> The US needs access to space, should we wait for
> Scaled Composite or another company to develop
> an orbital craft? Scaled Composite is a long way
> from replacing the capabilities of the Shuttle
> and I don’t think the big aerospace companies
> are going to hand over their people, knowlege
> and equipment for free. After all Boeing and
> Lockheed are private companies looking for a
> profit.

The problem here is that you are begging the question. You state that the US needs access to space (I assume you mean manned access to orbit by that). But the question is what for? Why do we need to replace the capabilities of the Shuttle? Are you so sure that’s really the best way of doing things?

As for Scaled, Burt has already stated specifically that he’s not going after orbital projects until he’s made sure that there is a robust suborbital spaceflight market. That said, Burt isn’t the only guy out there that can design a spacecraft. Even if Griffin manages to pull-off his fasttracking plans, there very well may be commercial orbital access before CEV flies. There are already plenty of boosters out there. With SpaceX potentially bringing their Falcon I and Falcon Vs online in the next year or so (they are planning on doing their full-duration Falcon I hold-down test sometime within the next week or so, and should have their first launch later this year), all that is really needed is a decent spacecraft to put on top. And I happen to know at least one company directly going after that goal, whose founder is a good friend of mine. There is after all a $50M prize coupled with up to $1B worth of potential follow-on contracts for doing
something that is pretty darned similar to what NASA will be doing for the CEV program (but better in many ways).

The important thing is that even if they aren’t willing to wait for private industry (which may beat them anyway), they need to leave open a clear door so they can take advantage of such systems if they do come on-line. I mean something crystal clear that leaves NASA no wiggle-room that if some private company comes up with a vehicle capable of handling the earth-to-orbit delivery of people and cargo that they *must* buy from them. Something like that would give added urgency to the big boys to actually deliver and delivery fast, while leaving the door open for the rest of us.

> Apollo a failure, I don’t think so. However it
> was a bad long term goal set out by the
> President (get to the moon as fast as we can at
> any cost).

If you don’t consider the sorry and useless state of space development over the past 3 decades to be a failure, I’m not sure what would qualify as such in your book. Apollo more or less set back private space development by decades. For the longest time it was impossible to get any serious amount of cash for private space projects due to the whole “well it cost NASA billions of dollars, and required tons of really smart PhDs to do what they did, why do you think you can do it for less? Aren’t they smar people” kind of garbage. Had Apollo never happened, and had space development not been such a nationalized process throughout the world, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t have inexpensive, reliable, and frequent access to space by now. Most of the main technologies needed have been around for decades. The mentalities fostered by the Apollo program are a large chunk of what has been ailing the system.

> We have limped along for the last two years
> dependent on the Russians, who would have
> thought of that 20 years ago. It would be nice
> to be able to fully man ISS with a host of
> international astronauts and experiments and we
> can’t do that without a 6 to 7 person vehicle
> and a similar escape pod.

I’m sure sending two 3-4 person vehicles up at the same time would be quite impossible. Of course, even if you are fixated on very large vehicles that fly infrequently, the vehicles being developed for America’s Space Prize have to fly at least 5-6 people, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that capability was commercially available within the next 5 years.

> Don’t get me wrong, I think the billions could
> have been used better and I’m hoping Griffin and
> the CEV contractor don’t repeat the mistakes of
> the past.

The problem is that it is a lot harder to not repeat the mistakes of the past when you insist on setting the same type of goals and running things in the same manner.

> I think it’s important to remind Griffin and
> Congress of those mistakes and not to depend on
> their own memory.

That’s what Michael and I have been trying to do here. The problem is that most of the potential for major efficiency improvement come from how you setup the process in the first place, and that is not looking very promising.

~Jon

Then the next biggest problem was that it was not in a continual revisit mode a once only process not ment to further flesh out other issues that are affecting nasa.

Apollo a failure, I don’t think so. However it was a bad long term goal set out by the President (get to the moon as fast as we can at any cost).

We have limped along for the last two years dependent on the Russians, who would have thought of that 20 years ago. It would be nice to be able to fully man IIS with a host of international astronauts and experiments and we can’t do that without a 6 to 7 person vehicle and a similar escape pod.

The shuttle system has done a lot in over 100 flights the least of which is keep Hubble alive, if Hubble had been a simply satellite it would have been DOA.

Don’t get me wrong, I think the billions could have been used better and I’m hoping Griffin and the CEV contractor don’t repeat the mistakes of the past. I think it’s important to remind Griffin and Congress of those mistakes and not to depend on their own memory. American’s expect things to go the best way without any action other than voting (how many did that anyway?).

Since the Aldridge report was published others have suggested that JPL does well relative to the other NASA centers for reasons other than their FFRDC status. Indeed, I’ve had anecodotal experiences suggesting that JPL has plenty of cowardly bureaucrats and managers the are unable or unwilling to fire, despite their status. As others have already suggested hard data is, and perhaps always was, needed to make the case for FFRDCs.

So, I don’t blame Griffin for ruling out FFRDCs, but what I’m anxious to hear now is a plan of how he will eliminate the layer of management and accounting Vogons at each and every field center (including HQ).

Good post. I want a cislunar economy too, and the suborbital economy will be a step towards getting there.

Edward,

Vehicle needed because don’t want to rely on Russia for access to the ISS.

How many think we do need a shuttle replacement — and why?

If we “need” a shuttle replacement, how have we survived without it since Columbia?

What is the Shuttle doing that’s worth spending billions of dollars a year on it?

If the Federal government is going to spend money on space, why not spend it on something useful instead of replacing a dead-end system that should never have been built in the first place?

Why is it better to repeat failed programs like Shuttle and Apollo than to try something new? Fear of change?

I have to support Michael on this one. It isn’t just the FFDRCs bit, but most of the good suggestions from the Aldridge report are being ignored. But that isn’t what is most important. The problem is that the VSE was only worth supporting if it actually had a chance of spurring the creation of a real and thriving cislunar economy. The Aldridge report was far from perfect, and in fact had many problems with it. The problem is that the approach Griffin at least appears to be taking is even worse! It may very well lead to a technical success that is a complete and utter failure from all other perspectives. I don’t want to see another repeat of Apollo. Haven’t you guys learned a thing in all these years? Without the market, space development will remain at the pathetic level that it has been at since the end of Apollo.

There are still some ways that this could be salvaged, but I think that criticism and skepticism are due here. What Griffin has been saying and doing so far has *not* been promising, and if he doesn’t change, this VSE will end up as another Apollo at best.

~Jon

The means are important, but the ends are more important than the means.

See also this guy’s blog: http://spacepragmatism.blogspot.com/