“And you supported that farce. It says alot…”

In fact, it says you are inaccurate. This writer has been a consistent critic of Ares. It was a lousy rocket design and the weak link in the program, as the early cost overruns demonstrated. and, in fact, government has been better w/respect to HSF- it has managed to put humans into space for half a century; commercial HSF has not launched, orbited and safely recovered anyone. Get some skin in the game: fly somebody.

“Capitalism will win out in the end, not your socialist Moon dreams.”

And yet you seek to socialize the risks of your ‘for profit’ commerical HSF space ventures on the backs of taxpayers, the many, to ‘profit’ a few’ to ‘service’ a government O&O space station. The very parameters of the free market keep capital investors wary given the high risk, low ROI and the largess of capital necessary for space projects of scale. That’s why governments do it.

The 80 plus year history of modern rocket development has shown that governments in many guises motivated by various political and military purposes (not for profit, BTW) are the entities which have funded the technology and progressed the engineering of this still very young science to the human species . Capitalists repeated balked. They all but ignored Goddard and let government carry the load by socializing the risk on the backs of the taxpayers in the ‘space race.’ For profit firms have always been a follow along, cashing in where they could. The only place you’ll see capitalists leading the way into space in this era is at the movies- and Destination Moon had a pretty good business plan… if you know you’ll find uranium on the moon by reel five. Today, it may be just water, which just might end up being of more value in the end. A return would make for an excellent second phase in BEO operations culminating w/an eventual voyage out to asteroids and/or Mars, per Kraft’s methodology.

“Maintaining ISS was forcing NASA to shift funding from Constellation to keep it flying. The shell game again.”

Uh huh, sure it was. The ISS was in orbit starting in 1998, and occupied starting in 2001, way before Griffin even put together his ATK powered lunar dreams.

But since Griffin would rather “explore” than work in space, he designed the Constellation program so that it required the funds that the ISS needed to operate.

There’s the disposable culture again. Spend $100B, and then throw it away. No problem! We’ll go back to the taxpayers and grab another $100B from them, er China, and zoom we go again.

Oh but of course Constellation represents HSF for you, didn’t it? So after dumping the ISS, we wouldn’t have had astronauts doing anything worthwhile in space for another 20 years. 20 YEARS!!!

And you supported that farce. It says alot:

1. HSF is a only worthwhile for you if it’s 100% China/Taxpayer funded
2. Leave only footprints on the Moon, and no reusable hardware in space
3. Don’t encourage tax-producing entities in space – government is better

Luckily the direction of the space program is going against your wishes, so tsk tsk. Capitalism will win out in the end, not your socialist Moon dreams.

“You know, in a lot of ways I don’t care what the next destination is.”

Nuff said.

But ya do care about any subidies and contracts you can secure, dontcha. Short term, self-serving thinking. Slamming the successful Apollo era management structure does little to enhance your position- especially as they showed the way and commerical HSF has not launched, orbited and returned anybody. Don’t knock success, fella. Kraft’s methodology uses the moon as the ‘gemini’ of a long term BEO space program for a 30-50-plus year time frame. It’s the way it will happen given the state of the technology of our times. Hardly ‘Apollo cargo cultist’ at all to build upon learned experiences.

LEO is a ticket to no place. BEO is the future. 43 cents of every dollar the government spends is borrowed and those who refuse to accept that as a factor in planning are part of the problem. My error on the Columbia/Constellation reference- confused my reports. However, per the Washington Post as late as June, 2009: “International Space Station program manager Michael Suffredini [stated] that the ISS would be decommissioned, de-orbited and destroyed in 2016. Suffredini made that statement to the Augustine Commission, the presidential panel reviewing NASA’s future plans.” Maintaining ISS was forcing NASA to shift funding from Constellation to keep it flying. The shell game again.

Two things first of all:

1. Thanks for writing in paragraphs. Now I only have to deal with your outlandish ideas…
2. I noticed that I reminded you of your “this writer” 3rd person style of writing. I’m sure I’ll come to regret that…

Ah, but to the matter at hand.

