Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I'm not sure what causes Rand to try to play word games or to not quote the entire statement by the V/P of t/Space. It seems to me that one of the alt.space companies has concluded that there is "no current commercial market" for a private, orbital space craft and that therefore t/Space will seek NASA money to build theirs. Then, after building their vehicle on behalf of the government, then a commercial version will be spun off, since--apparently--then a commercial market will exist. Now, I see noithing wrong with this (if you can get NASA to cough up, which right now seems doubtful.) But it doesn't seem to me to be the pure, private sector way of doing things that I'm told needs to be done.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 23, 2005 06:03 AM

Oh, so now you're changing the argument.

There is nothing in the full statement that makes your comparison any less nonsensical. t/SPACE is not asking for money up front, before hardware is built or delivered, no matter how you attempt to parse and misinterpret it (unlike the conventional cost-plus contractors, who do ask for and get money up front, based on the labor theory of value, and with whom you seem to have no problem).

Yes, they don't believe that there's an obvious commercial market for a product built to NASA specifications (a belief that I share). Given that it's going to be a government procurement anyway, they're simply proposing a more effective way to spend the taxpayers' money on it. But they are in fact saying that they expect no money until the milestones (e.g., hardware delivery, successful tests) are completed, exactly the opposite of your silly strawman.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 06:29 AM

Actually, I prefer the word "clarifying." The point is that many (all?) of the more successful alt.space companies are not shy of taking government money. SpaceDev (one of my favorites) has been taking NASA and DOD contracts to keep the lights on for years. That's one reason it was around to build SpaceShipOne's engines and now is jumping into the sub orbital race. People who actually have to make a payroll, and not just a point, are not in the mode I've heard too often of "get the government (i.e. NASA) out of the way and we'll do the job." Instead, they see NASA (and to a certain extent DOD) has having core markets. It's not the pure libertarian way of doing things, but it seems to make good business sense.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 23, 2005 06:47 AM

By the way, speaking of lack of reading comprehension, I don't believe anything was said of "a product built to NASA specifications." The phrase used by the t/Space V/P was, "that for human spaceflight there is no current commercial market."

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 23, 2005 06:52 AM

Actually, I prefer the word "clarifying."

No doubt you do. The rest of us recognize it for what it is, though.

The point is that many (all?) of the more successful alt.space companies are not shy of taking government money.

I don't think they all are taking government money (I'm not aware that either Jeff Bezos or Bob Bigelow has), but should they be shy about it? Why?

This strange notion of yours that all alt-spacers (including me) are "pure libertarians" is yet another strawman on your part.

If you thought that I insulted you, you might consider the possibility that some people feel a little insulted when being falsely accused of hypocrisy.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 06:52 AM

The phrase used by the t/Space V/P was, "that for human spaceflight there is no current commercial market."

Well, strictly speaking, for all practical purposes, that's true, unless you count the occasional multi-millionaire getting rides on Soyuz. The point remains that a vehicle built to carry NASA astronauts is going to be built to NASA specs, whether by t/SPACE or anyone else, and that's not likely to be a commercially viable vehicle, even if there were a commercial market.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 06:55 AM

Well, much as I like Bezos and Bigelow, they have't built anything yet. And Bigelow did, at one time, ask for NASA money for his orbital prize before putting up his own cash.

As for who insulted whom first, seeing as I didn't actually name anyone, I'm not going to get into that kind of childish tit for tit. I just think it's funny how many people think I was refering to them.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 23, 2005 06:57 AM

One other point, t/Space thinks that a vehicle "designed to NASA specs" can be retrofitted for a commercial market. So, in a sense, it would be commercially viable, according to them.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 23, 2005 07:00 AM

As for who insulted whom first, seeing as I didn't actually name anyone, I'm not going to get into that kind of childish tit for tit.

Well, not having any (functional) tits, I'll pass on that as well...

I just think it's funny how many people think I was refering to them.

Oh, so it's OK to slander a group of people as long as you don't actually name them. Well, we asked you for a name, just as an example, and all you've come up with is this pathetic attempt to accuse t/SPACE of it, when I've shown that to be nonsense.

So I guess I'll just assume that you were making the whole thing up. There certainly don't seem to be enough such people (if they exist at all, other than in your imagination) for it to be a real problem to anyone, or for our prospects for getting into space. This weird paranoia you have about the evil "libertarians" who are somehow keeping NASA from getting all the funding it needs for its next boondoggle gets quite tiresome, Mark.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 07:06 AM

Now, Rand, it is you who are creating the strawman. I haven't "slandered" anyone or any group. (And since I've been using the written word, the accusation you should be making is "libel.") You and I both know that there is a small, but very loud, group of people who think everything would just be peachy if there was no government space program and no NASA. Furthermore, I think we both know that this faction has about as much influence on space policy and credibility concerning the same as the Flat Earth Society.

Your last sentence really makes no sense, since the last I looked NASA is getting all the funding it says it needs and, as I've just referenced, there has been almost zero input by libertarians, evil or not.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at July 23, 2005 07:15 AM

You know, Mark, if it wasn't for NASA's presence skewing the market, commercial space travel would be economically viable.

Posted by Ed Minchau at July 23, 2005 07:20 AM

Now, Rand, it is you who are creating the strawman. I haven't "slandered" anyone or any group. (And since I've been using the written word, the accusation you should be making is "libel.")

Ignoring the legal limbo of the Internet, whether slander or libel, when you write:

...some people...on the one hand, preach libertarian cant and, on the other hand, demand government pay money up front, before the promised hardware is even built, not to mention delivered

you are accusing someone of hypocrisy. Since I'm one of the people who you occasionally complain about being a "libertarian," it is natural for someone like me to wonder about whom you're referring. Particularly when I'm not aware of anyone who meets that description. You continue to be unable to provide us with a single example.

