A key Air Force space official thinks that what the US needs is an “official national space strategy”, Aerospace Daily reported Wednesday. And what exactly is a national space strategy? It is “a document that would communicate the value of space, inspire the public and generate increased interest and attention from Congress”, according to Lt. Gen. John Sheridan, head of the Space and Missile Systems Center in Los Angeles. Sheridan, speaking at the Space 2008 conference in San Diego, said that such a strategy would rectify the problem, in his view, that space is “invisible”, at least compared to aviation.
How such a strategy would differ from the national space policy isn’t clear. According to the article, Sheridan sees such a strategy including “continued pre-eminence in space, renewed exploration goals, increased protection for existing and future assets and increased funding for education and aerospace work force development.” Yet most, if not all, of these issues are addressed in the current national space policy in one form or another. Evidently, though, a strategy is more “dramatic”, in his words, than a policy. “Few people remember policies. But everybody remembers [the] Apollo [program].”
A strategy generally has more substance then a policy, with more specific details and dates. Also if you do it right it includes an implication plan that would coordinate budgeting among the different agencies.
I think this should be on top of McCain’s space agenda when he takes office in January. But first of course he needs to take quick action to deal with the spaceflight gap that is the major problem for NASA today. Then use the strategy to plot a long term path for space leadership.
“Few people remember policies. But everybody remembers [the] Apollo [program].â€
Few people remember national strategy documents either, they remember successes. I don’t understand the good General’s point whatsoever. Natl Space Policy and US Space Trans Policy both call for the kinds of things he wants to see codified. The problem is that creating documents and viewgraphs is a lot easier than funding systems development and getting results. As Commander of Space and Missile Systems Center (with numerous woes over the last decade promising immature technologies at unrealistic costs and schedules), he should know this as well as anyone.
Sarah Palin is a creationist. She believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old. If she becomes Vice President, she will probably oppose any NASA project that deals with the origins of the universe, because they contradict her beliefs. I expect that any space strategy that emerges from a McCain administration will result in cutting back on NASA science.
Sarah Palin is a creationist. She believes that the Earth is only 6000 years old.
And you know this…how?
If she becomes Vice President, she will probably oppose any NASA project that deals with the origins of the universe, because they contradict her beliefs.
This is a stupid comment.
How such a strategy would differ from the national space policy isn’t clear.
It means the Air force wants to do more in space at the expense of NASA.
Terrence – what exactly does creationism (and why in particular mention Sarah Palin) have to do with the topic at hand? (FWIW, this is coming from an Obama supporter).
Rand – Its not necessarily definitive proof, or a declaritive statement, but there is a bit of evidence – http://thinkprogress.org/wonkroom/2008/08/29/palin-creationist/
Now that thats out of the way, can we go back to discussing strategy vs policy? And what exactly the difference is?
Ferris, there is absolutely no evidence in that piece that Governor Palin believes in young-earth creationism. And yes, I agree that this is completely off topic.
“IIt means the Air force wants to do more in space at the expense of NASA.”
That is a wrong conclusion for many reasons among them:
1. NASA’s budget is independent of the USAF and the reverse is also true.
2. What the USAF does in space is not related to what NASA does.
If she becomes Vice President, she will probably oppose any NASA project that deals with the origins of the universe, because they contradict her beliefs.
No, but she probably will ask for equal funding for creationist research. Her “teach both” idea is intellectually equivalent to researching both. Right? Now, NASA doesn’t spend much on researching evolution, so I guess an equal time mandate for creationism won’t cost too much, and her Creation Science Mission Directorate will probably be rather small.
More seriously though, this is not too far off topic. NSPD-31, a.k.a VSE, makes few specific recommendations about space science. The Aldridge report recommended a strong space science program as a key component of VSE implementation, essentially defining exploration as including science. A new space policy, written under the auspices of an administration whose respect for scientific inquiry is a little suspect, might not include such a definition of exploration, and might not even charter a panel that would make that recommendation.
(But hey, that’s just a “theory”, just like evolution. You know, a WAG. The opposite is just a “theory” too, so it must be just as valid.)
A reasonable on-topic discussion point this brings up would be how a new national space policy might be more inclusive and more descriptive, with regard to both science and national defense.
Her “teach both†idea is intellectually equivalent to researching both.
She doesn’t think we should “teach both.”
