I won't be getting to the conference until tomorrow, but Clark Lindsey has several posts up already with what's been going on, here, here, here, and here.

And Jeff Foust has interviewed Bob Bigelow, who will be keynoting tomorrow morning.

One thought on Clark's report:

Tumlinson: The whole Exploration architecture is going to fail because it is financially and politically unsustainable.

He's right.

Is it really any less financially and politically unsustainaible than was Shuttle?

If that can last 30 years with a similar funding level, why can't ESAS?

People like to extrapolate upon the single data point of the collapse of the Apollo program. This in no way measn the same fate awaits ESAS simply because both invollve flights to the moon.

Anything under 0.5% of the federal budget, which the whole of NASA will be by 2018 will largely fall under the radar. Apollo was closer to 5% than 0.5%. That much of a honeypot tends to draw bees.

Besides, for good or ill ( and I suspect as much for ill as good) NASA has learned how to leverage programs in multiple key states and districts to ensure continued support.

This is the real leasson it learned from Apollo. Had Apollo been as well politically seeded, it may have never ended.

Is it really any less financially and politically unsustainaible than was Shuttle?

Yes. The combination of high costs and perception that the private sector is doing it fastercheaperbetter will kill it.

High costs?

As a percentage of the federal budget, it will proabally end up being cheaper than the Shuttle Program. High is relative. The government is not necessarily concerned about high cost as much as it is concerned about political costs.

As to the second point, no private sector orginization has proposed a serious plan to accomplish similar lunar goals.

Once the private sector has a credible humna presence in low earth orbit and the new big players in LEO propose a serious, funded plan to accomplish a serious human presence on the moon, then it will have competetion.

But that day is at a minimum of ten years away. Ten years from now, the private sector will be busy estabilshing the first tue human footholds in LEO. NASA will be moving out of hte LEO business at that time. If ESAS makes it to 2025 before a private venture starts turning regolith, can we not argue at that point it was sustained?

Hopefully, at that juncture NASA will again be handing over the reins over to the private sector while it turns its attentions and funds torard Barsoom.

Still, I would not consider such a scneario a failure to sustain ESAS. If it is a fialure, it will certainly be a happy one.

Rand, do you really think that private industry will be a competetive factor vis-avi human presence on the moon before 2025?

I would absolutely love to see them there by say in 2015 but my gut tells me it is going to take a bit more time than that. Nothing would make me happier to be proven wrong but my faith is simply not quite that strong at this point.

I believe that a profitible private human presence in LEO pretty much being thre tipping point when our human future in the rest of the solar system becomes assured. I simply think you hava a more agressive view of when this point threshold will be crossed.

What Mike said.

Sorry about my bout of dyslexia guys.

Me and laptop keyboards do not play nice.

"...perception that the private sector is doing it fastercheaperbetter will kill it."

Of course, I'm not sure who can have that kind of perception because the private sector is *not* doing it (i.e. lunar missions.) The private sector does seems interested in being partipants in NASA's operation, however, which is something Rick seems to be unaware of.

I'm not sure who can have that kind of perception because the private sector is *not* doing it (i.e. lunar missions.

Well, Mark, since I was talking about the future, and not the present, (as usual) you have no point.

"Well, Mark, since I was talking about the future, and not the present, (as usual) you have no point."

That would be hard for anyone reading your post to understand, since you used the present tense (i.e. "is doing it.") The future tense would go something like "that the private sector will do it fastercheaperbetter."

Of course suggesting that the private sector "will" do it fastercheaperbeater is not an argument for not doing ESAS, since "will" can be anytime between the next second to some time in the indefinate (i.e. perhaps centuries if not longer) future. You would have to prove that the private sector "will" go back to the Moon sometime within the time frame suggested by ESAS. And you have not proven that, especially since no private entity has a serious back to the Moon project.

FYI. Boasting that the private sector will beat NASA to the Moon does not constitute a plan.

That would be hard for anyone reading your post to understand, since you used the present tense

I think that most intelligent people would understand that I was describing a situation in the future, as the program evolved, since that was the subject under discussion.

So Rand you're predicting that private enterprise will be landing folks on the Moon in the same numbers, for the same duration and in the same timeframe as the VSE proposal and that they will be doing so "fastercheaperbetter"?

"I think that most intelligent people would understand that I was describing a situation in the future, as the program evolved, since that was the subject under discussion."

