NASA, White House

A Thanksgiving decision on NASA’s future?

A decision on the future on NASA’s human spaceflight program could be coming in time for Thanksgiving, according to a key senator. Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) told WFTV in Orlando that he expects President Obama to make a decision “sometime around the Thanksgiving holiday” on which direction he wants to take the space program. Nelson bases that expectation on a meeting he “recently” held with the president on the subject.

Nelson, though, seemed to be hinting that the $3 billion a year in addition funding identified by the Augustine committee, and endorsed by space supporters in Congress, may not be forthcoming, or at least would not be sufficient. “He is very sensitive to this and I really believe the President is a fan of the space program and, at the end of the day, I am optimistic,” he told WFTV. “But in a very tough money time, it’s going to take a lot more money to make up for the deficiencies of the last decade.”

134 comments to A Thanksgiving decision on NASA’s future?

  • Major Tom

    Well, of course there has to be a decision by Thanksgiving. NASA (and all other federal agencies) get their FY11 budgets from the OMB passback during that time. Nelson is stating the obvious.

    Of course, those budget figures won’t be final or public until the President’s Budget is released in early February.

    FWIW…

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is Bill Nelson’s method of saying “no more money” and “big change is coming”…and “dont blame me it is someone elses fault” (My guess is that he and others will end up blaming Bush the last …why not he deserves it..lol)

    Major Tom has also stated the salient facts about the budget…

    The lunar vision is “dark” and “dead”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    I hope that, despite the sense of trepidation conveyed by the “community”, that this WH will take its time and come up with something that makes sense.

    I am only curious as to whether they actually assembled a team for recommendation (outside of OSTP and NASA Admin) and who that might be. Could it be the real opportunity for reviving NASC at this time?

  • Obama and the Democrats are going to need a powerful political symbol that they can carry around during the next election cycles that tells the American people that the country is headed in the right direction and inspires hope of a better tomorrow. So resolving the financial and directional mess that previous Republican and Democratic administrations have made of NASA since the end of the Apollo program would be hugely beneficial to both Obama and the Democrats as a political symbol of hope and progress.

    Endorsing a simple but continuously growing lunar settlement program that could eventually lead to human settlements on Mars and the rest of the solar system would be a powerful symbolic change that would garner strong support from the American people: Democrats, Independents and even some Republicans. But he has to be careful not to endorse a program that is simply repeats what was done during the days of Apollo since that would be going backwards not forwards and wouldn’t help us much as far as our efforts to live on the surface of mars in habitat structures.

    However, if the Obama administration is going to ask the congress to increase the NASA budget by $3 billion annually, then he’s going to have to choose a program that’s going to– get the job done– as cheaply and as quickly as possible.

    If Obama adds $3 billion to the NASA budget and endorses NASA’s Sidemount-shuttle concept:

    1. We will eliminate the gap since there would be plenty of money to continue the shuttle program until a new spacecraft is ready

    2. This would give NASA plenty of money to simultaneously fund the development of the Sidemount plus the Orion, EDS, and Altair vehicles which should allow NASA to return to the Moon well before 2020.

    3. Once the developmental stage is over, NASA should have several billion dollars a year in extra funds to begin investing in the space infrastructure that can get us to Mars and beyond in the 2020’s– without requiring any budget increases.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Marcel,

    You keep assuming most Americans care about Space – they don’t. There will be no more examples of a JFK style moment, with space.

  • Unfortunately, I agree with Farris. I suspect the best we can hope for is commercial support of Space Station logistics and a down-payment toward activities requiring l;arge scale funding safely beyond a second Obama Administration. While not exactly “storming the Solar System,” getting beyond the Space Shuttle with this result would be no small achievement.

    The space communities’ jobs are to make something out of this, that is, to make sure that the nascent commercial logistics industry thrives for now and somehow survives beyond the Space Station and this Administration to be useful if and when a private or government activity is space requires them.

    Ultimately, as we see in terrestrial infrastructure like rail roads and highways, industry follows the transportation and justifies its expansion — but to get there, you have to start that positive feedback. The ISS and COTS are the earliest start and it is more important to nurture those tiny green shoots of commerce than to achieve any particular goal in space.

    — Donald

  • Loki

    “You keep assuming most Americans care about Space – they don’t”

    Agreed – most americans care more about who the next Americal Idol will be and what “insert over-hyped celebu-tard of the moment here” is up to then anything to do with space. It’s basically what happens when the whole of society becomes a self-obsessed narcissistic pile of dung.

  • common sense

    Today most americans care about their jobs, mortgage and possibly but not clear healthcare.

    There will be no more JFK moment because: 1. JFK is dead and 2. The Cold War is over. And/or conversely.

    Today, HSF, as practiced at NASA, is as mundane as it can be and yet unreachable by the common citizen. Better start living with it.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    “You keep assuming most Americans care about Space – they don’t. There will be no more examples of a JFK style moment, with space.”

    Upon what hard data is that based on?

  • Mark R. Whittington

    My view by the way is the Obama may well pull a Nixon. Fund the program just enough to keep things gasping along, but not enough to do anything. This is not because “people” don’t care about space; while most polls show support, there is no hard data measuring enthusiasm.

    It will be because Obama doesn’t care. It doesn’t fit into his agenda.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mark – The search box on the right hand side of Mr. Foust’s website is your friend
    51% of respondents favor cutting NASA
    Spending on space was priority number 21

    Then of course, there was another poll, by Zogby, in which 71% of respondents didn’t want any cut.

    Then look at pop culture – how many people know which astronauts are currently on the space station? How many TV shows are there that are about near term space? Hell, how many TV shows have there been about near term space in the last 40 years? (This means shows like Star Trek don’t count, nor do X Files) Exactly how often has space been a campaign issue during presidential elections?

    Do you want me to go on?

  • Doug Lassiter

    It is amusing how many people insist that the “JFK moment” on space was based on what has been awkwardly termed the innate drive to explore. Or even the need to expand our horizons and colonize the far reaches of the galaxy. It had nothing to do with that. Absolutely nothing. It was about beating the Russians, pure and simple. It was about not letting those who we considered a scary national security threat show us up. That was why people cared about space.

    So sure, there can be another “JFK moment” about space. Why not? When Al Qaeda gets heavy-lift, look out!

    Get real. Space is a priority to Obama, as it has been for many administrations before his. But it isn’t a high priority, and probably shouldn’t be. The idea that “a simple but continuously growing lunar settlement program that could eventually lead to human settlements on Mars and the rest of the solar system would be a powerful symbolic change that would garner strong support” is not sellable. Putting those words in a federal budget proposal would be a powerful symbolic gun aimed straight at ones foot. Perhaps that’s why no administration has done it.

  • Ferris: Exactly how often has space been a campaign issue during presidential elections?

    I am struck more by how few national figures are actively opposed to HSF, and how often Presidents find some reason to support HSF mid-term (Clinton / Gore, finding a political reason to continue the ISS, rescuing it from almost certain eventual defeat in Congress; Mr. Bush after Collumbia, finding a surprisingly inventive way forward — and then. unfortunately, letting it drop. I am also struck by how Congress never quite votes to back away from HSF, and more recently actively supports it when not required to make difficult budget choices between HSF and, say, grandma’s health care. I think support for HSF is shallow, but very wide spread in society. Most of the time it is hidden beneath the surface, beneath other, more pressing issues, but when push comes to shove, the nation always seems to vote to keep alive at least the possibility of an expansionist human space program. Worst case, Mr. Obama is not going to directly kill human spaceflight; a decade or two ago, one could not have confidently made that assertion about most Presidents.

    — Donald

  • common sense

    HSF is a pillar of the US contemporary history/culture. This is why no one is really obviously going at it. NASA in particular is a worldwide recognized “brand name”. For better or worse NASA is part of the US identity, here and abroad. Who would be foolish enough to cancel it?

    On the other hand, considering the (relatively) small budget and pretty decent return on investement, it will most likely go on for some time. It does not mean it is a high national priority! It does not mean we MUST go to the Moon or Mars. No one is able to enunciate why it is so important we do. Exploration, adventure, settlement, blahblahblah…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Obama and the Democrats are going to need a powerful political symbol that they can carry around during the next election cycles that tells the American people that the country is headed in the right direction and inspires hope of a better tomorrow. …

    and you think that is human spaceflight LOL. I have to tell you Marcel I find the naiviety in your comments delightful.

    Obama is going to live or fall absent some really horrific foreign policy avent (and it would have to be a nuclear exchange)…on one issue and one issue alone…

    do Americans in 12 give him credit for straightening out the Mess Bush caused…or not.

    If it is the later then he is in trouble assuming the GOP doesnt put up a real neandrethal …if it is the former. STand by for 1984 or 36 all over again.

    Do you really think that he could run around a country which is sinking in debt, massive unemployment, an economy that doesnt work…and say “but I am sending people back to the Moon dont you feel proud”?

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 pm

    “You keep assuming most Americans care about Space – they don’t. There will be no more examples of a JFK style moment, with space.”

    Upon what hard data is that based on?..

    well polls but I see someone has helped you out there.

    but try the fact that the 500,000 letter writing campaign cant even get what 50,000…and other then signing stupid letters that mean nothing you dont see even the Texas delegation standing toe to toe introducing one bill after another to give NASA more funding.

    You know if Obama privatizes lift to the space station…when Bush never would even make a statement on it…I am going to be laughing so hard …what do they say on the Palin FAcebook page all the time “can you hear me now”? LOL

    Robert

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    My view by the way is the Obama may well pull a Nixon. Fund the program just enough to keep things gasping along, but not enough to do anything. This is not because “people” don’t care about space; while most polls show support, there is no hard data measuring enthusiasm.

    It will be because Obama doesn’t care. It doesn’t fit into his agenda….

    there is no data measuring enthusiasm because there is no enthusiasm.. and that was before Mr. Bush and his band of idiots drove the country off into a ditch praying all the way.

    If one looks at epic voyages of discovery they are all done (land sea or air) coincident with societies ability to take advantage of successful ones (who cares about the failed ones). So for instance Lindbergh flies the ATlantic in 27 and certianly by 1940, 13 years later, flying the pond is fairly “routine” although still somewhat dangerous.

    We went to the Moon and our economy and enterprise were completly unable to follow up that “epic voyage” BECAUSE WE JUST BARELY MADE it happen. In many ways it was to much of a stretch…we are however on the verge of opening near space to commercial activities and in some fashion the decision under Nixon the last to build the shuttle kind of helped make that happen.

    You may get all jazzed up about humans being in the space pictures, but I have a flash for you…most Americans dont care if the pictures come from a high resolution camera on a spacecraft going by Mercury or well NASA astronauts holding one.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert: “but I am sending people back to the Moon dont you feel proud”?

    While I don’t think Mr. Obama is the type of man who would do this, I would remind you that planty of politicians have done just that — Satire’s “panem et circenses.”

    — Donald

  • Robert, I’m not sure I see the obvious difference (at least in the way you are trying to draw it) between Lindbergh JUST BARELY MAKING IT across the Atlantic (and plenty didn’t) and Apollo JUST BARELY MAKING IT across “this new ocean.” The relevant fact is that they made it, not how difficult or risky the effort.

    — Donald

  • Moonliner

    Americans do want a robust space program with challenging goals, like a moon base and landing men on Mars.

    Americans don’t want to see their tax dollars wasted on programs designed specificially to keep people employed at NASA.

    They understand the cost benefits to the government if both NASA and the military could work together and use common launch services.

    Unlike SpaceX and Orbital, Delta IV is an American-built launcher with an American-built engine that is operational NOW and could adapted quickly to launch the Orion capsule.

    Watch this video of the Delta IV Heavy lifting off.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgQpfZ-1D-g

    Hopefully, Obama will recognize the fact that the US taxpayers have already bought and paid for this capability and will decide to use it responsibily to support the next generation of space exploration.

  • Moonliner: Unlike SpaceX and Orbital, Delta IV is an American-built launcher with an American-built engine that is operational NOW

    Huh? SpaceX has one launch vehicle and an engine common to both their vehicles that is operational now, and their rockets are by far the most American made in the industry. That said, I support your advocacy of the Delta-IV. I only wish Boeing shared it. . . .

    — Donald

  • common sense

    “Americans do want a robust space program with challenging goals, like a moon base and landing men on Mars.”

