Don’t believe I said cost and politics are separable. I said the Nixon administration killed Apollo because it didn’t serve their political needs.

>>”I think it is becoming increasingly clear that it is questionable whether VSE will provide this infrastructure, any more than Apollo did. Even with VSE costs will remain outrageously high.”

Maybe to you, but not to me, and, I suspect, everyone else lacking your apparent ability to see into the future. As for costs, were told that VSE can be funded while maintaining NASA’s budget at approximately current levels. Maybe that’s right, maybe that’s wrong.

If, like, Apollo, some future administration cancels VSE after a few minimal Lunar expeditions, then you’re right, it won’t create any infrastructure. But, if we continue to fly the missions, if we establish and support permanent presences on the Moon and Mars, then the effort and activity needed to support those missions and those presences will, in fact, create the infrastructure. The point is that you don’t build infrastructure and only then decide to do something with it. You do what you choose to do, build the tools and the capacity to do it, and that becomes infrastructure. Columbus would have died of old age if he’d had to wait for a TransAtlantic Maritime Infrastructure to be built. He didn’t wait. He sailed, he sailed again and then again, others sailed a few times, and then many others sailed many more times. Whatever, and everything, that was created to support those expeditions was, in fact, infrastructure.

>>”Inappropriate goals are goals that do not lead to the results we desire.”

I expressed my goals. I’d hope many people consider them appropriate. NASA’s strategy appears very conservative and quite likely to lead to the results I desire. I certainly have much more confidence that NASA will succeed than will any potential private sector effort. (As I said, I don’t think the private sector will do the Moon or Mars because there’s no money in it for the forseeable future. They’ll be busy building suborbital thrill rides and trying to break into the LEO market.)

>>”…are you saying that it’s ok if government programs are uneconomical and unsustainable?”

Well, at least you asked this time, rather than putting words in my mouth and, then, busying yourself countering statements I haven’t made.

In fact, it is not only OK with me, but I think it is also inevitable and natural. The private sector does what it thinks is profitable. To repeat, I don’t believe the goals of NASA’s Vision can be profitably achieved. That means, if those goals are to be reached, government must do it. Does that mean the government should proceed in an “uneconomical” manner? (Whatever you mean by that; it is unclear.) No, of course not. As for “unsustainable”, again, I’m not sure what you mean, except that the enterprise should generate enough profit that it becomes self-sustaining. Again, that’s not in the cards. Government programs are sustained, as I said at the top, by politial will.

Fatuous nonsense. The cost of the Apollo program had everything to do with whether it would continue. The more costly a program, the more political return it must produce to survive against all the other interests vying for that government money. Thinking that cost and politics are separable is just incredibly naive.

> “…not the unstated goals you wished it had.” Telepathy, eh? How can you pretend to know what I might think?
[…]
> We will acquire the infrastructure necessary to support human activity in the inner Solar System by engaging. repeatedly, in human activity in the inner Solar System. The infrastructure will be built to support the activity, whether that activity is funded by tax dollars or the private sector.

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that it is questionable whether VSE will provide this infrastructure, any more than Apollo did. Even with VSE costs will remain outrageously high.

> Finally, I still don’t understand comments like “… appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately.” or “… not to create anything economical or sustainable.”

Inappropriate goals are goals that do not lead to the results we desire. For example, construction of shuttle and ISS were inappropriate goals. They led nowhere useful. As for economical and sustainable: are you saying that it’s ok if government programs are uneconomical and unsustainable? This is the same tired economically illiterate naivete that has allowed the space program to meander for decades.

I think you need to think through your support for VSE in more detail, with a more self-critical eye.

1. A political decision killed Apollo. That decision had little to do with cost and little to do with whether it had or had not achieved its purpose. It was killed to meet the political needs of the Nixon administration. Another administration, with different political needs, might have made a different decision. Here’s the fundamental point: All U.S. government funded space activity exists because it meets a political need. That’s a small truism that’s subsumed by the larger truism that all U.S. government funded activity exists to meet a political need. That’s the way democratic politics work.

