Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Four years ago, President Bush announced a new direction for the nation in space

Amazing. You've been convinced for four years that this speech was sincere.

My primary hope is that at least the goal remain in place

Forget it. Coffin nails have been showing up from the beginning.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 14, 2008 07:18 AM

Amazing. You've been convinced for four years that this speech was sincere.

What kind of idiotic comment is that? What is your point, if any?

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2008 07:55 AM

George W. Bush is a liar.

Isn't that clear enough for you?

Posted by Pants On Fire at January 14, 2008 09:13 AM

No. Particularly since there's zero evidence of it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 14, 2008 09:44 AM

VSE stands good chance of dying. The vehicle it spawns I expect to live on as a zombie servant of the NASA jobs program.

Posted by Peter at January 14, 2008 10:10 AM

zero evidence

The fascist kook's mantra.

Posted by Pant's_O_Fire at January 14, 2008 10:12 AM

No, a kook would be point out evidence where it didn't exist, such as claiming Bush lied with providing rationale. What Rand was doing is being reasonable in asking why a person would claim Bush lied and not provide some sort of evidence to backup the thesis. After all, the point of the thread is to consider what the administration has done to date and whether it is enough for the initiative to survive the next administration.

Claims about "lied about Iraq" or "Halliburton" or "No blood for oil" do not apply to VSE in anyway.

I don't see how any VSE type program would make it in a Obama administration. I would expect Hillary to make cuts, althought she supports HSF, when she has to make the tough decision of how to pay for her other plans. Fred wants to "Maintain US leadership and dominance in Space", though he then discusses mostly non-human spaceflight details. I would expect Fred to mostly keep the current VSE initiative in place, if for no other reason than disinterest.

Posted by Leland at January 14, 2008 11:18 AM

Fred wants to "Maintain US leadership and dominance in Space", though he then discusses mostly non-human spaceflight details.

He does not. Here is the document you refer to:

http://www.fred08.com/virtual/defenseplan.aspx

It does not say "non-human" even once. The word "unmanned" appears exactly once, and that is in connection to Unmanned Air Vehicles, not spaceflight.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 14, 2008 11:41 AM

"it forthrightly declared that their was now a national goal to send people beyond low earth orbit"

Their is?

Who are you and what have you done with Rand Simberg?

Posted by Mark at January 14, 2008 11:46 AM

I'm sorry, but after this, somebody is having trouble with their, there and they're.

Posted by Bryan Price at January 14, 2008 11:48 AM

the question is, is there still time enough to get a more useful space agenda on relevant candidates policy positions, and if anything significant is being done to that end.

Posted by kert at January 14, 2008 11:54 AM

the question is, is there still time enough to get a more useful space agenda on relevant candidates policy positions,

Define "useful."

Why is Fred Thompson's position (for example) not useful?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 14, 2008 01:15 PM

Ed,

I know you have a recognized problem with reading comprehension. But I'll give you credit for displaying the correct link.

Now, please explain to the crowd how the following are manned space flight programs to Maintain US leadership and dominance in Space:
* Make investments necessary to ensure the nation has assured access to space.
* Develop advanced satellites for survellance and communications.
* Be able to defend our space-based assets from radiation, cyber, or direct attack.
* Integrate space-based systems with our ballistic missile defense system.
* Develop the capability to swiftly defeat the offensive space capabilites of potential adversaries.

I'll give credit that "assured access to space" is good for human space flight. While you are spinning, perhaps you can explain how Fred Thompson's plan for Defense says anything about VSE. My point was that is all Fred Thompson has said about space, and it doesn't really have to do with VSE, manned spaceflight, or NASA.

Indeed, when he talked on the subject during a speech, he talked about modernization of the USAF. Perhaps that is why others consider it not useful in relation to NASA. Do you have Fred Thompson's plan for NASA, Ed?

Posted by Leland at January 14, 2008 02:25 PM

Bryan, would that make him a looser?

*ducks*

Posted by Ed Minchau at January 14, 2008 03:05 PM

I know you have a recognized problem with reading comprehension. But I'll give you credit for displaying the correct link.

Yes, Leland, I know you have x-ray vision that enables you to read things that aren't there, like your fixed belief that it's impossible to upgrade Elon's Dragon capsule for missions beyond low Earth orbit. Unfortunately, your x-ray vision often shows you things that aren't true.

Now, please explain to the crowd how the following are manned space flight programs to Maintain US leadership and dominance in Space:
* Make investments necessary to ensure the nation has assured access to space.

Assured access to space requires affordable, routine manned (and womanned) spaceflight. Assured access requires high reliability, and "nonhuman" systems are orders of magnitude less reliable than piloted systems.

* Develop advanced satellites for survellance and communications.