    Do you have a list of these Americans? If you have it make sure you send it to the WH and Congress. Because we need to gather support for HSF.

  • NASA Fan

    Nelson states the obvious. No more money forthcoming. A decision in keeping with OMB passback with Federal Agencies. Public announcement around February with release of 11 budget.

    Obama will take a rhetorical route that allows him to say he is re-invigorating NASA as a Federal Agency that will inspire Americans to pursue studies in science and technologies.

    Obama will take a risk free budgetary route that enables the flexible path, supports commercial space to LEO and throws a bone to NASA in the form of a future heavy lift vehicle – which will be studied for a few years before any real money is spent- but not put forth any real significant new monies.

    Look for a few HSF related NASA Centers to close too.

    Then he will ignore NASA for his 7 remaining budget submits to Congress

  • Ferris Valyn

    Donald – to be clear, I don’t believe human spaceflight is about to be canceled – the point is that, if we look at elections, space has never really played a role in them. AFAIK, we’ve never seen a debate question about space, I’ve never seen a canadidate give a major talk/discussion about space (outside of a NASA district), its never been a major part of their talking points.

    The big point comes down to this – it doesn’t impact the larger body politics, unlike things like the death penalty, gun rights, abortion rights, gay rights and so on

  • Robert G. Oler

    Moonliner wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    Americans do want a robust space program with challenging goals, like a moon base and landing men on Mars…

    do they have a facebook page? LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Donald F. Robertson wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Robert, I’m not sure I see the obvious difference (at least in the way you are trying to draw it) between Lindbergh JUST BARELY MAKING IT across the Atlantic (and plenty didn’t) and Apollo JUST BARELY MAKING IT across “this new ocean.” The relevant fact is that they made it, not how difficult or risky the effort.

    Donald. I wasnt clear.

    It doesnt matter if they make it by an inch or a mile (and LIndy had some room to spare)…but how close the technology involved in the effort is to functional technology (my definition for technology that soon becomes available to the rest of American industry…and is affordable).

    A good example of what I am talking about in “space” is the voyage that Syncom 1-3 took. OK the first syncom is up there spinning in near synch orbit and was dead after the rocket fired to put it there (but must have made it and it is intact)…but syncom 2 did the trick.

    These were as much voyages of exploration as Lindy was. And like Lindy in about 13 years after Syncom the entire effort had graduated from being the domain of government or semi government agencies…to being in the hands of “common companies”.

    Like the technology that took Lindy across the Atlantic, the effort with Syncom 2 was such that soon it could go from experimental to useable.

    Apollo was nothing like that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Donald F. Robertson wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Robert: “but I am sending people back to the Moon dont you feel proud”?

    While I don’t think Mr. Obama is the type of man who would do this, I would remind you that planty of politicians have done just that — Satire’s “panem et circenses.”..

    politicians do silly things like that when they have nothing else to point to…hence one has the Bush administration falling back on “we kept you safe” , which should be “we kept you safe after falling down on the job on 9/11″ and then of coursethe time span from the first attack on the WTC to 9/11 was greater then from 9/11 to when Bush left office.

    And Clinton didnt take us into debt to do it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anon

    This is just the first of many predictions of a decision by Obama. If he’s taken months to make a decision that is important, as Afghanistan, its likely to take much more time on something that has little importance to the administration. Look for articles to follow about an decision before Christmas, after New Year, for the State of the Union, etc. etc.

    And when a decision comes it will be a whimper not a bang. A speech with looks of sizzle but no substance, a promise of a bit more money and a schedule dragged out for years. And yes, perhaps a token to COTS-D to show he’s considering commercial space.

  • @ Ferris Valyn

    Most Americans do care about space– especially American men. Unfortunately, most of our politicians only want to give the American people a boring politically correct Earth oriented space program instead of the space settlement program that NASA and the American people really want.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/091102-spacex-falcon9-launchdate.html

    some interesting tidbits in the piece…like Falcon 9 launch date (02/02/10) and there is apparently a payload other then Dragon…because there is a launch customer…or they got someone to pay for the launch…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 10:48 pm

    @ Ferris Valyn

    Most Americans do care about space– especially American men.

    ..

    nope but as Casey kasem use to say “keep you’re head in the stars and you’re feet on the ground”

    Robert G. Oler

  • @Robert G. Oler

    You seriously believe that by not raising NASA’s budget by $3 billion will somehow significantly reduce our debt???? Please!

    The space program is a powerful symbol of American progress. And powerful symbols have always been important in American culture.

  • Martijn Meijering

    instead of the space settlement program that NASA and the American people really want.

    I want some of whatever it is you’re smoking!

    If NASA wanted space settlement, they would try to reduce commercial cost to orbit, especially the cost of getting people into orbit. That means depots, RLVs, commercial crew taxis, gateway stations. Instead they are spending their money on an SDLV, which leaves no money for Altair and forces us to choose between exploration or the ISS since the budget doesn’t allow both of these and an SDLV. Not only does this get in the way of commercial development of space (a more realistic goal than settlement and still very, very ambitious), it even gets in the way of exploration. NASA will not contribute to serious exploration and commercial development of space until it gives up its heavy lift fetish and leaves designing rockets to the experts and gets out of the launch business altogether.

    I’d be very surprised if the American people wanted space settlement. How many of your friends and family members want space settlement?

  • Ferris Valyn

    Marcel

    You seriously believe that by not raising NASA’s budget by $3 billion will somehow significantly reduce our debt????

    It doesn’t matter what you believe, or Robert believes – it what the American public believes. And there is no evidence, no polls, no major political movements, that have embraced large scale space spending.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Robert, I have to tell you that I find your political analysis of wider history delightful…in the way it’s so distorted, that is. You might want to clean off those spectacles…they’ve seemingly fogged up some.

    And Doug, do not forget that JFK’s Apollo decision ALSO served to deflect the mounting criticism of his administration’s bungling of the Bay of Pigs, worsening issues in Southeast Asia, being second to put a man in space behind the Russians, etc. (McDougall covers this well.) It just so happened that the bigger-picture weight of appearing inferior to the Soviets was sufficient that suggesting such a hare-brained scheme as sending men to the Moon actually could serve his political purposes and turn the perception around.

    But that was then, this is now. In terms of the general pessimism expressed above by many regarding the possibility of big things coming in space, I must agree.

    Unless space can somehow realistically serve the current administration’s political calculations (fat chance given that it’s so low on the public’s list of priorities AND it has never really been a core objective of the liberal establishment like, say, govt-run healthcare…quite the opposite, in fact), we can likely expect the minimum effort that preserves some semblance of HSF. Ferrying to the ISS alone, sadly, will suffice toward that goal.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Mr. Mahoney – would you care to provide evidence that core liberal objectives want to demolish human spaceflight?

    I would agree that many don’t care, but thats not the same thing as wanting it ended.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    Robert, I have to tell you that I find your political analysis of wider history delightful…

    proud to be here proud to serve.

    BTW Jack Kennedy’s approval rating went up after the Bay of Pigs…

    As for core liberal objectives…wellit was Clinton that formulated a plan that got ISS off the drawing boards and into orbit…Republican administration have mostly been about spending money and producing viewgraphs.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    @Robert G. Oler

    You seriously believe that by not raising NASA’s budget by $3 billion will somehow significantly reduce our debt????..

    Marcel. If I had said that then I would believe it but I didnt. However if we dont spend 3 billion more a year on NASA then thats 3 billion we dont borrow (assuming we dont squander it somewhere else).

    Look I dont care how much money you gave NASA they would find someway to need more. That is the history of the organization and it will stay that way until the organization is significantly reorged.

    For what was spent on Ares 1X Musk is going to try and go to orbit with Falcon 9. Sit down and really ask yourself, which money has been better spent?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 2nd, 2009 at 10:54 pm

    The space program is a powerful symbol of American progress.

    sorry this line reminds me of when Col Flagg was going to vanish “Like the wind” (on MASH) and instead “the wind broke its leg”.

    The space program is a wide arc. I think that pictures from Mercury mean as much to the American people as the folks who are bouncing around in micro g on the space station.

    Do you have any evidence otherwise?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The space program is a powerful symbol of American progress.”

    Yes, and there’s a policy phrase that describes that exactly. “Soft power.” But that being the case, the human space flight program isn’t about exploration, or settlement, or bringing the resources of the solar system into our economic sphere (what in the world was Marburger smoking?) It’s about soft power. Those reasons are just polite excuses for the chest thumping it really is. Sure, those reasons have some attraction in the very far term, but the public doesn’t think in the far term. Those reasons don’t meet any established national need, and making up national needs out of whole cloth is not very convincing.

    Now, chest thumping is fine but, again, it only works if you’re really ahead of the other guy.

    Does Obama see value in chest thumping? Perhaps. But he won’t call it that. I think he really sees inspiration of young scientists and engineers as a national need, and such chest thumping probably serves that purpose. I think he’d also acknowledge that if you’re going to spend lots of money on chest thumping, you might as well send it to industry doing advanced technology (which is the Defense model as well) and to encourage commercialization to think creatively about economic benefits.

    So I suspect that the Obama administration will end up doing a middling job (in a very rough economic environment) supporting human space flight, but I very much hope he’ll be careful about hiding behind the word “exploration” when it comes to justifying it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ November 3rd, 2009 at 9:27 am

    “The space program is a powerful symbol of American progress.”

    Yes, and there’s a policy phrase that describes that exactly. “Soft power.”…….. Those reasons are just polite excuses for the chest thumping it really is.”

    I didnt mean to quote you out of context…but I would say that I agree with your statement in total 100 percent.

    Soft power is a dumb phrase in my view. It is sort of “they will like us (US) because we do what we do…” and in some cases the thought is added “when we are true to out own background”.

    There is no one who disposes the last administration more then I (the deaths the money the assault on our Constitution) but there is almost no validity to the statement “if we would only close Gitmo the people in the world would like us”. We would I think like ourselves better (and that alone is a reason to do it) …but the entire notion of “soft power” other then just chest thumping ignores the differences in the world of culture, experience, and history. There are people around the world which would chose a different lifestyle then the one that they have…but that is an individual choice.

    The Europeans might like Obama better then Bush, but that doesnt mean that they all of a sudden like the US better now. Hence there are few European nations who say “lets all send troops to Afland”.

    The concept of “we can be a good example to the world” only works when people want to follow that example. That does not exist world wide.

    What soft power has become is really as you put it “chest thumping” on a non military scale. The Olympics, and yes human spaceflight are all places where nations can compete and show how far THEIR culture has come…not “wow” we should all be Americans.

    Soft power implies motivation not coercion and motivation does not work on other cultures.

    There is “soft coercion”. When the Brits and French went into Suez in 56 Ike put a stop to it by selling off pounds and franks driving the value of them down; neither nation could sustain it and left.

    Soft power is a phrase that folks drag out when they want to either justify something that has no justification or to try and push a theory that goes something like “if we (the US) will be nice others will as well”.

    not so much

    Robert G. Oler

  • space cadet

    Obama is a supporter of space to the extent that he believes in education, that the country would benefit from a workforce with a higher level of education, and that a space program can inspire young people to stay in school and study math and science.

    Shuttle side-mount would not eliminate the gap. The Augustine committee was very frank about this. Shuttle side mount (with the extra $3B) would reduce the gap from 7 years to 6 years.

  • Robert G. Oler

    space cadet wrote @ November 3rd, 2009 at 11:15 am

    Obama is a supporter of space to the extent that he believes in education, that the country would benefit from a workforce with a higher level of education, and that a space program can inspire young people to stay in school and study math and science…

    Obama is smarter then that…a “space program” does nothing in terms of inspring people to stay in school…it is one of those myths like “docking at 17,500 mph”

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    “Look I dont care how much money you gave NASA they would find someway to need more. That is the history of the organization and it will stay that way until the organization is significantly reorged.”

    The history of the organization is that NASA is costing us far less money than it was during the Apollo era. At the height of the Apollo program, NASA was spending more than $33 billion a year in today’s money just to get to the Moon. Today, NASA is spending less that $18 billion a year to get to the Moon, support a space station, run a space shuttle, and develop a new space shuttle while also running a very successful unmanned space program.

    Plus NASA hasn’t asked for any new money. They plan to fund the next space architecture by ending the shuttle program in 2011 and ending the ISS program in 2016. But a lot folks don’t want that to happen! They want NASA to do it all!. So if they want NASA to do it all then they’re going to have to supply NASA with some– do it all money!

