Time to realize that the Apollo era is over. Iain Murray and I have a piece up at The American Spectator in response to that dumb blog post at Forbes last week. Many of the comments seem to utterly miss the point, though. And I have to say, I hadn’t previously been aware that I was a “committed leftist.” Though if I were a leftist, committing me would probably be the appropriate thing to do.
[Late morning update]
I am reliably informed that Loren Thompson, the guy who wrote that thing at Forbes, is bought and paid for by Lockmart. I would have mentioned that in the AmSpec piece had I known earlier.
And Mark Whittington has a hilarious comment, though (as always) completely inadvertently.
From the article:
It’s the flag. Conservatives see those astronauts planting Old Glory on some lunar soil and they get all patriotic and misty eyed. Giving up on NASA then becomes tantamount to surrendering to fascism in Europe, or something like that.
“Giving up on NASA then becomes tantamount to surrendering to fascism in Europe, or something like that.”
Or to the Chinese on the Moon.
I think I’m going to be sick.
Yeah, I am not surprised. There are a lot of PR hacks willing to spend money for ‘placement’ that transfers the ill gotten loot from taxpayer to their customer’s pockets.
Very funny, but someday the Chicoms will build a time-machine, and they’ll go back in time and beat us to the moon!
I’m told that ATK pays certain space websites to influence their editorial policy. I wouldn’t be amazed to learn that some of the pro-SDLV commenters on various web sites were paid for their services too.
There are no Chinese on the Moon, Mark.
I once offered my prediction that the first Chinese on the Moon would be a Chinese American — landed there by private enterprise, rather than the big-government programs you idolize.
As you will recall, I offered to wager money on that point, and you were afraid to take my wager.
So, it doesn’t appear you have as much faith in the power of socialism as you claim. Which makes you wiser than you appear. 🙂
Just one mention of NASA, and conservatives are quite happy to check their small-government instincts at the door
Its not limited to conservatives, is it ? When it comes to spending on big ticket items ( like defense ) in their districts, every senator is a republicrat.
Want to know what else is hilarious? The National Deficit Commission is looking into eliminating the commercial space subsidies.
I have a better idea people.
Instead of standing together and fighting as a cohesive force for all of our interests, let’s accuse some of us being on the take and bicker over minutia! Lets throw each other to the wolves instead of figuring out how to better shoot the wolves!
Because history has shown that to be a politically winning strategy time and time again.
Who are the wolves in this analogy? And what if some of “us” really are on the take?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Martin.
You have yet to provide so much as a scintilla to bolster your assertions.
I’m just reporting what I’ve been told, by a source whose knowledge and integrity I trust. Perhaps unwisely, as I have been incorrect about such things in the past. You may want to apply the appropriate amounts of salt. Anyway, about those wolves. Who are they?
Why are you the only person in this thread who can’t interpret a common metaphor without explicit guidance?
I suspect you mean people who are trying to cut NASA’s budget. In which case I would reply I’m totally sympathetic to those, and it is the pro-SDLV politicians that I consider to be the wolves. Which is why I would want to make sure we don’t ally ourselves with them. But before jumping to that conclusion I thought I’d ask you what you meant first.
In that case, I can clearly see you also support the budget commission’s recommendations to de-fund commercial crew too.
Yes, because getting NASA out of the launch business is the only thing that is time critical. Everything else can wait.
I suggest you try reading a book titled “Sucessful Nihillists” Martin.
The mere fact that I don’t support your favourite toy, or that I don’t think allying ourselves with its supporters is wise, doesn’t make me a nihilist.
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
Want to know what else is hilarious? The National Deficit Commission is looking into eliminating the commercial space subsidies.
This is hilarious. The government’s spending a few billion dollars having competing contractors develop capability the government needs on firm, fixed-price milestone-based contracts is a “subsidy”, but the government’s spending ten times as much having a single set of contractors develop capability the government doesn’t need on non-competed cost-plus contracts is not.
This is like calling existing launch vehicles that have placed nearly two dozen actual payloads into orbit “paper rockets” while calling an unfinished launch vehicle design that has no flight hardware built an “existing vehicle”.
Baghdad Bob would be proud!
Mike
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence Martin.
You have yet to provide so much as a scintilla to bolster your assertions.
Mike, see http://spacecoalition.com/about-the-coalition. You’ll see that ATK is a member of their “government affairs team.” Former Thiokol Propulsion president Bob Crippen is an advisor, as is Jake “I love Thiokol” Garn.
It took me less than 15 seconds to find this “extraordinary evidence.”
What exactly do you consider extraordinary about ATK spending money to influence the political conversation and save their program?
So that constitutes secretly buying off bloggers and blog posters as Martin originally asserted Ed?
Strawman much?
Congratulations! You found an orange! Keep calling it an apple enough times and it will magically become one!
I’ve not presented evidence, much less extraordinary evidence. I’m merely reporting what I’ve been told, and I’m adding I find the source credible. Add salt as you see fit.
So that constitutes secretly buying off bloggers and blog posters as Martin originally asserted Ed?
Do you have trouble reading English, Mike?
Martin did not assert what you said. He asserted what he said.
“ATK pays certain space websites to influence their editorial policy.”
