Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Rand: "...current NASA activities and expenditures won't hold things back too much."

How are current NASA activities holding things back AT ALL?

Please come up with something better than, "They dont give us
all the money we want."

Posted by greg at January 25, 2006 11:29 AM

There are a couple of flaws in Rick's argument. First, DOD is able to work with a rather robust and mature aviation industry that's been building things that fly for many decades. So far NewSpace (I guess that's the new term for Alt.Space) has not launched as much as an ant into LEO.

Second, there are a lot of things that DOD acquires that has zero application to the private sector. They're called fighters. And DOD spends more money on them than NASA will every dream of spending on ESAS.

My suspician is that NewSpace will have to prove its boasting by actually delivering something to LEO before being included to a great degree on plans for the Moon and Mars. But I see the seeds being planted. There's a new company that proposes to develop Chang-Diaz's plasma rocket, for example.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 25, 2006 11:52 AM

> I doubt if they'll pay any attention, though. I think that this administration's
> space policy is pretty firmly fixed now,

True, but this Administration will not be in office past 2008 and the next President may have more vision than this one. Newt Gingrich, Sam Brownback, and Steve Forbes are possible candidates.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 25, 2006 12:40 PM

How are current NASA activities holding things back AT ALL?

Primarily by throwing uncertainty into the marketplace as to whether they will procure services from the commercial sector, and by continuing to promulgate false myths about the intrinsic difficulties and expense of space activities.

They're not actively sabotaging things as they did in the eighties and (to a lesser degree) nineties, but their very existence continues to make life more difficult than it need be.

Please come up with something better than, "They dont give us all the money we want."

Please try to refrain from constructing snarky strawmen in my comments section.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 25, 2006 01:03 PM

"How are current NASA activities holding things back AT ALL?"

What uncertainty? Griffen has repeatedly stated that they will acquire all commercial services that are compatible with NASA's plans as those services prove themselves. That's just prudence.

Perhaps you mean that NASA has not guaranteed to structure the ESAS in such a way that the main priority is supporting NewSpace startups, but rather mission accomplishment.

However, given that you (and others) have noted that the total market of NASA launches is well below the number required for profitability, it should be obvious that this will have a minority affect on the future development of NewSpace.

As for False Myths about the difficulty...we'll see. We've been waiting for someone to 'disprove the myth' for more than 20 years now...

Posted by cuddihy at January 25, 2006 01:17 PM

> First, DOD is able to work with a rather robust and mature aviation
> industry that's been building things that fly for many decades.

It didn't start out that way. It began by buying Wright flyers from two guys who owned a newspaper and bicycle shop.

> So far NewSpace (I guess that's the new term for Alt.Space) has not launched
> as much as an ant into LEO.

The US military doesn't want to launch ants into orbit. It wants to launch objects on suborbital trajectories to kill the enemies of the United States and break their weapons, right here on Earth.

Commercial space doesn't want to launch ants, either. It wants to launch human beings and their property at low cost, so that companies can make a profit for their stockholders.

Your "ant" statement reveals the difference between NASA and the rest of America. Most Americans consider national security and economic prosperity are more important than studying the effects of zero gravity on ant farms or collecting rocks to display in the Smithsonian.

> Second, there are a lot of things that DOD acquires that has zero
> application to the private sector. They're called fighters.

You know not what you speak of.

Private citizens own and operate hundreds of fighters in the US. We fly missions for a variety of customers including the US military. None of the military officers I've dealt with had the anti-private-enterprise attitude that NASA does. They have real threats to deal with, not your imaginary Chinese invading the Moon and stealing the green cheese. They worry about how to get the job and how to stay alive, not what you think is politically correct.

> But I see the seeds being planted. There's a new company that proposes
> to develop Chang-Diaz's plasma rocket, for example.

Yes, it's not surprising that the only company you support is one that wants to develop another super-expensive engine instead of trying to reduce the cost of access to space. So NASA's ant farms can "boldly go where no ant has gone before." :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at January 25, 2006 02:54 PM

> Private citizens own and operate hundreds of fighters in the US.

