NASA, White House

Obama talks space with Florida, Texas TV

Earlier this week President Obama did a series of short interviews with local television stations around the country. These interviews included stations in Houston and Tampa, and in both cases the topic of space came up, particularly in relation to the economy and jobs in Texas and Florida.

Houston’s KTRK, not surprisingly, brought up the issue of space in connection to employment and the local economy. “I’m hugely committed to manned spaceflight, but I want to make sure that we’re doing it right and that we’re not wasting taxpayer money,” the president said. “What we’ve said with NASA is we need to retool to take that next big leap forward in space. The shuttle program had a wonderful run, but the truth of the matter is that the next phase, including the Orion project, was way behind schedule and didn’t seem to be meeting its budget objectives. So what we’ve done is tried to say let’s take a step back, let’s figure out how do we retool.”

President Obama also made a brief, but unsolicited, discussion of space during a separate interview with Tampa’s WTVT. “We are, for example, working with NASA and the private sector to bring additional jobs into central Florida,” he said in response to a question about improving Florida’s economy. “Boeing just made an announcement that we’re very happy about.” That was a reference to a deal announced Monday where Boeing would set up CST-100 operations at the Kennedy Space Center, employing up to 550 people by mid-decade.

69 comments to Obama talks space with Florida, Texas TV

  • DCSCA

    “I’m hugely committed to manned spaceflight, but I want to make sure that we’re doing it right and that we’re not wasting taxpayer money…”

    In fact, he is not. But there’s a faint echo of distant familiarity to his vaporous words:

    “I think we’re going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don’t think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job.”– President John F. Kennedy, Rice University, 9/12/62.

    The difference, of course, is JFK followed through in his thousand days pressing for the budgets to ‘do the job,’ and finance the commitment to a well defined national goal. And LBJ carried on after Dallas. So far, President Obama has not.

  • amightywind

    …the next phase, including the Orion project, was way behind schedule and didn’t seem to be meeting its budget objectives

    We’ve done so well since. Speaking of schedules, we are nearly 3 years into this disastrous Presidency and there are no credible time tables to restore a human launch capability.

    for example, working with NASA and the private sector to bring additional jobs into central Florida

    How has that been working? By the next election the Space Coast will have endured a net loss of 10’s of thousands of jobs. Obama’s donor cronies in Nerdspace remain well funded.

  • SpaceColonizer

    Hmm… I wouldn’t have added fuel to the fire with “step back” if I were him.

  • Obama had the perfect opportunity this week to make a statement on manned spaceflight when he had the photo op with the STS-135 crew in the Oval Office (and got his own blue jacket).

    Didn’t happen. Draw your own conclusions.

  • Dennis

    I wonder if those shuttle astronauts felt slighted?

  • BeancounterFromDownunder

    Perhaps they do feel slighted but let’s face it, most of them are just sitting around waiting for a non-existent NASA space craft to take them for a joyride. Ok bit harsh perhaps but that’s the nub. Some have seen the light and jumped ship into the private sector where really the action in future will be.

  • John Malkin

    Doug Mohney wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 10:28 am

    He didn’t want to make it political.

    SpaceColonizer wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 8:43 am
    Hmm… I wouldn’t have added fuel to the fire with “step back” if I were him
    .

    Because his camp honestly believed that Constellation was going nowhere fast with the money Congress was willing to appropriate. That’s why we had the Augustine committee.

    General Summary of Augustine Options
    1: POR add 3B doesn’t include ISS
    2: Cancel Ares I and build Ares V Lite add 3B doesn’t include ISS
    3: Apply COTS to Human LEO as original intended by Griffin’s administration; Focus on technology development and building demo missions using real space hardware with increasing complexity; Build HLV with new technologies as missions demand; Choose destinations as needed to build a robust infrastructure; Should add 3B

    Obama picked 3 and to keep ISS. “Congress” supported keeping ISS. “Congress” demanded Ares V Lite be based on Constellation contracts. “Congress” = Space Committees

  • MrEarl

    Obama’s attitude toward HSF and NASA in general is not much different than the American public. “It’s way cool as long as we don’t have to pay/sacrifice too much for it.”
    What could change those views would be to show how space will be a new economic battlefield by the middle of this century. We’ve already lost the edge we once had. 30 years ago most commercial satellites were launched on American ELV’s. Do we launch any commercial payloads on EELV’s anymore?
    China will be our main competition in this new economic arena. Not for “flags and footprints”, we did that 40 years ago, but for resource utilization on the moon, NEO’s and other planets and moons in the solar system. Right now is the time a responsible government should be encouraging commercial entities though programs like COT’s and CCDev while also taking on the hi-risk job of exploration and trail blazing with programs like SLS and MPCV.
    While the risk and expenditures right now are relatively high, the payoff for our children and grandchildren could very well be immense.

