Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Seeing as there is no private mission even being seriously contemplated, I have reason to doubt that is possible.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 5, 2005 08:58 PM

Seeing as there were no private airplane missions to cross the Atlantic solo even being seriously contemplated in 1914, I have reason to doubt that is possible.

Posted by Gus at October 5, 2005 11:00 PM

If SIX PEOPLE (including my 6'1" frame) can squeeze into a VW bug, sending tall people to the Moon should be no problem. We have the technology - we only need the will.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at October 5, 2005 11:19 PM

Tom Hanks, meet David Gump. David Gump, Tom.

No Tom, its David, not Forrest.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2005 05:32 AM

Oh, one more thing Tom. David needs some dimes.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2005 05:33 AM

At about twenty million a picture, Hanks is certainly well off, but I doubt that by himself he can finance t/Space all the way to the Moon.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 6, 2005 07:38 AM

Gus - By 1914, private air flight had been around for over a decade. Air flight technology was about to get a quantum leap because of the First World War.

We are--at best--at 1904 where is concerns private space flight.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 07:41 AM

No one said that he could fund it all by himself, Mark. But keep kicking those strawmen.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2005 08:05 AM

THATS IT! You and me, in space, out by the com sats, and bring your Transformers!! I'm gonna kick your butt!!

Posted by Josh Reiter at October 6, 2005 08:10 AM

Tom Hank's probably too nice a fellow to want to show up NASA, anyway.

Tom probably could help arrange financing for a t/Space Earth-to-LEO program.

But getting from LEO-to-low lunar orbit & then designing and building a lunar lander? Given Tom's financial resources, he might need to visit Moscow. And Tom Hanks is waaay too patriotic to show up NASA by riding a Russian lander to the Moon.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2005 08:59 AM

PS - As an American taxpayer, if Tom Hanks helped assure t/Space the private sector funding needed to accomplish Earth-to-LEO with their CVX, then I would not object to Mike Griffin giving Tom Hanks a shot at a lunar landing on board a NASA landing module.

But he would have to donate a few milion autographs and do free commercials for NASA.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2005 09:13 AM

Didn't Hanks (technically, Ron Howard) get a decent amount assistance from NASA in both research and "vomit comet" time for Apollo 13? And, presumably, Hanks got NASA assistance for his recent IMAX movie, too.

If he ever needed NASA's help again for a future project, I can see why he would prefer to stay in their good graces.

Even though, of course, it doesn't make any sense for a government-funded institution to get upset at a taxpayer for helping to fund a private space company. NASA and t/Space, etc, shouldn't really be rivals, and it would take a pretty big chip on someone's shoulder in NASA to take offense to Hanks helping fund a private space company.

If that's the case, then Hanks will need to make the decision about whether he'd rather make more movies with NASA's assistance, or go to the moon. Those two options may, in fact, be mutually exclusive.

Posted by John Breen III at October 6, 2005 09:34 AM

Of course, John. It's impossible to even imagine a government bureaucrat ever getting upset at someone who is perceived as encroaching on his turf... :-)

Posted by KeithK at October 6, 2005 09:52 AM

I suspect that Tom Hanks, rather than trying to finance a start up like t/Space, might better serve the cause by popularizing private space travel in a movie. And I am told that he is looking at a space movie for his next production effort.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 10:09 AM

I suspect that Tom Hanks, rather than trying to finance a start up like t/Space, might better serve the cause by popularizing private space travel in a movie.

I never suggested otherwise, Mark. Go back and read what I wrote again. I was simply suggesting that things like that might be a better use of his resources than continuing to glorify NASA's past.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2005 10:14 AM

Rand, I cannot help it if you are not clear about what you mean.

Mind, I don't think one will sell a scenario to Playtone (that's Hanks' production company) that features evil, stumbling NASA astronauts vrs heroic, super intelligent entrepeneurs.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 11:23 AM

Mark, I did say what I mean. You're the one who comes up with the strangly narrow interpretations of it. Just as you did in that last silly strawman comment (since no one has suggested that Hanks make a movie bashing NASA).

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2005 11:26 AM

Not openly, but I cannot imagine any of the internet rocketeer crowd wanting to see a movie in which NASA is shown in a good light, even if it also promotes commercial space.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 11:40 AM

Rand, if someone did get back to the Moon before 2018 and before NASA (something your post does advocate) NASA will suffer considerable bashing whether or not anyone makes a movie.

Personally, I think someone beating NASA back to the Moon could garner considerable global media and marketing revenue but Tom Hanks isn't the guy to lead that charge. All in all, NASA losing a race back to the Moon might be a good thing for America if it energizes the country like Sputnik and Gargarin did in 1957 and 1961.

Now, if someone tried to beat 2018 and NASA got its act together and won this 2nd race, so much the better.

Posted by Bill White at October 6, 2005 11:44 AM

Mark, why would it have to show NASA in any kind of light at all? How about just a movie about some space entrepreneurs, and ordinary people getting into space?

Contra your apparent belief, the world does not revolve around NASA.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2005 11:45 AM

Right now, the space world certainly does revolve around NASA and to a certain extent, DOD. Making a film just about private entrepeneurs is likely not going to be an accurate representation of the future. It would be seen for what it is, a libertarian wank-fest.

There's going to be a government presence on the high frontier, whether you or anyone else likes it or not. But that's OK. It's a big universe and there's room enough for all.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 12:06 PM

Of course there will be government in it. You know, the FAA?

And really, Mark, a "Libertarian wank fest"?

You mean like Firefly and Serenity?

