Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Remarkable. In other words, Rand is against the current plan, thinks it was all cooked up by Mike Griffin in the 80s, knows that it will fail, but is unwilling to say why. Nor is he willing to offer an alternative and to defend it.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 9, 2005 02:33 PM

Mark, I have said why many times. Every time I do so, in fact, you whine about it.

More of your delusions.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 02:44 PM

In a nutshell, Mike Griffin was confirmed by nearly 100% of the U.S. Senators. As I recall, perhaps 1 or 2 voted no. Compare that with John Bolton (for good or ill).

Don't snipe at ESAS or Mike Griffin without some Capitol Hill firepower in your corner. Don't like ESAS? You need to take your quarrel to a higher pay grade than Griffin holds.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 02:48 PM

But this belief ignores the fact that Dr. Griffin has been promoting something very like this architecture for years.

If Griffin was properly vetted by the White House, they knew all about his ideas and plans. Griffin is reputed as being extremely candid.

Isn't that de facto WHITE HOUSE endorsement?

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 02:51 PM

Don't like ESAS? You need to take your quarrel to a higher pay grade than Griffin holds.

Good avoidance of the question, Bill. Your position is that ESAS is the only politically viable solution because it's Mike Griffin's? If that's true, the same would be true of a dry-launch commercial plan, had Griffin come up with it. Or if not, just what is your point?

I'm asking what it is that's politically viable about this particular architecture, that wouldn't be about some other. Am I going to get a substantive response, or is this just reflexive defense of whatever NASA wants to do?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 02:54 PM

Isn't that de facto WHITE HOUSE endorsement?

Maybe, maybe not. Either way, you miss the point. Just because the White House has endorsed this plan doesn't mean that they couldn't be induced to endorse another.

You're supposed to be a lawyer, Bill. I expect more from you, when it comes to logic (though I've given up on Mark).

I'm still waiting for some argument (consisting of jobs in Congressional districts, various rice bowls, etc.) why this particular architecture is uniquely politically viable, and another wouldn't be. You and Mark (and some of the other die-hard defenders of the plan) continue to state that this is the case, but I'm now becoming amused at your inability to formulate any kind of case for the proposition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 03:00 PM

Whether or not a better plan is feasible, Griffin met with White House people (Rove? Card?) and they said okay before ESAS was released. Griffin's people met with Rumsfeld's people. They said okay before ESAS was released.

Looks like Congress is on the verge of saying okay to ESAS as well.

Perhaps, Rand, you really do have a better plan.

But unless we wish to start from scratch next year, the time limit to propose better plans has elapsed. And starting from scratch may mean another house-cleaning at NASA.

Perhaps, Rand, you really do have a better plan.

Too bad it wasn't presented to the people who chose Mike Griffin to replace Sean O'Keefe.

Why is this plan uniquely politically viable?

Because Mike Griffin has already gotten the approval of Washington's major players for his plan. For better or worse, a fait accompli that incorporates numerous compromises of the sort that drive engineers batty, but which are politically necessary.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 03:17 PM

For better or worse, a fait accompli that incorporates numerous compromises of the sort that drive engineers batty, but which are politically necessary.

If that's true, then NASA won't be getting back to the moon any time soon. Not that I'll shed any tears over that. But I will regret the continued waste of billions of taxpayer dollars, and the ongoing "existence proof" of intrinsic high costs and low reliability of space activities, until the program dies. And I see no point in putting forth any other plan, since it will simply be shot down as not being Mike Griffin's and the administration's plan.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 03:24 PM

You may well be correct, Rand. I hope not, but I certainly cannot say for sure you are wrong.

ESAS was previewed by the Planetary Society the same summer the Aldridge Commission was in session. Most of ESAS was present back then.

Thus, Congress knew (or should have known) what Mike Griffin was planning. The White House knew (or should have known) what Mike Griffin was planning. Now he is trying his plan.

For better or worse, we will see, won't we.

That said, I do wish Mike Griffin & NASA God-speed.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 03:31 PM

I guess it comes down to the basic question of whether NASA is willing to extend the state of the art, or not.

If not, then this is the best plan; it relies on the known quantity of the space shuttle main engines and solid rocket boosters, and it retains the army of people on NASA's workforce spread throughout multiple congressional districts (always helpful if you want to keep those congressmen voting in your favor).

If instead NASA was looking to extend the state of the art, they'd be doing things like figuring out how to produce a hundred-thousand-kilometer long nanotube ribbon. They'd be phasing out shuttle-related jobs, probably only launching each one twice more before retirement. And they'd be closing centers.

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 9, 2005 04:00 PM

> Mark, I have said why many times. Every time I do so, in fact, you whine about it.

Mark is the Cindy Sheehan of space policy. You haven't answered his question until you've given the answer *he* wants to hear. Now, just admit that you lied to the American people and low-cost access to space is an unjust cause -- remember, he lost an Apollo program and that gives him absolute moral authority in this matter!

Posted by at November 9, 2005 04:16 PM

Bill, assert that Mike Griffin has no choice but to obey Senators, especially Sen. Nelson and Sen. Hutchison.

Are you aware that Sen. Brownback has called for NASA to create a $100 million prize for the first private spacecraft to reach orbit -- and that Brownback outranks both Nelson and Hutchison?

If Griffin has no choice but to obey Senators, why has he ignored Brownback's plan? And how can you say with such certainty that Griffin's plan is politically viable and Brownback's wouldn't be?

Posted by Edward Wright at November 9, 2005 04:31 PM

A: If not, then this is the best plan; it relies on the known quantity of the space shuttle main engines and solid rocket boosters, and it retains the army of people on NASA's workforce spread throughout multiple congressional districts (always helpful if you want to keep those congressmen voting in your favor).

B: If instead NASA was looking to extend the state of the art, they'd be doing things like figuring out how to produce a hundred thousand kilometer long nanotube ribbon. They'd be phasing out shuttle-related jobs, probably only launching each one twice more before retirement. And they'd be closing centers.

Would B pass Congress or would Griffin be told: "No!"

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 04:50 PM

Would B pass Congress or would Griffin be told: "No!"

I don't know, Bill. My motivation in starting this thread was to figure out the answer to that kind of question, because many seem to think that the answer to it "yes."

If that's the case, why?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 9, 2005 05:08 PM

Rand asks: I don't know, Bill. My motivation in starting this thread was to figure out the answer to that kind of question, because many seem to think that the answer to it "yes."

