The White House released late Friday afternoon the new US National Space Policy, a document that completes the years-long review of overall space policy by the Bush Administration. (Interesting, the document states that this policy was formally authorized by President Bush on August 31; there’s no reason why the administration took over a month to release the report, but give that they did so late on a Friday before a three-day weekend, with no fanfare, suggests they weren’t terribly concerned about giving this document much publicity.)
A quick skim of the ten-page report doesn’t turn up much in the way of new major policy statements: it appears to largely restate policies previously made by this administration, as well as older policies. There is a particular emphasis on ensuring access to and control of space, as the background puts it:
In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and will hold a substantial advantage over those who do not. Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power. In order to increase knowledge, discovery, economic prosperity, and to enhance the national security, the United States must have robust, effective, and efficient space capabilities.
Elsewhere, the document notes that the US must not only have the ability to freely access space and stop those who would deny the US that right, the US must be able to “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests”—an opening for the development and use of weapons in space, although that’s not explicitly stated in the document. I suspect that this passage will raise the hackles of anti-space-weaponization community.
‘Elsewhere, the document notes that the US must not only have the ability to freely access space and stop [t]hose who would deny the US that right’
We have trators like this in the USA right now. There are thoes who would prevent the US from leaving earth orbit and going to the moon, mars and beyond. There are thoes who want to cut the NASA budget. There are thoes who want to get rid of NASA. All trators to the US space program.
vze3gz45
We have to remember that this document is not only for NASA. The document also concerns the DoD and protecting US assets in space and US troops on the ground. This includes things like buying all the satellite pictures for Iraq taken by commerical firms.
The actual weaponization of space is dangerous as I am sure we are well aware. But developping the ability to jam, disrupt, blind, etc an enemy’s space assets is important to future terresterial warfare. This would include things like resualbe vehicles that may go up and move, capture, turn around, etc an enemy satellites.
But this is all speculation, odviously.
I am not sure how significant this is but of interest is what is not in there. I reading this paragraph in section 7:
Maintain a timely and responsive regulatory environment for licensing commercial space activities and pursue commercial space objectives without the use of direct Federal subsidies, consistent with the regulatory and other authorities of the Secretaries of Commerce and Transportation and the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.
I find it very interesting that the State Department is not mentioned especially as they are the #1 agency in charge of regulatory environment for licensing commercial space activities.
Even in Section 12 that deals with US Export Policy, there is no mention of the role of the State Department in regulating export of commercial space only that: “As a guideline, space-related exports that are currently available or are planned to be available in the global marketplace shall be considered favorably.”
I think it is fairly significant that the State Department’s role was not clearly outlined in here when so many other department’s roles were clearly laid out in this document. The State Department s only labeled as supporting and promoting US National Space goals for international cooperation in section 8.
One could argue, and in fact CSIS did argue in their 2003 report “Preserving American’s Strength in Satellite Technology”, that keeping export policy within the State Department contradicts that general guideline in section 4: “Strengthen and Maintain the U.S. Space-Related Science, Technology, and Industrial Base”.
Could this be a signal that the Executive branch is looking to reconsider their export policy and finally move space technology off the munition list and back onto the dual-use list?
I find it very interesting that the State Department is not mentioned especially as they are the #1 agency in charge of regulatory environment for licensing commercial space activities.
Huh?
What’s the FAA, chopped liver? State has no regulatory authority whatsoever over commercial space activities. They have power to stipulate things like what’s on the ITAR munitions list, but no regulatory authority.
> We have trators like this in the USA right now. There are thoes who would prevent the US from leaving
> earth orbit and going to the moon, mars and beyond. There are thoes who want to cut the NASA budget.
Sigh, Once again, anyone who questions ESAS is a traitor.
If it’s treason to keep Americans from going to the Moon, Mars, and Beyondt, why should we support a “Vision of Space Exploration” that will make spaceflight more expensive and keep 99.99999% of all Americans from going?
NASA is not the whole United States. Citizens who work for the private sector, the military, law enforcement, etc. are Americans just as much as NASA employees. Nor is NASA “the” US space program — there are a number of space programs going on in the US today.
NASA insists that it must not only go the Moon, but do so in the most expensive manner possible. To put for VSE and other domestic programs, the US is cutting bomber squadrons, fighter wings, Navy ships, and military readiness. Yet you call us traitors because we don’t want to give NASA a blank check?
> Could this be a signal that the Executive branch is looking to reconsider their export policy and
> finally move space technology off the munition list and back onto the dual-use list?
One small (but important) correction here. Rockets were always on the munitions list. It was only satellite technology that was moved onto the list. Moving satellites back to Commerce from State might be helpful for the communications industry, but it would do little to help emerging space companies that have little to do with satellites.
‘If it’s treason to keep Americans from going to the Moon, Mars, and Beyondt, why should we support a “Vision of Space Exploration” that will make spaceflight more expensive and keep 99.99999% of all Americans from going?’
VSE will make spaceflight cheaper to earth orbit than shuttle flights to earth orbit. VSE flights to the moon will be cheaper then Apollo flights to the moon. Its not NASA’s job to send large amounts of people into space for tourism. Thats the private sector’s job. NASA’s job is to blaze the trail by sending a select few into space. NASA and the Russian space agency send a select few to the space station for 6 months to show how people can live and survive their. NASA will do the same on the moon and mars. Its up to private industry to follow.
‘NASA is not the whole United States. Citizens who work for the private sector, the military, law enforcement, etc. are Americans just as much as NASA employees. Nor is NASA “the” US space program — there are a number of space programs going on in the US today.’
NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the Chinese Space Agency are the only true space programs at this time. NASA and companies like Lockheed and Boeing make up a large part of the economies of southern states like Florida, Texas and Lousiana. VSE is good for the economies of thoes states. VSE is good for the people who work for NASA, Lockheed and Boeing in these states. Its good for the American people to spend their tax money in their own country on their own people. I think its terrible that their are traitors who want to put large amounts of Americans out of work by getting rid of NASA.
‘To put for VSE and other domestic programs, the US is cutting bomber squadrons, fighter wings, Navy ships, and military readiness. Yet you call us traitors because we don’t want to give NASA a blank check? ‘
Sorry, but I think the above is total bull.
vze3gz45
vze3gz45 said:
[Its good for the American people to spend their tax money in their own country on their own people. I think its terrible that their are traitors who want to put large amounts of Americans out of work by getting rid of NASA.]
My only response to this is to suggest that “vze” read a book by Joseph Schumpeter, one of Ronald Reagan’s favorite economists. The book is called “Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy”.
Schumpeter’s point is that in order to have the strongest economy in the world, you have to accept what he calls “creative destruction” of capitalism. Schumpeter explains that the creative industrial change of capitalism not only brings new and much more efficient means of production, but the need to accept that it destroys old less efficient means of production. This includes destroying jobs at bureaucracies that produce much less output for every dollar of input.
In other words, by his statements “vze” is suggesting that Ronald Reagan is a traitor.
I suggest that vze check his assumptions. The unintended consequence of his logic is to give us a European style socialist welfare state.
In “vze’s” world, with the U.S. becoming more socialist and less capitalist, while China is slowly doing the opposite, the future leader of the human race will quickly become China.
– Al
VSE will make spaceflight cheaper to earth orbit than shuttle flights to earth orbit.
No, it won’t.
VSE flights to the moon will be cheaper then Apollo flights to the moon.
No, they won’t.
What is your basis for this absurd belief? I don’t think that even NASA has attempted to make such a claim.
‘In other words, by his statements “vze” is suggesting that Ronald Reagan is a traitor.’
Ronald Regan would be for VSE if he were alive today. Most conserative republicans are for VSE. Ronald Regan was for NASA and for manned space exploration by NASA. Ronald Regan would not be for getting rid of NASA or privatising NASA. I was not trying to argue against the existance of private spaceflight companies. I am only against getting rid of NASA.
vze3gz45
> NASA’s job is to blaze the trail by sending a select few into space.
Sorry, but the United States was meant to be a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
All the people, not just “a select few.”
We fought a war against the British Empire, the greatest power on Earth, because Americans didn’t believe in special privileges for “the select few.”
> Its up to private industry to follow.
Not in this country. In America. we do not not meekly following government bureaucrats. We lead.
In the 19th Century, the American West was explored primarily by private enterprise. Frontiersmen like Davey Crockett, Daniel Boone, Kit Carson, and Jim Bridger were leaders, not followers. Government sponsored only a few expeditions, like Lewis and Clark. Mostly, its role was limited to providing military protection for private settlers.
In the 20th Century, the aviation frontier was opening by private enterprise (in peacetime) and the military (in wartime). The NACA served to advise private enterprise, not to lead it. No one ever suggested that the NACA’s job was to build its own airplanes so NACA employees could go on trips to Hawaii, Tahiti, and Beyond.
> NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the Chinese Space Agency are the only true space programs at this time.
Sorry, but that is ignorance. In 2004, Burt Rutan flew more astronauts than NASA did. Soon, private enterprise will be flying more astronauts than NASA ever has.
> NASA and companies like Lockheed and Boeing make up a large part of the economies of southern
> states like Florida, Texas and Lousiana. VSE is good for the economies of thoes states. VSE is good
> for the people who work for NASA, Lockheed and Boeing in these states.
In other words, you want Welfare.
Asking for handouts is one thing. Saying that Americans are “traitors” if they don’t give you handouts is another.
Taking money away from companies like Apple, Intel, etc. and giving it to government employees does not “create jobs.”
Neither does cutting the size of the Army and Navy so NASA can build bigger rockets. It simply means fewer people building, maintaining, flying, and sailing ships and aircraft, while more people are building overpriced rockets.
> Most conserative republicans are for VSE.
If you read this blog on a regular basis, you would know that is not true. Steve Forbes has called for eliminating NASA or redefining its mission. So has Newt Gingrich. The Republican Study Committee, made up of conservative Republicans in the House, called for eliminating VSE.
Unless you think big-spenders like George W. Bush are “conservatives,” there’s little evidence to support your statement.
> Ronald Regan would be for VSE if he were alive today.
“Ronald Regan” might — whoever he is.
Ronald Reagan definitely did not believe in the Kennedy vision of space as a domain for the “select few.” He wanted NASA to help open space for all Americans. He didn’t fund programs to send government employees on expensive junkets to the Moon and Mars, but he did support programs like the Shuttle and Teachers In Space. which he hoped would enable ordinary American go into space.
Reagan supported the Shuttle because there was no private-sector alternative at that time. If he were President today, Reagan would be the first person to support the new private-sector space programs. The very first.
> I was not trying to argue against the
> existance of private spaceflight companies.
