Congress, NASA

Members of Congress praise shuttle “extension”

When shuttle advocates have talked about a shuttle program extension, they usually mean adding additional flights to the manifest, or at least stretching out the remaining flights over an extended period. Delaying the final two shuttle missions by a month and a half (for STS-133) and three months (STS-134), as NASA announced Thursday, doesn’t sound like much of an extension, but for two shuttle advocates in Congress, it’s a start.

“Today’s news that the Shuttle program has been officially extended until at least February of next year is a welcome development that will help preserve jobs and ease the transition for the Space Coast,” Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) said in a statement. And from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “The decision to extend America’s shuttle program by moving these flights will safeguard our nation’s human spaceflight capability while providing needed support and equipment for the International Space Station.”

Both Hutchison and Kosmas would like to see more, but have different end states in mind. Hutchison, in her statement, called for one additional shuttle mission using the “Launch On Need” (LON) hardware that would be used for a rescue mission if there was a problem with STS-134. “The Administration must now work with members of Congress to add the launch-on-need flight as an actual shuttle flight as well,” she said, calling this “an important first step” as Congress and the White House work on “a bipartisan compromise on NASA’s future.” Kosmas also wants to see the LON hardware converted into an additional mission, but she wants more shuttle flights added as well “to fully service and support the extension of the International Space Station through 2020.”

Then there’s the issue of cost. The White House’s FY11 budget proposal included funding for an additional three months of shuttle operations, though the end of calendar year 2010; shuttle managers have since found additional cost savings that can stretch this money into March, enough to cover the rescheduled STS-134 mission. Further delays, or the addition of the LON mission to the manifest, would require more funding. With that additional mission slated for late July or August of 2011, that would require nearly a complete fiscal year’s worth of shuttle funding, which would likely have to come from elsewhere within the agency. All that assumes, though, that there is a final FY11 appropriations at some point in the next year…

222 comments to Members of Congress praise shuttle “extension”

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    Thanks for the comprehensive information, Jeff. I have to admit that I wasn’t aware of how expensive shuttle operations are. Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it looks like adding STS-135 and LON-336 to the manifest might rule out beginning the proposed R & D during FY2011.

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy

    The arcane Federal budget process does allow some costs to be allocated to project A or project B – so the “cost” of a Shuttle mission (for example) can vary from one day to the next. Not surprising that the money has suddenly been found to maintain our Shuttle capability through March of next year. If the mission slips into April, do we think that the money will not be “found”? NASA certainly wants new money for a new STS-135 mission since stretching other budgets to cover that would be very tough. What I wish we could do is insert another Shuttle mission (by moving AMS back to 135 for instance) between now and November. We should just load up STS-133 with whatever would be ready by August and fly it then.

  • Wendy Craft

    ..keep the pork coming folks :)

  • CharlesTheSpaceGuy, I completely agree. If NASA is going to keep paying that huge standing army cost they could at least fly the damn vehicle. This is exactly why they should have canceled the program back on the 80s. The flight rate on Shuttle is not atrocious because it is a fundamentally flawed vehicle that requires constant maintenance and is basically rebuilt on ever flight, that’s bad but it’s not 6 months between flights bad.. that kind of pathetic gap takes a culture that is simply uninterested in even pretending that flight rate is important.

  • Major Tom

    Hutchison and Kosmas are applauding schedule slips due to hardware delays.

    Way to reward good performance.

    Oy vey…

  • MrEarl

    Wait a minute.
    Shuttle operations were not extended because of the wishes by some in congress. This was purely operational for the payload side.
    The Leonardo PMM was not ready for it’s July/August launch and the AMS would not be ready for the planned Sept. launch. This was anticipated in the FY’ll budget and accounted for. Once the launch dates were pushed out you have to take into account other launches to the ISS and by the eastern range and thats how we have the dates in November and Feb. ’11.

    But since we’ll have a shuttle prepared for LON anyway……

  • MrEarl, a culture interested in flight rate would ensure they have backup payloads ready to fly.

  • MrEarl

    Trent, the shuttle team was tasked with the deliverables a while ago on a set schedule. You have to take into account the storage abilities of the ISS and training so you can’t just load a shuttle up and shoot it off. ISS managers have identified supplies that would be needed in the July/August ’11 time frame that could take advantage of an additional shuttle flight.

  • MrEarl, complete bollocks. You’re being baffled by bureaucratic bullshit.

  • MrEarl

    Look at this…. a software developer complaining about delays!

    If you REALLY follow what’s happening in the the space industry you would know about this delay months ago.

  • MrEarl, and months ago I was saying they should have another payload ready.

    Now please, if you can’t argue the point, take your apologist excuses and personal attacks elsewhere.

  • MrEarl

    It’s not that easy Trent. I defended my position you just refuse believe that this delay can be anything else than incompetence or conspiracy.

    Since you know so much more than the rest of us what could they have substituted for the July/Aug launch and how would that have impacted the schedule of orbiter processing, ET’s, SRB’s ect.?

  • Gary Church

    “Hutchison and Kosmas are applauding schedule slips due to hardware delays.

    Way to reward good performance.”

    I guess it is better to throw the pressure on to make or save a buck and kill astronauts with that pressure to launch, Right Tom? We are probably going to see alot of that with private space.

  • Ben Joshua

    A delay in extension’s clothing. Stock in trade for a politician. In this case, pretty thin stuff, and as it turns out, pretty expensive.

    I’m guessing the general public is unaware of the “standing army” concept. One can hope that someday launch activities among several companies, DOD and NASA will be high enough (when costs come down) to allow for “journeyman” support workers, cross trained, to go from one pre-launch or post-flight to the next, regardless of vehicle or mission.

  • MrEarl, there is plenty of payload waiting to be taken to the station that may never be. Ask anyone who works on the ISS program if they have enough flights. The problem here is not “incompetence or conspiracy”, it is institutionalized red tape backed up by complete disinterest in efficiency – something that I hope everyone is capable of recognizing as the hallmark of the modern NASA.

  • Gary Church

    “allow for “journeyman” support workers, cross trained, ”

    Yes, cheaper is better, do more with less- and get people killed. This is how it works in aerospace, everyone has a “new” idea how to cut corners and make more money and they always end up killing people and then it is back to square one. Your risk management strategy gets an F.

  • MrEarl

    Trent, you have direct knowledge of this because……….

  • Gary Church

    “I’m guessing the general public is unaware of the “standing army” concept.”

    And I am guessing you have no idea what you are talking about. Every large organization has a “standing army” or they would not be a large organization. Even the Army. The New York City PD is bigger than the U.S. Coast Guard- so I guess that makes the NYPD a “standing army” that needs to be done away with. You think you can tow the old rocket out in the field and light it with a match and be on your way?

  • @ Ben Joshua wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 10:38 am

    I agree. Komas and KH are grasping at pork-rinds here.

  • red

    No wonder Constellation has so much support in certain corners of Congress. If they’re this excited about Shuttle delays, imagine how wonderful Constellation’s endless potential for expensive delays must seem to them! I wonder what they think of trains that don’t show up on time, or road construction work in their home regions that goes on and on and on.

    It couldn’t be clearer: we can have a space program (FY2011 is one variant of this possibility), or we can have a jobs program.

  • Gary Church

    “or we can have a jobs program.”

    You want something for nothing and you have been conned into thinking private space and soyuz is that something for nothing.

    I could not be clearer: we are throwing away the most powerful and fully developed heavy lift hardware on planet earth (SRB,SSME’ and ET) in exchange for a kerosene cluster that has yet fly anything but a dummy load and rides from the Russians at tens of millions of tax dollars a seat.

    It is still a jobs program- but instead of your space agency with your tax dollars it is Share holder dividend checks and Russian paychecks- all out of yours. No wonder the politicians think we are so stupid.

  • Gary Church

    And if you want to argue about SpaceX being privately funded, better look at the original space act; the government (we the people) owned all the patents until Reagan gave it away to his cronies. All this technology was not developed privately, it was stolen from us for political gain and handed over to companies to charge money for. How much of SpaceX is government funded? How much more of it will be funded with our tax dollars? Then our tax dollars will be paying for the seats to ISS also. Pretty sweet deal. All for a simple campaign contribution. How about that one million pound kerosene engine NASA is going to develop? I don’t suppose that is going to go on the Falcon eventually? Another sweet deal.

    So much for “private” space.

  • Vladislaw

    “The New York City PD is bigger than the U.S. Coast Guard- so I guess that makes the NYPD a “standing army” that needs to be done away with.”

    The standing army at NASA is supposed to launch shuttles, when shuttles are not launching they are doing nothing. The city of NY doesn’t say “okay we have a problem so we are not going to fight crime for six months and everyone just come in and sit around until the problem goes away”

    A VERY bad anology.

  • Gary Church

    “when shuttles are not launching they are doing nothing.”

    No, that is a lie.

    And if you are saying the shuttle program stands around more the NYPD- no one is going to believe that. I sure don’t.

  • Gary Church

    “The standing army at NASA is supposed to launch shuttles”

    I understand they have launched over a hundred.
    Would you like to call in migrant ” cross-trained journeymen support workers from mexico and put them up in trailers with portable toilets for launches? That would save some money, huh?

  • Vladislaw

    Gary when was the last time the NYPD stood down for 2 – 3 years because of a police car crashing and killing the police officers who were inside it at the time? When was the last time that the entire NYPD had a shutdown because of rain?

    In the last 30 years of shuttle launches 60% of all delayed launches were because of the weather, I do not recall any news reports of the NYPD getting shut down because of rain/hail/hurricanes.

  • Gary Church

    Well Vlad, you might want to consider the LAPD and why can’t we all just get along. And I seem to recall a shortage of New Orleans PD around during Katrina. Are you blaming the shuttle guys for bad weather or what? What is your point?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    no in fact CSI NY would have a police cruiser crash solved in oh 1 hour (or less)…

    and with good music

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    And by the way, both shuttle losses were due to underfunding and pressure to launch and fear of getting fired for not making or saving a buck. All of this is going to be more of an issue in private space than it ever was in NASA.

  • amightywind

    NASA should go ahead and restart the Michaud tank factory. NASA has been so demoralized by the nutty Bolsheviks running it that the best thing they could do for the next few years is maintain the status quo. In 2012 a Republican should be able to accelerate Constellation.

    Today we hear that the incompetent Russians have blown a resupply mission. A harbinger bad days to come on the Space Station Freedom.

  • Vladislaw

    I am not blaming them for bad weather, I blame the politicans for putting a launch pad in the middle of hurricane alley because of florida pork votes and NASA refusing to launch from there because of the insane costs for delays over the last 30 years due to weather. It is not like this was unpredicatable. Why do you think Blue Origins chose a near desert in texas to launch from? At 200 million a month for personal costs how many Lunar probes could have been sent?

    NASA should be buying SERVICES, and not at cost plus. With a 10 billion a year for HSF budget, what could NASA be buying from the private sector with that kind of ka ching!

    For example Bigelow Aerospace will lease a BA 330 for 88 million a year. 35 million to house an astronaut for 6 months and pay for the flight to the station. For 596 million a year NASA could lease two BA330’s and keep them manned with 12 people per year. Two six person crews on station 6 months at a time.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    And by the way, both shuttle losses were due to underfunding and pressure to launch and fear of getting fired for not making or saving a buck….

    that is not accurate…in fact it is a falsehood

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Today’s problem at the ISS with an aborted automated docking of a Russian supply craft only bolsters support for extending shuttle operations.

  • DCSCA

    that is not accurate…in fact it is a falsehood <- no it's not. But you go on beleiving it is.

  • MrEarl

    Vlad:
    “I am not blaming them for bad weather, I blame the politicans for putting a launch pad in the middle of hurricane alley because of florida pork votes and NASA refusing to launch from there because of the insane costs for delays over the last 30 years due to weather. It is not like this was unpredicatable. Why do you think Blue Origins chose a near desert in texas to launch from? At 200 million a month for personal costs how many Lunar probes could have been sent?”
    The Kennedy space center was placed on government owned land in Florida for a number of good reasons.
    1: not a good idea to drop boosters the size of the Saturn V first stage anywhere near a populated area.
    2: It would take advantage of land that the government already owned.
    3: It would take advantage of the Air Force facilities next door for range safety and other operations.
    4: If there is a malfunction the destruct would take place over the water away from populated areas and the command module would land in the water for which it was designed.
    These are just a few of the obvious reasons why the Kennedy space center was chosen in the early ’60’s.
    As for the shuttle NASA did not have the money to duplicate these facilities some place else so that’s why the shuttle launches from there today.
    “NASA should be buying SERVICES, and not at cost plus. With a 10 billion a year for HSF budget, what could NASA be buying from the private sector with that kind of ka ching!”
    Right now…….. nothing. Best estimates are for commercial HFS in 4 years with the most likely availability in 6 years.