  • @space cadet

    “Shuttle side-mount would not eliminate the gap. The Augustine committee was very frank about this. Shuttle side mount (with the extra $3B) would reduce the gap from 7 years to 6 years.”

    First of all, there is no gap if we continue the space shuttle program which currently cost about $3 billion a year until the next space architecture is ready. So the extra $3 billion a year would eliminate the gap while giving NASA more than $6 billion a year to develop the next space architecture. NASA is currently spending more than $3 billion a year on the Constellation program.

    Secondly, the Augustine commission really didn’t evaluate the Sidemount-Shuttle since they fused it with the significantly more expensive DIRECT architecture .

    Third, they didn’t seem to understand the Sidemount space architecture since they erroneously concluded that it would require three SD-HLV launches per manned lunar mission. NASA argued for a two launch SD_HLV architecuture, contending that the Sidemount with an EDS can send more than 47 tonnes into lunar orbit per launch. That’s more than the 45 tonnes needed for the Altair lunar lander in the Ares 1/V architecture and overkill for the 22 tonne Orion vehicle to lunar orbit. In fact, in theory, you could actually launch an Orion plus a 25 tonne lunar landing vehicle (that’s more than the 16 tonne lunar module of the Apollo era) aboard a single SD-HLV.

    I pointed this out to Dr. Chiao, one of the astronauts of the Augustine panel, on his blog and he indicated no disagreement with NASA’s conclusions. Very very poor job by the Augustine Commission evaluating NASA’s Sidemount concept.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ November 3rd, 2009 at 1:53 pm

    The history of the organization is that NASA is costing us far less money than it was during the Apollo era…

    But it is doing for less and doing it far less well.

    If military ops are a standard take the most complicated military plane that we know is flying or was…the SR71 NASA has utterly failed. Throughout shuttle ops there has been a striking inability to make the hard and difficult calls about how to reduce cost, ie by reducing people. There is some advantage that should be had with operational reality…ie the more you operate something the less people one needs. That is the case with the Blackbird (or was) it has never been the case with shuttle ops. The agency has shunned technologies which would reduce the cost. It cost a fortune to train each pilot and yet most of it could be eliminated through autoland. The technology is here, it works and yet they wont use it. Incredibly there are about the same number of people in SPAN and the FCR’s that there were at the start of the program (if not more)…most of the EVA training is over kill…no hard choices to reduce cost.

    NASA is not developing from scratch new technologies as they did in the 60’s. In the 60’s no one had ever done a lot of what they were doing and yet today they have spent billions building Ares 1 and millions flying 1X when well its all been done before. Go look and see what Boeing or Lockheed is launching with in terms of people and go look at the standing army that works to launch the shuttle (just in the firing rooms).

    NASA had has spent 9 billion…thats 9 billion to get to this point on Ares1. If the agency in the 1960’s had made such progress on infinitely more complicated boosters (like Saturn..no one had flown engines that size before) it would have taken half a trillion to get to the moon.

    It is in all respects an agency that can barely tie its shoes and not fall over while doing it…no I wont hand them out Kudo’s

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    R. Simberg and I agree on little (grin) but his article on the Popular Mechanics site is thoughtful particularly in terms of cost of Ares 1 and 1X it deserves a read. Link through his website.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Finally, on Wednesday, NASA reached a critical milestone for the Constellation program in our nation’s efforts to return to the moon and develop the next generation of human space flight system by launching the ARES 1-X rocket. The fact that this test occurred was a milestone in and of itself, but the fact that the test was a complete success is all the more reason to be encouraged about where NASA is headed and how it is going to get there. ..

    this is from Pete Olsen (R 22 TX) emailer. very disappointing. One had higher hopes for Pete.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bob Mahoney

    Ferris, I never stated that liberals want to demolish human spaceflight (even if some do, as some conservatives do too). Perhaps you misinterpreted my “quite the opposite” phrasing. Maybe even I didn’t know what I meant by that…it was getting late and it just rolled off the fingers.

    I meant to say that space (as in, exploration, exploitation, development, expansion, etc) was never one of those issues big on their agenda (not since the 1960 election and the hyped (but false) ‘missile gap’, at least), such as govt-run healthcare, gun control, parental infanticide rights, global warming, etc. I simply don’t see it rising sufficiently in importance to be able to jostle for a 1st-tier position at the political strategy sessions in the current administration, either.

    [There are certainly some in the liberal camp who lump spaceflight in with the evil military-industrial complex and therefor hate it out of hand. But then there are those in the conservative camp who just as religiously label any govt space program as evil ‘big govt’ spending. Such are those who dwell out on the fringes of the bell curve…]

    Consequently, I believe we’re going to see an absolute minimum program ultimately come forth from their (likely months-long) deliberations…and that means ISS continuation and some minimum means of accessing it. All beyond-LEO items will likely be pushed back into the realm of advanced studies. Like what happened when the last Democrat was in the WH.

    That’s all. As I’ve stated all along, I hope I’m wrong.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ November 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm

    Consequently, I believe we’re going to see an absolute minimum program ultimately come forth from their (likely months-long) deliberations…and that means ISS continuation and some minimum means of accessing it. All beyond-LEO items will likely be pushed back into the realm of advanced studies. Like what happened when the last Democrat was in the WH. ..

    My hope actually is that a lot of what you say comes true, although I disagree with the line about the last Democrat.

    Right now US space policy has no business, when it comes to humans even thinking all that hard about doing things like going back to the Moon or Mars or really much at all past GEO.

    What a policy that ends the shuttle, privatizes station lift (humans and cargo mass) and puts NASA on a technology binge will do is also allow the deep downscaling of NASA hopefully back to its NACA days…

    our technology is far to limited to do things like lunar bases, hence the cost are far to high, and again there is no reason to do it. I know that the Reds are rushing back to the Moon and if they do I would say “knock yourselves out”. They wont, they are far to smart for that but the right wing needs that because they love to have enemies.

    Things come in their time (the “Connections theory”) and the time for deep space exploration is not now.

    As for the last Democrat. Look I consider myself a Ronald Reagan Republican (although I tire of the endless references to Ronaldus the Great by the pseudo conservatives that prowl the right wing). As an aside there is a great line by a guy named Lee Atwater who noted that one never references a politician that is over 30 years ago (because that is older then a lot of your voters) and/or people whose clothes are out of fashion. The “Dead man’s statute should prohibit all from saying what a dead man would do “if he/she were alive” but I can tell you what Ronaldus the Great did while alive and that was ignore the troglodytes who now control the right wing dumbers. Reagan never once addressed a “pro life” (barf me) groups while President in person.

    Having said that. Clinton did OK. Part of that is Bush the last did so abysmal but Clinton left us at peace, prosperity and for space policy doing what no Republican could do…building instead of viewgraphing a space station. It is hard to recall we were generating surplus and full employment when Clinton left office so bad has been the thunderheads of the last administration…and we were well on our way toward building a space station. No shuttles blew up on Psycho’s watch either.

    Robert G. Oler

    PS sorry for the bush bashing…three years watching the death destruction, and just general stupidity of his administration up close liike the smell of death sticks with one. I should stop kicking the dead dog of the last group but it ties in nicely with my disdain for the “moral majority” who remind me in all but their violence of the Taliban or “The Base”, in fact sometimes I think that the GOP Base should be honest and at least take the Arabic name. Base politics are usually made up of the weak of mind and stupid of heart.

    Borderline.

  • sc220

    I’m afraid HSF and the U.S. space program in general will be overtaken by a very bleak series of events over the next few years. The stock market is wavering and is set to begin its death plummet by the end of the year. This will mark the widespread acknowledgement that the credit-fueled party we’ve enjoyed for the last 30 years is over. Unfortunately, I don’t think the Obama Administration will survive reelection in 2012, but I don’t think anyone here will be happy with what replaces it. Most likely we’ll see an austere regime along the lines of Ron Paul, which will exert draconian funding cuts across all federal agencies. NASA will be just too easy of target, along with other government programs and services.

    Great nations may explore space, but great nations do not let themselves become debtor states. When we owned most of the means of wealth production in the world, we could afford to stretch ourselves thin. Now we do so only by borrowing more from other countries.

    I know that this is a very discouraging outlook, but events over the last several months seem to point that way. I hope I’m wrong too.

  • common sense

    @sc220:

    I sure hope you are wrong too because if your predictions do come true HSF will be the least of our problems…

  • ApocalyptoRugby?

    I wish that the folks who posted to this blog would get out and see the world. Not just the world in the immediate sphere of the beltway or white collar America, but the world as a whole.

    While, yes, we are presently a debtor nation, we are not in as bad of a situation as the Truman era was:

    http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

    I’m rather bored and tired of supposed “critical thinkers” like those who read these blogs and post, not doing their homework and really thinking. It does a disservice to the community outside of NASA and the space community as a whole by perpetuating arguments rooted in what would claim to be facts.

    We’re far from the debtor nation that our parents/grandparents had in their lifetimes.
    We’re also far from the impact of war that they had with WWII and the Korean war vs. Afghanistan.

    Have we become a nation paralyzed by fear, unwilling to incorporate energy into the rise of great events?

    Or have we succumbed to our own internal demons?

  • Robert G. Oler

    ApocalyptoRugby?

    LOL GDP to deficit spending is about the dumbest comparison that exist. You and Phil Gramm.

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    sc220 the scenario you paint is not probable in my view but it is not impossible and indeed it is quite possible.

    Economic recovery’s are 9/10 perception and about 1/10th reality…and what one doesnt quite know is where the perception of The Republic is going to go over the next few months.

    I do agree however, if things go down hill, there are very very difficult times coming. Very difficult

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “We’re far from the debtor nation that our parents/grandparents had in their lifetimes.”

    What were the large investments made by our sometime debtor nation that would parallel a large investment that many are now advocating for human space flight? In particular, what large long-range investments did President Truman make? Truman was a wise leader in the decisions that he made, but I can’t come up with any big spending plan that he initiated. As I recall, the buck indeed stopped with him.

    Let’s root those arguments in some facts.

  • @Robert Oler

    “What a policy that ends the shuttle, privatizes station lift (humans and cargo mass) and puts NASA on a technology binge will do is also allow the deep downscaling of NASA hopefully back to its NACA days…

    our technology is far to limited to do things like lunar bases, hence the cost are far to high, and again there is no reason to do it. I know that the Reds are rushing back to the Moon and if they do I would say “knock yourselves out”. They wont, they are far to smart for that but the right wing needs that because they love to have enemies.”

    This comment is beyond absurd. NACA was an aeronautical research organization and was folded into NASA, but it is only one small branch within NASA. To suggest that NASA be reduced NACA level would eliminate human spaceflight in the US altogether.

    Ten experts on the Human Spaceflight Plans Committee definitely disagree with your assessment on current technological capabilities for deep space exploration or establishing a lunar outpost. Given their years of experience and depth I would put greater reliability on their position than on yours.

  • sc220

    @Robert Oler

    LOL GDP to deficit spending is about the dumbest comparison that exist. You and Phil Gramm.

    You’ve got that right. Since when does GDP give an indication of the ability to produce wealth? It is more a measure of gross economic activity, including consumption and services. Nothing against McDonalds or Nordstroms, but having the most hamburger flippers and sales clerks doesn’t a strong economy make. It is this kind of thinking that has gotten us into this mess.

    I think that we’ll eventually be able to create and innovate our way out of this predicament, but it’s going to take a long hike in the wilderness to do so.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles

    Downscaling of NASA to its NACA days is not the end of human spaceflight in the US. We are on the verge (hopefully) and this is important of moving operation and crewing of the space station from an exploration to an exploitation mode and moving it from being a NASA plaything to being a national asset. There would in that case be human spaceflight in the US…to ISS.

    NASA needs to go back to a technology agency in terms of human space flight.

    as for the technologies, I dont know that the folks disagree with me. No one is saying we can afford it…they all are saying we need more money.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    sc220 wrote @ November 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    I think that we’ll eventually be able to create and innovate our way out of this predicament, but it’s going to take a long hike in the wilderness to do so…

    It is going to take totally rethinking our government and the relationship between the governed and the government.

    It is going to be hard

    Robert G. Oler

  • @Robert Oler

    “Downscaling of NASA to its NACA days is not the end of human spaceflight in the US.”

