Congress, NASA

Reid speaks on JFK and his space legacy

Thursday was the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of John F. Kennedy as president, a milestone marked by a ceremony at the US Capitol whose guests included NASA administrator Charles Bolden and deputy administrator Lori Garver. In remarks at the event, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid discussed JFK’s legacy in space exploration. “[T]hroughout the brief time he was our nation’s leader, he insisted that our nation lead the sprint to conquer space – and that we finish that race first,” Reid said of JFK. And what did the nation get from that race to the Moon in the 1960s, besides the feeling that “we were leaders”? Lots of spinoffs, apparently, from Reid’s speech:

Solar energy is a reality in states like Nevada and across the country because of the science that started in space.

The water we drink is cleaner. Our oceans are healthier. We diagnose cancer sooner. All because of the discoveries our space program has made possible.

Our wounded warriors wear better and stronger artificial limbs. Citizens of the world are safer from land mines. Firefighters can better track forest fires, and are safer when they fight them. Airplanes fly smarter, and even golf balls fly farther. All because when many others pulled back and doubted, President Kennedy kept pushing forward – forward with faith.

It was up to Bolden, in a blog post about the ceremony, to use the past as inspiration for future exploration. “I think NASA still carries forth the spirit of President Kennedy’s directive. Today, among many initiatives, we’re at the starting gate as we strive to reach an asteroid with humans, and also the moons of Mars and Mars itself,” he wrote. “Today’s event was a stirring reminder of what we can achieve when we set our sights on a goal that may be just out of reach today but not out of sight if we work hard for it.”

156 comments to Reid speaks on JFK and his space legacy

  • Robert G. Oler

    AS I noted in the post on another thread about Reids’ remarks…competently goofy.

    The problem post Apollo (and with Apollo that is why it ended) is that no one can point to a single thing that the effort itself does to make the nation stronger…instead it is well we went to the Moon and got Tang.

    Dollar for dollar uncrewed exploration is worth it…no so much for human exploration of the solar system

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    Apollo: An American Victory in the Cold War [Excerpt] If the bulk of academic and diplomatic opinion was so averse to SDI and the very idea of missile defense was so “unworkable,” why then did the Soviet Union fight so long and adamantly against it? Clearly, the Soviet Union was convinced the SDI would work and that we would achieve exactly what we set out to do. Here is Apollo’s legacy: Any technological challenge America undertakes, it can accomplish. The reason this legacy had currency was the success of Apollo. We had attempted and successfully achieved a technical goal—one so difficult and demanding, that it made virtually any similar goal seem equally achievable. Moreover, this was a goal that the Soviets themselves had attempted and failed. They reasoned that getting into a decade-long competition with America on SDI would similarly end in an American victory and would be a race that would bankrupt and destroy their system, as indeed, it did. [End Excerpt]

  • amightywind

    …instead it is well we went to the Moon and got Tang.

    …Integrated circuits, fuel cells, inertial navigation, velcro,…, an epic history with a pantheon of heroes, chest thumping American pride.

    I am all for a lunar program. What I want to avoid is a repeat of ISS – a pointless distended program without end that crowds out all other worthwhile activities. A new lunar and BEO program should be a series of modest missions with a focus on resource development. We need large rockets!

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    I’m sorry, Robert, but your comment has the unmistakable feel of rejecting out of hand what does not match up with your personal thesis. Can you at least accept that some breakthroughs (irrespective of whether or not market forces would have caused them to occur eventually) were hastened as a result of of human space flight? I doubt it but that is really your problem.

  • Not really.

    As I wrote last year, Kennedy’s sole interest was to show the world that U.S technology was superior to the Soviet Union. He was seriously worried that the Moon program would blow the federal budget.

    Apollo was a massive publicity stunt that sidetracked NASA from its mission as specified in the National Aeronautics and Space Act. Nothing in the law requires NASA to fly humans in space, to explore other worlds or even to own its rockets. A 1985 amendment by the Reagan administration requires NASA to prioritize commercial access to space.

    It’s time to get past old mythologies — which are just that, a myth — and let NASA do what it was intended to do as specified in the law.

  • William Mellberg

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Anne,

    There were several other things Apollo accomplished. Among them, we learned a lot more about the Solar System and the origins of our own planet, as well as the Moon. As you know, the Moon represents something of a cosmic Rosetta Stone from that perspective. But, at a time when many people at home and abroad had a less than stellar image of the United States because of riots in our cities and an unpopular war overseas, the Apollo Program showed this country at its very best and inspired people around the globe. It proved that free people can do what was thought impossible … given, as Wernher von Braun pointed out, the “will to do it.”

    Unfortunately, too many Americans these days seem to be consumed by an entitlement mentality rather than inspired by bold dreams.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ben Russell-Gough wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 8:30 am

    ” Can you at least accept that some breakthroughs (irrespective of whether or not market forces would have caused them to occur eventually) were hastened as a result of of human space flight? ”

    sure I can accept that statement because it is true, it is true however regardless of the actual goal that a project is trying to accomplish.

    For instance you could say the same thing about the B-29. The “Beeson” was designed for two task…bombing Japan and carrying the “special” which actually is what sized the bomb bay requirement.

    Along the way however it mastered the art of cabin pressurization, turbocharging large radial engines (which were in use at the time), instrument flying and navigation over long distances and discovered the jet stream.

    None of those had anything to do with the merits of its primary task…which was to deliver ordanance on Japan and drop the special. They were collateral to it, but the worth of the B-29 project and the value of its enormous cost…were not any of those things…it played its role in ending the war.

    The reality (which even “wind” admits in his chest thumping post) is that there was no overall goal of Apollo (or the shuttle or really the station and certainly Cx) that had value OF ITS OWN…that was worth the cost.

    The B-29 was a bargain at twice the cost or even more…for what IT DID not what it spun off.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    So true Bill.

    Another “small” contribution Apollo made is in our understanding of impact and its influence on the formation of planets and for extinction and life cycles.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Anne Spudis wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 7:36 am

    Apollo: An American Victory in the Cold War ..

    that is babble.

    First off you dont understand the notion of SDI nor does whoever wrote the book…

    The entire essence of MAD is not that you know something will work, because you really never do with nuclear weapons because you never really want to USE THEM…it is that both “you” and the other person believe that they will work.

    SDI would have in its 1980’s variant never worked…but Ivan could not take the chance and still have a counterforce option. And that is precisely what SDI was designed to do…was to prevent Ivan from thinking that he could have a counterforce option.

    Two things, and none of them were Apollo had a role in convincing the Soviets that they had to be concerned about our SDI development.

    The first was the bombing, particularly by the B-52’s of Hanoi and Haiphong. The Air defense networks around those two cities were carbon copies of what the Soviets had around Moscow…and yet B-52’s , old B-52’s not the latest models with the latest electronics, flying in traditional penetrator roles (ie not on the deck) were defeating (at some loss but they were defeating) those defenses…

    The second was in the late 70s and early 80’s the rise of US microprocessing. Other then acquiring and copying US microprocessor designs the Soviets had no compatible industry. The folks who ran Soviet air defense knew from the raids on North Vietnam that the microprocessor was the key to future battle management…particularly when they started seeing test of the AEGIS system and got ahold of F-14 fire control systems from Iran (as well as the Phoenix missile).

    To say Apollo had a pivotal role in how the Soviets dealt with SDI or to draw the straight line you do from Apollo to SDI to the fall of the Evil Empire is merely more wishful thinking on your part and the part of the writer.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    The reality (which even “wind” admits in his chest thumping post) is that there was no overall goal of Apollo

    How sophisticated must the goal be when the moon was unknown to science. Apollo carried out a straight forward, logical reconnaissance of the moon. What different result could you have hoped for?

  • Scott Bass

    “Today’s event was a stirring reminder of what we can achieve when we set our sights on a goal that may be just out of reach today but not out of sight if we work hard for it.”

    At least he is starting to find substitutes for the word can’t , I seriously am looking forward to Boldens replacement, I wish he would just quit, I have grave doubts that he can lead NASA and have a positive affect as they move through this transition.

  • Pathfinder_01

    I would say the Shuttle’s goal was worth the cost. Bring down the cost of space access. It just failed miserably at that goal.

    Will I am inspired by bold dreams. Bold dreams of perhaps someone in 50 years being able to purchase a ticket to the moon commercially. NASA doing HSF without a commercial competent would never provide that. In 50 years is just possible to purchase a ticket to LEO, but again the Russians beat us to that.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Unfortunately, too many Americans these days seem to be consumed by an entitlement mentality rather than inspired by bold dreams.

    So if people don’t want a government funded moon program, it’s because they are “consumed by an entitlement mentality”? That has to one of the most bizarre reasons I’ve heard so far.

  • @Coastal Ron

    Yeah! Why spend a little tax payer money trying to gain access to the hundreds of quadrillions of dollars worth of natural resources in our solar system when we could just sit back and continue spending titanic amounts of money right here on Earth on great programs like Medicare and Medicaid, trying to find WMDs in Iraq, and subsidizing the fossil fuel companies which are killing the planet:-)

    Just let China, India, Russia, and Japan have the rest of the solar system and its tremendous wealth. We’ll be just fine just sitting back watching other nations invest in the future– they way we use to do!

  • @Ron:

    So if people don’t want a government funded moon program, it’s because they are “consumed by an entitlement mentality”? That has to one of the most bizarre reasons I’ve heard so far.

    Setting aside the “bold dreams” part, considering the so-called “priorities” competing for half of NASA’s budget…yeah, entitlement mentality.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Actually, contrary to Oler, Anne Spudis is on to something about Apollo being a massive Cold War victory. Forever after, the Soviets were handicapped in their attempts to say that communism was superior to capitalism. Did not the capitalists land men on the Moon whereas the communist could not? And when Reagan proposed SDI, the Soviets were very sure we could do it. We had beaten them to the Moon after all.

  • Ben Russell-Gough

    @ Coastal Ron,

    So if people don’t want a government funded moon program, it’s because they are “consumed by an entitlement mentality”?

    FWIW, I think it is more that people in these last few decades have lost the ability to believe in anything beyond the mundane physicalities of everyday life. It’s kind of a denial of dreams and imagination as somehow unhealthy and destructive.

  • amightywind

    The reality (which even “wind” admits in his chest thumping post) is that there was no overall goal of Apollo (or the shuttle or really the station and certainly Cx) that had value OF ITS OWN…that was worth the cost.

    And yet you support the ISS, which is the most prolifically wasteful and pointless NASA program of all time. Incongruous, or in your words, ‘goofy’.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Pathfinder_01 wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 10:04 am

    “I would say the Shuttle’s goal was worth the cost. Bring down the cost of space access. It just failed miserably at that goal. ”

    the shuttle and the notion to build a shuttle set the stage for the failed management doctrine that is today the foundation of NASA efforts almost across the board in space.

    The idea of the shuttle was a good one…bring down the cost by reuseability and high flight rates…by making some technological leaps etc.

    But (ignoring the notion of NASA becoming a commercial launch provider in a country that never had a national airline) where the system went off track is when in the shuttle development it became clear that 1) the money to build a system which met the goals outlined as not going to be there, 2) to keep the program on track some really goofy assumptions started being made, assumptions which any manager with any real experience would/should have known were fiction and 3) it became clear that the technology “leaps” needed to build the system and make it work as advertised were simply outside the ability of the people doing it…in part for the funds that were willing to be spent…but were simply to great.

    It is pretty clear that some people saw this. When Bush the old was DCI, according to an article on Space Review written by Dwayne D…Bush the old pushed out a letter preserving the notion of using expendables to launch national security payloads. I’ve talked to Hans M. about the shuttle and asked him this question and he was pretty clear that by the late 70’s it was starting to be obvious the thing was not going to work as advertised.

    Yet the program continued when it probably should have been stopped around 76 or so. As Cx has shown, it is hard to shut these things down particularly when jobs are all over the place and the notion of “abandoning the frontier” gets cranked up…

    But what that lead to in the 80’s was a completely unrealistic assessment of how to use the vehicle(s) that had emerged. The old goal was still there, but it was clear that the hardware wasnt capable of it. And after the loss of Challenger its pretty clear that some sober heads should have started to figure out a way off the shuttle system…not “make it safe”.

    This is kind of where I started to fall off the bandwagon because as I was “growing up” and learning more and more about how aviation safety worked…it started to become clearer and clearer that the shuttle system was (and I think remains) incapable of being flown in an even remotely safe manner at a cost that is affordable.

    I’ve quite believing that it is a notion of “just developing the technology”…its not one giant leap that is required…it is a series of small steps.

    Steps we are I think starting to make today.

    Apollo was a political answer for its time; but it was and is the wrong template for any real sustainable activity in human spaceflight

    Robert G. Oler

  • It’s time to get past old mythologies — which are just that, a myth —

    Agreed – but we Americans love the big myth; Pecos Bill, Billy the Kid, Wild Bill Hickock, Geronimo, we love ‘em all.

    Apollo, St. Ronny Raygun and Shuttle are the latest and greatest. Just don’t bother us with the facts!

    CxP was to be one, but it got shot down by that durn Marxist/Muslim Obamanator! Traitor b@$t!ch!

  • James T

    On beating the Russians with capitalism:

    Um… a big giant government run program doesn’t strike me as “capitalism.” We beat big government spending with big government spending.

    On Obama ending Constellation and being called a Marxist in the same sentence:

    Yeah, ending an unsustainable government run launch infrastructure and shifting that responsibility to the private sector is TOTALLY socialist. (sarcasm)

  • Coastal Ron

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    Actually, contrary to Oler, Anne Spudis is on to something about Apollo being a massive Cold War victory.

    You sound like you’re trying to decide which pebble in the avalanche gets the most credit, whereas you’re missing the point about why the avalanche as a whole was so powerful.

    In this case, capitalism (for all it’s good & bad) was too much of an overwhelming force to be counteracted by the Soviet system. It’s because we had such a large & growing economy that we could afford the Apollo program, plus fight a war in Viet Nam, pump out consumer goods and grow our GDP. The Soviets were doomed, even if we never made it to the Moon.

  • On Obama ending Constellation and being called a Marxist in the same sentence:

    If you mean me, I was being “snarky.”

    People don’t do nuance now-a-days, perhaps I should’ve used [snark] and [/snark], LOL. ;D

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    Why spend a little tax payer money trying to gain access to the hundreds of quadrillions of dollars worth of natural resources in our solar system

    You really need to take an Econ 101 class and learn about supply & demand. For now, we have everything we need right here on Earth, so there is no need to ship methane from Titan or alumina from the Moon.

    Once we get commerce going in space, then those local resources become potential alternatives to shipping everything from Earth, but until then they will wait patiently for our strip mining equipment to arrive… ;-)

  • You really need to take an Econ 101 class and learn about supply & demand. For now, we have everything we need right here on Earth, so there is no need to ship methane from Titan or alumina from the Moon.

    I think Marcel’s, and others’ hearts are in the right place, but they suffer from the ‘Apollo/Star Trek’ Syndrome.

    Since the two events (one factual, the other fiction) came about at the same time, folks believe that fully funded big government agencies (NASA/Star Fleet) is the avenue to the galaxy.

    IMHO.

  • @Coastal Ron

    Where was US private industry when the Soviets were launching a satellite into orbit in 1957. I guess they didn’t see any quick profits from such ventures. There would be no global $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if it weren’t for NASA. So I guess that means you’re against the Federal government giving money to the emerging private US space companies to develop their own private space programs– which I’m strongly for. And guess you’d be against Lincolns Transcontinental Railroad.

    NASA has had a tremendous positive impact on the American economy. But the Chinese said it best:

    Ouyang Ziyuan (Ouyang), a senior consultant at China’s lunar exploration program:

    “If China doesn’t explore the moon, we will have no say in international lunar exploration and can’t safeguard our proper rights and interests.

    The contribution of the Apollo project of the US is amazing. According to one calculation, the input-output ratio is 1:14. It drove the development of high-tech worldwide and made the US a leader in the high-tech field for almost 20 years.”

    http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-10/581744.html

  • John Malkin

    The contribution of the Apollo project of the US is amazing. According to one calculation, the input-output ratio is 1:14. It drove the development of high-tech worldwide and made the US a leader in the high-tech field for almost 20 years.”

    So why doesn’t our Congress fund NASA at Apollo levels of spending? because we don’t have it.

    On a side note, it would be an international relation disaster to cancel our participation in ISS of cource it would mean the end of COTS.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    “The contribution of the Apollo project of the US is amazing. According to one calculation, the input-output ratio is 1:14. ”

    lol there is no way that is possible. NASA claims the shuttle is 1:10…and thats goofy as well. It doesnt even do it in the Clear Lake Area. The appropriate authorities who measure the ups and downs of spending in Clear Lake at best call the spending at JSC a 1:15 and that is stretching it.

    How do I know? I was on the school board and the folks routinely came and made presentations to us.

    Robert G. Oler

  • @John Malkin

    What do you mean, we don’t have it? We spend less than $10 billion a year our our manned space program. That’s about a month occupying Iraq. In fact, the entire NASA budget is so tiny that it amounts to less than 0.6% of all Federal expenditures. So you could completely eliminate NASA and it wouldn’t even reduce Federal expenditures by 1%.

    But of course when you have a bunch of lawyers running the country, they have their priorities. And why haven’t they proposed cutting their own wages during this economic crisis the way Congress did back during the Great Depression? As I said, that’s because they have their own priorities.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm
    “. There would be no global $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if it weren’t for NASA”

    at best that is “sort of accurate”.

    AT&T was doing satellite experiments outside of NASA (the first US communications satellite was a US Army effort…SCORE) the Telstar system.

    But the main driver behind the Geosats (which is the industry you are referring to..) but Hughes.

    the only thing NASA provided of the Syncom system was the launch vehicle. Hughes (and some of the people there) came up with the idea for a very “simple” geo sat demonstrator and built the bird. NASA provided the Delta and some ground stations…

    but NASA had very very little to do with the actual concept.

    You have been told this before and it is not that hard to research what I am saying and find out that I am 100 percent correct….but you continue to make a claim that is without merit and then you use that claim to back up your larger argument.

    PLUS the geosat notion would have occurred without the lunar program.

    Robert G. Oler

  • @Robert G. Oler

    So how did Hughes propose sending a satellite into orbit without a rocket???

  • Ryan Crierie

    Oler,

    For instance you could say the same thing about the B-29. The “Beeson” was designed for two task…bombing Japan and carrying the “special” which actually is what sized the bomb bay requirement.

    You’re absolutely wrong on this.

    The B-29’s size and the bomb bay capacity were largely fixed by USAAC Data Request R-40B and Specification XC-218, both of which were issued 29 January 1940, which called for a maximum bombload of 8000 lbs or more for short range operations.

    “Silverplate” modifications to enable the B-29 to carry the Atomic Bomb consisted of removing the 12-foot bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bomb bays, to form one single 33-foot bomb bay. (There were more modifications, but these stand out the most).

