Congress, NASA, States

Congressional delegations rally for Constellation

While NASA administrator Charles Bolden might not think that Constellation is “the symbol of American leadership in space”, some members of Congress disagree—or at least see Constellation as a symbol of economic concerns for their states if it’s canceled. Yesterday Utah’s five-member congressional delegation submitted a letter to President Obama asking him to reverse his decision to cancel Constellation. In the letter, they write: “we have strong trepidations the new proposal offered will lead to a decline in our nation’s preeminence in space and curtail our nation’s ability to send astronauts to explore the cosmos.”

One part of the letter is a little confusing. Referring to plans for heavy-lift launch vehicle development, the letter states: “We are cognizant your Administration’s budget proposal seeks funds to subsidize the private development of so-called ‘heavy-lift’ systems. However, it is important to note that these initiatives are preliminary and have largely yet to begin.” It’s not clear what private “heavy-lift” vehicle development efforts they’re referring to; the funding in the budget proposal regarding heavy lift is focused on technology development for such systems, separate from commercial crew development, which doesn’t require vehicles typically considered as “heavy lift”.

Also on Tuesday, Florida governor Charlie Crist met in Washington with members of his state’s congressional delegation, with NASA as one of the key topics of discussion. However, according to the Orlando Sentinel’s account, the meeting “generated little more than sound bites” other than a suggestion that Crist work with governors of other states affected by the new policy. “Using a blue Sharpie, Crist wrote them in a notebook: California, Texas, Alabama…” the St. Petersburg Times recounted.

Potentially more effective for Florida, though, was a private meeting Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) had with President Obama Tuesday, with space on the agenda. Nelson announced the meeting on Twitter, adding, “Lots of folks unhappy with newly released plan for NASA.” After the meeting Nelson described it as an “excellent conversation” but without providing other details, other than that “We’ll see the fruits of that conversation when the president visits [Florida] on April 15.”

One other related note: members of Houston’s congressional delegation are scheduled to host a press conference Thursday morning with the city’s major, Annise Parker, to discuss Constellation. Parker, as reported yesterday, is in Washington in part to discuss the potential economic impact on her city if Constellation is canceled.

75 comments to Congressional delegations rally for Constellation

  • pr

    Once again the only people who care about Constellation are the congresscritters in whose districts the money is expected to be spent. They would be just as happy if an equal amount of money were shoveled out of airplanes over said space. Even happier if 1/10th the amount were handed out on street corners of their choosing. I submit that the third option is superior because the value to the taxpayers would be about the same, but it would leave us less in debt to China.

  • MrEarl

    As with any program the ones affected directly are the ones who will do the shouting. The real question is how many of their colleagues they can persuade to vote their way.

  • CI

    “We’ll see the fruits of that conversation when the president visits [Florida] on April 15.”

    Ok Nelson, that’s a pretty big statement and it had better be more that just a shuttle flight. That is very minimal and only very temporary for jobs and that is IF they can certify the last External Tank. Another shuttle flight is actually the last thing that is needed and the least of our concerns because it does not lead us into the future. It’s just a band-aid.

    So, I expect to see that at a minimum Ares V will be continued (or maybe another NASA HLV) and started work on immediately (with a schedule).

    If by any means a HLV announcement is merely “development” or “R&D” then I’m sorry, that is the Obama plan and WILL NOT FLY with KSC, sorry.

    If it doesn’t have the words “start building now” or “continue with Ares V” or something similar that we can work towards to be launched from KSC sometime soon then it’s a no-go. All that HLV R&D talk from Bolden is just that, talk, no launches or rockets to be built or launched.

    So, don’t try running that by the space community. We have already heard enough of Nelson’s talk trying to fool us into thinking that Obama’s plan is good for KSC. Nelson is trying to tell everyone that because he said that Mars is the goal then it’s a great plan. And what if we don’t get there for 50 years Nelson? We’re not stupid, just saying a destination means NOTHING !!! (Except to Nelson himself)

    KSC will be waiting to hear “the fruits” and it better not be bad oranges from this winters freeze…

  • Ferris Valyn

    CI – of course, that would mean that we’d have to start Ares V, which we haven’t. It would also mean that we were about to start work on it for Constellation, which we weren’t.

    Ares V class vehicles aren’t really needed. I’d much rather be looking at an EELV growth option for heavy lift, if it is absolutely required.

    I’d rather go with in space assembled options.

  • Here’s a rundown of what spaceflightnow has on the HLV:

    1. In late ’09 and early ’10 Bolden, on presidential reccommendation, conducted a study to narrow down options on a shuttle-derived HLV.

    2. Michoud made a statement saying they had the parts on hand for a quick (in space terms) turnaround shuttle-derived HLV given blueprints, and the spares to get a few more together in the longer term.

    3. Several related congressional comments suggest a new study looking at HLV’s both shuttle-derived and non-shuttle-derived.

    From the above three poits it doesn’t take much divination work to reason out that a full-blown HLV is likely to be announced in relatively short order. Less clear, but still pretty likely is that that HLV won’t be Ares V. Also unclear, and somewhat unlikely is that the new HLV could be an EELV derivitive or other non-shuttle system.

    Given the pre-2011 articles (shuttle derived study and Michoud announcement), it really looks like something’s in the works. That the vehicle didn’t show up in the budget in anything other than skeletal framing raises doubt, but I think Nelson’s comments very well could be leading to just such an announcement on the 15th. It would put development dollars back in those districts, put us on a more defined path to beyond-LEO, and not violate the budget proposal by even a line. And as was pointed out earlier, if some investment dollars can be put back into the space districts, the qind qill quickly come out of the sails of the opposition.

    The one grave error in all this is that it will have been 2.5 months between budget and definition, which has been damaging to PR in a big way.

  • qind qill?

    wind will

    I need to proofread a little better.

  • Robert G. Oler

    aremisasling wrote @ March 17th, 2010 at 12:41 pm

    who knows what is going to happen, but it is very unlikely in my view that any HLV has any shuttle derived “rocket components” and I suspect that even the ET is out….the cost are just to high.

    The DIRECT people are doing exactly what the “save our jobs” people are doing…trying to create fire where there is only their heat

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    CI wrote @ March 17th, 2010 at 11:04 am

    If it doesn’t have the words “start building now” or “continue with Ares V” or something similar that we can work towards to be launched from KSC sometime soon then it’s a no-go…

    rush right now to the liquor store and stock up on your favorite booze…that way you will have something to fall back on when all the “no-go’s” you mention come true.