I never knew that. So where can one buy a slightly used F 15? (g)

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 25, 2006 03:10 PM

> What uncertainty? Griffen has repeatedly stated that they will acquire
> all commercial services that are compatible with NASA's plans as those
> services prove themselves. That's just prudence.

No, that's a cop-out. There's nothing "prudent" about giving companies tens of billions in cost-plus best-effort contracts and hoping they deliver something useful.

Prudence would dictate paying for results, rather than promises.

> As for False Myths about the difficulty... we'll see. We've been waiting
> for someone to 'disprove the myth' for more than 20 years now...

Everyone who wasn't blind or hiding in a cave saw SpaceShip One. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The US military cannot afford to turn a blind eye, however. The technology to build reusable vehicles has been available in the US for decades. Today, it's available in many other nations. If the US does not develop suborbital and orbital space planes, some other nation will and lose our military preeminance.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 25, 2006 03:22 PM

No, that's a cop-out. There's nothing "prudent" about giving companies tens of billions in cost-plus best-effort contracts and hoping they deliver something useful.

There would be even less prudent about setting the near term plans of NASA contingent upon unproven newcomers with plans that may or may not be doable, and whose plans are also contingent on technologically risky concepts. That's how the government ended up saddled with expensive boondoggles like FIA optical, SBIRS low, and even EELV if you take out the 'unproven.'

To be good stewards of the public dollar, NASA has to take into consideration assurance and feasibility, as well as cost. Nobody screams when the Army relies on Bell or Sikorsky for the next small chopper instead of Moller Aircars. When Moller actually proves they can build a real working aircar, maybe they'll look into it. That's prudent.

Why should space be any different?

Posted by cuddihy at January 25, 2006 03:40 PM

Rand says: "They're not actively sabotaging things as they did in the eighties and (to a lesser degree) nineties....."

To quote Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction: "Example?"

Posted by greg at January 25, 2006 04:26 PM

Example?

Industrial Space Facility. American Rocket Company.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 25, 2006 04:30 PM

> There would be even less prudent about setting the near term plans of NASA
> contingent upon unproven newcomers with plans that may or may not be doable

Only if you assume government plans are automatically more "doable." That is a religious belief, not supported by facts.

> That's how the government ended up saddled with expensive boondoggles
> like FIA optical, SBIRS low, and even EELV if you take out the 'unproven.'

No, it is not. I don't know about "FIA Optical" is -- when I Google, all I find is an eye clinic in Bataan -- but SBIRS and EELV were government cost-plus contracts. They were done the same way Griffin wants to do CEV, Stick booster, SD-HLV, etc.

> To be good stewards of the public dollar, NASA has to take into consideration
> assurance and feasibility, as well as cost.

Yes. Where is your proof that cost-plus government contracts assure success? Were NASP, 2nd Generation RLV, X-33, X-34, X-37, and all the other attempts to replace the Space Shuttle successful?

> Nobody screams when the Army relies on Bell or Sikorsky for the next small chopper

You and I must live in different worlds. The LHX contract was highly controversial. FYI, Bell Aircraft started as a small prototype house. The military wouldn't give them fighter contracts because they were too small, but it gave them the contract to build the X-1. More recently, the military has given TGV a contract to develop a suborbital vehicle.

But you're comparing apples and oranges. There's a difference between a development contract and a flight services contract. The LSPA says NASA shouldn't be paying any company to develop vehicles. They should be *hiring* companies to carry NASA payloads on *private* vehicles.

> When Moller actually proves they can build a real working aircar, maybe
> they'll look into it. That's prudent.

But that's not what NASA does. Zero Gee Corp has a real working 727, but NASA still won't purchase microgravity flights commercially. They insist on operating their own microgravity aircraft and even giving away free flights in competition with Zero Gee Corp.

If NASA doesn't trust the private sector to operate 727s -- something it's been doing for 40 years -- how much "actual proof" is needed?

> Why should space be any different?