  • John Wayne

    So if we’re stuck with Ares IV maybe we should just make the best of it.

    Here was my proposal to Augustine. All of (3) plus if we absolutely must keep the SSMEs then make sure they get to orbit and are delivered to the ISS so that they can be salvaged, easily achievable with the solid rockets.

    Then develop LRBs to replace the SRBs. I think that’s what they may be thinking, as it would be nuts to build such a rocket and toss it away.

    That’s the only back up plan I can think of, given the legislation and support, other then just waiting around for outright cancellation that is.

    The far field option is to bump it down to five meters and single engines. Works for me. Three billion a year for five years should buy you a rocket. Certainly we should get some engines and small variants out of the deal.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Obama is what people in Italy call “a man of the mouth.” That is to say, all talk and no action.

  • Vladislaw

    John Wayne wrote:

    “Here was my proposal to Augustine. All of (3) plus if we absolutely must keep the SSMEs then make sure they get to orbit and are delivered to the ISS so that they can be salvaged, easily achievable with the solid rockets.”

    What do the SRB’s have to do with it? I thought that they cut out before reaching orbit, so wouldn’t that just be more dead weight to haul to LEO?

    How are a couple astronauts going to dismantle a heavy lift launch vehicle and save the SSME’s?

    How are the SSME’s going to get back to earth, the only thing on the horizon for earth return is soyuz and dragon, neither is large enough I don’t believe.

    Wouldn’t the cost of savage cost more than just buying brand new disposables? Engines that are cheaper than SSME’s to begin with?

  • Vladislaw

    Mark “the pathological liar” Whittington wrote:

    “Obama is what people in Italy call “a man of the mouth.” That is to say, all talk and no action.”

    You mean like when he took out Osama Bin Ladin or the other terrorists?

    That phrase better suits you and your constant lies about subsidies. What, do you get paid money, or being paid a subsidy, for each time you insert the word subsidy to describe something that isn’t a subsidy?

  • John Malkin

    John Wayne wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Then develop LRBs to replace the SRBs. I think that’s what they may be thinking, as it would be nuts to build such a rocket and toss it away.

    The boosters aren’t the core of the overall issue. It’s funding. Constellation Lite aka SLS is being funded at less than 1/3 of Constellation projections. So if you want SLS to do something, it would be a good time to call your Congress person.

  • SpaceColonizer

    I honestly think Obama’s lack of making a big space policy speach is because he does care about space… not his lack of caring. He knows that if he makes a big deal about space that the knee jerk anti-Obamaers out there will stop at nothing to destroy his plans. They’ll rip him on how he’s putting too much attention on something that has no near term impact on the economy. By keeping his policy low key, he can more easily slip it under the radar. Downside of course is that porkers use the public’s ignorance to get away with big money earmarks that they would normally oppose. Solyndra was half a billion, where were they on constellation and where are they on SLS.

  • John Wayne

    What do the SRB’s have to do with it?

    I believe they lift the stack off the pad and give the core stage enough extra lift and velocity to enable it to easily reach orbit with a large payload as in, for instance, the space shuttle. This basic rocket science 101 You are totally misinterpreting technical and physical nuance.

    How are a couple astronauts going to dismantle a heavy lift launch vehicle and save the SSME’s?

    Advanced space suits, highly specialized tools and EVA is my first guess.

    How are the SSME’s going to get back to earth, the only thing on the horizon for earth return is soyuz and dragon, neither is large enough I don’t believe.

    Commercial space companies, private enterprise and free market system innovation, motivated by a specific demand, I presume.

    Wouldn’t the cost of savage cost more than just buying brand new disposables? Engines that are cheaper than SSME’s to begin with?