“It [the ISS] has been nothing more than a works program for the aerospace industry”

Let’s be honest here – if the ISS is a “works program”, then so are your dreams of setting up little huts on the Moon. There is NO national imperative to go to the Moon. Oh sure, it would be nice, but remember what you say about any government spending? Heed thy own advice.

“Shifting that [NASA’s budget] to other agencies is necessary”

LOL. If you could point to any evidence that Congress has even considered this, we might take the idea seriously. Until then, you might as well be suggesting that NASA get put under the Dept of Agriculture.

“By redirecting to a sustained, disciplined, BEO space program”

You know, in a lot of ways I don’t care what the next destination is. I don’t. But what I do know is that NASA will never have the budget to develop more than one major program at at time, and with little money left over for operating the last major program. Constellation proved that.

If keeping the ISS going costs $3B year, what do you think a lunar mission will cost? The smallest HLV that NASA has costed out will run $27B for 18 flights, or $1.5B/flight. And that’s for the 70-100mt side-mount. These are NASA’s numbers, which if history is any guide, are probably wildly low, so you better assume $2B/flight just to be safe. And that is WITHOUT developing any payloads like an EDS or lunar lander. How much money do you want to borrow from China???

“Private sector for profit firms will never be capable of sustaining a space effort of scale for BEO operations in this era.”

You don’t listen very well. Most of us see commercial cargo and crew as supporting NASA’s exploration efforts, not leading them. And there is no doubt that commercial firms can get cargo and crew to space much cheaper than NASA is capable of.

But the most fantastic part about this particular claim is that you apparently don’t realize that NASA is really just a contracting organization, and that the private sector ALWAYS profits off of NASA’s exploration efforts. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, and a myriad of other large corporations are where NASA’s budget goes. You didn’t think it all went into training astronauts, did you?

The shift that many of us want to happen is to change from government-owned, government-run transportation. That is what always drags NASA down, because it has no clue how to run a transportation entity – NO CLUE! Costs go up? NASA says OK. Things go boom? NASA takes the lumps, while the contractors get contract extensions (i.e. more money). Where is the incentive to keep costs in check?

And you buy into this horrible cycle. YOU PERPETUATE THIS CYCLE. Even with this phony “43 cents” crap, since you want NASA to zoom off to somewhere that will cost EVEN MORE MONEY than NASA has today.

You my friend are a Apollo cargo cultist that has evolved into a “Moon First” adherent. And that’s OK, but it also means you don’t care how much it costs to return to the Moon. And as long as that’s your attitude, you never will make it back. Remember your 43 cents.

Are you ignorant of the truth, or just making stuff up? You said:

“Bear in mind that before Columbia was lost, the ISS was planned for splash by 2015 to free up funding for Constellation as well. ”

Here are the facts:

o February 1, 2003 – Columbia broke up on re-entry

o January 14, 2004 – President Bush announces the VSE, which eventually begat the Constellation program.

And you wonder why we have a hard time believing what you say…

It’s not a matter of ‘shame.’ It a matter of injecting the context of reality.

The space program is not operating in a vaccum. It is a discretionary expenditure. A luxury in an era when necessities across the board are a priority. Nothing would please this writer more than to have the ISS justified, assorted manned spacecraft, commercial and government operated, lifting off every month pressing onward and outward. Norm Augustine’s report(s) repeatedly indicate the underfunding levels hover in the $3-$4 billion/year range to keep various proposals flush and operating, which, for example, compared to the monthly war(s) funding alone, discretionary expenses as well, is quite minimal. But instead, the fiscal shell game goes on and shifting funds between programs barely sustains them resulted in no progress for any. Look what happened to Constellation- the $10 billion sunk into that was lost, save Orion.

In the current economic environment every dollar that goes to LEO operations starves development of BEO projects. That’s just the way it is and a 20-plus year space project costing $100 billion so far (roughly the cost to build, not annually operate, 14 aircraft carriers) which has yet to to return anything to justify the investment so far is a waste, diverting dwindling funds for BEO programs. It is a case study as a works program for the aerospace industry.