It shouldn't be. The NACA did not create a national socialist air transportation system. It helped fledgling airlines. No NACA Administrator ever suggested that private industry existed to benefit the NACA, rather than the other way around. No one ever thought the NACA should spend most of its budget to fly a few NACA "aeronauts" to Europe or Hawaii and less than 0.5% on things that helped private-sector and military aviation. No one argued that because the Army Air Corps developed military aircraft, the NACA had to develop its own planes for civilian use. No one said it would be more "prudent" to allow the NACA to fly Air Mail instead of private enterprise. Even today, the US Postal Service relies on Federal Express to fly the mail, and the US military relies on private enterprise for over 80% of its cargo and personnel movement. The remainder is transported on military vehicles because of unique military requirements that civilian agencies do not have.

So, tell me, why should space be different?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 25, 2006 04:49 PM

FIA = Future Information Architecture, IIRC, or something very similar to that.

Rand's right, the path to space is choked with companies that have fallen beneath the behemoth that is NASA. Most of the sad tales of woe can be found in the pages of the following books:

"The Space Enterprise" by G. Harry Stine (1980)
"Astrobusiness: A Guide to the Commerce and Law of Outer Space" by Edward R. Finch, Jr. & Amanda L. Moore (1984)
"Space Commerce: Free Enterprise on the High Frontier" by Nathan C. Goldman (1985)
"Space Industrialization Opportunities", edited by Camille M. Jernigan & Elizabeth Pentecost (1985)
"The Space Business: The Exploitation of Space - how much, how far, how probable?" by Peter Marsh (1985)
"$pace Inc.: Your Guide to Investing in Space Exploration" by Tom Logsdon (1988)
"Space Enterprise - Beyond NASA" by David P. Gump (1990)
"Space Commerce" by John L. McLucas (1991)
"Free Space!: Real Alternatives for Reaching Outer Space" by B. Alexander Howerton (1995)
"NASA and the Space Industry" by Joan L. Bromberg (1999)
"Making Space Happen: Private Space Ventures and the Visionaries Behind Them" by Paula Berinstein (2002)
"Space: The Free-Market Frontier", edited by Edward L. Hudgins (2002)
"The Commercial Space Age: Conquering Space Through Commerce" by Andrew M. Thorpe (2003)

(That baker's dozen is a good 12" of reading for the brave. Be forewarned, it gets depressing after a while, with so much squandered opportunity...)

Posted by Ken Murphy at January 25, 2006 05:57 PM

Rand writes: "Example?

Industrial Space Facility. American Rocket Company."

This counts as "actively sabotage"? That's the best you can come up with?
They fall under the heading of "They didnt give us all the
(fill in the blank) money, free shuttle rides, whatever"

I believe you would agree the govt does an equally bad job
at education, thus there's a gazillion $$ private school industry.
Why not the same for space? One of your readers put it best:
"Customers. They need customers."

Stop perpetuating this myth about sabotage.

Posted by greg at January 26, 2006 08:35 AM

hey fall under the heading of "They didnt give us all the (fill in the blank) money, free shuttle rides, whatever"

You display a profound ignorance of the history of those programs if you really believe this. Amroc didn't ask for money or Shuttle rides, or anything else from NASA. At least not until NASA decided to fund their competition.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2006 08:58 AM

Industrial Space Facility certainly did.

Speaking of ignorance, you should buy something called a
"dictionary" which would provide you with the meaning of
words like "sabotage".

Posted by greg at January 26, 2006 09:38 AM

ISF did ask for money, but NASA did much more to ensure its failure than simply not providing money (e.g., actively lobbying against the very concept on the Hill and to the White House, because it was rightly perceived to be a threat to the space station program).

And I'm quite familiar with the meaning of the word "sabotage," thank you.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2006 09:45 AM

> They fall under the heading of "They didnt give us all the
(fill in the blank) money, free shuttle rides, whatever"

Are you familar with a verse that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness?"

Speading disinformation ia another form of sabotage.

> I believe you would agree the govt does an equally bad job
at education, thus there's a gazillion
> $$ private school industry.

The private school industry inudstry does not spend a gazillion dollars. In fact, it spends about half as much to educate a student as public schools -- and does a better job.

You're just repeating socialist cant.

