24 thoughts on “Countdown To Controversy”

  1. Was there a reason you neglected to talk about Blue Origin, such as how they seem to make SLS look like a fast, lean development program?

    Anyway, I’m not familiar with Marcia Smith at Space Policy Online, but boy, the Bristol Brabazon program really needed someone like her to explain how those fancy jet airliners shouldn’t distract Parliament from continued funding and full production of a uniquely British approach to air travel.

    1. Heh.

      Smith makes her living at the intersection of space and government. So she’s naturally going to favor anything that provides a role for government in space and be hostile to anything that would diminish or eliminate that role. Follow the money.

      The rest of the opinions reported were equally unsurprising. Those with a long connection to NASA and government-funded space are SLS defenders and those outside the space establishment take the opposite view. So it goes.

    2. It would have been useful to know the questions she was asked. To me, her answers didn’t come off as a defense of SLS so much as just describing the situation as it exists.

    3. Marcia does a fine job of covering her beat (the politics of space policy). And there are some valid observations buried in her response.

      But it is frustrating because she fails (at least, in what David records) to take account of two of the principal objections to SLS (and, indeed, Orion): 1) it’s simply unaffordable and unsustainable for NASA to operate, and 2) Starship has never been a necessity as an alternative to SLS.

      It’s as if the advocacy of distributed launch, using existing medium and heavy commercial launchers, going back to 2010-12, by Rand and so many other regulars here, simply never happened.

      Starship, if (when) successful, would do away with the need for distributed launch – or, at least, allow the chunks being distributed to be vastly bigger! But this is a happy development that wasn’t anticipated or necessary back when the VSE was hammered out, or when the SLS decision was made to replace it.

  2. –From Simberg’s point of view, it’s infuriation at the waste of money. “It makes me angry as a taxpayer, but it makes me even angrier as a space enthusiast, that NASA is being forced by Congress to waste money on something that is not needed to get back to the Moon. It will be just as unsustainable as Apollo was, for the same reasons, while lying to us about how we can’t get back to the Moon without it, and all the while not spending money on things we actually do need to get back to the Moon in a sustainable way,” he adds.–

    But it’s not a lot money. It’s a lot of the money NASA is given by America people, which means given by Congress and signed into law by US presidents.
    For instance, US Military Space is given more money than NASA is per year, because US Military is doing something more critical to US national interest and amount of money spent isn’t really even known by most
    Americans {one could say, Americans don’t know, because it’s too important, discuss in terms mere money amounts]. And Military is not in the rocket making business, but in terms exploration of space, US military is the sole party which has insured that US rockets are being made. NASA was so crazy, it wanted only the Shuttle to provide all US rocket launches, yet US military needed other rockets than the Shuttle, so US govt kept the capability of launching rockets, other than using Shuttle. And NASA bought these rocket launches to launch almost everything that NASA calls
    space exploration {which is not limited to Shuttle use or ISS use].
    I am ok, with robotic missions to Mars, Pluto, Jupiter, and etc, but I tend to think of them and doing the stuff
    which supportive of crewed exploration which can do a lot more important exploration.
    One could say NASA existence is about manned exploration. And it was involvement by US military, that helped us realize, that our Moon could have mineable water.
    IF the moon has mineable water, this is VERY important in terms of Manned Exploration of this solar system. And with decades of NASA leadership, we still don’t know if lunar water is mineable. AND NASA still talks about it’s interest, in being in the space water mining business, like was in the rocket making business and wasted a lot it’s budget, failing to do.

    Other vast failing of NASA, is it has yet to do anything in regards to artificial gravity. While it endless wastes it’s time and money on exploring Mars.
    My point is that if NASA would do the right thing, it would get more money from American public.
    What America public wants is more jobs, not governmental jobs, real jobs. Or if NASA did exploration of moon, there could be many business mining the Moon. If we had dozen lunar US businesses
    NASA would get twice it’s current budget. But NASA already gets too much money, because it’s not doing it’s job. It does take 5 years to determine if Moon has mineable water {which is quite a long time to do this} it spends 30 years not determining this. It doesn’t take 5 year to make a stick artificial gravity station. It’s wasted 50 years not doing this. And all these 50 years it said it wanted Manned Mars, and it needs to know the effects of Mars gravity on Humans and other life.
    Musk wanted to send a greenhouse to Mars- why didn’t NASA want a greenhouse on Mars??

    1. But Rand never says “It’s a lot of money.”

      His objection is, that the money is being wasted. Because there’s too little return for what’s being spent, and there are commercial capabilities which could plainly could deliver much more return on that money.

      NASA can’t afford to do any sustainable (i.e., more than flags and footprints) lunar surface program using SLS/Orion on the funding it gets. But it could do it with commercial capabilities.

      1. NASA is paying 2.9 million for lunar lander [which is starship] . Or roughly NASA paying 1/10th of money
        for starship development cost as compared SLS.
        But SpaceX will paying for most the Starship development cost. NASA just kicking on a bit but buying what it considers better lunar lander.
        Or NASA get a lunar lander and help pay some of development cost of Starship which give access
        to NASA a heavy launch, which might more 1/2 cost of SLS.
        Or the profit that will pay development of starship is
        starlink and other starship business.
        Or the 300 million Spacex got already isn’t keeping Musk out of red, but Musk is richest guy in world a few billion in red is not much of problem.
        The idea getting to $30 per kg is when he launching a starship every week or quicker. Which he might get to launching starlink satellites within say couple or few years.
        If say launches with very happy results before Oct, it will happen faster.
        Or Starship should beat his falcon 9 within a year, and one could hope does by Oct. But now, making engine for 1 month launch rate, and when his reuses could start in 6 months or more. We will see how it goes. But he operate it, expending stages, it could cheaper than the reusable Falcon 9.
        As far as, Starship could land on Mars, which allows
        NASA to do it’s crewed Mars. And SLS, doesn’t- nothing else, could work.
        So, likes the lunar lander, and give NASA, Mars.
        And host other stuff which was impossible to do.
        Which has to with refueling in LEO. If someone would make fuel Depot, that would change things.