If that's the case, why?

My own opinion is that the idea that Western Civilization needs to get out there and settle the solar system has not taken root. If that meme takes root, people will support spending money on space exploration and demand results, which means that new ideas will get looked at.

Using lunar PGMs to raise the standard of living for all humanity is another example of a purpose that rank and file voters & taxpayers can rally around. Dennis Wingo is spot on IMHO about using the environmental benefits of PGMs (both fuel cells and catalytic converters) to defuse potential opposition from certain leftie groups.

$300 per ounce PGMs will improve everyone's standard of living except for certain South African mine owners - - too bad so sad on that point.

Michael Griffin has long advocated the first goal, to spread human life out there permanently. Now, if we can get him to embrace lunar mining THEN we can focus on the best "how to do that"

I believe most Americans do not yet understand that the Moon (and Mars) can be more than a location for a South Pole style research station and that real economic benefit can flow to the Earth and that real children can start new societies out there.

Get that message into mainstream America and the politics change. A good spokesman on that is our best resource and the first NASA administrator to say on national TV that the human settlement of the solar system is the goal must be supported enthusiastically.

Once that meme takes root, arguments over which shiny rockets we use can come later.

= = =

I also believe that low lunar orbit to Luna is a bigger obstacle today than Earth-to-LEO.

I dislike the ESAS disposable LSAM however as Taylor Dinerman pointed out on Monday, folks are already looking to VTOL suborbital flight on Earth to develop re-useable lunar landers and lunar hoppers. I believe Griffin dislikes a disposable LSAM but he cannot postpone lunar return until after 2020 - - that call is above his pay grade.

(I also personally believe Griffin would simply dump ISS / STS today (except Hubble) if he could, except for politics and because that decision is also above Griffin's pay grade.)

= = =

Just as a US taxpayer purchased LEO hotel (open to any member of the public who flies private lift) would bootstrap Earth-to-LEO alt-space more than a $500 million prize, a re-useable EML-1 to Luna lander and a lunar hopper would give incentive to commercial efforts to reach the Moon.

Elsewhere at your blog I proposed selling Tom Hanks signature cutlery to be fashioned from nickel harvested from lunar asteroid fragments. I am serious about that. A reusable RL-10 powered Luna to EML-1 shuttle can lift 15x its weight in methane, which must come from Earth.

CH4 can be delivered by Falcon V via MER airbag (like that guy Jacob Nowicki proposes) or sent to EML-1 to be bolted onto the re-useable lander. $4000 or $5000 per pound to Luna for methane and the methane to ship lunar nickel costs less than $350 per pound for luanr payload. I betcha Tom Hanks could sell many, many thousands of lunar nickel place settings at $5,000 per pound - - 16 or 32 pieces, either 1/2 or 1 ounce each).

= = =

However to say (as some alt-spacers do) that all of this is IMPOSSIBLE until we imprison or execute all the statists and fund honest-to-God X-15 / X-20 / Dynasoar follow-on RLV space planes means we stay trapped with the circled up firing squads, like we saw today.

To say, "Follow my plan" or "Build my shiny Cadillac RLV" or I shall wish a pox upon your plans just doesn't help.

I believe that at $1000 per pound to LEO, it's quite to make money in space without taxpayer subsidies IF you apply creative marketing, media hype and all-American salesmanship.

After all we are the nation that learned how to add brand value to sand. ;-)

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 05:48 PM

A PGM follow up point:

Cut the cost of PGMs by two-thirds and every new car will cost about $50 to $75 less because of the catalytic converter.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 05:50 PM

When Mike Griffin arrived he found a desert with respect to non-traditional commercial involvement. As Rand says here: But it's a job not just for NASA--to create that infrastructure, we will have to set new policies in place that harness private enterprise, just as we did with the railroads in the 19th Century.

t/Space to ISS & prizes for sub-orbital VTOL hoppers to bootstrap re-useable landers are the beginnings of the flowering of that desert.

Griffin has two decades of neglect and bad policy to correct - - it can't be fixed in a few months - - especially when ISS completion appears to be a non-negotiable requirement.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 06:07 PM

Courtesy SpaceRef:

In testimony before a Congressional committee last week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin said, "Later this month NASA will issue a draft solictation requesting commercial service demonstrations for space station crew and cargo delivery and return. Where commercial providers have demonstrated the ability to meet NASA's needs and safety requirements, commercial services will be purchased instead of using government assets and operations."

Did Sean O'Keefe ever say that? Dan Goldin?

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 06:12 PM

Isn't this exactly what you are saying NASA should be doing?

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 06:30 PM

> My own opinion is that the idea that Western Civilization needs
> to get out there and settle the solar system has not taken root.

NASA is not Western civilization, Bill. NASA is only a small part of Western civilization.

> $300 per ounce PGMs will improve everyone's standard of living except
> for certain South African mine owners - - too bad so sad on that point

But at $3 million an ounce, it's irrelevant. The problem, Bill, is that you and Dennis can't justify that $300 an ounce number. It's just a number you pulled out of a hat.

> Just as a US taxpayer purchased LEO hotel (open to any member of
> the public who flies private lift) would bootstrap Earth-to-LEO
> alt-space more than a $500 million prize,

So you say. However, your "taxpayer purchased LEO hotel" cost the taxpayers over $100 billion -- not $500 million. If we had cheap access to space, an orbiting hotel could be built for less than $500 million, and it would be able to sleep more than 6 people and have bedrooms instead of forcing guests to sleep in the hallways because NASA overran its budget and couldn't afford to finish the hab module.

Why are you so opposed to anything that changes the status quo?

> Elsewhere at your blog I proposed selling Tom Hanks signature cutlery to
> be fashioned from nickel harvested from lunar asteroid fragments. I am
> serious about that. A reusable RL-10 powered Luna to EML-1 shuttle can
> lift 15x its weight in methane, which must come from Earth.

And how much will that cost? Should we spend a billion dollars to produce a knife that Tom Hanks can sell for a million dollars? Is that the way you run your law office? Or do you think taxpayers money is less valuable than your own money?

> However to say (as some alt-spacers do) that all of this is IMPOSSIBLE until
> we imprison or execute all the statists and fund honest-to-God X-15 / X-20
> / Dynasoar follow-on RLV space planes means we stay trapped with the circled
> up firing squads, like we saw today.

No "alt spacer" said that, Bill. No one advocated executing or imprisoning anyone. You made that up, the way Mark is making things up.

