Doing some baby-sitting blogging, Jon Goff asks how NASA is going to reconcile two apparently conflicting memes. I'm glad he has time to write this stuff, because I don't right now.

Are these two memes reconcilable? I'm not really sure. ...

It's possible to build enough of a commercial market that government can get a large amount of leverage off of a small amount of initial money...

That answers that question. This is just like my 5 and 3 yr old. They want to play with the same toys...NOT because the toys are fun, but because they want to control the distribution.

This will be out of NASA's hands within 10 years.

Sam,

This will be out of NASA's hands within 10 years.

Well, yes, I hope so too. I was just trying to bring up the fact that NASA has extra incentive to try and torpedo private space companies, because once again they're trying to build something to compete against them. I still think that private sector space transportation is going to come out on top, but I think that NASA's going to fight tooth and nail to make it as difficult for us as possible. When billions of pork are at stake, people stop acting very rationally.

~Jon

Oh, they act perfectly rationally, Jon. They just don't act very ethically...

It’s not unethical it’s, self preservation in their view. Unless they have a job equally important to replace the one you’re taking away. Go back to the children analogy. If they are responsible for creating an infrastructure where all the other children will play they’ll be quite content.

People ought to be a bit careful about conspriacy theories about a secret NASA cabal squashing private space flight. While it is true that NASA, until recently, has hardly been commercial friendly, the failure of commercial space flight to take off has had more to do with lack of markets and lack of capital matched with a lack of realism. That may be changing so that Earth to orbit transportation may shortly be dominated by private players. But that's not going to "threaten" the secret NASA conspiracy. It's actually going to complement NASA operations beyond LEO.

People ought to be a bit careful about conspriacy theories about a secret NASA cabal squashing private space flight.

And people ought to be even more careful about setting up nonsensical strawmen, since no one here has claimed that such a thing exists.

Whittington wrote:
"People ought to be a bit careful about conspriacy theories about a secret NASA cabal squashing private space flight."

Simberg replied:
"And people ought to be even more careful about setting up nonsensical strawmen, since no one here has claimed that such a thing exists."

However...

Goff wrote:
"Well, yes, I hope so too. I was just trying to bring up the fact that NASA has extra incentive to try and torpedo private space companies, because once again they're trying to build something to compete against them."

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

And we've all been to space enthusiast conventions where someone will start ranting about how NASA wants to "preserve space for themselves." Face it, a lot of paranoia exists, and it is one of the things that makes alt-space look so kooky.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

I don't know why, unless it's because you don't understand what a conspiracy is. We're not describing a conspiracy. It's simply an institutional response to incentives. Would you say that the behavior of Microsoft's sales force to sell more software and denigrate the products of their competitors is a "secret conspiracy" led by a "cabal"?

You and Mark using the language of paranoids here, not us. Kind of like Mark's "cabal of evil libertarians" conspiring to keep NASA from getting all the money it needs for its next boondoggle.

I was listening to a local sports radio talk show on the way into work one day (1310:The Ticket) and one of the radio hosts mentioned something about a short article he had read in regards to private companies offering rides to space. He asked his two companion hosts if they felt like private space companies could be taken seriously to one day take over NASA's job and they responded, "I’m really not sure but highly doubted it". There reasons being that they felt like a private company just wouldn’t be as safe as NASA and people would get killed. I was slightly shocked at first but understood that in there position as sports radio announcers that they shouldn't be all too familiar with the subject. Then, I mulled over the fact that probably most people have about the same level of familiarity with the subject as these, "were all just some Average Joe’s on the radio" archetypes. It stands to chance that given the opportunity to answer those first 4 questions brought up by Jon lots of people would probably genuinely agree with most all those statements. Then, given the next 5 questions there would be lots of grumbling and skepticisms about the competence of private space companies.

Rand is being cute, as usual, when his side's arguments are found to be wanting. I can only quote Jon Goff's conspiracy theory, "Well, yes, I hope so too. I was just trying to bring up the fact that NASA has extra incentive to try and torpedo private space companies, because once again they're trying to build something to compete against them. I still think that private sector space transportation is going to come out on top, but I think that NASA's going to fight tooth and nail to make it as difficult for us as possible. When billions of pork are at stake, people stop acting very rationally."

Try to torpedo private space companies. Yep, sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

Yes, Mark, because apparently you are as ignorant of the nature of true conspiracies as William is. I'll repeat the question. Is Microsoft's attempt to sell more software than its rivals a "secret conspiracy," run by a "cabal"?

NASA, unlike Microsoft, is a government agency and therefore any attempt on their part to squash private business,as Jon has accused them of, is pernicious. Rand is desperately, but unsucessfully, trying to wiggle his way out of the trap that he finds himself.

NASA, unlike Microsoft, is a government agency and therefore any attempt on their part to squash private business,as Jon has accused them of, is pernicious.

To whatever degree that's true, being pernicious hardly constitutes a "conspiracy" or a "cabal." Go read some public-choice theory some time. Buchanan and Stiglitz won a Nobel Prize in economics for it, I believe.

Rand is desperately, but unsucessfully, trying to wiggle his way out of the trap that he finds himself.

You're hilarious, Mark.

I was just trying to bring up the fact that NASA has extra incentive to try and torpedo private space companies, because once again they're trying to build something to compete against them.

There it is in a nutshell. Competition is the only thing that gets private companies to outdo each other. Then you throw NASA into the mix and you have government trying to outsell the private sector. In this case, the private sector will have to design everything from the ground up, while NASA has all the designs in place (albeit maybe older technology.) Any chance the children can join together and play in the same sandbox? I doubt it. All in all, it'll be interesting to watch.

>> People ought to be a bit careful about conspriacy theories about a secret NASA cabal squashing private space flight.

If Mark wants his cabal to remain a secret, he ought not to threaten people quite so openly. :-)

> And people ought to be even more careful about setting up nonsensical strawmen, since no one
> here has claimed that such a thing exists.

But if you knew it existed, it wouldn't be a secret, now, would it? :-)

Mark also mistates NASA's plans when he says "Earth to orbit transportation may shortly be dominated by private players" in order to "complement NASA operations beyond LEO."

Griffin has talked about allowing the private sector to provide transportation to ISS, but if VSE is at all successful, NASA's Earth-to-orbit transportation needs will not be dominated by VSE. The big potatoes will be in the VSE "critical path" and Griffin has said that Earth-to-orbit transportation for the "critical path" must be done by government, not private enterprise. Mark knows that, because he has agreed with it.

This is not the first time Mark has overstated NASA's plans for private enterprise. I wonder why he does this. If he truly believes private enterprise should be limited to a minor niche role, why doesn't he describe that minor niche accurately and explain why such limits are a good thing? On the other hand, if he really believes Earth-to-orbit transportation should be dominated by private players, why doesn't he advocate policy changes to bring that about rather than supporting the status quo?

>>This is not the first time Mark has overstated NASA's plans for private enterprise.

Even if there are substantial "plans for private enterprise" those are just plans for now. And we all know how many plans at NASA tend to turn into something tangible.
In fact, it often seems thats the only thing they produce, plans.