> Why not the same for space? One of your readers put it best:
"Customers. They need customers."

Because when Jimmy Carter tried to shut down private schools, evangelicals organized and helped vote him out of office.

When NASA undermines private industry, NASA fanboys just call for another big increase in the NASA budget.

Posted by at January 26, 2006 11:17 AM

Mark: There's a new company that proposes to develop Chang-Diaz's plasma rocket, for example.

Where can I find something to read on that, sounds interesting.

Posted by Mac at January 26, 2006 11:35 AM

Rand - While what NASA did to ISF was horrible, Space Industries did try to sell ISF as an alternative to Space Station Freedom. Expecting NASA to sit still for that is asking for forebearence above and beyond that capacity of anybody.

Mac - http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18828

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 26, 2006 01:13 PM

They weren't selling it as an alternative to SSF--they were selling it as a complement, with earlier capabilities, until SSF could be completed with more capability. NASA feared that Congress would view it as an alternative, which is why they did everything the could to strangle it in the cradle.

But regardless of how justified you wish to view their motives, its nonsensical to think that NASA has never done anything to damage the prospects, both deliberately and (more often) inadvertently for private space activities. "greg" just embarrasses himself here, even if he doesn't realize it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2006 01:31 PM

Actually, there were people in Spaace Industries who were selling ISF to Senator Proxmire as a means to cancel SS Freedom. That's an unfortunate fact, Rand. While it does not justify what NASA did (and I never said that it did), NASA's reaction was inevitable. You can deplore a tiger taking off a man's arm, but you can also deplore the man's poking the tiger in the eye.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 26, 2006 02:26 PM

The following article, in any case, suggests that the story of NASA sabotoging ISF is largely an urban myth:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/indility.htm

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at January 26, 2006 02:35 PM

"They weren't selling it as an alternative to SSF--they were selling it as a complement, with earlier capabilities"

They needed a shuttle launch, shuttle servicing, and NASA as an anchor tenant. Add it all up and ISF was an expensive project for NASA, and they chose not to fund it because money was tight.

How this got twisted into some nefarious plot by NASA to sabotage the commercial market is hard to comprehend.

Posted by Paul Eden at January 26, 2006 08:13 PM

> Add it all up and ISF was an expensive project for NASA, and they chose not to fund it because money was tight.

> How this got twisted into some nefarious plot by NASA to sabotage the commercial market is hard to comprehend.

Perhaps because people know that ISF was not "an expensive project" compared to Freedom/ISS.

But inconvenient facts shouldn't get in the way of ideology, should they?

Posted by at January 26, 2006 09:44 PM

Even conceding the ISF issue, I'm still awaiting the "debunking" of the Amroc example. That's one that I have first-hand experience with.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 27, 2006 12:11 AM

I believe Mike Griffin has cited ISF as an example of how NASA harmed private industry. (He worked on ISF.)

I wonder if a certain "space policy analyst" is going to start trashing Griffin, too?

Posted by at January 27, 2006 10:58 AM

"Perhaps because people know that ISF was not "an expensive project" compared to Freedom/ISS."

But ISF wasn't billed as an alternative to SSF/ISS, but an adjunct, so the fact that it was cheaper relative to SSF/ISS isn't relevant. What was relevant was that it would cost a lot of money that NASA didn't have and decided not to spend on ISF.

"But inconvenient facts shouldn't get in the way of ideology, should they?"

The ideological arguments are usually made by a conservative/libertarian/pro-space community (Jerry Pournelle, Rick Tumlinson, etc.) that for decades has argued that NASA is an evil government bureaucracy dedicated to restricting access to space by every means possible. They don't simply exude a whiff of ideology, they reek of it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

All these issues aren't exclusive--you don't have to believe that SSF/ISS was good in order to conclude that the Industrial Space Facility just didn't make sense, either within or without the context of the US government's civil space goals of building a space station.

And you can also believe that ISF might have been a good idea and _still_ not buy into the conspiracy theory that NASA killed it. Finally, you can also believe that NASA legitimately viewed ISF as a threat to their space station, and feared that Congress might fund the man-tended free-flyer and cancel the big thing on their wish list, the space station.

