For Orlando Sentinel columnist Mike Thomas, it’s a question of what’s the lesser evil: “We can either go billions over budget on mismanaged science projects, or we can go billions over budget on even more mismanaged manned-spaceflight programs,” he writes in a column today. Thomas, who has been a critic of human spaceflight activities in the past, unsurprisingly chooses the former, in part because of the money already spent on the James Webb Space Telescope, as well as the scientific and other benefits it can yield: “It would be a big in-your-face to the Chinese, who could never build such a technical marvel, at least not until they’ve downloaded the plans from the NASA computers.” He doesn’t apply similar arguments to the Space Launch System (SLS) and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), and is skeptical of the cost estimates reported last month. “Factoring in the usual NASA cost overruns and delays, this rocket will cost $200 billion and go up in the year 2525.” (If man is still alive…)
The advocacy group Tea Party in Space (TPIS) sees last week’s Soyuz launch failure as proof Congress should fully fund NASA’s Commercial Crew Development (CCDev) program in order to ensure American access to the ISS, the conservative news site NewsMax reports. CCDev would be faster and cheaper than SLS, the organization argues; a TPIS official called congressional support for SLS “a pretty warped sense of priorities”. “Tea Party in Space officials see NASA’s cost overruns as a microcosm of the larger bureaucratic snafus that plague the federal government generally,” the report adds.
Back in July, SpaceX hired Mark Bitterman, who had spent nearly 20 years at rival Orbital Sciences Corporation, most recently as vice president of government affairs, as its new senior vice president of government affairs. But Space News reported this week that, after less than two months on the job, Bitterman has resigned; a company spokesperson said “family obligations” require more of his time than the job would allow. (The version of the press release announcing his hiring is no longer listed on the SpaceX web site, although in addition to the Business Wire version listed above, there’s a cached version from earlier this week.)
…TPIS official…
That’s a good one. Since when was a guy running a web site in his mother’s basement an ‘official’? I am a sign carrying Tea Party hooligan and I am for strong defense and therefore a strong NASA. It is important that the Tea Party does not become a home for crank conservatives.
Bitterman has resigned
Orbital is a different world from SpaceX. Perhaps the Cult of Musk is not so attractive from the inside. If you have ever worked for a startup with a ‘charismatic’ leader, you know what I mean.
It is important that the Tea Party does not become a home for crank conservatives.
So says the crank conservative.
amightywind wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 9:03 am
“If you have ever worked for a startup with a ‘charismatic’ leader, you know what I mean.”
I have, and thoroughly enjoyed my years there. One of my friends still works there and says the company is still a dream job, and they are growing like a weed.
I think Apple employees would disagree with you too, but since the odds of anyone agreeing with you are pretty small, I probably don’t need to say that…
Is there trouble in Paradise?????
As a good old fashioned Ted Kennedy-loving, Michael Dukakis-voting, “no big government program that I don’t like” knee jerk liberal, the Tea Party in Space effort is completely messing up my mind. First, whether the website is written in a basement or at a large media conglomerate, you can tell that it’s created by someone who believes in space. Second, It confuses me because *gasp* I agree with a lot of what is said about commercial space and, even more, it seems pretty consistent with what the Tea Party movement is all about. At the same time, there are also plenty of conservatives that want SLS and no CCDev. It’s like an Ohio State fan waking up one day and rooting for Michigan. Very confusing to my aged mind. I need things to be in their proper places!
@NJK
I would like to welcome you to the TEA Party in Space. We need as many Ted Kennedy – loving, Michael Dukakis – voting knee jerk liberals as we can get. Just like we need fiscal conservatives
You see NJK, space is non-partisan. And the TEA Party in Space is non-partisan. I am on capital hill today and I can tell you EVERYONE loves space. They are just confused as all get out about how the money flows.
We are working on that.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
@amightywind – no tea party activist or member is a hooligan
Let’s not start labeling CCDev “conservative” and SLS “liberal.” Remember, CCDev was really supported by Barack Obama–one of our most liberal presidents ever.
“Is there trouble in Paradise?????”
Could be, Dennis. Tough sailing ahead for SLS, it seems.
@Kirby
“…oe of the most liberal presidents ever.”
Um… tell that to the people who voted for him. Obama is a centrist.
Let’s not start labeling CCDev “conservative†and SLS “liberal”
CCDev is most certainly not conservative! Marxists support CCDev because they see it supplanting traditional NASA. In their mind, sabotaging traditional NASA accomplishes 2 goals. CCDev would destroy something akin to the military and symbolic of American exceptionalism. They also see reduced funding for space freeing up funds for social programs. I believe this is Obama’s motivation, which he revealed in 2008 with his ridiculous 5 year moritorium. CCDev also appeals to reckless GOP moderates and political switch hitters (like Gingrich, Rohrbacher, and Oler) because they mistakenly see in it the free market. CCDev certainly highlights a schism in the GOP.
no tea party activist or member is a hooligan
It was said as a sarcastic response to the labels put on the movement by liberals. Can I please assume some mental agility on your part?
All in all, Tea Party in Space is just three guys with a website and a dream. There is no affiliation with members of congress (or anyone else for that matter) that are affiliated with the” tea party”.
Um… tell that to the people who voted for him. Obama is a centrist.
A “centrist” whose voting record in the Senate was to the left of Socialist Bernie Sanders. I agree that he’s not a liberal, though. Very few people who call themselves that these days actually are.
Sure he is Spacecolonizer.
And If I call a tail a leg, a dog also has five legs too!
Marxists support CCDev because they see it supplanting traditional NASA.
This is one of the more insane statements that I’ve seen here, and that is even considering the source.
Marxists support CCDev because they see it supplanting traditional NASA.
For sufficiently ridiculous values of “Marxist”.
@Mr. Earl.
Make that: ‘All in all, Tea Party in Space is just three guys with a website and a dream, along with 100+ others and has been growing each day for weeks.’