    Yes, it would be end of human spaceflight in the United States. No US commercial company has human spaceflight capabilities. In fact, no US commercial company has cargo resupply capability. SpaceX is the first US company in over 2 decades to enter the low to medium range satellite market and it has yet to make a profit. The market for human spaceflight in LEO is limited and relatively undeveloped, it will be difficult if not impossible for any company to be profitable in such an environment.

    While I certainly agree that NASA should develop a robust technology R&D agency, I cannot agree that R&D should be NASA’s only role in human spaceflight development. BTW, the Augustine committee did not ask for more money, they stated that if the US goal is to move beyond LEO and foster human expansion into the solar system, then NASA would need more funding.

    “It is going to take totally rethinking our government and the relationship between the governed and the government.”

    This is the kind of antiquated libertarian BS that clogs up these discussion threads. It implies that government can have no positive proactive role in the development of a commercial market. It is simply pure nonsense and history certainly does not support such trite philosophical fallacies.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles

    LOL you need the follow the threads here better or slow down and read them and actually figure out what they say. Lets play hardball.

    “This is the kind of antiquated libertarian BS that clogs up these discussion threads. It implies that government can have no positive proactive role in the development of a commercial market”

    what clogs up the threads are people who comment with lack of knowledge. I AM HARDLY THE LIBERTARIAN here. Indeed I am the pro national health care, pro a robust strong Republic that exerts its will wherever and when ever in the world that it IS threatened, I dont care all that much for the 10th amendment (the 14th repealed it essentiallY) and I have no problem with the supremacy of the Federal government.

    But what I want is a smart government that doesnt blunder into stupid wars or spends money on things that have little or no value for cost and whose dollars spent on behalf of the sovereign change the lives of the sovereign in a positive way.

    “Yes, it would be end of human spaceflight in the United States. No US commercial company has human spaceflight capabilities.” right this instant today that is an accurate statement, but it wont be for long.

    Several US companies can given the right government policies develop commercial upmass and people carry to the ISS. There is fundamentally no difference in launching or caring for “people” then there is for a large communications platform, and to say that there is is NASA babble (the folks who have killed 14 astronauts through their incompetence).

    Read with even a modicum of care my post that you respond to says precisely that. Given good government policy we can get ISS completly out from under the incompetence of NASA and turn it into an operational facility that benefits not NASA, but the nation.

    As for exploring the solar system. Go check out the Messenger web site…good stuff is being done there.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Loki

    I think what sc220 is saying is that we may not be able to pull out of the economic funk we’re in because our manufacturing base is non-existant. If we want to get out of this mess that has to change, but I really don’t see the government actually doing anything at this point to do that. As he put it “having the most hamburger flippers and sales clerks doesn’t a strong economy make.” You also have to have manufacturing jobs that actually produce things.

    In the past, “government stimulus” was in the form of infrastructure projects that private enterprises could then use to make money. Many people on various other posts have used the interstate highway system as an example. What NASA has traditionally done in terms of HSF would be equivalant to building a highway system and then limiting the vehicles that are allowed to drive on to only government designed, owned, and operated vehicles that are all required to meet a very stringent set of requirements and regulations before they are even allowed to drive on it.

    Were NASA to reform themselves into a more “NACA like” organization that wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing in the long run, IMO (in the short term I’d probably lose my current job). In the early days of aviation NACA’s role was to do the fundamental research that private enterprise could not afford to do. As far back as the ’20s and ’30s NACA did all the research to determine the lift and drag coefficients, stall angles of attack, etc, etc. for various airfoil shapes for example, and then allowed aircraft designers access to that data to design their aircraft. Does NASA do anything like that now? No, they don’t.

    Oh, and Gary: I disagree very strongly that “rethinking our government and the relationship between the governed and the government.” is “antiquated libertarian BS” as you put it. Nor does it imply that “government can have no positive proactive role in the development of a commercial market”. As I’ve hopefully made clear in the preceding paragraphs, government can play a role in the development of a commercial market, it’s just that when it comes to NASA, and especially HSF, they don’t currently serve any kind of positive role in stimulating a new commercial market. Just the opposite actually, NASA treats HSF like it’s own sandbox and they really don’t like other kids trying to play in it. In short, they’re the equivalant of the neighborhood bully who never learned to share his toys.

  • Loki

    FYI, here’s a fine example of some pro-Ares drivel. I got a good laugh out of reading this crap.

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=529888

  • @Robert Oler

    “Read with even a modicum of care my post that you respond to says precisely that. Given good government policy we can get ISS completly out from under the incompetence of NASA and turn it into an operational facility that benefits not NASA, but the nation.

    As for exploring the solar system. Go check out the Messenger web site…good stuff is being done there.”

    This statements reflects the schism in your comments. First, you bash NASA for being completely incompetent and unable to run a space program, then you refer me to the Messenger website concerning the recent flyby of Mercury, a NASA exploration program. NASA’s robotic exploration program is unrivaled and unparalleled in the world. NASA has launched the Great Observatories, 3 of which continue to operate: Hubble, Chandra, and Spitzer. NASA was able to design, build a successful launch system which landed humans on the Moon. Despite being saddled with an inadequate launch system with low mass launch capabilities, NASA was able to successfully build the ISS. Yet, even with all of its successes, you continue to contend that NASA is just completely incompetent.

    Or perhaps the case is that NASA has been the victim of an incompetent and inconsistent US human spaceflight policy over the last 39 years? At a time when NASA should have been able to build on the success of its Apollo program, its budget was reduced to the point that the only viable option was to try and develop the space shuttle system, a launch system which limited the US to LEO and low mass payloads. When the system became operational and clearly did not achieve its objectives of reducing LEO space access or reducing, the program fell victim to parochial interests and was maintained as a jobs program. In spite of this, NASA was able to make some use of the STS and able to build the ISS. NASA also knew that the shuttle was not safe enough for commercial spaceflight and would not agree to utilize it for such purposes.

    I will have to continue this discussion later…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary…the NASA that runs human spaceflight and the one that sends probes to the planets…are two different organizations.

    Your points fall victim to the logic you were railing against. To argue that NASA is stuck in LEO when Messenger is flying by and soon will orbit Mercury is well a less unless one recognizes that they are two different organizations.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “It is going to take totally rethinking our government and the relationship between the governed and the government.”

    This is the kind of antiquated libertarian BS that clogs up these discussion threads. It implies that government can have no positive proactive role in the development of a commercial market. It is simply pure nonsense and history certainly does not support such trite philosophical fallacies.

    It implies nothing of the sort. But I can see why, when you have no intelligent response to arguments actually made, you’d want to resort instead to straw men that no one did.

    First, you bash NASA for being completely incompetent and unable to run a space program

    Another straw man. The issue isn’t whether or not NASA is capable of “running a space program,” but whether it is capable of developing a cost effective launch system. It has never done so in its history (not surprising, because cost effectiveness is never a hallmark of a government program), and there is no reason to think that it will now. In fact, the current cost projections for Constellation show that it’s getting worse, rather than better in that regard. It is time to get NASA focused on its competencies, and those things that no one else can do, and get it out of the launch business.

  • SpaceX is the first US company in over 2 decades to enter the low to medium range satellite market and it has yet to make a profit.

    Please stop flaunting your ignorance. SpaceX has been profitable for years.

  • common sense

    I cannot understand the ever-lasting self-perpetuating arguments of Commercials against NASA:

    . COTS is based at NASA JSC.
    . The cargo contract is a contract with NASA.

    Some one (at least one!) at NASA (JSC moreover!) MUST think that the commercial providers can actually benefit the exploration program since it is within Eploration at NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/index.html).

    I’d wish people would stop driving a wedge between the “regular” exploration and the “commercial” one (hope springs eternal I suppose). The end result is that instead of building on each other’s strength the WHOLE program is in limbo.

    Whether we like it or not people will lose their jobs, programs stop and other start. Unfortunately the current Ares/Orion plan is a financial disaster, one that cannot be afforded under the originally prescribed rules. So? Please don’t get in the bail out money rant it does not work that way. Be realistic.

    Oh well…

  • Loki

    “I cannot understand the ever-lasting self-perpetuating arguments of Commercials against NASA”

    That’s because there are many people at NASA, the entire “old” aerospace industry (LM, Boeing, etc) who have a holier than thou attitude wrt “commercial space”, and especially when it comes to “New Space”. For examle, I remember a couple of years ago after one of Spacex’s Falcon 1 failures my boss at LM quipping that “I guess launching rockets is a little harder than Paypal”, and everyone having a nice little laugh at their expense.

    I think part of the problem is that people have this misperception of commercial space, & especially New Space companies, being a bunch of guys working out of their garages and playing at being rocket scientists on the weekends or something. I recall an article recently where General Lyles of the Augustine committee was saying how “surprised” he was at the level of organization and professionalism when they toured the Spacex plant in Hawthorne. Well, duh, they’re a for profit coporation and their livelyhoods rely on them being such. What did he expect, that the Spacex assembly line would be located in Elon Musk’s basebent?

  • common sense

    @Loki:

    You know I do understand what you say: These are the forces of status quo I usually refer to. Of course LMT, BA, ATK are all going to criticize without first hand knowledge anything that competes with them. And I would not expect any less from them. What surprises me more is those who claim they are “space/NASA advocates” or “NASA employees”. Somehow I find it sad that people cannot see that it is not one against the others but rather that we could build on our respective strength. Then again, when it comes down to cash…

    As to your boss at LMT, I am sure it is very difficult to deal with a young entrepreneur that made it multi-millionaire when your boss at the same age probably still was a middle manager somewhere at best. It’s difficult for every one of us to admit that some people are way more successful than we are, despite all the long hours at work and all the great education we received. Bottom line: They are more successful. So what?

    Gen. Lyles comes from an environement that has been monopolized by the likes of LMT and BA. It is normal that he was somewhat influenced by this environment. It is more important that he realized his were only misperceptions and prejudices. I hope.

  • Ferris Valyn

    common sense – its been my reading that the people who are most guilty of it are NASA people. It seems, to me at least, that they have been (or at least parts of them have been) quicker to embrace the idea of commercial space, and understanding that commercial space isn’t about who, but how.

    I think a great part of it is a fear of a loss of prestige, and yes some money. And I do think part of it is lingering effects of Mike Griffin. For almost 4 years, Griffin bent the NASA bureaucracy to his will, and then for close to 7 month, the NASA bureaucracy managed itself (with many people having been convinced by Griffin that he was right, and many more cowered into saying nothing). So there are many who are true believers about it.

    I also think a good part of it is lingering Apollo worship, and the fact that NASA has never dealt with the fact that, although its budget changed, its organization has not ever adjusted to that change. Specifically, NASA, as an organization, was designed for getting around 4% of the federal budget, and it hasn’t gotten that since the days of Apollo, yet many parts of it believe it still should be run that way.

    In a lot of respects, I think what we are witnessing is very similar to what happened with PanAmSat and IntelSat.

  • common sense

    @Ferris Valyn:

    Well. It is disturbing, to some extent, that an organization such as NASA with so many bright and talented people and most certainly young people as well are that glued to such old thinking – somewhat a version of corporate endoctrination I suppose. I cannot imagine all the youth getting into NASA and thinking “ah the good old days” and that they will ever see a time like Apollo ever again. I will even surmise that most people at NASA today don’t even know those good old days!

    Now imagine for a second, just one (okay maybe two) second(s) that this highly talented workforce is put to use where there is a need for abundant federal dollars (say for the sake of argument a crewed Mars lander). Imagine further that the said workforce deals with the difficult problems associated with launch and travel and (re-) entry and that they provide innovative solutions that can be industrialized. Imagine…

    Well you know: I.M.A.G.I.N.E.

  • Robert Oeler,

    Irregardless of what your positions are on healthcare, defense spending, US foreign policy, or Constitutional rights, your position that NASA is an incompetent government agency and its only role in spaceflight should be R&D is a view commonly expressed by libertarians. In fact Rand Simberg who frequently voices libertarian sentiments had this to say in response to my comment:

    “It is time to get NASA focused on its competencies, and those things that no one else can do, and get it out of the launch business.”