    Despite this, due to the attachment box for the main wing spars being located between the B-29’s two bomb bays, the maximum diameter of Gun-Type Atomic Bombs could only be two feet, no matter what.

    If the B-29 was designed from the start to carry the atomic bomb, you’ve got a very uh, “special” definition of that term.

    Along the way however it mastered the art of cabin pressurization, turbocharging large radial engines (which were in use at the time), instrument flying and navigation over long distances and discovered the jet stream.

    None of those had anything to do with the merits of its primary task…which was to deliver ordanance on Japan and drop the special.

    Again, you are absolutely wrong.

    All of the above were absolutely vital to the mission.

    Cabin Pressurization? Turbocharging? You need high altitude to achieve the range that the USAAF was asking for — a 2,000 mile combat radius with a worthwhile bombload. Cabin Pressurization was NOT OPTIONAL. It’s one thing to wear an electrically heated suit and suck on an oxygen mask for six to seven hours in a B-17/24 over Europe; quite another to do it for fifteen hours (the typical length of a B-29 mission) over the Pacific.

    Large Radials? The B-29 started out with R-2800s, but changed to R-3350s due to the ever growing weight and performance requirements that the USAAF demanded. Even that was very suboptimal and resulted in a significant amount of crashes. It wasn’t until the B-50 with R-4360s that the B-29 series could reliably and safely perform hot environment takeoffs.

    Instrument Flying and Long Range Navigation? That’s absolutely vital; because it does you no good if you launch a hundred bombers and only twenty can find their target due to navigational errors.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 11:34 am

    “So if people don’t want a government funded moon program, it’s because they are ‘consumed by an entitlement mentality’? That has to one of the most bizarre reasons I’ve heard so far.”

    I suppose it might seem bizarre to a Socialist. (I say that in the generic sense.) After all, wouldn’t the money “wasted” on space exploration be better spent on ObamaCare, more welfare programs, gold-plated public sector employee pensions, education (read ‘unionized teacher pensions’) and the like? You know … those ever-increasing entitlement programs that are driving states like Illinois and California into bankruptcy?

    Is it any wonder we can’t afford a bold space program these days when our skyrocketing entitlement programs are crippling the economy and placing trillion of dollars of debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren? That, in the minds of a growing number of voters, is the “bizarre” notion (as the November elections made clear). It’s the Entitlement State we can no longer afford. The cost of the Apollo Program was a drop in the bucket compared to the money that is being spent on today’s entitlement programs.

  • James T

    @ Marcel

    They may not have cut their wages but there is a freeze on all federal employee wages for two years, which is not a lot but it’s something.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ryan Crierie wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    I wrote:
    For instance you could say the same thing about the B-29. The “Beeson” was designed for two task…bombing Japan and carrying the “special” which actually is what sized the bomb bay requirement.

    you wrote:
    You’re absolutely wrong on this.

    nope. I am correct and you proved it. The B-29 as it emerged from various design studies and went into production was designed to do the two things that I mentioned, that is why it emerged from design studies quite different then the early design studies.

    you wrote “which called for a maximum bombload of 8000 lbs or more for short range operations.”

    The specials were more like 10,000 (or more fat man was 11000 and change) and the B-29’s flew over a very very long range with them.

    There was a reason that the B-29 emerged quite different then the 1940 design studies and it is the two I mentioned. The requirements for those two things drove the final design.

    As for the ancillary issues. you made my point again.

    None of the B-29 systems were “operational” except in a military sense…but they were “first” and eventually became common place. The B-32 which was the parallel bomber in case the B-29 did not work…did not solve the pressurization issue. Had boeing not been able to..the crew was going to suck on O2 and wear heated suits all the way. They were in the works.

    What the B-29 did was worth the price alone, worth three times the amount…it wasnt like “we built the B-29 and got Tang”.

    as Apollo is

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    @Robert G. Oler

    So how did Hughes propose sending a satellite into orbit without a rocket???..

    they didnt they were looking for other groups to sposor the rocket and were considering doing an AT&T and paying for the rocket themselves.

    All NASA did was buy the rocket, it didnt even “invent” the rocket for the task…the Delta was already in use it had launched Telstar.

    To say NASA is responsible for Syncom is goofy.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 4:27 pm

    I suppose it might seem bizarre to a Socialist. (I say that in the generic sense.)

    Actually it sounds just as bizarre to a Capitalist (and that would be me).

    After all, wouldn’t the money “wasted” on space exploration be better spent on ObamaCare, more welfare programs, gold-plated public sector employee pensions, education (read ‘unionized teacher pensions’) and the like?

    Gee, I guess we know which radio shows you listen to… ;-)

    But seriously, once you decide to start thinking for yourself, and stop letting other people tell what you should think, then maybe we can move on to a discussion about the role of government funding.

    As I have stated many times, and even to the Spudis gang, I support space exploration, and even lunar exploration. I also support the ISS, as it provides us with the easiest ability to figure out how we’re going to actually live in space (and that includes the Moon). Why people think working out the bugs on new space infrastructure will be easier 238,000 miles away instead of 238 miles is beyond me, but for some reason people don’t understand how hard it is to do anything in space, much less survive.

    Is it any wonder we can’t afford a bold space program these days when our skyrocketing entitlement programs are crippling the economy and placing trillion of dollars of debt on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren?

    If you look at the funding levels for NASA over the decades, both in good times and bad, NASA has received about the same level of funding since Apollo. And since $200B over a decade is not that large amount of money these days, it’s not really the money that’s holding us back. So what is?

    NO ONE IN GOVERNMENT IS THAT INTERESTED IN GOING TO THE MOON.

    Ever since Johnson, no POTUS or Congress has really felt that big of a need to go back to the Moon. Yes Bush 43 was an exception, but all indications were that he didn’t care that much about it either, and he certainly didn’t use any political capital to promote it or keep it going.

    A space program has consensus, but politicians view the NASA budget more as an opportunity to keep money flowing to their districts, and not for expanding our capabilities in space.

    So if you want the real bogeyman in all of this, it’s your representatives in Congress, because they’re not saying we can’t spend more on NASA because of “INSERT A PROGRAM YOU HATE HERE”, it’s because they don’t see a need to. Direct your anger accordingly.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    I guess they didn’t see any quick profits from such ventures. There would be no global $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if it weren’t for NASA.

    In the beginning of the space race, there was no commerce in space. As the technology advanced, and uses for satellites were developed, then industries started to grow.

    But so far that commerce relies on just one category of space use, which is satellites, and that boils down to sensors and communications. And if you look at the total costs of the industries that use satellites, I think you would see that the satellites themselves are but a small part of the overall expenses for those industries. Commerce in space is still in it’s infancy.

    Going to the Moon will require a huge investment of money without any terrestrial ROI, so the formula is upside down compared to satellites. So far the experience we have is that everything is far more expensive to do things in space that we initially expect, and that will apply to proposals like the Spudis/Lavoie one too. I don’t think anyone seriously believes they can do what they propose for less than 2X of what they think.

    And you still need to have a reason beyond “the commies are coming, the commies are coming” or “because there are vast riches waiting for us” in order to get the U.S. Government excited about the Moon again. Until that point comes, I’m spending my time trying to lower the cost to access space, which if successful, is a better strategy for getting back to the Moon than trying to scare everyone.

  • William Mellberg

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “For instance you could say the same thing about the B-29. The ‘Beeson’ was designed for two task … bombing Japan and carrying the ‘special’ which actually is what sized the bomb bay requirement.”

    The Boeing B-29 Superfortress was NOT designed to carry the atomic bombs. They did not exist and were not even fully imagined at the time the B-29 design was frozen.

    The first XB-29 prototype flew in September 1942. Enrico Fermi didn’t succeed in bringing about the world’s first man-made nuclear chain reaction until December 1942. And it wasn’t until January 1943 that construction began at Los Alamos and design work on the atomic bombs was initiated. At that time, the size, shape and weight of the bombs was far from certain. Which is why, as Ryan Crierie has pointed out, the B-29 bomb bays had to be modified to carry Little Boy and Fat Man.

    The B-29’s significance as an aircraft was in its incorporation of so many advanced technologies that had already been tested or proven individually in other airplanes. In many respects, it served as a bridge between the propeller era and the Jet Age — building on the pre-war B-17 and Stratoliner, while paving the way for the post-war B-47 and Stratocruiser.

  • Doug Lassiter

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    “There would be no global $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry if it weren’t for NASA.”

    That’s a stretch. When AT&T wanted to launch Telstar in 1960, NASA didn’t have a clue about it. NASA ended up doing the launch. COMSAT, and later Intelsat, were hardly beholden to NASA for communications satellite technology. The launch vehicles for these, mostly early Delta’s, were provided by McDonnell Douglas. That’s not to say that NASA hasn’t been important for new technologies in space communications, but to say that it enabled a global industry really isn’t correct. It’s a common fairy tale that NASA was singlehandedly responsible for everything we now do in space.

  • Ryan Crierie

    There was a reason that the B-29 emerged quite different then the 1940 design studies and it is the two I mentioned. The requirements for those two things drove the final design.

    Again, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem, Oler.

    If the B-29’s design had carriage of the atomic bomb as a primary driver, why did it have to have a not-insignficant fuselage section removed in order to form a unified 33 foot long bomb bay?

    Why did the USAAF have to order these modified aircraft under special contract with Martin?

    As for the ancillary issues. you made my point again.

    Again, you have a lack of reading comprehension.

    You claimed:

    None of those had anything to do with the merits of its primary task…which was to deliver ordanance on Japan and drop the special.

    The B-29 achieved all of those important points, thus making it capable of achieving it’s primary task.

    The B-32…failed most of those important points, making it incapable of achieving it’s primary task, to the point where the USAAF decided to halt production in the Summer of 1945 at just 214 planes, and then in October 1945 to issue orders declaring every single B-32 excess war material to be scrapped.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Gee, I guess we know which radio shows you listen to …”

    Gee, where have we heard that sort of speculation before?

    Coastal Ron also wrote:

    “So if you want the real bogeyman in all of this, it’s your representatives in Congress … Direct your anger accordingly.”

    In light of recent events, your comments are in rather poor taste, don’t you think?

    My comments focused on why America can no longer afford to do bold things like sending humans beyond Earth orbit (the Moon or Mars), and why John Kennedy’s space legacy is being squandered. Listing a few of the entitlement programs that are eating up the federal budget says nothing about what radio shows I listen to.

    For the record, I think for myself … and I’m not angry.

  • Coastal Ron wrote:

    Ever since Johnson, no POTUS or Congress has really felt that big of a need to go back to the Moon. Yes Bush 43 was an exception, but all indications were that he didn’t care that much about it either, and he certainly didn’t use any political capital to promote it or keep it going.

    I recently documented in a series of articles (the most recent one at this link) the hows and whys behind the Bush VSE. It was in the wake of the Columbia accident. The investigation commission issued a report recommending Shuttle be phased out and a return to the traditional design with the crew vehicle atop a rocket, but they also wrote that NASA lacked a long-range “vision.”

    So Bush gave a speech that basically did what the commission wanted, including a “Vision for Space Exploration.” The word “vision” was chosen deliberately.

    But when then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe appeared two weeks later before the Senate Science Committee, it was revealed that Bush wasn’t really going to put any significant money into implementing it. Several committee members, starting with Republican John McCain and Democrat Bill Nelson, called out O’Keefe on it.

    Bush had no “vision” and no intent of creating a seriously robust Moon program. It was a sham to make it appear he was complying with the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. And then he punted the problem down the road to the next President.

  • @James T

    “They may not have cut their wages but there is a freeze on all federal employee wages for two years, which is not a lot but it’s something.”

    Gabriel Gifford proposed a 5% wage reduction for members of Congress, but she was pretty much ignored. But its easy for Congress to freeze the wages of someone else who makes at least $150,000 less than they do:-)

  • @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 4:13 pm

    “All NASA did was buy the rocket, it didnt even “invent” the rocket for the task…the Delta was already in use it had launched Telstar.

    To say NASA is responsible for Syncom is goofy.”

    There was nothing revolutionary about transmitting radio and television signals in the early 1960s. Folks had been listening to radio for decades and watching television for more than a decade. The technological revolution was the invention of the space rocket. And without this government funded invention there would have been no such thing as– a satellite! The space rocket was the revolutionary technology that made things such as satellites possible.

    Thinking that you could place satellites into orbit in the 1960s without the government invention of the space rocket is what is goofy:-)

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    First you said:

    There was nothing revolutionary about transmitting radio and television signals in the early 1960s.

    Then you said:

    The technological revolution was the invention of the space rocket.

    While you were right about the evolution of radio and television in the 60’s, I think you were wrong about the space rocket being revolutionary – it too was just an evolution of prior attempts to send rockets progressively greater distances. NASA was just one of the many organizations in the U.S. and around the world trying to push the limits of rockets.

    But times have changed, and now the majority of the rocket building experience lies with the aerospace industry, and not with NASA. Sure NASA has a huge knowledge base of unique data, but that does not translate to the design, manufacture and operations of complex flight systems.

  • common sense

    @ William Mellberg wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 9:09 am

    “Unfortunately, too many Americans these days seem to be consumed by an entitlement mentality rather than inspired by bold dreams.”

    You know I am an American and I cannot care less for your lunar dreams. However I find it insulting that you ask my tax dollars to pay your lunar dream and at the same time suggest that I, and others like me, may “be consumed by an entitlement mentality rather than inspired by bold dreams” since of course bold dreams are equal to crewed lunar mission(s) it seems.

    So if you want to lead by example I am sure you will return your Social Security and other Medicare benefits to the government and ask them to be applied to NASA HSF. Then you can criticize others about their entitlements. In the mean time…

  • Coastal Ron

    Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    Bush had no “vision” and no intent of creating a seriously robust Moon program.

    That doesn’t surprise me, as he never expended any political capital on something that was supposedly a legacy program. All hat, no cattle.

    Nice research.

  • common sense

    As I keep reading I see that some people have an entitlement as to what is bold for someone else to do. There is such arrogance in those words that it is borderline idiotic. I’d be curious to know all the bold things they ever did in their lives.

    Go tell a mother who is alone to raise her family that she ought to have bold dreams of sending people to the Moon because then she will feel so much better. Go tell the man who lost his job that he should rather send his unemployment check back to NASA.

    You people have no idea what you are talking about. It’s frightening that you can actually vote for something.

    How selfish!

  • James T

    @ Marcel

    Firstly, Obama proposed that federal wages to be frozen. Not to say that Republicans wouldn’t have pushed for it anyways, which is exactly why Obama did it, as a symbolic gesture of cooperation in finding ways to reduce the deficit. Yeah, I agree that it’s a shame that a lot of lower level federal employees who probably are in need of a raise in the next two years are getting screwed. But a 5% cut in congressional wages is a drop in the bucket when talking about reducing the deficit… less than $5 million a year by my count. Not saying that every little bit can help… but it’s unrealistic that anyone on either side of the isle would prioritize it. Not just because they want to keep their money… but more because it’s more worth their time to target other areas (at least I HOPE that would be the greater motivator).

    Secondly, I’d rather members of congress stop fighting for pork than take a wage cut. In fact, I sort of fear that a wage cut would make them even more hungry for pork.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 10:02 pm

    In light of recent events, your comments are in rather poor taste, don’t you think?

    I’m a great believer in standards, and for language I try to stick with dictionary definitions. I think once people start redefining words, then you lose the basis for communication. The definition of the word “anger” is:

    a strong feeling of annoyance, displeasure, or hostility

    In the context I used it, I felt you displayed annoyance and displeasure in the lack of a Moon program. From just what I know about you, I sense no reason you would display hostility on this subject, so it didn’t concern me. It’s not like I was saying you were “gunning for them”, which is more relevant to the shootings in Tucson.

    My comments focused on why America can no longer afford to do bold things like sending humans beyond Earth orbit (the Moon or Mars), and why John Kennedy’s space legacy is being squandered.

    When you use the word “squandered”, that means “waste (something, esp. money or time) in a reckless and foolish manner“. To me you are annoyed, and experience displeasure about this.

    But this gets back to your interpretation of “bold things”. Obviously you feel the Apollo program was “bold”, but was building a 400 ton space station bold? Is learning to live and work in space, and testing new technologies we’ll need for the future “bold”?

    Just like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz could click her heels to go home, we have always had the ability to go back to the moon. And heck, until Bush 43 we even had the money, so you seem to be forgetting about all the years prior to your favorite POTUS (Obama). Blaming his 2-year old administration on your 38-year failure to return to the Moon sounds like you’re looking for a scapegoat, and not a solution.

    Regarding Kennedy, I don’t see how you can think that Kennedy’s space legacy is being squandered. We did what he set us out to do (land & return), so mission accomplished. He never said “go out and occupy the Moon by 2020″, so I think you have some false memories you have to deal with.

    In any case, if you want the U.S. Taxpayer to spend $Billions to go back to the Moon, then you need to find some way to get them excited. So far they’re not.

    It’s up to you William.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 11:47 pm

    “There was nothing revolutionary about transmitting radio and television signals in the early 1960s”

    actually there was.

    IN that era Syncom was in all respects a driver of what was just possible with the then state of the art.

    The satellite was sized to what the Delta of that era could carry and put into geo orbit (the early ones were simply inclined), the electronics were just barely able to transmit enough signal that could be pickedup on the largest antennas of the era (we are talking really large dishes here…over 100 feet) and even with that the birds could at first barely do 1 black and white signal and Syncom 3 was breathing pretty hard to pass a color signal.

    Today of course we have low noise transistors…but that era was tunnel diodes parametric amps…

    the entire

    everything was sized to make it “just barely” possible.

    Today of course it is not so much a big deal. My amateur radio station’s 30 foot dish can hear signals that even 20 years ago would have required a dish much much larger and back in the 60’s would have been simply impossible with that size of a dish.

    I can for instance detect, but not demodulate the carriers of a couple of the probes in orbit around Mars…

    In the 1960’s Syncom was sized just perfectly. To contrast that look at what the DoD had in mind with Advent.

    Sadly you just dont have a grasp.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/os-ed-nasa-congress-clash-012211-20110121,0,4268861.story

    this pretty much nails it…off to fly for a bit…good morning everyone from Africa…

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @ Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 7:20 am

    “The problem post Apollo (and with Apollo that is why it ended) is that no one can point to a single thing that the effort itself does to make the nation stronger…instead it is well we went to the Moon and got Tang.”

    Rubbish. The effort itself made the nation stronger, by the very parameters of the challenge; was a clear victory on one of many battle fronts of the Cold War and provided acceleratory benefits of incalculable value across the spectrum of industries, sciences and politics. And, as no doubt you know- or should know- Americans had ‘Tang’ available for purchase in their grocery stores in 1959, long before Apollo.

  • Martijn Meijering

    Unfortunately, too many Americans these days seem to be consumed by an entitlement mentality rather than inspired by bold dreams.