I can’t believe how much mythology has sprung up around a person in less than two weeks’ time.
The documented historical record clearly shows Sarah Palin to be a young Earth creationist who readily admits to being willfully and completely ignorant of science and its methods. Why does Rand Simberg continue to defend her?
Why is Tom Elifritz too cowardly to post his nonsense under his own name?
She doesn’t think we should “teach both.â€
Oh, really?
“In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, ‘Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.’
http://tinyurl.com/68cm4d
I can’t believe how much mythology has sprung up around a person in less than two weeks’ time.
Yep. Palin is a strong VP candidate and a sincere and honorable person, but with regard to science and creationism you can’t put lipstick on a …. ooops.
And if you’d followed my link, you’d see that she later clarified that.
A reminder to please stay on topic. Thank you.
Jeff, young Earth creationism is THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE confronting science in America today. It is estimated that half of the population believes in this crap. If you don’t think that a vice presidential candidate that openly embraces this nuttiness doesn’t bring it to the forefront of the decline of science in the US, you are sorely and tragically mistaken.
Rand, science concerns itself with results, not authors.
you people are silly. who cares if she is creationist or not. i just to know her opinion on dinosaurs & Matt Damon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk
has anyone tried to gauge whether or not this call for more public awareness of space issues gets more media attention coming from an Air Force general than it does from the equivalent civilian counterpart?
And if you’d followed my link, you’d see that she later clarified that.
Rand, she did not refute that she believed that creationism should be taught along side evolution in science class, she merely clarified (following a slight uproar) to say she wouldn’t use her political power to force the teaching of both. So if you think that somebody who thinks creationism should be taught in science class (whether or not she would force such teaching) would support NASA science programs like Genesis as much as somebody who rightfully sees creationism in science class as anathema to scientific progress in this country, then I’m afraid we’ll disagree.
That all said, she may very well have ZERO impact on NASA programs as VP, whatever her personal views may be. But that still misses the point. Her views on science and religion, and the merging of the two, are further legitimized and help retard the spirit of discovery, appreciation of the scientific method, and rejection of religious-based dogma which are all necessary for the future scientific progress in this nation as we advance into the 21st century. Leaders with more or less the same world view with respect to science as enlightened men of the 13th century do no good in charting our course as a nation, as a civilization, or as a human race.
VPs are often quite involved in space policy. Dick Cheney has been an exception to that, but even he probably played a considerable role–it just wasn’t widely known or public. For instance, O’Keefe was his guy.
I have heard Governor Palin say nothing to indicate that she will take advice on government science policies from anyone other than scientists.
And in fact she has already been involved with space policy. She put money into her budget this year for a new pad at Kodiak. She has also made appointments to the board of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation.
As I already said, there is zero evidence that she is a young-earth creationist (at least to date), and none that her religious beliefs, whatever they are, would affect her technology policies.
Sorry, Jeff. Trying to at least get it back to space policy, if not the specific topic of the post. That may be a lost cause at this point.
And if you’d followed my link, you’d see that she later clarified that.
Ah, a “later clarification”. What she originally said was actually very clear, and hardly mythological, but I accept what appears to be a retraction. A smart one at that. I would not say there is “zero evidence” of creationist tendencies in her, but I’ll accept the fact that, with regard to this topic, she’s decided to put some glue in her lipstick.
To better stay on topic … top level White House science policy with regard to space has been essentially absent in this administration. Even science advisor/OSTP boss Marburger sees space exploration more about resources than about science. The Aldridge report was supposed to have made that connection of VSE with science at a WH level, but that report was gratefully accepted and then largely ignored, unfortunately. A reasonable question is whether either of the prospective Presidents will reissue a Presidential Directive on space. Clintpn’s PDD/NSC49 was just a bit more detailed on science, but vastly more detailed with regard to national security and space transportation than the VSE. Perhaps Sheridan is looking for something like that.
And in fact she has already been involved with space policy. She put money into her budget this year for a new pad at Kodiak. She has also made appointments to the board of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation.
You do that has absolutely nothing to do with a debate regarding science, right? I mean, you’re saying she funded a launch pad and made some appointments as evidence she supports scientific exploration? No, that’s evidence she supports bringing aerospace money to her state. But whatever, this is off-topic anyway and I’m out.