For me, I’m not ‘official’, but gosh darn I have been busy for two weeks now. However, I have to say Andrew Gasser puts my efforts to shame. He is a work horse, and one that should be commeneded from both sides of the aisle. Every phone call I make to him, he is in Washington!
My vision? Why I am now so knee deep in TPIS activities? Basically, to end the space district feifdoms where only a few benefit, to create a balanced funded space policy, and most important my own personal dream, to create a national discourse, where every American, from the trashman to President, left to right, liberal to conservative, believes we are marching to the stars to save all humanity and everyone is somehow helping in that endeavor.
Until that happens, we are only kidding ourselves.
What do you want me to do next Andrew?
Gary Anderson
Worcester, MAssachusetts
I will report a minor historical note. “In the Year 2525″ is a rather antitechnological song created by some people motivated at least in part by religion. It is a very dark tune. I started remembering it when I got a compilation of rock hits from the 1960s.
It made it to the top of the charts when it was released by RCA. What song was #1 during the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon? Why, “In the Year 2525.”
I had occasion to look this up because I am toying with writing a time travel SF story linking 1625, the present day and 2525. Will 2525 be very futuristic? Or like 1625? Or like the song? What could push us one way or another? That’s the real theme of the story.
Dump SLS,
fund James Webb,
fund Commercial crew with bonus for early success
Just as Obama projected originally, shunt the heavy lift till 2016 at least
T
“Marxists support CCDev because they see it supplanting traditional NASA.”
Well, it finally happened. Amightwind has driven us to the stupidity-singularity. This is the end – up is down, black is white, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
@amightywind:
That sounds like a nifty plot for destroying NASA. Unfortunately, I have it from a good source that when Obama gets together with his secret cabal in the candlelit Marxist dungeon/command center in DC, he’s plotting the ruin of apple pie, baseball, and, sometimes, puppies. NASA just isn’t on the agenda.
Also, as I get older and grow increasingly tired of partisan politics, I’m beginning to realize that calling someone a political switch hitter is a compliment. It means they think.
@McEarl:
Good for them! They’re probably more productive than me posting on spacepolitics.com.
A dream can go a long way.
@Kirby:
That’s what makes it strange. I’ll buy that Obama is a centrist, a liberal, a socialist, a Marxist, or whatever, but he’s definitely not a Tea Partier. However, the commercial space effort, as far as I can tell, isn’t a typical program from his side of the aisle. That’s not a bad thing–my point was more that because it’s “Obamaspace” that it trips up Republicans the same way “Bushspace” tripped up Democrats. (And, to be perfectly honest, I was for Constellation before I was against it, so maybe I fall in that category).
@ Gary
Wow, you realy drank the Kool-Aid.
I never said he couldn’t get other crazy people to follow him. Hell, 300+ people killed themselves for Jim Jones.
“Tea Party in Space” has no connection to the group calling themselves “Tea Party” and do not have real expertise space flight.
As for the 100+ people, I think Oler, Rand and Windy have more than that meny followers on this blog.
TPIS opinions carry no more weight than anyone else who coments on this blog and less even then some of the others who have worked in and have knowlege in the field.
Also, as I get older and grow increasingly tired of partisan politics
I get tired of partisan politics too, up until the point where a politically motivated lunatic minority wrecks the country in a thousand different ways while a reasonable, moderate majority looks on stupidity. So give me ruthless, winner take all, partisan politics any day.
What do you want me to do next Andrew?
That makes 4, and a conservative from Massachusetts no less!
Hey guys, the National Research Council just announced the results of a study saying that NASA should push more toward developing new technologies to aid commercial spaceflight (similar to what it does for aeronautics). It does some of that now, but its a pittance compared to SLS or MPCV.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/asd/2011/09/01/06.xml&headline=Panel%20Says%20NASA%20Should%20Push%20Technology%20To%20Commercial%20Spaceflight
“‘Tea Party in Space’ has no connection to the group calling themselves “Tea Party†and do not have real expertise space flight.”
Really?
“Recently Everett has been involved with the tea party movement and is the chairman of South Florida Tea Party as well as the Florida State Coordinator for Tea Party Patriots.
Everett’s activist efforts have been covered by media such as the Palm Beach Post, the Sun Sentinal, the Miami Herald, Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg Times, LA Times, New York Times, Politico, Local Channel 5, Local Channel 12, Local Channel 25, Newsmax, CNN, BBC, Foxnews, ABC, 60 Minutes, Foxnews Neil Cavuto, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and Hardball with Chris Mathews.”
I never fail to be amazed at the willingness of some people to beclown themselves in public via the Internet, some on a daily basis.
Rick Boozer wrote:
Hey guys, the National Research Council just announced the results of a study saying that NASA should push more toward developing new technologies to aid commercial spaceflight (similar to what it does for aeronautics).
Senators Hutcheson and Nelson immediately issued a press release citing this as further proof that construction must begin immediately on the Senate Launch System.
Rand Simberg wrote:
I never fail to be amazed at the willingness of some people to beclown themselves in public via the Internet, some on a daily basis.
True, yet as you know Rand anyone can set up a P.O. Box and rent a desk in a communal office, call themselves a think tank, and issue press releases.
I respect what Andrew and friends are doing, but other than three names on their web site we really don’t know who or what they are, or who’s funding them.
I’ve worked for many such groups over the years that promoted themselves as much bigger and influential than they really are. It goes with the territory. No slight intended to the TPIS people, just saying that other than a little Internet noise we really don’t know how much influence they really have on the political process.
MrEarl wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 3:59 pm
“TPIS opinions carry no more weight than anyone else who coments on this blog and less even then some of the others who have worked in and have knowlege in the field.”
In general I don’t support the political views of the Tea Party movement, but to say that any taxpayer, regardless of their knowledge (or lack thereof) of space issues, should have their opinions on space devalued is just plain ignorant. If you want their money, then it’s up to YOU, not them, to make the choices clear.
And if people don’t understand why you want a $38B mega-rocket, when our existing rockets are good enough to build 919,960 lb space stations, then it’s YOUR fault for not communicating clearly. Don’t blame the people providing the money.