    Windy:
    “Today we hear that the incompetent Russians have blown a resupply mission. A harbinger bad days to come on the Space Station Freedom.”
    One small glitch in what has so far been a very reliable track record for the Progress. They may still recover and try again.

  • All of this is going to be more of an issue in private space than it ever was in NASA.

    Private space companies aren’t as stupid as you are. They know that killing people is bad for business. Whereas NASA gets funding increases when they do it.

  • MrEarl

    Rand:
    “Private space companies aren’t as stupid as you are. They know that killing people is bad for business.”
    Too bad no one told that to Ford when they calculated that it would be cheaper to pay the settlements with victims than to fix the gas tank problem with the Pinto.
    Private space companies will be under the same launch pressures as NASA, maybe more when contract renewal is on the line. Private companies can fall victim to “launch fever” just the same as NASA can.

  • Too bad no one told that to Ford when they calculated that it would be cheaper to pay the settlements with victims than to fix the gas tank problem with the Pinto.

    And what do you know, it was bad for business.

    Do you really think that SpaceX and ULA are not acutely aware of the consequences of killing passengers?

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    prove it…I can

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 pm

    Today’s problem at the ISS with an aborted automated docking of a Russian supply craft only bolsters support for extending shuttle operations…

    no it doesnt, indeed the shuttle couldnt launch “now” if it had to

    Robert G. Oler

  • MrEarl

    Rand:
    Oh no, I’m sure they are, or will be, but after a few successful flights, a little complacency sets in, add some launch pressure, mistakes will be made.
    Their performance will be no better or worse than NASA.
    Another Pinto scenario happening right now would be the BP Deep Water Horizon. Companies put profits ahead of safety all the time.

  • JASW

    I am not blaming them for bad weather, I blame the politicans for putting a launch pad in the middle of hurricane alley because of florida pork votes and NASA refusing to launch from there because of the insane costs for delays over the last 30 years due to weather. It is not like this was unpredicatable. Why do you think Blue Origins chose a near desert in texas to launch from? At 200 million a month for personal costs how many Lunar probes could have been sent?

    If you knew anything about launch vehicles, and you obviously don’t, you would know that the more equatorial your launch site, the better. For one, there is a substantial boost from the Earth’s rotation, and for another, you cannot easily launch to inclinations below your lattitude. Launching to inclinations above your lattitude is trivial, as long as the range is clear. Blue Origin (get the name right), is launching suborbital rockets, and can therefore launch wherever they please. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, kindly stay silent.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- ” Private space companies aren’t as stupid as you are. They know that killing people is bad for business.” Hmmmm. Which explains why the automobile industry fought installing seat belts in cars for years because it cut into profits as opposed top saving lives. Good grief. Wash that Tucker.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 4:32 pm <- yes, it does. But you go on believing otherwise.

    And by the way, both shuttle losses were due to underfunding and pressure to launch and fear of getting fired for not making or saving a buck…. <– these were indeed factors, not solely responsible, but contributory. But you go on believing otherwise. It's entertaining to observe.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    If they were factors it is the same as saying “I got out of bed so the car accident can be blamed on that.”

    Sorry you dont know much at all about Challenger or Columbia’s last flights if you even give accusations like that a passing thought. The foundation failures were far more serious

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 pm This writer does. Read the reports. =sigh= But you go on believing poor, complacement management, canibalizing spacecraft for parts wasn’t a factor. Go ahead. It’s amusing and entertainining to read.

  • DCSCA

    @MrEarl wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 4:35 pm <– Remember, the primary objective of a private space corporation, or any other private enterprised venture, is to turn a profit for its investors and shareholders.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 5:10 pm

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 5:00 pm This writer does. Read the reports. =sigh= But you go on believing poor, complacement management, canibalizing spacecraft for parts wasn’t a factor…

    first off it was not a factor in either Columbia or Challenger.

    The SRB’s were remans but of course they all are…the O rings everything else that failed were new. Same with Columbia on the RCC.

    In both instances NASA was flying with a known “problem”…that there were coherent arguments against flying and those arguments were ignored. In the case of Columbia the arguments that there “was a problem” were ignored.

    To claim that there were parts etc issues is to show your lack of knowledge in the situation.

    Robert g. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    “first off it was not a factor in either Columbia or Challenger.

    I wrote that and it should have been “first off none of the issues of parts or cost were a factor in either Columbia or challenger.”

    the editor regrets the error

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    Gary Church wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    And by the way, both shuttle losses were due to underfunding and pressure to launch and fear of getting fired for not making or saving a buck….
    that is not accurate…in fact it is a falsehood

    I am sorry Mr. Oler but all 3 books I have read on the shuttle program, and the CAIB report, all say the same things. Underfunded to start with, funding cuts, military requirements, pressure to launch, fear of failure- why are you calling me and half the planet liars?

  • Derrick

    Oink oink oink! Shameless…just friggin’ shameless.

  • Gary Church

    “But you go on believing otherwise. It’s entertaining to observe.”

    Right, I will believe you and your phantom sidemount “hypersonic data” over three people who spent years studying the program, and the official investigation. Sure.

  • Remember, the primary objective of a private space corporation, or any other private enterprised venture, is to turn a profit for its investors and shareholders.

    Yes, and it’s hard to turn a profit when people won’t buy your product because it kills people. On, the other hand, NASA gets budget increases when they do so.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    nice that you have associated “half the planet” with your viewpoints…but given your statements on other things, it does not surprise me that you have misread the various reports or concentrated on the things you have liked to hear

    Robert G. Oler

  • Gary Church

    I am sorry you feel that way Mr. Oler, but 4 different sources tell me that I am right and you are championing an idea that does not tolerate anything not profit driven. The shuttle was underfunded and that drove it into weight restrictions and requirements that determined it’s configuration with no escape system- and the profit motive and the associated fear of not making or saving a buck drove the pressure to launch and destroyed challenger. If they had waited for a warmer day….

    As for Columbia, it was fear of failure and pressure to save a buck that again caused lives to be lost. That is the short story. What do you think it was Mr. Oler?

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg-“Yes, and it’s hard to turn a profit when people won’t buy your product because it kills people.” <– ROFLMAO… or perhaps it should be LSMFT (Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco.) You might want to walk around the halls of Philip Morris with your statement taped to your back. Hmmm. Guess you've never heard of the highly profitable American enterprise called the tobacco industry. Take five, smoke'em if ya got 'em… and wash that Tucker.

  • Why must every conversation on here devolve into stupidity?

    DCSCA, grow up.

  • John Malkin

    “Today’s news that the Shuttle program has been officially extended until at least February of next year is a welcome development that will help preserve jobs and ease the transition for the Space Coast,” Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL) said in a statement. And from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX): “The decision to extend America’s shuttle program by moving these flights will safeguard our nation’s human spaceflight capability while providing needed support and equipment for the International Space Station.”

    This just makes me sick. This is typical political rhetoric like NASA has any control over its programs. They want to blame NASA for cancelling shuttle when it was Congress all along. Can Congress at least fake they care about America’s future?

  • DCSCA

    Trent Waddington wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 9:20 pm <- you must drive the Edsel. If you're going to be a proponent of 'private enterprise' you best start understanding what's at stake– and in the space industry it's about turning a profit for your investors, not some grand, fluffy idea of colonizing Mars for the benefit of mankind.

  • DCSCA

    Extending shuttle through the elections makes perfect sense from a political POV. Discovery is penciled in to fly Nov., 1, the day before Election Day. Coincidence– or perhaps NASA PR at work, no doubt.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm

    Private space companies will be under the same launch pressures as NASA, maybe more when contract renewal is on the line. Private companies can fall victim to “launch fever” just the same as NASA can.

    DCSCA wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    Which explains why the automobile industry fought installing seat belts in cars for years because it cut into profits as opposed top saving lives.

    The industry to compare commercial space to is charter airlines.

    The automobile industry builds a product, and only needs to convince you to buy it. What you do with it is your business, including using it in unintended ways (like getting into an unsafe crash). Customers that die wouldn’t buy another car anyways, so why cater to them. The ones that don’t die, well they had a good experience, and are targets for buying another car way sooner than they need/should.

    Charter transportation companies live off their reputations, whether that be for service or price, but if they don’t deliver their customers, they don’t have a business.

    Now some pithy person may say “yea, but I heard XYZ charter company crashed and killed everyone”. Does that prove that private companies cannot be trusted with your business? Should you stop flying commercial airlines because one crashed? The answer is no, and though everyone strives for safety, accidents will happen.

    NASA found astronauts to fly the Shuttle after Challenger, and they found them again even after Columbia. The same will be true for commercial crew.

  • Robert,

    I’m sure that Gary Church is right to claim 1/2 the planet is with him. But of course that 50% comes from the 2/3 covered by water. Which means, as usual, he’s all wet.

    DCSCA,

    There’s a big difference between a product that takes 30-40 years to kill its customer and a rocket that blows up all at once. Yes, some companies are evil and stupid, but that’s not unique to the private sector. And since all of you anti-commercial zealots like to point out that no private company has/can currently launch a person into orbit, I guess I can just add that no private company has killed anyone in space yet either. Both statements are meaningless rhetoric, but at least I admit it.

    – Jim

  • Vladislaw

    “The Kennedy space center was placed on government owned land in Florida for a number of good reasons.
    1: not a good idea to drop boosters the size of the Saturn V first stage anywhere near a populated area.”

    I specifically said the last thirty years, 30 years ago the United States wasn’t launching Saturn V’s. Don’t argue apples and oranges.

    “If you knew anything about launch vehicles, and you obviously don’t, you would know that the more equatorial your launch site, the better. For one, there is a substantial boost from the Earth’s rotation, and for another, you cannot easily launch to inclinations below your lattitude. Launching to inclinations above your lattitude is trivial, as long as the range is clear”

    Gosh, that must be why Russia doesn’t launch, they are not close to the equator. I do understand that, and when Apollo was in operation and NASA was worried about every ounce of weight it mattered. I wonder if that is why the Ariane launches from were it does.

    The point being, we are not in the apollo era and pork shouldn’t determine the optimal launch point, weather wise, especially when those weather delays cost towards billions over the course of 30 years of shuttle ops.

    To try and argue that NASA, after 50 years, couldn’t be launching a small rocket for routine manned LEO operations like clock work from the most optimal launch site is beyond silly. But of course a small, cheap rocket and capsule would never even be considered by NASA because you would not need an army to launch and maintain it.

  • Boys, let’s just get freaking on with it: Let’s do the next OBVIOUS step in humankind’s utilization of the cosmos; Let’s Return To The Moon!!!! You CANNOT emplace viable bases and building structures on asteroids!! And why would you want to, anytime in the 21st century, anyway?? Have you all reviewed in your minds the sheer lengths of these huge multi-months-long treks through stark & gloomy interplanetary space that we’d have to subject astronauts through, in order to reach an asteroid?? Where the freak is the reward & return in that crusade?? All this nonsense being seriously placed on the table, just to avoid dealing with the Moon?! What kind of sci-fi, Trekkie smoke trip is all this?? Whatever there is for NASA to do at & on asteroids, trust me: Robotic probes can do it better!!

  • DCSCA

    @JimMunsey <- "you anti-commercial zealots…" Speak for yourself. Zealotry is clearly the province of private rocketeers, seasoned with a hefty dose of delusions of grandeur. And although you may dislike the point that a private company can profit from peddling a product that can possibly kill you, it is an apt analogy with respect to RS's absurd assertion. This writer is on record encouraging and welcoming the efforts of private space ventures– just not at the expense of government funded and managed manned space programs– not in this era. Maybe 100 – 150 years from now, but not today.

    Nothing is stopping private space companies from conqueoring the cosmos, filling the heavens with spacecraft full of 'tourists' and satellites turning profits on ever orbit; nothing except the very 'free market' they're trying to peddle these out-of-this-world goods and services to at out-of-this-world prices. There simply isn't the market demand for it in this era that can attract the kind of capital investment needed to return a profit to investors and sustain it. And the 80-plus year history of rocketry has shown that 'private industry' has not led the way to space, but been a constant Johnny-come-lately to it, cashing in after the fact. It was a facist government funding in the '30's that developed and exploited rocket science into a 'practical' technology, not 'private enterprise.' It was a socialist government which furthered rocket development and lofted the first satellite in 1957– again, it was not a privately funded enterprise– and the response in the West was a government funded rocket program, not private enterprise, which had ample resources in the Free World's 'free market' to respond.