In your own words: “NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the Chinese Space Agency are the only true space program…”
vze3gz45 said:
{Ronald Regan would be for VSE if he were alive today. Most conserative republicans are for VSE.}
Although it is generally true that *most* conservative republicans are for the VSE — as can be seen by votes of Members of Congress — the VSE is so broad of a presidential initiative and statement of general direction, that it takes a huge leap of illogic to get from the VSE to where you are standing. Voting for the VSE does not mean that most conservative republicans in Congress are adopting a welfare mentality of protecting white collar jobs in NASA (although select members, such as Shelby clearly do, for parochial interests.)
Let me remind you that the most NEAR-TERM part of the VSE is to end the Shuttle program.
Killing the Shuttle is killing part of NASA.
More generally, although there is a short-term loop-hole, which NASA is using to its own bureaucratic ends, it is quite clear in the VSE that NASA is supposed to get out of LEO, and focus its efforts on “beyond Earth orbit” and leave LEO to private industry.
The only national decision coming out of the VSE that is (almost) guaranteed to live on after January 2009, is the end of the Shuttle program.
Can you please explain to me again what conservative Republicans really think about NASA?
– Al
PS — I think there are many other good parts of the VSE, but whether they will live on into future administrations or congresses is TBD.
I wish that people would stop confusing VSE with ESAS. There is much to support about VSE. There is little to love about ESAS, unless you’re ATK. And now Lockheed Martin.
‘The only national decision coming out of the VSE that is (almost) guaranteed to live on after January 2009, is the end of the Shuttle program.’
If the end of the shuttle program is almost guaranteed to live on after 2009 then I would say that the CEV is also almost guaranteed to live on after 2009. No future congress, no future senate and no future president loyal to the U.S. would leave American without the capability to get into space. Private spaceflight is a risk and will not replace NASA until they can show that they can do what NASA has done in space.
vze3gz45
Ed,
Yet again you spout over-hyped nonsense. “Sorry, but that is ignorance. In 2004, Burt Rutan flew more astronauts than NASA did. Soon, private enterprise will be flying more astronauts than NASA ever has.”
Sorry, but one set of flights to the lowest altitude that qualifies as “space” while NASA was on standown hardly demonstrates the superiority of “commercial space” over civilian space represented by NASA. This is particularly true given that Rutan accomplished the same feat as NASA some 40 years later, with the benefit of all of the technology development that has come out of Govt. funded R&D, and has yet to repeat it now nearly 2 and half years later. At this point, their average flight rate is below that of the very agency you criticize. It remains to be seen whether a priveledged few (you know, those evil filthy rich (likely conservative too!)) people who can afford to drop a wad of cash for what amounts to nothing more than an extreme vacation experience will actually lead to a real commercial space industry. Personnaly, I think the bigger money for Virgin Space is in the advertising return that the airline will see.
Having said that, as a conservative I also feel the VSE is a waste of tax-payer money. I also think that VSE is nothing more than the next “vehicle” to politically justify the existence of NASA. If VSE was a true priority, then a significant increase in the NASA budget would have been the result, Space Science spending would have maintained its pre-VSE spending profile, and funding for studies on human physiology in space would also have continued at its pre-Griffin-VSE pace. As I have said before, NASA has failed miserably in the manned-space arena. Perhaps this nation needs to take a new path in manned space, one that doesn’t include the current bureaucracy.
> Sorry, but one set of flights to the lowest altitude that qualifies as “space” while NASA was on standown
> hardly demonstrates the superiority of “commercial space” over civilian space represented by NASA.
I thought you had given up your secret identities, Dennis?
If I recall, “the lowest altitude that qualifies as ‘space'” was 100 kilometers higher than the Space Shuttle was flying at that time.
Tell me, how many astronauts can NASA launch for $25 million?
> This is particularly true given that Rutan accomplished the same feat as NASA some 40 years later
At far greater cost, Dennis.
Do you think there’s been no progress in computers, because today’s computers just add ones and zeroes together, the same feat NASA computers did 40 years ago?
Today’s computers can add ones and zeroes at much lower cost, which makes computing available to a much larger group of people and enables many more applications.
Similarly, reducing the cost of spaceflight by orders of magnitude will open space to many more people and applications.
Progress is not measured solely by spending greater and greater sums of money to send fewer and fewer people further and further into space.
Ed,
Please stop blaming Dennis for pointing out your ignorance. He is not GuessWho. Second, Rutan attained an altitude of 100 km, which is sub-orbital! This is the minimum altitude that qualifies as the boundary of space as defined by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale and adopted by the X-Prise Foundation. The Shuttle nominally orbits at about 300 km and has to extend to 400 km to reach the ISS.
I support private spaceflight, but I dont believe in giving up NASA or government spaceflight for a roll of the dice in the private spaceflight market. That is not good for the United States of American. The market is not always the answer. There is more certainty in government spaceflight at this time. What we need is more engineering minded people in spaceflight and less bean counters. There are to many bean counters in the US today.
Griffin said recently that the COTS program is a big risk, and he is right. Their is less risk in government spaceflight at this time.
vze3gz45
This may be true, but it isn’t necessarily a good thing.
Altitude has little to do with trajectory. You can orbit at 100 km, and you can fly above the space station without going into orbit.
I am disappointed to not see more insightful comments about the new national space policy. Is it appreciably different from the last one? Does it portend a more or less restrictive regulatory environment for commercial space activities than before? Will the protection of space based observation satellites extend to commercial imaging satellites?
Matt,
You are correct and I miss-typed (My bad). I meant to infer that Rutan flew a suborbital flight to the minimum altitude defined as the edge of space. Thus his energy requirements are significantly less than would be needed to attain orbit at the same altitude. Comparing SpaceShipOne to the Shuttle is a huge stretch.