Your “let them eat cake” attitude is not a good one to take…
I respect what Andrew and friends are doing, but other than three names on their web site we really don’t know who or what they are, or who’s funding them.
They tell you who you are on their web site. Everett Wilkinson is the head of the South Florida Tea Party. I was on their mailing list when I lived in Boca Raton, and covered an event in downtown Fort Lauderdale on Independence Day in 2009. As for who’s funding them, what difference does it make?
If space science projects and the eggheads pushing them cannot show they can return a profit to the Treasury from their tinker toys, then government funding must terminated in this Age of Austerity. Play time is over. We cannot affort it anymore. They produce nothing of immediate, practical value to a society in increasingly desperate economic decline and are little more than WPA works projects for over-educated, under productive academia.
Let the science community pitch their expesive, grandiose projects to the private capital markets and secure financing by convincing financial risk takers that there’s a financial return- aka a ‘profit’– worthy of the investment. pitch Apple to fund the JWST and try to make a buck out of it. That goes for SpaceX as well- let them secure funding from privatre capital markets; they don’t need to waste $ on ‘lobbying.’ The Federal government isn’t the Red Cross. Edison secured private capital backing for his R&D work only after he showed his backers he’d make money by creating commodies people would purchase.
I too give a hat tip to Andrew and TPIS. His goals somewhat parallel mine, especially in regards to space policy, and his approach is gentlemanly, which I respect a great deal.
The enemy of my enemy (in this case waste and the pork status quo) is my friend.
Forget shunting HLV to 2016. Shunt it away altogether! Even if we can pour 40-50% of SLS earmark money into Commercial, we’ll still be doing far more to not only close the gap, but advance the US space industry, than any previous Administration.
“Deregulating space” will be the one good thing to come out of these otherwise miserably statist last two Presidents.
amightywind wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
I get tired of partisan politics too, up until the point where a politically motivated lunatic minority wrecks the country in a thousand different ways while a reasonable, moderate majority looks on stupidity. So give me ruthless, winner take all, partisan politics any day.
Well, that I can certainly understand. We just differ on which side is the politically motivated lunatic minority.
As for the TPIS, if I understand the Tea Party movement in general, I don’t think you’ll see a formal effort with the usual big name suspects at the helm for most of the interest groups. It’s more grass roots (which is either true or something they want you to believe–with TPIS, it seems true). That’s something I like about the Tea Party where people see something that interests them an act on it, although I disagree with most of the policies. Also, I and I’m sure others don’t respond well to the name calling and confrontational aspects of some of the movement. I hope TPIS will avoid that.
“Let the science community pitch their expesive, grandiose projects to the private capital markets and secure financing by convincing financial risk takers that there’s a financial return- aka a ‘profit’– worthy of the investment. pitch Apple to fund the JWST and try to make a buck out of it”
So, if I understand this correctly:
you’ve gone on record many, many times saying that there’s no way HSF (BEO HSF in particular) can be supported by the market in the near-term future because the ROI isn’t high enough, and must be supported by the government. However, now you’re saying that space science, on the other hand, *should* seek out private funding and not be supported by the government because “they produce nothing of immediate, practical value to a society in increasingly desperate economic decline and are little more than WPA works projects for over-educated, under productive academia..”
Now, I’m assuming that you are an intelligent person, and are aware that those exact same arguments can be used against HSF. So, why does HSF get a break, but space science does not? How do you resolve that cognitive dissonance?
DCSCA wrote:
“The Federal government isn’t the Red Cross. Edison secured private capital backing for his R&D work only after he showed his backers he’d make money by creating commodies people would purchase.”
I think you should have picked a different champion then Edison:
“The United States Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) is the corporate research laboratory for the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps and conducts a program of scientific research and development. NRL opened in 1923 at the instigation of Thomas Edison. In a May 1915 editorial piece in the New York Times Magazine, Edison wrote; “The Government should maintain a great research laboratory… In this could be developed…all the technique of military and naval progression without any vast expense.” “
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Research_Laboratory
Edison also called on the government to fund all kinds of scientific research at universities.
Rand Simberg wrote:
As for who’s funding them, what difference does it make?
It matters if they’re being funded by someone telling them what to say for less than honorable reasons, e.g. the guy who smeared SpaceX a couple months back.
I’ve seen no evidence of that. I’m just saying that transparency is a healthy thing all around.
They’re not an official Tea Party organization; in fact, there are several entities out there calling themselves the “official” Tea Party. The three identified members align themselves with the Tea Party. Their site says they’re defining the Tea Party’s policy on space. Well, who appointed them to do that?! Themselves, so far as I can tell.
When an organization starts soliciting money — and their site solicts up to $2,400 — I think donors have a right to know who’s behind the organization and how their money will be used.
So far as I know, Andrew & Co. are entirely sincere. I agree with most of what they’re saying on space issues. But that’s a long way from sending three guys a check to do with it who-knows-what. And if they’re being bankrolled by, say, SpaceX without disclosing that, then they have a big ethical problem.
We need more transparency in politics today. I’d like to see TPIS take a step in that direction.
amightywind wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“I get tired of partisan politics too, up until the point where a politically motivated lunatic minority wrecks the country in a thousand different ways while a reasonable, moderate majority looks on stupidity. ”
best description of Bush’s eight years I have read…thanks I’ll hang on to it and use the prose. RGO
DCSCA wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 5:50 pm
“If space science projects and the eggheads pushing them cannot show they can return a profit to the Treasury from their tinker toys, then government funding must terminated in this Age of Austerity. Play time is over.”