    Possibly. But engines without the fuel efficiency of the SSME are barely capable of making it to orbit, if at all, even with a large SRB enhancement. Ideally larger clusters of fuel efficient, restartable and easily removable or adaptable hydrogen engines of a slightly lesser total thrust would be next, but right now we have a dozen SSMEs ready to go for the SLS. Like I said, this is all fairly straightforward rocket science nowadays. Mr. Musk isn’t the only person out there digging their teeth into this problem, it’s widespread across the industry now for almost everyone besides NASA and congress.

    Surely NASA and congress could take a little responsibility for this as well.

  • Dennis

    Obama even gave Spock the Vulcan hand sign, but that doesnt mean he is a spaceman. Where this will all lead or end up remains to be seen. I think if Mr. Musk can show his moxie with both the up and coming COTS flight and his launch of Falcon heavy, then people willl begin to listen to what he promotes. Until then it will be business as usual.

  • Robert G. Oler

    SpaceColonizer wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 2:43 pm

    I honestly think Obama’s lack of making a big space policy speach is because he does care about space… not his lack of caring. He knows that if he makes a big deal about space that the knee jerk anti-Obamaers out there will stop at nothing to destroy his plans.””

    about three years before he became SecDef, Mr. Gates was holding a seminar at the great institution on the Brazos where he was at the time President…and in a Q&A someone asked him his recipe for defeating “The Base” and his answer without pause was “let them have our procurement system, that will drive them to their knees”.

    Obama (or really Bolden, but Charlie works for the CinC) knows that there is almost no mission that the “NASA” currently passing from the scene could accomplish in any reasonable time span for any reasonable amount of money…and that to get something that can do things on a timely basis for some reasonable cost; is going to require destroying the “space industrial complex” that mostly GOP but some Dem senators are so desperate to save.

    SLS is kind of the last stand for that. Its goofy…20 billion on top of what has already been spent to essentially take the shuttle of the stack; change the loads on the ET and then put something on top of it (with a second stage)…and if you put a gun to some leader at NASA’s head and said “you get 3 billion a year but it has to be done by oh 10 years from now or you are gone” they couldnt do it.

    WEbb is yet another example of bureaucracy simply out of control.

    and until that is fixed; until NASA can do with oh say 50 what it now takes 500 to do…and built with 1 billion with what now they need 10 or 20…well we are going no where in space;;; and this is what the dremel heads who like Mike Griffin cant grasp and dont care to.

    Human spaceflight has never had to even remotely justify its cost or its benefits…they are always “leadership”, “great America” “beat the creatorless no sorry godless (insert godless people here) to some destination or doing some thing”…and then the real thing “spend tax dollars in my district because I represent a red states and most jobs there are Walmart jobs and I need high paying ones even thought I dont like jobs programs” …

    that train is ending.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    “Obama is what people in Italy call “a man of the mouth.” That is to say, all talk and no action.”

    Obama managed to kill the programs you like, you know the big government jobs programs…the ones started by the President you like who was and remains all hat and no cattle RGO

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    But engines without the fuel efficiency of the SSME are barely capable of making it to orbit, if at all, even with a large SRB enhancement.

    Barely capable of making it to orbit? Better not tell all the non-SSME engine users out there that their rockets are “barely making it to orbit”.

    Look, either a rocket makes it to it’s intended orbit or it doesn’t. Kind of like being pregnant or dead, you either are or you’re not – there is no in between. Really what you are obsessing about is the efficiency of the SSME.

    But not everybody needs a V12 engine in their car to make it go fast, nor do they need to get 40 MPG when 39 MPG is good enough. And that’s what we’re really talking about here is that there are plenty of engine options that work just fine, despite not being the “most efficient engine”.

    LH2 engines in general also have some inherent liabilities, so you could argue that they are not the right choice for every application. The key, as with most things space related, is to lower the overall cost, not just the cost of one particular component like engines.

  • John Wayne

    Barely capable of making it to orbit? Better not tell all the non-SSME engine users out there that their rockets are “barely making it to orbit”.

    I guess that’s what the zeroth and second stages are all about.

    Look, either a rocket makes it to it’s intended orbit or it doesn’t.

    I guess that is what math and engineering and manufacturing are all about.