Affordable, routine manned/womanned spaceflight is necessary for cost-effective deployment, assembly, testing, maintenance, repair, refueling, upgrading, and recovery of advanced satellites.

* Be able to defend our space-based assets from radiation, cyber, or direct attack.

Affordable, routine human spaceflight will allow the deployment, replenishment, and upgrading of countermeasures and defense weapons as well as flying defensive formation with high-value assets.

* Integrate space-based systems with our ballistic missile defense system.

Yes, manned/womanned space systems can proven additional layers of C3I, just as proposed many times in the past.

* Develop the capability to swiftly defeat the offensive space capabilites of potential adversaries.

This can most effectively be done by piloted systems. Despite decades of hype from UAV marketers, the AI that can match a human fighter pilot does not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future.

Nowhere does the whitepaper state that any these things must be done only by "nonhuman" systems. Your x-ray vision is causing you to read things into it.

While you are spinning, perhaps you can explain how Fred Thompson's plan for Defense says anything about VSE.

Perhaps you can explain why you think I said it did? Not having x-ray vision, I can't see where I said anything like that.

As far as I can tell, Fred has said nothing about VSE or any other failed NASA project, including Orbital Space Plane, 2GRLV, X-37- X-34, X-33, NASP, and Shuttle II. Why should he? I dooubt he considers any of those things to be important (and if he does, he's wrong).

My point was that is all Fred Thompson has said about space, and it doesn't really have to do with VSE, manned spaceflight, or NASA.

It has nothing to do with VSE or NASA. It has a lot to do with manned (and wommaned) spaceflight, which can (and should) be used for many things besides bread and circuses.

Indeed, when he talked on the subject during a speech, he talked about modernization of the USAF.

Why should that bother me? I'm not a pacifist. I believe we should use human spaceflight to enhance the national security and economic well-being of the United States. At the present time, the USAF is the organization best suited to perform the national security mission.

Perhaps that is why others consider it not useful in relation to NASA. Do you have Fred Thompson's plan for NASA, Ed?

Others wrote about a "useful space agenda," Leland, not a "useful NASA agenda." Tmore to space than NASA.

If you think a space program is not useful unless it's done by NASA, I disagree. There is nothing "useful" about spending $100 billion just to repeat the Apollo program and increase the cost of access to space. If Fred Thompson funded military spaceplane development instead, Mark Whittington might cry, but I wouldn't.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 14, 2008 05:01 PM

Do you have Fred Thompson's plan for NASA, Ed?

I wasn't aware such a plan existed. Please use your x-ray vision to tell me where to find it.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 14, 2008 05:14 PM

Ed,

I've made it clear that Thompson doesn't have a plan for manned spaceflight. I've said it twice before in this thread, and this is the third time. The point of Rand's post is to have a discussion on what, if anything of President Bush's VSE proposal from 4 years ago, might survive in another Administration. I decided to comment on that subject, and you have decided to twist my comments into your own little strawmen claims of what I said. Otherwise, you have ignored Rand's topic.

Now, you are beating some strawman that I've commented about Elon Musk. Well, here is the entire list of comments I've made on this website with the words Elon and Dragon. I'll even make the list longer with the comments I've made on posts that mentioned Elon at all. I encourage everyone to make up their own mind, but I do suggest trusting you for a moment is a waste of time. I'm done wasting my time with you.

Posted by Leland at January 15, 2008 06:41 AM

I've made it clear that Thompson doesn't have a plan for manned spaceflight.

But that's okay; he doesn't need one.

Posted by Jim Harris at January 15, 2008 06:54 AM

Jim,

Perhaps he doesn't.

Posted by Leland at January 15, 2008 08:01 AM

I've made it clear that Thompson doesn't have a plan for manned spaceflight. I've said it twice before in this thread, and this is the third time.

No, you've only made it clear that *you* think Thompson doesn't have a plan for manned space flight.

The goals listed on Thompson's website will require frequent, low-cost access to space. If we made those the goals of the US space program, I would expect to see thousands of Air Force officers flying in space every year and, as a spin-off effect, quite a few civilians.

The point of Rand's post is to have a discussion on what, if anything of President Bush's VSE proposal from 4 years ago,

I was not responding to Rand's point. I was responding to a question someone raised in response to Rand's point. For someone who constantly criticizes my reading skills, you seem to have very poor comprehension.

Since most Air Force officers are men, that would be manned spaceflight by definition. There is no law of nature that says manned spaceflight must be limited to a tiny handful of flag and footprint missions by NASA.

I decided to comment on that subject, and you have decided to twist my comments into your own little strawmen claims of what I said. Otherwise, you have ignored Rand's topic.

No, you responded to my words -- not Rands'. You knew that because you called me "Edward," not "Rand." Please have the integrity to stand by your own words.