    The Shuttle is a good example of something that started as a bold dream, but ended up as something inspired by an entitlement mentality. I’m thinking of prima donna NASA engineers who think they are entitled to participation in a taxpayer funded national space program, walking off huffing and puffing when challenged by lowly non-experts, and space enthusiasts who think they are entitled to a taxpayer funded moon base. Note that this takes nothing away from the potential value of a moon base or national space program.

    My comments focused on why America can no longer afford to do bold things like sending humans beyond Earth orbit (the Moon or Mars), and why John Kennedy’s space legacy is being squandered.

    Well, the real reason that NASA no longer does bold things like that is that the only way they’ve ever done it is by squandering enormous national resources (‘waste anything but time’) and politicians have since decided to squander those resources on something else, namely ISS and Shuttle flights to LEO.

    It can be argued that the Apollo program would have yielded far greater returns than it did had it not been terminated early, but not enough to justify its enormous costs. Which is of course exactly why it was cancelled. The mistake of Apollo was not to cancel it early, the mistake was to start it at all. Note that this differs from saying going to the moon was a mistake, the mistake was to go to the moon in the way they did, not going there at all.

    In a very real sense the Shuttle political industrial complex is Kennedy’s enduring legacy in space, even though the Shuttle was authorised under Nixon and continued by every president since then. So it is incorrect to say Obama has squandered or tried to squander Kennedy’s legacy. Kennedy’s legacy was one of squandering, with shared responsibility by all subsequent presidents except Obama.

    And if you consider the bold dreams to be Kennedy’s legacy, then they were squandered by Nixon, before I was born. It’s a bit unfair to blame Obama for that. Or maybe you mean that Constellation gave you the hope of a moon base. That may be true, but if so it was an illusion. The goal remains an inspiring one, but Obama did more for that goal than any president in history.

    That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he proposed, or with the infrastructure first mentality of some commercial space activists. Let me note in passing that that mentality is totally at odds with what they – rightly – practice in their own professional endeavours. Some have said that Republicans do not believe in market forces above the Karman line and Democrats don’t believe in market forces below it. Similarly some New Space activists seem to believe in incrementalism below the Karman line, but not above it.

  • @Coastal Ron

    “But times have changed, and now the majority of the rocket building experience lies with the aerospace industry, and not with NASA. Sure NASA has a huge knowledge base of unique data, but that does not translate to the design, manufacture and operations of complex flight systems.”

    They haven’t changed at all. Private industry has always built rockets for NASA and proposed rocket concepts for NASA. Famous Gemini and Apollo astronaut, Wally Schirra was once asked what went through his mind as he waited atop the 95-foot Atlas rocket for liftoff, Schirra replied with a grin:

    “You think, all these hundreds of thousands of parts were put together by the lowest bidder!”

    Obama’s original plan was to give private industry a complete monopoly over access to orbit from US soil. And the Congress said no: they’d also like a public option.

  • In the context I used it, I felt you displayed annoyance and displeasure in the lack of a Moon program. From just what I know about you, I sense no reason you would display hostility on this subject, so it didn’t concern me. It’s not like I was saying you were “gunning for them”, which is more relevant to the shootings in Tucson.

    Nothing anyone said, or wrote is relevant to Tucson, other than possibly something that Congresswoman Giffords said (which doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t have said it, or that it was her fault). What happened in Tucson was that a man with a severe mental illness who heard voices in his head decided to kill a Congresswoman because she didn’t understand his lunatic question. Sometimes things like this just happen.

    And for the record, I find the attempts to use this incident to shut down free speech despicable.

  • @ Robert G. Oler

    “Sadly you just dont have a grasp.”

    And what you don’t seem to grasp is the fundamental fact that if governments hadn’t invested serious money to create the space rocket, there would be no satellites or $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry. The history of America has shown over and over again that a government by the people, for the people, and of the people is a good thing for private citizens and for the growth of private commercial industry.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ryan Crierie wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 9:19 pm

    If the B-29′s design had carriage of the atomic bomb as a primary driver, why did it have to have a not-insignficant fuselage section removed in order to form a unified 33 foot long bomb bay?..

    you need to be careful with words…

    NO WHERE did I say that the “gadget” alone was the primary driver for the Beeson.

    read carefully here is what I wrote:

    ““For instance you could say the same thing about the B-29. The ‘Beeson’ was designed for two task … bombing Japan and carrying the ‘special’ which actually is what sized the bomb bay requirement.”

    now read that a few times and you will note that with the last part of the sentence I deal with the bomb bay mods.

    read that a couple of times and then you will understand what I am saying.

    The trick with engineering projects is to define now what is possible with pushing the state of the art, but what is probable and that tells you what can be actually done.

    The Beeson and the gadget drove each other. The B-29 was pushed to carry as much as it could for both conventional strategic bombing…and for the ongoing “special” development.

    There is a great picture of the factory floor at SEattle where they are working on the B-29 and the banner spread across the hanger says “this airplane must” and it list four things that the airplane must do…including range and payload.

    The trick is that those things were possible, had the gadget massed out at 20,000 lbs it had to get smaller or the Beeson had to get closer.

    But two points relate to space development.

    The first is that in WW2 the folks who were developing projects sized them for things that actually were needed and could be accomplished…and second was that what was going to be accomplished was in itself the object of the effort. The spinoffs might have worked out great…but in the end the goal was what mattered.

    Apollo’s goal was completely political…it had no real requirement otherwise. With Apollo 11 getting up on the HOrnet that was the end of fwhat it was suppose to do. there was no mission for it afterward.

    And that is why it ended.

    Robert G. Oler

  • James T

    @ DCSCA

    You completely missed the point of Oler’s comment that you quoted. He said nothing “post-Apollo” made the nation stronger. All your reaction said was that Apollo made the nation stronger, which Oler didn’t disagree with.

    @ Robert G. Oler

    I’ll agree that I can’t think of anything post-Apollo that made our nation “stronger”, but that’s not that same as saying we have gotten nothing out of it. Our many satellite and robotic missions have helped us to learn a lot of things about our solar system. Being a science enthusiast I consider those discoveries to hold their own non-monetary value, that of course it purely a matter of opinion and I know it’s not what many taxpayers are looking for on “returns”. But some of those discoveries are helping us to learn how to detect/mitigate solar flares so we can better maintain our telecommunications infrastructure. Other discoveries teach us things we’re going to want to know when we some day push HSF activities out further in the solar system, a sort of reconnaissance if you will. The ISS is a small portion in a larger portfolio of ways we seek to maintain and improve or relationships with other nations, some of which were relatively recent enemies. Also, last year NASA know-how helped save 33 trapped miners from going crazy and/or dying. Do you really want to put a price on that?

    @ Nobody in particular

    I guess the overall opinion I’m trying to push here is that I reject the idea of government as a “profit maximizing” entity, which is what a focus on the “returns” is promoting. The only thing a government and a corporation should have in common is cost reduction, NOT profit maximization, and those reductions should not come to the point where they do a DISservice to the people.

    I live in California and last November I voted AGAINST Meg Whitman, who ran on a platform of government as business. As the CEO of eBay she sent 40% of jobs overseas, then cut 10% of the remaining workforce, while at the same time giving herself and other executives millions of dollars in severance packages. Not the kind of behavior I want to see in a civil SERVANT.

    To talk about getting monetarily valued returns from government investments is somewhat offensive to me. Sure, maintaining our roads helps support a strong economy and a strong economy helps the government with the potential to receive more tax dollars, but that’s a pretty abstract, indirect and not entirely selfish return. Ending the SLS and shifting launch services to the private sector is a cost reduction I support in full. Sure, maybe we’ll lose some pork jobs in the short run, but in the medium to long run we are helping to develop an entire industry that will create even more jobs, private sector jobs.

  • Vladislaw

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “Obama’s original plan was to give private industry a complete monopoly over access to orbit from US soil.”

    You have to have a single player to have a monopoly. Multiple companies, doing competitive bidding, with multiple winners is not a monopoly. If they all banded together to set price and control production it would have been a cartel, but that is illegal here so at best the most he could be charged with is creating an oligopoly.

    “An oligopoly is a market form in which a market or industry is dominated by a small number of sellers (oligopolists). The word is derived, by analogy with “monopoly”, from the Greek ὀλίγοι (oligoi) “few” + πωλειν (polein) “to sell”. Because there are few sellers, each oligopolist is likely to be aware of the actions of the others. The decisions of one firm influence, and are influenced by, the decisions of other firms. Strategic planning by oligopolists needs to take into account the likely responses of the other market participants.

    Oligopoly is a common market form. As a quantitative description of oligopoly, the four-firm concentration ratio is often utilized. This measure expresses the market share of the four largest firms in an industry as a percentage. For example, as of fourth quarter 2008, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, and T-Mobile together control 89% of the US cellular phone market.

    Oligopolistic competition can give rise to a wide range of different outcomes. In some situations, the firms may employ restrictive trade practices (collusion, market sharing etc.) to raise prices and restrict production in much the same way as a monopoly. Where there is a formal agreement for such collusion, this is known as a cartel. A primary example of such a cartel is OPEC which has a profound influence on the international price of oil.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligopoly

    The President’s original plan was to open up space access to a multiple of competitive suppliers reducing NASA’s outlays so they could afford to do more technology research and to create a domestic commercial space access sector that could also sell to other governments and private citizens.

    NASA has the monopoly: (boldface mine)

    “In economics, a monopoly (from Greek monos / μονος (alone or single) + polein / πωλειν (to sell)) exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. (This is in contrast to a monopsony which relates to a single entity’s control over a market to purchase a good or service, and contrasted with oligopoly where a few entities exert considerable influence over an industry)[1][clarification needed] Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service and a lack of viable substitute goods.[2] The verb “monopolise” refers to the process by which a firm gains persistently greater market share than what is expected under perfect competition.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

    You should learn the terms before you toss them around.

  • Coastal Ron

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 11:49 am

    Obama’s original plan was to give private industry a complete monopoly over access to orbit from US soil.

    Nope. But I’d be glad to look at any evidence you have to support this theory, but otherwise I think it’s just FUD from those that supported Constellation. If anything, Obama was echoing, if not directly supporting, the goals of the VSE, which stated NASA was to:

    Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other services supporting the International Space Station and exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit.

    Ares 1/Orion was never intended as the primary method of supporting the ISS, and Obama never stated that private industry for crew related tasks was doing anything other than supporting the ISS.

    And the Congress said no: they’d also like a public option.

    In the end, they agreed with Obama’s plan, which takes into account the realities of supporting the ISS past 2016. Remember it was supposed to be defunded after 2015, so now that Congress chose the ISS over Constellation, our reliance on the Russians needs to end. To that end, Congress said:

    (8) Existing and emerging United States commercial launch capabilities and emerging launch capabilities offer the potential for providing crew support assets. New capabilities for human crew access to the ISS should be developed in a manner that ensures ISS mission assurance and safety. Commercial services offer the potential to broaden the availability and access to space at lower costs.

    and

    (10) Congress restates its commitment, expressed in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–155) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–422), to the development of commercially developed launch and delivery systems to the ISS for crew and cargo missions. Congress reaffirms that NASA shall make use of United States commercially provided ISS crew transfer and crew rescue services to the maximum extent practicable.

    The only issue now is funding, but that is tied up in the power-play issues that plague NASA funding for anything – political “what’s in it for me”, instead of looking out for the Nation as a whole.

    Regarding your “public option”, if you mean funding a basic capsule that costs (in total) around $10B, then my view is that it can be done for less money and in a different way. The time of capsules for exploration has passed, and now they should be relegated to what they really only good for – transporting people through an atmosphere on their way to or from space. Any other features we add on is equivalent to gold plating a toilet.

  • William Mellberg

    Common Sense wrote:

    “Go tell a mother who is alone to raise her family that she ought to have bold dreams of sending people to the Moon because then she will feel so much better. Go tell the man who lost his job that he should rather send his unemployment check back to NASA.”

    You forgot to mention telling them about the tax dollars going to “commercial” space enterprises to help lower the cost of sending humans into low Earth orbit (how does sending humans to the ISS help the poor?) and to help create space tourism for multi-millionaires (how would that help anyone?).

    Common Sense also wrote:

    “You people have no idea what you are talking about. It’s frightening that you can actually vote for something.”

    What’s frightening to me is that ‘you people’ have no answer when asked what parts of government spending you’d be willing to cut. I hear the violins playing for the poor public sector employees whose wages are being frozen for the next two years. But how about my Brother whose salary was recently cut in half by his employer because of the current economy? (At least he still has a job.) How about my friend who just lost his home and had to pull his two kids out of college because his business went belly up thanks to the current economy? How about my cousin who was recently forced to close her store in a major shopping mall because of the current economy — which also cost her two dozen employees their jobs?

    Yet, while private sector people are losing their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods and their life savings — and while taxes are being increased because tax revenues are decreasing as the private sector continues to get pummeled — retired public sector employees are still getting their golden pension checks every month. One of my high school history teachers retired 20 years ago as a department chair. He’s been getting $100,000 per year ever since. That’s $2 million … for doing nothing. He was a great teacher. But $100,000 per year for doing nothing? Ditto for my former high school coach who passed away a few years back. But his wife is still getting half his pension ($50,000 per year) for doing nothing. And we have high school physical education teachers in Illinois who are earning as much as $190,000 per year. Where do I sign up to be a P.E. teacher?!

    You question my mention of the Entitlement State. But let me ask you …

    How long can half the working people in this country (those in the private sector) keep paying such exorbitant salaries, benefits and entitlements to the other half (those in the public sector)? And if we’re talking about “shared sacrifice” and helping that single mom and unemployed guy you mentioned, how about asking some of the public sector employees to share some of the misery? How about asking some of the public service employee unions to give up some of their treasure the way their brothers and sisters who are employed by the private sector have done (pilots and flight attendant unions, for example)?

    And Common Sense added:

    “How selfish!”

    Indeed! But for your information, I’ve donated my time, my money and my talent to scores of charitable causes all of my adult life. I’ve personally raised nearly $100,000 for a local scholarship fund. And I’ve given to organizations such as the United Way, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, PBS and dozens of other worthy causes. I’ve also served (gratis) on local boards and commissions. How dare you call ME selfish. But I’m not expressing anger here. I’m just suggesting that some of the people who like to play the class warfare card are hypocrites who never suggest how government expenditures might be cut to match the belt-tightening in the private sector. They are very generous … with other peoples’ money. Their answer to every problem is more government and more taxes. But in the current economic crisis, government isn’t the solution. Government is the problem.

    Going back to my original statement about bold visions vs. entitlement mentalities …

    A Great Nation with a flourishing economy (i.e., one that has a healthy private sector) can afford to do many things. It can help its disadvantaged citizens at the same time it is exploring the unknown and laying the foundations for the future. But when a nation becomes bogged down by runaway entitlement programs and a socialist political agenda, it can afford to do nothing; and everyone becomes a loser.

    As Churchill said, “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

    Which, in the end, is one of the reasons the United States beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 12:04 pm

    “And what you don’t seem to grasp is the fundamental fact that if governments hadn’t invested serious money to create the space rocket, there would be no satellites or $100 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry. ”

    That is an interesting statement. The problem is that it is historically empty.

    Government(s) invested a lot of money in rockets not so much to build anything in space, but on a purely national defense posture.

    The first US communications satellite was SCORE which was launched just over a year (14 or so months) after Sputnik. Really “SCORE” was a method of heralding the fact that the Atlas could do what no Soviet rocket could launch itself (minus the first two engines which staged) into orbit.

    That was in part a propaganda effort to make up for the notion that “our satellites are smaller then theirs”. And actually as a propaganda effort it was completely successful…the payload was to illustrate the rocket in orbit. And the public keyed on the payload…but the folks in the Soviet military keyed on the rocket.

    As an ICBM Atlas was far superior to anything the Soviets had…and the fact that as a “near SSTO” it put itself in such a precise orbit registered on Soviet military leaderrs…who based on the orbit could work the calculations backwards and find out what throw weight Atlas had. They knew that our bombs were in fact “smaller” and more precise then theirs ..and if one both believes defectors and the Soviet procurement after Atlas…they were very worried about it. And Atlas was far inferior to Titan II.

    I mention both Atlas and Titan (but could have mentioned Delta as well) because the “heavy lifting” on developing those boosters was not done by NASA…it was done by the military which used them as rocket platforms (Delta is at its heart a Thor)

    Now you are trying to argue that all this money enabled the telecomunications revolution but 1) NASA had little to do with it…and 2) the bulk of the money was spent on national defense. Atlas got it start as early as 1947…BTW one thing that really scared the Soviets about Atlas…they knew it had very little involvement of the Germans.

    I always find it funny when people talk about “human rating” (or man rating) Titan and Atlas. There was some work, but as the technology existed these weapons were pretty reliable…they carried deterrence.

    Robert G. Oler

  • “Obama’s original plan was to give private industry a complete monopoly over access to orbit from US soil.”

    Anyone who would make such an idiotic statement has no concept of what the word “monopoly” means.

  • William Mellberg

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “Apollo’s goal was completely political…it had no real requirement otherwise. With Apollo 11 getting up on the HOrnet that was the end of fwhat it was suppose to do. there was no mission for it afterward.”

    You’re as wrong about this as you were about the B-29.

    Planning for Apollo’s lunar science goals and requirements began in 1962. The Woods Hole and Falmouth conferences further defined and refined Apollo lunar surface science so that engineers could take those requirements into account as they designed the spacecraft and the missions. The Apollo ‘J’ missions were totally dedicated to science. Indeed, after Apollo 11, the ‘H’ missions were also dedicated to science as the “national goal” had already been achieved. But planning for multiple missions to multiple targets on the Moon had been in the works for years. That is why the first ALSEP was deployed on Apollo 12 and why Lunar Rovers were part of the LM payload for Apollo 15, 16 and 17. And, of course, the Apollo Applications Program was focused on scientific missions on the lunar surface (Molab), in lunar orbit and in Earth orbit (Skylab).

    Yes, politics drove the Apollo Program. No, we probably wouldn’t have sent men to the Moon without the Cold War. But once the commitment to go there was made, science became a vital part of the program.

  • Vladislaw

    William Mellberg wrote:

    “space enterprises to help lower the cost of sending humans into low Earth orbit (how does sending humans to the ISS help the poor?) and to help create space tourism for multi-millionaires (how would that help anyone?).”

    If NASA only has to pay 20 mil per seat versus 56 mil per seat to the Russians and almost 100 mil by the space shuttle, it saves the federal government money that can go towards other projects, encluding social services.

    The number one economic activity for all of humanity on the planet is tourism (pre global recession). So for the government to help spur the creation of another new tourism sector that would create new, high pay, high tech jobs for the 21st century, which increases the tax base and provides the government with more funds for social programs or other projects.

  • William Mellberg

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “If NASA only has to pay 20 mil per seat versus 56 mil per seat to the Russians and almost 100 mil by the space shuttle, it saves the federal government money that can go towards other projects, encluding social services.”