2. “…not the unstated goals you wished it had.” Telepathy, eh? How can you pretend to know what I might think? But, to be clear, here they are: I’m interested in returning to the Moon, establishing a permanent presence there, going to Mars for the first time and then repeating it and establishing a permanent presence there, as well as spinning out those capabilities to include exploration and potential exploitation of selected asteroids. Obviously, that’s pretty much in line with NASA’s Vision, but, also obviously, any plan for moving out into the inner Solar System would include those destinations.

3. Elimination of the “one-off” factor that seems to draw your criticism derives not from any particular hardware choice, but from the political decision to continue to fund and repeat missions, and, importantly, our permanent presence there. We will acquire the infrastructure necessary to support human activity in the inner Solar System by engaging. repeatedly, in human activity in the inner Solar System. The infrastructure will be built to support the activity, whether that activity is funded by tax dollars or the private sector. The infrastructures that support aviation, truck and automobile travel, and the railroads were built for the same reason: to support activities that were already in progress. Because of the promise of greater returns, a mixed bag of capital, political and (private) financial, was spent to fund and create those infrastructures. The same thing will occur in regard to human space activity. And it is likely to be as haphazard and as inefficient as those earlier efforts.

4. I support human space activity. I really don’t care who pays for it. I believe the private sector will do things it thinks are profitable. I don’t believe that’s enough to support the objectives I seek. For the forseeable future, I don’t believe there’s profit to be made in going to the Moon or Mars or the asteroids. Some decades down the line, that may change, if the appropriate technology and the infrastrucure exists. The private sector will not create that technology and infrastructure. So, someone else will need to do it.

5. Finally, I still don’t understand comments like “… appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately.” or “… not to create anything economical or sustainable.” The former seems to mean that you think the Exploration strategy targets the wrong destinations. The latter seems to indicate you want the government to create hardware and strategy that will, somehow, morph into whatever it is that you prefer.

But perhaps it’s an inappropriate comparison because the politicians these days are so much more noble and forward looking than in those days.

(pause) (laughter)

billg: I am objecting to a program that appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately. Choice of goals is very important, since the program will optimize to achieve the stated goals, not the unstated goals you wished it had.

Thus the analogy to Apollo. The program was optimized to reach the moon before 1970, not to create anything economical or sustainable. As a result, it didn’t do the latter, and the house of cards collapsed when the stated goal was achieved.

If you support a big government space program, this should worry you. VSE is NASA’s last best hope. If they screw this up like they screwed up shuttle and ISS, I don’t see them continuing to exist.

The only reason Apollo was a “dead end” is because we decided to stop. It isn’t hardware that determines if we continue to go forward, it is political will.

Frankly, I don’t understand this kind of objection to the Exploration strategy. Is it an argument for a single all-purpose spacecraft that can do all things? Or is it an argument that all missions for the forseeable future, to all destinations, should be mapped out and budgeted before the first mission flies?

Yes I am, so long as it actually gets people out of LEO.

I don’t understand the line of reasoning that would seek to see the effort thwarted if it didn’t proceed with one particular approach.

Moon Mission 1 Crew:
Commander: Dan Schrimpsher

I can dream can’t I

I agree, in part. But we have made promises to partner countries with regard to ISS, we need to meet those promises as best we can.

“The return to the moon part is vague. Where? How many? Why? How? None of these questions are yet answered in a satisfactory way. Apollo and STS had better specified goals”

Mmmmm, so JFK said go to the Moon in 1961, and one year after that annoucment “Where? How many? Why? How?” had been answered? No, and its only been one year since Bush annoused the VSE.

“Where? How many? Why? How?” may change a dozen times between now and 2015-2020, it is foolish to expect “Where? How many? Why? How?” to be answered in detail now.

And I would be willing to bet that if NASA had answered “Where? How many? Why? How?” in detail already you would be one of those questioning (rightly so) how they could be so sure this early in the game, and declaring that they were rushing headlong into things.