Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I think it's in the sense of 'and they can't just take it at gunpoint like the IRS does for NASA'.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 13, 2006 07:31 AM

Obviously he's speaking of the Russians begging for non-Russian money to pay for their space efforts, as is their norm these days.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2006 08:29 AM

I thought it showed a lot of good sense to dump the Kliper and take up an RTM project. Does anyone doubt that shuttles are a waste of money?

Posted by Orville at June 13, 2006 08:34 AM

I guess I'm missing your point, Cecil. What difference does it make what the national source of the money is? There's a lot more money outside of Russia than there is inside, so it makes sense to me to be looking there, for the same reason that Willy Sutton robbed banks. Either way, it's other peoples' money. And unlike NASA, they'd be happy to take money given willingly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 08:35 AM

Rand does not seem to distinquish between a nation using its own money to perform great tasks and a nation trying to get other countries to pay for their own schemes.

And yes, I know the argument that it's the peoples' money. But in the United States, the people are soverign and has control over how much taxes are raised and what they are spent on by using that thing we call elections. Polling data still shows that the American people overwelmingly support NASA and support VSE. This may be bitter gall and wormwood to the Internet Rocketeer Club, but I suggest they should drink it quietly and learn to enjoy it.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 13, 2006 08:43 AM

Mark, the notion that any election is ever swung by the civilian space program (well, except Harrison Schmitt's in which case he lost over it because of his support, or those in the districts of NASA centers) is laughable.

The Russians are looking for people to give up their money voluntarily. I don't see NASA doing that.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 08:46 AM

Rand, it is not my problem that people do not choose to turn people out of office who do support NASA. They could if they wanted to. But it looks like that even those people who want to shut down NASA (even every other day!) are a tiny, rather bitter minority. It does no good to suggest that NASA is somehow the moral equivilent of Putin's Russia (or even worse!) That position is demonstrably a bit cranky.

My point of course is that Russia's economy is still in such disarray that it must go begging to other countries to fund its space program. It's not the same as a company asking for investors, by the way. But I suspect you have to figured that one out.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 13, 2006 08:54 AM

This is really nothing new, and it's the main reason why nobody should believe any Russian "future plan" for space--they draw up viewgraphs that require foreign investment to implement.

Simply put, the Russians needed foreign money to fund Kliper and they didn't get it, so they canceled Kliper. Now they have come up with a new program that requires foreign money. Will they get it? Unlikely. And keep in mind that they do this for other things as well--like their Phobos-Grunt Mars spacecraft, which they have touted for years but which requires foreign money.

The new manned spacecraft proposal is rather craven. They started Kliper with the plan of funding it themselves, but the Russian government declined. So they went to the Europeans and offered a role in the program providing aviation subcomponents. ESA said no. The Russians interpreted that as disatissfaction with the terms of the deal. So the Russians have now decided to try and come up with something that they _think_ will be more attractive to the Europeans--a spacecraft utilizing large European components like the ATV. But that's like assembling a cow out of parts of various four-legged animals. And of course the Russians don't simply want the Europeans to bring their components to the table, they also want them to provide money to pay for the work that the Russians will perform. They probably threw in the lunar aspect simply to try to sweeten the deal ("you can beat the Americans!"), but that's not a really smart idea. Although Europe might like more involvement, this is not the spacecraft or the deal that they would like. Keep in mind that Europe's focus is the ISS, so they want an ISS servicing vehicle.

Posted by Don Hurtle at June 13, 2006 09:15 AM

Don makes some very good points. I don't think the Euros are very interested in space, except for being junior partners with the Americans. The first European astronaut to walk on the Moon will almost certainly fly there on the CEV.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 13, 2006 09:54 AM

"The Russians are looking for people to give up their money voluntarily. I don't see NASA doing that."

How silly. Is there any government department that runs on voluntary donations, in this or any other country? Why do you expect NASA to do so?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 13, 2006 10:06 AM

Is there any government department that runs on voluntary donations, in this or any other country? Why do you expect NASA to do so?

I don't, Cecil. Thanks for the non sequitur, though. I just wonder why Mark thinks that the Russians should should do it with "their own money."