No one advocated "waiting." That's Dennis Wingo's mischaracterization.

What people have said is that we can explore space SOONER, CHEAPER, and MORE EASILY if we start to reduce the cost of access to space NOW.

> I believe that at $1000 per pound to LEO, it's quite to make money in space
> without taxpayer subsidies

And yet, you are asking for taxpayer subsidies, on a massive scale. $100 billion, before you land the first human on the Moon, more than a decade from now.

The fact that you believe something doesn't make it true, but in this case, you don't even seem to believe what you say you believe.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 9, 2005 07:44 PM

To answer in brief, without extensive quoting:

(1) If the "settle space" meme spreads, money will be forthcoming to build lots of rockets. Demand, not whizbang technology is the key. An RL-10 is about as complex as a state of the art helicopter engine and would cost about $100,000 if mass produced.

That requires massive demand and a drive to colonize will create the demand that will require thousands of engines per year.

Building 10 or 20 RLVs per year will NOT be cheap. Building 1000 RLVs will be but without colonization, there are not enough tourists to fill those flights.

(2) PGM mining creates demand for shipping stuff to/from the Moon. This allows mass production of Earth-to-LEO lift & LEO-to-Luna transport which lowers launch costs.

It's a chicken-egg, feedback loop type of phenomenon.

Creating demand for launch services is the key.

Today, we have a glut of launch capability and building rockets in ones or twos will never be cheap, whether it's expendable or RLV.

(3) As for the nickel knives, I believe that at $1000 per pound to LEO, a company can make money selling those knives without taxpayer subsidy. The critical task is not to spread tax dollars differently but to persuade people to spend non-tax dollars on space businesses.

Maybe the idea fails. BUT we need to find non-tax revenue somewhere. Tom Hanks lunar nickel knives for $5000 a pound at least is a try at making money.

Tourism is good, but not sufficient by itself, IMHO.

(4) Taxpayer subsidies? I wish to keep NASA alive long enough for the private sector to take over.

Today, America has NO private space sector except a few suborbital guys who are decades from orbital.

Cancel NASA today and China & Russia own the Moon in twenty years to thirty years, or we never get there.

t/Space NEEDS the ISS and NASA to close its business case. Musk can sell supplies to NASA on the Moon. Only after private launch companies exist can we either shut down NASA or send them on to Mars or Jupiter with commercial interests taking over the Moon.

= = =

I believe humans can return to the Moon today using Proton / Soyuz and a new re-useable lander with 100% private sector financing. No tax dollars.

But, that may not be the best scenario for America.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 08:02 PM

PS - ISS is a lousy hotel.

Bigelow habs are the best hotels. I would gleefully support Congress paying to loft a Bigelow hab for less than $500 million, to sleep 8 to 12 in staterooms and let the first guests stay for free.

Better yet sell name rights to Hilton or Hyatt or Marriott.

Posted by Bill White at November 9, 2005 08:05 PM

Bill,
At one point it seemed O'Keefe might. Goldin said he said stuff like that but I only understand his intentions when I put my tin foil hat on. Would Griffin have said it if it wasn't in the VSE? All of those things existed or were in the works in various forms long before Griffin took the job.

But here's my main issue with the what's being said here: it appears that there is an assumption that since the Administrator is appointed by the President that whoever is Administrator _is_ the one true holder of the Vision. This pure political expediency tactic means we now have the NASA Administrator Space Agency. Our space policy becomes whatever the current Administrator says it is with the only caveat that he has to get it through a majority of Congress. If we simply accept ESAS as the only possible implementation of the Vision for that simple reason then we've set our space policy to change completely at least every 8 years. And for that reason the ESAS fails the sustainability test.

What Rand is talking about builds a robustness that exists outside NASA and therefore isn't subject to the whims of the Administrator. But if you accept that political reality as the only way things can be done then you almost have to automatically assume that it will fail because it is a political animal that exists without any guiding vision for anything other than keeping itself alive.

So I'm torn. On one hand as long as Centennial Challenges gets its funding I could probably ignore most of the ESAS as a mildly annoying distraction. On the other hand I still think that NASA and/or the Federal Government could do some things differently that would accelerate the development of a robust cislunar economy.

Ok, now I'm just rambling on...

Posted by Michael Mealling at November 9, 2005 09:41 PM

I suspect we'd all be a great deal wiser if we understood the politics of pork. There is a careful balance of quid pro quo, and I would love to know how to rebalance these forces against one another to build something worthwhile.

The only other hope for the government side of things is if the political climate changes in favor of results. Short of full-scale war, I can't think of something that would create such a climate.

Briefly I thought that the fiscal problems brought on by the hurricane might do it, but even in the two weeks before everyone forgot about our financial hole there was a very significant demonstration that pork politics reigns supreme when the Senator from Alaska threated to resign at the mearest hint that individual projects - such as his cherished Bridge to Nowhere - would become fair game for discussion. Even though the cost is enough to buy each one of the bridge's users a Learjet, the vote went in his favor so as not to precipitate a pork civil war within the House.

Perhaps the best way to formulate a viable replacement for ESAS is figure out which congressional delegations would take an interest and why. For example, CA is weak on the space committees, so if my program created an excuse to poach 1,000 aerospace jobs from Southern California, then I might find stong support from Texas, say.

Posted by Kevin Parkin at November 9, 2005 10:22 PM

Ok, I fail to understand why the current NASA program is considered politically viable. A lot of the current plan doesn't look like it'll survive the end of the Bush administration. That's a little more than three years away.

Here's the problems I see. First, low launch frequency by vehicles that are used only by NASA, missions with no long term strategy (ie, doesn't address the cost of Earth to LEO, doesn't put private industry in space), uses expensive, complicated parts (the SSME), still uses cost plus contracts, and depends on the same corrupt pork barrel system that gave us the Space Shuttle, the ISS, and numerous throwaway prototypes.

I'm willing to put money on at least major redesign of the project between 2008 and the end of 2010.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at November 9, 2005 10:26 PM

...and until we get the implementation of VSE right it will be like groundhog day.

We could've been having a discussion on how to overcome Shuttle pork barrel politics on sci.space.policy back in 1995, or on some BBS in 1985, and it would read like it's 2005. Perhaps someone will again be having this discussion in 2015...

Posted by Kevin Parkin at November 10, 2005 01:02 AM

> (1) If the "settle space" meme spreads, money will be forthcoming to build lots of rockets. Demand,
> not whizbang technology is the key. An RL-10 is about as complex as a state of the art helicopter engine
> and would cost about $100,000 if mass produced.