      2. –“But Rand never says “It’s a lot of money.”–

        Rand says NASA are risk averse.
        SLS is largely a manifestation of too much
        risk aversion.

        [[Which doesn’t mean SLS will not blow up on
        the pad.

        But it might mean they could have lots reasons why it did or why it did not blow up.
        I think it’s worth testing]]

  3. “What SLS opponents want, such as Simberg, is for NASA to be allowed to get back to the Moon in a sustainable and scalable way, ”

    Is Rand an opponent?
    NASA is effectively, the sole owner of SLS.
    If SLS had other parties as customers
    for SLS, would he be “an opponent”?
    NASA is getting a company {and wasting the company’s time] to make NASA, a rocket.
    If Ford Car company was making a car for John Kerry,
    and Kerry was harassing Ford with it’s silly ideas.
    Kerry “owns” Ford.
    Or Ford is making cars, the public wants, not John Kerrys who have too much money {from marrying a rich woman].
    I think the point is NASA waste too much of our time.
    And the people who work at NASA are having their lives “wasted”.

    1. If SLS had other parties as customers
      for SLS, would he be “an opponent”?

      Just look at the ISS. It probably declined in ROI because it involved a bunch of other parties.

      1. ISS is not making 100 billion dollars a year.
        ISS is not designed to make 100 billion dollars
        per year.
        But if somehow something makes 50 billion dollar
        year and it’s due to ISS, one might imagine ISS was more worth the 200 billion dollars spent on it.
        But as I said, NASA did nothing regarding artificial gravity, and space station which provided artificial gravity “might” be something people might want to spend a month of their time, on.
        Or they could return to Earth and not be disabled, maybe.

        1. ISS is not making 100 billion dollars a year.
          ISS is not designed to make 100 billion dollars
          per year.

          So what? As a result of adding partners, NASA greatly increased the cost of the ISS without greatly increasing its value. Why would Rand support that?

    2. I think there would be both an ideological and economic objection to running NASA like a business. Subsidies from government would allow them to undercut competitors and/or shield them from information the market tries to pass on that a private company would have to react to.

  4. “Selecting Starship for the lander program was a good start, but the logical conclusion is that SpaceX should be used for all phases of the trip, and not just the landing,” believes Simberg.”

    How can China build an ocean launch platform- which it launch anything it wants.
    And NASA can’t make a ocean launch platform where
    bigger rockets than Starship can explode on the pad,
    and not be a problem.
    If Musk didn’t have this political problem, he would already launched his Starship.
    Instead launch it and fail, Musk has to be careful.
    Musk not being careful due to costs of rocket fuel and metal.
    Musk problem is he launching rocket bigger than Saturn V, and he is a private citizen. Or FAA was having hissy fits with Musk blowing up small rockets.
    There is “something” to worry about. But a govt agency could do quite a bit to not make it much of problem.
    Now, I would want a private company to have ocean launch platform. But private company would have problems making launch platform “safe” to launch rocket, 50 times larger than starship.
    Or Starship is tiny compared to Sea Dragon.
    Is not in public interest to be able to launch Sea Dragon size rockets?
    NASA should clearing future road blocks, rather than creating road blocks.

      1. It’s worth noting SpaceX owns two ocean platforms called Phobos and Deimos that it will outfit as Starship launch/landing pads down the road. The problem is, FAA, FCC and all the other goblin agencies will still control when/if it launches, even if the launch takes place on Mars. The exception is if the launches and landings take place under USG control (i.e., NASA or DoD).

  5. “What SLS opponents want, such as Simberg, is for NASA to be allowed to get back to the Moon in a sustainable and scalable way, without Congress being involved in the design of the architecture”

    Without the caveat they buy off the private market, this might not end up any better. A government program with zero oversight that is cut off from real market data is a dangerous thing.

    I think Marcia Smith is right that the public wouldn’t support NASA developing a launcher the way SpaceX has. Things blowing up are only fun to watch when it isn’t your money being lit on fire.

    All of the comments were pretty spot on but even if one were to bring up sunk cost fallacies,

    ” if America cancels SLS, the thought of immediately transferring funds to Starship, I don’t think NASA would be allowed to do that.”

    Sometimes, saying how things exist isn’t the same as defending them.

    Bloom had the best statements when looking at opportunity cost and specific things about what NASA needs to do.

    1. I think Marcia Smith is right that the public wouldn’t support NASA developing a launcher the way SpaceX has.

      Of course. But the point is, NASA should not be developing a launcher in the first place!

    1. Over how many years? Back then, it would have had to been well over a decade.

      They close out by saying the Pentagon spent over two million dollars in however many minutes, a bs number to be sure, but wouldn’t it be nice to go back to those days when arguments over how much the government spends were such about such small sums of money?

      Remember when Bush was getting roasted for having a deficit that is teeny tiny compared to our deficits right now? Somehow, Democrats made Bush look fiscally responsible.

      1. “Over how many years? Back then, it would have had to been well over a decade.”

        Don’t think this is about deficits or even simple malfeasance. I think the point of what (Rumsfeld) was saying is that he had no idea of where the money went and what for. I am thinking shadow/secret government black projects done without Congressional (or Presidential) authorization/knowledge of or legal oversight of.

Comments are closed.