Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

"Things like tax relief, bureaucracy reform, and small scale technology R&D are not quite as sexy as Apollo-like lunges at Mars, but they would have a profound impact toward fulfilling the dreams of space advocates. These initiatives would lower the cost of space travel and open up the high frontier of space to a wide variety of players, mostly from the private sector. This could mean the difference between just a few highly paid government employees getting to travel and work in space, and a huge number of ordinary people getting to travel and work in space-including you who are reading this article." -- Mark Whittington, April 1999

http://4d w.net/aerden/marksbooks/spacepolicy0.htm

Posted by Mock Whittington at April 13, 2006 08:12 PM

That's a very droll example of what I call the Space Vietnam Syndrome. Stated it says that since NASA messed up both the shuttle and the space station, it ought not to be allowed to do anything bigger than a robot probe ever again. I'm not sure, but I suspect that it will turn out to be as fallacious as the original Vietnam Syndrome.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 09:45 PM

Oh, and I suppose I should comment on my words which you've taken out of contex. I stand by them, absolutely. But NASA is not being given the sole task of building a lunar base. In case you haven't noticed, there's going to be considerable private sector participation. It's already happening in the form of prizes. NASA's portion of the base itself will be an incentive for private sector development, simply by being a destination.

Instead of sniping from the sidelines, I would suggest positive ways to improve the plan which is already, on the balance, pretty commercial friendly. I'll start by suggesting that the Moon be made into an enterprise zone. It's a policy decision above the paygrade of NASA, to be sure, but one that I think is worthwhile nevertheless.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 13, 2006 10:18 PM

Mark,
Out of a $60B+ estimated price tag for the lunar portion of the VSE, COTS and Centennial Challenges are being given about $0.5-0.6B. 1% is "significant" in your book? I'm glad they're doing COTS and the Centennial Challenges. I just wish the overall VSE was anywhere near as commercial as you seem to think it is.
~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 13, 2006 10:33 PM

> NASA is not being given the sole task of building a lunar base. In case you haven't noticed, there's
> going to be considerable private sector participation. It's already happening in the form of prizes.

There is no lunar base prize.

General Pete Worden *proposed* a lunar base prize, but NASA and the Administration ignored the idea. Completely.

What was your reaction, Mark?

Do you ask the White House and Congress to fund lunar base prizes? Or tax relief, bureaucracy reform, or small scale technology R&D? Any of the boring things that the old Mark Whittington said would have "a profound impact"?

Or do you simply crow about how NASA is getting a big budget increase for the sexy "Apollo-like lunge at the Moon" that the old Mark Whittington warned against?

> NASA's portion of the base itself will be an incentive for private sector development,
> simply by being a destination.

NASA's "portion" of the lunar base is 100%.

As for NASA's moon base being a destination -- destination for whom? Do you REALLY think there a lot of people who can afford to spend $500 million for a ride in a Constellation capsule?

If you wanted the Moon to be a destination for anyone other than NASA, you would be insisting that NASA find cheaper ways to get to the Moon. Not rejecting them out of hand.

> I would suggest positive ways to improve the plan which is already

That would be a first. Usually, you're tellling us that anyone who wants to change the plan is an evil libertarian, enemy of the human race, etc.

If you want a positive improvement, how about cancelling the two Shuttle-derived boosters and telling NASA to use off-the-shelf EELV and orbital rendezvous -- as the old Mark Whittington suggested?

Then NASA could afford to fund Centennial Challenges, aeronautic research, and other programs that Griffin is gutting.

I won't hold my breathe waiting for the new Mark Whittington to support it, though.

Posted by Edward Wright at April 14, 2006 01:29 AM

Jon - COTS and the Centennial Challenges is just the begining, in my humble opinion. (And by the way, I would like to see the latter increased, though certainly not to 60 billion.) NASA seems to be moving toward having the various support services on the proposed lunar base provided commercially. The commercial sector certainly wins because they get a core customer and it would be placed to provide the same services to others. NASA wins by freeing up it's highly paid government employees for doing things like collecting rocks, doing lunar based astronomy, and testing out neat gadgets. As a long term advocate for space commercializtion (as Rand has pointed out, albeit a bit snarkily) I find that to be a good thing.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 14, 2006 04:18 AM

Locate private sector funding sources and what NASA does or doesn't do becomes irrelevant. Fail to locate private sector funding sources and commercial space is dead on arrival regardless of what NASA does or doesn't do.