    As my friend the political person says “when things are going bad, in the vote counting…drink heavily”

    Robert G. Oler

  • “As my friend the political person says “when things are going bad, in the vote counting…drink heavily”

    That explains the Kennedys

  • Ack I’ve been moderated. Justifiably, I admit. My apologies.

    Moving on:
    “who knows what is going to happen, but it is very unlikely in my view that any HLV has any shuttle derived “rocket components” and I suspect that even the ET is out….the cost are just to high.”

    I disagree. Perhaps it’s the wrong choice, but I think it is a likely choice, given the study and the Michoud comments. It’s all we have to go on, and it looks shuttle-derived.

  • Kris Ringwood

    What a choice! No HSF-BEO program or one which is -at best – iffy in technical terms, and will soak up so much money that there continues to be almost no money for anything else. The problem with TOP(The Obama Program) is that it concentrates on peripherals and “earthspace” to the detriment of BEO exploration of either the RSF or HSF variety. Worse, because of limited access to ISS the 6-man “National Laboratory” aspect becomes marginalized because we’ll soon be limited to Soyuz/Progress seating/cargo capacity and launch frequency. Plus Both OSC and Space X are struggling to meet their(own) original schedules as well.
    In any case when you have two spokesmen (Garver/Shannon) publicly contradicting each other, but covertly agreeing in terms of scheduling, we find ourselves in the midst of of a virulent malaise of endemic squabbling. Something which is likely to end up with our watching others doing what we consider we should have been doing. BANG goes our leadership in space!

  • Robert G. Oler

    aremisasling wrote @ March 17th, 2010 at 1:38 pm

    no…we have more to go on.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “no…we have more to go on. ”

    Care to elaborate? Aside from a nebulous R&D plan, the only steps I’ve seen taken at any level toward an actual HLV have been that study, which was 100% shuttle-derived options. I’m actually honestly hoping there’s other options being considered that I’m not seeing. I know there are better options out there. I’m sure Bolden and perhaps even Obama know as well. But are they considering them? I’d love to see evidence of it, but I don’t.

  • common sense

    @aremisasling wrote @ March 17th, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    I cannot speak for Robert but I’ll say this. Several people have said that an HLV may not be necessary especially in view of the ISS where NASA learnt how to perform very large assembly in space. So it is possible to do away with the HLV altogether.

    The HLVs that we all hear about are all Shuttle derived and they will not, absolutely not cut cost anytime since they require the same workforce that Stephen is so happy to say they preserve.

    Finally, why an HLV today? To do what exactly? What is the architecture it embeds itself in? Don’t you think that first we ought to find out the first leg of the mission (I assume Flex-Path of course). Then we will need to define the requirements for that very leg. You may or not need an HLV. And what upmass do you need? Would it be same to go to the Moon as it is to go to Mars? To Pluto? Anyway. The current HLV plan is here, in my view, to satisfy some political requirements. Nothing else. And that is why I believe, unlike Robert, that DIRECT still has a chance. But it does not mean that we actually NEED it.

  • @common sense:

    Again, the issue is not that I think we should do shuttle-derived or even that we should do HLV. I’ve seen plenty of discussion around here about shat whould be done on all sides of the issues. What I’m saying is that all the evidence I see is pointing to the fact that we are heading down the shuttle-derived HLV path, at least in respect to the actions of anyone with a direct connection to the process.

    I do think HLV is needed if we follow the commercial LEO ferry model for leg 1 of the mission, partly because more than one or two vehicles launching toward rendezvous on orbit gets complicated. However, I think that the the Ares V 25% mass to leo upgrade from Saturn V is serious overkill. I’m not an engineer, so it’s opinion only, and only a moderately educated one, at best. But that’s what I feel is the answer. As to shuttle-derived, I agree, it’s problematic to say the least. Like Mr. Oler, I’m a fan of an EELV derived option if HLV is pursued.

    They could do shuttle-derived with the with a leaner staff, but that wouldn’t be any more politically appealing than a non-shuttle-derived option. But it would retain some of the status quo and potentially keep the solid rocket manufacturing costs down to make the Air Force happy.

  • Spangleway

    “the only steps I’ve seen taken at any level toward an actual HLV have been that study, which was 100% shuttle-derived options”

    I wouldn’t put too much stock in that study. I heard (unattributed rumor alert) that it wasn’t really Bolden’s study and I doubt that he picked the team members. It looks like just another save-our-jobs effort that was designed never to report out anything but shuttle-derived options. If so, the NASA leadership will know it and judge accordingly.

    FWIW

  • common sense

    “What I’m saying is that all the evidence I see is pointing to the fact that we are heading down the shuttle-derived HLV path, at least in respect to the actions of anyone with a direct connection to the process.”

    I would tend to agree. Reluctantlty though.

    “because more than one or two vehicles launching toward rendezvous on orbit gets complicated.”

    Well here is your trade space: Complicated vs. not so complicated. What is most expensive to perform? And expensive includes the price of the LV(s) but also the life cycle cost of the vehicles (usually the killer).

    “They could do shuttle-derived with the with a leaner staff, but that wouldn’t be any more politically appealing than a non-shuttle-derived option”

    I was about to answer but you gave the answer yourself.

    “But it would retain some of the status quo and potentially keep the solid rocket manufacturing costs down to make the Air Force happy.”

    Status quo the joykiller of all. The Air Force ought to take care of their own business and leave it to NASA to actually decide what they do. On the other hand if NASA MUST follow the Air Force for whatever reason they should not come up with a fantasy plan they cannot achieve a la Constellation.

    Shuttle derived is a mistake on its own. Until there are requirements it is outrageous to say that any one LV, H or not H, is needed. These are the typical mistakes made on Constellation: Carriage before the horse. We should learn from our mistakes, you’d hope.

    But politics and economics or science or technoloy or engineering or anything for that matter???

    Oh well…

  • mark valah

    Whereas the Atlas V is oftenly quoted I must re-state the fact that this LV used a Russian-built engine, the RD-180 and a future system based on Altas V would be as Russian dependent as the Soyuz rides. The hydrocarbon-based propulsion system suggested in the original Obama budget may replace the RD-180, but the direction at the present seems to lean towards an SSME based LV, the so called Shuttle-derived HLV.