    The launch business? Rand apparently thinks that there is some kind of regular commercial human spaceflight market that exist in the US. Despite what Rand may think, commercial human spaceflight does not exist at all in this country. Currently there is only one company that offers commercial human spaceflight on this planet, RKK Energia. How is NASA suppose to get out of something that does not exist? Ironically NASA is trying to develop commercial LEO launch capabilities to the ISS through COTS. Also, ironically, NASA will be purchasing commercial services to transport its astronauts to the ISS beginning in 2011 from RKK Energia on their Soyuz spacecraft. So NASA is changing its ways.

    However, many of you continue to confuse developing commercial launch capabilities for LEO operations with developing an human spaceflight exploration program that could help expand human presence beyond LEO. Many like Rand continue to believe that in the absence of any viable market, that commercial companies alone without government subsidy will develop spaceflight capabilities that can open new markets in space exploration. Historically, transportation systems and its supporting infrastructure developed only where markets already existed. Government played a major role in developing and expanding those markets as well as building the infrastructure to support them.

    Recently, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Bretton Alexander, had this to say about the Congressional hearing regarding commercial spaceflight versus Constellation on Sept 15:

    “Some comments made at the House hearing last week incorrectly suggested that the Augustine Committee`s recommendation to procure crew services to the International Space Station would necessarily be in lieu of further development of NASA`s exploration program to travel beyond Earth orbit. However, these two programs are complementary, not competitive. As former NASA Administrator
    Mike Griffin has pointed out numerous times, the Constellation Program is
    designed and optimized for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, not for Space Station servicing.”

    Apparently even the commercial spaceflight companies do not agree with you in regard to NASA.

  • @Rand Simberg

    Here is an excerpt of Robert Oeler’s comments:

    Consequently, I believe we’re going to see an absolute minimum program ultimately come forth from their (likely months-long) deliberations…and that means ISS continuation and some minimum means of accessing it. All beyond-LEO items will likely be pushed back into the realm of advanced studies. Like what happened when the last Democrat was in the WH. ..

    My hope actually is that a lot of what you say comes true, although I disagree with the line about the last Democrat.

    Right now US space policy has no business, when it comes to humans even thinking all that hard about doing things like going back to the Moon or Mars or really much at all past GEO.

    What a policy that ends the shuttle, privatizes station lift (humans and cargo mass) and puts NASA on a technology binge will do is also allow the deep downscaling of NASA hopefully back to its NACA days…

    our technology is far to limited to do things like lunar bases, hence the cost are far to high, and again there is no reason to do it. I know that the Reds are rushing back to the Moon and if they do I would say “knock yourselves out”. They wont, they are far to smart for that but the right wing needs that because they love to have enemies.

    Things come in their time (the “Connections theory”) and the time for deep space exploration is not now.

    As for the last Democrat. Look I consider myself a Ronald Reagan Republican (although I tire of the endless references to Ronaldus the Great by the pseudo conservatives that prowl the right wing).

    This was from one of Robert’s earlier comments. He frequently repeated much of this in several successive comments. So the one quote I cited was a summation of his commentary and within that context it certainly does imply NASA and/or the US government should not have any major role in development of human spaceflight.

    The only one screaming ‘strawman’ is you Rand. Robert Oeler was talking about NASA as an government agency. He made no distinction in its capabilities or its competencies. He expressed the view that NASA as an agency should be curtailed to an R&D bureau which would certainly put it out of the robotic exploration business as well as human spaceflight.

    As far as SpaceX is concerned. What I know is that SpaceX has spent 7 years developing the Falcon 1 and the Merlin 1-C engine. Last July was the first successful commercial satellite launch of the Falcon 1. That Elon Musk has spent well beyond the initial $100 million investment from his own personal fortune in developing Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. So while SpaceX has secured several large satellite contracts, those contracts have yet to be executed and payment received. Based on those satellite contracts, the Falcon 1 should begin making a profit within the next several years. But as yet the Falcon 1 has not been profitable. If you have information or links to prove to me the depth of my astounding ignorance, please feel free to provide me with that information. Please do not keep it yourself, I am a big fan of SpaceX.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles wrote @ November 4th, 2009 at 11:29 pm

    Robert Oeler,

    Irregardless of what your positions are on healthcare, defense spending, US foreign policy, or Constitutional rights, your position that NASA is an incompetent government agency and its only role in spaceflight should be R&D is a view commonly expressed by libertarians..

    There are a few logic flaws there.

    First NASA’s competence as a human spaceflight agency or as an agency to do uncrewed exploration or as an agency to do aviation and/or space technology development stands or falls on its own based on performance not ideology.

    It is an not disputable that NASA’s HSF group has through incompetence killed 14 astronauts and lost two shuttles. That is my view but it is also the view of the two commissions set up by Republican (ie pro nasa) administrations staffed with competent people. There are other indicators of incompetence…spending nearly 9 billion dollars on rocket development which all it has done is produce a 2 minute or less test flight that alone cost 600 million. Forget where the 600 million went (although that itself is entertaining) but just look at the 9 billion dollars. SpaceX, Boeing Lockmart all have produced vehicles of far greater capacity for far less money.

    Wasteful spending is an indicator of competence and it is clear that the spending on Ares 1 has been wasteful. There are other levels of incompetence in human spaceflight but two shuttles going bang and 14 lives lost pretty much does it for me.

    As for political views. I think NASA should go down to an R&D agency because I think that the role NACA played in the development of “flight” in The Republic is a role worth mimicing in human spaceflight. I have never said that I dont think that at some point in the future that there will not be government lead “expeditions” to do things in space other then GEO, I have said and stand by the statement that this time is not now.

    The military for instance did and does play a role in the opening of The South Pole. I am sure that when the technology works itself out and we are the equivelent of 1927 and Lindbergh’s flight away from routine though dangerous Atlantic crossings, there will be some way found to allow the government to participate. Although I wouldnt be surprised if there is a private effort at it as well.

    As for the logic of what Rand Simberg says and what I am. LOL. Rand and I both believe that the Moon rises on Earth in the East and Sets in the West. That is hardly a moniker for saying we have like political beliefs.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    common sense,

    First, I think its worth noting that the average age of a NASA employee is quite old – I believe its in the 50s. In fact, I’ve heard from people that NASA doesn’t do a lot to actually try and attact people to come and work fo rit (I should clarify that I’ve heard that there is one place in NASA where this isn’t true, although its not entirely NASA)

    As far as the national need thing – hey, I totally agree. Given a chance at some rerforms, I suspect NASA could do something like you allude to. Right now though, its not there

  • …as yet the Falcon 1 has not been profitable. If you have information or links to prove to me the depth of my astounding ignorance, please feel free to provide me with that information. Please do not keep it yourself, I am a big fan of SpaceX.

    Why is the burden of proof on me to show that they are profitable, when you have made the opposite claim, completely without such proof? Have you asked them? Do you even understand what the word “profit” means?

    I’d have to guess not, based on your other comments in this and other posts, and demonstrated ignorance of both costs and basic accounting concepts…

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary,

    Explain something to me. First, explain to me why, if I am going to do exploration beyond LEO, and I want to encourage the commercial sector of spaceflight to LEO, why don’t I utilize that commercial LEO industry, for the part of the exploration program that requires me to go to LEO, to get to the beyond LEO stuff? Or to put it another way, what is the benefit of launching Orion crewed?

    Secondly, there absolutely does exist a commercial spaceflight market in this country. There are speculative aspects of it, but one area not at all speculative is that NASA is prepared to spend money to buy a ride on a Russian companies rocket. – why not have that market be available to American companies? That is the market that exists RIGHT NOW (admittedly, the industry isn’t quite here, but it wouldn’t take much to get it here)

    Sally Ride made a key point (as did Greason) – Commercial is all about HOW you buy, not who you buy. When Rand (or myself) says that NASA needs to get out of the launch business, what we are getting at is that shouldn’t be dictating and operating the vehicles and rockets that put its deep space craft into space – when the LRO was launched, it wasn’t launched by NASA personnel – it was launched by ULA personnel. And thats the key point.

    Which brings me to the final point – I acknowledge what Brett said, about it being optimized for beyond LEO exploration. I am sorry, but I don’t agree that it is.

  • Robert G. Oler

    He expressed the view that NASA as an agency should be curtailed to an R&D bureau which would certainly put it out of the robotic exploration business as well as human spaceflight.

    Gary Miles…wow

    not so much. I can see quite clearly how NASA as an R&D agency wouldl do uncrewed missions to various deep space places…although I would and do believe that this mission should be separated completely and done independently by a unique group, much as say telescopes are now done.

    be careful with my words, I’ll be that way with the ones you let fly.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Pioneer 10 is nearing 100 AU

    Long Live The Republic

    Robert G. Oler

  • John Malkin

    Who actually designed Shuttle and Ares? In the case of the Shuttle, North American Aviation was the prime contractor. Did NASA engineers give the designs to North American or did North American engineers give NASA the design for the Shuttle? As I understand it NASA distributed the requirements and took bids for a contractor to design the vehicle. I remember one goal was to have only one launch vehicle for everything which would give a high rate of launches thus reducing cost and make it completely reusable. The Shuttle design was negatively impacted by requirements from the DOD specifically the Air Force and government cutbacks. After Challenger, DOD abandoned NASA and developing its own launch vehicles. Leaving NASA to carry the full burden of the Shuttle plus build a Space Station. Why didn’t the commercial company North American Aviation say ‘hey, this is really going to be expensive, dangerous and it will never meet NASA or stake holder requirements.”?

    Jump ahead to almost now. NASA holds a design competition and via hearsay a behind closed doors deal was made to go with the commercial company ATK to build Ares instead of using another commercial company which would have utilized an Atlas or Delta configuration. What’s the reason that NASA made the behind closed doors deal?

    So now NASA is going to hold a competition to design a new vehicle designed by commercial companies based on the requirements of NASA. Open to all commercial companies even small entrepreneur (start up) commercial companies. And we question why NASA wants to go with a Russian commercial company that has actually launched humans into space to cover the gap. Isn’t China ahead of all American commercial companies when it comes to launching humans into space?

  • Robert G. Oler

    John Malkin the shuttle is an excellent, though not only example of what NASA hSF does best…oversale capabilities, undersell cost finally put something together and then overhype it.

    The shuttle on its face in 1972 was a ridiculous assumption. NASA had never operated anything that was remotly reusable (OK Skylab but that was that)…and yet as first time, with almost no X vehicle work and with a limited budget they were going to design/build/operate something whose reason for being was reusability. It was almost as if someone had said “never launched anyone into space, your first vehicle needs to go to the Moon”.

    People acted as if the “Orion” spaceliner in 2001 actually had flown and all we had to do was build a version of it.

    The odd thing is that everyone NASA hSP talked to who did operate reusable complex very complex machines told them it would be almost impossible to do. Yet they kept saying that they could do it and do it for a wide variety of users even as the money to develop it kept getting smaller (the country was in rough economic times in that era, although it seemed worse because people back then would not deficit spend on a massive scale).

    Worse when they started flying the vehicle, they had no inkling of how to move toward actual re usability and do not to this day.

    Yes the DoD put some requirements on the vehicle (the cross range) and while that stifled its payload capability, it had nothing to do with the prime failing of the vehicle…its high cost.

    This has gotten into the “blood” of the agency and is why NASA just really needs to be descoped back to an R&D agency

    Robert G. OLer

  • common sense

    @Ferris Valyn:

    “First, I think its worth noting that the average age of a NASA employee is quite old – I believe its in the 50s.”

    Still if you are in your 50s you could not possibly be part of the Apollo program in any significant manner, and probably not even Shuttle. Those I met from Apollo were at least in their 70s.

    “In fact, I’ve heard from people that NASA doesn’t do a lot to actually try and attact people to come and work fo rit (I should clarify that I’ve heard that there is one place in NASA where this isn’t true, although its not entirely NASA)”

    Well I guess it depends at what centers and divisions but you have things like this http://coop.jsc.nasa.gov/program.html and http://nasajobs.nasa.gov/studentopps/employment/coop_edu_program.htm that bring fresh blood to NASA. But my point still remains about the endoctrination of the youth and whether they expect some Apollo, the Sequel.

    “As far as the national need thing – hey, I totally agree. Given a chance at some rerforms, I suspect NASA could do something like you allude to. Right now though, its not there”

    It is not that difficult nor that far fetched. It only requires the will to do it. But here again I would speculate that if NASA HSF does not want to go to oblivion some day not that far into the future NASA ought to reconsider its modus operandi. Someone not necessarily in this WH might say after all we are going to cut all government spending that is not immediately necessary in order to slow down the borrowing and spending. I guess it all hinges in whether there is a real economic recovery or not. Not one for Wall Street but one for the common citizen. We shall see.