Wasteful? Well okay no argument but DoD "wastes" orders of magnitude more money than NASA.

Some (remember that word "some" otherwise I will need to prescribe "Lasik at Home" for you)
aerospace contractors desire increased commercialization merely so they to can dine at the trough of federal tax dollars.

= = =

Masten's call for sponsorship logos for its lunar hopper is 100% headed in the right direction.

Perhaps the space advocacy blogosphere should create a logo to plaster on the Masten hopper (and maybe any competitor, to be fair) and use it as a mechanism for collecting money from the public.

Posted by Bill White at April 14, 2006 06:03 AM

NASA's history of fiscal mismanagement dates back to the origin of the Apollo program. Back then, the unofficial motto was "Waste anything but time." While they did manage to meet Kennedy's deadline by about 5 months, they also managed to kill the Apollo 1 crew.

Just about every NASA project has come in either late, over budget, below specifications, or all of the above. As the Dawn mission shows, this extends down to even a relatively modestly priced astroid probe mission.

NASA's history being what it is, what gives any rational person reason to believe that they're the best solution to space exploration? Maybe NASA could restore some confidence if they manage over the next few years to complete their projects on time and on budget. Until then, NASA is like the underperforming employee who keeps demanding a raise.

Posted by Larry J at April 14, 2006 06:46 AM

Cross-posted (with edits) at Clark Lindsey's site:

Here is my argument why the Stick creates an opportunity for t/Space and Space Dev and other alternative Earth-to-LEO providers, an opportunity that EELV won't provide:

The ESAS CLV is waa-ay overpowered for ISS crew transfer. The ESAS CEV is too heavy to use for efficient ISS crew transfer. (A heavy CEV is more appropriate for LEO re-entry at lunar or Mars velocities).

Therefore, once the Stick CEV is deployed, t/Space or SpaceDev or Kistler or Simberg Spacelines LLC can go to Congress and say "We can get crew to ISS for far less money per person" and the truth of that is blindingly obvious even to dumb Congress critters. Buying seats to from Simberg Spacelines LLC becomes a no-brainer argument to win.

On the other hand, if CEV is lofted on Delta V-H or Atlas V and t/Space comes along and says "We can do it cheaper" Boeing says, "We can sell NASA a single barrel Delta IV-M for ISS crew transfer and you gotta keep buying those barrels to help keep the price down. Maybe EELV to ISS costs more than NewSpace but buying Delta IV-M for the ISS crew taxi reduces CEV costs"

Lockheed says "We'll just drop some of those solids from tha Atlas V and that will save you some money there."

Now, who has the bigger K Street pull? Boeing or Lockheed or NewSpace LLC? Net result? No tax dollars for t/Space or SpaceDev. In a jujitsu sort of way, the Stick creates a niche for NewSpace to sell into.

= = =

Hypergolics for the LSAM? I oppose that, strenuously.

Posted by Bill White at April 14, 2006 07:51 AM

Follow up. Let EELV sew up the CLV and CEV market and what are the odds BoLoMart assists NewSpace into the game? Anyone who is unsure should read Elon Musk's recently dismissed lawsuit.

The Stick is so bad, its good.

Posted by Bill White at April 14, 2006 08:16 AM

Or, as Jerry Pournelle has said,

"Whereas the Congress has determined that an American owned Lunar Colony is in the national interest, the first American owned company that shall place 31 American on the surface of the Moon and keep them there alive and well for a period of three years and one day shall be paid a prize of $7 billion dollars."

Posted by Tim Morrris at April 14, 2006 09:28 AM

(a) I'd vote for that (or contribute $$ to a House or Senate candidate who openly and strongly advocated that scenario);

(b) I decline to hold my breath; and

(c) If someone helped fund a Russian attempt at this same scenario it would be easier to persuade US Congress to give this scenario a try. So, if an American tycoon helped fund a Russian moon base would he/she be a traitor if the objective was to motivate Americans to get in the game?