“… the experience we gain for long-duration operations by using the Station as a testbed is worth it, then I can’t sell you on it and we will just have to agree to disagree.”

In front of me are several AAS volumes on Skylab research; MIR has decade-plus data to mine and source as well. Neither were $100 billion projects and both produced results. Certainly a ‘test bed’ has value but there’s a limit to the cost/return in the face of redundancy and the ISS has yet to produce anything of value to justify the expense and the ‘research’ garnered, if any so far, is redundant to what has already been attained. In current configuration, the crews spend more time maintaining the station each day than doing and productive research. Bear in mind that before Columbia was lost, the ISS was planned for splash by 2015 to free up funding for Constellation as well. Space station, ‘Freedom,’ ISS or whatever it is named, has been kicked around, budgeted/planned/designed/re-designed/re-re-re-designed and worked on for over 20 years at great cost. It has been nothing more than a works program for the aerospace industry, repeasents past planning and today is out of sync with the needs of the Age of Austerity. Do you keep funding the LEO ISS and deny funding for BEO development? No. disengage and let the partners pay for it or let it splash.

@Coastal Ron wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 10:14 pm

Apparently you just don’t get it. Taxes will be raised. Funding will be cut. How revenues are spent is the key. You assume outlays and priorities will not shift. Of course, they do. But civil space is discretionary spending, and increasingly a lowering priority and an easy target for budget cuts in a stand-alone agency like NASA. When borrowing 43 cents of every dollar spent, your focus is necessities while scaling back discretionary expenses. Scaling down government agencies as a whole is critical now. Streamlining NASA with a fresh focus, leaner management, clearing shuttle deadwood and anceletory areas the agency has been involved with (like aviation, climate research, etc.) has been a sustained position of this writer. Shifting that to other agencies is necessary. The ‘gap’ may be a blessing.

By redirecting to a sustained, disciplined, BEO space program, leaving 30 years of LEO operations behind, a steady base budget for NASA (adjusted for inflation) over decades, w/o micro-managed reviews and resdesigns, etc., helps as well — and in this environment, tucking it under the DoD is one idea which may offer that kind of funding stability although it may be too late for that now. It would permit efficient managers and smart engineers to focus on what they’re good at rather than spending time chasing evaporating funding every year. A sustained, properly funded base budget line for HSF programs supplemented w/planetary exploration w/academia support, adjusted for inflation w/benchmarks, checkpoints at 5 year increments/ mandatory goals/personel turnovers, etc., would allow reasonable increments for technological and engineering development. Verify goals met would release additional funding and un-met goals results in immediate cancellation. Given the long lead times needed to change direction from LEO to BEO operations and the support elements necessary, it’s going to take decades and that kind of planning cannot survive these annual budget battles.

Private sector for profit firms will never be capable of sustaining a space effort of scale for BEO operations in this era. Even LEO has been a struggle and w/o the government sustained ISS as a faux ‘destination,’ would wither and die. Branson’s effort is the best bet on the next logical step in commercial HSF. That’s why governments do the big stuff- and have been leading rocket development under various political guises for 80 years. And it was a good investment until it became a LEO works program. That’s just the way it is in this era and Kraft’s methodology is the way it will be done- whether it is American led remains to be seen. Would Americans accept a supportive role in sending Chinese to the moon? Doubtful.

@common sense wrote @ May 11th, 2011 at 10:49 pm
Doomed? Nixon killed the original shuttle/station concept, greenlighted a shuttle alone, underfunded it from ’72 on then resigned; DoD stepped in w/funding in the Ford/Carter years and redesign specs for its use as a part of the re-re-re-designs culminating in what flew in ’81, which in ’80 dollars had already cost $14 billion when STS-1 left the pad.