Yes, but helicopter engines would be prohibitively expensive, if you threw them away each time.

Griffin's meme is that NASA will somehow colonize space with Stick boosters and Shuttle-derived HLVs. I doubt he actually believes that, but it's useful to help sell his program. What it won't do is lead to the colonization of space.

To colonize space, you need more than a meme. You need affordable transportation systems.

>Building 10 or 20 RLVs per year will NOT be cheap.

That depends on what you mean by cheap. There's no reason why a small RLV has to cost more than a few hundred million. 10 or 20 of them might cost considerably less than the $10 billion development of the stick booster and the $20 billion Shuttle-derived HLV. The difference is that a fleet of 10-20 RLVs could launch vastly more cargo, making it possible to do all those things you and Dennis say you want.

> Building 1000 RLVs will be but without colonization, there are not enough tourists to fill those flights.

So? Do you think the first RLVs are going to be built by the thousands? You might as well say no one should have built airplanes until airlines were placing orders for a thousand at a time.

> (2) PGM mining creates demand for shipping stuff to/from the Moon.

Without affordable transportation, you can't afford to "mine" any significant amount of platinum. Apollo "mined" a few hundred pounds of rocks. That scale of activity won't generate much demand. And since ESAS says everything is supposed to be launched on Shuttle-derived, it won't generate demand for anything except Shuttle-derived. As you say, "chicken and the egg."

The only way for VSE to generate demand is to open up the transportation to commercial vendors. Oddly, you're opposed to that.

> This allows mass production of Earth-to-LEO lift & LEO-to-Luna transport which lowers launch costs.

That's like saying early aviators should have mass-produced 747s, instead of building Wright Flyers, Curtis Jennies, Northrop Alphas, Ford Trimotors, DC-3s, and all the other steps aircraft evolution went through.

How do you expect to get to the point where companies can mass-produce thousands of RLVs if development doesn't start now?

> Today, we have a glut of launch capability and building rockets in ones or twos will never
> be cheap, whether it's expendable or RLV.

You keep saying that, but without quantification, your statement is meaningless. However, since you recognize that building small number of rockets is inefficient, it's strange that you would support ESAS, which is based on building a very small number of very big rockets.

> (3) As for the nickel knives, I believe that at $1000 per pound to LEO, a company can make money
> selling those knives without taxpayer subsidy.

Have you noticed how many of your statements begn "I believe,,," and are never followed by any evidence to support your belief?

> The critical task is not to spread tax dollars differently but to persuade people to spend non-tax
> dollars on space businesses.

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to petition government for redress of grievances. That includes having a say in how agencies like NASA spend tax dollars.

> Maybe the idea fails. BUT we need to find non-tax revenue somewhere. Tom Hanks lunar nickel knives
> for $5000 a pound at least is a try at making money.

But Tom Hanks is doing it, Bill. Because it costs to much. Wishing that it didn't will not change that. Nothing is going to change until the cost comes down.

> (4) Taxpayer subsidies? I wish to keep NASA alive long enough for the private sector to take over.

The best way to keep NASA alive is to encourage it to use the cheapest transportation available, not the most expensive.

>Today, America has NO private space sector except a few suborbital guys who are decades from orbital.

So you say. There were similar sneers at the first airplanes and microcomputers. The nature of exponential growth is such that it always appears slow at the beginning. There's no reason to expect space travel to be any different.

> Cancel NASA today and China & Russia own the Moon in twenty years to thirty years, or we never get there.

Once again, overlooking the fact that no one called for cancelling NASA. Providing cheaper transportation so NASA can send a lot more astronauts into space and do a lot more on the Moon is not cancelling NASA, but by reasonable definition of cancellation.

Besides, you are contradicting yourself. You just said Dennis could mine PGM metals and Tom Hanks could make souvenir knives from lunar rock without any subsidies from NASA. If lunar mining is possible and profitable right now, without reducing the cost of transportation and without government subsidies, then why does it depend on NASA?

China and Russia can't claim ownership of the Moon under the Outer Space Treaty. And if they tried, what do you think NASA could do to stop them? NASA doesn't have any guns, soldiers, or missiles. It's a civilian agency.

If you want someone to expel invaders from the Moon, that's a job for the military, not NASA. Unfortunately, under the current VSE, the military isn't getting funding to develop Military Space Plane, so they have no way to get into orbit, let alone to the Moon.

> t/Space NEEDS the ISS and NASA to close its business case.

Possibly true, but that has nothing to do with building Stick booster or the Shuttle-Derived HLV.

>Musk can sell supplies to NASA on the Moon.

Huh??? Do you know what ESAS is about? NASA is going to send all of its supplies up on Shuttle-derived HLVs, not buy them from Elon Musk. Buying from Elon Musk and other commercial transportation vendors is what Rand's been advocating, *not* what NASA is proposing and Mark's defending.

> Only after private launch companies exist can we either shut down NASA or send them on to Mars
> or Jupiter with commercial interests taking over the Moon.

Well, private launch companies exist right now, but no one has advocated shutting down NASA. Can we please etire that strawman?

> I believe humans can return to the Moon today using Proton / Soyuz and a new re-useable
> lander with 100% private sector financing. No tax dollars.

> But, that may not be the best scenario for America.

Why not? Apart from pleasing the current political apetite for sticking the Russians in the eyes, what purpose does it serve to spend tax dollars to needless duplicate Russian capabilities?

I have often regretted that Reagan couldn't have been in office when the Cold War ended. He would have been the very first to hold out his hand to the Russian people, and we would have a very different relationship today.

> I would gleefully support Congress paying to loft a Bigelow hab for less than $500 million, to sleep
> 8 to 12 in staterooms and let the first guests stay for free.

Okay, but at the risk of repeating myself once again -- what the &#$% does that have to do with supporting ESAS???

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 01:28 AM

Okay, but at the risk of repeating myself once again -- what the &#$% does that have to do with supporting ESAS???

Supporting ESAS means supporting Mike Griffin and Griffin is CLOSER to supporting Rand's vision (a good vision, by the way) than anyone else who has a snowball's chance of ever being NASA Administrator. O'Keefe (IMHO) would have let Boeing and Lockheed spiral develop forever without ever getting us anywhere.