    Personally, I don’t understand the rush to Mars (other than the fact that’s a good political maneouver to appear to militate for something while delaying for a decade or two the real outcome). The Moon is a perfect training ground for humans in space, because this is what the entire human exporation business is all about, exercising and training ourselves to access space. The Moon first destination is a logical one, and it will be proven so by the work of more pragmatic nations.

  • mark valah: who said anything about “rushing” to Mars? I think the biggest complaint that I’m hearing is that the Administration doesn’t seem to be rushing anywhere.. instead focusing on technology development to “ultimately” get to Mars.

  • I expect Nelson to stand at the Obama space summit grinning while his leader talks in a billowing, ineffectual circle and then proceeds to toss him a crumb while letting the air out of his balloon. Either that or he will pledge the space coast his full support and then fly back to DC and push ahead with his original budget as he did with health care. He was elected on lies, he lied when he swore into office and he will lie in Florida on April 15th. Ya’ know how ya’ know when Obama is lying? His teleprompters are on. Sometimes I think he’s the lovechild of Nixon and Carter… someone ask a birther about that.

  • red

    Cl: “Ok Nelson, that’s a pretty big statement and it had better be more that just a shuttle flight. That is very minimal and only very temporary for jobs and that is IF they can certify the last External Tank.”

    Why? Are we just doing this as a jobs program, or are we trying to do productive work in space on behalf of the U.S. taxpayers? There is nothing wrong with jobs. That’s a reasonable thing to factor in. However, we need to also address benefits to the U.S. taxpayer.

    Adding a shuttle flight is actually a pretty big deal, too. It’s certainly more than was planned under Constellation’s hungry gaze.

    Cl: “So, I expect to see that at a minimum Ares V will be continued”

    Why? We’re hardly working on Ares V even with the POR. Serious Ares V work is years away with the Constellation plan, and Ares V operations would start around 2028, but with no money to do anything with it for many years. The development would be so expensive as to essentially crush NASA, and the operations would be similarly expensive. Why?

    Cl: “(or maybe another NASA HLV)”

    Why do we need an HLV? If we need an HLV, why does it have to be a NASA HLV? We need to answer these questions before just demanding a NASA HLV.

    Cl: “and started work on immediately (with a schedule).”

    Why do we need to start work on it immediately? We aren’t doing that with Ares V in the Constellation plan, so why suddenly demand work on an HLV immediately with the new NASA plan?

    Why does it need a schedule? Any Ares V schedule has been totally blown.

    Cl: “If by any means a HLV announcement is merely “development” or “R&D” then I’m sorry, that is the Obama plan and WILL NOT FLY with KSC, sorry.”

    Why? “development” and “R&D” is more than is planned for Ares V in any significant way for many years. Why would the new NASA plan be held to stricter requirements than the old POR? The new plan has lots more work on an HLV coming right around the corner than Constellation did.

    Don’t forget that with the Constellation plan, there’s a gap from the end of the Shuttle (which happened per the Constellation plan, not the 2011 budget) and Ares I/Orion operations of almost a decade. The 2011 budget shrinks that gap. That budget is doing the best for KSC in the very difficult circumstances that Constellation left us in.

    Why wouldn’t a plan that works on an EELV-derived HLV suit KSC? Maybe it could be launched next door at Canaveral, or maybe the $2B in planned KSC upgrades in the 2011 budget would allow it to be launched from KSC (while employing lots of workers at KSC in the meantime).

    Cl: “All that HLV R&D talk from Bolden is just that, talk, no launches or rockets to be built or launched.”

    Again, it may not be ideal, but it’s a lot better than the old POR for KSC. Ares V in 2028 but with no reason to launch it because we can’t afford a payload during Ares V development? Ares I/Orion in 2019 but with no reason to launch them then because ISS is gone? That old plan was doom for KSC. The new plan is not perfect for KSC, but it at least helps.

    Cl: “Nelson is trying to tell everyone that because he said that Mars is the goal then it’s a great plan. And what if we don’t get there for 50 years Nelson?”

    The Flexible Path to Mars from Augustine, which all indications are is the plan, includes lots of launches and lots of destinations on the path to Mars: lunar orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, Earth-Sun Lagrange points, NEOs, lunar surface, Mars orbit, and Mars moons. There are also many new somewhat near-term launches (most from Florida in all likelihood) in the 2011-2015 budget for ISS support, robotic precursors, Earth observers, and technology demos. If it takes 50 years to get to Mars but we’re busy doing very useful work in the meantime, that’s ok with me.

    Cl: “We’re not stupid, just saying a destination means NOTHING !!!”

    I have to agree with you here, but many Constellation supporters have been criticizing the 2011 budget by claiming that there are no destinations.

  • mark valah

    Trent: circumventing the Moon to go directly to Mars is, for me, the same as “rushing” to Mars. Ilogical. Unless it is only political maneouvering, as any objective set for NASA 20 years from now is equal to nothing in our political system.

  • Vladislaw

    red wrote:

    “Why do we need an HLV?”

    Because NASA jobs will be lost in politican’s districts and states.

    “If we need an HLV, why does it have to be a NASA HLV?”

    Because NASA jobs will be lost in politican’s districts and states.

    “Why do we need to start work on it immediately?”

    The shuttle workforce will be without a job at the end of the year and NASA jobs will be lost in politican’s districts and states.

  • mark valah, who said anything about “circumventing the moon”? The moon is still an option. It’s just not a primary goal and is arguably unnecessary. I say let private space exploit the moon.

  • Brad

    aremisasling

    I don’t think any SDHLV is in the cards. It makes no sense at all to spend 3 billion dollars on HLV technology R&D over the next five years if SDHLV is the chosen path. In fact I have even heard Bolden hint that, whenever the NASA mystery HLV is finally chosen, the project may even include an international partner. And you don’t need an international partner for a SDHLV.

  • mark valah, going to the surface of the Moon is more likely to happen (again) before going to the surface of Mars.. Just as going to the orbit of the Moon is more likely to happen (again) before going to the orbit of Mars. What isn’t likely, under a non-crash program, is going to the surface of the Moon before going to the orbit of Mars. The point being, to send humans to the surface of either body requires a lander of some sort. Without funding to do lander development in parallel with booster/capsule development you have 6 to 9 years where you need to fly the booster/capsule.. you’ve gotta go somewhere, you might as well go beyond LEO to interesting low gravity locations: Low Lunar Orbit, Earth-Moon Lagrange points, Earth-Sun Lagrange points, NEOs, Mars Orbit, Phobos. There’s real work you can do at all these locations. Combined with robotic precursor missions to Moon/Mars surface, ISRU and propellant depots, you have a really good program.