This game you’re playing is a trite one. Can’t wait for it to be over. Sounds like you’ve been “inspired” by a certain newly-minted GOP presidential candidate, who has a serious fear of “eggheads”. As I said before, DoD doesn’t put any money in the treasury. Off with their fiscal heads! Hey, the U.S. taxpayers could individually buy their own protection. Just be careful what racket you sign up with. Of course, all those veterans benefits don’t put money in the treasury either. We could get the vets on a machine, where they could pedal hard and make electricity, though! We’re obligated to give them opportunities to get exercise. Health and Human Services? Gee whiz. Gotta keep those folks healthy so they can pay taxes. Those Congressional porkers? Let the Age of Austerity wreak havoc on their treasury-busting existence. Let’s not forget about the human space flight enterprise, which, after all, doesn’t shoot anything in the direction of the U.S. treasury except bills. Those lucky astronauts should really be out on the street selling pencils to pay for their ride.
So tools for space science are “tinker toys”? These tools are the most technologically sophisticated equipment you’re ever likely to see. Exercise of technical sophistication has huge returns for a national economy. But maybe you had some pretty slick tinker toys!
By the way, getting JWST over it’s hump is going to require barely 1/50 of the NASA budget. Those damned eggheads!
Take your meds and get back on topic.
Now, I’m assuming that you are an intelligent person, and are aware that those exact same arguments can be used against HSF.
In the case of that particular poster, that is a lunatic assumption. Sorry.
You know, one of the joys of reading the posts on this blog is the fairly regular quotes used to justify or add emphasis to the various points of view.
In this sequence we have Ghostbuster’s cats and dogs along with Marie Antoinette’s cake. Although this latter one is generally attributed to her she was only 9 when Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions was published in 1782 while actually written in 1765 unless your referring to some other source, eg. song, musical, tv series.
And Mighty continues to be entertaining now plumbing the depths of Marxist theory albeit with his/her usual flair for the inaccurate.
Love it. Keep up the good work.
They’re not an official Tea Party organization
There is no such thing. If that is your criterion, you are doomed to seek forever.
@Doug Lassiter wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“This game you’re playing is a trite one.” In fact, it’s a ‘trite’ game space scientists love to play when rationalizing their pet projects, gouging the HSF oxen, bleeding it for funding to feed one of their own herd in the nebulous, lofty eggheaded name of ‘science.’ Sagan excelled at it- marketing image over substantative return to the Treasury. The ‘game’ being played is the one played by pick-pocketing space scientists, filching the wallets of American taxpayers in the Age of Austerity for their own pet projects and personal edification. Justify your projects! And FYI, DoD- national defense– is a government responsibility- mandated by the Constitution. Space science is not.
Make a buck for the Treasury or get your financing in private capital markets. Sell Apple on a rationale for financing the JWST. At least JPL cut a deal w/Mattel for Sojourner and made a few bucks on kiddie toys.
@Vladislaw wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Ol’ TAE called for a lot of things he wanted his way- and was denied- the bottom line was his backers told him they’d back him when he made things people would buy. That ‘make a profit’ caveat of capitalism is a pesky problem for pie-in-the-sky researcher types, ain’t it.
@spacermase wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 7:59 pm
You’re catching on. “By the end of 1992… Deke Slayton called [the space station] an ‘aerospace WPA.'” – source, ‘A Man On The Moon’ by A. Chaikin
” traditional NASA” is marxist. The arsenal system along with gov’t managed project is just like the USSR design bureaus. The ” traditional NASA” approach was over taken by the USAF (military) approach of using contractors long ago. CCDev is the American approach.
And if they’re being bankrolled by, say, SpaceX without disclosing that, then they have a big ethical problem.
Same goes for Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet.
@Doug Lassiter
By the way, getting JWST over it’s hump is going to require barely 1/50 of the NASA budget. Those damned eggheads!
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/202142/20110822/jwst-james-webb-space-telescope-would-cost-8-7-billion-to-fly-in-2018-nasa-obama-administration-fede.htm
No, it needs AT LEAST another $3.6 BILLION. Here is the quote from the article.
After an independent cost analysis, managers at NASA, replanning the James Webb Space Telescope program have concluded that the program will cost another $3.6 billion to finish the telescope in time for a launch in 2018 and operate it for five years.
I would say that people who really know whats going on with JWST know it will be more. Now ask yourself, what could SMD do with $3.6 BILLION between now and 2018? Think of the science we could do!
If your version of “over the hump” is $3.6 billion, then we do not agree. You also said the money required is 1/50th. It is more like 1/30th of the total budget. However, if you look at it SMD’s budget its worse, like 1/9th.
Respectfully,
Andrew Gasser
TEA Party in Space
If space science projects and the eggheads pushing them cannot show they can return a profit to the Treasury from their tinker toys, then government funding must terminated in this Age of Austerity.
The most moronic words you’ve even written. The Opportunity Rover hasn’t turned a profit that you can measure in dollars. What is the dollar value of this? The point is to select projects that have scientific impact. For every Mars Rover mission there are 10 skanky climate orbiters or hippy camping projects in Antarctica.
@atemporarycoolbreezeofreason
“The most moronic words you’ve even written. The Opportunity Rover hasn’t turned a profit that you can measure in dollars. What is the dollar value of this? The point is to select projects that have scientific impact.
OMG, he actually said something sensible. Even the central idea in his last sentence (that I did not quote) is accurate, I just don’t think his descriptions of the other projects are accurate.
As to the value in creating certain space hardware, well how can you put a price on knowledge gained? Take the rovers on Mars. Both out lasted their intended lifetimes. I use life here in a very loose manner, plus look at what they are giving us! The JWST, would peer back to the very beginnings of our Universe, which certainly makes it very valuable indeed. As yet we dont know exactly what would be discovered with it, but we do know much knowledge will be gained with regards to the facts of what was happening at that long ago period in history. Now how do you put a value price on that?
I am not a lawyer but I would hope that TPIS talked to a lawyer or at least setup a Not-For-Profit Corporation before taking people’s money. Some states are very strict on charity organization especially political.
@DCSCA wrote:
In fact, it’s a ‘trite’ game space scientists love to play when rationalizing their pet projects, gouging the HSF oxen, bleeding it for funding to feed one of their own herd in the nebulous, lofty eggheaded name of ‘science.’