While my position on the VSE is much closer to vze3gz45’s, in this particular debate, I agree with Edward. “Traiter” is a very strong word. While I happen to support the VSE (and ESAS, even though in many ways I think it is a bad strategy, since at this point I believe opposing the latter will only politically harm the VSE with little gain in a better strategy), I reserve the right to be against it if I change my mind without being called a traiter. vze3gz45, while I agree with much of what you said, above, I would respectfully request that you not call anyone who disagrees with you a traiter. Whatever else he may or may not be, I don’t believe that Edward is a traiter to space commerce.
Secondly, it is true that many conservative Republicans support the VSE, and many are against. It is also true that many Democrats are for it, and many others have chosen not to oppose it. The VSE’s support is truly bipartisan, and I believe that is one of its most imporant characteristics and the chief reason we cannot afford to lose it.
— Donald
”If the end of the shuttle program is almost guaranteed to live on after 2009 then I would say that the CEV is also almost guaranteed to live on after 2009. No future congress, no future senate and no future president loyal to the U.S. would leave American without the capability to get into space.”
‘This may be true, but it isn’t necessarily a good thing.’
Would it be a good thing for the United States if we didnt have the ability to get people into space in the future? If any American answers yes to this question, I have a problem with them.
vze3gz45
> Please stop blaming Dennis for pointing out your ignorance. He is not GuessWho.
Funny. since “Guess Who” and “Little Birdie” posted stuff on Rand’s blog that was word-for-word the same as stuff “Dennis Wingo” sent to private mailing llists. Oops!
> Second, Rutan attained an altitude of 100 km, which is sub-orbital! This is the minimum altitude
> that qualifies as the boundary of space as defined by the Fédération Aéronautique Internationale
> and adopted by the X-Prise Foundation. The Shuttle nominally orbits at about 300 km and has to extend
> to 400 km to reach the ISS.
Yes, it’s suborbital.
Sneering at suborbital spaceflight because NASA did it 40 years ago is like sneering at transoceanic airliners because Lindbergh did it 70 years ago.
People didn’t lose interest in air travel because Lindbergh had done it. You’re stuck on Von Braun. There are more reasons for spaceflight than just sending a few crews of government supermen as far into space as possible.
(Also, NASA sent humans into orbit and to the Moon 40 years ago. So, I guess we should dismiss Shuttle and CEV also?)
> Rutan flew a suborbital flight to the minimum altitude defined as the edge of space. Thus his energy
> requirements are significantly less than would be needed to attain orbit at the same altitude.
Right, just like comparing micros to “real” computers. Why would anyone want a computer on his desk?
> There is more certainty in government spaceflight at this time.
Forty years of government attempts to replace the Space Shuttle prove otherwise. Was NASP certain? X-33? X-37? X-34? X-38? Orbital Space Plane? Second-Generation RLV?
> Griffin said recently that the COTS program is a big risk,
You know it’s true because Mike Griffin said so? That’s a logical fallacy called the “argument by authority.”
Yes, Mike Griffin thinks private enterprise is riskier than socialism, but the facts don’t bear him out.
Mike Griffin got over 100 million tax dollars to build a suborbital vehicle in the X-34 program — and failed.
Burt Rutan got $25 million from Paul Allen and succeeded.
Birdie Guesswho may sneer at the SpaceShip One for doing what NASA did 40 years ago, but in the X-34 program, NASA *couldn’t do* what NASA did 40 years ago. The energy requirements were “significantly less than would be needed to attain orbit” — and yet, NASA failed.
If NASA, and Griffin himself, could fail while trying to build a suborbital vehicle, why do you assume their success in building an orbital vehicle is “certain”?
> Would it be a good thing for the United States if we didnt have the
> ability to get people into space in the future?
No, and it’s not a good thing that we haven’t had the ability to get people into space for the last 40 years. NASA has had a very limited ability to send humans into space, at great cost and great risk, but We the People haven’t. We have no capability to send humans into space for commercial or military purposes. That is unacceptable.
‘If NASA, and Griffin himself, could fail while trying to build a suborbital vehicle, why do you assume their success in building an orbital vehicle is “certain”? ‘
Because NASA, even with its failures, has more experience building space craft than private industry does at this point in time. I value what Mike Griffin and NASA has to say about space exploration more than people in the private industry at this point in time. When NASA engineers build and operate spacecraft they do it because they really believe in space exploration. They do it because it’s in their blood to do it, not because they want to make a million dollars doing it. I trust the people of NASA more than the privateteers at this time, but I do wish Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic all the luck in the world getting people into space though. Mike Griffin and the NASA engineers have fixed the shuttle as much as it can be fixed. Today, the shuttle is in the best shape that it has ever been in over the past 20 years. I credit NASA under Mike Griffin for this.
‘No, and it’s not a good thing that we haven’t had the ability to get people into space for the last 40 years. NASA has had a very limited ability to send humans into space, at great cost and great risk, but We the People haven’t. We have no capability to send humans into space for commercial or military purposes. That is unacceptable’
This is why we are going back to a capsule based system, Orion. Capsules are the safest and cheapest spacecraft for people at this time that we know of.
vze3gz45
There is more certainty in government spaceflight at this time.
Yes, more certainty of continued outrageously high costs, and low levels of activity.
> Because NASA, even with its failures, has more experience building space craft
> than private industry does at this point in time.
Drawing viewgraphs is not the same as building spacecraft, VZ.
