Comments on: TPS on the shuttle

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:25:06 +0000

Dfens, if the nation were willing to spend the money to continuing trying to develop cheaper launch vehicles while also creating a destination, I’d say go for it. If we have to choose, I say, let the government create destinations and let the alt.space crowd build better launch vehicles to supply it. But, thirty years of failure at building better launch vehicles does encourage me to say that we should at least consider a change in strategy.

— Donald

By: Dfens

Dfens — Sun, 16 Oct 2005 01:16:52 +0000

Well, Dfens, we’ve spent thirty years on technology and scientific probes, and where has it got us? Many people seem to think that destroying NASA would be a good thing. If so, and if the VSE really would destroy NASA, it seems as good a way to do it as any.

Wow, Donald, I’m jaded, but I’m not in your league. You think 30 years of failure justifies one more go with $100 Billion? You think it justifies killing off all research into better methods of getting to space? It justifies deriving a 40 year old launch vehicle from 30 year old technology?

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:53:14 +0000

Donald: the gap between what will be required to actually live (and, make a living) in space, and what the VSE/ESAS will provide, is so great that using the former to justify the latter is just not convincing.

The slow pace of the VSE also argues against this ‘learning’ rationalization, since knowledge decays with time. The context in which that knowledge was applicable changes. The brains in which that knowledge resides forget, move on, retire, or die.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:38:10 +0000

We can’t ever live on other planets unless we start learning how.

— Donald

By: Greg Kuperberg

Greg Kuperberg — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:53:34 +0000

Donald: In 30 years, NASA has gotten us some very useful information about the planet that we live on, for example this. But hey, if we can't live on other planets any time soon, why bother enjoying or protecting life on Earth either.

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:16:29 +0000

Donald: there’s a much cheaper way to destroy NASA than the VSE, and it has the side effect of freeing up a great deal of talent that might be productively used elsewhere in the economy.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:40:52 +0000

— Donald

By: Dfens

Dfens — Fri, 14 Oct 2005 03:56:32 +0000

Everyone has already hit the high points on why I disagree with your position, Donald. The fact is, people are fed up with the status quo. VSE is not going to build any momentum for space exploration, it will do just the opposite. Even the best case is a 13 year development costing well over $100 BILLION. Even if you don't think the amount of money is insane, the time period unquestionably is. 13 years for a "derivative" vehicle? "Derivative" it makes me want to spit. It means the starting point for snowballing requirements and costs will be the shuttle. It means no new technology of any significance allowed. Here's one program that will probably be consumed by VSE. How many more must be sacrificed at the altar of the NASA "mega-program"? So if you kill off all the technology development programs that might make space travel affordable, how is that going to build momentum? You want an example of a pyrrhic success? VSE is it. It will burn tax dollars, burn technology, burn credibility, and ultimately destroy NASA itself. And for what?

By: Paul Dietz

Paul Dietz — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:23:57 +0000

If the VSE ever gets off the ground, we will use the moon as a stepping stone/learning center to a countless array of space efforts. They were saying similar things about the Shuttle and about the Space Station. For neither did it pan out, for ugly economic reasons. Since VSE doesn't address the economics, why should it do any better? At best, VSE might have served as a demand-generator to jump start efficient private space service suppliers. But that's apparently been largely nixed, with only token private efforts being discussed.

By: Bill White

Bill White — Thu, 13 Oct 2005 21:37:22 +0000

Fair enough, Greg. Your corrections are noted.

Me? I’d like to spend Nike’s money not federal tax revenue. Today Nike has a nearly $2 billion per year celebrity endorsement budget. That is billion not million. Add in Reebok, Adidas etc . . . and the totals go up.

What might Burt Rutan accomplish with even $1 billion per year?