Well, here is the entire list of comments I've made on this website with the words Elon and Dragon. I'll even make the list longer with the comments I've made on posts that mentioned Elon at all. I encourage everyone to make up their own mind,

Yeah, Leland, I know you've posted about it roughly a kajillion times, but I've actually talked to SpaceX employees. and I suspect they know more about their hardware than you do, and you have offered no facts to show they are wrong. Posting the same opinion a kajillion times does not prove you are right.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 15, 2008 10:06 AM

Ok, I may have figured it out. Edward Wright probably thinks I'm Habitat Hermit. Perhaps Rand can set him straight, because I know I'm not. I'm sure if Habitat Hermit came over and said he wasn't me; both of us would probably be called sock puppets.

It may not be the case, because according to google; Habitat Hermit hasn't said much about Elon or Spacex... um, at least not kajillions.

Alas, there is two times in which Habitat Hermit argued Elon Musk, SpaceX, and Dragon with Edward Wright. That's exactly two more times than I have, because I know I haven't followed enough of Elon Musk and SpaceX's activities to discuss them on this blog.

If I'm not right on this, and I may not be, then I wonder who Edward Wright has been debating the kajillions times. Thankfully, it has not been me. I may have some patience for morons, but not that much.

Posted by Leland at January 15, 2008 01:00 PM

Ok, I may have figured it out. Edward Wright probably thinks I'm Habitat Hermit. Perhaps Rand can set him straight, because I know I'm not.

Evidence suggests otherwise: Same writing style, same distortions of things I post, even the same insults when you are losing an argument.

If you are not Habitat Hermit, you are clearly his clone.

And of course, you still have not offered any facts to support your beliefs.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 15, 2008 02:27 PM

Question for Kert (or anyone other than Leland/Hermit):

Can you tell me why you think Thompson's vision is not useful (or less useful than the Bush vision)?

Posted by Edward Wright at January 15, 2008 02:34 PM

Can you tell me why you think Thompson's vision is not useful (or less useful than the Bush vision)?

Umm no, because Thompson has presented his vision. Indeed it took nearly 4 years before Bush presented his.

Posted by Leland at January 16, 2008 10:45 AM

hasn't presented... not that it would matter, because if Ed didn't notice my name signed to these comments, he wouldn't noticed a typo like that.

Posted by Leland at January 16, 2008 11:42 AM

I said a question for "anyone other than Leland/Hermit)" -- yet the sock puppet still answers! This from the man who says other people can't read! :-)

As for your claim that Thompson hasn't presented his vision for space, that's political disinformation. It's right on his website, which anyone who's interested can read.

If you don't like his vision because it emphasizes military uses of space rather than just putting NASA footprints on the Moon, okay -- that's a legitimate difference of opinion, which we could discuss. But saying he hasn't presented any vision -- that's just Carvellesque fabrication.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 16, 2008 01:00 PM

Do I really want to get involved in this? Nope, but even though it's no fault of mine I'll apologize to Leland for him being attributed all my faults and so on since that's way unfair ^_^

Posted by Habitat Hermit at January 16, 2008 05:53 PM

HH:

Thanks, no need for you to get involved. If Ed wants to show his a$$, I'll be happy to let him.

Ed,

I'm posting fact, and the fact is Thompson hasn't given much of a position on space beyond USAF. Personally, I'm glad he wants to improve funding there and not NASA. I know that doesn't fit your narrative of me, but then no claim about me, from you, does. However, the discussion about USAF funding for space activities has nothing to do with President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration. Unless you believe sub-orbital BMD will help us explore the solar system.

Here: Space.com did a roundup of candidate positions, and they came up with the same thing. Do you think I'm Bart Leahy too?

Posted by Leland at January 18, 2008 12:56 PM

I'm posting fact, and the fact is Thompson hasn't given much of a position on space beyond USAF.

I never said he had. You're distorting my words.

I said is that there was no evidence his position is limited to "nonhuman" spaceflight -- and you still haven't shown any evidence.

You may assume military spaceflight must be limited to unmanned satellites but there's nothing in Thompson's policy statement that says so.

However, the discussion about USAF funding for space activities has nothing to do with President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration.

Again, I never said it did. I was talking about "human spaceflight," not "Bush Vision for Space Exploration." You keep misquoting me.

Unless you believe sub-orbital BMD will help us explore the solar system.

Where does Fred Thompson state that military space should be limited to "sub-orbital BMD"? Can you show me an actual quote, or is that simply another assumption?

Here: Space.com did a roundup of candidate positions, and they came up with the same thing. Do you think I'm Bart Leahy too?

No, but then, I don't see Bart Leahy claiming Fred Thompson's space policy excludes human beings.

Posted by Edward Wright at January 19, 2008 03:31 PM

Post a comment