  • Loki

    “the shuttle is an excellent, though not only example of what NASA hSF does best…oversale capabilities, undersell cost finally put something together and then overhype it”

    Ain’t that the truth. NASA originally pitched the shuttle as the be all end all of launch systems. It would replace every expendable rocket in the inventory, launch ~50 times/ year, & reduce launch costs by orders of magnitude (LOL). I’ve even heard (though this is unsubstantiated) that they even got some of the cold war hawks to buy off on it by claiming that they could grapple soviet satellites with the robotic arm and bring them back to study their satellite technology! There’s a reason why the Russians scrapped Buran after only 2 flights.

  • common sense

    “I’ve even heard (though this is unsubstantiated) that they even got some of the cold war hawks to buy off on it by claiming that they could grapple soviet satellites with the robotic arm and bring them back to study their satellite technology! ”

    And I believe I read or heard that the Soviets then put explosives in their valued space assets…

    “There’s a reason why the Russians scrapped Buran after only 2 flights.”

    U.N.A.F.F.O.R.D.A.B.L.E.

  • areyoukiddingme

    @ Robert G. Oler – Get a life dude. Do you realize that you are “hogging the space”. Of the 88 total comments on this page, I show 66 hits on Oler…

    Make your point then let others speak up without you peeing on every fire hydrant. Quit making the rest of us, who want to get a broader view of the various opinions out there wallow through your biased tripe. Of course, it could be that your “sponsor” pays by the post.

  • Ferris,

    There is a commercial spaceflight market, but it does not exist in this country or at least not until SpaceX came along and built the Falcon 1. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin had virtually no commercial satellite launches using their EELV Delta IV or Atlas V and only a few commercial launches off the Delta II . These companies have survived primarily off of government contracts which includes NASA as far as satellite operations go. In fact these two companies merged their space launch operations into United Launch Alliance not to become more competitive on the commercial market, but to save the DOD money. Currently, no US company offer cargo resupply services. SpaceX and Orbital Sciences should be able to offer such services by late 2011 or early 2012. No US company offers commercial human spaceflight to LEO. So my statement that the commercial human spaceflight market does not exist in the US is accurate.

    Someone made a comment about the US military, I believe it was Rand.

  • Oops. Hit the wrong button there.

    ….The US military is able to utilitze commercial aviation to transport a number of its military officers and troops overseas. Consequently they save a great deal of money. But the military is able to do this because the commercial aviation market has matured and offers a wide range of options. Even still, the military retains its own cargo and troop transport planes and ships, with good reason. It would not be practical to have all of its military operations on commercial transport especially when it comes to armed conflicts. So US military utilizes both its own aircrafts and commercial aircrafts. Why then is it unreasonable for NASA to do the same. I will point out that the DOD in many ways is even worse financial manager of its budget than NASA and many of those expensive defense projects involve the exact same companies we are discussing.

    Given the fact that commercial human spaceflight is in an embryonic stage and will not likely mature for at least the next decade, it is not reasonable to expect NASA to build a program around commercial spaceflight.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary – you are mixing the industry with the market. In terms of industry, you are correct – there are no companies that, right now, can put you or me into space using American rockets.

    But thats not the same thing as the market. The measure of a market is not how many companies exists, or how viable they are – its whether there is a person or group of people who are willing to put their money up to buy a good or service. For example, there is no industry that can actually fly tourists to suborbital space, right now. HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a market – multiple companies have already taken deposits.

    Much like cost is not the same thing as price, an industry is not the same thing as a market.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles

    The US military has aircraft for troop transport because it needs those aircraft for 1) specilized missions and 2) to take troops into combat zones. Very few troops ride from say “Fort HOod” to Iraq on a US military airplane.

    If NASA can come up with a specialized reason it needs a crew transport vehicle then we can talk. If not…it should ride the buss

    or Bus

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    areyoukiddingme when you learn to accurately count the number of post by an individual then we can talk..until then …are you kidding me?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris,

    Demand for goods and services is not the same as a market for goods and services. I did not say that the market does not exist. I said that the market for commercial human spaceflight does not exist in this country. As I noted in a earlier comment a market for human spaceflight does exist in Russia because RKK Energia is able to offer commercial spaceflight services.

    There is a potential market for suborbital spaceflight because there is a demand. But as yet, there is no market. A market is a place or some medium of exchange where transactions take place for purchase of goods and services whose value is based on the demand and supply (services). Since the supply is lacking at this point there is no market only the potential. I hope companies like Virgin Galactic become successful at offering the supply side and raise sufficient revenue to expand that market.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Demand for goods and services is not the same as a market for goods and services. I did not say that the market does not exist. I said that the market for commercial human spaceflight does not exist in this country. As I noted in a earlier comment a market for human spaceflight does exist in Russia because RKK Energia is able to offer commercial spaceflight services.

    Okay, I did word that slightly incorrect (blame an 8 hour exam). You are right, demand is not the same as a market. However, what I was (poorly) trying to say was that when people are Spending money, not just saying the will spend money, but actually taking there own money and putting it down for a product or service – thats a market. It doesn’t matter whether there is an actual product or service – if someone is paying money for something, the market exists.

    And right now, there is a market for human spaceflight – very muc a governmental controlled one. But Robert Oler hit the nail on the head – why should there be differentiation between the private market, and the government market? Thats the whole point when talking about commercial spaceflight – not having a differentiated market. Lets take the governmental market, and merge it with the potential private market, and get commercial spaceflight.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Miles wrote @ November 5th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

    Ferris,

    Demand for goods and services is not the same as a market for goods and services. I did not say that the market does not exist. I said that the market for commercial human spaceflight does not exist in this country. ..

    the trick however is that at least on paper the US is a free enterprise country…and when the demand for something whether it is government or private industry can be met by a private industry group which operates in the realm of free enterprise with its efficiencies…the policy of the US government should be to turn to private industry.

    Instead what has happened in human spaceflight at least since the 1980’s is that either government has been trying to satisfy a private industry need to justify its role in human spaceflight…or government has refused to take advantage of a private industry capability based on dubious reasons (NASA operating its own microgravity airplanes when there is a commercial alternative)…or government has tried to justify its exclusive hold on a potential commercial capability through fairly bogus safety issues. This is the babble “Ares is the safest launcher ever”.

    The role of government in a free enterprise system should be to use free enterprise in all respects and in all forms possible.

    It no longer does and hence we have the morass in military procurement and space procurement that exist now. This is one reason that The P-51A went from paper to flying in under 3 months and the F-35 is still developing.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    There is a potential market for suborbital spaceflight because there is a demand. But as yet, there is no market….

    the same thing could be said for orbital flight. There is a potential market for orbital flight because there is a demand…I agree as yet there is no market.

    It doesnt matter if the demand is NASA needing astronauts to go to ISS or (insert name here) wants 2 minutes of micro gee on a sounding rocket.

    any more then it matters if Delta is transporting a soldier to Iraq or a business person to DC

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris,

    There are still Pan Am customers waiting on their flight to the Moon. ;)

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary,

    And thats why unregulated markets can be a very dangerous thing. If not done out, in the open, people can lose their life savings and the like. The famous adage about a fool and his gold soon be parted.

    However, I believe we can avoid that, with good controls & regulation.

  • And thats why unregulated markets can be a very dangerous thing.

    What are you talking about? What “dangerous thing” happened with the PanAm reservations?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary. I think Rich Kolker of this board and currently stationed in the wilds of Africa…still has his ticket.

    LOL

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris,

    I am LMAO right now. I placed a bet with myself that Rand would respond to your last comment. I get to treat myself to a beer tonight. :P

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary – I am always curious to see whether Rand will respond to my comments or not.

    Rand – in terms of the PanAm thing, it wasn’t that big of a deal. However, in looking at the larger question of markets, I believe that there are clearly some examples where markets, due to unregulation, have caused problems.

    However, this is, I think we could both agree, probably the wrong place to have such a debate, and frankly, Im not into getting into a debate with you, because I think we both are convinced of our arguments, and I don’t think it would really move the debate farther along.

    It’d be a bit like James Inhofe debating Al Gore on Climate change.

  • It’d be a bit like James Inhofe debating Al Gore on Climate change.

    Perhaps, but not in the way you think… ;-)

    I’m just saying that if you’re trying to make a case against the free market, the PanAm reservation thing is a pretty weak reed on which to rest it.

  • Major Tom

    “Despite what Rand may think, commercial human spaceflight does not exist at all in this country.”

    This is factually very wrong.

    Out of the seven orbital space tourists that have flown to date, five held U.S. citizenship. They all procured their flights through Space Adventures, a company headquartered in Virginia.

    Virgin Galactic, a company headquartered in New Mexico, has received 200 reservations for suborbital space tourist flights. They’ve sold a substantial fraction of these reservations through their 47-plus U.S.-based travel agents.

    Rocketship Tours, an Arizona-based company, sells reservations for suborbital space tourist flights aboard XCOR’s Lynx vehicle. XCOR is based in California.

    To say that this market “does not exist at all in this country [the United States]” is either a bald-faced lie or an incredibly ignorant statement.

    “Recently, the president of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, Bretton Alexander, had this to say… ‘As former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has pointed out numerous times, the Constellation Program is designed and optimized for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, not for Space Station servicing.'”

    With all due respect to Brett, who is usually right about these things, he (and Griffin) got this one wrong. In its first two operational requirements, ESAS stated that the CEV (now called Orion) will:

    “deliver crew to and from the International Space Station (ISS) through ISS end-of-life in 2016.”

    “deliver and return cargo to the ISS through ISS end-of-life in 2016.”

    Lunar and Mars operational requirements are far down the list.

    Same goes for technical requirements, where ESAS stated in its very first technical requirement that the CEV will:

    “be designed for up to a crew of six for ISS missions.”

    ESAS also states that the overall Constellation:

    “architecture will support ISS up/down mass needs and other ISS requirements, as required, after Shuttle retirement.”

    Despite what Griffin said, there’s little doubt in the printed requirements that Constellation vehicles were designed to service the ISS.

    FWIW…

  • Major Tom,

    As usual you indulge in trollish behavior. Sigh. When US investors or venture capitilist buy or trade stocks or commodities in foreign markets they typically do so by proxy, an authorized agent in that nation. Space Adventures is one such proxy. A customer may pay Space Adventure for a ticket on a Soyuz spacecraft to the ISS here in the United States, but the actual transaction or purchase occurs in Russia because that is where the market exist and where the service (training and launch) is rendered. In fact, there are even rules which prohibit even US citizens from the US owned sections of the ISS.

    As far as suborbital flight goes, some would not even deem that to be true spaceflight. But even so, the service is not being supplied at this time simply because it does not exist. No real exchange is occurring. There is a potential market and some people are choosing to invest in its development in exchange for a ride at some future date once operations commence. The market is in an embryonic stage. It does not really exist, but should soon.

    Instead of being constantly negative, how about advocating your case with positive constructive comments?

  • Major Tom

    “As usual you indulge in trollish behavior.”

    The facts simply don’t support your statement that “commercial human spaceflight does not exist at all in this country.”

    It clearly does — there are multiple companies headquartered and operating on U.S. soil that have sold or are selling dozens of orbital and suborbital flights to space tourists.

    You may want to argue the degree to which these companies are American or at what stage of development they are, and that’s fine.

    But that doesn’t mean that your statement was factually accurate in the least. Clearly, a market in commercial human space flight, at some level, does exist in the U.S.

    As for “trollish behavior”…

    It’s “trollish behavior” to make patently false statements that multiple other posters have to waste their time correcting.

    And it’s “trollish behavior” to continue wasting other posters’ time arguing that a patently false statement is true when the facts clearly show it not to be, instead of admitting that you were wrong in the first place.

    That’s trollish behavior.

    So please stop trolling.

    Thank you…

  • Despite what Rand may think, commercial human spaceflight does not exist at all in this country.

    This was my original comment you were referencing. You might notice I did not say market in this comment. Yes, that statement is fact. As for market, there may be a demand and people may pay money, but that does not equate a market. In the absence of any real product or services the market is nonexistent. In fact, in some quarters, selling tickets or vouchers for nonexistent products and services is called a scam. And in some nations, such sales are prohibited.