    Really what you are obsessing about is the efficiency of the SSME.

    I’m obsessing about dumping cryogenic fuel, tankage and turbomachinery into the ocean – equipment that otherwise would be extremely valuable and useful, now get this – in orbit, as basic space based infrastructure!

    so you could argue that they are not the right choice for every application.

    I could also argue that given their Isp and other reusability characteristics, they are the right choice for the specific application of delivering large amounts of reusable, valuable and useful space rated infrastructure to any Earth orbit, such as fuel depots and habitats, as I have just done here and now. LEO launch ‘costs’ are also about nuance, and not just brute force.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Dennis wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 11:28 am

    I wonder if those shuttle astronauts felt slighted?”

    If they did then they can join the rest of America that feels slighted not by the lack of a government sponsored/big government space program…but by the lack of a coherent plan to fix the American system of politics and economy.

    Dennis sad to say most Americans do not care much about human spaceflight RGO

  • @John Wayne
    “The boosters aren’t the core of the overall issue. It’s funding. Constellation Lite aka SLS is being funded at less than 1/3 of Constellation projections. So if you want SLS to do something, it would be a good time to call your Congress person.”

    Ain’t gonna happen. If you believe it can, I’ve got some swamp land in Arizona I’d like to sell you.

    Also, as NASA’s own studies have shown, there are a lot more economically practical alternatives to SLS:
    http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=33078

    And there are also bugetarily viable plans offered up by ULA and Boeing:

    http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
    http://www.transterrestrial.com/papers/Bienhoff_AIAASpace2011.pdf

  • John Wayne

    Also, as NASA’s own studies have shown, there are a lot more economically practical alternatives to SLS

    Indeed there are, but since we are stuck with the SLS for the moment, both by congressional legislation and (admittedly vague) executive office support, then I posit that those who care should be doing everything in their power to invest the money on something that can actually work, and which will advance the state of the art in both launch vehicle reusability and space infrastructure value.

    The ONLY way I can see to make this thing work is by taking the entire core stage to orbit. The physics and engineering is straightforward, and the only thing that needs to be changed is the insulation and technique. These are things that ALL upper stages need to incorporate into design.

    Five years is a long time. Almost an ‘eternity’ according to Mr. Musk. Of course, it goes without saying that ‘wider is not better’ for launch vehicles. Back to the subject at hand, it’s quite possible that Mr. Obama’s science advisor is privy to some of these subtle nuances in launch vehicle design.

  • Um, Tampa is about 150 miles from Kennedy Space Center, we don’t get Tampa TV stations here, and so far as I know no one at KSC commutes to work from Tampa, so I’m not sure why a Tampa TV station would particularly care about space jobs …

  • Each and every budget proposal submitted by the Obama administration has increased NASA’s budget. Those budgets have been cut by Congress, and in particular this year by 10% by the GOP-led House.

    It’s pretty clear who supports space and who doesn’t.

  • @John Wayne
    Are you serious? That whole statement is laughable. You have really drunk the Kool-Aid.

    You earlier said you want the budget raised by a factor of three for SLS. It is NOT going to happen. You are living in a fantasy world.

    “I posit that those who care should be doing everything in their power to invest the money on something that can actually work, “
    You have stated no verifiable evidence to back your statements up. You have supplied NO evidence that SLS will “actually work” any better than anything else. Supply links to online technical documents or actual technical document references; otherwise, you are just spouting personal opinions about things you believe just because you want to believe them. I would rather do the maximum with whatever amount we can realistically expect Congress will actually be willing to budget than go with SLS that will accomplish less with that same budget. I care about America being the leader in human spaceflight, if you truly do too you’ll forget this garbage.

    “The ONLY way I can see to make this thing work is by taking the entire core stage to orbit. The physics and engineering is straightforward, and the only thing that needs to be changed is the insulation and technique.
    Well, cutting-edge physics is my life, and I can tell that you know a hell of a lot less about the more well-known physics needed here than you think you do.

  • vulture4

    Obama has consistently supported the space program. However most Republicans seem to hate him so intensely that they assume anything he does must really be evil, even if on the surface it appears to coincide with what they also want. I have heard experienced NASA civil servants say that Obama wants to destroy NASA because he knows they are all Republicans. Of course this is classic paranoid thinking, but don’t try telling them that.