    Conestoga 1 was the first successsful private rocket launched and that was nearly 30 years ago. Not much has happened since. What is stopping private industry from expanding into this field is the very market place it seeks to sell its goods and services to. Which is why government funded and managed space programs have been successful for the past half century in getting people off this planet, not private industry. Governments can generate the resources relatively quickly, run the risks and absorb the costs of failure. Investors in quarterly driven private enterprised rocket companies with investors expecting a profitable return on that investment simply cannot– or will not assume that kind of risk in with such a limited demand at this point in our history.

  • DCSCA

    @CoastalRon- “The industry to compare commercial space to is charter airlines.” Who says, you? Any business that produces a product, goods and services with investors who expect a profitable return on that investment is a fair comparison. Private rocketeers are trying to peddle their goods and services to a limited market historied with risk and costs that outweigh a highly profitable returns on the investment to investors. They can make more money investing in offshore oil drilling than backing private rocketeers.

  • Chris, the purpose of the missions to asteroid “destinations” in the proposed NASA plan is more akin to Apollo 8 than Apollo 11.

    Have you all reviewed in your minds the sheer lengths of these huge multi-months-long treks through stark & gloomy interplanetary space that we’d have to subject astronauts through, in order to reach an asteroid??

    Just one ? will do. Yes, yes we have.. it’s called “deep space exploration” and mastering it is exactly what NASA needs to be doing… building an ISS on the Moon is not.

  • Brian Paine

    Chris Castro, you are absolutely right in terms of SCIENCE. The problem is the bleeding obvious is out of political favour. What is the measure of intellect, political or otherwise, that is satisfied with having “got there first!”
    2001 did not become reality as the funds were needed for war. The profit from that debacle in human terms still sickens me, and please I do not need some smarty pants quoting history to me that I actually lived!
    NASA is one of your greatest invesents, and while that is not an excuse for pouring money down the drain (as is the DOD) It should not be mortgaged to visionless parties of any “ilk.”

  • DCSCA

    Chris Castro wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 4:31 am <- The moon is just a logical next . Getting people to think and move along those lines… well… that's asking for the moon. ;-)

  • DCSCA

    @TrentWaddington “the purpose of the missions to asteroid “destinations” in the proposed NASA plan is more akin to Apollo 8 than Apollo 11.

    Nonsense– and frankly, that’s an insult to the achievements of Apollo’s 8 & 11. This kind of pie-in-the- sky, lassoing asteroid fantasies you advocate is in the family of space elevators and space solar sails. It’s NASA dweeb silly stuff and simply not pragmatic or practical today.

    “Yes, yes we have.. it’s called “deep space exploration” and mastering it is exactly what NASA needs to be doing… building an ISS on the Moon is not.”

    Rubbish– plenty of university consortiums around the world to lease telescopes and/or pool resources to poke and probe the asteroids of ‘deep space.’ Besides, NASA has shown a ‘mastery’ of deep space probing thanks to the Voyagers and their descendants. Of more practical value to the human species right now is exploring and perfecting space operations on, to and from Earth’s moon, not some geeked up nebulous ‘deep space’ probing.

  • DCSCA, I really don’t know what you’re talking about.. could you please at least try to make your posts coherent?

    Tell me, have you even read a single paper on manned missions to NEAs?

  • Brian Paine

    Trent, thanks, absolute agreement.
    Good to see banana benders still have it!

  • Gary Church

    “I’m sure that Gary Church is right to claim 1/2 the planet is with him. But of course that 50% comes from the 2/3 covered by water. Which means, as usual, he’s all wet.”

    Well, that half of the planet with half a brain, which does not include you. obviously.

  • Gary Church

    Gary Church wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 2:10 pm
    “And by the way, both shuttle losses were due to underfunding and pressure to launch and fear of getting fired for not making or saving a buck….
    that is not accurate…in fact it is a falsehood”
    Robert G. Oler

    You signed your name to it Mr. Oler, and other people are calling me a liar now also. But you do not seem to have anything else to say.

  • Gary Church

    “could you please at least try to make your posts coherent?

    Tell me, have you even read a single paper on manned missions to NEAs?”

    They might be coherent and you are the one is incoherent and he might not have read the same single paper you did.

    I don’t know which one of you I find more irritating. But anyway, it is pretty funny how you know it all’s continue to just ignore what space travel is all about; it’s not the economy, it’s the radiation. The space industry is a nuclear industry.

    The moon would not be interesting because it is a significant gravity well except for the fact there is ice in those craters at the poles. And water is an effective radiation shield when there is several feet of it between the human body and cosmic radiation. Those several feet surrounding a living space for a crew translate into several thousand tons.

    You cannot haul several thousand tons of water up from the earth…well you could, but that would be stupid if you could get it somewhere else.
    If you can get it from an Asteroid it would be better than the moon.

    Pushing those thousands of tons of water around the solar system cannot be done with chemical propulsion. It requires nuclear propulsion.

    The only Nuclear propulsion system that has high thrust and high ISP numbers is Nuclear Pulse Propulsion. Bombs.

    The only way to build a pulse engine- a big plate with shock absorbers- is in big monolithic pieces. That requires HLV’s. No way around it.

    So these elements I have described- nuclear devices and HLV’s- are obviously not in the private space business plan. And nobody who posts here seems to like that at all.

  • Gary Church

    “Oink oink oink! Shameless…just friggin’ shameless.”

    I try to respond to these classy remarks with facts -like NASA is faucet running while the DOD in Niagra Falls.

    by Winslow T. Wheeler
    UPI Outside View Commentator
    Washington (UPI) Apr 04, 2006
    With 2,966 examples costing about $11.1 billion, the pork in the 2006 DOD’s new Defense Appropriations Bill, now law, is not hard to find. There are examples in almost every “title” of the bill, including parts most would probably hope to be pork-free.

  • Martijn Meijering

    When SpaceX suffers delays, they are criticised as being immature. When the Shuttle has a delay, it is a vital contribution to manned spaceflight.

  • Bennett

    DCSCA wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 4:38 am Nothing is stopping private space companies from conqueoring (sic) the cosmos, filling the heavens with spacecraft full of ‘tourists’ and satellites turning profits on ever orbit; nothing except the very ‘free market’ they’re trying to peddle these out-of-this-world goods and services to at out-of-this-world prices. There simply isn’t the market demand for it in this era that can attract the kind of capital investment needed to return a profit to investors and sustain it.

    Until recently, there was plenty stopping it. The culture of NASA was not in line with their charter, there wasn’t really the kind of support for anyone trying to break into the commercial launch business, and certainly the big defense contractors were doing everything they could through lobbying and dirty tricks (Conestoga 1620 “an unknown source of low frequency noise caused the guidance system to order course corrections when none were needed, eventually causing the steering mechanism to run out of hydraulic fluid.”) to maintain the status quo of their highly profitable cost plus government contracts.

    It took visionaries like Elon Musk and Robert Bigelow, folks willing to invest their personal fortunes (and possessing the tenacity to fight the system), to finally break through the barriers to private space programs.

    SpaceX has proved you wrong about the market, as they have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of launch contracts, have been profitable for at least 3 years, and are ramping up their company to become the largest producer of rocket motors this world has ever seen.

    Bigelow Aerospace is poised to offer services to one and all, LEO facilities that will provide the world’s first truly commercial space habitats. The next 5 years look pretty good despite the likely hard times we have ahead. Since NASA has shown that they are not capable of putting together a manned space program on time and within budget, it’s time to let the folks who really want to get it done have a shot at it.

    You may believe that only a 100% government funded launch vehicle will do to advance HSF, but your opinion is just that. Many folks who work in the industry, or report on it, disagree with you. So no matter how snarky or insulting you get, you won’t change a thing, and other than the inevitable rebuttals to your bitter comments by folks who think there IS a future without a NASA LV, you add very little to the discussion.

  • Gary Church

    Bennet,
    You are intimating some kind of conspiracy against private space?
    That “fighting the system” as you put it is so noble?
    Any one with different opinion adds very little to the discussion?
    NASA is incapable?

    I do not know what to say to your post except the U.S. needs an HLV and the Kerosene cluster and blow up tents are not much of a space program. Cheap rockets putting up satellites but not a human space flight program. I can only call it advertising.

  • Gary Church

    “This kind of pie-in-the- sky, lassoing asteroid fantasies you advocate is in the family of space elevators and space solar sails. It’s NASA dweeb silly stuff and simply not pragmatic or practical today.”

    Sometimes DCSCA makes a little sense, more than Kelly Starks anyway. And very rarely Waddington says something interesting. But most of the time everyone is off the mark. Asteroids are not in the family of space elevators and solar sails. Asteroids are the future of man in space. They are where the easy resources are. Not at the bottom of gravity wells like Mars- and even the Moon has a significant well. The only advantage the moon has is it is close and has ice at the poles and is possibly a site for some nuclear material processing down the road.

    Everyone on this site has their own agenda, their own plan they would like to see happen. Me included. But for some reason I seem to be the only one that is addressing some big problems with real solutions. No one else will touch them. Everyone just wants to argue about “little things.”

    It just proves that the space industry is going nowhere when people who have an interest in space will not address the fundamental problem.

    Radiation; it is the main issue and no one has much to say about it except me. Which kind of makes me smarter than all you rocket managers and economic genius’s and astrophysicists put together. Bring it on.

  • Gary Church

    “Charter transportation companies live off their reputations, whether that be for service or price, but if they don’t deliver their customers, they don’t have a business.”

    I would say any transportation company lives off of destinations- places they can transport people or goods to. The private space business has one destination so far; the ISS. That is a 100 billion dollar tourist trap courtesy of our tax dollars. One good solar event (and they are on the way) and the ISS will have to be evacuated and most of it’s equipment will be zapped. I predict it will be abandoned. Then where will private space go? Bigelow blow up tents? There is more to living in space than inflatable a tent in a vacuum. I am not optimistic about HSF without true spaceships that can weather solar storms, protect against cosmic radiation, provide artificial gravity, and have the speed and endurance to go on voyages to the outer solar system lasting a couple years. Spaceships like this must be built in space, must be propelled by atomic bombs, must spin to generate artificial gravity, and must have thousands, possibly tens of thousands of tons of water for shielding and life support. Now first off, this is going to require HLV’s with a hydrogen upper stage. Second it will require nuclear weapon-like devices. Private space is not up to it.

  • Gary Church

    it does not surprise me that you have misread the various reports or concentrated on the things you have liked to hear

    Robert G. Oler
    Gary Church wrote @ July 2nd, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    I am sorry you feel that way Mr. Oler, but 4 different sources tell me that I am right and you are championing an idea that does not tolerate anything not profit driven. The shuttle was underfunded and that drove it into weight restrictions and requirements that determined it’s configuration with no escape system- and the profit motive and the associated fear of not making or saving a buck drove the pressure to launch and destroyed challenger. If they had waited for a warmer day….

    As for Columbia, it was fear of failure and pressure to save a buck that again caused lives to be lost. That is the short story. What do you think it was Mr. Oler?

    other people are calling me a liar now also. But you do not seem to have anything else to say.

  • John Malkin

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 11:00 am

    When SpaceX suffers delays, they are criticised as being immature. When the Shuttle has a delay, it is a vital contribution to manned spaceflight.

    I agree with this comment completely.

  • Gary Church

    OK. Someone else has repeated it. But I never heard anyone say the shuttle has a delay, it is a vital contribution- or spaceX called immature. Hyperbole? Figures of speech? Metaphor?

    Specify or own up to false advertising or say something besides, “I agree.”

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am – “Until recently, there was plenty stopping it.”

    Nonsense. It’s a big planet with plenty of places for ‘private enterprise’ to buy/lease sites (on land or sea) construct launch complexes and necessary support facilities for private rocketeers to get flying. ‘Blaming NASA’ (or hinting at some conspiritorial sabotage is at work) for holding the private sector back from space operations is poor mouthing, excuse making– and a bit childish. It’s not the big bad government ‘NASA’ but the cold calculus of the ‘free market’ that has shown minimal demand for the services offered at the costs needed to provide those services that holds private space rocketeers back. Wake up and smell the coffee. If you’re going to advocate Reaganomics styled ‘free market capitalism’ as the fuel to thrust private rocketry into the forefront of space ‘exploitation’ and ‘exploration’ you best start understanding the parameters of it. And attempts by any high risk private sector industry to privatize profits for investors and socialize the loss on the backs of taxpayers isn’t very popular as the Age of Austerity approaches. The history of rocketry in the past century should show you that ‘private enterprise’ has not led the way into space because, among other reasons, there’s a limited market for it and the risks and return on investment do not outweigh the largess of the capital investment. That’s why governments do it.