Most people who read English understand the difference between "is" and "will." Either you were falsely boasting that the private sector was already on its way to the Moon or you just screwed up on your tenses. It might behoove you to admit to error and not try to accuse people of not understanding what you "meant" rather what you posted.

Is it really any less financially and politically unsustainaible than was Shuttle?

If that can last 30 years with a similar funding level, why can't ESAS?

It could, but Shuttle followed the preceived success of Apollo; it took a while for that banked reputation to be squandered. ESAS follows the failures of Shuttle and ISS. The Shuttle also at least had a mission that was seen as having some value to non-NASA customers. Who are the customers for moon bases?

Also, the NASA workforce is much older now. The pressure to keep filling the iron ricebowl could decline as the workers retire.

But you're right, it could survive for a while. We might see the flight rate be cut to a level that preserves only occasional launches, at even lower levels than envisioned. Maybe one crewed launch every couple of years, just so the politicians can pretend manned spaceflight hasn't ended.

Most people who read English understand the difference between "is" and "will."

Yes, as in this sentence: "Yes. The combination of high costs and perception that the private sector is doing it fastercheaperbetter will kill it."

To me, a novice in the language of English (having only spoken it for 27 1/2 years), I can easily understand that Rand is talking about (not just implying) the future. The phrase "will kill it" is the future tense, and is the main verb of the sentence. "costs" and "perception" are the subjects of the sentence, and "that the private sector is doing it f/b/c" is a qualifier of "perception". I won't take the time to fully diagram the sentence, though.

I find it rather specious (and annoying) that the only argument you have against Rand's point is your misunderstanding of proper (and simple) grammar.

Maybe one crewed launch every couple of years, just so the politicians can pretend manned spaceflight hasn't ended.

Which, IMHO, would be a failure of the program, even if the private sector is still 239,000 miles from getting to the moon.

Clark Lindsey provides a link to ricktumlinson.com. The bio section is pretty amusing. It states he was "educated in England
and Texas".

That's nice. Was he educated in engineering? In fact, there is no
mention of any degree whatsoever. The rest of the "resume" is
simply a list of his public appearances. One could replace that
bio page with one word: Gasbag. Rand has found a kindred
spirit.

Nevertheless, Im glad to see that what happens in Vegas does not really seem to stay in Vegas. The entertainment value of the
Kool-Aid Convention is really high. Hopefully, all the aluminum
foil in the baseball caps wont interfere with Rand's wireless connection.

Which, IMHO, would be a failure of the program, even if the private sector is still 239,000 miles from getting to the moon.

I don't see any way for it to 'succeed' in an objective sense. But then, I don't see much chance for the private efforts either. Both groups are likely doomed (IMO) by the lack of a realistic value proposition.

Sorry, John Breen, but "the private sector is doing it" is in the present tense. That suggests that there are already private sector return to the Moon efforts, which there are not. "Will kill it" is in the future tense, suggesting that these mythical private sector lunar operations that Rand suggests already exist "will" but have not yet killed NASA's real lunar program.

Mark, as I said, any intelligent person would understand what I said. You seem determined to prove the corollary of my statement. And it would be a foolish person indeed who would think that I literally thought that there are private lunar activities today.

So Rand you're predicting that private enterprise will be landing folks on the Moon in the same numbers, for the same duration and in the same timeframe as the VSE proposal and that they will be doing so "fastercheaperbetter"?

No, I said that, due to an abundance of activities seeming to lead in that direction, there will be a sufficient perception that they will be doing so soon such as to make people question why they should continue to spend so much on NASA's program.

Rand, what you're really saying is that an "intelligent person" would be able to read your mind and not pay attention to what you actually posted. You might want to reflex on how crazy that is.

No, Mark, no mind reading required. Just intelligence, as John Breen demonstrated. And I never "reflex" on anything. I do occasionally reflect on things, but rarely on advice from you, with good reason.

"No, I said that, due to an abundance of activities seeming to lead in that direction, there will be a sufficient perception that they will be doing so soon such as to make people question why they should continue to spend so much on NASA's program."

So you're counting on the people making a choice between NASA / private spaceflight based on perception rather than fact?

Given that at any given time roughly half the US population supports liberal Democrats whose reputations are built primarily on perceptions rather than fact, you may be right.