    To quote Jeff Greason, “So the choice is not one of, do we or don’t we go to the Moon, that’s a completely false choice. The choice is do we structure the program, for the same money, in a way in which, in addition to going back to the Moon, we get asteroids, lagrange points, maybe a Mars flyby, build up deep space experience that we’re going to need for Mars, instead of waiting 20 years and hoping that the public’s enthusiasm can be sustained.”

  • NASA Fan

    So instead of a ‘mission to nowhere’ as critics label the Obama plan, we’ll build a shuttle derived, or not, HLV. They we’ll have a ‘rocket to nowhere’.

    If this comes to pass it speaks again to the dysfunctional relationship of the WH/NASA/Congress/OSTP and how that relationship creates losing programs (Cx, now HLV) for NASA to go implement.

    Egad

  • MrEarl

    The reason Heavy Lift is need is for economics. It’s more economical to build an ~100 ton module on earth and get it to LEO with one launch than to build 3 30 ton modules, use three launches to get it to LEO then do the assembly. Any reasonable return to the moon, mission to Mars or other destinations that will be more than footprints and flags will require a craft that is too larg and complicated to be built in 30 ton increments.

  • The reason Heavy Lift is need is for economics. It’s more economical to build an ~100 ton module on earth and get it to LEO with one launch than to build 3 30 ton modules, use three launches to get it to LEO then do the assembly.

    Not when you factor in the development and fixed annual costs of the heavy lifter.

  • googaw

    MrEarl, you are making the assumption that taxpayers, having been burned by Shuttle, ISS, and Constellation, and in the face of the sovereign debt crisis, will want to fund yet another such astronaut extravaganza. A monster HLV is practically useless for any other task (and is not even necessary for the extravaganza).

    Astronauts will launch on the same kinds of rockets used by satellites or not at all.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 9:43 am

    The reason Heavy Lift is need is for economics. It’s more economical to build an ~100 ton module on earth and get it to LEO with one launch than to build 3 30 ton modules, use three launches to get it to LEO then do the assembly.

    I am not sure that is accurate. I use to think that, that is why I was a big supporter of “Option C” when the station was going through its last redesign…but time and some experience (and discussion with wise people) has taught me otherwise.

    Some very good work has been done at the station in terms of “berthing” techniques (IE how to berth modules together), assembly, and integration. That has lead “most” designers that I have talked to, to come to the conclusion that any future “station” that does something specific…needs to have modularity…if for no other reason then upgrading.

    The size of the modules to inclination of the station by the shuttle might not be optimal there might be something a tad larger needed…but none of the folks who are doing “blue sky” designs of things like 1 meter resolution platforms in GEO or large communication “rafts” in GEO none of them are doing so in the terms of 100 ton modules.

    Finally, I agree with Rand. As it stands right now, to build a larger then EELV knockoff lifter, ie a really big one; despite the armwaving that the “Jupiter” folks are doing, is very very expensive. There is no data that this is a profitable future pathway, unless one is making photoshop rockets.

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    Josh Cryer: how could private commercial companies “expoit” the Moon? What is the projected profit return at the present?

  • Josh Cryer: how could private commercial companies “expoit” the Moon?

    Utilizing its resources for propellant, tourism facilities and services.

  • mark valah

    Trent: Too much confusion with all these “targets”. In my view, human exporation is about developing technologies for enabling the humans to inhabit extraterestrial environments. A gradual approach in which we train to be able to stay and live on the Moon for extended periods of time only seems logical to me. To develop and test orbit transfer and refueling technolgies by flying them back and forth to the Moon only seems logical. With a bit of investment and logistics we will be able to even *rescue* crews in trouble during Moon missions- nobody is able to assume 100% event free missions. This is the way to build capability for raliable access to Mars. This is the way to build a future industrial resource on the Moon which only then can attact profits and massive commercial investments.

  • Red,

    below are my comments concerning the new link below which contains a much more detailed modification to NASA Compromise Budget to the President’s FY11 NASA budget proposals. The spreadsheet contains a number of tabs but the first three tabs detail the three scenarios we have evaluated so far. The other tabs provide support and background to these first three tabs.

    http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/NASA-Compromise-Budget-Detailed.xls

    Scenario 1 fits the President’s top line budget request but incorporates the additional amounts called out in sections 4, 5 and 6 of the March 3, 2010 Senate and House Authorization Bills of FY10 $256 million, FY11 $1,315 million and FY12 $2,115 million. These additional amounts fund the proposed Shuttle Extension of up to two flights per year for FY11 and FY12 time frames in addition to expanding ISS utilization.

    Scenario 2 incorporates the STS extension and ISS enhancements described in Scenario 1 but fits this increased capability within the President’s top line NASA budget profile. Under this scenario no money above the Presidential request is required to fund the sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Congressional Authorization.

    Scenario 3 eliminates the STS extension and ISS enhancements contained in the Authorization Bill and fits the President’s top line NASA budget profile. Its important to state that this scenario will require the ISS to go into a sustain only mode (ie no research) until ‘both’ COTS-CRS vendors start delivering supplies to the ISS. So this scenario carries through the serious policy mismatch in the President’s FY11 proposal of increase funding for research on the ISS while limiting the supply need to achieve that capability let alone incorporate the new activities arising from the Advanced Technology or Technology Demonstration initiatives now to be performed at the ISS. In addition, the fixed cost support needed to support the STS industrial base (in an abrupt STS retirement in 2010 scenario) will now need to come from the Jupiter development program significantly slowing down this effort as well.

    All three Scenario’s add two new line items. The Jupiter/Orion Development line item funds the immediate development of a Directly Shuttle Derived Heavy-Lift Vehicle called out in Augustine options 4B and 5C based on the Jupiter-130 specifications. This line item also continues the funding of the beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) capable Orion spacecraft. The second line item added is the Jupiter/Orion Program line item covers the flight testing and operations phase of these two elements enabling a smooth transition as the STS program’s industrial base and workforce in Scenarios 1 and 2 but not 3.