    “Many folks who work in the industry, or report on it, disagree with you.”

    Great! You’ve had well over half a century of government operations, paid for at taxpayers expense, which absorbed the costs and losses of a risky R&D industry; the kind of costs private industry strives to avoid, to show you what and what not to do–so get flying and make some money for investors. But what’s stopping you today is is the very ‘free market’ you want to sell these ‘goods and services’ to. There simply isn’t enough demand for them at current costs. Which is why your so-called, ‘visionary’ hero, Musk, has not turned a profit at Tesla yet; only sold 1500 units in seven years and was forced to make an IPO to raise cash. As previously stated, this writer is on record encouraging and welcoming the efforts of private space ventures– just not at the expense of government funded and managed manned space programs– not in this era. Maybe 100 – 150 years from now, but not today.

  • DCSCA

    John Malkin wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 1:51 pm “When SpaceX suffers delays, they are criticised as being immature…” <– Cernan was more polite about it when he said they don't know what they don't know yet.

  • DCSCA

    @Church “Asteroids are the future of man in space. They are where the easy resources are.” <– Uh-huh. And icebergs are a source of fresh water for arid parts of planet Earth. Same silliness. Grand thinking, but not particularly practical at this time in human history.

  • Gary Church

    “not particularly practical at this time in human history.”

    Survival is not about practical- it is about survival. You want history to continue there might be a problem with that. Is it practical to ignore that possibility? There is the external threat of an asteroid or comet impact, and the internal threat of a man made organism getting out of a lab accidentally or on purpose. Not to mention half a dozen less likely threats of extinction. With all those planets out there we should be hearing some broadcasts.

  • Which is why your so-called, ‘visionary’ hero, Musk, has not turned a profit at Tesla yet; only sold 1500 units in seven years and was forced to make an IPO to raise cash.

    What a stupid and irrelevant comment. Tesla has nothing to do with space.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 4:46 am

    @CoastalRon- “The industry to compare commercial space to is charter airlines.” Who says, you? Any business that produces a product, goods and services with investors who expect a profitable return on that investment is a fair comparison.

    I don’t think you understand what it is that SpaceX does. They don’t produce a product or goods, they offer a service. You need to get 23,050 lbs of payload into space? That will cost you $56M. After they get commercial crew going, if you need to get to LEO, it will cost you $20M. You don’t end up with the launcher or the capsule, you end up being delivered to your destination. That is a service.

    You were comparing SpaceX to automobile manufacturers, and I disagreed because they are product companies, and product companies don’t have the same motivations and relationships with their customers as service companies do. And I don’t care if you agree with me or not – we’re obviously not persuading each other here, so we just have to hope we persuade others.

    Private rocketeers are trying to peddle their goods and services to a limited market historied with risk and costs that outweigh a highly profitable returns on the investment to investors. They can make more money investing in offshore oil drilling than backing private rocketeers.

    And yet there are investors putting money into space. Maybe the risks are worth the returns monetarily, or maybe not. Maybe they are doing it because of a personal interest, and are not concerned about profit. But that is how the free market works, and who are you to tell Elon Musk that he’ll never create a worthwhile space business? So far he has proved you and others wrong with his accomplishments, and he has momentum on his side. Burt Rutan, Robert Bigelow, John Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace), Jeff Greason (XCOR) and others would tell you that it’s worth a try, and those are the types of people that tend to open up new markets.

    One thing is for sure, unless you try, you’ll never know if it’s impossible. Elon would also tell you that great risk is also a path towards great reward, and he should know… ;-)

  • Gary Church:

    Radiation is an issue. It isn’t the only one.

    Bone loss due to extended freefall is an issue. Can that be fixed at 1/6 gee? or 0.38 gee? We don’t know. There haven’t been any tests for extended periods in orbit with spinning habitats whatsoever, and we don’t know if the bone loss problem would go away at 0.01 gee or 1 gee.

    How much plant and animal life is required per human being for a completely-enclosed life support system? We don’t know. It took a private developer to come up with Biosphere II.

    Can cryogenic propellant be transferred from a tanker to a propellant depot to another vehicle? We haven’t tried yet.

    The point is, there are lots of issues that have to be resolved before going to an asteroid. It can be done as an Apollo-style one-off, or it can be done the smart way: attacking the issue of asteroid access so that afterward it can be done on a routine basis.

    What that means is tackling a list of enabling technologies.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 4:39 pm

    There simply isn’t enough demand for them at current costs.

    First of all there are already commercial companies launching commercial and government payloads into space, so that kind of invalidates part of your argument. Some were created with government assistance or contracts, and that is part of the normal commerce cycle too. The government uses commercial companies because either the U.S. doesn’t have the capabilities, or the commercial companies can do it cheaper/faster. Your tax dollars at work.

    For commercial space, commercial companies want to help the government save money by providing less costly access to space. Is that such a bad thing? Many companies (including ones that I’ve worked for) make a significant amount of their revenue from performing services or producing products for the government. We should all be happy the government does, since that saves all U.S. Taxpayers money.

    If the U.S. really wants to go back to the Moon, United Launch Alliance has even proposed a detailed plan that uses their launchers and upper stages (plus new vehicles from their parents), and eliminates the need for the U.S. to build & operate their own launchers. NASA no longer needs to build everything, and their best role would be that of a teacher/overseer.

  • DCSCA

    @CoastalRon- “I don’t think you understand what it is that SpaceX does. They don’t produce a product or goods, they offer a service.” You don’t seem to grasp the basics of free market capitalism, which is precisely what SpaceX is offering as a commercial space venture- their ‘product/goods/services’ are being peddled to turn a profit. Musk clearly knows that.

  • DCSCA

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 5:06 pm – Tesla has everything to do with Musk and how he approaches/manages his business interests. Good Lord, man, SpaceX isn’t about ‘space’ — it’s about BUSINESS and trying to turning a profit for investors in a commercial concern operating in the ‘free market’ as a private corporation.

  • DCSCA

    @CoastalRon- “For commercial space, commercial companies want to help the government save money by providing less costly access to space. Is that such a bad thing?” ‘Help the government???’ =blink= You don’t seem to fully understand the point of operating a commercial concern in a free market as a capitalist. It’s not to ‘help’ government– it’s to turn a profit.

  • DCSCA

    @CoastalRon- “Burt Rutan, Robert Bigelow, John Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace), Jeff Greason (XCOR) and others would tell you that it’s worth a try, and those are the types of people that tend to open up new markets.” Sure! Great! Preston Tucker thought it was worth a try as well.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Sure! Great! Preston Tucker thought it was worth a try as well.

    That’s one of the great things about markets, they eliminate things that don’t work out. Compare this to the Shuttle which is still consuming $3B a year 25 years after it became apparent it wasn’t cost effective.

  • DCSCA

    @Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 6:07 pm Uh, suggest you do some research on a Tucker.

  • DCSCA

    Again, If you’re going to advocate Reaganomics styled ‘free market capitalism’ as the fuel to thrust private rocketry into the forefront of space ‘exploitation’ and ‘exploration’ you best start understanding the parameters of it. And attempts by any high risk private sector industry to ‘privatize’ profits for investors and ‘socialize’ the losses associated with those risks on the backs of taxpayers isn’t a very popular — or wise– business plan as the Age of Austerity approaches. The history of rocketry in the past century should show you that ‘private enterprise’ has not led the way into space because, among other reasons, there’s a limited market for it and the risks and return on investment do not outweigh the largess of the capital investment. That’s why governments do it.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Uh, suggest you do some research on a Tucker.

    The market eliminated the Tucker. The government still hasn’t eliminated the Shuttle. The reason is that Tucker had to get his money from people who parted with it voluntarily while NASA gets its money through the IRS.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm <- Gee, imagine 'the market' what is widely seen as a safer, better product, ahead of its time. Go figure.

  • DCSCA

    Martijn Meijering wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 6:27 pm <- Gee, imagine 'the market' eliminating what is widely seen as a safer, better product, ahead of its time. Go figure. -Sorry- dropped a word.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Depending on who you believe Tucker was eliminated by collusion between the government and the Big Three (i.e. not market forces) or the Tucker wasn’t economically viable and its good features were adopted later anyway.

  • <emGood Lord, man, SpaceX isn’t about ‘space’ — it’s about BUSINESS and trying to turning a profit for investors in a commercial concern operating in the ‘free market’ as a private corporation.

    It’s about both. Every time you write this you betray your profound ignorance of Elon Musk and his motivations. And you’re apparently too stupid to learn, because I have to keep correcting you.

  • Derrick

    Trent Waddington wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 7:42 am …

    Wow. Jeff Greason really hit the nail on the head!

  • Coastal Ron

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    I concur with your conclusion.

  • DCSCA

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 7:03 pm “It’s about both.” Not to a capital investor who wants a high yield return on their investment. Good grief.

    “Every time you write this you betray your profound ignorance of Elon Musk and his motivations.”

    Nonsense. Your own ‘ignorance’ of the motivations of venture capitalists who seek to minimize risk exposure while seeking a high yield on their investment is what is disturbingly profound on your part. And employing simplistic terms like ‘stupid’ only serves to reinforce it. You’ve been corrected on space history before. Here’s your lesson for today:

    The history of rocketry in the past century should show you that ‘private enterprise’ has not led the way into space because, among other reasons, there’s a limited market for it and the financial risks vs. the return on investment do not outweigh the largess of the capital investment needed in this era. That’s why governments do it.

    Private space ventures have to be capable of attracting the kind of deep-pocketed capital investments from multiple sources who are not necessarily at their core, ‘space enthusiasts’, but hardcore capitalists who see a profit to be made from their investments based on the cold calculus of the marketplace. If you’re going to advocate ‘free market capitalism’ as the fuel to thrust private rocketry into the forefront of space ‘exploitation’ and ‘exploration’ you best start understanding the parameters of it. And any attempts by high risk private sector industries to ‘privatize’ profits for investors and ‘socialize’ the losses associated with those risks on the backs of taxpayers isn’t a very popular — or wise– business plan as the Age of Austerity approaches, particularly on the ‘conservative’ side of the ledger. And whether you accept it or not, Musk’s business history w/Tesla has everything to do with how he approaches/manages his business interests. And potential investors rightly have to consider that history before investing in any enterprise he helms. Musk’s own history of managing and operating a business — his personal finances and his personal ‘problem’s are all factors. It may not seem fair to you, but that’s the way it is.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    Labels and theories are one thing, but you need to look at what is actually happening in the real world to make good judgements. It’s also obvious that I’m not going to change your opinion of the economic opportunities that lie ahead in space, and you’re not going to convince me that only government can do stuff in space.

    I’ll see you in the future, and we can compare notes…

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 12:51 pm

    I would say any transportation company lives off of destinations- places they can transport people or goods to.

    If what you mean is that they need a place to deliver their customer to, then yes, I would agree. This gets back to the “chicken & egg” arguments, and with a dual-use capsule (cargo or crew), SpaceX can be patient with the crew part of the market, while generating revenue (and increasing reliability) with their cargo capsule.

    When a crew capsule capability does become available for commercial use, then that will end the “chicken & egg” problem, and move it to one of “how can we make a business out of it?”.

  • Your own ‘ignorance’ of the motivations of venture capitalists who seek to minimize risk exposure while seeking a high yield on their investment is what is disturbingly profound on your part.

    As I said, Elon Musk is not a “venture capitalist.” No sane venture capitalist would invest in space at this time (or at least not until this time). He wants to colonize space. He’s willing to risk some of his fortune to do it.

    As I said, you know nothing about Elon Musk, and you advertise it with every post about him. You should learn from the old phrase about opening your mouth, and removing all doubt about your stupidity.

  • Martijn Meijering

    No sane venture capitalist would invest in space at this time (or at least not until this time).

    I think Musk has said so himself. He’s not doing this for the money.

  • amightywind

    “He’s not doing this for the money.:”

    Yeah right. He just made out on the Tesla IPO to the tune of $24M. Good for him. Problem is (unlike Paypal) is neither Tesla or SpaceX can ever turn a profit without massive government subsidies (read crony capitalism). He knows this, which explains his posture with the current gangster administration.