  • Matt Wiser

    And in case you haven’t noticed, Rick, there’s exacly ONE Congressman who’s pushing that approach. And he ain’t in much of a position to do anything. Rohrabacher’s motives aren’t pure: there’s quite a bit of CommercialSpace outfits in SoCal, and they probably have employees who live in his district. How nice of the representative from Orange County…..He’s no different that Senators and Congresscritters from states that were affected by Constellation’s getting the ax pushing for SLS. Only difference is, they won. He didn’t.

    Step back? Yeah, right. A BIG step back-way, way, too back, IMHO. And this was the same Candidate who wanted back in ’07 to defer CxP for 5 years to pay for “education programs.” Same walk, different talk. And no, I won’t be voting for him.

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 8:32 pm

    I’m obsessing about dumping cryogenic fuel, tankage and turbomachinery into the ocean – equipment that otherwise would be extremely valuable and useful, now get this – in orbit, as basic space based infrastructure!

    So far all I’m hearing is a bunch of “wouldn’t it be nice” type stuff. Wouldn’t it be nice to salvage SSME’s in orbit. Wouldn’t it be nice to circularize the orbit of the cryogenic core tank for some future use. Great ideas, and ones that have been considered before, but are they the most pressing or expensive problem we have? Not that I see.

    then I posit that those who care should be doing everything in their power to invest the money on something that can actually work, and which will advance the state of the art in both launch vehicle reusability and space infrastructure value.

    Lots of people care about lots of things, and even though I think the SLS will be a massive waste of money, I do think it can fly successfully. But I don’t think it really advances the state of the art in launch vehicles since it’s not lowering the cost to access space – commercial rockets do that better.

    That’s why I advocate for those things that lower the cost to access space. Now maybe that could include some of the things you’re proposing, but unless the people in Congress or the aerospace companies think your ideas have merit, nothing will happen. At this point they have different plans.

    My $0.02

  • Fred Willett

    John Wayne wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
    The ONLY way I can see to make this thing work is by taking the entire core stage to orbit.
    Not really practical.
    Besides it’s not clear that there is any way at all to make SLS workable.
    Augustine said an extra $3B a year would be needed to complete any sort of SLS, PLUS ISS would need to be deorbited..
    NASA didn’t get an extra $3B a year. In fact it’s budget was cut. And ISS was extended through 2020.
    So the most likely scenario is SLS will fail the same way Constellation failed. Over budget and schedule slips.
    I suggest you forget all about NASA doing anything useful in space for the next 20 years and pin your hopes, if any, on Commercial.

  • John Wayne

    Great ideas, and ones that have been considered before, but are they the most pressing or expensive problem we have? Not that I see.

    So sending humans into the occasional jaunt into deep space with SLS or EELVs or fuel depots is more important than, for instance, developing LEO infrastructure to the degree of sophistication and magnitude of development necessary for those occasional jaunts? What was the reason for sending humans on occasional jaunts into deep space again? I seem to have forgotten. I’m of the opinion that developing LEO infrastructure with many international partners have far more geopolitical benefits than exploration. In order to develop this infrastructure with the money we have demands something very similar to what I have described, sorry, but that’s just the way it is. But if you feel we need to waste that money on exploration fantasies, by all means, continue lobbying for that effort.

    As far as commercial space companies are concerned, I’m confident that entropy considerations will point them in the right direction soon enough. All it’s going to take for a really bad day up there is a stray paint chip.

  • John Wayne

    Well, cutting-edge physics is my life, and I can tell that you know a hell of a lot less about the more well-known physics needed here than you think you do.

    All from a couple of blog comments, that’s amazing. Got ego? The only response to that is that I’m pretty sure I already do have a good idea how magnificent the universe is, Rick, but I’m also grounded in earthly matters as well. Classical, statistical and quantum mechanics are necessary and sufficient for the job of developing, cleaning and keeping clean our LEO and GEO and planetary surface workspace we have at our disposal right now. General relativity and astrophysics are not what we are discussing. If you want to reduce costs, decrease pollution and increase efficiencies in the realm of habitation and transport, those are the scientific domains that you need to focus on, and not your particular areas of specialization, sorry.