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 10:29 AM

Mark,
The whole idea that "in the United States, the people are soverign and has control over how much taxes are raised and what they are spent on by using that thing we call elections." is laughable. I'm a socially conservative antiwar libertarian. How much representation of my views do I really get? How much control do I really have over how much taxes are raised? Elections when they are a choice between tweedle-D and tweedle-dummer are a really lousy check or balance. I'm not an anarchist, but I'd like to see most of the government programs go away. But do I have control over that? Do you? No. A politician who gets elected usually by far less than 50% of the people does.

There was a time when things like oh, that rag of paper known as the Constitution used to restrict what money could be spent on, but between the Whigs and then the GOP (and then the Democrats this past century and this one), that whole idea has gone out the window.

The reality of the situation, in spite of all the rosy civics lessons in the world is that I have no control, and no voice really in how much of my money is spent, and where it's spent. It's pretty much highway robbery. I could vote for (and have voted for) candidates who say they want to cut most of that spending, but a) they never get elected, b) even then there's no way to hold them to their word, c) there are several hundred other corrupt congresscritters who would also need to be convinced to vote out those programs.

Elections are really, really, really blunt policy instruments. Any time where you're relying on elections, and on the virtue of elected politicians as your primary check and balance on abuse of power, you already know you've lost.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at June 13, 2006 10:35 AM

Rand - If Russia could raise its own money to fund either Kliper or their own RTM program, it was have a better chance of seeing either project actually become reality.

Jon - Your complaint is that you can't persuade either a majority or even a plurality of people to agree with you. Tough. That's democracy.

I propose that the members of the Internet Rocketeer Club form their own political Pac. Call it, NASA Delenda Est Pac, which would support candidates that promise to abolish NASA and use the savings from the federal budget for tax credits for alt.space companies. Come on. Even the Daily Ks Kids, as crazed as they are, raise money.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 13, 2006 10:48 AM

If Russia could raise its own money to fund either Kliper or their own RTM program, it was have a better chance of seeing either project actually become reality.

Why is that?

As I said, there was a reason that Willy Sutton robbed banks. Why would focusing on Russia increase their chances of raising money? What is the logic behind your comment?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 11:02 AM

Rand, surely you are not that obtuse. Let me give you an example. If I wanted to--say--go on a trip to Italy, if I finance it with my own money, I would certainly get to go. However, if I were to hit up friends and relatives to pay for the trip, it's quite possible (likely in fact) that enough will say no (Hell no in certain cases) that I'm not getting any nearer to Venice than my neighborhood pasta joint.

The same princible applies even in business. Elon Musk has gotten as far as he has because he's self financed SpaceX and has not had to go around to venture capitalists and banks trying to persuade them why a rocket company is a good investment. He believes it himself and is willing to stake his own wealth on it.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 13, 2006 11:14 AM

Mark, I'm not obtuse at all.

Very few space ventures are done with one's "own money." SpaceX, Armadillo and Blue Origin are exceptions to this rule.

Space (at least for now) requires expenditures on such a level that it's unreasonable to think that it will be done on that basis. Anyone wanting to do space ventures will require someone else's money (including NASA), and they'll have to provide some justification and promise of return in order to get it. I'm still awaiting an explanation of your strange criticism of the Russians.

I suspect I'll wait...well...longer than I want to cease respirating.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 11:27 AM

Rand - The three companies you've mentioned are three that have a far better chance of succeeding, particularly because they can self finance. Now, the day will come when venture capitalists will be more willing to invest in rocket companies. But it will not happen before a few more successes are scored. And that means successful businesses as well as launches.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 13, 2006 11:51 AM

The three companies you've mentioned are three that have a far better chance of succeeding, particularly because they can self finance.

I agree, Mark. But I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why NASA is different than the Russians in the regard to doing it OPM. Or are you claiming, absurdly, that NASA can self finance?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 13, 2006 11:55 AM

This is silly.

NASA is part of the US government and does it projects with US government money. Yeah, it comes from the taxpayers, but once it's been taken from them, then the issue is the allocation of funds within the government.

The Russians are not asking their own government to fund these things. They want foreigners to do it for them. And that's why they fail.

Posted by Don Hurtle at June 13, 2006 12:50 PM

Russia could sell the TV rights for the world wide coverage of a Frenchwoman, a citizen of India, a Brazilian and a Russian all stepping foot on the Moon before NASA gets back there.

Whatever that dollar figure (oops, euro figure) may be, it would be enough to purchase a great many Proton & Soyuz launches.