  • and that’s the definition of “New Space”.

  • almightywind, please go away retard.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 10:43 pm

    SpaceX can ever turn a profit without massive government subsidies

    SpaceX has been profitable for the last three years, and does not get government subsidies. Oops, that wasn’t hard to prove false!

    They have a government contract to perform work and services, but even you wouldn’t be stupid enough to call that “subsidies”, since they won the contract through an open competition… ;-)

  • amightywind: Tesla’s IPO netted over $200 million and the stock then rose 40% the first day, the highest gainer on the NASDAQ that day. Stop making stuff up.

  • DCSCA

    @Coastal Ron wrote @ July 3rd, 2010 at 8:56 pm Past is prologue. Nothing is stopping the private sector from soaring spaceward. Go for it. Just like in 1982… Back The Future again.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- “As I said, Elon Musk is not a “venture capitalist.” No sane venture capitalist would invest in space at this time (or at least not until this time). He wants to colonize space. He’s willing to risk some of his fortune to do it.”

    Reaffirming that a fool and his money are soon parted is quaint but not a strong selling point for a Musk-helmed concern vying to supplant the 50 years of successful government managed and funded space programs in the United States. That is, how you say…’stupid.’ Past is prologue. Tesla motors has yet to turn a profit; it has sold roughly 1500 units in seven years–and there is an unquestionably bigger market than space services just waiting to be properly exploited with an affordable, down-to-earth, economically engineered Tesla vehicle to replace conventional vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine. Musk has shown an inability to do this to date which should be a cautionary consideration for any investors in a Musk helmed commercial space venture which are necessary to make it a success, given the largess of capital his ventures demand.

  • DCSCA, are you speaking english? Does it just look like english. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 1:30 am

    Boy are you bitter about Conestoga 1 – how much money did you lose on it?

    Pick an industry, any industry, and I can show you lots of failed businesses that were based on good ideas. Does that make that industry unable to sustain profitable businesses? No.

    Conestoga 1 was a neat idea, but maybe they didn’t have the right payload capability, their management team was no good, they were underfunded, or they were focused on the wrong part of the market? That was 28 years ago – lessons from that far back are hard to apply to the current marketplace.

    All I know is that there is a new generation of commercial launchers already serving the market, and the failure of Conestoga 1 did not stop them from creating working businesses.

  • Coastal Ron

    DCSCA wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 2:01 am

    Tesla motors has yet to turn a profit

    Wrong – they were profitable last August. For someone that likes to use Tesla Motors as a stalking horse for what is wrong with commercial space, then you should at least know the facts.

    Tesla has yet to turn a profit

    So what? Is that something they promised the investors they would do by now? They are building a company, innovating their product line, expanding their dealership network, and doing the things they have to do to expand their market. As long as they have working capital, profits don’t have to be a near-term goal. It all boils down to choice – grab a larger market share to drive future profits, or settle for profitability with a smaller market share now. Don’t worry, Elon has built successful businesses before, and so far he’s on a roll. How many successful businesses have you sold to investors?

    and there is an unquestionably bigger market than space services just waiting to be properly exploited with an affordable, down-to-earth, economically engineered Tesla vehicle to replace conventional vehicles powered by the internal combustion engine.

    Now you’re telling them what part of the market to target? Last I looked Ferrari was doing a pretty good business, and so was BMW, on the high end market that Tesla is targeting. For now, all-electric cars like Tesla are a lifestyle choice, not a real need – the batteries are too expensive.

    Stick with space issues…

  • Stick with space issues…

    He doesn’t know anything about space issues, either. He seems to be quite diverse in his ignorance.

  • Gary Church

    “This gets back to the “chicken & egg” arguments, and with a dual-use capsule (cargo or crew), SpaceX can be patient with the crew part of the market, while generating revenue (and increasing reliability) with their cargo capsule.”

    That is actually not a good selling point Ron. One of things that made sense about Cx was the separation of crew and cargo. Using the same vehicle for both is putting wear and tear and putting at risk a man-rated vehicle on a mission that does not require one. That is wasting money and bad business- just like the shuttle. I would defend Sidemount on this issue by pointing out it uses a cargo pod and not Orion for cargo missions.

  • Gary Church

    “Radiation is an issue. It isn’t the only one.”

    It is the only one if you want BEO-HSF.

    From the NASA Solar B page from 2002
    “If NASA can’t protect astronauts, its vision of sending a crew into deep space may come to nothing. Data collected by NASA and a Russian-Austrian collaboration show that astronauts on the ISS are subjected to about 1 millisievert of radiation per day, about the same as someone would get from natural sources on Earth in a whole year. Spending three months in these conditions translates into about one-tenth the long-term cancer risk incurred by regular smokers. While this may be an acceptable risk, sending astronauts beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field will vastly increase their exposure. “If you sent two people to Mars, one of them would die,” says Marco Durante of the Federico II University in Naples, who has studied the health effects of radiation in Mir astronauts for ESA. Radiation inside the ISS, and the now defunct Mir, is caused when the fast, heavy ions that make up cosmic rays collide with the aluminium hull, releasing a shower of secondary particles into the living quarters.”

    There is no flexible path for HSF; only HLV’s can lift the plastic sections and only off world water can provide the thousands of tons of additional shielding. And only Nuclear Pulse Propulsion can push that mass around the solar system. It is a narrow path.

  • Gary Church

    sending astronauts beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field will vastly increase their exposure. “If you sent two people to Mars, one of them would die,”

    I guess I am just going to have to paste this whenever someone intimates cosmic radiation is no big deal.

  • amightywind

    Ed Minchau

    Nobody should underestimate Elon Musk’s ability to fleece stupid investors.

    Tesla might be able to build a $120,000 car for a Silicon Valley CEO to get to and from his office. When they can sell a $30,000 pickup to get me 25 miles to work at 20 below I’ll take notice. To succeed Tesla is going to have to build a much better battery, not adapt them from the laptop industry. I don’t see it happening.

  • Martijn Meijering

    only HLV’s can lift the plastic sections

    No, see Bigelow.

    It is a narrow path.

    No, not a narrow path but a blinkered view. Or a bias depending on a preferred type of launch vehicle.

  • DCSCA

    @ Coastal Ron wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 3:00 am <– Tesla Motors is a window into the business practices of Hero Musk (the man, not the sandwich) and a blueprint for failure. He has produced a unprofitable product for seven years, issued an IPO to raise desperately needed cash while competitors have competitive products at over have the price of within a year or two.

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 11:24 am
    "He seems to be quite diverse in his ignorance." We've seen history is not your strong point. But it's always amusing watching you demostrate your expertise in that field. Don't be so hard on yourself- you can be schooled. Like ham in your Hero, you can be cured Start easy– 1+1=2, not 11.

  • DCSCA

    Elon has built successful businesses before, and so far he’s on a roll. Indeed, Hero Musk, on a roll, w/mustard.

  • Bennett

    DCSCA is as much of a troll as windy or Church. I suggest we stop feeding his stupidity.

  • Gary Church

    “No, not a narrow path but a blinkered view. Or a bias depending on a preferred type of launch vehicle.”

    Not preferred- required.
    Nuclear Pulse Propulsion is the only viable system for moving the thousands of tons of water and the STRUCTURAL plastic containing it. This kind of an engine is made up of monolithic plates. Plates in the 100 ton range.

    You are the one with blinkers on.

  • DCSCA

    To succeed Tesla is going to have to build a much better battery, not adapt them from the laptop industry. I don’t see it happening. <- It's not gonna happen. He's on track to sell out soon. How Tesla operates is a blueprint for how SpaceX will track. Investors will take note. That's as maybe, but to have that kind of business planning infecting the future of human spaceflight operations bodes poorly for the future of manned space. But then, Musk wants to colonize Mars, doesn't he. He has a better chance of suceeding siring a family of young Musks in Mars, Pennsylvania.

  • Gary Church

    sending astronauts beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field will vastly increase their exposure. “If you sent two people to Mars, one of them would die,”

    If you want to go BEO-HSF, you have be protected from radiation and you have to go fast; not one or the other- both. The Asteroid belt is out there and it takes months to get there even going fast. The moons of Saturn, Neptune, the Kuiper belt and the Oort cloud are more than months away- even going fast.

    To be protected requires thousands, and probably tens of thousands of tons of mass. The only place to get it is off world- the smaller the gravity well you get it from the better.

    To go fast requires nuclear propulsion, to go fast pushing thousands of tons of shielding around requires nuclear pulse propulsion- there is nothing else. Period.

    A Nuclear Pulse Engine requires big 100 ton range plates. No kerosene clusters or commercial sat launchers can do this mission. It requires an HLV with a hydrogen upper stage. Sidemount is the only system feasible in the present or near future.

    So if you want to stay in LEO until the tourist market dries up, continue to support “private space.” But if you want to get out there anytime this century- Shannon and Sidemount are the best plan.
    Go Sidemount!

  • Gary Church

    You guys who haunt this site know what I am about by now.

    The Fermi Paradox and the Survival Imperative,
    Bernal Spheres and the Astroid Belt,
    Nuclear Pulse Propulsion and HLV’s,
    Wet Workshops and Ocean Recovery of Reusable Rockets and capsules,
    Closed Loop Life Support and Artificial Gravity,
    Lunar Water and Plastic Shielding.

    This is what I am advertising, not tourism. And I think tourism is misrepresented as exploration and colonization. Smaller and cheaper is better and the profit motive is poison to expanding into the solar system and safeguarding the human race. I want people to know it. That is why I post here.

  • DCSCA

    Bennett wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 4:08 pm <– When valid points strike home, they usually elicit personal attacks from desperate astroturfers who've run out of inventory to lay down an artificial argument.

  • DCSCA

    “Nobody should underestimate Elon Musk’s ability to fleece stupid investors.” <– Yep. Although 'stupid' may be too harsh. They've been infected with the silly notion that 'private enterprise' will build the golden ladder to space colonization. Of course, the 80-plus years of rocketry history has shown us it has not. In fact, it has always been a follow along, cashing in on the successes of government back rocket development projects. Just won't happen in this period of human history. If Musk's business sense is struggling to overcome persistent, down-to-earth variables encumbering selling an affordable electric vehicle when the market for one has never been so huge, he's certainly not going to be seen as a wise risk for big dollar investors to capably operate a for-profit space venture with a much more risky and restricted market base. Tesla is the blueprint for SpaceX. He'll get a bird flying– and sell out.

  • DCSCA

    @CoastalRon “For now, all-electric cars like Tesla are a lifestyle choice, not a real need –” =blink= Good grief.

  • Paul D.

    They’ve been infected with the silly notion that ‘private enterprise’ will build the golden ladder to space colonization.

    Really? Space-X cannot be a profitable and successful company unless it builds a golden ladder to space colonization?

    And here I was thinking there are multi-billion dollar markets for launch services well short of that state.

  • brobof

    Bennett wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
    Thank you. No wonder the American Space program is in such a mess. Vitriol is a corrosive. But stupidity can be cured. If one wants to learn and someone here (no names) could profit by reading this: http://www.physorg.com/news145004546.html

  • Paul D.

    Bennett wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 4:08 pm <– When valid points strike home, they usually elicit personal attacks from desperate astroturfers who've run out of inventory to lay down an artificial argument.

    They laughed at Galileo, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

  • Gary Church

    “Space-X cannot be a profitable and successful company unless it builds a golden ladder to space colonization?”

    No….again, problems with reading; SpaceX cannot be successful at space colonization. That is what you are trying twist to your own ends. Some of us are more worried about extinction than making a buck swindling the taxpayer. Try again.

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 11:32 am

    One of things that made sense about Cx was the separation of crew and cargo. Using the same vehicle for both is putting wear and tear and putting at risk a man-rated vehicle on a mission that does not require one.”

    A launcher doesn’t care what the 10T payload consists of, and neither does the capsule. Can you provide an example that explains why you shouldn’t change between the two?

    And how would that differ from a commercial airline that carries both cargo and passengers on every flight? Wear and tear becomes part of your maintenance schedule, and is accounted for in your pricing.

  • Gary Church

    “And how would that differ from a commercial airline that carries both cargo and passengers on every flight? Wear and tear becomes part of your maintenance schedule, and is accounted for in your pricing.’

