And, to reiterate what I said above, I am not willing to risk our future in space on the possibility that this might happen — especially since these are not mutually exclusive options. The prior existence of government launch vehicles were a requirement for COTS since they deployed the Space Station — COTS’ only realistic market. Likewise, they have not precluded COTS. The same is likely to be true for a lunar base. If Dr. Griffin’s vehicles are as bad as you say, and if there is a market on the moon, there is nothing to prevent somebody else from undercutting them.

DON: Without the development of the bomber able to carry substantial cargo, there would have been nothing to carry mail and passengers in. Don, it is clear again, that did not understand me, or did not read what I wrote. I have wrote, and have repeatedly written that the Government has a critical role in developing technology

Not just technology, but (with the possible exception of the automobile) the first-generation vehicles.

POINT: The Government is NOT effective or efficient at building airplanes, or designing them, or operating them.

I would not put it as strongly but I do basically agree with this. However, private industry is not good at developing first generation vehicles that have no market. Again, it was not a public-private partnership that deployed the first suborbital space plane, a technology that is only now being commercialized. It was not a public-private partnership that launched the first spacecraft, that went to the moon the first time, nor was it one that built the first submarines beyond individual hobby-level efforts. And so on.

U.S. industry actually built the “bombers” that the U.S. military used in WWI.

And U.S. industry will build Orion, et al, if they ever get built.

The U.S. government did not design those airplanes

The basic ideas behind the current strategy came from Orbital Sciences and United Technologies. Lockheed Martin designed Orion to government specifications. Now, how was this different from WWII?

take the space technology that the Government has developed, and lets give it to industry for “adapting”, “deploying”, and incorporating that technology into newly designed spaceships to U.S. industry

That’s exactly what is happening with COTS — and I fully support that. But COTS has a market. Lunar COTS does not, and that is the crucial difference that you never address.

NASA can focus on establishing a “fort on the frontier”, and it will pay private U.S. industry to deliver supplies and people to/from that fort.

That may well happen, but only after the fort is built.

At bottom, your argument (and that of the far less rational “free market ideologues” out there) boils down to, “my way or the high way.” We’ve been handed the one true way this can work from on high, so we should forget every other option and work exclusively with that strategy. Every other idea is wasting taxpayer money.

What I am saying is, we don’t know how this can be done because humanity has not done anything like this since the development of deep-sea travel starting about ten thousand years ago. We should deploy every strategy we can. The government building a lunar base with government-developed vehicles does not preclude private and private-government coalitions doing the same — especially if the government vehicles prove to be as inefficient compared to what private companies can develop as you believe. But if you rely exclusively on private or semi-private efforts that have no market, and it doesn’t work, than you’re up shit creek.

— Donald

DON: The most expensive part of the freeway network is just that, and the government did design and contract for their development (and even today directly pays for about a third of this supposedly free-market product).

DON: The airliners used to deliver mail were directly derived from the technologies developed for the world wars. Without the development of the bomber able to carry substantial cargo, there would have been nothing to carry mail and passengers in.

DON: In all cases, the government developed and deployed a technology first, that was later adapted deployed by private enterprise, usually also supported by heavy government subsidies. (Interestingly, the only transportation system today that survives without substantial subsidy is the freight rail industry.)

DON: More importantly, in all cases there was a market first (a place that required regular supplies to build a rail road to; a place to fly to; a place to drive to). In the case of Earth’s moon, we don’t have that last critical requirement, and that is why I believe that all of you who use these past models are so wrong.

– Al

In all cases, the government developed and deployed a technology first, that was later adapted deployed by private enterprise, usually also supported by heavy government subsidies. (Interestingly, the only transportation system today that survives without substantial subsidy is the freight rail industry.)

More importantly, in all cases there was a market first (a place that required regular supplies to build a rail road to; a place to fly to; a place to drive to). In the case of Earth’s moon, we don’t have that last critical requirement, and that is why I believe that all of you who use these past models are so wrong.

I’ve discussed the models that will work before, but in essence, they involve some sort of government-financed base. Once you have that, government-private partnerships (e.g., COTS) will work. But, without the Space Station, it is a safe bet that COTS would have been a political non-starter. Likewise, without some sort of lunar cargo requirement in place first, the equivalent for the moon will also be a political non-starter.