What Sarah Palin might do as VP on space policy is a relevant topic — and her views on science issues are relevant. Even if there is no national space council, VPs often have significant influence (both Cheney and Gore did.)
While I am distressed by the idea that somebody who may believe that teaching creationism in schools is a good idea may become VP (and later President), I accept that she said she would not try to impose her views on the school board. NOTE: I also read a report that she retracted a statement she made while Mayor of Wasilla about possibly banning some books from the town library.
All that said, I think she is a change agent, and that she could change national space policy for the better if she were to become VP. I think she would focus on how we can truly generate “economic benefits” from government investments in space. She would not pull any punches on fixing the current space policies, or taking on entrenched interests.
I will also note that Jim Muncy (representing the McCain campaign) debated Patty Grace Smith (representing the Obama campaign) here yesterday (10 Sep) at the AIAA conference.
Unfortunately, I did not take notes, so I need to go from memory.
Gen. Dickman asked them a question along the lines of “Who will your candidate pick for NASA Administrator? (or was it “Does your candidate have a person in mind for NASA Administrator?”)
Patty responded that it was too early, and
Muncy said something like “I don’t know who Senator McCain will pick, but if his choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President is any indication, we are in good hands for who McCain will pick for NASA.” There was huge applause.
– Al
PS — I hope that somebody here took notes of the Muncy/Smith debate and will share, or has a recording, or can get the AIAA to release a transcript.
Muncy said something like “I don’t know who Senator McCain will pick, but if his choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President is any indication, we are in good hands for who McCain will pick for NASA.†There was huge applause.
So the next NASA administrator will be woefully inexperienced for their role, selected in a rash emotional manner, will spew negativity at rivals as their debut on national scene, and will refuse to engage the media on any questions related to their background, but will be able to flawlessly deliver one-liners written by Bush aides. Great.
So the next NASA administrator will be woefully inexperienced for their role, selected in a rash emotional manner
Just because people continue repeating Dem talking points doesn’t make the true.
Getting back to substance (and ignoring the partisanship), my point (and I think Muncy’s point) is that evidence suggests that McCain could pick a “change agent” to be NASA Administrator, rather than one of the old guard.
To be fair, there is evidence that Obama might do something similar … e.g., pick a change agent for NASA Administrator.
– Al
Getting back to Lt. Gen. Sheridan, I note that he was scheduled to do the keynote at AIAA today. Anyone go?
The point about change agents for NASA management is a good one, as is the point that either candidate might well pick one.
To be fair, there is evidence that Obama might do something similar … e.g., pick a change agent for NASA Administrator.
Yes, there will be “change” with both candidates. The question is, what kind of change?
I would not say there is “zero evidence†of creationist tendencies in her
I didn’t say there was. It’s quite possible that she’s an IDer.
I said there is zero evidence that she is a young-earth creationist or thinks (contra that nitwit Matt Damon) that humans shared the planet with dinosaurs. The original claim was that she believes that the earth is only six thousand years old. I’ve never seen anything to support such a statement.
You said there was “zero evidence that she is a young-earth creationist”. I don’t care if she is an old-Earth creationist, an immature-Earth creationist, or a creationist with sprinkles on her. I really don’t want to get into a pointless debate about the flavors of creationism. Creationism, which she once said should be taught in schools (and thankfully no longer does, it would seem), is a red flag for dismissal of the scientific process, at least to the science community, and she knows it.
You said there was “zero evidence that she is a young-earth creationistâ€.
Yes. I stand by it. My response was to the original idiotic comment about her. Discussions about her actual scientific (or not) beliefs are probably for a different post.
My current opinion is that they don’t have much to do with what her space policy would be.
Matt Damon for Vice President! he already has national security experience – just watch the Bourne Identity series if you dont believe me – and can clearly run an administration when put in the position, as evidenced in Oceans 12. he is a great communicator with celebrity status and Hollywood pull, just like Reagan, and will undoubtedly reinvest in science & math (Good Will Hunting).
seriously though, does anyone think the public cares more about space if it comes out of the mouth of a General or Civilian?
In my mind the value of a national space strategy is that it may break the monopoly of NASA being the ONLY government agency funded to send astronauts into space by allowing the USAF to once again look at developing, or purchasing from private firms, manned orbital and sub-orbital space missions.
I know, I know, robotic systems are cheaper for what the USAF does, but I suspect there are useful things that USAF personal could do in space if CATS were available.