It took me exactly 15 seconds to find a website that ATK pays to influence their editorial policy.
Twist Martin’s words any way you like, but it’s obvious he was right.
Which is not surprising. Only the most naive person would find anything “extraordinary” about a large corporation spending money to influence the political conversation to its advantage. It would be extraordinary if they didn’t do that.
Now, what are those common “interests” that you think we should form a “cohesive” force with ATK and fight for?
Are you going to answer that question, or are you going do a “Twittington” and continue avoiding the subject?
No Ed, you win, lets just cut thoes we disagree off at the knees. I am sure nothing bad can come of it.
Ed, you know damn well what Martin was inferring, please stop being too clever for your own good. There is nothing controversial about openly paying someone to advocate for you. There is nothing hush-hush about that.
Sigh. Looks like you have no interest in trying to have a genuine discussion.
You think we ought to form a “cohesive force” with ATK and fight for what you perceive as common interests, but you won’t tell us what those perceived interests might be? You just change the subject every time you’re asked, but we’re supposed to support those interests that are known only to you?
That’s hardly what I’d call a convincing argument.
I think he means funding. But is becoming clearer and clearer that there aren’t too many common interests there. There’s a rivalry for that funding, which seems like the opposite of common interests to me.
“Sigh. Looks like you have no interest in trying to have a genuine discussion.”
Hypocracy, thy name is Ed.
“I think he means funding. But is becoming clearer and clearer that there aren’t too many common interests there. There’s a rivalry for that funding, which seems like the opposite of common interests to me.”
It is a rivalry soley because some parties are too self-centered to understand the concept of the prisoner’s dilemma.
It is a rivalry soley because some parties are too self-centered to understand the concept of the prisoner’s dilemma.
Not necessarily. I think governments should not necessarily stimulate manned spaceflight, and I wouldn’t argue against NASA getting out of the manned spaceflight business altogether. As a space enthusiast I might be disappointed, but it would probably be the right thing to do. I merely argue that it is obscene to do manned spaceflight without exclusively using commercial launch services and crew transport. You can solve that either by doing manned spaceflight on commercial launchers and crew vehicles, or you can do it by getting out of the manned spaceflight business. I’d be OK with either option. I am opposed to spending any money on SLS or Orion in order to get funding for commercial crew. I’m not opposed to seeing funding for commercial crew as a step towards cancelling SLS or government funded manned spaceflight altogether.
Mike still refuses to say what those common interests are.
Which means they aren’t very convincing, otherwise he wouldn’t be afraid to tell us.
Maybe he wants to build a pile of solid rocket motors high enough to reach the Moon? Or give NASA a budget as large as DoD’s? Space cadets are always fantasizing about that. 🙂
Mike’s obviously confused, however, in thinking that a reduction in the size of NASA’s budget would automatically mean the end of commercial crew and cargo. NASA could get its budget chopped in half and still afford CCDEV, if it wanted to, and Congress were willing. The real question is the policy, not the funding level.
I’m not confused Ed, I just refuse to let you define the terms of the debate and play the game your way.
I havw watched you over the years. You lay out the argument and then try and establish your meme as the only valid one. Then you try and call out he posters who refuse to play by your rules as somehow unreasonable.
Seriously Ed, you debate like a liberal.
I’d like to thank you Rand, for offering some common sense to some “conservative” web sites, most of which are clueless on aerospace matters.
Yes, I still get misty eyed about the lunar landings. I was a boy of twelve when Armstrong and Aldrin walked the moon, while Collins orbited, patiently waiting for them. And I get tears in my eyes when I think that it has been 41 years since Apollo 11, and that in all probability I will not live to see the return to the moon, or a Mars landing.
“I’d like to thank you Rand, for offering some common sense to some “conservative” web sites, most of which are clueless on aerospace matters.”
Perhaps this should lead one to question whether they actually might bee clueless on other matters as well. A lot of people seem to assume that bloggers are smart and/or well informed just because they happen to fit a label you like, be it “conservative” or “liberal”.
The best advice is to be skeptical – do your own research on issues! Don’t just follow talking points. (which is what 95% of political sites spew out)
NASA exists and will continue to do so for several years. They will have a budget of pretty much what they have now, give or take.
NASA is committed to involvement in manned spaceflight (at least to the ISS) for the next decade or so. The last flight of the Shuttle is currently scheduled for the end of this month, but that will probably slip a bit. After that, the Russians will allow American astronauts to buy spare seats on Soyuz until the contract runs out in 2015.
If one accepts the above premises, then there are only two options:
1) repeat the mistakes of X-33, X-38, NSP, Ares: develop a completely government-designed, -built, -owned, -operated launch system with plenty of mission creep, schedule creep, cost-plus budget overruns, and eventual cancellation without ever having launched anything to orbit. Waste a decade and billions of dollars, rinse, and repeat, all while expecting different results.
2) support the development of an entire industry via COTS, with competing companies paid only as they achieve measurable NASA-defined milestones – and paid fixed prices for only their results, not for their costs incurred. This can only reduce launch costs. Recall that Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo were built by the lowest bidders.
M. Puckett: Let’s call Edward Wright “Edward” and let’s call me “Ed”. It’s just simpler all around that way.