But I don’t think anything came of it, just Smokey O’Clover blowing political smoke rings with his cigarettes to say its OK to fly the old lemon. He’s willing to risk cigarette smoke – they never should have let such a risk taker walk away without cancer.

Ralph Nader wrote “unsafe at any speed”, but the automakers have stepped forwards and NASA has stepped backwards regarding acceptable risk. The acceptable risk is forced by Congress and automakers must meet the standards. Cheaters like FireStoned and Mitsi, when caught, get shamed. But there are no standards in human spaceflight, so NASA does not have to feel ashamed to be launching a vehicle that is a step backwards instead of forwards when it comes to minimizing risk to humans.

I have to say that not only NASA and Congress are guilty of risk avoidance, but the entire country.

Try to get a launch license. Jump through all of the hoops FAA/AST put in front of you along with those the EPA require.

Then there is the general public that is firmly convinced that anyone participating in such an endeavor is to viewed at least with suspicion, preferably locked away.

I’m not talking about some joe-blow in his garage, but people and organizations with solid engineering and science credentials.

America IS a risk-adverse society. Do not undertake any tasks that have even a hint of risk.

OK, you caught me spouting off about an area that I am not an expert in, and making (at best) an overstatement.

Let’s break this down.

First, does the government really “build” the highways? I have to believe that (in the large *majority* of states) that it is private construction companies who own and operate all the heavy equipment we see on the roads, and who pay the salaries of all those workers (operating that heavy equipment) that we see on the road.

I agree that the government owns most of the roads, and where it is simple and straightforward, they probably produce detailed designs and drawings used by those who construct the roads.

But who designs the more complex civil engineering structures that are part of our highway system? I bet that it is private civil engineering firms who are hired to do the majority of the engineering work for the most complex projects, like the clover leafs, overpasses, and bridges.

That leaves “operating”. Operating a highway is mostly composed of keeping it clean, painting the lines, and filling in potholes. This is not exactly rocket science. But even this is not cut and dried — more and more local governments are outsourcing routine functions like street cleaning, garbage collection, etc.

My point being — even for the highway system there are a lot of functions provided by private industry (in most states). And if the roads are totally scr*wed up for 30 years in your local area, and it costs 10 times what it should cost — this is usually self correcting — you toss out your local elected leaders and get new ones who fix the problem.

– Al

PS – One of your points — that the government “incentivized” the design/building of the roads — does not contradict any of my points. I think there is a definite government role in space transportation — just like the government incentivized railroads, and the air transportation industry.

Federal Highway Administration (FHA) does not design, build or operate the highways,

Taking the FHA as “the government,” the United States government, in cooperation with local governments, does indeed design, build, and operate most highways and the freeway network. In fact, it is probably our greatest and most successful example implementation of a government project and social engineering. Without vast government direction and subsidies, no private organization or set of organizations would, or even could, implement such an inherently inefficient and unsustainable system.

— Donald

I agree that Gingrich engaged in divisive political battles. Unfortunately, he also proved — to the detriment of our nation IMO — that using divisive language and wedge issues works in politics on the tactical short-term level.

I too would have also loved it if he gave more focus to using the substantial power he gathered for himself in the mid-1990s (by using divisive tactics) to some of his breaktrhough space ideas.

It should be noted that Gingrich did do a few space policy things with his great power that had a good intention, if poor results.

Behind the scenes, Gingrich was critical in creating the X-33 program in support of what almost everybody in the space policy arena agreed was the nation’s #1 priority (Cheap Access to Space). Yes, Gingrich did not understand the weaknesses of depending on NASA to operate an x-vehicle program, but neither did many many other very smart people. (Books could be written on the poor decisions by NASA on X-33.)

In another area, Gingrich had good intentions — and it also generally appeared to be a good idea at the time — but produced minimal results. He is the first serious politician to stand up and publicly advocate the privatization of the Shuttle. In less than a year, U.S.A. was created. The problem is that the privatization of the Shuttle looked like a good thing to do in concept.

In practice, this bought us little benefit as the Shuttle system was already designed and built by a government committee, and privatizing this government design-and-built system after the large majority of the costs and risks of the system were set in stone generated minimal benefits.

Gingrich may or may not have understood this, and he said nothing about the limitations, but neither did many other very smart space people at the time.

However, it was a good initial step at instituting a new policy in our nation — that NASA should NOT be designing, developing or operating transportation systems. Just like the FAA does not design, develop or operate airlines, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA) does not design, build or operate the highways, and the the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) does not design, build or operate the railroads.

Oops … we did not learn that lesson very well … think CEV. One of Mr. Griffin’s major changes was to bring much of the design of the CEV in house. I guess NASA beign given another policy exception to something we would never allow the FAA, the FHA, or the FRA to do. And with little national debate.

– Al

I am in the middle on the tax question. I agree with Greg, but I also agree that, in the current system, tax credits and the rest are tools that we need to use.

— Donald

It is Congress, not NASA, that stops the show and is risk avasive. But that is a good thing, because NASA as an agency seems to have no moral conscious. Bad analogy, but the prisons do not decide the number of executions; the courts do. NASA does not take the risk – Congress does, and when it comes to NASA, Congress is pretty conservative. NASA does not understand risk management, nor how to deal with its customer.

In Apollo, the Engineers and scientists laid down the path, and Congress played politics and districting around that path. Today, Congress lays down the path, and there are only Bureaucrats to walk the path. Bad joke perhaps, but the Van Braun German engineers are gone and there are no engineers left to Gerry-rig a vehicle to go down the new path.

In contrast prizes progressively pay directly for economic design solutions to given problems. They ensure that designs only progress to the commercialisation phase when they are ready, thereby avoiding a waste of money on an industrial scale. If they are not ready, then another prize round is required to get to the next innovation level. Unfortunately pork buys more votes than R&D, and so is the path of least resistance.

Of course prizes must be directed at creating an industry, not just a one off stunt. This requires open competition between a number of competitors – competition is just as essential in R&D as it is in the market place. This means at least a first, second and third place prize, it also means multiple laps before the finish line, multiple laps also help kick start the market.

An example of such a prize would be a race to complete fifty separate manned orbital flights. This should hopefully be a real race, and might only cost a $100 million or so. The very act of just completing such a race pretty much demonstrates independent economic viability.