Re-reading Rand's various excerpts, I find I agree with where he wants to go, but I don't see how he proposes to navigate (politically) from Point A to Point B.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 04:48 AM

Apart from pleasing the current political apetite for sticking the Russians in the eyes, what purpose does it serve to spend tax dollars to needless duplicate Russian capabilities?

Edward, I agree with this.

Griffin, by the way, is currently in negotiations with the Ukranians to purchase a Dnepr for a lunar robotic mission to be partially run by NASA. Apparently, no American made booster fits within his budget.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 04:51 AM

In the physical and political universe we happen to live in, ESAS is about the best plan conceivable for getting people back to the Moon. I think that even its critics have to secretly agree with that since they have not come up with alternatives.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 10, 2005 04:54 AM

In the physical and political universe we happen to live in, ESAS is about the best plan conceivable for getting people back to the Moon.

But that goal, by itself, is not worth the cost of ESAS. ESAS would make sense only if it served as an initial step in a clear growth path to activities that were truly valuable in and of themselves. Alas, it doesn't appear to do this, any more than Apollo, STS, or ISS did.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 10, 2005 05:29 AM

There is a major problem looming here in using "throw-away" technology. Granted, using tech that we have already developed is cheaper, but a driving force of American life has been developement of the new. The heart of the problem in this case is politics. Its the heart of the problem because NASA is government run. Take politics out, let the driving force of America in and we're there. My other concern is all the people saying that China will own the moon.....not that I believe that at all, but when we get there first, how many in our government (politics again) are going to be thinking of a way to plant an ownership flag?

Posted by Mac at November 10, 2005 06:02 AM

Paul, I disagree since the plan assumes the establishment of a permenent outpost, which would be the focus of, among other things, commercial activity.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at November 10, 2005 06:10 AM

The heart of the problem in this case is politics. Its the heart of the problem because NASA is government run. Take politics out, let the driving force of America in and we're there.

Politics has imposed constraints on ESAS:

(a) $16 billion per year;

(b) Return orbiter to flight & finish ISS, then retire orbiter (dumb, dumb, dumb IMHO but its a constraint Griffin must accomodate);

We can argue whether (a), (b) & (c) are worthy goals however is there a better plan than ESAS for doing (a), (b) & (c)?

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 06:11 AM

Paul, I disagree since the plan assumes the establishment of a permenent outpost, which would be the focus of, among other things, commercial activity.

Exactly! Griffin has been handed a basket of lemons:

You must return orbiter to flight (Me? Orbiter would fly once more to Hubble and then never again.)

You must complete ISS (Heh! It's a really useful space station isn't it?)

You must put Americans on the Moon by 2020.

Within that framework & those constraints, Griffin is doing everything he can facilitate American commercial space industries.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 06:14 AM

Paul, I disagree since the plan assumes the establishment of a permenent outpost, which would be the focus of, among other things, commercial activity.

Kind of like ISS, right? Only even more expensive.

Let me make a safe prediction: the commercial activity on this putative lunar base will be even less than on ISS.

Posted by at November 10, 2005 06:18 AM

Oops. That previous post was mine.

Posted by Paul Dietz at November 10, 2005 06:18 AM

Bill at al,
"Re-reading Rand's various excerpts, I find I agree with where he wants to go, but I don't see how he proposes to navigate (politically) from Point A to Point B."

As do many here and elsewhere (with the exception of Mark). An implementation of the VSE that is more in line with what you, me, Rand, and even, I suspect, Ed would prefer could be done with some, possibly significant, changes to the ESAS. I suspect that the reason Griffin didn't suggest some of those things was that he had no political cover for it. There is a rumor that Griffin had been on the job for almost 4 months before he even met the President. And since people like Brent Alexander had left the Whitehouse could it be possible that the core that pushed for the Vision is no longer pushing with that same level of effort?

Here's the question: how hard would it be to help Griffin modify the ESAS to be more sustainable, more commercial (than it currently is), and more oriented to infrastructure? That would mean a) coming up with something that still accomplishes the VSE's goals, b) solves his problems with pork, and c) gives him the political cover in Congress. Right now those in support of the ESAS are suggesting we have to support it without criticism and without modification. I don't see that to be the case. In its current form I'm not going to call my congresspersons to support or not support the current plan. But with some modifications I and a whole lot of others could get behind it.

So Ed, given Rand's excerpts and what some others have said (like Jon's architectural changes), do you think that modifications to either the ESAS or the political framework he has to live under are within your realm of support? If so, are there tweaks we could push for that we could all agree on?

Posted by Michael Mealling at November 10, 2005 07:03 AM

Michael, we may differ on details but I support your overall attitude and approach 100%.

I very strongly encourage people to do this:

a) coming up with something that still accomplishes the VSE's goals, b) solves his problems with pork, and c) gives him the political cover in Congress.

= = =

Is Masten working on VTOL suborbital? As Taylor Dinerman wrote on Monday, new prizes are coming for a VTOL suborbital craft that can approximate lunar landing conditions.

A re-useable lunar lander may be the most likely steppingstone to a resueable Earth-to-LEO vehicle.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 07:37 AM

A re-useable lunar lander may be the most likely steppingstone to a resueable Earth-to-LEO vehicle.

A reusable lunar lander makes no sense unless we can find propellant sources on the moon. Particularly if propellant costs in LEO remain high (which they do under ESAS). Under NASA's planned architecture, the propellant required to return the lander costs more than the cost of the lander itself.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 10, 2005 07:53 AM

Rand, oxygen is a propellant source.

Its 80% by mass of LOX/methane propellant and 89% by mass of H2/LOX. A tank of lunar LOX in LEO is 89% as valuable as a tank of lunar H2O and very much easier to accomplish as there is plenty of accessible oxygen on the Moon.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 08:00 AM

Going to the moon make NO sense whatsoever unless we harvest LOX almost from the very beginning.

H2O? Sure, if we find it but I am not sanguine about lunar water ice. If it's there, great! But what if it isn't?

According to Taylor Dinerman's post on Monday at Space Review, ESAS contemplates lunar LOX production immediately after the 2018 flags & footprints missions to satisfy the President's January 2004 speech.

Then, its on to re-useable alnders and in situ fuel production.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 08:09 AM

Rand, oxygen is a propellant source.

Did you think I don't know that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 10, 2005 08:10 AM

Rand, you write:

A reusable lunar lander makes no sense unless we can find propellant sources on the moon.

Yes, I agree 100% So does Mike Griffin.