One of the big ifs of history is where would manned U.S. access to space be IF the USAF had been allowed to go ahead with the X-20 in the 1960’s as a separate program to NASA’s manned program. We may well have had another manned U.S. option for accessing the ISS today in the modern USAF decendents of the X-20. For that matter we may well have had private systems that were decendents of the X-20 decades ago instead of a Shuttle monopoly.
USAF is free to fund any manned program, it just chooses not to, which is the correct choice. No need for human presence in space for the national defense, since the spacecraft can do the job. Aircraft are now also becoming unmanned in similar roles
“My current opinion is that they don’t have much to do with what her space policy would be.”
I’m more worried about her recent statements that she would be willing to go to war with Russia. This was in context of Russia invading a NATO member, so in and of itself the comment is only slightly undiplomatic. However, the real issue that was ignored in that interview is why we should support countries directly on the doorstep of Russia (and who have rocky relations with said bear to boot) joining NATO in the first place. What is our overriding national interest in South Ossetia? While I would agree we should honor treaty agreements to defend allies, we need to be careful who we take on as military allies in order to avoid a war with a growing power with hundreds (thousands?) of nuclear weapons. Should we roll over and just accept Russian actions we disagree with? No, but suggesting war with them is an option is both irresponsible and ridiculously premature. If there has to be another Cold War (much less hot), let it be because Russia dragged us kicking and screaming into one, not running straight into one.
And of course, it almost goes without saying that this is closely related to Space Policy. I mean, people are only half joking when they say the ISS may become MIR II if we aren’t careful.
Here is the link to the interview: http://blogs.thetimes.co.za/minor/2008/09/12/the-palin-interview-on-abc/
Do you really think that either Obama or Biden would have answered differently than she did? They’re both on record as supporting Georgia’s entry into NATO. Having defend Georgia would implicitly become a US obligation if we were to do so. And she didn’t just say “go to war with Russia.” She also discussed sanctions and diplomacy.
As usual, this latest attack on Palin is much ado about not much.
Back to the original topic:
FOUST: A key Air Force space official thinks that what the US needs is an “official national space strategyâ€
The problem with this statement is that it begs the question “What are the national space OBJECTIVE(S), which this strategy will support?”
You really can’t develop a real “strategy” without first stating the objective. If you don’t know where you are going, then any strategy might get you there.
It sounds like Gen. Sheridan thinks the objective is to “make space visible”, or “to inspire the public”, or “to generate increased interest and atttention from Congress”.
The problem is that those are not true objectives. They are means to an end objective, not the end objective itself. (To understand what I mean by this, ask “why do we need to _______”. When you get the answer ask it again, until the answer is self-obvious that the answer is something that we want and are willing to pay for.)
I would be interested in hearing what Gen. Sheridan thinks the end objective should be. That would clarify his fuzzy statement that “we need a strategy”.
– Al
You really can’t develop a real “strategy†without first stating the objective. If you don’t know where you are going, then any strategy might get you there.
Exactly. After Columbia, I had an opinion piece that it was time for us to have a debate on what we were trying to accomplish in space, something that hadn’t happened since Sputnik. But it never happened.
RAND: fter Columbia, I had an opinion piece that it was time for us to have a debate on what we were trying to accomplish in space, something that hadn’t happened since Sputnik. But it never happened.
I agree that we did not have a national discussion. I also agree that this is a shame. The President had this discussion, but it was a non-public discussion that was basically limited to the White House and a few select people from NASA. Sietzen and Cowing report on this in their book.
It would have taken the President himself to open up the discussion to the broader public, to fully engage people on the real options, and to develop a national consensus. Unfortunately, he did not. Pres. Bush probably did not because he was focused on other issues (like Iraq.)
It is pretty clear that WH knows what the end objectives are. Dr. Marburger has been crystal clear on our national strategic objectives in space — economics, national security, and science.
However, that is where the train derailed. Griffin & ESAS did not flow down these three objectives as the figures of merit for assessing all the “how” alternatives. I believe this was intentional on Griffin’s part, as he structured ESAS to give him the answer he already wanted.
This suggest to me a different thought. Perhaps what Sheridan is saying is “ESAS is not a strategy”??
FWIW,
– Al
Perhaps what Sheridan is saying is “ESAS is not a strategy�?