Scaled Composites has recent experience building manned spacecraft. NASA doesn’t.
The engineers who built Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, and Shuttle are not sitting at their desks waiting to build Orion. They’re playing golf and enjoying their retirement.
> This is why we are going back to a capsule based system, Orion. Capsules
> are the safest and cheapest spacecraft for people at this time that we know of.
Then you need to educate yourself.
A reusable vehicle can be hundreds of times cheaper and hundreds to thousands of times safer.
NASA is not going back to capsules because they are cheaper — no one, even Mike Griffin, makes that claim. NASA is going back because it doesn’t care about cost.
Capsules have a terrible safety record. That’s why the Air Force stopped using them for escape systems.
‘Yes, more certainty of continued outrageously high costs, and low levels of activity.’
NASA is not stopping private spaceflight companies from bringing down costs of spaceflights. Let them build and fly their cheaper spacecraft and rockets into space, bringing down the costs and leave NASA alone. I am all for this.
vze3gz45
I agree, vze3gz45. I’ve never understood how bashing NASA is somehow supposed to get the money needed to create a viable commercial launch industry. Yes, NASA tried to make everyone use the Shuttle, but that was a long time ago. Vestiges of it remain, but if the alt.space people every actually came up with a dramatically cheaper launch system, they’d be able to sell it.
Right here and now, NASA (and the Air Force) and customer payloads are largely synonymous. Until that changes, commercial launch providers’ problems are a lot more fundamental than NASA’s policies or lack thereof.
“It’s the market, stupid.” Say it over and over until you believe it.
— Donald
‘I agree, vze3gz45. I’ve never understood how bashing NASA is somehow supposed to get the money needed to create a viable commercial launch industry’
Maybe its because the alt.space crowd’s beliefs are not purely about space exploration. I think they believe in space exploration for profit only. No profit no spaceflights, which is totally wrong and why they want to get rid of NASA. I also think they believe that every entity should be privatised in the U.S., which is rediculous. They have making a profit more in their blood than engineering spacecraft and exploring space. I have a hard time trusting people like that with the future of humanity in space. We need a balance between the public and the private in space and in all things in society.
vze3gz45
> I’ve never understood how bashing NASA is somehow supposed to get
> the money needed to create a viable commercial launch industry.
Really, Donald?
It doesn’t seem very hard. The LSPA requires NASA to purchase commercial space transportation services. If NASA obeyed the law, it would create an expanded market, which would bring in more companies and more competition, which would reduce prices.
That seems simple enough. I wonder why you’ve never been able to understand it?
> Vestiges of it remain, but if the alt.space people every actually
> came up with a dramatically cheaper launch system, they’d be able
> to sell it.
Not to NASA, because NASA is designing its Orion capsule and lunar lander so they can only be launched by Ares, much as it designed ISS so they could only fly on Shuttle. The taxpayers will be stuck paying for super-expensive Ares boosters indefinitely.
In the mean time, space firms try to find investors in the face of an unremitting stream of statements from NASA officials who claim they have “proved” that reusable vehicles are impossible and we need to go back to capsules for the next 40 years.
I wonder why you’ve never been able to understand that, either.
> “It’s the market, stupid.” Say it over and over until you believe it.
Indeed. There is no market for going to the Moon because Apollo made it look so expensive that every investor went running as far as they could in the opposite direction.
Now, you want repeat Project Apollo, which will scare every investor away from the Moon for another 40 years.
That’s something I’ve never understood, Donald. Why would you want to do that?
‘It doesn’t seem very hard. The LSPA requires NASA to purchase commercial space transportation services. If NASA obeyed the law, it would create an expanded market, which would bring in more companies and more competition, which would reduce prices.
That seems simple enough. I wonder why you’ve never been able to understand it?’
Because its not that simple. It’s a roll of the dice on the future of the US in space. Public spaceflight or NASA is more of certainity for the future of US spaceflight at this time.
vze3gz45
> It’s a roll of the dice on the future of the US in space. Public spaceflight or NASA is more
> of certainity for the future of US spaceflight at this time.
Yeah, sure. NASA;s last two dozen attempts to replace the Shuttle failed, completely. So, you conclude the next one is certain to succeed?
Amazing.
It’s a roll of the dice on the future of the US in space. Public spaceflight or NASA is more of certainity for the future of US spaceflight at this time.
Without commercialisation US manned spaceflight has no future. As long as central planners have the wheel instead of scientists and industrialists, we’ll continue performing aimless porkbarrel makework projects like Orion, ISS and STS for the next 100 years.
‘Without commercialisation US manned spaceflight has no future. As long as central planners have the wheel instead of scientists and industrialists, we’ll continue performing aimless porkbarrel makework projects like Orion, ISS and STS for the next 100 years.’
Maybe, but so far thoes government planners have have done more for humanity in space by putting humans on the moon, which is more than I can say for the privateteers. All you get from privateteers is criticism of NASA. Put people on the moon first and do it cheaper than NASA then you can criticise NASA all you want.
In 100 years, I dont think that ISS, STS and CEV will be seen as pork projects even if it turns out that private space companies are the ones that put large amounts of people on the moon and mars. ISS, STS and CEV will be seen as important parts of space history that had to happen for the movement of humanity out into space.
vze3gz45
VZE said: {NASA is not stopping private spaceflight companies from bringing down costs of spaceflights. Let them build and fly their cheaper spacecraft and rockets into space, bringing down the costs and leave NASA alone. I am all for this.}
Donald said: {I agree, vze3gz45. I’ve never understood how bashing NASA is somehow supposed to get the money needed to create a viable commercial launch industry.}
Donald,
I have heard this retort for years, and there is a major fallacy in this line of thinking, which I thought you would see and avoid.