&
If space science projects and the eggheads pushing them cannot show they can return a profit to the Treasury from their tinker toys, then government funding must terminated in this Age of Austerity. Play time is over. We cannot affort it anymore. They produce nothing of immediate, practical value to a society in increasingly desperate economic decline and are little more than WPA works projects for over-educated, under productive academia.
I disagree with this, but in the spirit of dialogue, let’s accept this premise. Wouldn’t it also apply to HSF? In the history of our space program, where has there been an immediate, practical value? I’ve lived and breathed both HSF and robotic space for as long as I can remember; but, other than weather, defense, and communication satellites, I’ve never been able to answer the question of immediate and practical value other than national pride. Seriously, why does it matter to me, in this moment, that there are astronauts in the ISS or rovers on Mars? Unless I’m working for NASA (or having people at NASA eat at my restaurant, for example), how is that putting food on my table, keeping me safe, or allowing me to watch lousy TV programs? I just don’t see any form of exploration being distilled to immediate, practical value. It’s more complex than that.
Almighty wrote:
“10 skanky climate orbiters”
I would think that you would be pro climate orbiters so that you would be provided the information to catagorically beat the ‘man made’ climate change people over the head with undisputed data proving your position?
@ John Malkin
Tea Party in Space is a registered 501c 4 organization. Hope this satisfies your concerns.
Gary Anderson
Worcester, MA
…catagorically beat the ‘man made’ climate change people over the head…
Why give a group of scientists, who have fraudulently politicized their field more than any others in history more even more attention and funding. They had modest ambitions. They only wanted to seize the world economy and implement their socialist program. Starve the buggers, I say, and lets turn climate science back into a ‘small’ science.
@NJK wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 12:38 pm
The point is, it has been the fundamental dig at HSF by space science and opponents to HSF since the days of JFK.
“Seriously, why does it matter to me, in this moment, that there are astronauts in the ISS or rovers on Mars?”
Not a thing– except 42 cents of every dollar spent on it is borrowed and to pay for it, your taxes must be raised to fund it and/or, have off-setting cuts to pay for it.
“I just don’t see any form of exploration being distilled to immediate, practical value. It’s more complex than that.”
Then there’s no reason for government to fund it. There’s nothing ‘complex’ about it- if it doesnt show a return to the Treasury, end it.
@amightywind wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 8:29 am
“The Opportunity Rover hasn’t turned a profit that you can measure in dollars.”
Who says? Why not. Why wasn’t Opportunity sponsored by a commerical firm. NASA’s HSF program was expected to turn a profit w/t shuttle operations and criticized over it from day one. Why not these geeked up Martian dune buggies— oh, right, hard sell, in the Age of Austerity. They’re a waste of valuable, dwindling government resources; a works project for over-educated, under-productive eggheaded space scientists who excel at spending other people’s money. Cut Aunt Matilda’s Medicare, let the nation’s roads and bridges crumble but fund the eggheads to play in their Martian sandbox?, eh. Sober up, Windy. Because this is the gathering storm blowing the way of science from the obstinate, obstructionist Right. And it’s gaining traction. Zero job grown numbers released today- worst in 60 years– so chatter of loss leader luxury funding for space probes to planets is fair game.
@spacermase wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 7:59 pm
The point is, the United States has reached a point where it has to present a rationale for HSF to the citizenry who has to pay for it. Fish or cut bait time has arrived. And so far, the only argument presented is that it has to make a buck. If that’s the criteria for rationalizing American HSF, then the U.S. will never lead the way in this field and remain diminishingly reactive, not proactive. The Russians decided decades ago that HSF was a part of their national character and it has survived through some massive political and economic upheavals. The PRC is adopting it as part of who they are as well. Other nations are considering it as a loss leader as well to enhance the perception, nay prestige, of who they are and what they value. Not so in America. It is disinclined at paying the price to lead; disinclined to follow in the wake of others as other nations press on; in effect telling Americans to get out of the way.
DCSCA wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 3:45 pm
“The point is, the United States has reached a point where it has to present a rationale for HSF to the citizenry who has to pay for it.”
that is in my opinion not only a fair statement, but a very very important one to recognize…and I dont think a lot of people do.
The profit motive is in my view not the ONLY reason nor even the most important reason for the nation to conduct human spaceflight…but what I view as a non existent reason is goofy things like “American greatness” or “exceptionalism” or whatever.
Robert G. Oler
@ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 1st, 2011 at 9:00 pm
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
When all is said and done it goes to show that there is an urgent need for SLS. Not MPCV. Just SLS. Or well… Anyway. Big rockets, big noise, big flames, big big. Big bigbig. And all that sort of things.
Y’all have a good weekend.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
In response to something that DCSCA wrote:
“that is in my opinion not only a fair statement, but a very very important one to recognize”
Although to be fair, a monkey randomly hitting keys on a keyboard has as much chance of writing something intelligent sounding as DCSCA does.
That is, unless DCSCA IS a monkey randomly hitting keys on a keyboard… which could explain why he’s for sending people to the Moon one day, and against any NASA HSF spending the next.
@DCSCA wrote:
“Then there’s no reason for government to fund it. There’s nothing ‘complex’ about it- if it doesnt show a return to the Treasury, end it.”
And so far, the only argument presented is that it has to make a buck. If that’s the criteria for rationalizing American HSF, then the U.S. will never lead the way in this field and remain diminishingly reactive, not proactive.
Let’s drop the robotic aspect since we disagree and we’ll just talk past each other. However, I think we both agree that HSF is a good thing. But you confuse me with those two quotes in the same reply. Is there another reason for HSF besides paying back the Treasury? The second quote leads me to believe you think there is (as do I). But what is it? (I will consider a reply of more than three sentences complex.
Anyone hear about this?
Unmanned Spaceship Funded by Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos Misfires
I thought that the flight he had scheduled had not taken place.
common sense wrote:
When all is said and done it goes to show that there is an urgent need for SLS. Not MPCV. Just SLS.
Aviation Week ran a story today on a National Research Council interim report urging NASA to prioritize commerical space.
