Despite the well earned, bitter edge to my cynicism, I do not actually think it is America’s standards that are crashing. The problems with NASA, and aerospace in general, are due to some poor choices made in the way business is conducted, starting in the ’80s through the mid ’90s. I join Kevin in that I don’t really think there were any conspiracies involved. It was mainly well intentioned people making changes that seemed good at the time.

Unfortunately the legacy of these changes has been tragic. The kids I see coming into aerospace are as bright as any ever, maybe brighter. I think it is the responsibility of those of us who have been around for a while to at least try to fix this business model so they can have a chance to do great things.

And yes, I’ll give you the swamp thing.

Please control your paranoia. Every word of your prose is still visible for those who care to read it. I’m not going to copy and paste every single word of your posts into every reply — especially when those words are mostly just personal attacks and name calling like “talk radio.”

> The substance of what I’ve said in this, and other exchanges, is that I
> support private space enterprise but don’t expect it to progress as
> rapidly as some others forecast;

Yes, you’ve stated that over and over again. The fact that you don’t expect something doesn’t mean it can’t happen.

> that I think there is a continuing role for NASA or a successor organization
> because the private sector can only do those things that are profitable;

No one here has said there will not be a continuing role for NASA. There are many possible roles for NASA other than remaining in 60’s mode forever.

Nor have you proved that space exploration can’t be profitable. You just assert it and expect agreement.

> In another boggling dance of illogic, you’ve attacked Kennedy for failing
> to invade Cuba and, incomprehensibly, linked that to the Apollo program.

No, Bill, I did not “attack Kennedy for failing to invade Cuba” — I said that he abandoned men to die on the beach at the Bay of Pigs, which is a historical fact. When you denied that, you were engaged in historical revisionism, and now you’re misquoting my statements.

As for the link between the Bay of Pigs and Apollo, I suggest you consult the NASA history office:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/Apollomon/Apollo.html

> As for your wish (and mine) to travel in space: Surely even you
> can recognize the difference between exploration of territory
> previously untouched by humans and a single human’s first visit to
> ell-explored territory.

Yes, I recognize a difference. Recognizing the difference does not require me to believe that only the former has of any value. Lewis and Clark never visited any territory untouched by human hands. That doesn’t make their explorations any less valuable.

> I’ve never been to Spain, but it is hardly unexplored territory. I’m all
> for selling tickets to space, but I am much more interested in getting
> the first humans where we’ve not been yet.

Why is the first human more important than the first hundred? Or thousand? Or ten thousand?

What would be the point of sending one American explorer to Spain, at a cost of tens of billions of dollars, if no other American ever got to go there?

If space exploration is important, why should it be limited to a trivial number of people?

> Remember, you can’t have travelers until explorers open up the country,

No one said there shouldn’t be explorers. The disagreement is with your notion that only NASA employees can be explorers.

Yes, I know it’s usually the forest and the trees. Doesn’t a swamp count as a kind of forest?

I got the opposite impression, which is that Mike Griffin wants a good many more Shuttle/ISS missions. He was answering a question about, “Is it time to retire the Shuttle? The reporter should have stated the question in a more specific, quantitative way.

Griffin said he wanted to retire the Shuttles within the five year time frame, by 2010. Then he also said he wanted to finish the job of completing the Space Station. The reporter did not compel Mike G. to reconcile the two thoughts.

Dr. G. also said he still would like a Hubble mission.

Actually I think it’s usually supposed to be “forest” rather than “swamp”, but it might be a Russian thing. Chickens are a lot less scary than bears too. Anyway, see everyone, I think he’s coming around on that whole VSE thing. At this rate he’ll be driving around in an SUV with a W sticker in the back window by the end of the year.

Does the VSE deserve credit for this research proposal? It’s like giving SDIO credit for Clementine. Technically, yes, but it’s missing the swamp for one nice tree.

The DOD is the real customer:

“July 19, 2005: All the American generals and admirals want more satellite communications, as well as faster throughput. So the Department of Defense has come up with TSAT (Transformational Communications Satellite System). This is basically a satellite based military Internet. It will be optimized for speed. Right now, it takes about two minutes to get a UAV image to another user via satellite. TSAT would do that in a second or two. This kind of speed is needed if all the air, land and sea weapons are linked together, to act as observers and shooters for each other. The only drawbacks with TSAT is that such a system will cost nearly $20 billion, and take over a decade, to build. While this has many of the brass ready to sign on, others are casting about for cheaper and faster solutions, using existing technology to work up to the TSAT “gold standard” year by year.”

http://www.strategypage.com//fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTSPACE.HTM

///////////////////////////

What about the NASA press conference yesterday, in which Dr. Griffin said that “We should complete the ISS”?

He did not define ISS completion.

And yes, I am quite enjoying myself.