    They confused the shuttle with an airliner also. It has to do with reusing that capsule every time for cargo the same as crew. A cargo can that gets jettisoned is going to cost far less than recovering a capsule and refurbishing it and signing it good for another flight. One costs alot money and the other costs some money. You figure out which. It is the whole philosophy of expendable rockets- make something just good enough to work once and throw it away. I do not agree with it for engines and crew vehicles and even escape towers- but for cargo cans and sometimes fuel tanks- sometimes it is just the price of doing business.

    You keep championing things that do not make economic sense in defense of a business plan Ron. SpaceX might be doing things to try and cut corners and save a buck in the short run- just like NASA did to their regret. But when you only have so much money, that is what happens. There is no cheap.

  • Coastal Ron

    amightywind wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    When they can sell a $30,000 pickup to get me 25 miles to work at 20 below I’ll take notice.

    You are obviously not Tesla’s target market, but then neither am I, nor am I Maserati’s target market.

    Why must Tesla come out with a car that competes with 20 other auto companies? That would be stupid, and they would have a hard time differentiating their commodity product in the marketplace.

    Instead they are following the doctrine of disruptive technology, which is followed in Silicon Valley in deciding which software startups to invest in. Wikipedia defines it as:

    Disruptive innovation is a term used in business and technology literature to describe innovations that improve a product or service in ways that the market does not expect, typically by lowering price or designing for a different set of consumers.

    There are few all-electric cars out there that are sports cars, and Tesla is going after the market that can most afford a high-end performance car built on an assembly line to lower costs. And there are lot of people out there that are already buying them. Not in the millions, but the market is not in the millions either, so that doesn’t matter.

    I remember people arguing about how Apple could not survive in the market because they did not see Windows computers. As a Mac user, that was never a consideration for me, and Apple just kept building great products, although not the cheapest. People decide what matters to them, and time will tell how the whole hybrid and all-electric car market does.

    BTW, SpaceX is also following the disruptive model, and we’ll see how that changes things over the next 5 years…

  • Coastal Ron

    brobof wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    If one wants to learn and someone here (no names) could profit by reading this: http://www.physorg.com/news145004546.html

    I knew it, all we have to do is “polarize the hull plating”! Gene Roddenberry was a visionary… ;-)

  • Gary Church

    “using know-how from 50 years of research into nuclear fusion, to show that it is possible for astronauts to shield their spacecrafts with a portable magnetosphere – scattering the highly charged, ionised particles of the solar wind and flares away from their space craft.”

    Ahh yes, reading comprehension. No mention of cosmic rays in this scheme; because distance is what deflects some, not all of the cosmic rays from LEO. A magnetic field so powerful it would bend steel would be required to effectively deflect cosmic rays. And I believe it would also require a supercomputer to constantly reconfigure that kind of field (according to the article I read). In other words- unobtanium.

    So…here we go again:

    sending astronauts beyond the Earth’s protective magnetic field will vastly increase their exposure. “If you sent two people to Mars, one of them would die,”

    There is no flexible path for HSF; only HLV’s can lift the plastic sections and only off world water can provide the thousands of tons of additional shielding. And only Nuclear Pulse Propulsion can push that mass around the solar system. It is a narrow path.

    Read.

  • Gary Church

    “BTW, SpaceX is also following the disruptive model, and we’ll see how that changes things over the next 5 years…”

    If he can get NASA to build him that 1 million pound thrust engine to put on the falcon instead of that cluster he might corner the sat launch market. But crew transport? Have not seen anything to convince me of that yet. I do not see how anyone can something cheaper than Soyuz. They have been building it for so long and their labor is so cheap- have to show me.

  • Gary Church

    “There is no flexible path for HSF; only HLV’s can lift the monolithic engine components and only off world water can provide the thousands of tons of additional shielding. And only Nuclear Pulse Propulsion can push that mass around the solar system. It is a narrow path.”

    Guess I have to amend my pasted reminder; it is not plastic that is so heavy- it is those 100 ton range plates to soak up the bomb plasma. That is what we need HLV’s for. No way around it. Sorry.

  • Bennett

    brobof wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 6:55 pm

    But seriously, I remember when this story hit and if anyone knows of follow up research, I’d like to hear of it. Does anyone know if this “polhulplat” technology is specifically mentioned in the NASA’s research/development plans?

  • Vladislaw

    Gary Church wrote:

    “That is actually not a good selling point Ron. One of things that made sense about Cx was the separation of crew and cargo. Using the same vehicle for both is putting wear and tear and putting at risk a man-rated vehicle on a mission that does not require one.”

    Come on Gary, be real, although we may disagree on the political ramifications of trying to convience the public that using nukes in space is okay, you can not really believe what you wrote.

    To try and compare reconditioning the shuttle, where each one had to have 17000 tiles checked and replaced, 3 engines that had to be rebuilt and 2 SRB’s reconditioned with their motors rebuilt, with a “pop & drop” capsule is apples and oranges.

    If the rated lifetime of a capsule is 10 trips to space then it really doesn’t matter what the cargo is, human or spare parts. The shuttle was rated for 100 missions, the orion 10, I am sure that the Dragon capsule with be somewhere close to that. Also it will be a whole lot easier to design upgrades and spiral it to higher standards over time. As long as the original mold lines are optimal they can gut it and upgrade faster than the shuttle.

    Remember, one of the “bragging rights” of the STS was it was the most complex machine with the most parts ever built. I always thought it funny when most engineers try for KISS, keep it simple stupid, and don’t make a system more complex than it has to be to complete the task, NASA seems to always go out of it’s way to make it as complex as possible. Gotta keep the troops busy I would imagine.

  • Gary Church

    “Come on Gary, be real, although we may disagree on the political ramifications of trying to convince the public that using nukes in space is okay, you can not really believe what you wrote.”

    I do believe it- maybe saying that dirty word “Constellation” threw you off. Man-rating, despite what Rand says, is not B.S. If something is going to carry an astronaut it has to be checked- all of it- every system inspected and tested and someone has to sign it off as good to fly. I know something about this as an aircraft mechanic. Everything gets beat up during a flight- vibration, pressure, heat, cold; that is just launch. Then comes the vacuum and radiation of space- and more extremes of hot and cold. Finally the thing re-enters. It gets to take some G’s and then a salt water bath. Then there is the cost of recovering it, replacing the ablative heat shield, and whatever is wearing out- like the window go bad pretty quick in spacecraft from what I have read. Finally you have to do those checks I was talking about and after it is mounted on the launcher a pretty extensive pre-flight check that can sometimes, and embarrassingly, turns up things that were missed.

    So compare all that with a cargo pod that gets fabricated, and gets thrown away. Now why do I not believe what I wrote?

    And as for Nukes and the public. I do not consider it an option- it is the only thing that will work so the ramifications are pretty simple. Either we use nukes and go BEO-HSF, or we do not and never go anywhere. In my opinion it is as simple as that.

  • Coastal Ron

    Bennett wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    But seriously, I remember when this story hit and if anyone knows of follow up research, I’d like to hear of it.

    That article was from 2008, but I thought I heard something a couple of months ago that was talking about generating magnetic fields for manned spacecraft. It could have been regurgitating the original article, or hopefully it was something new.

  • Gary Church

    Oh, and I forgot about that parachute system, and it getting smacked around when it is moved from one place to another, and I am sure I could point out other things that make using a man-rated capsule for hauling anything but men (and women) a waste of time, money, and generally a bad idea. It was a bad idea to haul cargo with the shuttle, and a good idea to separate the two vehicles, a smaller one for crew transport and a HLV for cargo.

  • Gary Church

    “but I thought I heard something a couple of months ago that was talking about generating magnetic fields for manned spacecraft. It could have been regurgitating the original article, or hopefully it was something new.”

    Yes, there have been a number of articles about “force fields” and protection from solar flares. Solar events will kill you dead but they can be shielded against with various amounts of shielding and there is a possibility of using magnetic fields but that would be a real beast with high power consumption, superconductive coils, and very complex field management. What is the real trick is heavy nuclei from galactic cosmic radiation. An order of magnitude more difficult to stop. And if you are going out there you have to stop it. Which is why I start with radiation when considering BEO-HSF; it determines everything else. And it requires thousands, if not tens of thousands of tons of sheilding- and propulsion to match.

  • By the way, Happy July Fourth everyone! Thank God that silly British Queen is just a foreign head of state!!! Thank goodness that a republic emerged from that revolution!! Well, back to the subject at hand: If NASA were to install something like the ISS, on the Lunar surface, the rewards would be a hundredfold, in comparison to the big waste of effort going on right now, just a mere 200 or so miles circling above from Earth. With a Moonbase & accompanying sorties to other remote surface locations (maybe even secondary, smaller bases), NASA gets immediately into the business of extra-planetary occupation; keeping astronauts alive & well & supplied on a frontier zone. Structures & buildings can be built, and construction techniques perfected on the Lunar ground. Merely walking would be impossible on asteroids, by contrast: one big stomp, and an astronaut could be tossed clear into a fatal, solar orbit, via next-to-zero gravity; (unless he was tethered and anchored just right). Practicing for Mars, on the Moon, makes vastly more sense.

  • Chris, then why does everyone in the leadership of the Mars Society, The Planetary Society, the Augustine committee and just about every study since Apollo disagree with you? They all say practicing for Mars on Earth makes more sense, and that the real problem is figuring out how to safely go to Mars.

    As for asteroids, it makes about as much sense to talk about walking on an asteroid as it does to talk about walking in LEO.. oh, I see, you’re confused by the “spacewalk” terminology.. don’t worry, it’s a mistake a lot of people make.

  • Derrick

    “Practicing for Mars, on the Moon, makes vastly more sense.”

    Except for the fact that it’s a “hundredfold” more expensive, when you could just practice for Mars on Earth–which the Mars Society is already doing.

    Again, just an excuse, not really a solid reason to go back.

  • Mrearl

    Chris…..
    You’re absolutely right. Because the Mars society and the Planitary Society conducts limited training for Mars missions Trent thinks that is the best way to do it. Bases on the moon also opens up commercial possibilities for things like resupply, crew transfer, commercial science modules even tourism at some time.

  • Gary Church

    “Bases on the moon also opens up commercial possibilities for things like resupply, crew transfer, commercial science modules even tourism at some time.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Command_Module_diagram.jpg

    Launch a 3000 ton light cruiser straight up, and a couple weeks later it parachutes into the ocean as a 154 inch diameter capsule. The laws of physics have not changed since Apollo. Bases on the moon?

    The people on this website wail and gnash their teeth about building an HLV- but then we have people who want to build moon bases to open “commercial” opportunities.

    First you better get a couple percent of that DOD budget, then you can build HLV’s, and then…..let’s talk about the moon.

  • Gary Church

    “Thank you. No wonder the American Space program is in such a mess. Vitriol is a corrosive. But stupidity can be cured. If one wants to learn and someone here (no names) could profit by reading this: http://www.physorg.com/news145004546.html

    Yes, I am the one could profit I guess. The problem is the article is about solar events, not cosmic radiation.

  • Gary Church

    “As for asteroids, it makes about as much sense to talk about walking on an asteroid as it does to talk about walking in LEO”

    Ceres has a little gravity. It is a much better destination than Mars.

    From Wiki: Peter Thomas of Cornell University has proposed that Ceres has a differentiated interior;[6] its oblateness appears too small for an undifferentiated body, which indicates that it consists of a rocky core overlain with an icy mantle.[6] This 100 km-thick mantle (23–28 percent of Ceres by mass; 50 percent by volume[52]) contains 200 million cubic kilometres of water, which is more than the amount of fresh water on the Earth.

  • Gary Church

    ‘NASA seems to always go out of it’s way to make it as complex as possible. Gotta keep the troops busy I would imagine.”

    The orbiter evolved into the most complex machine because of repeated budget cuts and conflicting requirements. NASA did not make it complex, underfunding did- trying to do more with less. Originally it was a piggyback vehicle to a manned booster. Think of a 737 on the back of a 747, except with rockets. This was the concept of an airliner to space. But it was way expensive. I could write a really long post about this but why do your research? Look it up, you have a computer. Every detail of the shuttle configuration is about trying to make or save a buck while also doing every mission from cargo to crew transport to spyplane. The profit motive is poison to space exploration. It ruined our manned space program for thirty years with the shuttle- and now it is just going to get worse.

  • Gary Church

    “With a Moonbase & accompanying sorties to other remote surface locations (maybe even secondary, smaller bases), NASA gets immediately into the business of extra-planetary occupation; keeping astronauts alive & well & supplied on a frontier zone.”