    All three scenarios incorporate the new advanced space technology, robotic precursor and technology demonstration initiatives requested in the President’s budget submission. We replaced the inefficient and abrupt funding ramp up in FY11 though with a more typical and more efficient S-Curve ramp up. We also prevent these initiatives from growing so large that the starve out the ability to fly them utilizing the Jupiter/Orion systems. The goal would be to use the time between 2014-2020 to demonstrate these new approaches and technologies on exciting precursor missions using Jupiter and/or Orion when appropriate. After the ISS line item is likely replaced by an Internationally developed Deep Space Transit Habitat in 2020 we should be ready to go for an incremental building block approach leading to the successful landing and return of humans to Mars in the 2030 time frame.

    All three scenarios initiate COTS crew with a funding level more than sufficient to continue the evolution of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft to full ISS crew rotation capability. It’s important to remember that VSE is a policy initiative that is fundamentally driven by moving beyond LEO not providing an inordinate number of commercial vendors for the limited predominately government demand for crew access to LEO. Dragon (LEO only) and Orion (LEO or Beyond LEO) can more than cover this need. In the post ISS era this commercial initiative is directed at delivering propellant to the in space propellant depots. If the business case closes the in space commercial delivery of propellant may also be provided via Lunar ISRU.

    All three scenarios leave unaltered anything in the President’s proposal that is not directly related to the Human Space Flight portion of the NASA budget (ie Science, Aeronautics, Cross-Agency Support, Education etc).

    Additional notes have been made to the various line items using the comment features of Excel.

    As you can see it is not impossible to significantly improve upon the Program of Record and incorporate the important initiatives the President wants as well. All it takes is for voices of reason to prevail over the extremists currently driving this debate.

  • CI

    red,
    I don’t think Constellation folks are upset that the new program does not have destinations. But no one in the administration will say which one is first, second, and third.
    If there was a first, second, and third then there should be a schedule and rocket type for each one.
    Just saying we’re “maybe” gonna go to here and there with no order and no dates is improper planning IMO.
    Just like the heavy lift R&D idea, how does anyone know that there is “game changing” technology available and AFFORDABLE now? What if 10 years of this R&D doesn’t really advance today’s technology?
    And from what I have read, even if we could build something that could get to Mars in days or weeks, the human body could not withstand it.
    I know people keep mentioning Ares V and future dates but that was an assumption from Augustine and if we don’t have Ares 1 and the commercial side is going to take that role then we should be able to shift that money IMMEDIATELY to Ares V and get moving on it instead.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    lol. those numbers are well almost as good as the predictions about the Iraq war.

    on just a tad more then Ares 1/Orion has spent so far, Jupiter/Orion is going to be developed!

    and then be to expensive to launch!

    It will all be over soon. Obama will get his program and the Jupiter folks can go to building models of the vehicle that could have made it all possible.

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    In the Twisted Galaxy, huckstering for the taxpayers to pay for NASA bureaucrats to try to build a rocket that can only be used for astronaut spectaculars we can’t afford is “normal”. Asking that astronauts use the same kinds of transportation everything else uses to space is “extreme”:

    http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/1060799053000926706bDxycQ

  • Robert,

    Its pretty amazing what you can do when you leverage 80% of the progress already made on the PoR and then combine that with existing tooling, flight hardware, launch infrastructure and experienced workforce we already have in our existing operational HLV better known as STS.

    The CBO agrees with our numbers. You background to make this assessment is what again?

  • Its pretty amazing what you can do when you leverage 80% of the progress already made on the PoR

    Apparently you’re unfamiliar with the sunk-cost fallacy.

  • Rand, while your sunk cost arguments do apply to the ‘strawman’ that has become of the PoR, now used almost exclusively to defend the new plan, it doesn’t apply to Augustine option 4B.

    The closer analogy in the case of 4B is let’s say you are 80% complete on building a house, you would propose tearing it down? 4B has a direct advantage of being able to simultaneously leverage 80% of the PoR progress plus a $40 Billion dollar HLV STS industrial base. All the above has a combined replacement value of $50 Billion dollars. We need another $10 Billion to transform it into the forms of the Jupiter-130/Orion.

    I sense that your bigger issues is with the utility of the Jupiter-130/Orion, no?

  • The closer analogy in the case of 4B is let’s say you are 80% complete on building a house, you would propose tearing it down?

    If the cost of completing and operating it is much higher than alternatives, of course.

    4B has a direct advantage of being able to simultaneously leverage 80% of the PoR progress plus a $40 Billion dollar HLV STS industrial base. All the above has a combined replacement value of $50 Billion dollars.

    Don’t confuse cost with value.

    I sense that your bigger issues is with the utility of the Jupiter-130/Orion, no?

    Yes, in that I think we can get a lot more value for the money than investing it in a heavy lifter, at least in terms of accomplishing things in space.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Stephen Metschan wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 2:45 pm

    There are about 900 problems with what you are saying…I’ll mention a few

    First off Option 4B is not the policy of The President of The United States. People may come up with a program that “fits” the cost assumptions of 4B but there is no evidence until the assumptions of that program, the technology of that program, or even the operations cost of that program are vetted by CBO or someone “reliable” that the program actually does.

    Second “the Jupiter” Numbers are full of holes. You claim “workforce” retention as an important goal…others on other forums are saying Jupiter only employees about 1/3 of the shuttle workforce…No one has a clue what the cost are to build the “cargo container” that is going along with Orion up to the space station; what that container cost to either recover or continually build…what to do after the “free” SSME’s run out (ie where those cost are)…the list is just endless.

    Third the assumptions are full of holes. The babble “operate Jupiter commercially” is nonesense. There is little or no political will to do that (again the jobs are still there in the civil service)…

    As to your analogy with the house.

    If 4 billion would leverage the POR then you might have a point, “might”. First it wont and second the problem is that once one leverages the POR you still have a program that is to expensive to operate.

    It is the old “we have to send 25000 more people to SVN so those who have died wont die in vain”.

    no

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    @ Rand Simberg : Utilizing its resources for propellant, tourism facilities and services.

    Neither at the present time, nor in the close future will private enterprise invest in the items you listed. Deep space human exploration is a government job, whether people want to admit it or not.

  • googaw

    Funny how the workforce is preserved when talking about the workforce, but when lowballing the cost estimates the money to pay that workforce is nowhere to be found.

  • Neither at the present time, nor in the close future will private enterprise invest in the items you listed.

    Bob Bigelow has been doing so for years.

  • Robert G. Oler

    googaw wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 3:19 pm

    this is where the DIRECT numbers just fall out of the sky.

    The are going to operate the thing “commercially” with NASA only involved at the highest levels. That proved impossible with the space shuttle itself and still one has to pay the civil servants.