You and I both know that there is a small, but very loud, group of people who think everything would just be peachy if there was no government space program and no NASA.

Well, actually, I tend to think that on alternate days myself. What I don't do is think that, and simultaneously demand that the goverment give me money, up front, without providing a product. We all still await an example of someone like this. We will all be astonished if you ever actually come up with one.

Furthermore, I think we both know that this faction has about as much influence on space policy and credibility concerning the same as the Flat Earth Society.

Exactly, which makes your occasional waste of time and phosphor whining about them all the more mystifying.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 07:25 AM

I prefer the more polite term "inconsistency", Rand. After all, unlike some people, I've tried not to get too personal.

Ed, how about a clarification. I'm fully aware that NASA's record concerning commercial space has been--to politely put it--apalling in the past, but I'd like to see more examples from you to back up that statement.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 23, 2005 07:46 AM

And yet, Mark, you remain unable to come up with a single credible example of such "inconsistency."

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 23, 2005 07:49 AM

Well, there he does again.

It's ironic that Mark, who claims to be am admirer of Ronald Reagan, uses "libertarian" as an insult.

It was Ronald Reagan who said "libertarianism is the heart and soul of conservatism." He proudly called himself a "libertarian conservative."

Can you imagine what Reagan would say if you told him the private sector can't be trusted in the critical path for space exploration?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 23, 2005 12:18 PM

Ed Wright, as is his custom, is stating positions as being mine that I don't hold. I'm one of the biggest boosters of commercial space, but I think I'm a realistic one. President Reagan, who after all started the space station as a NASA project, would agree with me, I should think.

As for using "libertarian" as an insult, not really. I do not understand what is so special about that particular idealogy that it can't be criticized. Every other idealogy has a tendency to say one thing and occassionally do another. It's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

As a side note, Rand Simberg is to be congratulated for inspiring the Space Glove Prize. If you don't think all this blogging and writing can't inspire change, then think again.

Exciting things are being rolled out, I understand, at the Return to the Moon Conference. NASA is not going to abolish itself. It is, however, getting much more commercial friendly, as much for its own self interest as for the inherently good thing that it is.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 23, 2005 01:48 PM

> Every other idealogy has a tendency to say one thing and occassionally do another.

I think this is what psychologists call "projecting."

To suggest that Ronald Reagan lacked faith in the private sector is absurd. I remember when Reagan said the Real America was not the government but the people. Reagan approved the Space Station, but that was at a different time in US history and even then, his desire was to open space for the Real America, not just to send government employees on some cool trips. He got some bad advice on how to achieve his goal, but his heart was always in the right place.

If Ronald Reagan had lived long enough, he would have been thrilled to watch SpaceShip One and see what his Real America could do.

If you don't believe that, Mark, then you just didn't know Reagan.

> NASA is... getting much more commercial friendly

Hm. Two years ago, in Space News, you said NASA should buy crew rides to the Moon on private spacecraft.

Last year, in the Washington Dspatch, you thought NASA should build its own spacecraft for going to the Moon -- but you also claimed the Administration was committed to buying all Earth-to-LEO transport from the private sector.

You continued making that claim even after Rand informed you the Administration had made no such promise.

Now, you say that NASA should develop its own lunar spacecraft and not one but *two" Shuttle-derived heavy lifters for Earth-to-LEO launchers.

Every time you cut back the role of the private sector in VSE, you say NASA is "getting much more commercial friendly."

What were you saying about ideologies that say one thing and do another?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 23, 2005 03:19 PM

I haven't "slandered" anyone or any group. (And since I've been using the written word, the accusation you should be making is "libel.")

Libel is slander (a false and malicious statement) Only in the legal sense are they distinct.

You can be slanderous in writing and libelous in speech and everybody knows what you mean, although slander is the more general term.

Just pickin' nits, not casting aspersions (not to be confused with sprinkling of holy water!)

Posted by at July 23, 2005 11:11 PM

To quote Spider Robinson: "He's a libertarian? Horrors! Myself, I'm a serf."

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 24, 2005 02:09 AM

Edward, according to the presentation made at the Return to the Moon Conference, everything that commercial space advocates could realistically hope for is now coming to pass. I suspect that this will not make some people happy, but there is no pleasing some people.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 24, 2005 08:40 PM

"Since I'm one of the people who you occasionally complain about being a "libertarian," it is natural for someone like me to wonder about whom you're referring. Particularly when I'm not aware of anyone who meets that description."

I've frequently said the same thing about communism. You cannot say that "communism" has failed because all those people who called themselves communists and then failed were not _really_ communists. Ditto libertarianism.

I just wish I had somebody to blame...

Posted by Joe Athelli at July 25, 2005 07:35 AM

> I've frequently said the same thing about communism. You cannot say that "communism" has failed
> because all those people who called themselves communists and then failed were not _really_ communists.
> Ditto libertarianism.

Hardly the same thing, since there aren't actually any governments that called themselves "libertarian" and failed.

Even if you expand the definition to include libertarian conservative Ronald Reagan, most people would not call the Reagan Administration a failure. Even Democrats like Bill Clinton have tried to clam affinity with Reagan -- hardly the mark of a failure.

Of course, after all his railing about libertarians, Mark is now claiming an affinity with Ayn Rand. His latest bizarre argument for Apollo II is that the taxpayers should fund it because Ayn Rand liked the original Apollo.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 25, 2005 10:59 PM

Post a comment