What you don't have to do is concoct hidden plots to explain rather obvious politics.

As for the initial subject of the discussion, I wonder how effective Tumlinson can actually be at something like this. For starters, how many military officers are willing to listen to a guy with a ponytail?

Posted by Paul Eden at January 27, 2006 12:01 PM

So, who were all the corporations lined up to be customers for ISF? I assume ISF's business plan was something beyond 'suck money from NASA'.

Posted by Paul Dietz at January 27, 2006 01:13 PM

> But ISF wasn't billed as an alternative to SSF/ISS, but an adjunct, so
> the fact that it was cheaper relative to SSF/ISS isn't relevant.

Whatever it was billed as, it makes no sense to say NASA cancelled ISF and continue ISS due to cost -- and the fact that one was cheaper *is* relevant to the taxpayers who have to pay for it.

> The ideological arguments are usually made by a conservative/libertarian/
>pro-space community (Jerry Pournelle, Rick Tumlinson, etc.)... They don't simply exude a whiff of ideology, they reek
> of it.

The Evil Conservative/Libertarian Pro-Space Community, once again... :-)

You've been listening to Mark Whittington too much. No one who knows Rick Tumlinson would ever mistake him for a right-winger. Not being a socialist doesn't automatically make him a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Of course, there's nothing ideological about Kennedy worshippers who reject the idea that US space policy should move beyond the 1960's and Project Apollo -- is there? :-)

> All these issues aren't exclusive--you don't have to believe that SSF/ISS
> was good in order to conclude that the Industrial Space Facility just
> didn't make sense,

No one said they were "exclusive" -- although you implied they were mutually exclusive when you said NASA cancelled ISF due to lack of money.

> And you can also believe that ISF might have been a good idea and
> _still_ not buy into the conspiracy theory that NASA killed it.

No one claimed there was a "conspiracy." You're engaged in namecalling. The only conspiracy theory here is yours about libertarians and conservatives.

> Finally, you can also believe that NASA legitimately viewed ISF
> as a threat to their space station,

Yes, you can believe it's legitimate for NASA to ignore the law -- which requires the agency to "seek and encourage to the
maximum extent possible the fullest commercial use of space" -- and substitute its own agenda.

If you believe in the Rule of Law, however, it is not legitimate.

> What you don't have to do is concoct hidden plots to explain rather obvious politics.

No one concocted "hidden plots." The facts are right out in the open. The only person alleging a conspiracy here is you.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 27, 2006 02:10 PM

"Of course, there's nothing ideological about Kennedy worshippers who reject the idea that US space policy should move beyond the 1960's and Project Apollo -- is there?"

Who said anything about Apollo? Actually, you appear to be the first person to bring it up. Why?

"you implied they were mutually exclusive when you said NASA cancelled ISF due to lack of money."

Nope. NASA was being asked to spend $700 million on ISF. That money would have had to come from somewhere and they knew that it would have come out of SSF.

"You're engaged in namecalling."

Who did I call a name? Why are you being so defensive about this?

Posted by Paul Eden at January 28, 2006 04:10 PM

> Who said anything about Apollo? Actually, you appear to be the first person to bring it up.

You seem to have missed the entire context of the discussion. To quote from the article Rand was discussing: "NASA is once again focused on a single point goal... If they get back to the Moon and toss a handful of Armstrongs on Mars, they are done."

> "you implied they were mutually exclusive when you said NASA cancelled ISF due to lack of money."

> Nope. NASA was being asked to spend $700 million on ISF. That money would have had
> to come from somewhere and they knew that it would have come out of SSF.

If NASA did not have the money to do both, as you say, then they were mutually exclusive. By definition.

> Who did I call a name?

The "conservative/libertarian/pro-space community (Jerry Pournelle, Rick Tumlinson, etc.)"

> Why are you being so defensive about this?

You're the one who's accused others of conspiracy theories, hidden plots, and "reeking" ideologies -- simply because they criticize certain decisions NASA has made. Why are you so defensive about it?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 28, 2006 11:18 PM

"I'm still awaiting the "debunking" of the Amroc example."

