Comments on: Kerry: NASA yes, Bush space plan no

By: James

James — Tue, 25 May 2004 21:00:51 +0000

What would the dramatic increase or launches do to bring down the cost per launch. Other than make it more often therefore less profit is needed for each one there is next to nothing that can be gained by doing such, not that I’m against something such as increasing space activity.

As for the space settlement, taxpayers may pay for it. If they get tehre moneys worth or they can further benifit their country. If not then something may have to happen under the table.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Thu, 06 May 2004 16:57:22 +0000

The advances that I refer to are with material, alloys and such.
There has been no real decrease in cost as well due to each rocket being assembled or hand made with very little automation. There is also to wide of a variety of engines an there thrust sizes, makes or models, and country of origins. This alos means many propelent fuel combinations each require unique storage, refriguration, and tank constructions size, shape and construction techniques for rocket use.
Very few parts are directly interchangeable from one rocket to another due to these many differences.

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 06 May 2004 15:32:34 +0000

What can be done about the per launch costs not coming down, with all these advances by those that can do it?

What “advances” are you referring to? No one has demonstrated that they can do it, least of all NASA. The only way to make launch costs come down is to dramatically increase the number of launches. It’s a market problem, not a technology problem.

By: Harold LaValley

Harold LaValley — Thu, 06 May 2004 13:38:26 +0000

Then if Nasa can sell the plans, technology or other items developed.
Then why does space business lag so far behind? What can be done about the per launch costs not coming down, with all these advances by those that can do it?
No profit at this time for doing it is all that I can think of for the why.

By: Mark Friedenbach

Mark Friedenbach — Thu, 06 May 2004 01:24:35 +0000

Commercial space is not NASA’s purpose! Nor is space settlement. NASA is a purely research organization. Their purpose is to do science, and develop technologies for the high frontier, but not to lead the way in opening it. NASA does the work necessary for private organizations to build businesses in space, but it’s not their place to set up colonies on the Moon or Mars.

A permanent space settlement will never be built with taxpayer money. If you want to see that happen, go write a business plan.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Wed, 05 May 2004 16:34:26 +0000

Perry writes:

“If the space community is truly smart, they will try a selection of tactics to insure that space settlement, the real key to doing anything in space, is paramount. . .”

I agree completely. One step further on this train of thought?

Settlement means babies. The ability to bear children “out there” is the ultimate mission critical assignment. Otherwise its just boys with their toys.

If a program moves us closer to babies on Mars I favor it, if it doesn’t then its a waste of time and money.

By: Brad

Brad — Wed, 05 May 2004 09:28:14 +0000

Kerry space policy retreats to Clinton era

So now we know. Kerry’s space policy will keep American manned spaceflight stuck in Earth orbit as it has been for the last thirty years, not that anyone expected any surprises from the left side of the aisle. The Kerry plan is just warmed over Clintonism. Mere pork spending and buying off the Russians, and lacking any goal beyond that. This just confirms for me how the Democratic Party is mired in the past, and has no vision for the future.

By: Buck Galaxy

Buck Galaxy — Wed, 05 May 2004 08:40:26 +0000

Who really knows what the hell Kerry will do? This is a campaign and he’ll say anything to gain votes, in this case the earth firster vote. Remember when Bush was running and he criticized Clinton for “nation building”? Kerry will likely come around to some kind of modified Bush plan if elected. What is the alternative? Build the Shuttle II, and then the Space Station II, and then circle the earth for another 30 years while China, Russia, India, Japan, and the ESA all send astronauts to the Moon? I don’t see that happening.

By: Perry A. Noriega

Perry A. Noriega — Wed, 05 May 2004 07:12:21 +0000

So now we know what who thinks of Bush’s plan to return to the Moon and go onto Mars, and it is largely a restatement of already established ideologies, destinations, doctrinal disputes, and well defined sandboxes that no one else is allowed into. Typical for the old style thinking of the typical space community membership, still stuck in the mud on this mudball flying around the sun at 105,000 Kph. Still trying to recreate Apollo- 30+ years after the fact.
I personally intend to continue writing my Senators and my representative, althought they too are largely stuck in the past, industrial age thinking of how to “do” space, with no holistic view of how to use Networked means to make real progress in space development and settlement regardless what does or does not happen to Bush’s plan. If the space community is truly smart, they will try a selection of tactics to insure that space settlement, the real key to doing anything in space, is paramount, and everyone else will go along for the ride with those that leave earth to settle a variety of destinations for a variety of reasons despite what Big Brother government(s) space agencies, and Big Aerospace does or does not do. Hedge your bets, but push like hell, and cooperate more than argue amongst each other, and above all, emphasize the common man and woman in whatever is done.

By: Bill Turner

Bill Turner — Tue, 04 May 2004 23:42:55 +0000

Space science is OK, but commercial space would benefit more from NASA’s space technology research, eg. better materials.