The fallacy is that there is a large *opportunity* cost of using federal tax dollars to prop up an inefficient means of production, when alternative means of production could come into existense much faster if more of these dollars were used to create market demand.
Let me give a concrete example where using this logic would have clearly had negative consequences in a similar situation. Let’s go back to the 1920s, when advocates of air travel were proposing that what was to become the Kelly Act, and arguing that the US Postal Service should buy air mail from commercial US airlines on aircraft that were designed & manufactured by other US companies. Using VZE’s (and since you agree with him … your) logic, the US Postal Service could easily have argued that they wanted to own & operate their own airline that delivered the airmail — because depending on these startup airlines was risky — and retorted:
– “Let them build and operate their own airlines, bringing down costs, and leave the US Postal Service alone. I’m all for this.”
– “I agree. I’ve never understood how bashing the US Postal Service is somehow supposed to get the money needed to create a viable commercial airline industry.”
It is a fact is that there are many ways to spend NASA’s $17 Billion per year of appropriations, which is mostly limited by our imagination. It is a fact that NASA currently spends LESS than 1% per year of those appropriations on COTS and purchasing commercial services. It is also a fact that it used to be less than 1/10 of 1%, and that we have made progress in the last year in the form of COTS.
But that does not mean that we can not do better.
– Al
Al, I actually agree with you (and Edward) about the lost opportunity costs, and I fully agree with you that the future lies in commercial space, but the political fact is that what you want is not on the table. If any Administration were going to hand NASA’s $17 billion to small private companies, it was this one. They didn’t. No American President of any political stripe is going to put access to space solely in private hands. Nor are they going to lay off a large number of highly paid government workers all at once — at least not if they want to get reelected. I don’t see why that is so hard to understand.
What is achievable is COTS. We have finally won a major political battle, and all you and Edward, et al, can look at is “it’s not good enough.” Of course it’s not good enough, but it is what is politically achievable. It’s all you get. Further, get rid of the “centraly planned” project (Space Station, lunar missions) and you’ll lose COTS because COTS will have no market. If Orion doesn’t go to the moon, nobody is going to the moon, because no one on Wall Street is going to invest grandma’s money in that project. Opening a new frontier as difficult as space requires both centrally planned and entreprenurial projects. Our job now is not to attack Orian, but to make sure that COTS works, because if it doesn’t then we really are back at the starting gate.
By fighting the Orian, rather than trying to slip what you want into the slipstream, you only kill the golden goose. You won’t get to the moon.
— Donald
Donald,
Please don’t mix me up with Ed.
I personally think that NASA has an important role that is focused on the Moon, Mars and Beyond (e.g. beyond Earth orbit). This is the traditional Lewis & Clark role. Somehow, I don’t think Ed agrees with this position.
I also agree with you that the ISS is a fact of life, and albeit a lemon, the best thing to do now is make lemonade via COTS.
I also am very much a pragmatist, and focused on the art of the possible. Part of the art of the possible means “not resting on our laurels” and looking for the next COTS. I agree it is ridiculous to believe that the private industry could capture the large majority of the $17B annual NASA budget, but there is not anything wrong with trying to figure out how we can capture more than 1% of the NASA budget. We should at least be able to do that. How about 2% or 3%? I think those kinds of numbers are reasonable and justifiable, and would generate a much larger bang for the buck than alternatives.
Also, when I see some people here start suggesting things like …
1) You are a traitor to not agree with the assertion that NASA = space development (as VZE did), or NASA = America in space
or
2) The the entrepreneurs and innovators who created the great wealth of this country, via capitalism, and are the source of the huge economic engine that makes the U.S. the most powerful country on this planet are really “privateers” (as VZE stated above)
Then I think somebody needs to respond (as you did on the traitor statement.)
– Al
I agree with everything you said immediately above, Al. I think where we differ is that I think Orian, too, is already a done deal — in the sense of trying to make major changes to Dr. Griffin’s current plan will only kill the project outright, or irrecoverably damage the political coalition that has made it possible to get this far.
The future I’d like to see come out of all of this goes something like:
By the end of Mr. Bush’s Administration, the combination of political momentum and the lack of clear alternatives will make the VSE so difficult to kill that the outcome becomes unlikely. Orian, in particular, will be designed and initial construction under way. Orian will be a done deal in the sense that a major redesign is prohibitively expensive given the resources NASA will have. Initial flights will use the Ares-1 more-or-less as planned.
However, however much NASA would like it to be otherwise, this is an inherently flexible strategy. If Ares-1 proves as unsatisfactory (or expensive) as all of us expect, than there is nothing to prevent a second generation launcher from being developed with money freed up by the end of the Shuttle program.
The VSE is a strategy for the long term. Decisions made now do not need to be considered cast in stone. You can always change out components in the future. But, to do that, we have to get a start. At this point in time — late in an Administration, with the nation financially strapped and its attention elsewhere — I believe the best political strategy (as opposed to the best technical strategy, which, in the real world, are not the same thing) is to get something built and flying. We can optimize it later, commercializing components and services (second generation booster for Orian, possibly derived from one of the EELVs? methane engines? better upper stages? fuel storage in orbit? oxygen production on the moon?). We don’t have to build the same vehicle now that will be used thirty years from now; only the vehicle it will be derived from.