Lunar LOX extraction was one of the challenges issued at ISDC last May. Let's see, Griffin was at NASA how long before addressing lunar LOX? A few months at most?

Okay, some say (Heh! - - Zubrin) that the challenge terms are goofy and favor one contestant. But in situ fuel has been part of Griffin's agenda from the beginning.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 08:16 AM

Bill,
"Is Masten working on VTOL suborbital? As Taylor Dinerman wrote on Monday, new prizes are coming for a VTOL suborbital craft that can approximate lunar landing conditions."

Yep!

To be very clear though, we have a product and technology development path that we're sticking very closely to. Landing on the moon or any other body is a long way off unless someone can create some _multi-customer_ demand really quickly.

Posted by Michael Mealling at November 10, 2005 08:17 AM

Bill,
"But in situ fuel has been part of Griffin's agenda from the beginning."

So what happens in 2008 if we end up with a Democrat for president and there is a push to obliterate all things tainted by Bush? Tie this to closely to the Administrator and it all disappears in 3 years.

Posted by Michael Mealling at November 10, 2005 08:20 AM

"So what happens in 2008 if we end up with a Democrat for president and there is a push to obliterate all things tainted by Bush? Tie this to closely to the Administrator and it all disappears in 3 years."

The last time this was the case was in 1993 when apparently Bill Clinton decided not to obliterate Ronald Reagan's space station. It's a lot harder to obliterate projects of this size than one would suppose.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at November 10, 2005 08:54 AM

Quote from Bill White: "Maybe the idea fails. BUT we need to find non-tax revenue somewhere. Tom Hanks lunar nickel knives for $5000 a pound at least is a try at making money."

I certainly like the idea of creating incentive and marketing potential of lunar/asteroidal resources. One problem I see with the viability of the Tom Hanks knife set is that I don't really iconify Tom Hanks with Cooking or eating in any way really. If we put his name on a product it should somehow relate to role or object that he interacts with. I think that we could make a NiFi or Lunar Titanium metal box fashioned to resemble a fancy box of chocolates. Then, when you open it up in little paper cups or partition holders instead of actual chocolates you'd get an assortment of lunar rocks. These would have to be fresh lunar rocks also. So, that when the purchaser opens the box for the first time they are met with the wonderful aroma of burnt gunpowder. Which is what the few visitors we've had to the Moon say it smells like. Something like this would provide the idea that the Moon is a rich place by the craftmanship of the box, and then the sensory experience of being able to touch and smell the rocks would vicariously take that person on a Moon trip of there own everytime they opened it. Then, you could tie it with the Forest Gump Meme of, "Life is like a Box of Moon Rocks" or something cheesy like that.

Posted by Josh Reiter at November 10, 2005 08:55 AM

Josh, you're either an incurable romantic, or a marketing guru. Tom Hanks' name comes up from the Apollo 13 movie. We could also add silverware sets holding the names of James Garner, Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, and Donald Sutherland for Space Cowboys. The only problem I forsee is getting enough moon rocks to satisfy Tommy's ego.

Posted by Mac at November 10, 2005 09:06 AM

I'm asking what it is that's politically viable about this particular architecture, that wouldn't be about some other.

Griffin has been pretty clear about this, but not all in one place. First, the ISS has to be more-or-less completed to keep the partners happy. Second, preservation of the current NASA structure and workforce is required for political support, esp. in CA, FL, MD and TX. (Also, it keeps the LA and MS centers busy in areas hard hit by Katrina and Rita.) Part of the drive to shuttle-derived vehicles is to keep the current workforce from shuttle from bailing out right now, as it gives them a career path as shuttle phases out. If a substantial part of the STS workforce leaves, you would have trouble making the required flight rate.

Third, the architecture is friendly to commercial providers. Griffin has already identified prizes and commercial opportunities, but he has said that he won't put them on the critical path as he feels it is irresponsible. If an alt.space company can deliver cargo to ISS cheaper than using NASA assets, he'll buy it to free up money for ESAS. But he can't make ESAS and ISS depend on vehicles that he doesn't have control over until they are real. He's said that ISS cargo may be done in a manner similar to comsat buys, where there are progress payments, but the bulk of the money is after on-orbit delivery. The commercial entities will have to take part of the risk.

Certainly, the prizes are not what some in the alt.space community want. But they are there, they are in increasing amounts as time goes on. The success of DARPA's Grand Challenge race this year will help Congress get comfortable with them.

One problem with prizes is that Congress can cancel them at any time to fund whatever, unless the money is somehow handed over to an independent entity. And even then it's not safe. This why Jerry Pournelle's idea of a billion $+ prize for setting up and operating a moon base is impractical, since it would take several years to achieve and the political risk is as high as the technical.

Posted by anon at November 10, 2005 09:11 AM

Bill,
"But in situ fuel has been part of Griffin's agenda from the beginning."

Michael,
So what happens in 2008 if we end up with a Democrat for president and there is a push to obliterate all things tainted by Bush? Tie this to closely to the Administrator and it all disappears in 3 years.

Bill,
This is why it is a good thing that Griffin is well liked by people such as Barbara Mikulski (D - Maryland). I do not know but would bet that Griffin has built strong bridges with people in both political parties.

Griffin says "2009" but I suspect he wants to be the bi-partisan NASA administrator for a long time.

= = =

Next, this also is why we need revenue that does not originate from tax revenue. Selling lunar nickel or PGM and tourism means a space business (like Masten) can be independent of NASA funding.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 09:24 AM

To add a little more uranium to this fire:

For a commercial company, an RLV is a given - throwing away your rocket is just dumb. But I don't think that necessarily applies to a government program. Think of it this way - the government program must spend $X. It doesn't matter how or what or why, but if it doesn't spend $X, the pork would disappear. If the pork is in danger, the system will realign to protect the pork - so you really have no control over the spending, and trying (unless you can control congress) will not get you what you want.

So what could NASA do that would be helpful? Develop new technology? Make space access cheaper, while not competing with cheap space access? Sound impossible? NO! All you need to do is have NASA build only expendable rockets. An expendable rocket only spends money on technology - because design changes are cheap if you are rebuilding the whole thing anyway! If a government has an RLV (such as shuttle), they spend all their money on maintenence (remember, they must spend the money!). Maintenence mode makes the technology stagnate - mainly because they are not working on any technology, but also because then any non-government competition must beat only the marginal cost (not including amortization, etc. - those costs are sunk) instead of the actual cost. By using only ELVs, NASA allows competition to use marginal costs to beat their higher rebuild costs, but also is forced to rethink technology, etc - otherwise the pork might be in danger! Essentially, it tries to put NASA in competition with itself. To answer the question of whether this would work or not, compare the government ELV rate of technological advancement with the government RLV rate. I'm pretty sure the ELV wins...

