Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Perhaps Keith is saying that the "Stupid" comment comes off as a highly emotional and knee-jerk response we'd expect from a political activists not a scientist and explaining that there are better ways the same thing could have been done would have been a better way to get his message across.

Posted by rjschwarz at June 15, 2006 10:48 AM

Of course in the absence of an alternate (and realistic) policy, one cannot take Rand's belief very seriously. It's sort of like claiming, "I think we should win the War on Terror" and also "The Bush policy for doing so is wrong and evil" without offering a strategy that does not involve cutting and running.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 10:49 AM

Yes, Mark, that's exactly what it's like.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 10:57 AM

I still notice the lack of an alternate policy. But that seems par for the course for the Internet Rocketeer Club. Complain but offer no solutions.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 15, 2006 11:14 AM

I've stated many alternate policies many times, Mark. You just don't like them. I'm not going to republish them every time I put up a space-related post. Do you have Alzheimers?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 11:17 AM

I have to agree with Mark on this one.

I accept that the Constellation efforts seem like a minimal effort to pretend to meet an ambitious goal. If these efforts are allowed to continue at this level of progression, 10 years is a pipe dream. However, it is some progression, and discarding it as simply "stupid" with out a better suggestion is foolish.

Then again, Stephen Hawkins talks by manipulating a straw to have a computer speak for him. Perhaps "stupid" is as detailed an explanation he can make before the reporter loses patience.

Posted by Leland at June 15, 2006 11:21 AM

While I agree that it would be nice for Dr. Hawking to offer some elaboration, the fact remains that there is nothing inconsistent about the two positions, which is my only point.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 11:24 AM

Why should it be necessary to propose an alternate policy in order to criticize an existing policy? Unworkable solutions remain unworkable regardless of the existence of alternatives. Of course, if your goal is your own employment rather than significant achievement, you will prefer any expenditure to no expenditure.

I am reminded of the criticisms made by bleeding hearts about welfare reform, about how benefits should not be cut unless some alternative was proposed for the poverty problem.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 15, 2006 11:27 AM

I can't read Dr. Hawkings mind but I'd be willing to bet (if I were a betting man) that his reaction to the "Bush Plan" had more to do with his feelings for Bush than any specific issues he might have with the plan itself. Anyone know for certain what his political leanings happen to be?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2006 11:32 AM

"I've stated many alternate policies many times, Mark."

When has this happened? The world must have missed it. Why not offer a link if you are unwilling to state this alternate policy you say you have?

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 11:33 AM

I'm with Paul on this one: With a choice between a bad policy, or doing nothing, I think that doing nothing deserves a serious look.

Posted by Jane Bernstein at June 15, 2006 11:36 AM

The world didn't miss it, Mark. Just you, apparently. You seem to be the only one whining about it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 11:36 AM

Paul, your premise is flawed. No one has proven that VSE is "unworkable." (Hint: Just saying that it is does not make it so.) Also, your analogy is flawed. Welfare reform is the alternative policy to welfare in dealing with the problem of poverty.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 11:37 AM

Rand - No alternate policy. Thank you for proving my point.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 11:38 AM

Thank you for proving my point.

Me: <laughing>

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 11:41 AM

Rand, prove him wrong. Provide a link. I'd love to read it too.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2006 12:06 PM

No one has proven that VSE is "unworkable." (Hint: Just saying that it is does not make it so.)

Yes, NASA has such a great track record at promoting sustainable movement into space. By all means, the onus has to be on anyone else, not on NASA, to provide proof for their position. [/sarcasm]

VSE is unworkable in the sense that even if it achieves the result promised (and I do not expect it will be able to do that, on time and on budget), it will make no significant progress toward Hawking's stated goal, or toward any other goal someone not feeding at this trough would actually value.

In my book, anyone supporting decades of multibillion dollar annual budgets for some activity should have to justify that this will actually be making significant progress toward a worthwhile goal. The notion that critics have to prove you shouldn't get the money just stinks of an entitlement mindset.

Posted by Paul Dietz at June 15, 2006 12:08 PM

Here. Among other places.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 12:09 PM

Great!

No time to read it all right now, but skimming the last section (Improving the Bush Vision) it seems to me that NASA has actually begun to impliment some of your suggestions. Can't you give them a little credit for doing so?

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2006 12:19 PM

Can't you give them a little credit for doing so?