    Major Tom, I have noticed that there were several discussion threads in previous posts on this blog in which I did not participate at all where Jeff Foust had to turn off the comments box because you and others engaged in rather vociferous and pointless attacks.

    The truth is the truth. Commercial human spaceflight services is not available in the United States at this time. Those who wish to travel to the ISS must purchase services through a proxy and then travel to Russia and Kazakhstan to receive services. Those who have paid for suborbital flights are still waiting for those services to become available. And all of this ignores the essential point that NASA should not build a space program around a market that has come nowhere close to maturity.

  • common sense

    “‘As former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin has pointed out numerous times, the Constellation Program is designed and optimized for missions beyond low-Earth orbit, not for Space Station servicing.’”

    With all due respect to Brett, who is usually right about these things, he (and Griffin) got this one wrong. In its first two operational requirements, ESAS stated that the CEV (now called Orion) will:

    “deliver crew to and from the International Space Station (ISS) through ISS end-of-life in 2016.”

    “deliver and return cargo to the ISS through ISS end-of-life in 2016.””

    Despite ESAS, the requirement for ISS service was not strictly enforced in the early days of CEV. The accent was put a lot more on beyond LEO and actually Moon missions. However I cannot recall if this was true under both O’Keefe and Griffin tenures.

  • […] option isn’t expected before Christmas. This would seem to contradict Sen. Bill Nelson, who claimed earlier this week that the president would make a decision around Thanksgiving. Waiting until Christmas would also seem to complicate the development of the proposed FY2011 […]

  • common sense,

    You would be right. This was also noted in the HSF Plans Committee final report. That the Ares I/Orion system was optimize for flight beyond LEO hence its higher recurring costs. The report even suggested reducing the capbilities of Orion for LEO to lower the recurring costs.

  • Bob

    A customer may pay Space Adventure [sic] for a ticket on a Soyuz spacecraft to the ISS here in the United States, but the actual transaction or purchase occurs in Russia because that is where the market exist [sic] and where the service (training and launch) is rendered.

    No, the actual purchase occurs in the United States between the customer and the provider (Space Adventures). As far as the customer is concerned Roskosmos/RSC Energia/etc. are nothing more than suppliers to Space Adventures. The contract is governed under Virginia law (presumably, as Space Adventures is based in the Commonwealth of Virginia) and any contractual disputes would be adjudicated there, as has already happened in one case.

    As far as suborbital flight goes, some would not even deem that to be true spaceflight.

    It is considered “true spaceflight” under the laws of the United States, so what “some” think is irrelevant here.

    But even so, the service is not being supplied at this time simply because it does not exist. No real exchange is occurring.

    Yet contracts are being signed and money paid (in deposits, at least, if not in actual sales.) From a legal viewpoint, that’s a pretty “real” exchange.

    (Sorry for butting into a policy debate with this off-topic note, especially on a Friday night. Can’t help myself sometimes.)

  • Major Tom, I have noticed that there were several discussion threads in previous posts on this blog in which I did not participate at all where Jeff Foust had to turn off the comments box because you and others engaged in rather vociferous and pointless attacks.

    This is stupid.

    Jeff shut them down because Elifritz had polluted them beyond recognition. To blame Major Tom or others for this is slander, pure and simple.

  • Major Tom

    “This was my original comment you were referencing. You might notice I did not say market in this comment.”

    So what? You used the word “market” in the sentence immediately preceding.

    And even if you didn’t, your statement is still patently false. Whether there are mature markets or not, there are clearly commercial human space flight activities ongoing in the U.S. To claim that “commercial human spaceflight does not exist AT ALL [emphasis added] in this country” is even more ridiculous than arguing that there is no market for such in the U.S.

    Admit your statement was wrong or ignore my correction. (Or go away and don’t make patently false statements here in the first place.) But don’t troll and waste your time, my time, and other posters’ time with ridiculous arguments over multiple posts that lamely and vainly attempt to replace one patently false statement with another.

    “In the absence of any real product or services…”

    So five orbital space tourists paid millions of dollars for fake services?

    And dozens of suborbital space tourists paid tens of thousands of dollars to reserve fake services?

    Stop wasting our time and think before you write.

    “And all of this ignores the essential point that NASA should not build a space program around a market that has come nowhere close to maturity.”

    This is not an “essential point”. It’s a total non-sequitor. NASA can purchase human space flight services any time it wants, regardless of whether there are any commercial buyers for such services. It may cost a little more, but the companies that sign on the dotted line are legally just as committed to deliver the service to NASA if there is a booming commercial market as not.

    Per the Augustine Committee, the essential point is that the government-supplied solution, Ares I/Orion, won’t be ready until 2017 at the earliest, and likely not until 2019, whereas human space flight services would be ready at least one to three years earlier, under the most conservative assumptions.

    The essential point is that the government-supplied solution, Ares I, will never reach a high enough flight rate to reach operational safety, whereas human space flight services that build on launch vehicles addressing other markets will have tens of launches under their belts before launching a NASA crew.

    Also per the Augustine Committee, the essential point is that multiple human space flight services, even using a conservative $5B federal investment, could be developed for a 50% of Ares I’s development costs and 25% of Ares I/Orion’s combined development costs.

    The argument that NASA can’t rely on a non-existent commercial market is a strawman. The question is not whether a commercial market exists. The question is whether NASA can purchase a human space flight service that is more timely, safe, and efficient than building and operating its own human space transport infrastructure. Given the incredibly low bar set by Ares I/Orion, that is almost certainly the case.

    “This was also noted in the HSF Plans Committee final report. [sic, sentence fragment] That the Ares I/Orion system was optimize [sic] for flight beyond LEO hence its higher recurring costs.”

    Another falsehood. Nowhere does the final report of the Augustine Committee state that Ares I/Orion was optimized for flight beyond LEO.

    In fact, the report states that Ares I is only “capable of launching astronauts to low-Earth orbit” and that the Orion’s purpose is “to carry astronauts to low-Earth orbit and beyond.” Only when discussing Ares V and Altair does the report mention “the Moon or other destinations beyond low-Earth orbit” exclusively.

    Please, stop making stuff up. If you can’t construct an argument based on true facts, instead of falsehoods, then go away. It’s a waste of other posters’ time to have to repeatedly fix these false statements.

    “where Jeff Foust had to turn off the comments box because you and others engaged in rather vociferous and pointless attacks.”

    Why are you trying to personalize this debate by resorting to ad hominem arguments and lies? All I did was correct a couple patently false statements. In return, you called me a troll. And now you make more false statements about my posts elsewhere in this forum.

    If you can’t construct a coherent argument without insulting the other poster and lying about their other posts, then don’t post here. Ad hominem arguments are not welcome.

    Argue the post, not the poster.

    And when and where did Mr. Foust turn off comments because of anything I stated?

    Stop making stuff up.

    Your trolling is out of control. You make patently false statements, defend them with more patently false statements, throw strawman arguments around, call other posters names, and make false statements about other poster’s posts.

    Shape up or go away… please.

    Ugh…

  • Major Tom,

    I responded to a comment from common sense agreeing with him that the Augustine report supported the fact that Ares I/Orion system was optimized for flight beyond LEO. Here are some direct quotes from the report including chapter and page numbers.

    Ch 6 page 90

    When it begins operations, the Ares I and Orion would be a very expensive system for crew transport to low-Earth orbit. Program estimates are that it would have a recurring cost of nearly $1 billion per flight, even with the fixed infrastructure costs being carried by Ares V. The issue is that the Orion is a very capable vehicle for exploration, but it has far more capability than needed for a taxi to low-Earth orbit.

    Ch 6 p 89

    The Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) of 2005 developed a plan to launch crew to the ISS, and to destinations beyond low-Earth orbit, using the Ares I.

    Ch 4 p 60

    The Orion is intended to be a capable crew exploration vehicle, and the current Orion design will be acceptable for a wide variety of tasks in the human exploration of space. The current development is under considerable stress associated with schedule and weight margins. The primary long-term concern of the Committee is the recurring cost of the system.

    You continue to make insults and attacks. I responded to your negativity by asking to try a more constructive approach. I did not tell you to quit posting or call you ignorant or to go away. I reminded you that there was a recent discussion thread, Final WH decision: wait till February?, in which your blog name appeared several times late in the thread along with a number of others including ‘Top Dog’ who Rand apparently thinks is Elifritz. The point here being that when a discussion becomes negative further discussion is wasted in ad hominem attacks. I have tried to point this out to previously, not as attack on you, but get you to recognize your trollish behavior. So here is the deal if you do not want ad hominem attacks being made against you, then quit telling others to stop posting, quit calling other commenters ignorant, don’t correct other commenter’s spelling and diction, and quit telling them to go away. Instead advocate your view.

    I do not participate in most of the discussion threads, I spend most of my time simply reading the comments and rarely respond to most posts. Whereas, your blog name appears in virtually every posting on this blog. I am glad you care about spaceflight and you have a lot of enthusiasm for issues surrounding spaceflight, but you need to realize that most of us who comment on these threads do also. But your behavior in many of these discussion threads approaches the level of zealotry. Such attitude is a major turnoff for a lot of people.

  • Major Tom

    “Here are some direct quotes from the report”

    Again, none of which state, as you did, that Ares I/Orion was “optimized for flight beyond LEO”. Here’s your statement:

    “This was also noted in the HSF Plans Committee final report. [sic, sentence fragment] That the Ares I/Orion system was optimize [sic] for flight beyond LEO hence its higher recurring costs.”

    “if you do not want ad hominem attacks being made against you, then quit telling others to stop posting… and quit telling them to go away.”

    Reread the thread. I did not tell you leave before you both called me a troll AND made a false claim that comments made by me shut down another thread.

    If you want to be treated like an adult, then act like one, argue facts and logic, and don’t resort to ad hominem attacks. You won’t be asked to leave.

    But if you’re going to act like a child and throw juvenile insults and made up accusations against other posters — especially before none have been thrown at you — then, yes, you will be asked to leave. Repeatedly, if necessary.

    “But your behavior in many of these discussion threads approaches the level of zealotry.”

    Two points:

    1) Correcting patently false statements is not zealotry. Zealotry is sticking to a statement, even when its been shown to be clearly false. I did the former. You did the latter. You could have avoided this whole exchange just by admitting that your original statement was wrong. Or by simply not responding to my correction. But instead, you wasted my time and yours defending an indefensible statement with more indefensible statements and ad hominem arguments.

    2) Once again, you’re arguing the poster, not the post. Until you learn how to construct a coherent argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks, you’re not welcome here.

    So once again, I have to ask you to go away. Please.

    Thank you…

  • And even if you didn’t, your statement is still patently false. Whether there are mature markets or not, there are clearly commercial human space flight activities ongoing in the U.S. To claim that “commercial human spaceflight does not exist AT ALL [emphasis added] in this country” is even more ridiculous than arguing that there is no market for such in the U.S.

    There are currently technological developments for commercial human spaceflight going on in the United States, but that is not the same as actual commercial human spaceflight. Please name one launch of a commercial human spaceflight within the United States. Name a single paying passenger that has flown on a commercial human spacecraft launched from the United States. Name the facilities where commercial human spaceflight launches are occurring right now in the US. New Mexico is in the process of building a spaceport from which suborbital flights can operate, but those commercial flights are not yet available.

    NASA does not “purchase” services on the commercial spaceflight market. NASA designs the launch system/spacecraft in house and then allows companies to bid on a contracts to build that system. NASA is not purchasing spaceflight services, they are purchasing manufacturing services. You don’t go to Boeing to buy a flight from New York to LA do you? That what cost plus contract is all about. However, NASA is purchasing commercial services for LEO spaceflight to ISS from RKK Energia in Russia, but the last I checked NASA astronauts still have to travel to Russia and Kazakhstan to use those services.

  • Major Tom,

    “To say that this market “does not exist at all in this country [the United States]” is either a bald-faced lie or an incredibly ignorant statement.”

    This quote is from your first comment responding to a comment that I made. And you claim that you are not being negative?