See the Amroc article in Quest magazine last year:

http://www.spacebusiness.com/quest/back.htm

Matthew Trace attributed Amroc's failure to several things:

-the death of a key company official (Koopman), which scared away investors
-the failure of the test, which scared away investors
-the failure of other rocket companies, which scared away investors
-the Internet technology boom, which pulled investors away from rocket technology

So according to Trace, bad luck and the investment community (which historically has been skeptical of rocket companies) doomed Amroc.

Posted by Paul Eden at January 29, 2006 08:57 AM

I haven't read the Trace piece, but based on your synopsis, while all of those things were factors, NASA was one as well, though he seems to have missed it. I know this, because as a Rockwell employee at the time, I helped them do it. This was, in fact, one of the motivating factors for me leaving the industry.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 29, 2006 10:25 AM

> I haven't read the Trace piece, but based on your synopsis, while all of those things were factors, NASA
> was one as well, though he seems to have missed it. I know this, because as a Rockwell employee at the
> time, I helped them do it. This was, in fact, one of the motivating factors for me leaving the industry.

Trace is what historians call a secondary (or tertiary) source.

As is Marcus Lindroos.

In both cases, the "refutation" consists of citing a single secondary or tertiary source.

Even Mr. Whittington, who boasts of having "a B.A. in History" relies on a single Internet article to prove his claim.

Primary sources are generally preferred by most historians.

Posted by at January 29, 2006 02:05 PM

"In both cases, the "refutation" consists of citing a single secondary or tertiary source."

True. But have you bothered to actually READ them? Trace, for instance, makes an assertion, but doesn't provide a lot of information to substantiate it. However, he has clearly done some research on Amroc, and his claims do make sense--Amroc suffered some bad luck (death of a major program leader, a spectacular failed test) that would make people think twice before giving them more money, and space startups have often failed to attract investors for some pretty basic reasons (investors want less risky bets with quicker payoffs, and rockets are traditionally risky).

What sources do you have? Do you have any information to back up your assertions? Can you share it?

Posted by Paul Eden at January 29, 2006 04:17 PM

> But have you bothered to actually READ them? Trace, for instance, makes an assertion, but doesn't
> provide a lot of information to substantiate it. However, he has clearly done some research on Amroc,

So, you prefer to take the word of someone who has "done research" (i.e., read stuff other people wrote) over someone like Rand with first-hand knowledge?

> his claims do make sense

In other words, you agree with his claims. That doesn't neccesarily mean they are true. The geocentric universe made sense, at one time.

> What sources do you have? Do you have any information to back up your assertions? Can you share it?

Ken cited a dozen sources, and Rand is a primary source. There are others, but what's the point of citing them when you dismiss anyone who criticizes NASA as a rightwinger who "reeks" ideology?

For the sake of argument, let's assume you're correct. Anyone who criticizes the current policy is a libertarian/conservative who reeks of ideology -- and by symmetry, I guess, anyone who supports the current policy is a liberal with a clean open freshly laundered mind. If that's the case, please explain why 40 years of sqeeky clean space policy has resulted in so little progress and why that is preferable to what "reeking ideology" might have produced.

Posted by at January 29, 2006 08:29 PM

"Ken cited a dozen sources,"

He cited a dozen secondary sources. You complained about secondary sources. Also, none of the sources he cited dealt specifically with Amroc.

"and Rand is a primary source."

He didn't work for Amroc. He also provided no specifics.

Once again, do you have primary sources for your claims? Will you share them? Please?

Posted by Paul Eden at January 30, 2006 07:24 AM

>> "Ken cited a dozen sources,"

> He cited a dozen secondary sources.

While you cited one secondary (or tertiary) source. Mark did the same. Why do you consider a single secondary source to be more reliable than twelve secondary sources?

>> "and Rand is a primary source."

> He didn't work for Amroc. He also provided no specifics.

It's possible to have first-hand knowledge without working for Amroc. And you haven't provided many specifics, either.