Yes, I can, and I have. But the fact remains that the vast majority of their planned expenditures (Shuttle/ISS/Apollo-on-steroids) will do very little to contribute to getting space colonies any time soon.

Also note that some of the most useful things (treaty withdrawals, regulatory issues) are above NASA's pay grade. Part of the problem is that we persist in thinking that "space policy" = NASA. We need an overarching federal approach to this, that's less NASA centric.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 12:38 PM

Cecil, since Rand cannot be bothered to link to his own piece to defend his position, could you provide a link?

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 12:53 PM

Paul wrote: Why should it be necessary to propose an alternate policy in order to criticize an existing policy?

It should be necessary when you first say that Earthlings could colonize Mars within 40 years (as Professor Hawkins did), but then criticize the only current effort to even get to Mars within the next 20 years as "stupid". If you think it can be colonized in 40 years, show us the game plan.

Otherwise Paul, I agree that the debate tactic is silly.

Posted by Leland at June 15, 2006 12:57 PM

Mark, you are turning into another Bob Oler type troll. What are you trying to do, kill interest in Rand's blog with your petty comments?

Posted by Orville at June 15, 2006 02:16 PM

I suspect that most of my readers, like me, find Mark's petty comments entertaining. And it provides them a way to respond, since he doesn't allow comments at his own blog (for what I think are obvious reasons).

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 02:24 PM

The RTM thread was largely abandoned because of people like him and Oler. It is tiring to read through a bunch of snarky posts to get to the meat and potatoes.

Posted by Orville at June 15, 2006 02:29 PM

Orville. No. I want to know what Rand's alternative policy is. That he refuses to discuss it speaks volumes. I find constant complaining without positive solutions tiresome. If you find this kind of hard questioning and debate hard, then I suggest going elsewhere to a place where everyone agrees with each other.

By the way, the comparison to Oler is really below the belt, which is odd coming from someone whining about alleged indecorous dialogue.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at June 15, 2006 04:40 PM

Rand, as I have said before, the reason I don't allow comments on my blog is that I refuse to put up with trolls like Edward Wright and other people who like to yell and then whine when they get answered back.

Posted by Mark R Whittington at June 15, 2006 04:42 PM

Mark, you're always invited to pay a visit to the Selenian Boondocks and dig through our archives. Jon Goff and I have been posting about alternatives there for a year, and we were both at the RttM and Space Arena boards doing pretty much the same thing the whole time you were there. 10s of 1000s of words scattered across the internet.

The notion that people who critique the ESAS can't do so because they don't offer an alternative policy is nonsense. I have decried the ESAS from the beginning for good solid commercial reasons, and have offered many alternative suggestions like Murphy Bag fuel depots, EML-1 stations, caplet-style CEVs, use of existing launch hardware to the greatest extent possible, specific missions to be performed at specific locations, commercial paths, and so forth. Others (such as our host here, Rand) have as well.

Or could it be that you are actually looking for what you consider to be credible suggestions? In which case it's tough to put together an 800 page report on one's own dime, especially if one has a professional day job with unusual demands on time. (and is also putting together a massive space conference for next year) So what are you looking for Mark? What would you consider to be a non-'Internet Rocket Club' non-Kool-Aid [tm] credible policy?

Posted by Ken Murphy at June 15, 2006 05:35 PM

What would you consider to be a non-'Internet Rocket Club' non-Kool-Aid [tm] credible policy?

Obviously, something that agreed that giving NASA a hundred billion dollars over the next decade to do whatever it wants to do, and hoping for the best, since that's what he seems to be a proponent of now.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 15, 2006 06:14 PM

Rand and Mark are equally guilty of "snarky" remarks directed at the other. Each is capable of adult discourse, and I wish they would make use of that talent more often when talking with one another rather than bickering like children.

And Mark, Rand DID provide a link. Look above about a half dozen posts.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 15, 2006 06:31 PM

I agree with Hawking. Without low cost access to LEO, it's incredibly stupid.

Putting someone on Mars is only however slightly stupid. While there is absolutely nothing on Mars that can't be done an order of magnitude cheaper by telepresence from geosynchronous mars orbit and robot landers, the flag run might create the political capital require to get a Mars mission off the ground.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 16, 2006 06:43 AM

I would further suggest we build a geosynchronous permanent base with volatiles supplied from Deimos, and earth made supplies delivered by electromagnetic catapult at EML1 and mars aerocapture.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 16, 2006 06:51 AM

Paul, your premise is flawed. No one has proven that VSE is "unworkable."