    But why send humans to the ISS at all? What does it do to help the poor? Shouldn’t ALL of that money be spent right here on Earth for social services and other entitlement programs?

  • Pathfinder_01

    Willaim
    “You forgot to mention telling them about the tax dollars going to “commercial” space enterprises to help lower the cost of sending humans into low Earth orbit (how does sending humans to the ISS help the poor?) and to help create space tourism for multi-millionaires (how would that help anyone?).”

    At the ISS there is currently some vaccine research that helps all. Poor , Rich ect. Research that is possible because the research lab is only 238 miles away in low earth orbit as opposed to 238,000 miles away. The research is being carried out by a company called Astrogentex. If the cost of getting into space is lowered then they can send more into space for the same money. If they could send their own crews into space they would have additional options. Plus one big issue with research on the ISS is that it is available to the public. Many companies would prefer to keep their research to themselves and thus if an option for low cost spaceflight were open perhaps some companies would use it.

    As for the millionaires, they provide a reason to drive down the price. If NASA owns the capsule there is no incentive to reduce price. Let’s say you have a capsule like the CST100 that can hold 7. If I can fill 4 seats with NASA crew, and fill the remaining 2 with Millionaires regularly then when it becomes time to develop the CST150, I might try adding a seat so that I can increase my profits. Likewise If I have a reusable capsule like the CST100, I can use the capsule to send people to private stations and for joyrides and I can spread my costs out.

    For instance Orbital’s space plane holds 4. If that space plane is cheaper to turn around than a capsule, Orbital could likewise offer trips into Orbit.

    The point is to get a system where NASA isn’t footing 100% of the bill. Imagine how costly it would be for the military to transport goods and people to the battlefield, if it had to run 100% of the transport there. If it could not simply ship the people and the items as close to the battlefield as possible and then only worry about handling the last legs. Even the mail service in this country does not own the capacity to ship all the mail across the country. The mail service focuses on simply delivering it to your address and contracts out the shipping between cities.

    Commercial spaceflight is an enabler. Imagine a moon landing where NASA only needs to develop a lander. Instead of the CXP/Apollo way where they designed the capsule , lander, and rocket and not only that they had to develop and maintain the capacity to create all of that with very little sharing with other government organizations or private entities. If there was a space station at l1/l2 and you had commercial crew to this station then all you would need is a lander. That is the enabling power of commercial.

  • @ Robert G. Oler

    “Apollo’s goal was completely political…it had no real requirement otherwise. With Apollo 11 getting up on the HOrnet that was the end of fwhat it was suppose to do. there was no mission for it afterward.

    And that is why it ended.”

    The goal of the Apollo program was to leap frog the USSR’s technological lead in space travel. The US was well behind the Soviet Union when the space age began in 1957 and were still way behind when John Kennedy set America’s goal for the Moon.

    Beyond LEO missions ended because Nixon was as cynical and hostile towards America’s manned space program as many Democrats on the left were about spending money on manned space travel.

    Nixon viewed America’s space program from a cynical political perspective– instead of as the next step in humanity’s cultural evolution as Kennedy did when he repeatedly described space as: a new ocean.

  • @Vladislaw

    “The President’s original plan was to open up space access to a multiple of competitive suppliers reducing NASA’s outlays so they could afford to do more technology research and to create a domestic commercial space access sector that could also sell to other governments and private citizens.”

    There were only 5 manned space flights to the ISS last year. So there’s not enough traffic to the ISS to sustain more than one company. Fortunately, Boeing has recognized this which is why they’re appropriately focusing on space tourism. Space X would love to be NASA’s version of the ULA. But its questionable if the ULA’s relationship with the military has significantly lowered launch cost.

  • common sense

    @William Mellberg wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    “You forgot to mention telling them about the tax dollars going to “commercial” space enterprises to help lower the cost of sending humans into low Earth orbit (how does sending humans to the ISS help the poor?) and to help create space tourism for multi-millionaires (how would that help anyone?).”

    Utter nonsense. And had you any self respect you’d dare to compare the orders of magnitude of the budget that NASA is using to purchase the commercial services vs. building a lunar base. You really don’t have any sense of that. Is this why you can dream big? And the ISS already exists and MUST be serviced by our engagement with other nations. I assume these other nations are not much worth to you? Who is getting tax dollars to create space tourism for millionaires? Please give me the names of the companies and the government grants numbers that they received to do that. Until then you are just blowing hot air.

    “What’s frightening to me is that ‘you people’ have no answer when asked what parts of government spending you’d be willing to cut.”

    I don’t remember you asked me. But here it is DoD. Make it half what it is. Stop the wars and bring the troops back home where they belong. This is the largest most nonsensical budget we are giving away. I would probably add DHS as well. And since we are at it I would cut NASA SLS and Orion. But the required changes are most engrained within our political-military–industrial complex than anywhere else. Our economy is mostly driven by the DoD. They employ millions. Some programs make sense (e.g. tankers) and other are just a waste (e.g. F-22).

    “I hear the violins playing for the poor public sector employees whose wages are being frozen for the next two years.”

    Huh what are you talking about? Where did I say anything like that? But in any case frozen for 2 years still is a big salary cut.

    “But how about my Brother whose salary was recently cut in half by his employer because of the current economy? (At least he still has a job.) How about my friend who just lost his home and had to pull his two kids out of college because his business went belly up thanks to the current economy? How about my cousin who was recently forced to close her store in a major shopping mall because of the current economy — which also cost her two dozen employees their jobs?”

    So what about them? You’d still give away our treasure for a lunar base? Maybe you ought to tell them that given the choice to help them you’d gladly fund a lunar base, right?

    “Yet, while private sector people are losing their jobs, their homes, their livelihoods and their life savings — and while taxes are being increased because tax revenues are decreasing as the private sector continues to get pummeled — retired public sector employees are still getting their golden pension checks every month. One of my high school history teachers retired 20 years ago as a department chair. He’s been getting $100,000 per year ever since. That’s $2 million … for doing nothing. He was a great teacher. But $100,000 per year for doing nothing? Ditto for my former high school coach who passed away a few years back. But his wife is still getting half his pension ($50,000 per year) for doing nothing. And we have high school physical education teachers in Illinois who are earning as much as $190,000 per year. Where do I sign up to be a P.E. teacher?!”

    Fine, are you still going to give away your Social Security and your Medicare benefits? Do you lead by example or you just talk? You don’t like the system you live in then stop the hypocrisy and go and vote. But maybe you ought to vote for issues that are far more important than NASA. Maybe you ought to open your minds and see what actually would make this country stronger and no it is not a well funded NASA HSF. Think.

    “How long can half the working people in this country (those in the private sector) keep paying such exorbitant salaries, benefits and entitlements to the other half (those in the public sector)? And if we’re talking about “shared sacrifice” and helping that single mom and unemployed guy you mentioned, how about asking some of the public sector employees to share some of the misery? How about asking some of the public service employee unions to give up some of their treasure the way their brothers and sisters who are employed by the private sector have done (pilots and flight attendant unions, for example)?”

    I am not sure what your problem is with the public sector when you keep promoting a government funded space program and attack any one who is telling you that a lot of the said program would be better off in the hands of the private industry. What the heck is your problem? When was last that the unions took anything from you? From NASA? What unions are you talking about? References, links, something to support this nonsense!

    “Indeed! But for your information, I’ve donated my time, my money and my talent to scores of charitable causes all of my adult life. I’ve personally raised nearly $100,000 for a local scholarship fund. And I’ve given to organizations such as the United Way, the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, PBS and dozens of other worthy causes. I’ve also served (gratis) on local boards and commissions. How dare you call ME selfish. But I’m not expressing anger here. I’m just suggesting that some of the people who like to play the class warfare card are hypocrites who never suggest how government expenditures might be cut to match the belt-tightening in the private sector. They are very generous … with other peoples’ money. Their answer to every problem is more government and more taxes. But in the current economic crisis, government isn’t the solution. Government is the problem.”

    I gave you my answer to a question you never asked me. Good for you that you gave all this time and money but don’t tell me that the government ought to build a lunar base when millions of people are going into poverty. Don’t tell me that it is the most important thing we need to do on this Earth here and now. This is insane. And no the government is not THE problem. What do you suggest? That we go without one?

    “A Great Nation with a flourishing economy (i.e., one that has a healthy private sector) can afford to do many things. It can help its disadvantaged citizens at the same time it is exploring the unknown and laying the foundations for the future. But when a nation becomes bogged down by runaway entitlement programs and a socialist political agenda, it can afford to do nothing; and everyone becomes a loser.”

    Who has a socialist agenda? What are you talking about again? This WH? Are you suggesting this WH is socialist? If so then I’ll say you know as much about socialism as you know about space system design: Nothing.

    “As Churchill said, “The inherent vice of Capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”

    Which, in the end, is one of the reasons the United States beat the Soviet Union in the Space Race.”

    The United States beat the USSR because it is a capitalist system? Looks like Koolaid was already en vogue back then. So you are saying that the Apollo program was a privately funded program? You are saying that the government of the USA did not play a role in that? The US beat the Soviet Union to the Moon because the Soviet Union went for a “stupid” design for their Moon rocket. Nothing else. And the US are not immune to that, suffice to see Constellation. A program funded by the government of a capitalist country, the US, using a socialistickish way to fund a stupid rocket that every one knew it would not work. Do you ever come back to reality? $10B or so wasted and still wasting away to build a rocket? When other outfits can do it for a few $100Ms?

    As I said in another post, you and others like you like to turn and twist facts so that it benefits your cause. The problem is that IT DOES NOT WORK! Climb down your pedestal and look around you for once in a while.

  • DCSCA

    ‘In remarks at the event, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid discussed JFK’s legacy in space exploration.’

    The proper time to comment on JFK’d space legacy will be on May 25 of this year. That is, of course, assuming Congress is not on vacation again.

    @ James T wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 12:48 pm
    Uh, actually, you missed it. If you’re a regular reader, you’d know Herr Oler does not care about HSF one iota and has little regard for the achievements of Apollo.

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “Yes, politics drove the Apollo Program. No, we probably wouldn’t have sent men to the Moon without the Cold War. But once the commitment to go there was made, science became a vital part of the program.”

    not so much.

    The scientist may have had goals for the Apollo program post the first landing…but the politicians who controlled the purse strings did not…

    that is why the folks who had the purse strings shut Apollo down so quickly. and the scientist were left looking like a bunch of fish out of water gasping for air.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    “What’s frightening to me is that ‘you people’ have no answer when asked what parts of government spending you’d be willing to cut. ”

    I dont know who “you people” are…but I dont have a problem telling you what parts of government spending “I” would cut…and it starts with the DoD and NASA and all the other programs in the government where 1) the bang is not worth the buck and 2) the bang goes toward perpetuating things that do little or nothing to serve the people.

    Without breathing hard I can find about 100 billion that the DoD could lose and in the process of losing it like a fat person losing mass we would be as a nation collectively safer.

    But this is a forum on space politics…so without much effort I can tell you how I would bring the NASA budget down to 15 or so billion and do a really bang up technology effort in HSF, run ISS and do exploration of the solar system that would create a golden age in that field.

    YOu are right, when you write “You forgot to mention telling them about the tax dollars going to “commercial” space enterprises to help lower the cost of sending humans into low Earth orbit (how does sending humans to the ISS help the poor?) and to help create space tourism for multi-millionaires (how would that help anyone?).”

    Lowering the cost to LEO will enable millionares to fly to orbit more readily and that while creating some jobs wont solve the unemployment issues…but what it will do is, is be the first cycle in a continuing cycle where the cost to LEO starts downward instead of upward and the access pool to LEO will start getting wider instead of remaining fixed at a government only club.

    I dont know if those two points will eventually merge to open up space to some human application which will really start the free enterprise cycle…

    BUT I DO KNOW that a science only or “do things to plant the flag” efforts wont. We have had 50 years of trying those and they have done nothing.

    As for WSJ statements. like anything else where extremes are compared one is either (to quote Bush the last) “for us or against us”…but in the end the quotes you have are those of extremes.

    Unbriddled capitalism in the end does not lead to real democracy, what it leads to is corporate running of governance to enhance not the state, but that of the corporations which the state supports.

    Thats fine, like that go live in China. But the DOI inscribes a country not of corporate rights but of individual soverignty…and that requires some measure of moderation a nd regulation on capitalism.

    What we have in human spaceflight today right now is essentially what groups like Walmart would like the rest of America to look like. Corporations pushing government policy whose only real goal is to sustain the efforts of those corporations.

    I dont know what thetotal in real dollars now is that we have spent on the shuttle post Apollo but its probably around 1/4 of a trillion…and the reality is that we have gotten NOTHING for that money which has empowered the citizenry to fullfil the creed of the DOI any better.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 9:47 pm

    “But why send humans to the ISS at all? What does it do to help the poor? Shouldn’t ALL of that money be spent right here on Earth for social services and other entitlement programs?”

    I would not have built ISS, or at least built it as it was built and I have the op eds to prove it, they date back to Bush the first…Washington Post, Space News, AWST, The Weekly Standard…the list is pretty long.

    If one was starting with a clean Sheet of paper, ie Sputnik, I never would have geared up the Apollo (race to the Moon and then quit) program. Just like after 9/11 I saw (and have the op eds to prove it) what happened on that day as a singularity that needed to be dealt with not used to smoother our society on the backs of some grand scheme of people who are complete idiots…I would have argued (I hope) to have seen Sputnik and Gagarin and some other events in a totally different light.

    Post Apollo I (hope) that I would have argued a completely different path then shuttle…of course I dont know what as an adult with an adult viewpoint of politics and policy I would have argued, but I do know what I have argued now.

    Problem is that we have ISS and we have it in a framework of many national governments where a lot of US dollars have gone to create it…and now we need to figure out something useful that it can be used for…or just accept the “wasted dollars notion” and dump it.

    I am unwilling to do that since I think that the entire notion can be salvaged…

    To me the model of HSF is probably the model that commercial telecommunications satellites took….and we are now about in the “Westar”” phase of that development…ie after a series of government (Comsat) sponsored efforts the technology has gotten to the point where it is affordable for “other means”.

    I believe we are on the verge of a time where commercial spaceflight by humans and high value uncrewed platforms is indistiguisable in terms of the lift it needs (ie a rocket needs to be as reliable for a multi hundreds million dollar satellite as it does for a human) and the technology to keep people alive in orbit has gotten to the point where private industry can make it affordable.

    We will see…but the sad thing about policy and politics is you have to pick up with the “dogs as they lay” not where you want them to be.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Marcel, before the ISS built there was zero flight opportunities each year… what’s your point? Things change. Right now there’s so many companies vying to carry crew to the ISS that it’s actual effort to name them all. Then, just to make it a little harder, there’s the companies that have expressed no interest in the ISS and are looking for other destinations. Please, get over this NASA-as-the-center-of-the-space-industry view – it’s wrong.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Marcel F. Williams wrote @ January 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    “The goal of the Apollo program was to leap frog the USSR’s technological lead in space travel. The US was well behind the Soviet Union when the space age began in 1957 and were still way behind when John Kennedy set America’s goal for the Moon. ”

    “Goals” in the political sense are whatever takes traction with the public. Ike really couldnt sell the Interstate highway system to his own party, even though he knew Detroit needed it to make use of the manufactoring capability left over from the war. He couldnt sale that notion to his own party…so he hit on the hot button that cranked the GOP up…national defense.

    We can (and Stephen does a pretty good job of presenting my view) argue over what goal Jack Kennedy had in mind and whose audience he was playing to…

    but this sentence is simply wrong “The US was well behind the Soviet Union when the space age began in 1957 and were still way behind when John Kennedy set America’s goal for the Moon”

    you have a little leeway because you dont specify how the US was “way behind” but it was simply not in our technology nor our manufactoring base nor almost anyother thing that actually mattered.

    It was spun as that, just as 9/11 was spun as the start of some great crusade by forces against the US…and it was easily spun as that.

    But the notion that the US was technologically behind the USSR in the late 50’s or the early 60’s was simply false.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    William Mellberg wrote:

    “Vladislaw wrote:

    “If NASA only has to pay 20 mil per seat versus 56 mil per seat to the Russians and almost 100 mil by the space shuttle, it saves the federal government money that can go towards other projects, encluding social services.”

    But why send humans to the ISS at all? What does it do to help the poor? Shouldn’t ALL of that money be spent right here on Earth for social services and other entitlement programs?”

    Ah, unless there is a store located in LEO I do not know of one single dime of taxes being spent in space, “ALL” NASA spending IS spent right here on earth. The medical research that is going forward at the ISS will benifit the poor. Anytime a single job is created that increases the tax base helps the poor. Lowering the deficit, through job creation, helps the poor, investment in technology helps the poor.

    Marcel F. Williams wrote:

    “@Vladislaw

    “The President’s original plan was to open up space access to a multiple of competitive suppliers reducing NASA’s outlays so they could afford to do more technology research and to create a domestic commercial space access sector that could also sell to other governments and private citizens.”

    There were only 5 manned space flights to the ISS last year. So there’s not enough traffic to the ISS to sustain more than one company. Fortunately, Boeing has recognized this which is why they’re appropriately focusing on space tourism. Space X would love to be NASA’s version of the ULA. But its questionable if the ULA’s relationship with the military has significantly lowered launch cost.”

    I believe the Russian Soyuz visited the ISS three times in 2010 and the space shuttle visited 3 times for a total of 37 crew. Russia plans 5 flights by themselves in 2011-2012.

    As I said, the President understand that other destinations are opening up in 2014 and there is the possiblity of NASA getting lower costs because a commercial carrier would be dual use. Both government and commercial crews using the redundant systems.

    Personally I believe NASA and the other ISS partners will try and buy up every seat they can at 20 million a seat. I still do not believe pure space tourism will be getting that high of a percentage of total seats to LEO. As I have stated before I believe it will be the 2nd and 3rd tier space programs of other countries that will be doing the bulk of flying to the ISS and Bigelow’s first station.

    By 2016-2017 I believe LEO will see about 65-72 visitors.

  • Robert G. Oler quoted:

    “The US was well behind the Soviet Union when the space age began in 1957 and were still way behind when John Kennedy set America’s goal for the Moon …

    The quote you cited doesn’t specify what we were supposedly “well behind.”

    Well behind in putting a harmless, meaningless little beeping ball into space? Guilty as charged.

    I’m about done reading Sputnik: The Shock of the Century by Paul Dickson. Paul did a great job not only covering the overreaction to the event, but also setting the historical context.

    After years of McCarthyist hysteria, the public had been primed to believe the Soviets were lurking behind every rock and shrub. So when Sputnik I flew overhead, there was mass panic because people thought it was somehow spying on them or might even drop bombs.

    The Eisenhower administration and the scientists working on the Vanguard project knew this reaction was nuts. Sputnik was the Russian contribution to the International Geophysical Year. They didn’t make a big deal about it until we overreacted.