    Things are free. SSME’s are free (until they run out), Jupiter carries lots to orbit but the container to carry the pressurized or non pressurized goods is not included…although the “Ninja turtles” could be expended to keep cost down (at least for three flights)…and even then some cash is required to make the whole thing work. Avionics? Expend the shuttle stuff…

    Processing…lots cheaper then the shuttle…how? Wave of hand “we dont have to process the orbiter” as if Orion, the cargo container and the vertical stack do it cheaper.

    Development cost? Cheap…no hint how Ares is at 9 bill and climbing but a much larger rocket is oh a little over 10 billion…

    It reminds me of some engineering stuff we did in undergrad…fun but you know…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    “Neither at the present time, nor in the close future will private enterprise invest in the items you listed. Deep space human exploration is a government job, whether people want to admit it or not.”

    I beg to differ and lean closer to what Rand is saying. Would you suggest the Russians wouldn’t like to have a few tons of lunar soil laying around when they can sell it for over 60 million dollars a pound?

    ” By contrast, in 1993, the famed auction house Sotheby’s sold some Moon material brought back by the Soviets at a price equivalent to about $2.2 million per gram.”
    moon dust sells for 2.2 million

    The first shiney, sparkley rock that gets returned, commercially, and gets sold as a lunar “diamond” you will see more interest in the moon and it’s resources.

    “But Bill Gate’s wife has a lunar diamond, when are you going to get me one?” lol

  • googaw

    Bob Bigelow has been doing so for years.

    Bigelow hasn’t had a single customer for years.

  • googaw

    I guess it’s no surprise that economic illiteracy walks hand-in-hand with economic fantasy. A few tons of lunar soil would be worth about as much a few tons of canceled “Forever Stamps.” (For those not in the U.S., these are very popular stamps, all with the same design, that have become the dominant stamp in the U.S.). The value of collectibles comes from their scarcity: the first few lunar samples fetch a high price, the next few not so much, and so on. Any threat that the market will be swamped with samples and even the early ones will decline in price.

  • MrEarl

    Vlad:
    The moon dust sold for that price because it is rare. You start bringing it back to Earth by the ton and the price drops dramatically.

    Rand:
    “Utilizing its resources for propellant, tourism facilities and services.”
    You’re going to need a lot of tourists in Hawaiian space suits to make it profitable. The price point is going to have to be a million bucks or less to get enough people to go. I don’t see the cost/price point meeting for a long, long time. For propellant your going to have develop an automated factory that produce it and get it to where it’s needed for less than it cost to launch it from Earth. What “services” are you talking about? Does that mean the next time I call Dell support I’ll be speaking to someone on the moon?!
    If the government decides that it want to build a moon base and will pay for the initial development costs for the technology to do it and awards private contracts to supply and man the base than what you said becomes feasible.
    As for development costs of Heavy Lift, it’s percentage of flight cost gets less and less each time you use the vehicle.

    Robert:
    I don’t have any figures, though I have tried to find them, but I would seem to me that the major cost of the shuttle program is orbiter refurbishment and configuration for the next mission both very manpower intense operations.
    As for the cargo containers, find out how much it costs to build a Ninja Turtle and you has a very good idea of how much a cargo container for the Jupiter/Direct launchers will be. Plus you get the first three free! That’s a better deal then most drug dealers will give you. Same with the engines. Once the 17 remaining SSME’s are finished, about 5 flights free, they’re replaced with the RS-25E.

  • MrEarl

    Everyone says that the shuttle program is approx. $2.5 billion per year to run in fixed costs.
    What I would like to know, and if you don’t have direct knowledge don’t answer, what makes up that price and what studies have been don on how to significantly reduce that cost.

  • Vladislaw

    “Vlad:
    The moon dust sold for that price because it is rare. You start bringing it back to Earth by the ton and the price drops dramatically.”

    I understand that, but that assumes it gets sold. I have a ton of lunar regolith, I sell a gram, guess what the asset value is for the rest of it that I get to carry on my books? What is the loan value against it.? I don’t have to sell much in order to gain the asset value on the books.

    The US carries an asset value of our 870 pounds of lunar rocks in the neighbor hood of 375 billion. Think you could get a loan for some of that to fund a mining operation?

    The value of mine is not in how much you pull out. The value is a function of how much you still have in the ground minus extraction cost.

  • As for development costs of Heavy Lift, it’s percentage of flight cost gets less and less each time you use the vehicle.

    But it never gets low, because that vehicle never flies enough to amortize them much, because its marginal and fixed annual costs are so high.

    What I would like to know, and if you don’t have direct knowledge don’t answer, what makes up that price and what studies have been don on how to significantly reduce that cost.

    That’s not possible to answer in a blog comment, but it’s the standing army — in Florida, Huntsville, Houston, Utah and other places that have to be there to operate it at all. Many studies have been done to reduce costs, but the only way to do so is a complete redesign of the vehicle. It will never be cheap to operate Shuttle, and its per-flight costs are unlikely to ever go much below a billion dollars at this point in its history.

  • Bigelow hasn’t had a single customer for years.

    The question was whether or not someone would invest in it. Bigelow has been doing so, and continues to. He will have customers when they can get transportation to his facilities, which will occur in the next two or three years assuming that the administration’s plans go through (and perhaps even if not –SpaceX will continue to develop Dragon regardless).

  • googaw

    I have a ton of lunar regolith, I sell a gram, guess what the asset value is for the rest of it that I get to carry on my books? What is the loan value against it.?

    I’d say it’s worth a few years in the pen for accounting fraud. Unless you work for NASA in which case it’s all in a day’s work.

  • googaw

    He will have customers

    Yup, and I’m gonna win the lottery. Will you loan me some money until that wonderful day?

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Ev
    What I would like to know, and if you don’t have direct knowledge don’t answer, what makes up that price and what studies have been don on how to significantly reduce that cost…

    Rand hit most of it.

    There are two problems which drive shuttle cost (and any shuttle derv.) through the roof.

    The first is the standing army which is required to support it and the second is the low flight rate, which cannot get any higher, unless there is more of the standing army. this is coupled with the inability to “reuse” most of the hardware…it is refurbished mostly and the insane flight rules that the organization (NASA has to fly it).

    It is not much more complicated then that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    ” the second is the low flight rate, which cannot get any higher, unless there is more of the standing army. ”

    And I believe (note believe) that increased flight rates eats up the safety as well, probably related to the standing army also though.