Posted by at April 14, 2006 09:45 AM

It's interesting that you call quotes which are linked directly to your original articles "out of context."

The only missing context is that you wrote those articles when a Democratic was President.

Now that a Republican is in the White House, you praise him for doing the things you once condemned.

On top of that, you insult people who dare to support the very things you once supported -- when your Party did not control the Oval Office.

You even slander other Republicans, like Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, when they do not blindly follow White House marching orders:

"Boehlert has assumed a passive/aggressive stance toward the Moon, Mars, and Beyond Initiative that makes Hamlet seem decisive."

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10727.shtml

When Democrats were in the White House, you wanted smaller government and more private sector involvement in space. When Republicans are in the White House, you want Big Government and you tell us that 1% for the private sector is plenty.

It's often said that Ronald Reagan wanted to control Big Government, while Bush merely wants to run Big Government. The same seems to be true for his more fanatical supporters.

Posted by Mock Whittington at April 14, 2006 12:46 PM

Amazingly enough, Mark once had the temerity to criticize someone else for flip-flopping on support for an "Apollo-like lunge" at the Moon.

Of course, she was a Democratic.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=315

Posted by Mock Whittington at April 14, 2006 12:53 PM

I must say that I am pofoundly unimpressed with anyone who not only misrepresents my views, but also displays a total divorcement from reality, and does so under a fake name. It demonstrates a certain degree of cowardice that is unedifying in the extreme.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at April 15, 2006 08:27 AM

I am pofoundly unimpressed with anyone who not only misrepresents my views, but also displays a total divorcement from reality

So, you can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh? You misrepresent my, and others' views on a regular basis, Mark.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 15, 2006 08:30 AM

> I must say that I am pofoundly unimpressed with anyone who
> does so under a fake name.

What about fake occupations, Mark?

You have claimed to be a professional novelist, a space policy analyst, and a journalist. All of which turn out to be self-bestowed.

You claim to know more about space than professionals in the field, yet you won't tell us your real qualifications.

Posted by at April 15, 2006 01:08 PM

To the anonymous commenter immediately above: Mark's qualifications or lack thereof are completely irrelevant (and constitute an ad-hominem logical fallacy). Either his arguments are correct or they are not, and no amount of industry experience will change the veracity of his arguments.

Posted by Ed Minchau at April 15, 2006 10:11 PM

> To the anonymous commenter immediately above: Mark's qualifications or lack thereof
> are completely irrelevant (and constitute an ad-hominem logical fallacy)

Interesting statement, since all of Mr. Whittington's arguments are ad hominem. He's never presented proof that resuable vehicles are impossible. In fact, he admitted in the past that they were possible. His current opposition is based solesly on accusations that RLV supporters and ESAS critics are political dissidents -- libertarian, fiscal conservative, anti-American spaceflight, etc.

> Either his arguments are correct or they are not, and no amount of industry experience
> will change the veracity of his arguments.

Mr. Whittington's main argument is that he knows more about space than libertarians, fiscal conservatives, and other "Internet rocketeers."

If you don't think industry experience constitutes evidence of knowledge, what would you consider evidence and where has Mark displayed it? Certainly not in his Internet postings.

Please show us evidence that Mark knows or understands more about RLVs or ESAS than the "Intenet rocketeers" do.

Alternatively, please present evidance that RLVs are impossible and ESAS is the best possible use a $17 billion NASA budget. Evidence based on something other than namecalling and strawman accusations.

Posted by at April 16, 2006 05:29 PM

"Whatever you do, you need courage. Whatever course you decide upon, there is always someone to tell you that you are wrong. There are always difficulties arising that tempt you to believe your critics are right. To map out a course of action and follow it to an end requires some of the same courage that a soldier needs. Peace has its victories, but it takes brave men and women to win them."

--Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803 - 1882)

Posted by Josh Reiter at April 16, 2006 07:35 PM

Anonymous dude, I am one of those Internet Rocketeers(TM). Just trying to maintain the civility of the conversation.

Posted by Ed Minchau at April 17, 2006 07:48 PM

Post a comment