ELVs for NASA now ;-}!

Posted by David Summers at November 10, 2005 09:25 AM

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 09:28 AM

Arrrgh! Lost my post.

Tom Hanks was a "for example" name drop because I recently saw Magnificent Desolation (he narrates) and this blog had a post about Tom really, really, really wanting to go to the Moon, himself.

Anyway, Mr. Hanks and David Gump (t/Space) really should get together. To repeat a prior snark:

"Mr. Hanks, I am pleased to introduce David Gump of t/Space."

"No Tom, it's David, not Forrest."

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 09:32 AM

> For a commercial company, an RLV is a given - throwing away your rocket is just dumb. But I don't think
> that necessarily applies to a government program. Think of it this way - the government program must
> spend $X. It doesn't matter how or what or why, but if it doesn't spend $X, the pork would disappear.

Why would that be a bad thing? The government does not need to spend $X. Government spending has been cut before, if not at the Federal level. If government is going to spend $X, however, there's no reason why it can't spend it something useful.

There are lots of things NASA could do with $10 billion that would be more useful than developing Stick booster.

> So what could NASA do that would be helpful? Develop new technology? Make space access cheaper, while
> not competing with cheap space access? Sound impossible? NO! All you need to do is have NASA build
>only expendable rockets. An expendable rocket only spends money on technology

First, as Rand has said so often, we don't need new technologies to build RLVs. Second, there is little new technology in Stick booster and Shuttle-derived HLV. Third, the specific technologies used in Stick and SDHLV -- large solid rocket motors and the SSME -- has no application to reusable vehicles.

> If a government has an RLV (such as shuttle), they spend all their money on maintenence

Shuttle is quasi-reusable, at best. The X-15 was far more reusable, but maintaining it didn't absorb a large portion of the NASA or USAF budget.

Besides, no one said NASA should have an RLV. NASA should buy rides on RLVs that are owned and operated by private companies. The way NAA buys rides on airplanes owned by American, Southwest, and Federal Express.

> Maintenence mode makes the technology stagnate

That's a very derogatory choice of language. A better word would be "mature." Southwest Airlines doesn't need to change the technology in the 737 every time they fly. I would hardly call them stagnant.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 11:26 AM

> Supporting ESAS means supporting Mike Griffin and Griffin is CLOSER to supporting Rand's vision

Closer in the sense of being opposite to. Building Shuttle Derived Forever is not close to not building Shuttle derived.

> O'Keefe (IMHO) would have let Boeing and Lockheed spiral develop forever without ever getting us anywhere.

That's unfair. O'Keefe's schedule called for landing on the Moon by 2016. Griffin hasn't accelerated that any. In fact, it seems to have slipped a couple years.

Posted by at November 10, 2005 11:35 AM

> (a) $16 billion per year;

What makes you think that? The NASA budget is already over $16 billion and slated to grow to $18 billion by 2010.

Besides, a constrained budget is an argument for using the cheapest launch systems available, not the most expensive.

> (b) Return orbiter to flight & finish ISS, then retire orbiter (dumb,
> dumb, dumb IMHO but its a constraint Griffin must accomodate);

Why "must" Griffin accomodate it? OMB is pressing Griffin to retire the orbiter now. Why "must* Griffin say no?

Speaking of political constraints, the President originally said "retire the Shuttle by 2010." The Shuttle, not just the orbiter, as Griffin now says. If Griffin has to obey the President, why isn't he obeying the President?

> (c) Be on the Moon by 2020.

Again, that would be easier if NASA didn't spend $30 billion developing newer, bigger, and more expensive rockets.

You also overlook political constraints on the other side. Fiscal conservatives on Capitol Hill have finally found the courage to stand up to bigspenders like Bush and Hastert. The ghost of Ronald Reagan is stalking the halls of Congress. Hastert has already caved. The Republican Study Committee is causing Mother Sheehan Whittington to have multiple acute hissy fits. What happens if the "evil libertarians" succeed in slashing all that lovely pork? Should NASA cancel Return to the Moon, if it can't do it the high-cost ESAS way, or would it be better to accept the more cost-effective alternatives?

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 12:36 PM

> Where commercial providers have demonstrated the ability to meet NASA's
> needs and safety requirements, commercial services will be purchased
> instead of using government assets and operations."

> Did Sean O'Keefe ever say that? Dan Goldin?

Yes. What's your point?

> Isn't this exactly what you are saying NASA should be doing?

No. We are saying NASA should purchase commercial services, not just promise to purchase commercial services. As a lawyer, you surely understand the difference between a promise and a payment.

You also missed the kicker in that statement: "Where commercial providers have demonstrated the ability to meet NASA's
needs and safety requirements."

NASA has defined "safety requirements" for ISS visiting vehicles that are almost impossible to meet. Even the Shuttle doesn't meet them, although NASA exempts itself from its own requirements.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 12:43 PM

NASA has defined "safety requirements" for ISS visiting vehicles that are almost impossible to meet. Even the Shuttle doesn't meet them, although NASA exempts itself from its own requirements.

**************

Another in a long line of Ed Wright fantasies. The only part of the Visiting Vehicles Document that STS AND the Soyuz AND Progress fail to meet is the requirement for non corroding fuels. If a new entrant can't figure out how to do this then they really should not be in the game.

VV is not all that hard to meet, just another in a long line of Ed's strawmen.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at November 10, 2005 01:49 PM

Dennis is right about the ISS visiting vehicle document. I've read it. Several times. In support of designing vehicles to go to station.

Posted by anon at November 10, 2005 01:59 PM

> VV is not all that hard to meet,

According to a long-time MSFC contractor.

Commercial developers tell a different story.

Even Mike Griffin has said that the Visiting Vehicles requirements are hard to meet. Are you saying Mike lied, Dennis?

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 02:20 PM

Dennis, the Shuttle AND Soyuz AND Progress don't meet the VV requirement. They use corrosive fuel. How is that a strawman? It is no more a strawman than an insurance company turning down an accident claim due to fine print in the contract. If they don't meet the requirements, then they don't meet the requirements.

Calling it a strawman doesn't make it so.

Furthermore, if "VV is not all that hard to meet", why hasn't NASA done it? Why hasn't the Russian space program?