  • @John Wayne
    “astrophysics are not what we are discussing’
    Not directly, but it is definitely a suite of tools used by professionals in the space transportation industry. You can’t say spaceflight has nothing to do with such things as: the laws of motion in general, orbital mechanics, delta vee, coronal mass ejections, etc.? BTW, I also have engineering related work experience at a couple of large aerospace related corporations (including the turbine division of GE).

    “but I’m also grounded in earthly matters as well. Classical, statistical and quantum mechanics are necessary and sufficient for the job of developing, cleaning and keeping clean our LEO and GEO and planetary surface workspace we have at our disposal right now.”
    Oh, I have an ego because I will not accept at face value the claims of someone who I have no way of verifying his claims? Especially if John Wayne is a pseudonym in tribute to the Duke. If it isn’t a pseudonym, I at least give you credit for that much honesty. If it is indeed a pseudonym, than your monicker could just as easily be Richard Cranium.

  • Oops, meant to say “ego problem” rather than “ego”. Everyone has an ego.

  • Vladislaw

    There was power point after power point about utilizing the external tanks on the space shuttle for use as infrastructure. It never went anywhere, not because it was sensible and a cheaper alternative, but because it was cheap. Why would a contractor want reuse when they can sell new space station components. I doubt you will see NASA utilize tanks on orbit. I could see commercial firms doing it but not NASA.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 4th, 2011 at 10:43 pm

    Step back? Yeah, right. A BIG step back-way, way, too back, IMHO>

    it is never a step back…when you go from something that is not affordable or has value for cost, to something that does. economics are important RGO

  • John Wayne

    Not directly, but it is definitely a suite of tools used by professionals in the space transportation industry.

    A couple of hundred years ago it was helpful and useful for some certain theoreticians for them to derive the basic laws of physics. You need to get over that. For the previous several decades it has been useful for creating demand for space based products and services, but we are talking about orders of magnitude more demand than the satellite and sensor market can generate. In fact, what we are discussing here is generating a HUGE demand for satellite and sensor products, merely to track and clean the workspace of debris, most of which was generated by not paying to much attention to near solar system astrophysics, stellar and planetary genesis, formation, dynamics and evolution, for instance. If we had been paying more attention to the pesky little details we wouldn’t be in this quandary.

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 5th, 2011 at 9:13 am

    So sending humans…

    You must be responding to someone else on that sentence, because I have been a vocal supporter of both commercial marketplace expansion and NASA focusing on exploration. They actually go hand in hand in my view, and we can do more of it without the SLS than with it (as backed up by the recent NASA study on propellant depots).

    What was the reason for sending humans on occasional jaunts into deep space again? I seem to have forgotten.

    Political domination, not for the purely “because it’s there” type of motivation, nor because we had an abiding need to pick up rocks, drive moonbuggies and play golf on the Moon.

    But because people thought it was for those other reasons, they keep wondering why we haven’t gone back. The reason is money, in that it costs a lot to mount such an endeavor, and the justification for it in the 60’s was part of the cold war. We don’t have equivalent motivations today, so until we lower the cost of mounting lunar expeditions we won’t return or go beyond.

    I’m of the opinion that developing LEO infrastructure with many international partners have far more geopolitical benefits than exploration.

    Preaching to the choir, and there is a pretty big choir here.

    But, and this is a big “but”, the conditions for supporting a robust commercial space industry beyond the current satellite industry have not congealed. Companies involved in space exploration up until now have made their money off of NASA, and that needs to transition to other sources of revenue. It will be slow building that new commercial frontier, so I for one am resigned to small milestones of success, but that will likely lead to a more vibrant industry in the future, so I’m OK with that.

  • John Wayne

    But, and this is a big “but”, the conditions for supporting a robust commercial space industry beyond the current satellite industry have not congealed.

    That’s right, because launch is too expensive and the infrastructure itself is too expensive to build and maintain. What I am simply proposing is to solve two complementary problems with a couple of innovations, reusable boosters as per SpaceX and the emerging RLV R&D sector, and then by recognizing that the launch vehicle technology (specifically upper and core stages when they are delivered to orbit) is also more or less identical to the infrastructure that we need. Rick is further misinterpreting my claim that our ability to do larger scale astrophysics is more or less dependent upon and indeed more or less identical to that space based infrastructure and those techniques as well. So astrophysics itself will be the big winner once the problems of reusable launch and general space based transport and habitation infrastructure recycling and repurposing are solved as well.