When I read the article, my first thought was, “Senator Hutchison will now issue a press release claiming this proves the SLS design must be released immediately and construction must begin now.”
@NJK wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 6:57 pm
“I think we both agree that HSF is a good thing.”
Of course. But again, the United States has reached a point where it has to present a rationale for HSF to the citizenry who has to pay for it. The ‘Cernan intangibles’ have much value– but then, value can change w/t times at hand and its currency is fading fast into history. It is clearly not enough to justify the cost of American HSF in the Age of Austerity. So far, the noisy pitch being made is to try and make a buck doing it – even with some government subsidies, going in circles, to access a government facility without purpose (aka the ‘aerospace WPA project,’ as Slayton called it, the ISS.) A generation that knows Buzz Aldrin for moonwalking on Dancing With The Stars rather than moonwalking on the Sea of Tranquillity doesn’t seem prepared to accept a leadership role in this field.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 5:57 pm
You really don’t get it, do you. Your obsession with going in circles and going no place has made you dizzy. Avoid contact w/space hardware.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 4:19 pm
“The profit motive is in my view not the ONLY reason nor even the most important reason for the nation to conduct human spaceflight…but what I view as a non existent reason is goofy things like “American greatness†or “exceptionalism†or whatever.”
Then what do you propose as ANOTHER reason to be for profiteering, quarterly driven, free market USA capitalists to operate HSF projects of scale aside from making a buck at it. Because that’s the only pitch being made to attempt it commercially- and even then in the near term it’s with gov’t subsidies to access a government facility. The Russians embraced it differently decades ago as part of their national character. The PRC is weaving it into their national purpose as well.
If the goal of American HSF is to make it into a profitable enterprise, then the United States may be destined to relinquish leadership and be a follow-along in the field; reactive, not proactive, cashing in where it can. It’s nothing to be ashamed of– but it’s not leadership. L:eadership has a price and the time has come for American to decide if they are willing to pay it. The past few decades of decline, waste and procrastination is showing the world it just may not. Other nations view HSF in a different light. It may just be that the United States is not the nation destined to lead, long term in HSF.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 2nd, 2011 at 8:49 pm
“Aviation Week ran a story today on a National Research Council interim report urging NASA to prioritize commerical space.”
The NRC is wrongheaded. It’s not the responsibility of a taxpayer funded government agency to ‘prioritize commercial space’ for private enterprise-which may benefit a few at the expense of the many.
Vladislaw wrote:
Anyone hear about this?
As usual, Fox News/Wall Street Journal got the story wrong.
This was a test of a vehicle that has nothing to do with commercial crew. Fox News/WSJ is trying to spin it like a major setback to CCDev when in fact the vehicle has nothing to do with CCDev and was privately funded.
I wrote about it here.
If you go to this page on the Blue Origin web site, they tell you what really happened. It also has some nifty photos of the vehicle from an earlier test. Basically they’re testing soft landings on struts, like 1950s science fiction films.
Thanks for the link Stephen, I saw that Clark, over at hobby space, had posted about it after I had put the link up here. Andy at the WSJ has been rapping commercial space for a while and never seems to get anything right.
The companies manufacturing launch vehicles and spacecraft can only do it if they can make a profit. However the only real market now is the government. For the market to ever grow beyond a handful of flights a year, the market must be increased. Tourists will buy a lot of tickets (ask Disney) but they are sensitive to price, and even $20M is too high to sell more than 1 or 2 a year.
So the first step in human spaceflight is to reduce the cost, and since almost all of the cost is spent building a new vehicle for each flight, full reusability is essential to accomplish this.
@ Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 8:15 am
“As usual, Fox News/Wall Street Journal got the story wrong.”
Which is a shame they are not afraid to bear, time and again.
Some people wonder why mainstream press, especially the written kind, is going down the drain. Worse to me is when they report on issues of national and international concerns. Those people drive the opinions of the public and their facts are wrong. Pathetic. I hope they fold someday. Sooner rather than later.
DCSCA wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 12:06 am
“L:eadership has a price and the time has come for American to decide if they are willing to pay it. ”
“Leadership” is the word used to justify things when there are no other real reasons to justify whatever “It” is.
“Leadership” in a field or endeavor (grin) that has no real value to the society that is attempting to do it is simply pointless. I’ve used the example before but it is still a good one…the effort by the Vikings to play in North America or even the Romans to play in what is today Britain was pretty wasteful to their society. It was conquering “frontiers” simply for the sake of conquering and really had no measurable affect on the quality of life of the folks who were footing the bills (The Romans effort in Britain did of course have consequences that outlasted their civilization but my point still remains).
Human spaceflight got off to a bad start when it became wrapped up in the notion of doing it for politics sake…and that wrap continues today in the arguments that people make about “leadership”. If the US withdrew completely from human spaceflight (and I am not advocating that) and the Chinese went full bore for the Moon, redoing some single digits numbers of missions as we watched the video’s…it would not change our society a bit unless it is simply in the ephemeral “wow that felt good” no more then our being the first to land people on the Moon…stopped the Chinese rise toward an economic superpower.
As it stands now we have spent hundreds of billions trying first basic human exploration of solar system bodies (or body) and hundreds of billions building a space station and…there is not a single thing done by humans on orbit that justifies that money.
One of th eproblems (and why I support commercial flight so much) is that the cost of humans in space using just a government program is so darn high. No one would have any arguments with human spaceflight if it had the “yank” that say South Pole exploration has…at the cost South pole exploration has…or even say 10 times the cost…but it doesnt.
Fixing that relationship is a giant first step RGO
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 8:15 am
“As usual, Fox News/Wall Street Journal got the story wrong.”
As usual….Mach 1.2 at FL450 doing some angle of attack stuff….this is why it is called Test flying…they are learning more on a day to day basis…just these guys then NASA learned with 15 billion on Cx…
Robert
8 billion on CxP… if we had the other 7 we could be flying by now
With Jeff’s indulgence … Off-topic, but those of you skeptical of NASA bureaucracy will get a chuckle out of this.