And, if NASA and the Russians bend the rules to allow their own craft to visit the station, why shouldn't they bend their rules for others as well?

Posted by Ed Minchau at November 10, 2005 02:51 PM

> So I'm torn. On one hand as long as Centennial Challenges gets its funding
> I could probably ignore most of the ESAS as a mildly annoying distraction.

Mike, here's your answer. The Conference Committee just gutted Centennial Challenges. From $34 million to zero.

Crew and cargo services took a big hit as well.

This was a predictable result of Mike Griffin's repeated statements to Congress that these programs are "not in the critical path."

To answer your question, when I see NASA doing something positive I will praise them, but I will no longer lobby for them. They've gone back on their promises too often.

I'm also increasingly apalled by the way the Administration wants to spend $100 billion on flag and footprint missions while failing to fund Military Space Plane. I voted for George W. Bush twice and I almost wish I hadn't. "Billions for tributes to Apollo but not one penny for defense"? That's not a vision I can support.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 02:58 PM

No. We are saying NASA should purchase commercial services, not just promise to purchase commercial services. As a lawyer, you surely understand the difference between a promise and a payment.

Today, NASA is far closer to buying t/Space crew transfer at a fixed price per seat than they were the day before Mike Griffin was confirmed by the U.S. Senate. That is my opinion and I will stand by it.

= = =

Edward Wright, you do have a number of interesting and good ideas. A few wacky ones, but hey, so do I.

The problem you need to face is that Mike Griffin was appointed by the White House and confirmed by a nearly unanimous Senate. ESAS was presented to White House staffers before it was released. ESAS was presented to Rumsfeld's people before it was released. ESAS appears to have strong support in Congress. ESAS does have powerful support from the people in D.C. who hold power.

Might there have been a better plan? Irrelevant. Water over the dam.

But, I do very much agree with Michael Mealling's approach.

If there are concrete, specific tweaks to make ESAS better, absolutely, propose them. Point out the weakness together with a concrete, realistic solution.

If I agree with the tweak I will lobby for it. Others should also.

Bash ESAS in general but offer no succinct realistic tweaks; criticize Griffin but offer no politically viable alternatives and there is really no point to the discussion.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 03:06 PM

Question for Edward Wright:

I would be quite interested in learning about this cut to the Centennial Challenge budget. I would be most grateful if you could provide a link. Or even better yet, a link and an excerpt of the text you are referencing.

Posted by Anon 2 at November 10, 2005 03:12 PM

Anon 2, I just found it myself at NasaWatch deep inside the text of the House Resolution.

No explanation as far as I can tell.

This justifies worth vigorous lobbying of the House / Senate reconciliators.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 03:18 PM

This link provides a better explanation concerning Centennial Challenges.

It doesn't look anywhere near as bad as I first thought.

Posted by Bill White at November 10, 2005 03:27 PM

> ESAS does have powerful support from the people in D.C. who hold power.

> Might there have been a better plan? Irrelevant. Water over the dam.

The support may not be as powerful as you imagine. Fiscal conservatives are showing backbone for the first time in years. They may not succeed this year, but it's inevitable that there will be some belt-tightening sometime in the next 10 years. And when that happens, ESAS will die, unless NASA is willing to consider changes.

Posted by Edward Wright at November 10, 2005 04:01 PM

> VV is not all that hard to meet,

According to a long-time MSFC contractor.

Commercial developers tell a different story.

Even Mike Griffin has said that the Visiting Vehicles requirements are hard to meet. Are you saying Mike lied, Dennis

**************************

I can't help what MSFC says that commercial developers say.

We were well on the way to meeting the VV in 2000 with our on orbit assembled payload. There were no show stoppers. The biggest one that flummoxes a lot of people is the requirement to provide constant communications during proximity operations.
It is solvable.

Mike Griffin is not god and he does not know everything. Right now the CEV is already set up to meet the non toxic fuel requirement.

And to answer someone else's post, you don't go back and re-engineer a 30 year old system to meet a new requirement. It is perfectly appropriate to levy that requirement on new vehicles and it is really not that hard to meet if you are buidling a new system.

Dennis

Posted by Dennis Wingo at November 10, 2005 08:29 PM

Well, I stopped by the site for old times' sake, just to make sure it hasn't changed. It hasn't.

NASA has a plan. And, regardless of that plan, Rand Simberg will be there, to point out its failings, its shortcomings, and everything else negative about it that he can find.

Because NASA is a failure and a waste. Besides 12 men on the moon, 2 space stations, multiple planetary probes, and some pretty damned good space observatories, what does NASA have to show?

Consider the wasteful beast that is the shuttle. it costs 500 million dollars to put 7 people into space for 12 days. That works out to a whopping $250,000 per man hour.

Contrast this with Spaceship One, which shows how the private sector is so much cheaper. Spaceship One only cost $20,000,000 to run. And look! It has put men in Space 3 separate times, for a total of 45 minutes! That works out to, ummmm, $25 million per man hour. BUT IT WILL GET BETTER!

Anyway, the private sector is FASTER than NASA. Why, Spaceship One flew as recently as..... October, 2004.

Mr. Simberg, I appreciate the job you do. I think it is important that someone sit around and throw stones at NASA. It brings a lot of clarity to what NASA is about, and what you are about, too.

Posted by at November 11, 2005 01:46 PM

Mr. Simberg, I appreciate the job you do. I think it is important that someone sit around and throw stones at NASA. It brings a lot of clarity to what NASA is about, and what you are about, too.

Ignoring all the snark, and foolish and inappropriate comparisons, just what is it that "I'm about," Mr. Anonymous?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 11, 2005 02:53 PM

For a while I was fairly hopeful about the new direction NASA was taking. They were still bloated and dinosaurish, but they were introducing some competition and outsourcing, shaking things up a bit, relying on innovation in private enterprise, moving away from picking winners before a competition instead of after. But when they dropped this steaming pile of Shuttle-derived vehicles and "let's just do it the old, crappy way" ESAS plan I just shook my head. It's getting to a state where I almost don't care what NASA does in regard to manned spaceflight. Unless they change or are forced to change their bureaucratic culture, it's just going to be a long, slow, never-ending factory of mediocrity. At this point I fully expect private enterprise to lead the way in even the near future in exploration of the Solar System outside of low Earth orbit.

Posted by Robin Goodfellow at November 11, 2005 11:55 PM

Post a comment