My Fox column is up, which has a longer discussion of today's Senate hearings.

There's a problem with one of the paragraphs toward the end, which will hopefully be fixed tomorrow. It should read:

They were next asked what they thought were the implications of the recent Chinese manned space launch. The responses were predictable. Dr. Huntress, ever the science bureaucrat, saw it as an opportunity for international cooperation, Dr. Zubrin as an opportunity for international competition, and Mr. Tumlinson had a response similar to mine--that the proper response to the Chinese' socialist space program was not our own socialist space program, but rather, unlike the last time we had a space race, a free-enterprise one.

Nice article.

What would you think about a Congressional X-Prize to stimulate exploration and settlement of outer space?

It's a tricky issue for libertarians (i.e., what, if anything should the government do, other than get out of the way).

But as much as maintaining a strong presence in space is a valid matter of national defense now, it will be moreso post-settlement, when there are US citizens' lives, liberty, and property to protect. Back in January of 2002, Jerry Pournelle posted a draft of some legislation he originally proposed in 1984:

The Congress has determined that a permanent colony on the Moon is in the national interest of the United States.

The Treasurer is directed to pay the sum of $10 billion (Ten Billion US Dollars) to the first US-owned company that shall place 31 American citizens on the Moon and maintain them there alive and in good health for the period of three years and one day.

This payment shall be exempt from Federal taxation. No money shall be paid under this act until the conditions set forth above are fulfilled.

I fail to see anywhere in your article "signs of intelligent life in Congress". Could you point some out?

Sorry, Fox writes the titles, not me...

But in a relative sense, these were intelligent congressional hearings. Yes, I know that's depressing.

Of anyone who has read Asimovs original Foundation, some might remember what Salvor Hardin did, when Imperial Lord Dorwin came to visit the little foundation at the edge of the universe. To local scientists gang ( the ruling clan ), he spoke five days about how Imperium supports Foundation and will protect it, standing by their cause etc etc.
Hardin, a city mayor, took liberty and secretly recorded everything the ambassador said during those five days. He then ran the transcripts through a mathemathical language analyzer, eliminated all the smalltalk, phrases that meant nothing, empty talk. The output of the analyzer ... was zero. Nada, nil, zilch. The scientists of course, were shocked.

If we had access to such an analyzer today, would be very interesting to see what exactly mr. NASA Administrator was trying to say in his statement.

> The Treasurer is directed to pay the sum of $10
> billion (Ten Billion US Dollars) to the first
> US-owned company that shall place 31 American
> citizens on the Moon and maintain them there
> alive and in good health for the period of
> three years and one day.

Wales Larrison (one of the best minds posting in sci.space.policy) regards the idea as politically unrealistic -- or at least it would be fundamentally incompatible with the way Congress currently is paying for things etc..
---
It would be interesting to know if a "shaky" government commitment to, say, a $20-billion reusable launch vehicle prize might prove useful, though. For example, NASA currently spends $3 billion a year on space transportation for the International Space Station. What if there were a politically non-binding promise that the Shuttle be retired in favor of buying, over a period of ten years, $2 billion dollars' worth of annual transportation services from the lucky winner...? Prospective investors would need to have blind faith in the willingess of NASA & the U.S. government to actually honor its promises.
---
I personally doubt it would convince investors -- large commercial rockets are typically built only if there is a rock-solid legally binding commitment from the customer. But at least NASA would get the Henry Vanderbilts off its back if it paid "lip service" to supporting starry-eyed entrepreneurs by voicing support for space prizes.

MARCU$

Back in the 70's there were a couple of attempts to develop satellite launch capability by some private companies. NASA and its friends used influence, and various means of clout to shut them down. I remember one that was going to use large number of small rocket motors bundled for a first stage. The desigh used a max number of off the shelf components and had a certain redundancy for engine and control failure. I don't know how efficient it would have been but it would have been relatively cheap. I think the thing that did them in was they couldn't find anyplace in the US to test fire and launch.

Is it true that for NASA to get funding for the reusable space shuttle, that all the plans and information on how to build the Saturn V rockets were destroyed? I have read this before but I am hoping that it is a urban legend. I am asking this because for us to return to the moon don't we need Saturn V type rockets?

Thank you

No, it is NOT true NASA destroyed the Saturn V blueprints. Yes, the actual tooling was scrapped, but the documentation needed to re-start production of the Saturn V still exists in various NASA and industry archives. Of particular value are volumes of data created by Rocketdyne as part of its Knowledge Retention Program in the '60s in which they documented exactly how to build the F-1 and J-2 engines.

During the abortive Space Exploration Initiative ten years ago, NASA seriously planned on a revived Saturn V (with strap-on boosters) as the launch vehicle for returning to the moon as part of the First Lunar Outpost 45 day missions.

We could bring back the Saturn V today if we wanted to go back to the moon. But, do we want to go back is the question.

[ What would you think about a Congressional X-Prize to stimulate exploration and settlement of outer space?

It's a tricky issue for libertarians (i.e., what, if anything should the government do, other than get out of the way). ]

Yes, it is a tricky issue for Libertarians because
so-called Libertarians contradict themselves when they ask for the gu'ment to get out of the way ... except to put up the money.

This reminds me of a teenager announcing his independence, and then asking for $20 and a car for Friday night.

Mr. Simberg, why don't you write a column asking Bll Gates or Warren Buffet or suchlike to pay for your beloved X Prize, instead of Sugar Daddy, Uncle Sam?

[But as much as maintaining a strong presence in space is a valid matter of national defense now, it will be moreso post-settlement, when there are US citizens' lives, liberty, and property to protect. ... ]

The argument for protectionism on national defense grounds? Once can make the same argument for government subsidies such as X Prizes for atmospheric aircraft or shipbuilding or steel production.

If private private private enterprise can DO IT in space, why doesn't free free free private enterprise go ahead and do it and quit whining for the government to put up an X Prize?