I don’t know whether or not he’s saying that, but it’s certainly true. Particularly since it completely ignores the recommendations (and it was more than a suggestion) of the Aldridge Commission to use VSE to support national security and commercialization goals.
Do you really think that either Obama or Biden would have answered differently than she did?
Yes I do. I also think most national politicions (of either party) would have answered differently. Normally we criticise politicions for not being direct enough, but in cases like these, a little lack of clarity would be a positive. As an example, look at Obama’s statement here: http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/08/obama_nato_membership_for_geor.html
They’re both on record as supporting Georgia’s entry into NATO.
And I don’t agree with them either. What’s your point? At least they haven’t said war with Russia is an option.
Having defend Georgia would implicitly become a US obligation if we were to do so.
Exactly. It would be implicit. So why make it explicit? There is simply no reason to continue to escalate tensions with Russia. A new cold war is not in our interests.
And she didn’t just say “go to war with Russia.†She also discussed sanctions and diplomacy.
Here are her words:
“GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.”
I am not questioning the accuracy of the statement, but its wisdom. If you think it is fine, that’s your opinion, and I have mine.
As usual, this latest attack on Palin is much ado about not much.
Sorry if I don’t consider war (cold or hot) with Russia over a non-vital interest “nothing”.
Here are her words:
Those weren’t all of her words.
“by allowing the USAF to once again look at developing, or purchasing from private firms, manned orbital and sub-orbital space missions.”
Are you aware of recent USAF experience with NPOESS, SBIRS, TSAT or AEHF? They’re all a mess. AEHF is the most recent Air Force project to bust its cost caps. Short answer: USAF is far more messed up than NASA is, so why would you trust them with manned spaceflight?
“One of the big ifs of history is where would manned U.S. access to space be IF the USAF had been allowed to go ahead with the X-20 in the 1960’s as a separate program to NASA’s manned program. We may well have had another manned U.S. option for accessing the ISS today in the modern USAF decendents of the X-20. For that matter we may well have had private systems that were decendents of the X-20 decades ago instead of a Shuttle monopoly.”
A far more likely outcome is that USAF would have screwed this up, spending billions on a project with limited utility.
Over the years I have detected a certain attitude among some people interested in space. It starts with a dissatisfaction with NASA for not meeting some kind of ideal of what spaceflight should be. Then it manifests itself in one or more opinions. The most common one is that “private enterprise can do this better/cheaper if only given the chance.” But another version is “the military could do this better if only given the chance.”
People who take the latter position rarely know much about how badly messed up the military space program actually is. For example, a recent high level review of it recommended wholesale reorganization, eliminating and/or merging major organizations. No high level review has recommended anything like this for NASA, so that should give you a sense of just how screwed up the experts think military space has become.
“Are you aware of recent USAF experience with NPOESS, SBIRS, TSAT or AEHF?”
Yes, those programs have cost/schedule overruns. Tech immaturity, demanding (and often dynamic and conflicting) requirements, funding instability, etc., makes the business of military space very challenging.
But I notice you leave out GPS, Milstar, DSP, black NRO programs, etc. (and newer programs like WGS and TacSat series), and the fleet of AF-provided launch vehicles serving reliably now over 50 years, from your laundry list of military space. Why? Because these systems are so successful, you forget they are even there and that they require an enormous amount of technical, financial, and managerial talent and resources to keep running smoothly for decades.
Manned spaceflight has military utility. Nobody is suggesting the AF replace NASA. The AF and DoD has its own needs which NASA cannot and will not provide as we continue on into the 21st century. Do you think NASA should be in the business of providing hypersonic bombers and suborbital military transports or on-orbit satellite offensive and defensive operations? I mean, seriously, what are you exactly trying to say here?
As I recall the USAF did a good job with the X-15, so why are you assuming they would have done the same with the X-20? A number of programs they messes up 30 years later? All that goes to show is that the same systematic problems that infected NASA has also infected other space activities in the U.S.
Which raises the question. What is different in how space programs, NASA, USAF, etc. are managed today then in the 1960’s? Is there too much paralysis by analysis? Too much system engineering and not enough common sense? Too many power point meetings and simulations and not enough metal bending? Or ???? And how do you change it?
Correction: As I recall the USAF did a good job with the X-15, so why are you assuming they would have done the same with the X-20?
Should be: As I recall the USAF did a good job with the X-15, so why are you assuming they would have NOT done the same with the X-20?