    Sorry Chris, we spent that money in iraq and afland. Cost was about the same. It’s all gone. Too bad.

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 7:36 pm

    You keep championing things that do not make economic sense in defense of a business plan Ron.

    From a businesses perspective, the business plan defines what makes economic sense. If you’re looking at it from the perspective of reducing waste and promoting reusability (or whatever), those may not be compatible with the business plan.

    In the case of SpaceX, they had X amount of money to start with, and they chose the least risky design to get payload to space (Falcon 9), then added the least risky way to get cargo and crew to an LEO destination (Dragon). If they would have started by designing a reusable winged orbiter (ala Dream Chaser) with fly-back boosters, we probably would have been reading their obituary instead of debating reusability or (for some) how Tesla hasn’t made a profit (weird).

    For SpaceX the business, their current path allows them to generate revenue and continue to build the business. That is their corporate goal, and so far it’s working.

    SpaceX might be doing things to try and cut corners and save a buck in the short run- just like NASA did to their regret. But when you only have so much money, that is what happens.

    I’m sure Elon Musk could point to their aluminum nut on the Merlin 1A engine of the first Falcon 1 flight. The nut corroded in the salt air and caused the engine failure on their first launch attempt. Engineering for performance is a series of tradeoffs, and sometimes you go too far one way or the other. This is also why you have a detailed test program, and notice SpaceX is doing that. SpaceX changed that nut from aluminum to stainless steel, and with Falcon 9, they have engine redundancy through part of their flight envelope. Time will tell if they know how to run a launcher business.

    There is no cheap.

    Cheap in this context is determined based on a comparison of alternatives. If you have to get to another continent, you could fly 1st class or coach. Coach is the cheaper alternative, but both get you to the same place and in the same amount of time. For launchers, ULA charges over $100M for an Atlas V, and SpaceX charges $56M for their Falcon 9. Assuming both work, and both deposit your payload in the same orbit, the Falcon 9 would be considered the cheap alternative.

    If your definition is that it doesn’t cost $1.00 to launch someone to LEO, then on your scale you would be right. But when compared to the $56M Russia is charging to deliver crew to the ISS, the $20M/seat that SpaceX is promising is cheap in comparison.

    It all depends on what your goals are, and what alternatives exist to reach those goals. $20M to me is not cheap, but then again, I’m not the target market.

  • Gary Church

    Key statements:

    “$20M to me is not cheap,”

    It is not cheap to anyone except a billionaire who does care about anything except self-gratification. I am one of those people who could not live with themselves if I blew that much money on a joyride when I could have saved lives with it. I represent a segment of the population who actually believes it is obscene to do things like space tourism. Defend it however you want but to me and others it is indefensible.

    “But when compared to the $56M Russia is charging to deliver crew to the ISS, the $20M/seat that SpaceX is promising is cheap in comparison.”

    In comparison; we are Russians hundreds of millions in tax dollars to send people to the ISS while we lay off U.S. space industry workers. You can defend this by saying commercial space is hiring but to me that is not a defense. Those hundreds of millions in U.S. tax dollars are going into Russian pockets while we wait for our own ride. The promise never should have been necessary and the promise being kept is not certain.

    “Assuming both work,” (atlas or falcon)

    It is not only that something works- it is how often it works. A certain physicist said the shuttle would fail every so many flights after we lost the first crew and guess what happened?

    “with Falcon 9, they have engine redundancy through part of their flight envelope.”

    That is not the reason spaceX used a cluster and losing an engine with a max payload means they do not make it to their intended orbit and the mission has failed. If you are delivering astronauts that is OK mostly but if you are carrying microwave dinners to the ISS it doubles the couple thousand dollars that dinner costs because it has to go up again on a manrated capsule that has to go through the entire turn around process- which is better than the capsule being blown up but not better than a cargo can of TV dinners getting blown up. Yes….trade offs.

    “they had X amount of money to start with, and they chose the least risky design to get payload to space (Falcon 9), then added the least risky way to get cargo and crew to an LEO destination (Dragon).”

    You are confusing least risk with cheap. They could have spent two or three times as much to reduce risk but they had X amount of money to start with. That is the flaw in your argument. And spending that two or three times as much on a way to deliver TV dinners is basically what they were doing with the shuttle.

    That is my take. Have a good 4th Ron?

  • Gary Church

    I apologize for not proofreading better.

    Cheap to anyone but a billionaire who does NOT care……. (I have been on too many mission trips with my church)

    We are PAYING the Russians hundreds of millions…(I never liked Russians much)

  • Gary Church

    “I’m not the target market”

    Actually Ron, with most of the technology being handed over to SpaceX from NASA (thank Ronald Reagan), and most of the testing being done in NASA labs by NASA scientists and engineers (PICA technology for Dragon) and his launch vehicle being built with NASA developed engines and friction stir welding technology (spindle based merlin and fuel stages) and a large part of the development cost being paid for by NASA (COTS), and most of the HSF seats being used for ISS crew, not tourists,

    Your tax dollars are the target market. It is your space agency but it is not your SpaceX Ron. The profit earned with your tax dollars will be going into investors pockets. I am sure they appreciate it.

  • DCSCA

    Paul D. wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 6:49 pm <- Yes, 'really.' The 80-plus years of rocket history has shown us it has not. In fact, it has always been a follow along, cashing in on the successes of government back rocket development projects.

  • Gary Church

    I have to agree with DCSCA on this government backing issue;

    The whole commercial launch industry is riding on the back of government spending on the military and the space race; our tax dollars. Everyone is going to be paying for commercial space while the profits go into peoples pockets who never invested in the first place. We invested. Kind of like stealing.

  • brobof

    Gary Church wrote @ July 5th, 2010 at 12:17 am
    You didn’t read the article Or do the research did you.
    They used a £15 magnet!

  • Coastal Ron

    Gary Church wrote @ July 5th, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Actually Ron, with most of the technology being handed over to SpaceX from NASA (thank Ronald Reagan)

    And why shouldn’t American companies benefit from research done with American tax dollars? This happens in every industry, so though you may pick on SpaceX, this is an encouraged behavior in the U.S.

    Your tax dollars are the target market. It is your space agency but it is not your SpaceX Ron. The profit earned with your tax dollars will be going into investors pockets. I am sure they appreciate it.

    If SpaceX had folded, and Musk lost his investment, he would not have been reimbursed by anyone. We would have been laughing our heads off because he was so silly to try and build a rocket company.

    But if he continues to succeed, why shouldn’t he and his investors benefit from the fruits of their labor & capital? Isn’t that capitalism, and the American Way?

    I’m sure Uncle Sam doesn’t mind the taxes they collect from SpaceX either, and that’s how we keep people employed, and how we’re going to pay off our national debt. I like companies succeeding – it’s patriotic!

    Yes, I did have a nice 4th (thx for asking). We spent time with neighbors (kids swirled sparklers), and decided not to go out for fireworks, but did hear the “bombs bursting in air”.

  • Gary Church

    “this is an encouraged behavior in the U.S.”

    The original NASA owned all the patents for rocket technology because the research was done with tax dollars and it was not going to be given away free to anyone who wanted to charge money for a profit. Giving my tax dollars to business instead of government is not what I encourage. Reagan did give my patents away to business for nothing (except some campaign contributions). My point is, the technology IS most of the capital and it is theirs to sell because of a political deal- several deals. I do not like companies succeeding like that. I would rather see my space agency succeed. Go Sidemount!

  • I represent a segment of the population who actually believes it is obscene to do things like space tourism.

    Fortunately, it doesn’t (yet) matter what the ignorant think is obscene. We still live in a free country (and hopefully a freer one come November).

  • Gary Church, if you can’t agree on a little thing like Capitalism then I really don’t know why you dislike the Russians so much.

  • amightywind

    Interesting note on Obamaspace by Byron York.

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/NASA_s-new-mission_-Building-ties-to-Muslim-world-97817909.html

    The NASA situation gets nuttier and nuttier.

  • What’s the point of having “soft power” if you don’t use it?

  • Martijn Meijering

    I represent a segment of the population who actually believes it is obscene to do things like space tourism.

    If that is so, then how are taxpayer funded joyrides for a select group of privileged government employees (astronauts) not even more obscene?

  • Martijn, haven’t you heard? That’s “science”. And all that science-like stuff that private astronauts do on their flights is just “tourism”.

  • Gary Church

    “Senior space agency scientists believe the Earth will be hit with unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013, ”

    Goodbye ISS. They will abandon it, and with most of the equipment zapped, it will probably be abandoned. No more tourist destination courtesy of your tax dollars. Where will the space tourists go to do their important science? Bigelow? He is looking for UFO’s. For real; that will be the best he can do for science.

  • brobof

    Chris Castro wrote @ July 5th, 2010 at 3:09 am
    You should be so lucky!

  • Bennett wrote @ July 4th, 2010 at 9:30 pm
    Coastal Ron wrote @ July 5th, 2010 at 12:08 am
    My apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I tried but for some reason this site’s comment software bounced my text. Repeatedly. I hope to have answered your questions in a new blog post: “British Boffins are the Best!”. For those interested in the facts about Radiation hazards, I have also included a short summary “Why Solar Flares are good for you!”
    My apologies to Jeff for the shameless advertising but it seemed to be the only thing to do :(
    Dave.

  • amightywind

    More derision heaped on Obama’s absurd NASA policy:

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/07/06/nasas-new-mission-muslim-outreach-and-uninspired-futility/

    Allahu akbar!

  • Major Tom

    “Interesting note on Obamaspace by Byron York.”

    York either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or is purposefully making a big stink over nothing. Per NASA’s own public affairs administrator, Bolden was referring to NASA’s public affairs and outreach priorities, not NASA’s overall priorities. Even other partisan outlets like Fox News have figured this out:

    foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/06/nasa-official-walks-claim-muslim-outreach-foremost-mission/

    “The NASA situation gets nuttier and nuttier.”

    What’s nutty about pointing out a culture’s historical importance to the scientific tradition in western civilization? Would you rather we pat their backs about their radicalism and terrorist activities?

    Duh…

    “More derision heaped on Obama’s absurd NASA policy”

    That’s a blog post about the same Examiner article. You’re referencing a reference about the same thing you already referenced.

    Think before you post.

    Lawdy…

  • common sense

    Boy, I really hope that none of the absurds around here work in any way shape or form with or for NASA. Thinking is not something they actually do.

  • amightywind

    Minor Tom wrote:

    “What’s nutty about pointing out a culture’s historical importance to the scientific tradition in western civilization?”

    Because first, it is not NASA’s job, especially when the shuttle is retiring and there is no alternative to replace it. Second, the contributions of muslim civilization to math, science, and western civilization are minimal. Indeed much of muslim history serves as a negative example.

    “Would you rather we pat their backs about their radicalism and terrorist activities?”

    No. I would rather send the US military after them and get rid of them.

  • common sense

    @ amightywind wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Just go away.

  • Major Tom

    “Because first, it is not NASA’s job,”

    Yes, it is. The Eisenhower Administration founded NASA to provide a civilian counterweight to military space activities and ensure unfettered access to space for both civil and military activities. Section 205 of the NASA Act calls on the agency to carry out “International Cooperation”. The Apollo program itself was a foreign policy choice by the Kennedy Administration to pursue an arena of peaceful competition with the Soviet Union, instead of war. The ISS program is a big international cooperative project.

    To pretend that international relations, especially with the part of the world that is most antagonistic to United States’ interests at this point in time, is not part of NASA’s outreach job is utterly ignorant of why the agency was founded, its legislative charter, the history of the agency’s largest programs, and modern U.S. foreign interests.

    Stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    “especially when the shuttle is retiring and there is no alternative to replace it.”

    What does Shuttle retirement have to do with what NASA’s external relations personnel? Do you think they’d make better contributions as mission controllers?

    Again, stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    Moreover, there are alternatives for Shuttle replacement. Falcon 9 has successfully orbited a iron bird Dragon with tests of an operational Dragon scheduled for later this year. Boeing is working on CST-100 to fly on either Atlas V or Delta IV in as little as three years.

    For the umpteenth time, please stop littering this forum with stupid statements made out of ignorance.

    “Second, the contributions of muslim civilization to math, science, and western civilization are minimal.”

    No, they’re not. Much of western science, from the 12th to 17th centuries and from astronomy to chemistry to medicine, is founded on muslim texts that were the only surviving translations of natural philosophy from the classical period or represented original experimental research in their own right. Even an idiot searching wikipedia can figure this out:

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_medieval_Islam#Influence_on_European_science

    “No. I would rather send the US military after them and get rid of them.”

