*******

> 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

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

If we want this project to have a chance of success, it needs to end now.

— Donald

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

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

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.

{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

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.

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.

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