“A postscript- Shuttle was originally designed as part of a shuttle/station ‘system’; it was to be a much smaller vehicle and the history- in terms of politics, design and funding- from DoD, etc., of what eventually evolved is an easy if not interesting thread to follow. No doubt it would not have evolved the same way today.”

at last something interesting. Now if you would post more like this you would be an entertaining person to deal with.

three points.

First the notion of a reusable shuttle particularly one where development cost were limited AND the actual operating cost depended on almost airplane like re usability at the time that the shuttle was proposed by NASA was goofy on its face.

The folks who were going to build it were smart, but they had no operational experience, no real knowledge of what it took to measure operational cost vrs maintenance and while talented at creating space technology had done so for vehicles which were essentially disposable. I did not recognize this at the time; but I have an excuse I was still either a teenager or was pretty knew to systems engineering…but if you go read my early op eds both in some of the space pubs and the college newspaper I learned quick.

Some people knew better. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Ford gotten “a first term”…from what I have read and people who have talked from that administration the sentiment was starting to wake up to the notion that shuttle was not going to live up to its expectations…no matter what the design.

Second…while the debate you and Rand and others have over Nixon or LBJ killing the lunar program….the reality is that GOP Presidents usually end up caring less about human spaceflight then DEM ones…and that includes my beloved Ronaldus the Great. GOP Presidents usually talk a good game about human spaceflight AND buy off on whatever notion NASA is selling…but they generally do not do due diligence as to if the notions are possible AT ALL much less on the likely dollars.

Hence Ed Boland gets a kudo for nailing the space station program. Oddly enough on the CSERVE space forum where I first bumped into Mark Whittington we had this issue out…and Mark was as he is today…always willing to blame the Dems for GOP shortfalls.

Finally…what we need in HSF is what we have with Obama’s policy; not only a dose of realism but also some notion of what can be accomplished for the dollars that are likely to be available. …and an ability to get the private sector back toward acting like well the private sector.

Robert G. Oler

“A postscript- Shuttle was originally designed as part of a shuttle/station ‘system’; it was to be a much smaller vehicle and the history- in terms of politics, design and funding- from DoD, etc., of what eventually evolved is an easy if not interesting thread to follow. No doubt it would not have evolved the same way today.”

Are you saying that DoD involvement doomed the originally planned shuttle/station infrastructure?

Just askin’

“Nonsense. You just don’t like what you’re reading as my position…”

As someone that used to refer to themselves as “this writer”, you would think that you would have better writing skills – ever hear of paragraphs? Your rants become too tiring to read, so most of the time I don’t. You want people to read what you write? Write better.

“Develop a GP spacecraft (Orion) a lander; long-term habitation capability; a HLV; return to the moon, develop systems and methods for long-stays on a semi-permenent basis; refine and apply the knowledge from same (a la Gemini for Apollo) modify and adapt the vehicles for an expedition to Mars, asteroids etc.”

So pretty much you want government funded space activity, right? 100% paid for by the American Taxpayer? You’re a hoot!

Here you are complaining about “the government has to borrow 43 cents of every dollar it spends” on one hand, but demanding 100% government financed (by way of China) Moon bases.

How do you explain yourself?

The interesting part is that most of us wouldn’t mind doing what you suggested destination-wise (not the HLV though), but we don’t see that the U.S. Taxpayer can afford to do it unless you raise their taxes dramatically – and that AIN’T gonna happen. BUT YOU DO!

So where you want the U.S. Taxpayer to foot the entire bill, most of us would rather than we reach the Moon with more of a capitalist approach, with companies and individuals contributing to the goal – regardless how long it takes. 10, 20, 50 years. Whatever.

But before the U.S. Taxpayer pays $Billions for your lunar dreams, you better be able to show them that you’re not going to spend $100B on some lunar outpost, and then dispose of it when you travel on to Mars – like you want to do with the ISS.

It’s your kind of disposable thinking that keeps us from leaving LEO, and the U.S. Taxpayer wants durable value for their tax dollars, not one-shot space fantasies. You better listen to them, otherwise you won’t get your 100% government-funded space dreams.