    Back to the subject, these are long range plans that cogent policy analysts consider when considering the larger picture of vehicles and infrastructure because the payloads themselves are still fantastically expensive pieces of hardware. When that changes (and it soon will) then we will have begun.

  • @John Wayne
    “A couple of hundred years ago it was helpful and useful for some certain theoreticians for them to derive the basic laws of physics. “
    That was not my main point, you need to get over that. My point was that if you want your views respected on this or any other blog, you need to back them up with verifiable facts and give the references. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but spouting unsubstantiated personal opinion. And you know what they say about opinions, they are like you know whats everybody has one. But I think you knew what I was trying to say, you’re not stupid, you are just trying to steer attention away from the fact that you are just spouting off personal opinions without anything to back them up.

    If you aren’t going to back your opinions with verifiable sources then you are just another dime-a-dozen troll and neither I nor anyone else will have respect for your point of view.

  • @Matt Wiser
    “And in case you haven’t noticed, Rick, there’s exacly ONE Congressman who’s pushing that approach. And he ain’t in much of a position to do anything. Rohrabacher’s motives aren’t pure:

    Never thought his motives were pure, just that what he proposes is economically feasible. Unlike SLS.

    As for whether or not he’s won, it took a few years for it to sink in that Constellation was a turkey and to Congress to go along with cancelling it. The same thing will happen with SLS for the same reason: going way over budget and slipping farther and farther behind schedule by years. The fat lady hasn’t sung yet.

    BTW, that was some reaming Hall gave Musk wasn’t it? :) He’s baaaaack! We missed you!

  • John Wayne

    you need to back them up with verifiable facts and give the references.

    Sorry, I thought this whole space and science business was about discovering things and doing things that have not previously been done before, and then, at your discretion, of course, possibly making money from it.

  • @John Wayne
    “Sorry, I thought this whole space and science business was about discovering things and doing things that have not previously been done before, and then, at your discretion, of course, possibly making money from it.”
    Indeed, it is. But when one comes up with a new discovery, it is always based on previously verified knowledge. If it is something you can patent and make money off of, keep it secret until you obtain the patent. Otherwise, if you have such a new idea or know of such an idea from another party, back it up with supporting facts. As Newton said, “If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” Tell us about the supporting facts that give validity to your insight; i.e., those underpinning principles and evidence that were lent to you by the giants whose shoulders you are standing on (or if any actual work has already been done on this new idea, state that too). If you make known the previously proven underlying principles, methods, and evidence supporting a new idea that has yet to be proven, then other people will be able to retrace the same train of thought and/or experimentation that led to your discovery by using the same principles, methods and evidence that you used to arrive at the same conclusion (that is the same new idea) that you did. Only then can I and others fairly judge whether or not the new idea can be actually implemented in reality.

    In science the above described procedure is called reproducability and it is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 5th, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    Sorry, I thought this whole space and science business was about discovering things and doing things that have not previously been done before, and then, at your discretion, of course, possibly making money from it.

    “At your discretion” possibly making money?

    The government isn’t motivated directly by making money on science and technology, and companies have to pay attention to profitability if they want to stick around very long.

    The motivations of the two are completely different, and they only intersect because the government needs companies to do things for them, and companies don’t mind having the government as a customer.

    However discovering things is not an overriding priority, not like security or health or welfare. It’s down the list somewhat, as NASA’s 0.5% of the national budget attests. And until someone starts paying for Moon rocks to be collected, or new stars located, capitalism won’t be a big driver in space.

    The market forces in space will be the same as here on Earth – demand and supply. So far there isn’t too much demand out in space, and beyond satellites it’s mainly driven by national space programs. Until that changes, like Bigelow getting his space station leasing business going, there isn’t much profit motivation for pure space and science type stuff.

  • John Wayne

    If you make known the previously proven underlying principles, methods, and evidence supporting a new idea that has yet to be proven, then other people will be able to retrace the same train of thought and/or experimentation that led to your discovery by using the same principles, methods and evidence that you used to arrive at the same conclusion (that is the same new idea) that you did. Only then can I and others fairly judge whether or not the new idea can be actually implemented in reality.