As you may know, NASA has a Delta II launch scheduled for Thursday 9/8. It’s the GRAIL mission, launching from LC-17B.
If you know your CCAFS geography, LC-17B is one of the oldest pads. It’s south of the industrial area and the causeway connecting CCAFS to KSC.
This afternoon I was driving on that causeway. I saw that, over night, NASA had deployed along the causeway hundreds of folding chairs for visitors to watch the launch.
One problem.
The chairs are facing the wrong way.
They’re facing to the north, to LC-37, LC-40 and LC-41.
Since this is a three-day weekend, I suspect no one in authority will be back until Tuesday to call back the contractors to have them turn the chairs in the proper direction.
Fill in your own punch line.
Robert G. Oler wrote:
… there is not a single thing done by humans on orbit that justifies that money.
Setting aside for the moment all the technological spinoffs, I would argue that ISS research will yield a number of successes and discoveries. Will that “justify the cost”? It will be in the eye of the beholder.
I often cite this February 2011 presentation to the UN listing ISS discoveries.
How much is a vaccine to prevent salmonella worth? A vaccine to prevent MRSA? Microcapsules that can be implanted in a cancer tumor to shrink it?
Nor can one place a value on what the Hubble has taught us about the universe in which we live.
@Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Apparently you missed the news reporter covering Glenn’s shuttle launch, with a video crew covering the countdown to zero- and liftoff– except they were zoomed in on the wrong shuttle pad as the bird cleared the tower.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 11:48 am
“Leadership†is the word used to justify things when there are no other real reasons to justify whatever “It†is.” <- In your own venacular: “goofy.”
Stephen C. Smith wrote: “I often cite this February 2011 presentation to the UN listing ISS discoveries.”
The medical discoveries trumpeted in the NASA presentation are exaggerated to the point of deception. Computational chemistry has replaced X-ray diffraction as the primary strategy for structure determination in the pharmaceutical industry. The claims that the ISS is producing vaccines are simply not supported by the real scientific literature. The genetic change seen in salmonella is well known and can be triggered on earth by simple changes in pH or oxygen level. Effective salmonella vaccines already exist and have virtually eliminated the disease in Britain; they are not used in the US only because of cost and opposition by the poultry industry. In fairness to the investigator, NASA research funds are very difficult to get unless the investigator creates a convincing claim that the research is essential to the Constellation program or that it requires (and thus justifies) spaceflight.
However, I honestly believe the ISS is still a valuable achievement. It can serve as a fueling station and a center for monitoring space and the earth. Several of the slides in the presentation describe earth and space observations from the ISS, and although these could be done with unmanned satellites the ISS is in many situations a cost-effective platform for earth and space observation.
The most important barrier to human spaceflight is not radiation or weightlessness, but cost. The ISS provides an anchor point in space by which we can develop a whole new generation of shuttlecraft. With lower cost a wide array of applications for spaceflight will become practical. And if we can get over our xenophobia and jingoism and invite all willing participants, it can have real value as a symbol of the ability of former adversaries to work and live together.
We should neither disparage the ISS nor accept uncritically the official claims made to justify it. The truth lies somewhere in between.
tom wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 3:36 pm
“8 billion on CxP… if we had the other 7 we could be flying by now”
no it would not…RGO
Robert G. Oler wrote:
… there is not a single thing done by humans on orbit that justifies that money.
Setting aside for the moment all the technological spinoffs, I would argue that ISS research will yield a number of successes and discoveries. Will that “justify the cost� It will be in the eye of the beholder.
I often cite this February 2011 presentation to the UN listing ISS discoveries.
How much is a vaccine to prevent salmonella worth? A vaccine to prevent MRSA? Microcapsules that can be implanted in a cancer tumor to shrink it?
Nor can one place a value on what the Hubble has taught us about the universe in which we live.
Steve: Oler’s opposition to any form of HSF is well known, and has been previously documented on other threads.
As for TPIS: though I’m a Republican, I could do without the Tea Party (in space or anywhere else) for that matter. They’d have more of a voice if Congressman Rohrbacher was chair of House Science and Space Committee, but since he’s not. Hot air and nothing else.
At least the good columnist for the Orlando Sentinel isn’t running for office anywhere near the Space Coast: he’d lose. Big time.
At least the good columnist for the Orlando Sentinel isn’t running for office anywhere near the Space Coast: he’d lose. Big time.
Who cares?
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 7:19 pm
you are a serious person here, one of the bright lights, so when you post a link I read it and think about it and that is why I did not respond to your post last night.
I tend to agree (with no technical expertise along those lines) with others such as Vulture4 that most of the medical work done on ISS is pretty “weak”. I have “chums” and former class mates who are medically and chemically (in a good way) literate and are working in those fields and they tell me two things that are troubling.
The first is that the research done on ISS Is mostly filtered through in house NASA loops that are simply not competent to be doing peer review of the ablicability of the science…ie that the research in the particular field outside of “space efforts” is so much father advanced then the research that is going on in the “space loop” that the folks in the space loop are simply not competent to review it.
I tend to believe that because these are trustworthy people and I’ve look at the goofy stuff that was on Columbia’s last mission and dont find any of it persuasive as to why we should be doing that in space…in addition the folks who do things at NASA associated with space flight are simply behind the times in terms of things like control rooms or methods of flight training etc. They all tend to live in a little world where everything in space is unique because of “space” and that to me is goofy.
Second…I discount “spinoffs”. We would have had hand powered tools anyway, the home do it yourselfer market has taken off and alone is driving that industry…we dont go drilling for oil to figure out what neat robotics we get from that. We do the neat robotics so we can drill for oil and the oil itself makes the effort worthwhile.
I hear the old argument all the time “well your cell phone came from hsf” well if it had (and it did not) then NASA should be using more on its EVA’s then technology that is not to far removed from two kids playing out in the yard with walkie talkies. There are clear signs that NASA’s technology base is near nothing…the shuttle did not contribute anything from its cockpit design to other cockpits…the reverse is true.