    Among more sober people, the concern was that this somehow proved the Soviets had a more sophisticated ICBM capacity than we did. It proved no such thing, of course. The subsequent Sputnik launches showed the Soviets had the capacity to lift heavier and heavier objects into orbit. But that didn’t mean they could attack the U.S. with micro-precision and without retaliation.

    The whole thing was quite silly and became an exercise in phallic symbolism.

    In any case, it’s totally irrelevant to today’s world other than it shows how some people can scare others — or be scared by others — with meaningless hysteria. Reading about the public reaction to Sputnik reminded me of last year’s baseless public hysteria about “death panels” — stupid people being manipulated by the greedy and self-serving.

    I’ll have a review of Dickson’s book online in a week or so.

  • Vladislaw

    Pardon my math .. 30 crew to the ISS in 2010. Nine by soyuz and 21 by the shuttle unless my memory is failing me.

  • The goal of the Apollo program was to leap frog the USSR’s technological lead in space travel.

    No, the goal of the Apollo program was to demonstrate that democracy was technologically superior to totalitarianism.

    Beyond LEO missions ended because Nixon was as cynical and hostile towards America’s manned space program as many Democrats on the left were about spending money on manned space travel.

    The Apollo production lines had already started being shut down by Johnson when Nixon came into office. Nixon initiated the Space Shuttle.

    There were only 5 manned space flights to the ISS last year. So there’s not enough traffic to the ISS to sustain more than one company.

    The reasons that there were only five manned flights is because that’s all the system can afford and support with the Shuttle. There would be demand for many more if a suitable transportation system is in place.

    Is it possible for you to get anything right?

  • Vladislaw

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “but this sentence is simply wrong “The US was well behind the Soviet Union when the space age began in 1957 and were still way behind when John Kennedy set America’s goal for the Moon” “

    Didn’t Kennedy run on the whole idea that there was a missile gap with the US far behind but in reality had already been briefed and knew there wasn’t a gap at all?

    Of myths and missiles: the truth about John F. Kennedy and the Missile Gap

  • Robert G. Oler

    Vladislaw wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 10:29 am

    “Didn’t Kennedy run on the whole idea that there was a missile gap with the US far behind but in reality had already been briefed and knew there wasn’t a gap at all?”

    yes that is one of the things Kennedy ran on, the other was a sort of “get America moving again”…which was a reaction to the perceived sort of “staidness” of the Ike administration.

    In my view Stephen is far more accurate then Rand about what the goal of Apollo was.

    The American people can be easily swayed about security issues…IN the 50’s it was the red scare…Tail Gunner Joe was whipping up the notion of the red scare…today the GOP’s whipping “issue” is Muslim extremism.

    Kennedy was bright enough to recognize that he could turn the GOP issue on its head when he started going on about a “missile gap” and it worked nicely with the American people as a whole being a little “tired” of the red baiting of the 50’s…

    IN the end Sputnik (or Gagarin) was no more a sustained threat to the US then AQ is…

    less then 14 months after Sputnik the US tossed SCORE into orbit…that was far more a demonstration of US technology then anything Ivan had done todate. And Atlas was far more of a weapon system then anything Ivan had…and it was all home grown.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Coastal Ron

    A lot of fur flying around, so I’ll take a stab at looking at this blog topic from a clean start.

    What would Kennedy say about his legacy with regards to space?

    I think he would be surprised that we actually met his challenge when he said: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth.

    No doubt there were political motivations behind this, but just like he had seen during World War II, he knew that the U.S. had the tremendous ability to focus on a goal and ramp up industries to accomplish them.

    He also saw how those industries were able to capitalize on their war time capabilities, and find ways to prosper in the post-war era. I don’t know if he anticipated that part too, but if he were to come back, I’m sure he would understand that it was a natural side effect of the Moon effort.

    In assessing what happened in space since Apollo, I think he would see a lot of progress. I’ve never heard any indication about his thoughts on humans spreading out into the solar system, but I think he would have been fascinated with what we have accomplished. Here are what I think are the big three:

    – The Space Shuttle. A marvel of technology considering the era it was born, and despite it’s many failings, it has been a true benchmark for what the U.S. has been able to do, and that other nations have not.

    – Mars Rovers. Probes that go “beep” in the night are fascinating to the more sophisticated science buffs, but Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity have made space exploration as easy to understand as showing off the pictures from your last vacation. Where did you go, what did you see? Short of humans actually being there, these rovers have made it easy for everyone to better understand another world.

    – The International Space Station. World War II was less than 20 years removed from Kennedy’s 1961 speech, and I think it would have been a validation to him that our largest effort in space yet is international in scope, including countries we previously fought or struggled with. I think he would have been very pleased with the ISS from a political standpoint.

    My $0.02

  • I’ve never heard any indication about his thoughts on humans spreading out into the solar system, but I think he would have been fascinated with what we have accomplished.

    He told Jim Webb a few months before he died that he “didn’t care that much about space.”

  • Coastal Ron

    Oops, I didn’t proof read before hitting “submit”. I want to clarify that when I said Kennedy would be surprised, I should have said he would have been surprised that we met the date, not that we actually did it. Sorry for the confusion.

  • William Mellberg

    Rand Simberg wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 10:11 am

    “The goal of the Apollo program was to demonstrate that democracy was technologically superior to totalitarianism.”

    Yes!

    “The Apollo production lines had already started being shut down by Johnson when Nixon came into office. Nixon initiated the Space Shuttle.”

    Yes, again!

  • William Mellberg

    Common Sense wrote:

    “But here it is DoD. Make it half what it is.”

    How thoroughly predictable.

    “… and other are just a waste (e.g. F-22).”

    And you’re the one who suggested in another thread that DCSCA take spelling lessons! How about putting an ‘s’ at the end of ‘others’ … and how about that new Chinese J-20 stealth fighter which is the PLA’s response to the F-22?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Coastal Ron wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    nice post…the only thing I disagree with is that I doubt Jack Kennedy would have been surprised that we met the goal.

    Jack Kennedy came from an amazing group of people…a select group of people…it was the group of people who knew nothing really about the military but by the end of the war had made it into the collossus it was, on par with any military power on EArth, including the powers that had a very “martial” background…and beat them.

    That we beat the Japanese and Germans (and Italians) should not surprise anyone. The Admiral and the CDR who thought up and engineered the Pearl Harbor attack knew the score…beat the US in a short time….or the industrial potential, particularly of a country with a growing federal government…would wipe them out. IN some of his writings Isoroku Yamamoto had discussed how the “north” out organized and industrialized the south in the American Civil war…and how the south, which was suppose to have the martial traditions was flat out militaried by the North.

    The ability of the “non military” American warriors to master the ferocity, organization, and technology of war was something amazing to the very martial folks in Germany and Japan. Most Japanese were surprised at American toughness (as say oppossed to the British at Singapore) at the early part of the war…and Kennedy knew that which had won the war, would win the race to the Moon.

    Kennedy also belonged to a nation which had little or no doubts of the virtues of a strong Federal government. And had a federal government that was, unlike today’s somewhat functional.

    We had built the “special” but we had also built things like a multi thousand ship Navy or planes which were better then anything the other folks had or…even PT boats. Kennedy knew this…and knew that we would make it..

    This goes against my better notions of the “dead man” statue…but I dont think either Kennedy or Reagan (the two great Presidents of my life) would be impressed with just about anything in our government now. We are badly off track…and for what they were interested in it…my suggestion would be that they would marvel at the stupidity of Bush’s plan to go back to the Moon and how badly it has been carried out.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Byeman

    “Integrated circuits, fuel cells, inertial navigation, velcro’

    Urban legends
    ICBM’s provided Integrated circuits and inertial navigation
    Velcro existed before the space program

  • DCSCA

    @Stephen C. Smith wrote @ January 21st, 2011 at 9:05 am
    “A 1985 amendment by the Reagan administration requires NASA to prioritize commercial access to space.”

    A simplistic proposal by an administration zealously (if not foolishly) attempting to apply the failed theory of trickle down ‘Reaganomics’ to spaceflight, which coincided with the precipitous decline of the civilian space agency and proved to be both figuratively and literally a disaster.

  • Just found at this link an audio recording with transcript of the November 21, 1962 Oval Office meeting between JFK, James Webb and others. There’s also a link on the left to a transcript of the meeting.

    What would JFK think of NASA today? None of us can know. Personally, based on the recording I think it’s pretty clear he didn’t care beyond the goal which was to show the world American technology was superior to the Soviet Union by landing first on the Moon. Since the target was the end of the decade, and the theoretical end of his second term in office, he probably didn’t care about what happened afterwards.

    If you listen to the recording or read the transcript, the scientists and Webb keep pleading to give higher priority to other scientific programs and to take the long view. JFK keeps telling them the Moon program is the priority for the aforementioned propaganda reasons, not for the science.

  • DCSCA

    “The Apollo production lines had already started being shut down by Johnson when Nixon came into office. Nixon initiated the Space Shuttle.”

    Misleading. But not surprising given the source. =sigh=

    “On January 4, 1970, [nearly a full year into the Nixon Administration] following dedication of the Lunar Science Institute at Houston, deputy administrator George Low announced that Apollo 20 had been canceled and the schedule for the seven remaining flights would be stretched out into 1974. Four would be flown in 1970-1971 at intervals depending on the choice of sites. Lunar exploration would then be interrupted while the three-mission Apollo Applications Program (a rudimentary space station in earth orbit, soon to be renamed “Skylab”) was conducted. The last three missions to the moon would be flown in 1973 and 1974. Low denied reports that NASA planned to cancel four Apollo flights, saying that such action would “do away with most of our scientific return and waste the investment we have made.” Lunar scientists were reported to have been pleased by Low’s announcement;74 they had evidently feared that even more missions would be deleted. Ten days later, [January 14, 1970] after preliminary discussions on the fiscal 1971 budget, administrator Thomas O. Paine revealed more changes in space exploration. Saturn V launch vehicle production was to be suspended indefinitely after the fifteenth booster was completed, leaving NASA with no means of putting really large payloads into earth orbit or continuing lunar exploration. The last Saturn V was reassigned from Apollo 20 to Skylab.” – source, NASA

    The LEO civilian space program of today is a direct result of the long-term decisions made in the Nixon administration. Stories abound from personal animosity toward anything ‘Kennedy’ to the cold calculus of placing an electorial map of contestable congressional districts over locations of space-related facilities and contractor sites. To be ‘fair,’ the context of the times were a significant factor as well– the space agency wasn’t operating in a vaccum (no pun intended). The ‘Space Shuttle’ design settled upon by the Nixon Administration was the minimal proposal, the design and financing of which much too extensive to go into here, having initially been part of a much more extensive ‘space transportation system’ proposed including a space station and more reusable components.

  • DCSCA

    JFK’s ‘legacy in space’ gets more credit than it deserves. Johnson was the fella who got the politics of it done for him. Consider rereading the famed 1961 ‘special message’ to the joint session of Congress with the ‘go to the moon’ passage. Context is everything– essentially a State of the Union speech in May. ‘Space’ was at the end of it- and in the context of mounting problems on several fronts of the Cold War. He’d been in office only a few months– barely beating a candidate more seasoned foreign policy, Nixon,- and already faced the Bay of Pigs fiasco and then the success of the Gagarin flight. The Berlin Wall would go up in August. JFK may have realized the geopolitical value of space in the context of foreign policy-certainly as an instrument of propaganda to influence developing nations- with the success of the Mercury flights which may have boltered his decision to commit to the moon with Apollo. But his contributions weer more inspiration than perspiration. Essentially, Kennedy pointed at the end zone and said there’s our goal line, run for it. It was LBJ who carried the ball.

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 6:16 am

    “BUT I DO KNOW that a science only or “do things to plant the flag” efforts wont. We have had 50 years of trying those and they have done nothing.”

    This is typical of the short-sighted souls who try to measure this kind of human achievement in a 50 year segment and not in the context of 50,000 years. Space travel is a very new technology/science to the human species- as is flight, when measured properly in the context of human evolution. Even Armstrong places Apollo as an extention of the evolution of flight- something aviation buffs should already know. HSF is inevitable given the long term alternatives. Unless, of course, you are a dinosaur- myopic in thought, spirit and destiny.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 7:20 pm

    “This is typical of the short-sighted souls who try to measure this kind of human achievement in a 50 year segment and not in the context of 50,000 years”

    goofy

    no one tries to explain anything that is happening in a generation in terms of “50,000” years or even 500 years or even 50 years…it is incoherent as events unfold..

    There are notions of “generational slide”. My Great Grandfather fought in the Spanish American war and then spent four years in the Philippines helping sort out the insurrection there (and helping turning it)…his generation never saw any real value from the effort…but he lived long enough (actually much longer) to see some value from it…In the 1940’s we were quite happy to have garrisons on that island nation.

    But 50,000 years is goofy.

    No sane civilization spends the dollars that Apollo, shuttle and station cost either together or as individual projects and says “we will get the value back 50,000 years from now”.

    gee go back to saying SpaceX hasnt flown anybody…it is less goofy

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Byeman wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 4:11 pm

    “Velcro existed before the space program”

    so did Teflon! And WD-40 came from the Atlas.

    Actually everyone knows that Velcro came from the Vulcans who were trapped on Earth after their survey ship went down in the Eastern US about the time of Sputnik.

    It was one of the better ENTERPRISE episodes (although I liked most of them except for that odd year with the Al Queda folks)…

    Some people are predicting that Betlegeuse is /has gone supernova some 500 plus years ago and will make its appearance here on EArth in 2012…..hmmm wondering if the guy behind this is the person who they left behind!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41219824/ns/politics-capitol_hill

    and yet folks like Whittington assure us that the Tea Party folks are all going to be gung ho about lunar exploration.

    Oh isnt this going to be fun

    Robert G. Oler

  • Byeman

    “which coincided with the precipitous decline of the civilian space agency and proved to be both figuratively and literally a disaster.”

    More unsubstantiated blathering.

  • There is NO contradiction in calling Obama a marxist and then condemning commercial space as a big negative!! Capitalism in the sense of private companies paving the way, without the government “in the way”, will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, launch an expedition to the Moon [nor another astronomical body]. All commercial space gets you is MORE low earth orbit and nothing more! Commercial space is a flimsy house of cards, resting upon there being an ISS in LEO for them to reach. If the ISS was retired—-as well it should be—-those hobbyists have nothing left to do. That, my friends, is why the ISS WON’T be retired in 2020, like the Obama administration says. They will simply phase in an ISS-2! Groundhog Day in low earth orbit. It’ll be 1981 all over again. After 30 years of the Space Shuttle, you’d think that our astronauts would aspire to do other, more grander things. Obama sent America’s space program up the river! He sure lost my vote, for 2012!

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    What’s ‘goofy’ is your apparent ignorance of the breadth of human evolution and weak capacity to assimilate scales of time alomg with the evolutionary significance of mastering the skill of spaceflight by the human species. Unless, of course, you’re aware of another indiginous species of this planet- or some other planet- which can travel in space. (Muppets don’t count BTW.) “The archaeological picture changed dramatically around 40-50,000 years ago with the appearance of behaviorally modern humans. This was an abrupt and dramatic change in subsistence patterns, tools and symbolic expression. The stunning change in cultural adaptation was not merely a quantitative one, but one that represented a significant departure from all earlier human behavior, reflecting a major qualitative transformation. It was literally a “creative explosion” which exhibited the “technological ingenuity, social formations, and ideological complexity of historic hunter-gatherers.” This human revolution is precisely what made us who we are today.- source, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html
    Your grandpappy may have sung songs around the campfire in the S/A War like centurions of wars in centuries past– but further back, one of your ancestorial clan may just have missed touching the monolith one morning– the silly ape. And even over that vast time frame– vast in human scaling-, SpaceX had yet to fly anybody.

  • philip morford

    Its amazing to me how an article about Ried and JFK’s legacy ends up in the blog about SpaceX not flying anybody! That being said I am not going to tear apart his speech and try to find any hidden meanings. All I know for sure and what anyone knows for that matter is what JFK’S speech meant to them. For me it was the initial spark for sitting under the kitchen table making hundreds of moon landings and dreaming about what could be. Now 40 years later you want to know why that same wonderment is not in the public anymore? I teach a manufacturing skills class to community corrections and when covering blueprint reading or geometric dimensioning I will insert examples from the space program. And you wouldn’t believe some of the responses I get. (They never heard the correct story in class. It is never talked about except as an after thought in our public schools. Its as though they are teaching our young people to not be proud of what america has accomplished.) So I patiently explain what the facts are and you can actually see a light come on and interest grow in the space program. We only have ourselves to blame, right, left what ever your orientation is. I am sick of them all. Anyway spacex will not fly anybody for 3 years so leave it alone and come back in 3 years

  • Rational Man

    “which coincided with the precipitous decline of the civilian space agency and proved to be both figuratively and literally a disaster.”

    More unsubstantiated blathering.

    Can you explain to us how Constellation and its runup (X-Planes, SLI and OSP) have NOT been an UNMITIGATED DISASTER for US human space flight, Mr. Behling? Because from my bench, I’m looking at ten years and 20 billion dollars down the drain, which under any rational non-NASA perspective should have easily gotten US where we should be at this point.

    Thanks in advance.

  • common sense

    @ William Mellberg wrote @ January 23rd, 2011 at 4:02 pm

    I actually responded to you about the J-20 but my post did not go through for some reason. Just remember that the J-10 was built with israeli technology; Israel our strongest ally sold western technology to China. If you look at the J-20 it looks a lot like the Su T-50. China and Russia have a real love-hate relationship but if one can use the other to develop and field their technology so what? One J-20 is no proof that they have a fleet nor that its stealth technology works. Finally do we, the US, have an entitlement on technology? And also let me remind you that it’s a bunch of nutcases with boxcutters that brought us to our knees, not J-20s. J-20s and F-22s are weapons of last resort.

    But what the heck does that have to do with lunar bases, commercial space?

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 12:30 am

    Just curious what your next slogan will be once SpaceX flies someone? Did I mention that Dragon actually flew to orbit and Orion did not escape PowerPoint realm?

  • common sense

    @ Chris Castro wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    I hope you are right and that we get ISS-2. For once we would have something smart to do in space.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    Capitalism in the sense of private companies paving the way, without the government “in the way”, will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, launch an expedition to the Moon [nor another astronomical body]

    Two points:

    1. Obama or NASA have not said that commercial will push NASA out of the way of exploration. This is a figment of your imagination.

    2. NGO’s do want to reach the Moon, and the Google Lunar X Prize is perhaps the most visible embodiment of that. I hope they succeed, since efforts like their inspires us all, regardless how far they get.

    Commercial space is a flimsy house of cards, resting upon there being an ISS in LEO for them to reach.

    If your definition of “commercial space” is the COTS/CRS program, then yes, it only services the ISS. But commercial space is far bigger than that, so you’re having a hard time seeing the forest for the trees. For instance, SpaceX was only able to compete for the COTS/CRS program because it was getting into the launcher business. Without a large enough customer base, SpaceX probably could not afford to pursue the ISS work. ULA has no ISS work, and Orbital is only adding the ISS support work as part of their launch capabilities expansion (Taurus II). Commercial space is far bigger than you apparently realize.

