slipped nonetheless.
The new Obama schedule has a manned mission to the lunar region as early as 2021 and an asteroid mission in 2025. What new technology is going to reduce the cost of those missions? The new hydrocarbon HLV engine? There is no there there. Nothing new developed by NASA between now and then is going to reduce the costs of those missions.
I have a novel idea. Why don’t you actually go read the plan? Because it’s very obvious that you haven’t.