I think that human spaceflight and ISS in particular can pull its own mass…but that is going to take changing how things are done at NASA and on ISS…and it is going to be massive change. RGO
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 2:11 am
“Steve: Oler’s opposition to any form of HSF is well known, and has been previously documented on other threads. ”
that is simply a lie RGO
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 12:02 pm
Matt Wiser wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 2:11 am
“Steve: Oler’s opposition to any form of HSF is well known, and has been previously documented on other threads. â€
“that is simply a lie RGO”
In fact, it is not. Matt is correct:
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm “First I really dont care that we (the US or humanity or whatever) goes to the Moon or Mars or an asteroid in the next 10-20 years. I dont think that there is any need to send people we have good robotics which can do the job at far lower cost.â€
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 6th, 2010 at 11:02 am “… human space exploration of the solar system does not have value for cost.”
Oops! Or should that be… ‘goofy.’
Robert G. Oler wrote:
I tend to agree (with no technical expertise along those lines) with others such as Vulture4 that most of the medical work done on ISS is pretty “weakâ€.
I freely admit that my college degree was Political Science and therefore I know nothing useful.
However, I find it hard to believe that companies like Astrogenetix are so stupid as to not know that biomedical research on the ISS is “weak.” They are the ones who came up with the salmonella research, not NASA, and now they’re using the ISS for MRSA research.
Go to their web site and watch this video:
http://www.astrogenetix.com/about-us/our-story
They make a pretty persuasive argument from my uninformed perspective. If any of you have more biomedical knowledge than them, please, by all means, chime in and let me know where they’re wrong.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
“There are clear signs that NASA’s technology base is near nothing…””
Robert, I think that it is an overstatement.
NASA’s technology is very advanced on its own. The problem does not lie with the technology. And you said NASA not ISS so did you actually mean ISS or NASA as a whole?
There are multiple reasons why some of the more advanced technology at NASA do not go mainstream. One of which is that NASA is NOT a business and it seems to me they don’t really know how to act as such.
The laws from our dear Congress also are an impediment. We like to quote ITAR which probably is the most obvious but there are instances of how NASA MUST conduct itself with regard to businesses that are a huge impediment.
Technology transfer is difficult. Scientists and engineers are not really ready to do any of that. They do not have an incentive to do it. The incentive MUST come from the leadership.
I do not want to give specific examples here if you don’t mind but you may be able to figure this out by asking some of your friends, maybe.
Note further that NASA is made of different centers and technology incubation may reside at the research center. Unfortunately you may try and find out where the “technology” budget went to recently… Just check if you can. A lot of people are losing their raison d’etre at the flight centers if you see what I mean.
NASA is a political punch bag in many instances. The relationship with industry exists but mostly in the classical sense, e.g. wind tunnel tests for such and such. There are other less known opportunities but they are difficult to come about.
You may want to start here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/home/index.html and here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/partnership/index.html
I leave the rest to NASA and to you to try and figure out…
Again some people at NASA do get it. Remember FY11.
Good luck though.
Another clue for you http://newspace2011.spacefrontier.org/ Check the attendance and location.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I should have added that the industry is not really ready either. There must come a change of mentality overall. Not just at NASA.
You don’t have to believe me but try a little inquiry of your own and you’ll see.
common sense wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 12:00 pm
I should have added that the industry is not really ready either…………
I concur completely…the current “industry” has to die to allow the new functional one to be born RGO
Stephen C. Smith wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
“However, I find it hard to believe that companies like Astrogenetix are so stupid as to not know that biomedical research on the ISS is “weak.†They are the ones who came up with the salmonella research, not NASA, and now they’re using the ISS for MRSA research.”
Take a close look at their website, and look up the research. Astrogenetix is a subsidiary of Astrotech/Spacehab. They sell microgravity research services, not pharmaceuticals. The one scientist on their staff does have over 100 publications, but only 10 relate to space and virtually all seem to have been financed by NASA grants, not by corporate funds.
This doesn’t mean NASA doesn’t do useful research, it certainly does. But most NASA research is not in life sciences, and most NASA life science research is done on the ground. Space research can have value, but not infinite value. If the cost of human spaceflight can be reduced, microgravity research could be a reasonable choice for a number of life science problems. But at $50 million+ for every person launched into space, considering what can be done on earth for that money, it is not easy to justify.
@ Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 4th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“the current “industry†has to die to allow the new functional one to be born”
Neither the current (or old) nor the new industry is ready. Nope. The whole system is not ready. If Congress has its way it probably never will be ready.
Oh well…
Human spaceflight must survive if for no other reason than for military purposes. Look at that failed hypersonic craft that went down. How much was lost there. I havent heard any one critisize that program. I think the military want a space fighter plane. How many trillions for that will go down the drain before it becomes a reality?
Dennis wrote @ September 5th, 2011 at 12:54 pm
“Human spaceflight must survive if for no other reason than for military purposes.”
You’re just making up excuses now.
If anything the military is moving away from manned systems and over to UAV’s. Besides their experience with Predator and Global Hawk, the X-37 looks like the direction they are going in space for special ops.
“I think the military want a space fighter plane.”
lol, you think wrong. where do you come up with that stuff??
Dennis wrote:
“I think the military want a space fighter plane.”
I do not think the military wants a space fighter plane, I think they want a boots on the ground, special forces squad, anywhere on the planet space plane, like SUSTAIN.
I do not think that the Ansari X prize would have went forward without a green light from the military.
Commercial and private citizens have never had a transportation system that was denied to the miltiary.
Because of the anti weapons in space group in congress they have not allowed it to happen.
Once America is comfortable with Virgin Galatic and seeing suborbital, it will be no big stretch for the military to have them also.
common sense wrote @ September 3rd, 2011 at 11:42 am
Say 2+2=22 enough times and cracks (or crackpots) appear- viewers begin to question the validity of the mathematics they were taught and the competence of the educators who teach it. This is the same broadcast organization which broadcast a program about how NASA faked moon landings– and secured sponsors to pay for it.