  • Bob,

    Space Adventure is not the provider of commercial human spaceflight services. They are a travel agency. The middle man. An authorized agent. A facilitator. Customers are purchasing spaceflight services through them with the provider which in this case is RKK Energia. Just as if you went to a travel agency here in the US to purchase a flight from London to Rome. The travel agency is only responsible to the service they provide as a third party. The travel agency is not liable any issues or incidents that occur when you take that flight. In fact, most travel agency that still exist has a legal waiver absolving them of any liability as to regards to actual travel in their contracts. If anything happens then you must attempt to file suit or address the issue in the nations where you are traveling.

  • eng

    “So five orbital space tourists paid millions of dollars for fake services?

    Seven (7), actually.

    I largely agree with your pathos, Major Tom.

  • eng

    Mr. Miles, you have no idea what you are talking about

  • eng,

    Hmmm…there are no persons currently being launched on commercial spacecraft from any location in the United States. No US company offer actual commercial human spaceflight services from the US at this time. The only market and provider for commercial human spaceflight that currently exists is in Russia. Most of those 7 passengers you mentioned bought their ticket from RKK Energia through a travel agency Space Adventures who acted as a proxy. So my statement that commercial human spaceflight does not exist in the United States is false? That the US market is embryonic and does not really exist yet is untrue?

    There are companies here in the US who have sold hundreds of tickets for suborbital flights that have not begun operations. If those companies should go bankrupt or lose their source of development funds, then those customers will never receive their services and stand to lose their deposits. The commercial spaceflight landscape is littered with companies who have failed. Do not get me wrong here, I am a big supporter of developing commercial passenger spaceflight to LEO, I want companies like SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, Virgin Galactic, and XCOR to succeed. But regardless of what I or others may want, we still have to acknowledge the reality and risks in the current development of commercial human spaceflight which is still in a very much embryonic stage of development.

    NASA has been directed to develop a program of human exploration beyond LEO which it has been pursuing in the Constellation program. NASA has also been fostering the development of commercial launch services through COTS. The Augustine final report discusses the commercial LEO launch indepth in Ch 5 and 6. One of the issues the committee recognized was the risk of failure for commercial companies to develop LEO crewed spaceflight capabilities. The committee suggested that the fallback position of NASA was to continue the development of the Orion spacecraft, which has a high recurring cost, and the Ares V Lite in case commercial space companies failed to provide those services. If such scenario were to really happen, then US human spaceflight capabilities will be delayed beyond 2020. So why should NASA build their space program around an industry that is still in an embryonic phase of development and carries a substantial risk of failure? If the commercial space companies succeed then we could stand to benefit, but if they fail then the US will be worse off than in terms of spaceflight capabilities than if they continued on the present course.

  • So why should NASA build their space program around an industry that is still in an embryonic phase of development and carries a substantial risk of failure?

    Given NASA’s track record, and inability to successfully develop a new launch system since the Shuttle and the failure of the Shuttle to meet its program goals, why wouldn’t it be justified to say that NASA’s plans carry a more than substantial risk of failure?

    If the commercial space companies succeed then we could stand to benefit, but if they fail then the US will be worse off than in terms of spaceflight capabilities than if they continued on the present course.

    There is very little basis to assume that the entire commercial launch industry will fail, particularly given that ULA has been flying payloads successfully into orbit for years. Spending many tens of billions on the development of a NASA-only system that will continue to be horrendously expensive to operate cannot be justified by these relative risks.

  • Major Tom

    “Please name one launch of a commercial human spaceflight within the United States.”

    There are two. The SpaceShipOne flights in September and October of 2004. They were privately funded, using a ship developed on private funds, to win a privately funded prize. No government money was involved.

    “There are currently technological developments for commercial human spaceflight going on in the United States, but that is not the same as actual commercial human spaceflight.”

    Even under that narrow, dogmatic definition, your statement is still patently false. See above.

    And even then, tell it to the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, which recorded $29M in 2006 and $39M in 2007 in revenues for sales of
    personal spaceflight services (and total industry revenue of $175M in 2006 and $268M in 2007) and nearly 50 employees engaged in directly providing those services (and over 1,200 employees for the total industry):

    http://www.commercialspaceflight.org/pressreleases/PSF%20Presentation%20Summary.pdf

    Your can backtrack and qualify your original statement all you want, but it was still patently false. There is clearly a commercial space flight market and activity in the United States. It was either a blatant lie or a terribly ignorant statement to claim that there is no such market or activity in the U.S. “at all”.

    Either admit that your original statement was wrong or go away. But don’t waste your time defending the indefensible and don’t waste my time correcting it.

    “NASA is not purchasing spaceflight services, they are purchasing manufacturing services.”

    Thanks, I didn’t know that.

    [rolls eyes]

    For the second or third time, the point is that NASA should do the former, not the latter.

    “If those companies should go bankrupt or lose their source of development funds, then those customers will never receive their services and stand to lose their deposits.”

    How do you know? Have you made reservations? Have you read all the relevant legal agreements? Do you have access to the creditors’ agreements at each company?

    Don’t make statements on subjects about which you know nothing.

    “If such scenario were to really happen, then US human spaceflight capabilities will be delayed beyond 2020.”

    Whoop-dee-do. Ares I most likely won’t deliver before 2019.

    “This quote is from your first comment responding to a comment that I made. And you claim that you are not being negative?”

    How is giving the other poster the benefit of the doubt as to whether they know they’re stating a falsehood “being negative”?

    And even if you consider that “being negative”, why does that entitle you to ad hominem and false attacks on the other poster?

    For the umpteenth time, argue the post, not the poster.

    And if you still can’t tell the difference, then go away.

    Please, I’m begging you.

    Lawdy…

  • Major Tom,

    It comes at no surprise to me that you would cite the two test flights of a suborbital plane that carried no paying passengers in the X-Prize competition as the only examples of commercial human spaceflight in the United States. The plane only reached the 100km altitude which is commonly called the Kármán line. However a new study that came out last April identified the true edge of space at nearly 118 km, 73 miles, altitude, here is the article Edge of Space Found. As the United States has no set official standard for geopolitical and security reasons, anyone can argue as to what constitutes real space. And there is still a debate as to whether suborbital flights can be defined as commercial human spaceflight. Given the fact that the total energy expenditure of suborbital flight is only 2-3% of the necessary energy to boost an object to sufficient escape velocity to reach LEO, suborbital flights are still Earthbound and offer little more than thrill rides.

    You brought up the ticket revenue for commercial spaceflight generated in the last few years most of which is for suborbital flights. Tickets for suborbital flights have been selling for around $200K – $250K and most customers have probably made a deposit. So the total number of customers represented in the 2006-2007 is somewhere around 300 – 1000 people. While this indicates an increasing demand for commercial spaceflight services, there is still currently no supply in the US. A market is defined by demand and supply. So while there is a demand, without supply, a market truly does not exist. Because of the demand, there is potential market. And this is not to say that there is not an industry working to develop a supply. And in the case of commercial human spaceflight, of course, there is an commercial spaceflight industry.

    There is also the issue of market maturity. The commercial aviation market has matured. I can purchase a airline ticket tonight for a flight tomorrow morning to Chicago, New York, or LA. On the other hand, in commercial human spaceflight, I cannot go out and buy a ticket at any amount of money and fly today to LEO or to ISS from any location or spaceport in the US. If I want to fly to the ISS, I would have to go to Russia where there is a limited commercial spacelfight market and pay a rather exorbant sum to RKK Energia. This is a market that is still embryonic.

    How do you know? Have you made reservations? Have you read all the relevant legal agreements? Do you have access to the creditors’ agreements at each company?

    Don’t make statements on subjects about which you know nothing.

    This was a rather strange, boorish response. Anytime someone places a deposit or makes an investment in a new developing business there is a risk of losing their money. In commercial human spaceflight development over the last several decades there have already been a number of companies that failed or went bankrupt. One does not have to know the terms of a contract to understand that there is always a risk associated commercial enterprises.

    You believe that NASA should purchase commercial crew spaceflight to LEO and ISS. I have simply stated that the commercial human spaceflight market is not developed or mature enough for NASA to do so. NASA is currently developing commercial spaceflight capabilities through COTS and developing their own new exploration program for beyond LEO. This seems to be a logical course and Augustine report acknowledges is a viable and executable program given the necessary funding increase.

  • Major Tom

    “The plane only reached the 100km altitude”

    Wrong. Both flights exceeded that altitude.

    Don’t post patently false statements. It’s a waste of your time and a waste of other posters’ time to correct them.

    Go away until you learn not to.

    “One does not have to know the terms of a contract to understand that there is always a risk associated commercial enterprises.”

    That’s simply not true. There are forms of lending and legal agreements that eliminate practically all risk. Senior debt. Secured loans. Collateralization.

    Again, don’t post about things you know nothing about. It’s a waste of your time and other posters’ time.

    Go away until you learn not to.

    “You believe that NASA should purchase commercial crew spaceflight to LEO and ISS.”

    No, I don’t and that’s not what I wrote. Learn the difference between commercial activities and government contracting for services before you post on this topic again.

    Ugh…

  • […] Monday Sen. Bill Nelson claimed that the White House would make a decision about NASA’s future by aro…, based on a recent visit he had with the president on the subject. However, in an interview with […]

  • Major Tom,

    One flight reached 102.9 km and the other reached 112.0 km. Perhaps I should have phrased that as the two test flights reached just above the Karman line. That still does not change the fact these were test flights of a launch system and not true commercial human spaceflight. My statement that commercial human spaceflight does not exist in the United States at this time is still true.

    Not only are you apparently an ‘expert’ on spaceflight now you are and ‘expert’ on lending. Lol. BTW, I was not talking about loans. We were discussing deposits and investments into a developing industry. Those kind of investments and deposits typically fall under high risk categories.

    “NASA is not purchasing spaceflight services, they are purchasing manufacturing services.”

    Thanks, I didn’t know that.

    [rolls eyes]

    For the second or third time, the point is that NASA should do the former, not the latter.

    This is an excerpt of your previous comment. You clearly indicated that NASA should be purchasing spaceflight services. I would assume that meant commercial spaceflight services.

  • Major Tom

    “not true commercial human spaceflight”

    How is an activity that takes place entirely in the commercial sector not commercial?

    Goofy…

    “We were discussing deposits and investments into a developing industry. Those kind of investments and deposits typically fall under high risk categories.”

    Securitization is typical in asset-intensive industries.

    “I would assume that meant commercial spaceflight services.”

    Don’t assume, think. The government is not a commercial entity.

    Take Public Policy 101.

    Sigh…

  • Securitization is an illusion. The whole debacle surrounding credit default swaps is a testament to the inherent problems with such a strategy. In the end the federal government had to bail out the financial industry to the tune of something over $800 billion to keep the US economy from tanking and sliding into the worse economic depression since the Great Depression. And even still, the US is still not safe economically at this point.

  • So if my assumption of what your meaning is as to where NASA should purchasing spaceflight services, please share with me from whom NASA should buy spaceflight services. Could you possibly be talking about Delta IV and Atlas V launchers? Both of these are manufactured and launched by commercial providers, granted they are primarily government contractors, but they are regulated as private commercial corporations.

    Just because the suborbital test flights were conducted by the commercial industry does not qualify those flights as commercial human spaceflight. No seats on those flights were available for sale on the commercial market and no passengers flew on the flights. What is more, SpaceShipOne was not even considered to be a commercial vehicle by its own manufacturer Scaled Composites whom considered the spacecraft to be a test vehicle only.

    And just for the sake of accuracy, there were actually 3 test flights of the SpaceShipOne, the first one took place on June 21, 2004 and reached 100.1 km altitude. The two that you mentioned took place at the end of Sept and beginning of Oct.

  • Major Tom

    “Securitization is an illusion. The whole debacle surrounding credit default swaps is a testament to the inherent problems with such a strategy.”

    Different kind of securitization.

    “please share with me from whom NASA should buy spaceflight services.”

    I don’t know and it would be presumptuous of me to assume. NASA needs to develop requirements and evaluation criteria, release an announcement, and evaluate the proposals that come in.

    FedEx (or its early 20th century equivalent) didn’t exist when what was then called the Post Office Department and the War Department contracted for airmail services.

    NASA doesn’t need to wait for the full maturation of the commercial human space flight equivalent of a FedEx before NASA can begin buying human space flight services for government purposes.

    FWIW…

  • […] with his next budget,” he said. Keep in mind, though, that Nelson said two months ago that he expected a decision around Thanksgiving; if any decision was made it was certainly not […]

Leave a Reply to Donald F. Robertson Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>