All of the stakeholders who matter right now — Congress and the voters who care about spaceflight — want to see real flying results, not yet another change of direction and expensive start from ground zero that pushes everything back another several years. Howerver bad the current plan, do that yet again, now, and we won’t be returning to the moon in any of our lifetimes.
— Donald
> I fully agree with you that the future lies in commercial space, but the political
> fact is that what you want is not on the table.
It’s not on the table because VSEers don’t want it on the table.
> No American President of any political stripe is going to put access
> to space solely in private hands.
No one is aaying it should. You’re making up strawmen because you don’t want to address the real arguments. Returning NASA to its historic NACA role as a supporter of commercial and military aerospace is not “putting space solely in private hands.” Nor is NASA the entire US government. No one is saying the government should put FAA or DoD space programs entirely in private hands.
All we are saying is that *civilian space transportation* should be done privately, just as civilian air transportation is done privately. That is hardly a radical position.
Newt Gingrich, Steve Forbes, Sam Brownback are three potential Presidential candidates who favor private enterprise taking over this role. Yet, you keep saying “no American President of any political stripe” would support it. Why?
> Nor are they going to lay off a large number of highly paid government
> workers all at once — at least not if they want to get reelected. I
> don’t see why that is so hard to understand.
Because you mistate the facts. The NASA employees union did not support Bush’s reelection, they opposed it.
Even Keith Cowing opposed it. There’s no evidence that those highly paid government workers will vote Republican no matter what Republicans do for them.
I know a large number of Air Force pilots who are going to be laid off because the USAF is retiring their aircraft, so the government can pay for things like VSE. Why aren’t you screaming about how those layoffs will cause politicians to lose reelection?
> but it is what is politically achievable.
You’re a broken record, Donald. Anything you want is “politically achievable.” Anything you oppose is “politically achievable.”
That’s awfully convenient, for you, but you haven’t produced a single bit of evidence to support it, except for misinformed statements that no Presidential candidate favors commercial space.
> Further, get rid of the “centraly planned” project (Space Station,
> lunar missions) and you’ll lose COTS because COTS will have no market.
> If Orion doesn’t go to the moon, nobody is going to the moon, because
> no one on Wall Street is going to invest grandma’s money in that project.
Do you believe there is nobody in the world besides NASA and Wall Street, Donald? Do you *really* believe that?
It’s possible to buy a circumlunar flight right now for ~$100 million and a lunar landing for a few times that.
There are lots of people in the world with $100 million besides NASA and Wall Street, Donald.
> Opening a new frontier as difficult as space requires both centrally planned
> and entreprenurial projects.
And yet, you favor the plan that’s 99.7% pure socialism. You imply a more or less even split, but that’s very far from the truth.
Of course, that’s a red herring. Even if you want to diss private enterprise, there are still options other than VSE and government agencies other than NASA. You still haven’t explained why the government should spend vast fortunes on Ares rather than building military spaceplanes.
>> Posted by Edward Wright at October 9, 2006 09:10 PM
Indeed. There is no market for going to the Moon because Apollo made it look so expensive that every investor went running as far as they could in the opposite direction.
Now, you want repeat Project Apollo, which will scare every investor away from the Moon for another 40 years.
That’s something I’ve never understood, Donald. Why would you want to do that?
>>Posted by Edward Wright at October 10, 2006 04:48 PM
Do you believe there is nobody in the world besides NASA and Wall Street, Donald? Do you *really* believe that?
It’s possible to buy a circumlunar flight right now for ~$100 million and a lunar landing for a few times that.
Ed,
Which is it? First you say there is no one willing to invest in commercial space flight and then you cite purchase rates for circumlunar and lunar landing expeditions (which appears to infer that these services are ready and available to anyone with enough cash in their pocket). The Russians aside, I haven’t seen anyone taking a ride for hire on any spacecraft recently.
There are lots of people in the world with $100 million besides NASA and Wall Street, Donald.
Donald said:
{By the end of Mr. Bush’s Administration, the combination of political momentum and the lack of clear alternatives will make the VSE so difficult to kill that the outcome becomes unlikely. Orian, in particular, will be designed and initial construction under way. Orian will be a done deal in the sense that a major redesign is prohibitively expensive given the resources NASA will have. Initial flights will use the Ares-1 more-or-less as planned.}
Donald,
The facts don’t support you in this case.
Remember “Space Station” Freedom? How many times were MAJOR redesigns conducted on NASA’s space station program?
Also, remember, that NASA’s white collar civil servants keep their jobs when they get to do redesign after redesign. This is good work for engineers.
And if you happen to be the Senator from MSFC, and your goal is to protect the white collar jobs in your district — actually *building and flying* a space station or a crew exploration vehicle — is a secondary priority.
It is quite possible for NASA to redesign its entire Moon-Mars exploration architecture. In fact, it has already happened. Griffin’s ESAS is actually architecture design #2, as he threw out design process #1 that was started by O’Keefe/Steidle.
– Al
> Which is it? First you say there is no one willing to invest in commercial
> space flight
No, Dennis, I never said that. You need to read all the words.
> and then you cite purchase rates for circumlunar and lunar landing
> expeditions
Once again: Project Apollo scared investors away from the Moon for about 40 years. Today, some companies are beginning to offer lunar flights, but there is still little outside investment for such projects. You may think there’s a contradiction there, but there isn’t. A Soyuz lunar mission does not require major development investment, for reasons that should be obvious. If we’re lucky, such flights could lead to investment in newer, cheaper lunar systems. (In contrast to VSE, which is developing more expensive systems.)