Mark, noone can prove VSE is "unworkable" because the VSE doesnt provide a plan or any actual vision. Certainly ironic, but what bush policy isnt.

It's pure political posturing, likely paid for by ATK to get their 'safe simple soon' propoganda into the public conciousness.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 16, 2006 06:59 AM

> Mark, you are turning into another Bob Oler type troll. What are you
> trying to do, kill interest in Rand's blog with your petty comments?

Oler and Whittington are mirror images of one another. Their position on every issue can be summed up as: "Bush is the devil/Bush is God. We must blindly oppose/blindly support anything Bush proposes."

Here's a funny thing: A few years back, it was Oler who proposed that NASA should build "Liberty" Capsules and go back to the Moon using super-ELVs, and Whittington who completely opposed the idea and said let private enterprise do it. Until "Liberty" became "Constellation" and Bush endorsed it; then Oler and Whittington abruptly switched sides. :-)

Posted by Edward Wright at June 16, 2006 01:54 PM

In a sense, the Whittington/Oler show can be thought of as a parody of the prevailing political party views on space views. Neither side really cares about space issues, per se, but both are willing to use them as a tool to extract votes for their guy.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 16, 2006 02:05 PM

"In a sense, the Whittington/Oler show can be thought of as a parody of the prevailing political party views on space views. Neither side really cares about space issues, per se, but both are willing to use them as a tool to extract votes for their guy."

Thank god that we have Ed Wright to improve the level of debate with his unique brand of antagonism and arrogance, both of which are in such short supply on the web...

Posted by Jake Best at June 16, 2006 07:54 PM

Here's a funny thing: A few years back, it was Oler who proposed that NASA should build "Liberty" Capsules and go back to the Moon using super-ELVs

I liked that Constellation plan better when it was called NLS and was going to be built at Decatur for 1/10th the price.

Posted by Chris Mann at June 17, 2006 02:09 AM

Please, lets find some reverence in the enormity of this challenge.

Most of the time one doesn't set out with the intention of formulating a bad policy. We have to assume, at least for the sake of my naivity, that most institutions have the best intentions for the majority of those involved. Its only in retro spec that we can begin to pick things apart and put a policy into a bad or good camp. Yes, not doing anything is a choice also and can just as easily be put into the bad category. I tend to put the choice to not do anything into the bad camp because at least making a bad decision one comes away with the lesson learned of how not to do something. I'm not advocating giving up by any means. However, I just shake my head reading these threads because at the heart of it all I wonder why you scientist types are bewildered when you don't get things exactly the way you want. When to me it is fairly obvious with all this bickering going on amongst yourselves. There needs to be some serious work on unifying your message about where you all think we should be as a space faring society. Put that message out there for the rest of us idiots to understand. It is called the art of compromise and sometimes its necessary to give up a little bit to at least get some of what you want instead of nothing at all.

Posted by Josh Reiter at June 17, 2006 08:37 PM

Josh: "It is called the art of compromise and sometimes its necessary to give up a little bit to at least get some of what you want instead of nothing at all."

Truer words were never spoken (or written). So many people are too quick to whine that if it isn't done just exactly how they preceive it should be done then it is all wrong.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 17, 2006 09:28 PM

The institutional inertia of NASA has over the last two to three generations accumulated to such an extent that even ‘scientists’ can rarely differentiate the pork from the technical arguments anymore. The pork has become that insidious.

The new space community knows that it could go to the moon and mars for well under a tenth the NASA budget, and make it sustainable. Hawking knows that the other ninety percent of the NASA budget could then do amazing things for science, instead he sees the NASA science budget being cut to pay for the VSE. Hawking, Rutan, Griffith and many others know this is stupid, but they also know that political realities prevent it from being otherwise.

The expectation among the new space community is that they will get to space off their own back before VSE gets off the drawing board. In doing so the political climate will be changed and VSE quietly side lined, hopefully before too much of the funding has been spent. Till then, VSE serves as a useful distraction to NASA, call it protection money, if you will.

Posted by Pete Lynn at June 18, 2006 07:58 PM

Post a comment