|
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Space Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Mars Blog The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Space Cynic Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Out Of The Cradle Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) True Anomaly Kevin Parkin The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) Charles Murtaugh Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Economics/Finance
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) Journoblogs The Ombudsgod Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett) Joanne Jacobs The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Spleenville (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Site designed by Powered by Movable Type |
ESAS And Sustainability The comments are up to close to a hundred over at the original space politics post on the Perils Of ESAS. Al Fansome provides a little useful bit of history: NASA buying “commercial” may be smart procurement policy but that is not private sector space. I would note (as I did in the next comment there) that in fact the CE&R studies did consider those things, but it's true that with ESAS NASA essentially ignored them. Amusingly, Mark Whittington seems to refer to the discussion obliquely (though as always, he's vague about exactly who or what he's complaining about, just repeating his silly and unique-to-him mantra of "Internet Rocketeers' Club"): One of the common slams against NASA's return to the Moon program is that it is not "politically sustainable." People making that charge don't generally provide any details, though it is suspected that they envision President Hillary Clinton or President Obama cancelling the program the very second their hand comes off the Bible in January, 2009. This is hilarious, since the "people making that charge" have provided a huge amount of details, including budgets, performance numbers, schedule slips, etc., in the Space Politics discussion thread described above. But Mark doesn't dare actually link to them from his own blog, apparently lest his readers find out what those details are, and realize what a poseur he is when it comes to space policy analysis. Posted by Rand Simberg at May 21, 2007 06:40 AMTrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/mt-diagnostics.cgi/7577 Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Comments
Interestingly enough, the land-grant model used by the federal government for the transcontinental railroad (we'll give you some useless land that will become highly valuable if you can do what you say you can do -- and we'll keep the other half) was pioneered in the construction of the Erie Canal -- but there it was private landowners offering land incentives to the government to build the canal. Posted by Jim Bennett at May 21, 2007 08:36 AMI note that Mr. Whittington's blog title IS "Curmudgeon's Corner". Should one really expect reasoned debate from a curmudgeon? I think not. Respectfully submitted, Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 09:36 AMI note that Mr. Whittington's blog title IS "Curmudgeon's Corner". Should one really expect reasoned debate from a curmudgeon? I think not. Respectfully submitted, Posted by MG at May 21, 2007 09:37 AMI note that Mr. Whittington's blog title IS "Curmudgeon's Corner". Should one really expect reasoned debate from a curmudgeon? I'd say not, if he didn't continually pretend to offer it. Posted by Rand Simberg at May 21, 2007 09:41 AMThe one thing the US Government DID NOT DO was to design, own or operate the airplanes. No, but they flooded the market with cheap surplus planes from WWI - planes designed to their specs. There were also public subsidies to the construction of the airports.... The Government did not “build” the interstate highways … they hired private contractors. They set the spec, and plans are routinely reviewed by state and federal engineers. The work is also inspected by state and federal workers. All this was built on 1000 years of experience in building roads and bridges. Posted by ech at May 21, 2007 10:05 AM. a true ESAS revolution suggested in my latest article: "ESAS + COTS + AresX moon missions" http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html Why don't MERGE (both) ESAS and COTS vehicles (also) for moon missions? . a true ESAS revolution suggested in my latest article: "ESAS + COTS + AresX moon missions" http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/029aresX.html Why don't MERGE (both) ESAS and COTS vehicles (also) for moon missions? sorry for the double post Posted by Gaetano Marano - Italy at May 21, 2007 10:43 AMYes, NASA can and should do more to facilitate the private sector, however unless there is private sector DEMAND the engine will not continue to run. NASA can be a better starter motor or spark plug however until and unless spaceflight is purcahsed by private players spending private dollars we will be merely running the starter motor and not the engine. Uncle Sugar can get the ball rolling but only dollars that do not originate or first pass through Unlce Sugar can create a sustainable market. Posted by Bill White at May 21, 2007 11:52 AMBill, Take propellant depots for instance. Once a depot is operating, and looks like a going reality, business that depend on depots can start growing. Stuff like say translunar tourism, Dave Salt's idea for a GEO tug, etc. It's really hard to close a business case for translunar tourism that needs a propellant depot, when the propellant depot doesn't exist yet. It's hard to close a business case for a propellant depot when all or most of its customers have a hard time existing without the depot existing first. It isn't impossible, but the chicken-and-egg problem is huge. That's where NASA could make a huge difference (while also benefiting enormously themselves) by acting as an anchor tenant. If NASA could find a way to act like a dependable customer, it would make it a lot easier to close the business case for a depot. Also, knowing that NASA is the anchor tenant will ease the fears of potential investors that maybe that depot won't still be around when your business is up and running. I'm not saying that NASA should be the only or even primary market for these services. Just that if NASA were smart, and actually worked to foster these technologies, it would make it a lot easier to get to a point where those businesses were commercially successful, selling primarily to private markets. There may be ways of getting from where we are to where you would like to see private space development go that don't involve NASA acting like a customer. But they are far higher risk, lower probability, and likely to take a lot longer. ~Jon Posted by Jonathan Goff at May 21, 2007 05:59 PMRand, You may not have noticed but Mr Whittington seems to have now removed the blog entry that you quoted from. I guess he finally realized just how stupid his arguments make him appear and is trying to clean his tracks - such are the qualities of a serious "space analyst" indeed. Dave Posted by Dave Salt at May 22, 2007 10:50 AMNo, Dave. It's still there. I just had the link screwed up. I guess you're just the first person who tried to follow it. Posted by Rand Simberg at May 22, 2007 10:57 AMOkay, now I see it. However, I also saw it the other day when I viewed it via your link but couldn't see it a few hours ago. Could this be yet more evidence of AWG :-) Dave Posted by Dave Salt at May 22, 2007 12:37 PMI see a major difference between the examples cited above and the current situation with access to space. That being that people, materiel, and/or economic incentive exist between the destinations being joined together by the faster and more direct methods of transportation. I the case of space, where are the people and economic incentives to build a space infrastructure between destinations? By the way, I would like to go on the record as stating that I am no fan of the ESAS. There are methods to get from here to there without the expense and complexity as described by the ESAS. Much of the ground and space access infrastructure already exists to build upon to get an initial start to building space infrastructure. NASA should be running research programs and passing the end result of those research efforts onto for-profit or non-profit entities. Joseph Posted by Joseph Mahaney at May 23, 2007 02:42 PMPost a comment |