> The Russians aside, I haven’t seen anyone taking a ride for hire
> on any spacecraft recently.
Look again. Non-Russians ride Soyuz on a regular basis. Even NASA astronauts have used it.
Al: In fact, it has already happened. Griffin’s ESAS is actually architecture design #2, as he threw out design process #1 that was started by O’Keefe/Steidle.
I agree. It was a mistake then, that might yet kill the entire project. It would be even more of a mistake now.
Remember “Space Station” Freedom? How many times were MAJOR redesigns conducted on NASA’s space station program?
I thought the idea was to avoid another Space Station fiasco. Sure we can design and re-design and re-re-re-re-re-design the VSE until every faction has had their say, but do we really want to do that? Dr. Griffin’s plan is already less good (at least on a political level) than Mr. O’Keefe and Mr. Steidles. Will the next one really be better?
We have picked a plan. It is far from perfect. It will probably work. While probably not “sustainable” it its current form, it has some potention to evolve into something that is sustainable, with evolve being the key word. Now, we need to stick with the plan and execute.
As I’ve argued elsewhere, I believe the political reality late in an Administration and in a nation in the midst of multiple crises (most of which are worse than we’re prepared to admit), the political alternative is no plan at all.
I have argued and believe that the human space program has great inertia and political momentum — as long as it looks relatively coherent and appears to be making progress. If it falls into chaos — with every faction cliaming to have the one and only viable plan and clammoring for a bigger piece of the pie — the enemies of human spaceflight will have their chance. And they will execute.
— Donald
Donald said: {I have argued and believe that the human space program has great inertia and political momentum — as long as it looks relatively coherent and appears to be making progress. If it falls into chaos — with every faction claiming to have the one and only viable plan and clammoring for a bigger piece of the pie — the enemies of human spaceflight will have their chance. And they will execute.}
Don,
Maybe I am just more cynical than you.
I don’t think the enemies of human spaceflight will be able to execute their plans just because of another redesign. Maybe in the face of 3 or 4 more redesigns, and little progress, but we are not there yet.
Our political process likes stability, and dislikes change. Because of the special interests, Congress is predisposed to keep giving NASA its budget, plus or minus 1-3% per year in growth, year in and year out. Results or lack thereof have a minor impact. There is a lot of heated rhetoric sometimes, but as long as Congress is not embarrassed too much, not much changes.
About 10 years into the program, and the 4th or 5th redesign, Congress might get serious about cancelling the program. This is what the Space Station program’s history suggests.
– Al
But, Al, if you succeeded in your re-plan of the current re-plan, than the people who like the current plan or yet a another plan would line up against yours, and so on. Where does it end?
If we want this project to have a chance of success, it needs to end now.
— Donald
Donald,
In your complaint, you are putting your finger on one of the problems of a space program that depends on financing from the U.S. government.
Sustainability is the key issue.
We spent nearly a decade designing and redesigning the space station. It was sustained for almost 10 years, based on the “distribute the pork” model, and hope nobody notices all the technical problems we are having, which is the strategy Griffin is currently using on ESAS. But this could only carry the day for so long. The station was on the verge of being cancelled in the early 1990s when NASA finally found a formula that made the program politically sustainable.
The solution was to bring in the international partners in a big way — to create much larger diplomatic/political benefits. Although the Canadians, Japanese, and Europeans were part of “Space Station Freedom”, it was not until the Russians were brought in that the space station’s future was assured.
Instead of learning from this lesson, Griffin has done the exact opposite. Instead of creating mutual dependencies, he is kicking the IPs out of the mainline program, to the sideline, and asking them to build the gas stations on the off-ramps of the interstate highway that the U.S. is building.
Part of me likes Griffin’s blatant appeal to nationalism, and his question about what language humans will speak on the space frontier. But this appeal can only take you so far, and it is clear this appeal does not resonate with many people.
You are complaining that we may be repeating history, and asking everybody to set aside their “self interests”. I consider this to be a futile request.
I am saying that we are destined to repeat history because we have not learned from the past.
A smart politician will understand the lessons of history and the “self interests” of the powers that be, and will design a way ahead that takes these into account.
– Al
Ed
*******
> Which is it? First you say there is no one willing to invest in commercial
> space flight
No, Dennis, I never said that. You need to read all the words.
> and then you cite purchase rates for circumlunar and lunar landing
> expeditions
Once again: Project Apollo scared investors away from the Moon for about 40 years. Today, some companies are beginning to offer lunar flights, but there is still little outside investment for such projects. You may think there’s a contradiction there, but there isn’t. A Soyuz lunar mission does not require major development investment, for reasons that should be obvious. If we’re lucky, such flights could lead to investment in newer, cheaper lunar systems. (In contrast to VSE, which is developing more expensive systems.)
> The Russians aside, I haven’t seen anyone taking a ride for hire
> on any spacecraft recently.
Look again. Non-Russians ride Soyuz on a regular basis. Even NASA astronauts have used it.
*********
Huh?
Quit obsessing, this is the first that I have even seen this thread.
I will make the comment that you are completely wrong about Apollo. It was not NASA that precluded investment by folks in lunar development but the magnitude of “percieved” risk. Until that hurdle is overcome, it ain’t gonna happen. You have been the one whining that the Moon is irrelevant and that suborbital is the holy grail. I agree that it is a significant step but it is going to take more than tourism to privately open the solar system to development.
But you of course already know that this is what I think.
Again, I never have to hide who I am whether I agree with you or call you names.
::)))
Dennis