    That, my friends, is why the ISS WON’T be retired in 2020, like the Obama administration says.

    You must really have fun making stuff up, because all the Obama administration has said is that they are extending the ISS funding out through 2020. And if you look at various NASA documents, you will see that they are indeed planning to extend the use of the ISS to at least 2028, and hopefully longer. Why people want to end our HSF program is beyond me…

    Obama sent America’s space program up the river! He sure lost my vote, for 2012!

    I doubt there was a chance he ever had it.

  • James T

    @ Chris Castro

    “There is NO contradiction in calling Obama a marxist and then condemning commercial space as a big negative!!”

    Please explain how promoting a commercial launch option = socialism.

    “Capitalism in the sense of private companies paving the way, without the government “in the way”, will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, launch an expedition to the Moon [nor another astronomical body].”

    Nobody has been asking commercial to take anyone to the moon, much less a self-motivated expedition, so there is no demand for them to fill yet. We’re asking them to reduce our launch costs of getting to space in the first place so that NASA can focus on the mission objectives from that point forward. And the day will come when that service is inexpensive enough that private entities will be able to see potential profit from space activities. Those profits are simply not possible now with the costs of a government run launch infrastructure. And if NASA ever does set up a Luna or Mars colony and the need for frequent cargo and personnel transportation to those destinations arise, then you can bet the farm that commercial will be competing to provide those services.

    “All commercial space gets you is MORE low earth orbit and nothing more! Commercial space is a flimsy house of cards, resting upon there being an ISS in LEO for them to reach.”

    That’s an insanely short-sighted viewpoint. You’re assuming that just because commercial space is competing for ISS servicing now, that somehow that must be the only thing they will ever compete for. That’s just ridiculous! This assumption is in fact already false since SpaceX already has a launch manifest that services several non-NASA, non-ISS endeavors. Everything that goes into space has to be launched, the only way these commercial companies stop having a market niche to fill is if everybody stops launching stuff into space altogether. Getting to LEO is step one of ANY space endeavor, and commercial can get us there cheaper.

    “If the ISS was retired—-as well it should be—-those hobbyists have nothing left to do. That, my friends, is why the ISS WON’T be retired in 2020, like the Obama administration says. They will simply phase in an ISS-2!”

    The Obama administration was never asking that the ISS be retired in 2020, they just wanted it to be funded at least to that point. There is always the option for it to be extended further if a future administration/legislation/NASA thinks there is merit in doing so. The budget proposal overview from last February actually says “Supports extension of the lifetime of the ISS likely to 2020 OR BEYOND in concert with out international partners.” (emphasis mine) In fact, there are already some people talking about it staying in operation possibly until 2028. ISS serves are a test bed for technologies that will serve future missions. ISS will be around until it starts to break beyond cost-effective repair or it becomes obsolete in terms of fulfilling it’s purpose. With the cost reduction that commercial launch services will provide, what might considered a “cost-effective” repair will have significantly opened up, and any replacement that could be considered will be significantly cheaper to bring into operation since launching the pieces into space will be made cheaper by commercial launch services. With goals such as a manned mission to a near Earth asteroid by 2025 and a manned orbit of Mars by mid-2030s (neither of which are signed into law, but are assumed in the recently publicized NASA technology roadmaps), there should be plenty of ISS utilization beyond 2020. I would prefer we try to use what we have rather then replace it with, as you call it, an ISS-2.

    “After 30 years of the Space Shuttle, you’d think that our astronauts would aspire to do other, more grander things.”

    After 30 years of the Space Shuttle, you’d think people would realize that a government run launch infrastructure doesn’t really make us more capable of doing jack ****. Reducing launch costs by using the entrepreneurialism spirit of the private sector frees up more money that can be used to achieve those grander things. Shuttle derived launch systems keep us trapped in LEO, no commercialization.

  • Martijn Meijering

    He sure lost my vote, for 2012!

    I’m sure he’ll be dismayed to hear that.

  • amightywind

    After 30 years of the Space Shuttle, you’d think people would realize that a government run launch infrastructure doesn’t really make us more capable of doing jack ****

    And on the other hand you celebrate the ISS, the single greatest waste of money in the history of the space program. Views like yours are commonplace, which is why NASA is the disaster that it is.

  • byeman

    “Can you explain to us how Constellation and its runup (X-Planes, SLI and OSP) have NOT been an UNMITIGATED DISASTER for US human space flight”

    I said nothing of the sort and I don’t disagee, my comment was on that the point that
    “A 1985 amendment by the Reagan administration requires NASA to prioritize commercial access to space”
    was the cause of it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Chris Castro wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 12:13 am

    “There is NO contradiction in calling Obama a marxist and then condemning commercial space as a big negative!! Capitalism in the sense of private companies paving the way, without the government “in the way”, will NEVER, and I mean NEVER, launch an expedition to the Moon [nor another astronomical body]. ”

    there is no chance that there will ever again be exploration beyond GEO until the cost to do human spaceflight come down enormously. and that wont happen without commercial spaceflight.

    Try uncrewed exploration. You will participate in it as much as crewed flight.

    Robert G. Oler

  • William Mellberg

    Common Sense wrote:

    “One J-20 is no proof that they have a fleet nor that its stealth technology works … But what the heck does that have to do with lunar bases, commercial space?”

    A decade ago, some pundits said the same thing about the first photographs of the CZ-2F and its vertical assembly building. A few claimed the images were faked. Others said there was no proof the Chinese would be able to send humans into space anytime soon. But it wasn’t long before the skeptics were proven wrong and the first Shenzhou spacecraft was being tested in orbit. And it won’t belong before the Chinese launch the first elements of their own space station (the core module being scheduled to reach orbit some time this year).

    So what does that have to do with lunar bases and commercial space?

    As China’s manned space program continues to highlight that country’s growing space capabilities, China’s commercial space launchers will give America’s commercial space industry (and others, such as Arianespace) increasing competition in the years ahead.

    Moreover, while some people discount Chinese lunar ambitions, I take them at their word. I’m not sure what the geopolitical impact of a manned Chinese lunar outpost might be. I suppose it would depend in large measure upon the potential value of lunar resources. But, in a larger sense, it would also hearken back to the competition between the USA and the USSR during the 1960s — and the international prestige and domestic pride that China would enjoy as a result of doing something no other country in history has ever done (i.e., establishing a permanent manned outpost on another world).

    China’s lunar program could do for their commercial space program what the Concorde did for Air France and British Airways in terms of image. It would certainly draw attention to their commercial launch services — drawing potential customers away from American competitors such as SpaceX.

    Taking note of China’s human spaceflight ambitions is not the same as crying, “The Commies are coming! The Commies are coming!” It’s a matter of recognizing the growing impact of China’s space program on commercial launch services.

    I, for one, am greatly impressed by China’s Long March launch vehicles, as well as by their Shenzhou spacecraft. Shenzhou 7 basically put China on par with Russia’s Soyuz capabilities. In fact, Shenzhou represents an improvement over the Soyuz technology on which it is based. As for China adopting foreign technology … I seem to recall some German technology being used in America’s early rockets. There was some Canadian influence on American spacecraft design, as well. The issue isn’t where the Chinese might have gotten some of their technology. It’s what they’re going to do with it now that they have it … and how their cheap labor pool can undermine their capitalist competitors.

  • Coastal Ron

    philip morford wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 10:18 am

    It is never talked about except as an after thought in our public schools.

    We can all have opinions about what the most important things are to teach our children, but you have to remember that there are only so many hours in a day, and events from 40 years ago fall into the same category as events from before or after that. Besides, it’s up to parents to fill in unique information they feel is important to their child and their lives.

    In any case, while you were fascinated with space related places while you were growing up, I was fascinated with undersea destinations, so I hope you are also educating your students about the Trieste, and it’s unique place in our history. Surviving in a vacuum is likely easier than surviving under 1000 atmosphere pressure.

    Anyway spacex will not fly anybody for 3 years so leave it alone and come back in 3 years

    An important fact, and one that eludes those that don’t like SpaceX. Though SpaceX is clearly competing for future NASA crew contracts, it’s not needed until 2016 at the earliest, so there is no rush to decide who will or won’t be the American crew carriers. And of all the possible non-Soyuz crew providers, SpaceX requires the least amount of leadtime to add crew capability, so waiting to award a crew contract until 2013, or even 2014, won’t impact SpaceX’s ability to provide crew services in 2016.

  • DCSCA

    @common sense wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 12:05 pm

    When they do you’ll find out. But don’t hold your breath.

    Any deep-pocked capital investors outside of Musk’s circle of cronies would rightly ask what’s the point of investing in developing a LEO manned craft with limited capacity to the ISS which is on the downside of its lifetime toward splash (8 years, perhaps) and represents the planning of the past. Given the status of the ECS (none) among other elements for carrying a crew for survivable flights, with any good luck they may be test flying crewed orbital flights in 3 years– assuming Dragon is a gem and not a deathtrap– which brings any projected operational lifetime window for the ISS down to perhaps 5. And, of course, Soyuz is already flying. And geopolitical factors can change over half a decade as well. SpaceX may very well get a cargocraft up and running. But you’d probably be able to get good odds in Vegas that they’ll never fly crewed craft– and for sound business reasons, not for any lack of technical expertise. No doubt they’ll make a strong, flashy case for pressing on. But then, chatter on plans for manned flights make for great gee-whiz PR… and the Emperor wants to retire on Mars, doesn’t he.. that is, as soon as he overcomes his stated reticence to ride his own rockets.

  • common sense

    @ William Mellberg wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    Wow! I am almost afraid to say this: I think I agree with (most of) your post this time.

    A broad review of the economic impact of a “strong”, or “weak”, China is what matters. Not their space ambitions per se, at least not as an existential threat to the US, since as you rightfully mentioned are more related to domestic image. The fact they get high performance fighter jets or capsule is not necessarily a threat to us but rather the affirmation of their status as a super power. The question then becomes, what do we do with this new geopolitical development?

    And for what it’s worth, I am not skeptical of their capabilities, especially if it is russian derived. I am just saying that it is difficult to cry wolf without a little more knowledge. And also that if it is a matter of national security then it’s the DoD’s job, not ours. Maybe they could even justify a $1T budget then ;)

    Thank you for trying.

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 4:46 pm

    Wow #2 ! The day of all surprises?

    Yes investors ought to ask the question about the ISS but bear in mind that SpaceX, unlike the surrounding hype, is not going after crewed vehicle. Not only and that’s the catch. Actually they are going after the LV business as a whole. Look at their plans. What size does the crewed component have in that regard? If they are successful with LVs they will eat up all the market for the foreseeable future. Another question is: Will they be able to maintain their management structure (key to low cost) as they grow? Maybe, maybe not. What is the “key” to make their approach sustainable and profitable more so than say ULA over the years? Will they become another Boeing? Is it good or bad?

    As for the 3 year thing it is only if they go with a LAS. Without a LAS they may be able to launch a crew even earlier than you think. And no unlike what Constellation had you believe there is not necessarily a need for a LAS. It could be better for the crew or worse.

    Anyway, I never read a comment as clean and balanced from you, I mean it.

    Thank you.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “We can all have opinions about what the most important things are to teach our children, but you have to remember that there are only so many hours in a day, and events from 40 years ago fall into the same category as events from before or after that.”

    Surely the first humans to set foot on another world is something worth teaching in today’s classrooms — together with the geopolitical circumstances that surrounded that achievement. My guess is that 500 years from now, the success of the Apollo Program will be the one thing future children will learn about the 1960s. Together with harnessing the power of the atom, launching the Space Age was one of the highlights of the 20th Century (with WWI and WWII being two of its darkest chapters). I don’t know about you, but 1492 is one of the few dates that stands out in my mind about the 15th Century.

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    “I, for one, am greatly impressed by China’s Long March launch vehicles, as well as by their Shenzhou spacecraft. Shenzhou 7 basically put China on par with Russia’s Soyuz capabilities.”

    you can be, I am not.

    I am not very impressed with Chinese aerospace in particular, their military nor really much of anything except for their ability to organize copies of things.

    What the PRC did was not take advantage of the abilities of various groups (like the US did with the CAnadians on the guidance system or the Germans for some rocket expertise)…ie bring a good group who works well together into a program and give them free reign.

    What they did is more or less take a vehicle that is known to work and make some rather modest changes to it. they are still stuck with the same limitations of the vehicle and the changes made are “clever” but not all that impressive.

    What this has stillborn is the development of the local expertise to develop vehicles that meet specific applications which are only really known locally.

    Our airplanes our ships, Russian airplanes/ships etc are like they are because they are products not of copying something but are products of DOCTRINE that is also how these vehicles are operated to.
    If you copy someone down to the bolt…you have also copied their operational doctrine and the Soviets/Russians were no where near close to making a “moonbase” with their hardware then the Chinese are with their copies.

    The last time I was in the PRC was about a decade and 1/2 ago…but then I wrote various reports predicting where some of the aerospace concerns would be ten/twenty years hence.

    So far I have not been disappointed.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I, for one, am greatly impressed by China’s Long March launch vehicles, as well as by their Shenzhou spacecraft.

    You’re pretty easily impressed.

  • DCSCA

    @William Mellberg wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 4:26 pm

    “Moreover, while some people discount Chinese lunar ambitions, I take them at their word. I’m not sure what the geopolitical impact of a manned Chinese lunar outpost might be. I suppose it would depend in large measure upon the potential value of lunar resources. But, in a larger sense, it would also hearken back to the competition between the USA and the USSR during the 1960s — and the international prestige and domestic pride that China would enjoy as a result of doing something no other country in history has ever done (i.e., establishing a permanent manned outpost on another world).”

    ^Well said. But in this period (2010-2030) a manned circumlunar by the PRC would be enough to demonstrate to today’s world an intent, validate international prestige and enhance if not gild the perception that it’s their century (on a variety of political and business fronts), simply by accomplishing something a U.S. in ‘decline’ cannot do today, regardless of the fact it did it half a century ago. Again, revisit the Apollo imagery websites and view the full Hasselblad film magazines. It’s a sparse environment and a massive amount of resources, both technical and physical, would be needed to establish and maintain a f/t base. A manned circumlunar flight is all they’d have to accomplish at this point to compliment the long range plans they have for this century right here on this planet.

  • William Mellberg

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “What they did is more or less take a vehicle that is known to work and make some rather modest changes to it. they are still stuck with the same limitations of the vehicle and the changes made are “clever” but not all that impressive.”

    Shenzhou is still proving itself, and we haven’t seen all of the possible variants — including different versions of the autonomous Orbital Module which can be used to create a space station, or flown independently for assorted purposes (reconnaissance, for instance). Soyuz doesn’t have that capability. But Shenzhou 5, 6 and 7 demonstrated the Chinese spacecraft’s flexibility. The Shenzhou spacecraft is a definite improvement over Soyuz. While its overall configuration is similar to its Russian counterpart, the internal systems appear to be of indigenous Chinese design. In any event, China has done something nobody other than Russia and the United States have done … they’ve launched their own manned spacecraft into Low Earth Orbit. By most accounts, they will soon have their own modest space station, as well. They deserve credit for their achievements.

    The Long March family of launch vehicles has been proving itself, as well. Despite some technical snags early on and some legal problems in more recent years, the success rate of the Long March rockets is fairly impressive. And as future Shenzhou missions draw more attention to China’s launch capabilities, I suspect we’ll see their commercial services drawing more customers. Plus, China can afford to offer those services at highly competitive prices — squeezing other commercial providers out of the market if they wish.

    Writing off or ignoring the Chinese space program would be a mistake. More than 140 years ago, when Charles Crocker of the Central Pacific Railway suggested hiring Chinese workers to help build the transcontinental railroad, critics argued that they weren’t up to the task. Crocker replied, “They built the Great Wall of China didn’t they?”

    China today is laying the foundations to become the global Colossus of the 21st Century — an economic and military superpower, second to none. I cannot imagine the Chinese leaders investing in their manned space program purely for propaganda purposes. My guess is that they will be using Shenzhou to help promote their commercial launch services … and to become the world leader among spacefaring nations in the decades ahead. They will certainly be ahead of the United States after this year when we won’t be able to launch our own astronauts aboard our own spacecraft atop our own launch vehicles for a few years. And in the latter half of this decade, Chinese “dragons” (symbols of power and strength) might even overtake SpaceX Dragons in the commercial space business.

    McDonnell Douglas didn’t take Airbus seriously … and where is Douglas Aircraft Company today? The DAC Headquarters building on Lakewood Boulevard in Long Beach is long gone. But Airbus is still cranking out jetliners.

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    “You’re pretty easily impressed.”

    No. But I remember the impressions I had while touring ERNO’s facilities in Bremen during the mid-1970s, and seeing the work that was being done on Ariane 4. At the time, some Americans refused to believe that Arianespace would ever become competitive in the launch services business … or that Airbus would ever become a global player in the commercial aircraft industry.

    As Aesop taught us long ago, a slow-moving tortoise can beat a smug and overconfident hare.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Surely the first humans to set foot on another world is something worth teaching in today’s classrooms…

    Sure, but should every student be required to remember that event for longer than the length of the class it was taught? They have to memorize so much, especially in high school AP classes, that it’s hard to prioritize what is significant enough to retain past the class, much less that week. Some will be fascinated by that type of stuff (like I was), but most won’t.

    I guess my point is this – when you look up at the Moon, you see another world, and all the possibilities that come with that. When most other people look at the Moon, they don’t have that same connection, and since the Moon is an alien place (need to wear spacesuits, you hop to get around, the landscape is gray, etc.), they don’t equate it to another “world”, just someplace not here.

    …together with the geopolitical circumstances that surrounded that achievement.

    Sure, depending on how much time they spend on the 60’s & 70’s, but for historical purposes, it competes with a foreign war, a cold war, and societal upheaval at home.

    Our local high school World History AP text book (college level instruction) has a paragraph about the space race, but kids do learn about the Moon landing in elementary school too. However from the high school students I have talked to, going back to the Moon doesn’t spark any particular interest, no more than other big things going on in the world.

    Out of curiosity, what are your expectations for how much Apollo program or space related history should be taught? And how much should students remember over time?

  • common sense

    @ DCSCA wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    “enhance if not gild the perception that it’s their century”

    It is “their” century. So far anyway. Difficult to accept, especially since we are par of the reason why, but such is life.