What is different in how space programs, NASA, USAF, etc. are managed today then in the 1960’s? Is there too much paralysis by analysis? Too much system engineering and not enough common sense? Too many power point meetings and simulations and not enough metal bending? Or ???? And how do you change it?
I think the biggest driver is that systems are a lot more complex and integrated within system-of-systems concepts than stand-alone systems of the past. And they must support a much, much larger set of users and requirements. For example, the first mil satcom satellites were tailored for a specific application and a specific set of users. Today’s mil satcom satellites must provide capability for users from tactical to strategic levels, and be robust against more sophisticated jamming/spoofing/etc., be much more integrated into complex comm architectures of today when compared to the past, and be more flexible to adapt to exponential pace of computer and comm technology. Same holds true for ISR and missile warning. Consider SBIRS, poster child for a program with issues. DSP has provided space-based missile warning since 1970, but does not provide the kinds of in-flight tracking required for theater and national missile defense, nor the kind of battlespace awareness and technical intel required for 21st century battlefield.
To be blunt, the question is like asking why it was easier to quickly design and build the B-17 compared to the B-2. It isn’t that everybody (engineers, mgmt, leaders) became stupid, its that the problems became exponentially more complicated and with exponentially more interested parties (including the intertwining politics of jobs creation, billion-dollar corporate contracts, and military needs). One might think that increases in science and technology would make the problems just as tractable, but I don’t believe that’s the case at all. Even such amazing firsts as launching satellites into orbit are not that difficult an engineering challenge as one might think compared to the sensors, electronics, communications, data integration, user interfaces, etc. Providing data from a satellite to a large fixed ground station at regular intervals is nothing compared to providing that data to thousands of mobile users on a dynamic battlefield amidst hostile jamming/denial/spoofing/CCD, in an all-weather, real-time manner usable by the 19 year old GI rather than NASA scientist.
That all said, again there are many successes we forget are there. GPS is a classic example of a wonderful national (worldwide actually) capability which enables thousands of applications to include commercial, civil, and private uses. All provided by the US Air Force, operated by US airmen, and managed by primarily USAF organizations, without direct involvement by NASA or any other space agency. There has been a litany of successful space programs in the last 25 years that nobody gets excited about, but everybody focuses on the programs which have trouble (some through USAF’s fault, but also through external requirements, funding, and industrial-base instabilities beyond USAF’s control). The warfighter has all kinds of capabilities since post-1980s provided through space-based assets that have revolutionized the way the military fights. To ignore these successes is absurdly myopic. Without space, the American military has but a fraction of the asymmetric advantages it enjoys today thanks to the USAF and sister Services.
Peace.
“But I notice you leave out GPS, Milstar, DSP, black NRO programs, etc. (and newer programs like WGS and TacSat series)”
Here’s the difference: the programs I referred to are all _current_ programs. GPS, Milstar, DSP, etc. are legacy programs (as for black NRO programs, FIA is a current program and a mess). The point being that military space is currently a total mess. If anybody is going to suggest that USAF or the military should be given a new task, like manned spaceflight, they first have to explain why they think it will not be messed up. Once again, _current_ milspace is a train wreck. You wouldn’t want to give these people more to do.
As for manned spaceflight having military utility, can you support a DoD-sponsored study that proves that?
“As I recall the USAF did a good job with the X-15, so why are you assuming they would have NOT done the same with the X-20?”
MOL. They messed that one up pretty bad.
So the X-15 was not the success that history books state it was…
This is news. How did they mess up the X-15 project? Seems even new Spacers use it as an example of a well run project.
He didn’t say they messed up X-15. He said they messed up MOL.
“Those weren’t all of her words”
That is why the link was provided. I trust everyone here can follow a link and decide for themselves how in or out of context the statements were.
The MOL was killed apparently because it was in competition with a robotic system
MOL was an expensive project, and by 1967 it was clashing with another space project, a massive robotic spacecraft designated the KH-9 HEXAGON.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1057/1
But the cost seems reasonable given the technology it was pioneering.
however I also expect Nixon didn’t want the politcal issues associated with a high profile military space program on the upswing while NASA was winding down Apollo and doing Skylab.
The nice things about robotic spy satellites, the general press and public doesn’t pay any attention to their comings and goings….
Also, in due respect to both NASA and MilSpace, New Space has also had its own program troubles.