Odor aside, are you ever going to tell us why "perfumed liberal" space policy is superior to "stinky right-wing" space policy? :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at January 30, 2006 12:50 PM

>> Private citizens own and operate hundreds of fighters in the US.

> I never knew that.

Indeed. Which means you have never visited Wings Over Houston, the Lonestar Flight Museum, or the former Combat Jets Flying Museum, all within 50 miles of you.

Given that you managed to miss such things practically in your own backyard, you might want to ask yourself how many other things you've missed in the world -- and take that into account when you make authoritative statements about what it's "impossible" for private enterprise to do.

> So where can one buy a slightly used F 15? (g)

You might try a military surplus depot, but it's unlikely you could make it airworthy again and even less likely that you could afford to operate it. If you're in the market, I suggest you conaider a nice Flanker instead. Cheaper to operate and better manueverability as well.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 30, 2006 01:13 PM

"And you haven't provided many specifics, either."

Nope. So I guess that leaves both sides even, therefore the assertion that NASA killed ISF and Amroc remains unproven.

"Odor aside, are you ever going to tell us why "perfumed liberal" space policy is superior to "stinky right-wing" space policy?"

Who said I was a liberal? Who said I support liberals? Hate 'em, personally.

Do you argue for a living?

Posted by Paul Eden at January 30, 2006 03:28 PM

> So I guess that leaves both sides even, therefore the assertion that
> NASA killed ISF and Amroc remains unproven.

Even except for the quantity and quality of sources cited. One primary source plus a dozen secondary sources are not equal to two secondary sources, unless you're using "new math."

> Who said I was a liberal? Who said I support liberals?

Who said I said you were a liberal? Do you build strawmen for a living?

I simply asked why you believe the "reeking libertarian/conservative" space policies would be worse than the policies the US has pursued since the Kennedy era. I'm not agreeing with your political labels, I'm just using them for identification purposes.

Forget the labels. Just tell me why it's better to use taxpayer's money to launch Mark's ant farms than to develop than to develop spaceflight for national defense.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 30, 2006 04:34 PM

...the assertion that NASA killed ISF and Amroc remains unproven.

No such assertion was made. Such strawmen are what's so frustrating about arguments on the web.

The assertion that was made was that NASA took actions that damaged Amroc, and that it wasn't simply "not providing them with money or Shuttle flights." That assertion is true. I helped them do it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 30, 2006 10:02 PM

"Even except for the quantity and quality of sources cited. One primary source plus a dozen secondary sources are not equal to two secondary sources, unless you're using "new math."

You might want to check your logic on that one. For starters, half of those "dozen secondary sources" predate the deaths of ISF and Amroc (Amroc, for instance, died in the mid-1990s), and are therefore not relevant to the subject of their demise. In fact, most of those cited sources don't even REFERENCE the cases discussed here. So adding them all up as "proof" in the ISF and Amroc cases doesn't work because they say nothing about them. And the "primary source" you cite has made an assertion lacking details. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that the case remains unproven.

Posted by at January 31, 2006 06:33 AM

> You might want to check your logic on that one. For starters, half of
> those "dozen secondary sources" predate the deaths of ISF and Amroc
> (Amroc, for instance, died in the mid-1990s),

ISF died in the mid-80's. You're being selective with your facts.

> And the "primary source" you cite has made an assertion lacking details.
> Doesn't mean he's wrong, but it does mean that the case remains unproven.

And the sources that have details, you won't read. Fine, whatever.

Can we please get back to the original subject of the thread? Even if NASA is an pure as Ivory Soap, that doesn't explain why the goal of US space policy should be landing a few more astronauts on the Moon instead of developing responsive low-cost space systems to fight enemies like Al Queda.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 31, 2006 12:11 PM

Wright wrote:
"ISF died in the mid-80's. You're being selective with your facts."

No. Incorrect. ISF died in 1989. It was included in congressional legislation as late as 1988 and reviewed by the NRC and NAPA in early 1989. Their reviews effectively killed it and the company ceased operations in 1989.

Look it up. Do not let your ideology prevent you from performing due dilligence.

Posted by Paul Eden at February 4, 2006 09:00 PM

Post a comment