If I had a penny for every time you’ve said that — of course, this isn’t email, to begin with.

> The issue under discussion is your new military religion

It’s not “my” religion, and it isn’t new. The US government was created to protect the United States. Not to operate spacelines, mine platinum, build electric cars, etc.

> you have the view that military procurement is handled in a maner that is more efficient and more visionary than NASA.

I didn’t say that, but let’s look at the evidence and see if it’s true. DARPA’s Grand Challenge — successful. NASA’s Centennial Challenges — zeroed in the FY06 budget because NASA officials repeatedly failed to answer specific questions put to them by the Senate.

Which was more efficient in accomplishing its goal?

> You have complained on many occasions against a NASA COTS program funded at “only” $500M
> dollars as a paltry fraction of a $16 billion dollar NASA budget.

No, it is more like ~$150 million out of a $16 billion budget. That $500 million is over several years.

> All of this while the DoD buget is $439 billion dollars, with the entire space budget being about $22
> billion dollars, of which about $100M dollars per year is spent in the manner that you would approve of.

I have no idea what you think I would approve of. I approve of what the US military is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, which is a lot more than $100 million.

If you mean human spaceflight, the military isn’t even spending $100 million a year on that. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible to change that.

A few years ago, NASA was not spending $100 million on Moon, Mars, and Beyond. You guys lobbied the White House to change that.

Now that you and NASA have gotten exactly what you wanted, you don’t want anyone else trying to influence the government.

This is why no one listens to you anymore and this is my final email to you on this subject. You simply refuse to engage in a discussion based upon the subject at hand, any reference to reality or even what was in the previous mail, and then proceed to foist your perception into whatever the issue at hand is. You sure you aren’t James Carville?

The issue under discussion is your new military religion and for some reason you have the view that military procurement is handled in a maner that is more efficient and more visionary than NASA. You have complained on many occasions against a NASA COTS program funded at “only” $500M dollars as a paltry fraction of a $16 billion dollar NASA budget. All of this while the DoD buget is $439 billion dollars, with the entire space budget being about $22 billion dollars, of which about $100M dollars per year is spent in the manner that you would approve of. It seems to the observer that the NASA fraction is higher and addresses an issue that sees virtually every alt.space company spending their last dollar to win that contract.

It is remarkable the way that your brain works.

Dennis

Why is it you’re still mad about, Dennis?

You got everything you wanted in the White House Vision of Space Exploration. Your moonrush is now the central goal of US space policy. NASA has gotten a huge budget increase to pay for it. Your “top choice” is now NASA Administrator, and he’s cutting science, aeronautics, and everything else that’s not moonrush-related. Anything aimed at reducing the cost of space transportation is dead, but ISS is still getting full funding.

And whatever NASA isn’t funding, you have ESA for.

So, why are you unhappy? You always said CATS was a waste of time. You ought to be glad to leave it to the military and the private sector. That will leave NASA free to operate ISS, build Constellation capsules, and do all the other things you’ve been preaching.

You should be celebrating — and executing your vision.

Instead, all you can do is get angry because someone else might do something else?

Is it important to you that your Vision succeeds — or do you just wnat to see everything else fail?

1. Go to a Dictionary.
2. Look up the word “aggregate”
3. Ponder for a while on its meaning.
4. Re-read what you misread, unintentinally or otherwise.
5. Review current USAF space programs.
6. Do a little math.
7. Understand that there is a problem, just as large if not more, in the procurement of military systems.
8. If you do 1-6 and still do not understand, repeat the algorithm.

There I put it in a form that theoretically a Microsoft employee can understand. However, it is widely known that most MS algorithms have, inserted after every instruction, a interrupt that carries you to the routine “jump to false conclusion” followed on the computer by the blue screen of death. Here it is called Ed.

Dennis

The Pentagon, NSSO, and DARPA all told you Air Force space programs were 78 years behind schedule???

And you believed them???

The Air Force hasn’t had space programs for 78 years, Dennis. It hasn’t even existed for 78 years. How could *any* Air Force program be 78 years behind schedule???

Has it occured to you that might have misunderstood those “sources”? Isn’t it more likely that they said “7 to 8 years,” rather than “78 years”???

> It is quite funny that you now criticize us for doing what you advocated
> for years that NASA do, support commercial space.