SpaceshipTwo is one good example, with its launch date constantly slipping due to Burt Rutan trying to reinvent the wheel by building a new engine for it.
Elon Musk originally argued that Falcon 1 would be operation within two years for $50 million. It appears to be on the high side of $100 million in development cost and is 4 years behind schedule.
Neither Burt or Elon has money limitations, they don’t even ahve to deal with Congress, so you must assume the program delays have another cause related to program management decisions.
Then we have the Kistler K-1, which has been around since the early 1990’s draining money (how many hundreds of milllions of dollars were raised for it?) and always seems a day late and dollar short from flying.
So program management problems don’t seen the exclusive preserve of NASA and MilSpace. It seems to also be part of New Space.
The MOL was a mess when it was killed. From the article you cite:
“As one former senior Air Force official once put it, the program always seemed to be one year and one billion dollars more away from completion.”
Read more carefully.
Bill,
But that was not the reason it was killed, as noted also in the article. And the problems were being resolved as was also stated. Please read the article entirely.
However the MOL is a red herring you threw in. The observation I made was on the X-20 which was moving forward as a follow-on to the X-15, leveraging the experience of the X-15. I stand by the statement that the X-20 would have allowed a separate path to manned orbital flight that would have enable private manned space access decades ago.
We will be very lucky if the EELV based Shuttle replacements have any where near the capability planned for the X-20.
That is why the link was provided. I trust everyone here can follow a link and decide for themselves how in or out of context the statements were.
That link didn’t contain all of her words, either. In fact, it describes them as excerpts. And even a full broadcast transcript doesn’t provide all of her words, because those objective editors at ABC trimmed out many of the things she said to make her appear to be as clueless as possible.
Sorry for screwing up the close on the bold. It was supposed to end and “…exerpts.”
[…] A national space “strategyâ€? – Space Politics […]
Here’s the difference: the programs I referred to are all _current_ programs. GPS, Milstar, DSP, etc. are legacy programs
The last DSP satellite was just launched 1 year ago. The most recent GPS satellite was launched months ago. Milstar is less than a decade old. All of these and more are launched on USAF rockets. All of these systems are currently operated by the USAF. I think you need to understand what a current program is and not cherry-pick future programs that have complications. Besides, you haven’t even attempted to make a case for how NASA would do SBIR or TSAT “better”? It is impossible since NASA does not build those kinds of systems for the defense community. So again, what is your point? That NASA should start building military satellites and military spaceplanes? You have no point actually other than to complain about a select few AF programs over cost/behind budget and make no substantive recommendation.
“So again, what is your point?”
I did not realize that reading comprehension was so lousy on this site, but you and Spacer clearly have a problem with it.
The point: That anybody proposing giving USAF a new space mission (human spaceflight) needs to explain why the current totally messed up USAF space acquisition process should be trusted with this.
And because you don’t seem to understand this, here goes: DSP is a “legacy system” developed decades ago. Milstar is a “legacy system” developed over a decade ago (and it was a mess). GPS is a “legacy system” developed a long time ago. It doesn’t matter that there are still a few production satellites being launched today–the tough part is developing something new, not building bird #25.
When you give USAF the job of developing something new, you are giving it to the people who are screwing up _now_, not the people who did a good job back in the 1980s. Since we don’t have a time-traveling DeLorean, we’re stuck with the acquisition system that currently exists, and it is a total mess. So anybody arguing in favor of USAF doing a new complicated space project has to explain why this time it’s not going to go the same way as SBIRS, Space Radar, NPOESS, TSAT, A-EHF, etc.
So the USAF, NASA and New Space are all messed up. Is that what you are saying?
If so how do you fix it? Draft the retirees back and fire the Generation X enegineers that are running the programs today?
The point: That anybody proposing giving USAF a new space mission (human spaceflight) needs to explain why the current totally messed up USAF space acquisition process should be trusted with this.
You’re still missing the point. Nobody is “giving” the USAF this mission — it is already in the USAF’s domain and it is based on military requirements. You make it sound like it’s an option to give military spaceplane development to another service or federal agency. If that’s your point, then which one do you propose? C’mon, state your case why military spaceplanes should be developed by someone else. Be specific. So who? The Army? Navy? NASA? Dept of Energy? CIA? Treasury Dept? Coast Guard? How about National Parks Service?