  • Yup, and I’m gonna win the lottery. Will you loan me some money until that wonderful day?

    Bob Bigelow is many things, but a stupid businessman he is not. He didn’t inherit his fortune.

  • And I believe (note believe) that increased flight rates eats up the safety as well, probably related to the standing army also though.

    There is an optimal flight rate for Shuttle safety. Note: this means that too low can be a problem as well as too high. One of the reasons it’s dumb to only do a couple flights a year.

  • common sense

    “this means that too low can be a problem as well as too high”

    I surely agree since at the very least you need to keep all the crews (Shuttle and ground) current with all the rules and processes. They can certainly run sims but there is nothing like real life experience for ops.

  • red

    Stephen Metschan: “below are my comments concerning the new link below which contains a much more detailed modification to NASA Compromise Budget to the President’s FY11 NASA budget proposals.”

    I haven’t had a chance to look through this closely, so take the comments for what they’re worth – a quick run-through, mainly of “Compromise – WO Plus Up”.

    Stephen Metschan: “So this scenario carries through the serious policy mismatch in the President’s FY11 proposal of increase funding for research on the ISS while limiting the supply need to achieve that capability let alone incorporate the new activities arising from the Advanced Technology or Technology Demonstration initiatives now to be performed at the ISS.”

    I wouldn’t be surprised if 1 additional shuttle mission is given the go-ahead, which would somewhat help the ISS supply needs.

    I’d imagine that some of the technology demonstration missions won’t be done at the ISS at all. Others will probably take several years to prepare to the point where they’re ready for launch to the ISS. By that time we might imagine that the COTS cargo vendors will be ready.

    It will be interesting to see how the more ambitious plans for ISS work out with COTS cargo (plus foreign vehicles, of course), assuming STS shutdown. I haven’t seen any detailed analysis of the implications of adding more to the ISS plans in terms of cargo without STS.

    It looks to me like the 3 line items to implement the STS extension, DIRECT launcher, and Orion on DIRECT (Jupiter/Orion Development, Jupiter/Orion Program, and Space Shuttle program) are quite significant when added together. They’re about $10B, $5B, and $4.5B, respectively (just quickly rounding) – about $20B over the 5 years. That has to cut deeply into the 2011 budget plans.

    Stephen Metschan: “We also prevent these [robotic/tech missions] initiatives from growing so large that the starve out the ability to fly them utilizing the Jupiter/Orion systems.”

    I wouldn’t discount the ability of EELVs, Falcons, and similar rockets to fly these types of missions. As a compromise (coming from the other direction from where you’re coming from), I could see a certain amount of reduction in these lines to get other things accomplished like you’re trying to do. The budget hit to this type of mission wouldn’t be as bad as it looks, if, for example, those missions don’t have to pay for some of their launches (since some would be launched via DIRECT rockets). However, that’s only a partial offset, and I personally wouldn’t want to go as far as you did with robotic precursors or exploration tech demos.

    Stephen Metschan: “All three scenarios initiate COTS crew with a funding level more than sufficient to continue the evolution of the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft to full ISS crew rotation capability. It’s important to remember that VSE is a policy initiative that is fundamentally driven by moving beyond LEO not providing an inordinate number of commercial vendors for the limited predominately government demand for crew access to LEO. Dragon (LEO only) and Orion (LEO or Beyond LEO) can more than cover this need.”

    The commercial cargo line is only $0.8B over the 5 years – as you said, maybe enough for SpaceX to deliver. Many of the commercial critics have said that the commercial crew line is underfunded, and that SpaceX in particular is a big risk. They might have a point if SpaceX were the only commercial vendor. I think this reduction (basically eliminating the commercial crew competition) would be a big mistake. We need multiple crew vendors to make sure enough make it, and to make sure they compete against each other (keep each other honest). Big non-ISS markets are not a sure thing, but there are lots of reasons to think they are out there (including non-crew business like satellite launch, labs, etc) – and commercial competitors will do their marketing homework before putting lots of “skin in the game”. The 2011 budget envisions up to 4 competitors, but there would probably be a downselect, so we wouldn’t necessary end up with 4 services in the end. We would also be better of with multiple rockets able to launch a particular crew vehicle, as the 2011 budget envisions.

    Also note that commercial crew could help the ISS cargo problem you noted if it brings new players into the game. For example, EELVs already exist, so maybe the hurdle isn’t too great for them to be ISS cargo suppliers.

    Now, if you’re supporting Orion, you may be able to scale down the commercial crew effort a bit (maybe start with 3 competitors instead of 4), but that’s an incremental cut, not a drastic one like you have.

    Stephen Metschan: “All three scenarios leave unaltered anything in the President’s proposal that is not directly related to the Human Space Flight portion of the NASA budget (ie Science, Aeronautics, Cross-Agency Support, Education etc).”

    Actually, you’ve significantly reduced 2 items in the general space technology account: Game Changing Technology and Technology Demonstration Missions. Those are separate from the Exploration “game changing technology and technology demonstration missions”. They are cross-cutting (affecting multiple NASA areas, other agencies, or private industry). They may affect exploration in some cases, but won’t in many (most?) cases. These technology demonstrators are probably similar to the old New Millenium program. The intent is to partner with other organizations like DARPA to solve multiple organizations’ technology problems at the same time.

    I probably would leave these lines alone like you did with the other similar ones.

    So … I’d probably give back most of commercial crew funds, the space technology funds, and a good chunk of the robotic precursor and exploration tech demo funds. That probably would leave you without enough funds for your plan, though, even if it could be stretched out reasonably.

    I don’t know how you might put it back together if you made those changes. You originally went after Cross-Agency Support. I’ve been thinking about that. That line lost Innovative Partnerships, but it still went up quite a bit (eg: Center Institutional Capabilities). Was that needed? I don’t know the details, to be honest. Will we need so much Cross-Agency Support if IPP is no longer part of it, and we have various commercial partnerships in commercial crew/cargo, technology lines, and so on that perhaps require less overhead (eg: little NASA IT needed)?

    Another possibility would be to remove Orion from the plans, at least from the years in question (or some of them). Would that save enough? Maybe Jupiter could be strictly cargo, at least in the initial several years. Maybe crew get launched on commercial vehicles, and an in-space vehicle gets them beyond LEO (perhaps with Earth landing only in an emergency).

    Maybe we could draw on international participation for some of the work.