Sorry, Dennis, but a a $150 million COTS program out of a $17 billion budget is *not* what I advocated.

It isn’t even what you advocated. For years, you told us NASA should get a big budget increase and would support all kinds of commercial programs if they got it.

When NASA finally got the big budget you wanted, what did they decide to do with it? Apollo on Steroids.

It’s classic bait and switch. And you wonder why people don’t trust NASA any more?

Poor Ed, he does not like it when the European Space Agency forms a public private partnership that supports the growth of private space industry. He gets his new military space religion that all problems would be solved under military contracting rules.

This is when just about everyone (watch the congressional hearings on the failures of SBIRS and NPOESS) understands that the military space procurement system is beyond broken.

As for my sources, they are from little places like the pentagon, NSSO, and DARPA, all places that I have been in the past few days.

It is quite funny that you now criticize us for doing what you advocated for years that NASA do, support commercial space.

Truly an amazing turnabout.

Dennis

You mean ESA? No surprise there. The French and Germans would disagree with the US having any military capability.

> What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their
> programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has
> done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is
> $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate)
> and 78 years behind schedule.

78 years??? Do you think the USAF has been working on military space projects since 1927, Dennis?

Do your knowledgeable sources include Bob Lazar and Art Bell?

Yes, the USAF is behind sechedule. When you have a spacecraft that’s 80% finished and NASA gets the White House to kill it, for political reasons, that tends to put you behind schedule.

The first duty of the US government is not to send government employees on cool trips to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond. It’s to provide for the common defense.

************

Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?

***********

Hmmm

I am quite sure that the stockholders of Orbital Recovery would disagree with your statement above there Ed. Since when did servicing satellites become a military role?

You might read Space News from a few weeks back where the USAF is talking to us about buying a spacecraft or two to life extend some of their assets.

What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate) and 78 years behind schedule.

This is hardly a model to emulate.

Dennis

************

Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?

***********

Hmmm

I am quite sure that the stockholders of Orbital Recovery would disagree with your statement above there Ed. Since when did servicing satellites become a military role?

You might read Space News from a few weeks back where the USAF is talking to us about buying a spacecraft or two to life extend some of their assets.

What is this new preoccupation with the military? They manage their programs with considerably less effectiveness than anything that NASA has done. I have had it told to me by knowlegeable sources that the USAF is $23 billion dollars over budget on their space programs (in aggregate) and 78 years behind schedule.

This is hardly a model to emulate.

Dennis

That’s strange. I keep hearing Democrats and Bush Republicans calling for more spending and bigger government. Where is this libertarian paradise you live in?

> Unlike leo the moon actually has resources that may be able to be tapped
> in the next 20, 30 or 50 years,

Apollo was not an economical way of tapping lunar resources. Extracting lunar resources will require order-of-magnitude cost reductions, which are not on NASA’s roadmap.

> You are correct the space station is not a security assest but space it,
> the US must maintain the ability to protect and repair if necessary its
> obital survallence assests,

Apollo on Steroids isn’t an affordable way of protecting or servicing satellites. Protecting and servicing satellites is a military mission, not a NASA mission. It isn’t part of Griffin’s “vision.” So, how is that an argument for giving more money to Griffin?

> The US should also develop a rapid sub orbital deployment capability,
> the marines are studying such an ability but the budget is very limited.

Exactly. Billions for Apollo on Steroids, but pennies for defense. So, why do you argue for giving more money to Griffin instead of the US Marine Corps?

> How many reactors were licensed in the last 25 years.

Zero. What does that have to do with giving NASA more money? NASA doesn’t license nuclear reactors. NASA doesn’t do most of the things on your list.

> original double keel design would of serverd as a waypoint for later exploration
> of the moon and langrange points.

Not without an affordable way of launching payloads to the station. At least, not to any meaningful degree.

> Yes there are more greater needs than the space program, but this country
> should try to address those needs by attacking the biggest problems which is an
> environment which is becomming hostile to innovation.

The United States has more than one space program. Why do you assume the solution to every problem is throwing money at NASA?

> what needs to be done is to identify those areas and invest in projects
> that wil make this country more selfsufficent and competitive in the global
> marketplace.

That’s already being done. Check out the stock price for Apple or Pixar. Taxing those companies in order to build replica Apollo capsules won’t spur innovation. There’s nothing innovative about repeating something NASA did 40 years ago.