    Oh well…

  • A Chinese circumlunar manned flight—whether a flyby or an Apollo 8-type of mission—would be the PERFECT thing to jolt America out of its complacency. Out of this dumb nonchallance that’ll have us extending the ISS to 2030, and doing nothing more than ferrying ISS crews. But sadly, this is just a beautiful fantasy, because all the Chinese space agency seems to be saying is that they’ll just put up an LEO space station: something extremely dull & mundane. Worse, all you ever hear is that after space station 1, they’re just going to go on to space station #2,…and then the “new & improved” space station 3;….then, maybe even a space station 4!!! Gee, doesn’t this cavourting in LEO over & over again ever get old?! Does the nation really need to REPEAT that feat again & again, decade in, decade out?!?! Then you hear the Mars zealot-types ranting & raving about how we’re just going to be repeating the acheivements of our grandparents if we so much as swing by Luna ever again!! Look, Constellation’s Lunar goals went FAR beyond merely reaching Luna with a manned lander again! The effort just STARTS OUT resembling what Apollo did, and subsequently moves on beyond it, on the later missions. If you can believe that each additional visit to the ISS is actually getting us anywhere, in terms of strengthening our techniques for spacefaring, then you’ve got to have some faith that AFTER getting back to the Moon with a landing expedition that exceeds the time length & engineering scope of Apollo 17, that there will soonafter be landings & surface stays that will dramatically build upon what came before, and improve upon that. Outpost missions WERE on the table, once an unmanned one-way cargo variant of the Altair lander was developed & flown. A future Republican President of the U.S. will recognize Mr.Obama’s grave long-run error in the slaying of Constellation, and will revive the grand Lunar goal. I root for a Mitt Romney getting elected in 2012! What do you all think?

  • Peter Lykke

    Some are not worried by Chinese space efforts. Well, I think that you should be:

    http://gizmodo.com/5558350/shanghai-skyline-before-and-after

    China is now the most dynamic economy in the world. If they, for some reason, decides that they want to be a space – faring nation, they can do it. After all, it only takes ten years to land a person on the moon.

    It’s all about money.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    ” But in this period (2010-2030) a manned circumlunar by the PRC would be enough to demonstrate to today’s world an intent, validate international prestige and enhance if not gild the perception that it’s their century (on a variety of political and business fronts), simply by accomplishing something a U.S. in ‘decline’ cannot do today, regardless of the fact it did it half a century ago”

    that statement is entertaining on a few levels…not the least of which is that at least it has more intellectual horsepower behind it then “they havent flown anyone in space” and “50,000 years”.

    But moving on I find it entertaining on two broad fronts.

    First if the Chinese did a “free return” lunar roundabout it would be entertaining to see who OUTSIDE of China it would impress. Surely it would excite the right wing in the US who sees military threats “everywhere”…but past them not so many.

    I agree with Zbig and Dr. Strangelove (two people with whom I do have some disagreements about China and of course who disagree with each other) but who agree on this salient feature that little the Chinese do has an external audience…almost all of what they do in terms of “grand things” has a solely domestic audience. That would include the recent visit…it had little or no audience in the US…it was aimed back home.

    The Chinese leadership and “elite” are mainly concentrating right now on building Chinese nationalism and doing it in a manner which confirms their form of government. Almost little that the leadership and “elite” do particularly in terms of “spectaculars” has much to do with a foreign audience and a Lot to do with a domestic audience that they are trying to mold into a single Chinese nation.

    This is obvious in almost every spectacular that they do, from the Olympics to their nascent human spaceflight efforts. The later in particular are not allowed or get a lot of foreign press…but internal the press is “large” and is aimed at the “the nation”. The press always depicts people who are working and flying in the Chinese space program being “ordinary Chinese” (a phrase that they use) doing extraordinary things for the good of “the people”.

    If you go read the most recent story on the upcoming flight (and get something other then a web translation) those thoughts are written all over the article.

    While doubtless a Chinese lunar flyby would get some foreign press…I would be very surprised if it had any real lasting impact. The world has simply moved on from space spectaculars. Problem is that I doubt we will ever get a chance to find out. I dont think that the PRC has such an effort in mind.

    If you want to see what is having “local” impact you need to come to Africa.

    The Chinese are getting a lot of press “in continent” for the fact that while western nations are slowing their donations to basic vaccination programs..the PRC is not. In fact they are increasing it.

    .The Reds have just given the folks in Kenya enough money to take up the slack…and are contributing doctors and other staff.

    Thats Kenya a more or less British commonwealth. The other day I visited a Chinese clinic there where the BBC was reporting from. I assure you that all the medical staff were Chinese military…and they were getting enormous local and regional press.

    Second…the time period that you use 2010-2030. I am quite certain that in that time period (most likely in the 2010-20 time span…that one will see something like a private Dragon or maybe even a Boeing…do it. Either certainly could be done by the US government using that hardware.

    Its the government run hardware that would not be capable of doing it.

    watch.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Peter Lykke wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 5:22 am

    “China is now the most dynamic economy in the world. If they, for some reason, decides that they want to be a space – faring nation, they can do it. After all, it only takes ten years to land a person on the moon.”

    and it takes a lot more money to keep them there…and the Chinese while having a lot of money thanks to GOP policies…usually are not fond of wasting it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 24th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
    “s — including different versions of the autonomous Orbital Module which can be used to create a space station, or flown independently for assorted purposes (reconnaissance, for instance). Soyuz doesn’t have that capability”

    you start off badly and go down hill from here.

    Soyuz has an uncrewed “independent” version…its called Progress. Soyuz and Progress have morphed into things like the FGB and Service Module…

    Moving on from there. You can put all the modern avionics you want in an F-4 Phantom or a B-737-200 or a B707 and its still an old airplane even if you build new ones…You are stuck with the basic platform designed in an earlier era…and worse for the Chinese not designed internally.

    I dont know if you knew him, but on the old Compuserve spaceforum, Jim Chestek who is now gone nailed the Chinese “Great imitators not really good originators”.

    Take SpaceX for instance. The Dragon is “along the lines” of the Discoverer series of reentry vehicles…but it is not a mold line copy of them.

    That is what the Chinese did with Soyuz…and they are simply with their space station developing the FGB and the Service Module.

    I dont know what Chinese intentions as at least an economic superpower are…but what so far I am pretty certain of is that attempts to mold those intentions into a sort of modern version of Soviet/US superpower confrontation seems a bit far fetched…and that includes their space intentions.

    Finally this

    “In any event, China has done something nobody other than Russia and the United States have done … they’ve launched their own manned spacecraft into Low Earth Orbi”

    that doesnt bother or impress me.

    SpaceX is on the verge of being able to do that as a private company as are some other companies.

    That a government spending lots of money can accomplish something no matter how uneconomical it is …doesnt impress me. I can see that right back home in the US.

    That a commercial company can…does.

    I worry more about the problems in the US then I do the threat of China.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Anne Spudis

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 6:42 am [snip of Oler’s post] “While doubtless a Chinese lunar flyby would get some foreign press…I would be very surprised if it had any real lasting impact. The world has simply moved on from space spectaculars. Problem is that I doubt we will ever get a chance to find out. I dont think that the PRC has such an effort in mind.

    If you want to see what is having “local” impact you need to come to Africa.

    The Chinese are getting a lot of press “in continent” for the fact that while western nations are slowing their donations to basic vaccination programs..the PRC is not. In fact they are increasing it.

    .The Reds have just given the folks in Kenya enough money to take up the slack…and are contributing doctors and other staff.” [end of snip from Oler’s post]

    @ Readers

    Here are some points to throw into the Chinese global expansion mix that Robert Oler offered above in his mention of Chinese “humanitarian” involvement in Africa:

    Jan 21, 2011 (Kenya Broadcasting Corporation): …“Just like its burgeoning economy China’s trade imbalance with Kenya continues to widen each year. This is indeed a big concern for Kenya since the imbalance is heavily leaning on the Chinese side.

    The value of exports and imports in the past five years show an average trade imbalance of Ksh 18 billion. The majority of Kenya’s imports from China are capital goods, which are of higher value than its exports which include cotton, scrap metal, sisal, leather and horticulture.

    But the Chinese ambassador says there is no reason for concern since China’s growth is demand driven.

    China is now Africa’s biggest trading partner, clocking 115 billion dollars last year.

    The Chinese government is encouraging Chinese companies, flush with cash to invest in Africa in an effort to diversify an economy driven by exports and investment.

    China’s investment in Africa has largely targeted oil, gas and mining but it is expanding to manufacturing, real estate, infrastructure and other sectors….”

    http://www.kbc.co.ke/news.asp?nid=68514

    Jan. 24, 2011 (Bloomberg) — Industrial & Commercial Bank of China Ltd. agreed to the first Chinese takeover of a U.S. retail bank, boosting financial ties between the two largest economies as President Hu Jintao concluded a four-day visit.
    …ICBC and Bank of East Asia, based in Hong Kong, are among as many as 60 companies signing contracts, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs said in a statement. The list of firms didn’t include details on the agreements.

    Securing Bank of East Asia’s U.S. operations symbolizes ICBC’s efforts to expand abroad and will have “minimal” earnings potential, adding about 0.02 percent to total deposits, according to analyst Sheng Nan.

    “This is a strategic move for ICBC to move further in global expansion,” said Sheng, who covers banks at UOB Kayhian Investment Co. in Shanghai. “ICBC has a long way to go before it wins local U.S. customers in such a competitive and liberalized market, rather than just serving the Asian demographic.”…….

    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-01-24/icbc-set-for-first-china-takeover-of-u-s-retail-bank.html

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 1:04 am

    ….then, maybe even a space station 4!!! Gee, doesn’t this cavourting in LEO over & over again ever get old?! Does the nation really need to REPEAT that feat again & again, decade in, decade out?

    Since the Chinese seem to be following what the U.S., the Europeans, the Japanese and Russians are doing, maybe it’s you that doesn’t understand the importance of using LEO to become proficient in space, instead of 1,000 times farther away on the Moon (and probably 100X more expensive).

    Maybe you’re frustrated because reality doesn’t match your fantasies, but you have the ability to go beyond this blog and try to persuade the voters to back more or different spending for what you want done in space. As Thomas Paine said, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.”

  • William Mellberg

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “That a government spending lots of money can accomplish something no matter how uneconomical it is …doesnt impress me. I can see that right back home in the US. That a commercial company can…does. I worry more about the problems in the US then I do the threat of China.”

    Then you either don’t see very far into the future, or you have no concept of (or experience with) strategic market planning. Think again about the two examples I cited previously: Airbus and Arianespace. The naysayers didn’t take them seriously, either. Some of America’s overconfident aerospace analysts were predicting 35 years ago that Airbus would fizzle (A300 sales were stagnant for quite some time) and that Arianespace would never get off the ground. But in the end, Airbus put Douglas and Lockheed out of the commercial aircraft business. And Arianespace has sent more than a few payloads into Earth orbit … and beyond.

    Who would be impressed by a Chinese circumlunar mission? How about satellite users around the globe? China’s human spaceflight achievements will lend increasing credibility to their unmanned launch services — and to their growing reputation as a space superpower. Moreover, no matter how cheap a SpaceX rocket can put a satellite into orbit, the Chinese can afford to undercut that price — putting America’s new “commercial” space sector out of business in the long-run if they so choose (and putting the squeeze on Arianespace, too).

    The Chinese have built an industrial infrastructure that has taken their space program a long way in a relatively short time. Consider where China was 40 years ago as “ping pong diplomacy” was just getting started. The country was still in the clutches of the disastrous Cultural Revolution. But a decade later, under new leadership, the transformation of the Chinese economy was well underway; and Mao jackets and little red books were being replaced by new industrial enterprises and growing exports. Today, just 30 years later, China is an economic superpower (and becoming a military superpower, too).

    You can downplay Shenzhou spacecraft and Long March space launchers if you wish. But it is foolish to think that China’s leaders aren’t planning to become highly competitive in commercial space, as well in space exploration.

    Fifty years ago, John Kennedy challenged America to become the world’s leading space-faring nation. By the end of the 1960s, that goal had been accomplished.

    But in recent years, America has dropped the ball. And China seems to be picking it up. You might not be worried about the Chinese “threat” (as you put it). But I do. Because the Chinese threat isn’t military … it’s economic. And THAT is a “problem” (your term) for the United States, whether or not you have the foresight or insight to recognize it.

  • Vladislaw

    “China today is laying the foundations to become the global Colossus of the 21st Century — an economic and military superpower, second to none.”

    I remember when pundits raged on how Japan was going to be the new super power in the 1980’s. China is facing a lot of problems domestically that they will have to overcome before they can out produce America.

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 1:05 pm

    I dont agree with much of that.

    What put McDee in particular and Lockheed as well out of the airline business (Lockheed was never really in it) were the DC-10/MD-11 and L1011.

    They were three engine airplanes in the world of two engine large jets…and the MD_11 didnt even do what it said it would do…You must not have followed the MD-11 saga with American Airlines all that well.

    Boeing bet correctly that big and bigger two engine airplanes were the wave of the future and Douglas didnt and Lockmart just flamed out (Lockmart really only had two commercial airline projects, the Electra and the Tri star).

    Where your example of the Chinese undercutting a SPaceX launch market is the Airbus/Boeing competition. Despite being heavily subsidized…Boeing holds its own with Airbus.

    The Chinese will have a lot of difficulty selling to US in particular and even European satellite owners and manufactors. The rockets are not that great, they are not that much less in price…

    It is not something to worry about.

    What I do worry about is the US government spending money it doesnt have and which has to be borrowed from the Reds…on things that dont have much value for that money.

    And BTW Cx or any NASA program does nothing to address the issues that you are talking about.

    Robert G. Oler

  • William Mellberg

    Vladislaw wrote:

    “I remember when pundits raged on how Japan was going to be the new super power in the 1980′s. China is facing a lot of problems domestically that they will have to overcome before they can out produce America.”

    The pundits were right. Up until last year, Japan had the second largest economy in the world — a distinction it held throughout most of the past four decades (after overtaking the West German economy in 1968). Not bad for a country that had been devastated by war less than 25 years earlier. (Ditto for the Germans.) Of course, Japan has had its share of economic problems. But it’s still has the world’s third largest economy.

    China now has the world’s second largest economy. And it is a growing economy. Yes, there are domestic problems in China. Apart from the lack of freedom, there is a growing gap between the ‘haves and ‘have nots’ in China’s new economy. On the plus side, there is a huge pool of cheap labor.

    Let’s have a look around my desk …

    Here’s my cell phone. Made in China.

    Here’s my digital camera. Made in China.

    Here’s my printer. Made in China.

    Here’s my television. Made in China.

    Here are my new eyeglasses. Frames made in China.

    Here’s my new tie. Made in China.

    Thirty years ago, I didn’t have anything made in China — other than my Fourth of July fireworks. But today, my home and office are filled with goods made in China. All high-quality goods, I might add.

    And ten years from now …???

    Do not underestimate China … or the China Great Wall Industry Corporation and its spacecraft and launch vehicles.

  • William Mellberg

    Rober G. Oler wrote:

    “You must not have followed the MD-11 saga with American Airlines all that well.”

    One of my best friends sold MD-11s for Douglas. He was one of DAC’s area sales managers. In fact, I wrote a profile about him for an airline magazine. And I visited DAC Headquarters on Lakewood Boulevard many, many times. So I’m thoroughly familiar with the company’s demise. It was Airbus that put DAC out of business with the A330 and A340, as well as the A320 family of single-aisle jetliners. I still remember senior Douglas marketing executives telling me, “Airbus will never put the A330 and A340 into production. They’re just paper airplanes.” Were they ever wrong! And so are you.

    Robert G. Oler also wrote:

    “Lockmart just flamed out (Lockmart really only had two commercial airline projects, the Electra and the Tri star).”

    First of all, it wasn’t Lockheed Martin at that time. It was Lockheed. Secondly, Lockheed was this country’s second biggest producer of commercial aircraft for many years: Vega, Orion, Electra, Super Electra, Lodestar, Constellation. They all preceded the prop-jet Electra and the L-1011 TriStar. Apart from its old Model 247 (which was soon overshadowed by the Douglas DC-2), Boeing never really had much impact on the airline industry until the 707.

    In any case, the problem with the TriStar was two-fold. First, the bankruptcy of Rolls-Royce took its toll on TriStar sales since the Lockheed jetliner was designed around the RB.211 — unlike the DC-10 which was designed for multiple engine types (primarily the JT9D and the CF6). The second (and greater) problem was that the tri-jet market was rather limited. It wasn’t big enough to support both the L-1011 and the DC-10, which were very similar aircraft. Both firms lost money as a result. The Europeans learned from that lesson when they pooled their resources to create Airbus Industrie. Which is why the BAC Three-Eleven wasn’t built, and the A300 was.

    It was Airbus — not Boeing — that correctly identified the twin-engine, wide-body transport as the “wave of the future.” The success of the A300 forced Boeing to respond with the 767.

    Robert G. Oler added (with respect to China’s space launch industry):

    “It is not something to worry about.”

    That comment reminds me of George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn.

  • Vladislaw

    “Thirty years ago, I didn’t have anything made in China”

    If you have filled your home with cheap consumer goods from China then I would be willing to bet 30 years ago your home was filled with cheap consumer goods from Japan, or Tiawan, or South Korea. The same song has been sung before.

    China’s history is littered with bouts of upheaval and this government is what… 70 years old? With it’s sudden rise has came economic inequality, along with both physical and social consequences that are having to be delt with that we do not see much up in our media.

    Inflation rising at 25% to fuel their exports is going to be a problem that they are not addressing as of yet and with rebellion constantly lurking just below the surface China is becoming a powder keg, in my opinion.

    Another problem they are facing more and more is trade imbalances from Turkey, to Kenya to the United States. If they keep on the track they are on it will sooner or later lead to trade wars or high tariffs.

    I do not under estimate China, but another thing I do not do it OVER estimate them.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011

    But today, my home and office are filled with goods made in China. All high-quality goods, I might add.

    Why are you complaining about the rising might of China when you are gleefully funding it? Weird.

    Moreover, no matter how cheap a SpaceX rocket can put a satellite into orbit, the Chinese can afford to undercut that price — putting America’s new “commercial” space sector out of business in the long-run if they so choose (and putting the squeeze on Arianespace, too).

    I call this the 800 lb gorilla effect, in that everyone is afraid that China, or Google, or Apple will move into every market segment and take over the world by undercutting the competitors. It’s a fantasy. It also ignores the reactions the market and governments would have to blatant market manipulation.

    For space related technology, even if they mass produce the Shenzhou and fly them around the Moon, there is a lot more to space colonization than launchers and capsules. So far the Chinese are taking a very practical approach, which will make them competent, but not dominant, in space. I’m not ready to throw in the towel… ;-)

  • Freddo

    Who would be impressed by a Chinese circumlunar mission? How about satellite users around the globe? China’s human spaceflight achievements will lend increasing credibility to their unmanned launch services — and to their growing reputation as a space superpower. Moreover, no matter how cheap a SpaceX rocket can put a satellite into orbit, the Chinese can afford to undercut that price — putting America’s new “commercial” space sector out of business in the long-run if they so choose (and putting the squeeze on Arianespace, too).