Yeah, I guess you're right. Who'd want to watch crap like that? I mean, it didn't have NASA in it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 6, 2005 12:09 PM

There is a government in both the TV series and movie. The difference is that Firefly and Serenity are set five hundred years from now and the government in this case is oppressive and tyrannical. Unless you are suggesting that NASA is capable of some of the things the Alliance is depicted as doing.

Frankly, it's going to take more than the FAA to handle government services on the high frontier. I see a role for NASA (or an entity like it) doing a lot of the cutting edge research and exploration that the private sector cannot and will not do. And there'll be courts, and a military, and law enforcement. But that's OK. There will also be plenty of room for entrepeneurs and even pirates (and that's what Mal Reynolds and his crew are, albeit of the lovable kind) out among the stars.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at October 6, 2005 12:18 PM

Hmm. Six-foot-one (also my height, since age 14, no less) is still too tall for NASA? I know the standard was indeed shorter in the Mercury, Gemini and maybe Apollo days, but I thought it was changed somewhat for the shuttle? I can't remember how many times I said "I could fit into an X-Prize defined seat." Looks like that's still the only sort of way I'll get up there.

That's me, too tall for NASA, and an inch too short for the local Tall Club...

Posted by Frank Glover at October 6, 2005 02:28 PM

> Seeing as there is no private [Moon] mission even being seriously contemplated,
> I have reason to doubt that is possible.

Space Adventures and their Russian partners are offering circumlunar flights right now.

Why is that not "serious," Mark? Because it doesn't pass your litmus test for the way space exploration ought to be done?

> I see a role for NASA (or an entity like it) doing a lot of the cutting edge
> research and exploration that the private sector cannot and will not do.

Ah, the old Whittington standby: "Private enterprise cannot do exploration."

What reason is there to believe that "the private sector cannot and will not do" space exploration?

Because it's too dangerous? Sean O'Keefe, who you greatly admired, said private enterprise can take risks that NASA cannot take.

Because it's too expensive? Well, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Not only do you insist that NASA must go back to the Moon, you also insist that they must do so using the most expensive, limited, and cost-ineffective architecture.

Maybe the private sector cannot and will not do the super-expensive Apollo missions you want, but it can do *cheaper* missions that involve *more* people and *more* exploration. Will it? Well, you don't seem to want us to, for some reason.

The only explanation you have to offer is a historical analogy: government did "Lewis and Clark" exploration on the western frontier, so only government can do space exploration. But private enterprise also did "Lewis and Clark missions" on the western frontier. In fact, private explorers were in the Northwest Territory before Lewis and Clark.

The American West was explored by government and private enterprise working *together* -- not the exclusive government-only approach that you demand we take in space.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 6, 2005 05:18 PM

"How about just a movie about some space entrepreneurs,"

It's already been done:

http://www.imdb .com/title/tt0076059/

"Fun with Dick and Jane" (1977) was about an aerospace executive for a commercial satellite maker who turned to robbery.

It has Jane Fonda in it.

They're doing a remake too:

http://www.imdb .com/title/tt0369441/

Posted by Joe Athelli at October 7, 2005 06:54 AM

"Fun with Dick and Jane" (1977) was about an aerospace executive for a commercial satellite maker who turned to robbery.

What in the world, other than the word "satellite," does that have to do with space entrepreneurs? Or are you just being a smartass, as usual?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 7, 2005 06:58 AM

I can only ask Edward the following question: If the private sector can and is willing to do space exploration, why has it not done so? One of my favorite small space companies is SpaceDev, which was originally founded with the idea of privately financed probes to the Moon and asteroids. It has not yet managed to accomplish this. But it did manage to stay in business for years doing what I'm sure Edward disapproves of--taking contracts from NASA and DOD. But because it took the business rather than the ideological approach, SpaceDev was ready to provide the engines for SpaceShipOne.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 8, 2005 04:59 AM

> I can only ask Edward the following question: If the private sector
> can and is willing to do space exploration, why has it not done so?

Because when private enterprise does it, you say it isn't "exploration" but merely "tourism"? Remember SpaceShip One?

> One of my favorite small space companies is SpaceDev, which was originally
> founded with the idea of privately financed probes to the Moon and asteroids.
> It has not yet managed to accomplish this.

So, because one company hasn't succeeded in one part of space, you conclude that no company can explore any part of space?

That's interesting logic, Mark. One of your favorite big government agencies was founded with the idea of sending an expedition of government supermen to Mars. Since NASA hasn't achieved Von Braun's Das Marsprojekt, do you conclude that government can not and will not do space exploration?

> But it did manage to stay in business for years doing what I'm sure Edward
> disapproves of--taking contracts from NASA and DOD. But because it took the
> business rather than the ideological approach, SpaceDev was ready to provide
> the engines for SpaceShipOne.

So much misinformation compressed into two sentences.

First, the engines for SpaceShip One didn't come from NASA or DoD contracts any more than Tang or Teflon came from NASA. The hybrid motor technology came from an entrepreneurial company called Starstruck/Amroc.

Second, if NASA offered to purchase lunar and asteroid data, SpaceDev might have succeeded in sending those probes.

I *support* such contracts, so of course you choose to slander me.

You, on the other hand, *oppose* giving contracts to private companies for space exploration. Then you shed crocodile tears that private companies "won't" do it and tell us the "only way" is through cost-plus "best effort" contacts such as NASP, X-33, X-34, Orbital Space Plane, and (your current favorite) CEV.

Posted by Edward Wright at October 11, 2005 11:44 AM

Post a comment