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ March 18th, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    ” the second is the low flight rate, which cannot get any higher, unless there is more of the standing army. ”

    And I believe (note believe) that increased flight rates eats up the safety as well, probably related to the standing army also though…

    yes.

    this is complex though.

    There is X number of flights that YYYY(Y) people can do safely. A surge is possible (1 or 2) but after that the safety system goes down a lot.

    The problem is that the shuttle folks never (because they dont understand operational) got to the point where they were able to reduce YYYY(y) people based on operational experience.

    It is a self fulfilling prophecy and goes something like this “Human spaceflight on the shuttle is so expensive that any expense on the ground is worth it because we cannot have failures on flight which makes a shuttle flight more expensive”…

    In the meantime while that is going on, they will do goofy things like launch in the coldest weather on record, even with solid data that the seals seat less well as temp gets lower…with engineers literally begging to not launch …and yet have no problem them spending billions (or lots) to redesign the seals.

    I will be interested to see how they handle the current problem on the pad.

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    I don’t know Rand’s experience but I pretty sure that Oler is just a political operative. CS, I’ll just give you a pass. :-)
    Most of what I’m hearing is about the army it takes to process the orbiters.
    I’m sure someone has done a study to find out the costs to manufacture and process the SRB’s and ET’s and what launch operations would cost on a cargo SDLV.

  • common sense

    “Most of what I’m hearing is about the army it takes to process the orbiters.”

    Fro all I’ve read and sorry I have no referencee I can give you. You’d have to research it for yourself, it is true that the cost of Shuttle mainly lies in the standing army. Remember Shannon’s comments about $200M/month fly or not? So by their own admission NASA is saying the cost of the manpower. Take the $2.4B/yr for the Shuttle and $200K/yr per employee and that gives you about 12,000 employees (if I did that right). So there you have it. Figure how many employees are on payroll. Then what is the cost ofthe hardware actually flying, refurbishing, etc. I believe but don’t know that it must be at leat 1 ordeer of magnitude lower than the $2.4B. Someone probably knows better than I do.

    “I’m sure someone has done a study to find out the costs to manufacture and process the SRB’s and ET’s and what launch operations would cost on a cargo SDLV.”

    Well, yes and I think you can get some of that in the Augustine committee documents. But the trick remains the workforce. That is why a lot of people, me included, believe that even DIRECT will be in that price range. They want to reuse the standing army per Stephen comments. So the $2.4B a year are still there. Now the launcher itself may be less costly than Ares V but if we are lookin at leats 1 order of magnitude difference then it won’t make much of a difference overall.

  • googaw

    Let’s get this straight. We’re supposed to believe that miraculous growth in the HSF market is in the offing because Bob Bigelow believes in it? If so, we’d better believe in space aliens visiting earth, since he’s put money into that idea too:

    http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bigelows_aerospace_and_saucer_emporium/

    The agreement between Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) and MUFON sets up a “Star Team Impact Project” (SIP), with an initial funding period from five months to a year, with the option to renew for a second year. Investigations will be limited to cases where physical effects of a UFO are reported or where “living beings” are allegedly sighted or where “reality transformation” is said to occur.

  • danwithaplan

    The existance of a potential provider like Bigelow, or for that matter SpaceX that many are so anamoured with doesn’t prove there is any sort of intrinsic demand and solvent market behind “commercial” HSF.

  • Let’s get this straight. We’re supposed to believe that miraculous growth in the HSF market is in the offing because Bob Bigelow believes in it?

    No, and I made no such argument. I was simply refuting the statement that no one would invest in it.

  • I don’t know Rand’s experience but I pretty sure that Oler is just a political operative.

    No, he’s far too brainless about politics to be a political operative.

  • googaw

    I was simply refuting the statement that no one would invest in it.

    Actually, the original argument was about deep space HSF or things commonly (but misleadingly) associated with deep space HSF such as ISRU. Not even Bigelow has invested significant amounts in deep space HSF.

    In any case, you were engaged in an argument from authority, namely the authority created by the existence or lack thereof of private investment in the hypothetical non-space-agency HSF markets. You need much better authorities than Bigelow to make that kind of argument.

  • In any case, you were engaged in an argument from authority, namely the authority created by the existence or lack thereof of private investment in the hypothetical non-space-agency HSF markets.

    Again, I wasn’t making an argument at all. I was simply refuting a mistaken opinion (no one would invest in this) with a fact. And Bigelow has been investing in deep space, because that’s the ultimate intent of his modules. One of his near-term goals is an expedition around the moon and back.

  • Robert G. Oler

    MrEarl wrote @ March 19th, 2010 at 8:50 am

    I don’t know Rand’s experience but I pretty sure that Oler is just a political operative..

    thats my friend …the vast majority of my political experience is with losing campaigns…(except my own, I won those four)…of course thinking about it, other then the one time senior senator from Texas…my friend has mostly been associated with losing campaigns as well.

    Robert G. Oler

  • googaw

    Bigelow has been investing in deep space, because that’s the ultimate intent of his modules.

    That’s like saying that Elon Musk intends to make his profits from missions to put greenhouses on Mars. You are confusing motivational aspirations and PR hype with expected financial return. Not that Bigelow hasn’t, both with MUFON and Bigelow Aerospace, probably been motivated more by the former than the latter, despite Bigelow Aerospace being nominally a for-profit company. But these private “philanthrocapitalist” motivations are not evidence for a market. Nor are investments made with the prospect of fat NASA contracts evidence for a market beyond said contracts, despite any and all hype relating the existence of said investments to the supposed existence of said market.

    Really, when you have to stretch this far to find evidence of a possible market you have seriously stretched far beyond the bounds of what rational investors will believe in. You pretend at the moment that you are not making this kind of argument but you have and are and it’s a seriously dodgy one. Why not put all these creative energies you put into making arguments for the same old ritual litany of hypothetical markets into actually trying to discover some new and interesting ones? Like Dennis Wingo. There’s more than a little crank there too but at least he comes up with fascinating and plausible and new ideas. You just repeat tired old Exploration Directorate propaganda.

  • But these private “philanthrocapitalist” motivations are not evidence for a market.

    One more time. Apparently I have to shout to get past this continuing straw man.

    I NEVER SAID THEY WERE EVIDENCE FOR A MARKET.

    Please go argue with your fantasy sparring partner, and stop implying that I said things that I didn’t.

Leave a Reply to googaw 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>