I freely admit it’s possible I could be wrong in all of this, something my debating opponents here — supremely confident in their positions — seem unwilling to consider.

Suppose I am wrong — fine, we end up with an overly-expensive base on the moon supported by Dr. Griffin’s vehicles, a market for some kind of “lunar COTS” — and we’ve wasted a hundred billion dollars. But, suppose I am right. We’ve still wasted a lot of money trying to deploy a politically unworkable system, and we do not have a lunar base to show for it. Which is the worse outcome?

I’d rather waste the hundred billion dollars and have a lunar base that can support a future lunar COTS, than try to do the lunar COTS first and quite possibly end up with nothing.

Donald

Don,

Your examples make my point for me. The government can provide a major stimulus and major support for encouraging new space transportation systems to develop … but ***HOW*** they do this is critical.

In the example of the “airmail” that you quote, the Government did NOT design/build/own the airplanes or operate the airlines. However, they did create an (initial) market, make major investments in new technologies, provide a positive regulatory environment, and further expand the market by buying specialized planes for national security purposes.

In the case of the “federal highway system”, the Government provided a major stimulus by building and maintaining the highways (and the roads), but they do NOT design/build/operate the cars and trucks that run on those roads.

A 3rd case is the Railroads, which you did not mention. This case further supports my point that a “partnership model” in which private industry designs/builds/operates the vehicles is the way to go. The Government provided a HUGE stimulus for private companies to build a transcontintental railroad. But the Government did NOT design/build/own the trains, or operate the railroads.

So, why is “space” so different from the airways, the highways, and the railways — such that NASA insists on designing, owning and operating the space transportation system?

Why can’t NASA **FULLY** commit to STIMULATING the private development of these systems — including the lunar system — just like our government did in for cars, airplanes, and trains?

The answer is — there is no good reason other than “they don’t want to.”

Which means it is a political issue.

– Al

We are ready to go to LEO without direct government support (beyond the existance of the Space Station), and, indeed, that is starting to happen. Without the uneconomic government creation of “unnatural” markets to create enough transportation to make real markets, it won’t happen, or at least not very soon.

This, after all, is a well-tested model. Without vast R&D expenditures during the world wars, and the mail contracts, the airline industry as we know it would not have existed. Without the Federal freeway system, the personal automobile could not exist as we know it. And both of these are far, far easier projects than establishing bases in the Solar System.

— Donald

– Al

I think my fundamental difference with most of the space community comes out of my archaeological background. Great achievements by governments in human history are far more dependent on consistant political support than they are on the particular technical details chosen to achieve them. If the political support is there, most things can be achieved no matter how awkward the implementation. If the political support isn’t there, all the technical skill and strategy and development in the world will not get you there.

— Donald

DON: A few years ago, yes, but not now. Too much water is under the bridge. I think it is far more politically important to execute the current plan than it is to come up with something more optimal now.

The way I read your philosophy, is that after the next President comes in, and installs their choice for the next NASA Administrator — and after they make their change in plans on how to go to the Moon/Mars (which they are likely to do) … that you are likely to be saying almost the very same thing.

– Al

A few years ago, yes, but not now. Too much water is under the bridge. I think it is far more politically important to execute the current plan than it is to come up with something more optimal now. That said, I would support changes around the edges, e.g., more money for COTS (if it didn’t come out of Orion) and the return of Methane engines in the lunar architecture. My belief now is that NASA should concentrate on the lunar architecture; commercial companies are now capable of handling LEO.

— Donald

So, if the designer(s), builder(s), owner/operator(s) of new spaceplane(s) use “already developed components” and “very well understood technologies and engineering principles” will that satisfy you enough to be willing to support a more aggressive commercial spaceplane initiative?

It is guaranteed that completely new technology vehicles will cost more (probably a lot more) to develop, and it is only possible that they will reduce operational costs. I’ll believe it when I see it.

Who here has said that the commercial guys will develop “completely new technology vehicles”, if they were to design reusable spaceplanes?

In fact, commercial firms generally use existing off-the-shelf technology as much as possible in their systems. They do have engineering work to do, but they generally don’t use new tech.

– Al