    Mr. Mellberg’s analysis contains many flaws:

    1) His assertion is that China’s commercial launch competitiveness would be enhanced by carrying out a human circumlunar mission. Yet, China has already demonstrated the reliability of its Long March vehicles: the last catastrophic launch failure was nearly 15 years ago. (There was an upper stage problem with a more recent launch, but the satellite was able to achieve its final orbit nonetheless, I recall.) Sending humans around the Moon wouldn’t do much to enhance their commercial launch sales.

    [A corollary: if human spaceflight improved the overall reputation of Chinese launch vehicles, you’d expect them to do more crewed missions, yet they haven’t done one since 2008 and probably won’t do one this year as well.]

    2) If China can undercut SpaceX, they can already undercut existing launch services providers, yet CGWIC wins very few commercial orders versus Arianespace, ILS, or even Sea Launch. Many commercial launch customers are interested in more than just a cheap launch: they want something reliable, on schedule, and with good customer service. China’s vehicles are reliable, but their manifests are not transparent and their customer service lags far behind Western providers. Those problems aren’t solved by sending taikonauts around the Moon.

    3) Mellberg’s analysis completely ignores another issue: ITAR. Since most commercial satellites still contain US-built components, they can’t be exported to China for launch, regardless of how good or how cheap their rockets are. Thales Alenia does offer ITAR-free satellites, but they don’t sell that many, and rumor is the additional cost of using ITAR-free components can offset the potentially cheaper cost of a Chinese launch. Again, doing a circumlunar human mission (or anything else with human spaceflight) doesn’t solve that issue.

    Such a mission might give them geopolitical prestige, but it’s not going to help them take over the commercial launch market.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    Do not underestimate China … or the China Great Wall Industry Corporation and its spacecraft and launch vehicles.

    OK, you’ve told us why we should be afraid, so now tell us, what would William do to solve this problem?

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “Why are you complaining about the rising might of China when you are gleefully funding it? Weird.”

    Who’s complaining? I’m simply pointing out that China’s growing economy is being built on the West’s consumerism. The Chinese are far smarter than the Soviets who never even produced quality goods for their own people, much less the global market.

    Freddo wrote:

    “Mellberg’s analysis completely ignores another issue: ITAR. Since most commercial satellites still contain US-built components, they can’t be exported to China for launch, regardless of how good or how cheap their rockets are.”

    Apparently you didn’t read my comments thoroughly. Please note that I said, “Despite some technical snags early on and some legal problems in more recent years, the success rate of the Long March rockets is fairly impressive.” The “legal problems” I alluded to were the ones you just addressed. But there are ways around those problems, and you can bet that China will take advantage of them wherever and whenever possible.

    Freddo also wrote:

    “If China can undercut SpaceX, they can already undercut existing launch services providers, yet CGWIC wins very few commercial orders versus Arianespace, ILS, or even Sea Launch.”

    Partly because of the reasons just mentioned. Partly for diplomatic reasons. Partly because the Chinese like to make profits, too (so why offer bargain basement prices?). And partly because they might simply be marking time as they develop their production capacity and launch rate capabilities.

    And Freddo said:

    “Sending humans around the Moon wouldn’t do much to enhance their commercial launch sales.”

    On the contrary … Air France and British Airways enjoyed increased bookings and market shares owing to the prestige they earned with Concorde. Their SSTs didn’t add much (if anything) to their bottomlines. But every Concorde was a flying billboard for Air France and British Airways — worth a fortune in terms of marketing and reputation. The same thing would apply to China’s launch services industry if Chinese taikonauts were to fly around (or land on) the Moon. China will be seen as the world leader in spaceflight.

    At the moment, Shenzhou doesn’t get much publicity in the West because the Chinese are repeating what the Americans and Soviets were doing 45 years ago. Shenzhou (like the SpaceX Dragon) is “Soyuz on Steroids.” And that doesn’t draw much public attention, although Shenzhou 7 got quite a bit of media coverage with Zhai’s spacewalk — especially on the BBC. But Chinese lunar missions would certainly draw the public’s gaze worldwide. And, more importantly, they would draw attention to China’s launch services industry.

    It pays to be a leader. That’s taught in Marketing 101.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “OK, you’ve told us why we should be afraid, so now tell us, what would William do to solve this problem?”

    It’s not my problem. It’s the Musketeers who ought to be looking over their shoulders at China’s growing space industry. They’re the ones who stand to lose.

    But this is why Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan have expressed their concern that by focusing so much attention on “commercial” space and Low Earth Orbit, the Obama Administration is sacrificing America’s space leadership — and the prestige and commerce that goes with it. Which brings us back to John Kennedy’s space legacy.

  • William Mellberg

    William Mellberg wrote:

    “It pays to be a leader.”

    On a positive note (and commenting on my own comment) …

    SpaceX has an advantage at the moment as it is seen as a leader. And that is a genuine feather in Musk’s cap. For the record, I’ve consistently praised Musk’s achievements as I am thoroughly impressed by SpaceX. But I think some of his supporters tend to be a little overly enthusiastic. I suppose I can’t blame them. SpaceX has enjoyed great success, thus far.

  • William Mellberg

    Freddo wrote:

    “[A corollary: if human spaceflight improved the overall reputation of Chinese launch vehicles, you’d expect them to do more crewed missions, yet they haven’t done one since 2008 and probably won’t do one this year as well.]”

    I forgot to address that point.

    China’s manned missions have taken place as announced. And they announced quite some time ago that the next one wouldn’t be launched until 2012. At this point, Shenzhou missions would probably be repeats of their first three flights. No sense in repeating themselves. Which is why the next step is to orbit a small space station so that China’s space program can be seen as being on something of an equal footing with our own — at least in the public perception.

    The Chinese aren’t in a hurry. They’ve been very methodical in their approach. As I mentioned earlier, it’s the old story of the tortoise and the hare. Patience is a virtue. But that’s a bit of an alien concept in our own culture these days.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 4:42 pm

    It’s not my problem. It’s the Musketeers who ought to be looking over their shoulders at China’s growing space industry. They’re the ones who stand to lose.

    Soldiers armed with muskets should be afraid of China’s space industry? You really need to use a common language if you want to be understood.

    If you’re saying an entity other than the U.S. should be fearing China, then fine. But you’ve been advocating that they U.S. is losing to China, so that makes it your problem (as well as all citizens). What is your solution?

    the Obama Administration is sacrificing America’s space leadership — and the prestige and commerce that goes with it.

    How? By canceling a program that was far over budget and far over schedule? How in the world would wasting more money bring us “prestige and commerce”? How in the world would NOT doing any meaningful work in space for 20 years bring us “prestige and commerce”? I don’t get it.

    What I do understand is that instead of a temporary mission to the Moon in 2030’s, we have astronauts in space now that are helping us to figure out how we are going to explore our solar system. Constellation was going to end that, which would have been the real tragedy, and a bipartisan Congress agreed the ISS was more important than the Moon.

    The ISS is an ongoing reminder to the world that the U.S. is the leader in space technology. Our continuation of the ISS is also the motivation for U.S. companies to risk their own money to build on the work being done on the ISS. Constellation would not have provided the same opportunities, and would have perpetuated the government monopoly on U.S. space activity.

    Regarding Armstrong and Cernan, I think their comments regarding commercial space reflected their concern about NASA giving up it’s role in human transportation. While I understand their concern, I have said many times that NASA does unique things best, but that routine things should be turned over to the commercial sector as quickly as possible. That we have companies wanting to take over the routine work of travel to LEO is a tribute to the entire space program, and it’s unfortunate that Armstrong and Cernan didn’t recognize that.

  • common sense

    @ William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    “The Chinese aren’t in a hurry. They’ve been very methodical in their approach. As I mentioned earlier, it’s the old story of the tortoise and the hare. Patience is a virtue.”

    And that is why they will not enter in a full out military conflict with the US. They saw how stupid we can be and are just waiting for us to go into oblivion by our own making. In the mean time they reap the fruits of our former economic strength and fill in their coffers.

  • @ Coastal Ron’s rebutal message from 11:31 am…..Yes, I do NOT see any big point in doing nothing but LEO, decade in decade out! We will really become proficient in space by turning our attention Moonward. Yes, I am extremely upset over how space exploration has been going, recently. You mean all we have now to look forward to, for the next twenty years, is MORE Low Earth Orbit?!?! A bunch of starry-eyed hobbyists launching a manned capsule 200 miles up to mere near earth orbit??! No voyages beyond this? MORE stupid space-stations!?! An ISS-2, then maybe an ISS-3??!! Merry-go-rounding Earth again & again??! Another generation of U.S. astronauts who do nothing more than tending an LEO station??! I want to see the end of this twilight zone nightmare, once and for all!!

  • Robert G. Oler

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 3:01 pm

    “That comment reminds me of George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn.”

    sorry about using LOCKMART…new habits die hard and it has been quite a few years “Lockmart”…of course that doesnt negate anything I said, nor does your discussion of the RB211…the salaint fact is what I said…Lockheed and McDee got the notion of a tristar wrong.

    I wouldnt give airbus all that much hammer for the twin motor…Boeing knew where they were going with two engines very early they never seriously considered another tri motor after the deuce seven..

    As for the analogy with Custer. No he was worried almost from the word go at the Big Horn…his worries changed over the battle but he was worried.

    I am not worried about the PRC…or at least I am worried about the US more

    Robert G. Oler

  • William Mellberg

    Robert G. Oler wrote:

    “Lockheed and McDee got the notion of a tristar wrong. I wouldnt give airbus all that much hammer for the twin motor…Boeing knew where they were going with two engines very early they never seriously considered another tri motor after the deuce seven.”

    Lockheed and Douglas didn’t get the “notion of a TriStar” wrong. They were satisfying the requirements of two launch customers, Eastern and TWA, both of which called for a tri-jet. Moreover, until C.R. Smith left the helm to become LBJ’s Secretary of Commerce, American was leaning toward the TriStar, as well. United was an old Douglas customer and leaned toward the DC-10. But to stay in the running with American, DAC went with three engines, after studying both four-engine and two-engine configurations. In fact, Boeing offered a competing three-engine version of the 747 which was called the 747-300 (not to be confused with the 747-300 launched by Swissair more than a decade later which featured an extended Upper Deck). But Boeing had its hands full with the four-engine, long-range version of the 747, and decided to let Douglas and Lockheed fight over the medium-range tri-jet market.

    In any case, the L-1011 TriStar and DC-10 were both excellent aircraft. Their only problem was the size of the market. It was too small for both Lockheed and DAC to reach a break-even number in sales — even with KC-10 tankers thrown into the equation. Moreover, as mentioned previously, the question mark that hung over the Rolls-Royce RB.211 not only delayed the TriStar … it nearly sent Lockheed into bankruptcy, forcing the Nixon Administration to give the firm a loan guarantee. (The U.S. government could hardly afford to let one of its biggest defense contractors collapse at that time.)

    Whether you realize it or not, Airbus Industrie pioneered the wide-body, twin-jet concept with its A300. For a time, it looked like they had gotten it wrong as A300 sales were stuck at a relative handful of aircraft until Frank Borman ordered the type for Eastern. That’s when the floodgates opened for Airbus. And that’s when Boeing was forced to respond with a wide-body, twin-jet of its own — the 767 which was designed (initially) to compete with the A310.

    Until 1978, Boeing was developing a long-range, tri-jet version of the 767 called the 777 (not to be confused with the later 777) for American. The original tri-jet 777 was to have followed the 767 by about a year. It was designed around a long-range requirement from American. But it was replaced by extended range versions of the 767, including the 767-300.

    So much for your contention that Boeing “never seriously considered” another tri-jet after the 727.

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 26th, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    In any case, the L-1011 TriStar and DC-10 were both excellent aircraft. Their only problem was the size of the market. It was too small for both Lockheed and DAC to reach a break-even number in sales…

    And this is the exact problem that the Congressionally mandated 130t Space Launch System will run into, which is not enough work to merit the product.

    At least McDonnell Douglas and Lockheed had launch customers, but the SLS doesn’t. No payloads, no upcoming funded programs to help figure out what size it should really be – nothing. It’s a launcher for nothing.

    Even the smaller 70t SLS has no customers, and no payloads. The SLS is being built before there is a need, and money spent too early is a waste. Another example of government waste foisted upon the nation by pork barrel interests. We’ll see how this plays out in the new Congress…

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ January 25th, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    We will really become proficient in space by turning our attention Moonward.

    Where is the money coming from to do that? Even if you stopped funding the ISS, you don’t have enough money to fund a lunar outpost. We don’t have the infrastructure yet to do that, so just as Constellation found out, you have to create everything – very expensive.

    If you want to go to the Moon, then you need to outline a fundable plan to do it. What are your goals, how much will it cost, over what period of time will it last?

    And more importantly, how do you fund it in today’s budget environment, and what happens if a future Congress doesn’t see enough results to continue the funding – will it turn into another Apollo moment, where we leave the Moon alone for decades at a time?

    As Bush proved with the Iraq war, if something has enough support, it gets funding, even off-budget. So your biggest problem is getting enough of Congress to agree with your viewpoint. So far they don’t, and I don’t either, so regardless how “extremely upset” you may be, that’s life. I hope you can deal with it.

  • William Mellberg

    Coastal Ron wrote:

    “But you’ve been advocating that the U.S. is losing to China, so that makes it your problem (as well as all citizens). What is your solution?”

    Unfortunately, it might be too late to solve the problem. There was a time when the United States manufactured most of its own consumer products and was a creditor nation. Today we import many (if not most) of our consumer goods; and we’ve become a debtor nation. One solution would be to restore manufacturing in this country. But that is easier said than done. What was it Ross Perot said about a “giant sucking sound” as U.S manufacturing jobs were going overseas? We’re even seeing the service sector going offshore.

    As for the space program …

    One of the things I like about the Spudis-Lavoie plan is that it is flexible enough to adjust for lean years — like the ones we’re in now. This is a good time for greater robotic exploration of the Moon. Sending unmanned rovers to the polar regions to evaluate lunar resources (such as water ice) would likely be an affordable goal — and one which could assess the potential for future human outposts. I certainly agree that we don’t need another “Apollo moment” with either the Moon or Mars. Humankind should return to the Moon to stay. Ditto for Mars. Which means we won’t be leaving footprints in the lunar dust or martian sand for quite some time. Unless, of course, the Chinese reach the Moon sooner than any of us might expect.

    Given the economic realities and the budgetary contraints of the next several years — especially with regard to discretionary spending — I expect to see some major belt-tightening at NASA. That doesn’t mean we should take our eyes off the prize. It just means that human exploration beyond Earth orbit is going to be slowed down even more. Hopefully, the pace of robotic exploration will be increased, as has been suggested. And I hope the foundations for long-range human exploration can be laid despite the slowdown. Otherwise, to paraphrase an old von Braun line, the next time American astronauts land on the Moon, they might have to pass through Chinese Customs.

    Meanwhile, Space X seems to have the lead in providing a replacement for the Space Shuttle to service the International Space Station in LEO. As such, I wish them well. And I hope the ISS will be more productive (in terms of results) now that the facility has been basically completed.

  • @ Coastal Ron: Where is the money going to come from to bail out the commercial space people, at some point in the future? They will need enormous subsidies just to be able to launch a single manned capsule to even a single near earth orbit. Furthermore, the ISS has to “create everything” as it goes along. There is NOT any pre-existing infrastructure in LEO either! Project Constellation had from the moment of its inception, the plan of building the capacity for an extended manned occupation of the Moon, in preparation for other more distant worlds. What happens if a future Congress comes to dislike Barack Obama’s would-be manned asteroid jaunt? They’ll simply pop the balloon on that one too. Why they do not just pull the plug on the stupid, pointless ISS, is beyond me! But it goes a little like this: the ISS is as close & near to the Earth as it could possibly be, and still claim to be located in space. Therefore, the ISS project is the bare minimum that NASA can be engaged in, and still purport to be conducting a national “space program”. The sooner it is retired, the better off NASA will be, in terms of starting out with real exploration!

  • Coastal Ron

    William Mellberg wrote @ January 26th, 2011 at 9:44 pm

    Today we import many (if not most) of our consumer goods; and we’ve become a debtor nation.

    If you don’t like it, then stop buying product made there. You get what you want, which so far, apparently, is that you’re OK with the imports (as you’ve said earlier).

    Here is an interesting factoid:

    U.S. exports now account for roughly 12 percent of GDP, up from 3 percent in the 1930s.

    The solution for American industry is the same for expanding our presence in space, and that is we need to focus on reducing the cost to manufacture things.

    At some point China is going to stop being the low-cost production center that is it today, and we already see wages rising, especially with the iPhone production facilities, so China is becoming less competitive every day. Unfortunately they still are far less expensive than we are, but it will help us keep existing industry here in the U.S., and hopefully let new industries take hold here.

    I spent my career in manufacturing, and so I know a little about this. Look around in just about any city, mainly in the gritty areas, and you will find a lot of manufacturing going on. One area that will help new industries get established is better education for potential workers, and this is one of the areas that the U.S. does not do well.

    As I’ve mentioned before, the first company I worked for had it’s own training system because they could not find enough people with machining experience to work in our factory. Years later when I was the manager of a machine shop, I had problems finding qualified CNC operators – this is one of the reasons new companies have a hard time starting up and being competitive enough to survive.

    So to me, the answer to America becoming more competitive is to educate our workers so THEY are more competitive.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ January 26th, 2011 at 11:10 pm

    Furthermore, the ISS has to “create everything” as it goes along.

    Nope, all the R&D is done, the tooling is built, the modules have been tested on the ground and in space, so we are now in sustaining mode. In fact, if we wanted to build another ISS, it would cost far less, especially using commercial launchers instead of the Space Shuttle.

    There is NOT any pre-existing infrastructure in LEO either!

    This is a weird statement, especially because the ISS is in LEO, and it has an infrastructure that supports it.

    The issue for the future is that the infrastructure needs to become more robust (i.e. have lots of redundancy), and it needs to become less expensive over time. The combination of these two will allow NASA to do more with less money, and it means that exploration take place much quicker (don’t need to build every facet of transportation).

    All of this supports the goals of the VSE, which stated:

    “As we move outward into the solar system, NASA will rely more heavily on private sector space capabilities to support activities in Earth orbit and future exploration activities. In particular, NASA will seek to use existing or new commercial launch vehicles for cargo transport to the Space Station, and potentially to the Moon and other destinations.”

    You also stated:

    They will need enormous subsidies just to be able to launch a single manned capsule to even a single near earth orbit.

    This gets down to the question of how to accomplish a goal. Is it less expensive for NASA to pay commercial providers to provide LEO crew services, or less expensive for NASA to do it on their own? The answer of course is that it will be less expensive for NASA to pay commercial providers, because NASA doesn’t do any cheap. So call it what you want, subsidy, investment, contract, whatever, all that matters is that NASA pays less over time, and that there is competition to keep prices in check and provide redundancy. That is the goal, and not to create another government-run rocket that has to beg Congress for the funds to keep people standing around.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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