Posted by Bill White at June 13, 2006 01:06 PM

> Your complaint is that you can't persuade either a majority or even
> a plurality of people to agree with you. Tough. That's democracy.

Where "majority of the people" is defined as Mark Whittington???

What polls show that a majority of the American people think NASA should go back to the Moon *using the most expensive architecture available*?

What polls show that a majority of the American people think NASA should lay off or permanently ground over half the astronaut corps?

What polls show that a majority of the American people think NASA should make spaceflight *more* expensive than it is today?

What polls show that a majority of the American people think the US should give up half of its B-52 bomber force, all of its U-2 spyplanes, and all of its F-117 stealth fighters -- to pay for only a fraction of the VSE budget increase?

> use the savings from the federal budget for tax credits for alt.space companies. Come on.

Careful, Mark, you're showing your true colors. Recently, you were pretending you favored tax credits, remember?

There are already PACs and other groups that advocate things like that. The National Taxpayers Union and other fiscal conservatives you bawl about, remember? Like Newt Gingrich, who just stated that he's a likely candidate for President in 2008.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2006 01:55 PM

Top of the afternoon, Edward. I was waiting for you to slip your chain.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 13, 2006 02:13 PM

> Top of the afternoon, Edward. I was waiting for you to slip your chain.

As coherent and intelligent as always, Mark. :-)

It says a lot about ESAS that this is the caliber of "argument" supporters are able to muster.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 13, 2006 03:13 PM

Mark,

In case you weren't aware, Russia is raking in the petrorubles these days. Putin is funding Russian space activities much better than occured in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

And, of course, they are smart enough to look for international partners and, as you imply, sponsors. Would that they were still (comparatively) democrats and we could work with them.

-Jim

Posted by Jim Muncy at June 13, 2006 05:13 PM

Mark, here's another idea. Sort of left field.

How about we merely take half of the human space flight budget and give it to science, and take the other half and put it on the table for purchase of commercial space services to support the science office., should they appear. Given a $3B PA guaranteed market, Boeing, Loral and Lockheed Martin will jump to invest. Serious alt.space companies will follow.

Lease all the shuttle assets to USA at no cost, on the condition that if the shuttle is not flown for three consecutive years the lease agreement is terminated and the shuttles put into a museum. The ISS can be given to the international consortium and they can either deorbit it, or pay ISS contractors market rates for upkeep.

Those NASA workers who cannot be transferred to science and who are involved in Shuttle or ISS ops will be offered a redundancy package, say $10k per year of service capped at $80000. They will also be offered an additional $10k + $5k per year capped at $40k to be used for tertiary education to reskill.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 14, 2006 08:09 AM

I would assume that this policy would appease 90% of NASA districts, so probably pass through congress.

It would probably also have bipartison support from any congress member with a libertarian slant, so it would make a fantastic litmus test for 2008 in that regard.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 14, 2006 08:16 AM

Lose the U2s and F-117's? Only if part of the funding went to UAVs and the F-22B variant. That might be a good idea anyway. The F-117 can't fit much of a bomb payload so is really only good for SEAD runs, and it's getting kinda old.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 14, 2006 08:54 AM

> Lose the U2s and F-117's? Only if part of the funding went to UAVs and
> the F-22B variant. The F-117 can't fit much of a bomb payload

The F-117 can carry 5,000 pounds internally (i.e., without sacrificing stealth). The F-22A can carry only 2,000 pounds internally, and the F-22A is not combat ready yet. (There is no F-22B.) As for UAVs, toy airplanes have toy capabilities.

The F-22A costs $360 million per plane. All of those retirements, including the B-52s (and more) would allow the Air Force to buy just six F-22s a year. (If the Administration and Congress didn't scarp the money to pay for prescription drug benefits, Apollo on Steroids, and other domestic programs, that is.)

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2006 05:19 PM

> And, of course, they are smart enough to look for international partners and,
> as you imply, sponsors. Would that they were still (comparatively) democrats
> and we could work with them.

Okay, Jim, help me out here. Griffin just went to Peking to woo the Communist Chinese.

Russia has elections coming up in 2008 and a president with term limits that prevent him from running again. There's some question about whether Putin will respect those limits, but so far as I know, there's no question at all about China.

What makes China "comparatively" democratic vs. Russia?

As far as I can tell, this has less to do with democracy than Washington's preference for sweet and sour over borscht.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 14, 2006 05:38 PM

Post a comment