    With all due respect to the efforts and sacrifices of our soldiers overseas, the military hasn’t hunted down all the 9/11 planners, nevertheless every radical Muslim who wishes to do the U.S. harm. It’s unrealistic and dangerous to base national security solely on sticks. Carrots are a necessary element, and when it comes to the muslim world, their historical contributions to western science are one of things we should be praising them for and encouraging them to continue in that tradition, rather than one of ever greater isolation, extremism, and violence.

    Think before you post.

    Ugh…

  • common sense

    @ Major Tom wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    “Even an idiot searching wikipedia can figure this out:”

    Apparently not. Maybe a regular idiot can, just not one who is racist and confrontational.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    No. I would rather send the US military after them and get rid of them….

    ah in addition to everything else…you are a right wing “semi tough”.

    If you want to get rid of people why dont you join some Merc unit and do it yourself.

    The US military does not “get rid” of people. The SS did that.

    As one local told me in my latest (and hopefully last) time in the Mideast…”when you Americans get scared you act like everyone else”.

    thanks to people like you!

    I see the Falcon9 upper stage and Dragon boilerplate finally reentered! still chuckling over your nonsense on that

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    Did you ever find it “funny” that most war mongers actually were people who never ever set foot in a conflict and would make sure they don’t?

    I think a fair prerogative for those asking for such action would be to make sure they go on theater with the first batch, and if they want more then they can go again and again and again… So that the good people in our military don’t have to suffer these fools’ demands.

  • brobof

    Can I also remind the level (=sane) headed amongst you of the contribution of Farouk El-Baz. America was a world away then.
    Sad.
    “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
    Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  • DCSCA

    @amightywind – “Because first, it is not NASA’s job…” Actually, it is, albeit a secondary tiered benefit, but the footprint of NASA activities has/had a reach that includes projecting a positive perception, including political ‘goodwill’ of the United States’ engineering, manufacturing and managerial capacities worldwide. This was part of the rationale for creating and sustaining the civilian space agency from the get go.

  • brobof

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 4:26 pm
    The US military does not “get rid” of people. The SS did that.
    The last time I crossed verbal swords with you Robert you were an apologist for them.

    No. Thanks to wiki leaks we get to watch the proof to the contrary and watch your ‘Youth’ joke about it. Meanwhile your “Homeland Security” get to tap phones, trawl e-mail, detain innocents,.. It will only get worse.
    Have any of you read “If this Goes On” [Robert Anson Heinlein] Nehemiah Scudder is alive and well and preaching in America today…
    Your recent history is not good:
    Extraordinary rendition; water boarding; Fallujah, outsourcing torture of known innocents, detention without trial, Abu Ghraib, selling cluster bombs and other atrocities to terrorist nations; depleted uranium; Gitmo; white phosporous; using hellfire missiles on wedding parties; the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl;warcrimes.
    The SS -sick bastards that they were- believed that they were right. Can you claim the same excuse?
    I live for the day when Bush *and that bloody handed Bliar* are hung out to dry at the Hague. Unless they have the guts to shoot themselves first with a Walther PPK 7.65 mm. I wouldn’t allow them the cyanide.

    When Americans get scared they run away and then drop large bombs on the wrong people with no regard for the consequences.

  • Major Tom

    “Can I also remind the level (=sane) headed amongst you of the contribution of Farouk El-Baz.”

    Good point.

    FWIW…

  • I think a fair prerogative for those asking for such action would be to make sure they go on theater with the first batch, and if they want more then they can go again and again and again

    This is getting way OT, but I’ve always found the “chicken hawk” argument to be silly and fallacious. It in fact is in defiance of the American tradition of civilian control over the military, so it seems like a very strange argument to come from the left, which supposedly is opposed to militarism.

  • When Americans get scared they run away and then drop large bombs on the wrong people with no regard for the consequences.

    This is also getting way off topic, but really? On what bizarro world does this occur? Because on my planet, (like the Israelis) they spare no expense, and risk their own troops, to minimize civilian collateral damage.

    If Americans really acted like your childish cartoon version of them, Kabul and Tehran and Baghdad would be glowing craters, and we wouldn’t have lost three thousand people in Iraq.

  • brobof

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 6:15 pm
    9/11. Watched it live. (As did most of the world.) There were Americans. They were running. They were scared. Attack largely carried out by Saudi Arabia: finance/ criminal mastermind OBL (remember him?)/ religious fundamentalist ethos (Wahhabism)/ Oh what am I missing ah yes Hijackers. See below.
    But you did nothing to that despotic regime. No you made plans almost immediately to attack Iraq. You even tried to claim it was them! The real reason: For dealing their oil in Euros. Afghanistan was an afterthought. A poorly planned afterthought. Does the American DoD keep a track of the civilian deaths. Do you know what depleted Uranium does to the DNA; What white phosporus is doing to the children of Fallujah. Hint: Agent Orange. You may have heard of it. My cousin handled it. In Vietnam.
    Teratogenic. Nasty.
    For the followers of Scudder: “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation” Exodus 34-7
    Warcrimes.

    As for OT. Agreed. (Like these threads are ever on topic at this point!) But Robert was supporting the development of the V-2 the other day. Or something like. Now by my book you can’t be a fan of the SS and the SS officer WvonB and his Mittelwerk one day and then decry them the next. Why *GASP* that would be hypocrisy.

    In the midst of all the cartoon Arab bashing I thought I would try a little tit for tat. But are you claiming that: Extraordinary rendition; water boarding; Fallujah, outsourcing torture of known innocents, detention without trial, Abu Ghraib, selling cluster bombs and other atrocities to terrorist nations; depleted uranium; Gitmo; white phosporous; using hellfire missiles on wedding parties; the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl;warcrimes. Didn’t happen?

    WARNING WIKIFACTS:

    American Airlines Flight 11
    Main article: American Airlines Flight 11

    Hijackers: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian)[4].

    United Airlines Flight 175
    Main article: United Airlines Flight 175

    Hijackers: Marwan al-Shehhi (United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi)[8].

    American Airlines Flight 77
    Main article: American Airlines Flight 77

    Hijackers: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian)[10].

    United Airlines Flight 93
    Main article: United Airlines Flight 93

    Hijackers: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)[14]

    Iraqis: Zero; Afghans: Zero.

  • The real reason: For dealing their oil in Euros.

    OK, you’re officially nuts.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    If we had not panicked after 9/11 and bought into all the crap about Saddam…there be over 200,000 Iraqis dead from “our fire”..

    Robert G. Oler.

  • brobof

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/
    It happened Rand. Or is Kofi Annan officially nuts too.
    If you have an open mind Rand, As I believe you do. You will not just exclude a concept counter to your own belief, just because it is your own belief. A good scientist is taught to question everything. Especially firmly held beliefs. I would suggest a little research. To that end I pose the question: What would happen if all the oil in the world was traded in Euros? What would happen to the Dollar? Make that two questions. Dig in to the references. Check out the authors. Check their credentials. Then come back and call me a nut job.
    This is where it started for me http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.html But be careful there are some really nutty theories out there.
    Speaking of which:
    “Because on my planet, (like the Israelis) they spare no expense, and risk their own troops, to minimize civilian collateral damage.”

    Your troops raped a 14 year old girl Rand and killed the family! Then tried to cover it up. And as for Israel don’t let’s go there.
    On the positive side at least you aren’t denying: Extraordinary rendition; water boarding; Fallujah, outsourcing torture of known innocents, detention without trial, Abu Ghraib; selling cluster bombs and other atrocities to terrorist nations; depleted uranium; Gitmo; white phosporous; using hellfire missiles on wedding parties; the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and other assorted warcrimes; didn’t happen.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    If we had not panicked after 9/11 and bought into all the crap about Saddam…there NOT be over 200,000 Iraqis dead from “our fire”..

    Robert G. Oler.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Have all the toliets on the space station failed? Robert

  • ya think Jeff has forgotten he made this website or just that he wishes he could now?

  • amightywind

    “Your troops raped a 14 year old girl Rand and killed the family! Then tried to cover it up. And as for Israel don’t let’s go there.
    On the positive side at least you aren’t denying: Extraordinary rendition; water boarding; Fallujah, outsourcing torture of known innocents, detention without trial, Abu Ghraib; selling cluster bombs and other atrocities to terrorist nations; depleted uranium; Gitmo; white phosporous; using hellfire missiles on wedding parties; the gang rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl and other assorted warcrimes; didn’t happen.”

    Our boy’s are high spirited, ’tis true! Onward to victory!

  • rabbit

    in the Bolden al-Jazeera afterglow, not sure if anyone here is really interested (maybe commonsense, possibly Oler, any chance amightywind? others?), but here is an interesting and thoughtful article on Muslim science from Physics Today, written by an experienced Pakistani physicist… (titled: “Science and the Islamic world—The quest for rapprochement”), the basic theme is: “With well over a billion Muslims and extensive material resources, why is the Islamic world disengaged from science and the process of creating new knowledge? ”

    http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_60/iss_8/49_1.shtml?bypassSSO=1

  • Moron

    Trent,
    indeed that looks more like a spaceship to me

  • Robert G. Oler

    rabbit wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 11:29 pm

    thanks for the link I’ll get it tomorrow…going to have some quality time with my wife! Robert

  • Or is Kofi Annan officially nuts too.

    If he believes that the Iraq war was fought because Saddam wanted Euros for his oil, I’d say pretty much, yeah. Not that I had a high opinion of him previously.

    I’m ignoring all of your other unsubstantiated insanity and slander against American troops.

  • rabbit

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 11:39 pm
    thanks for the link I’ll get it tomorrow…going to have some quality time with my wife! Robert

    –> that’s definitely the right thing to do!

  • DCSCA

    Postings are drifting off topic. The only relevence these ‘wars’ have to the future of America’s space program is that they’re diverting dwindling resources of treasure and blood away into expensive and wasteful enterprises.

  • common sense

    @ Rand Simberg wrote @ July 6th, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    “This is getting way OT,”

    Indeed.

    ” but I’ve always found the “chicken hawk” argument to be silly and fallacious. It in fact is in defiance of the American tradition of civilian control over the military, so it seems like a very strange argument to come from the left, which supposedly is opposed to militarism.”

    Nope. All I am saying is that the very people who argue for war most of the time never saw what war is. And I don’t mean to say I did but I am not calling for war. The stupid argument is to solve everything with conflicts. That is a stupid argument be it from the left or the right. Your notion of the “left” seems to me very passe. This WH is accused to be of the left yet they increased the conflict in Afghanistan.

    Anyway. Enough.

  • All I am saying is that the very people who argue for war most of the time never saw what war is.

    How do you know that? And so what? Did you read the link that debunked this illogical argument?

  • We could have had a Moonbase without breaking the bank, in this decade, for all the cost of George W. Bush’s middle eastern wars. Think about THAT one, the next time some dimwit says that building a viable lunar lander would be way too expensive! Project Constellation would reach its logical branching out stage, if it were not for those idiot “We’ve-already-been-there” partisans, who have been firing holes into the manned-deep-space-travel ship for a really long time now. Asteroid missions are way better left to robotic space probes! Send astronauts to where the resource-exploitation action really will be: To Luna Firma, we should land! Let’s get on with it! Let’s make the Orion-Altair lunar treks a reality!

  • DCSCA

    There may be change coming. Apparently Bolden pulled a PR gaffe. Now Cernan has publicly called for his resignation.

  • Chris, why is it so hard to understand that NASA’s budget is completely separate to military spending? You might as well ask why not spend the pizza money the US spends on a Moon base. It’s just a *nonsense* argument that is a fancy way of denying reality.

    As for “some dimwit says that building a viable lunar lander would be way too expensive”.. that would be just about everyone, including me. The cost of Altair was comparable to the cost of Ares-V, that’s why it is being delayed until the end of the program. You *need* a booster.. You *need* a capsule.. You *need* a lander to go to the Moon. That’s the order you should develop them in. While you’re developing the landers there’s plenty of places you can go to support the real goal.

    Of course, it could be done for cheaper.. but it might involve some things you dislike, such as actually engaging the private sector and commercializing each step of the way..

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    And whilst the on-line community screams and shouts about Administrator Bolden’s incurable PR disability, CxP is shut down and any serious prospect of US-indigenous crew launch before 2015 is quietly done away with.

  • Jeff Foust

    Since the discussion here has gone far, far offtopic, it’s time to close this comment thread.