    I’m sure Mr. Musk will be waiting patiently for your judgments of the veracity and reproducibility of his first stage hydrocarbon reusability schemes and architectures. Just as others will be waiting around for your feedback on the cost and practicality of their large scale low Earth orbit development architectures.

    While we’re waiting for your insightful thoughts and criticisms, and listen to your ever more shrill demands for references from aerospace pros, ever more orbital debris will be generated by the ‘pros’ discarding their upper stages in the pursuit of vitally important deep space human exploration of empty Lagrange points.

    Carry on. This is a pointless discussion.

  • @John Wayne
    “While we’re waiting for your insightful thoughts and criticisms, and listen to your ever more shrill demands for references from aerospace pros, ever more orbital debris will be generated by the ‘pros’ discarding their upper stages in the pursuit of vitally important deep space human exploration of empty Lagrange points.
    Musk or no other person actually developing hardware is waiting for my thoughts. They are too busy trying to get things done. I’m just countering unsubstantiated B.S. from people like you who attempt to alter public opinion without evidence to back you up.

    If asking you to consider backing up what you say shrillness, you have some wierd thought process. Your obvious upset over this indicates who the real raver is.

    You have shown yourself to be a dime-a-dozen pseudonymous troll not backing up his ideas with references and evidence. That is what is truly pointless. From now on I consider you not worth my time.

  • Correction:
    Instead of :
    “If asking you to consider backing up what you say shrillness,”
    Should be:
    “If asking you to consider backing up what you say is shrillness,”

  • John Wayne

    If asking you to consider backing up what you say shrillness, you have some wierd thought process. Your obvious upset over this indicates who the real raver is.

    There is nothing to back up with references, Rick, the concept is almost trivial.

    1) Upper stages are launched to orbit regularly and discarded.
    2) Three axis stabilized satellites are launched to orbit regularly, live out their useful lives and then run out of fuel, or fail.
    3) Satellite servicing is a demonstrated concept (for instance, the Hubble).
    4) Upper stages (and core stages if they are delivered to orbit) are satellites that are nearly identical in design and architecture to habitats (for instance, Skylab), proposed fuel depots and space tugs, and which are regularly discarded, which is in itself almost idiotic.
    5) The cost of spaceflight is increasing (I wonder why).

    The result easily follows. Change the insulation technique (space rate it), provide the upper or core stage with three axis (active and passive) stabilization and thermal control (as in satellites), and then use them for purposes for which there are already designed, and for purposed yet to be imagined (good luck finding references). No scientific references are necessary. There are no technological breakthroughs necessary. All that is required are very simple design decisions, which already have been made by a long history of satellite service providers.

    Thus far our government and its contractor industrial base has been unwilling to make these relatively easy and straightforward engineering and design decisions, resulting in a workspace that is horrible polluted now almost beyond belief, and simple LEO spaceflight development costs that have spiraled out of control and long ago entered a range that can only be described as astronomical (the ISS).

    I’m calling them (and you) on it. Right here. Right now. End of discussion.

    There outta be a law covering space debris and discarded hardware.

    The result

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    The cost of spaceflight is increasing (I wonder why).

    Over the past decade it has actually been decreasing for some payload classes, and the trend is continuing to go down. If you wanted to put 20,000 kg in LEO using U.S. assets, this is the trend:

    Shuttle at retirement (avg $1.2B/flight) = $60,000/kg
    Delta IV Heavy ($450M current est. price) = $22,500/kg
    Falcon Heavy (@ $80M/per) = $4,000/kg

    There needs to be more competition within the U.S. market, but for this weight class the cost of getting mass to orbit has been going down.

  • Coastal Ron

    John Wayne wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    the concept is almost trivial.

    3) Satellite servicing is a demonstrated concept (for instance, the Hubble).

    Hubble was designed to be serviced, but the current generation of satellites in orbit today were not, so there is little demand for satellite servicing. And maybe you didn’t notice, but even though Hubble showed that it was possible to do repairs in space, it probably cost more to repair the Hubble than to replace it – multiple times. The market still needs to figure out what they want to do with satellite servicing.

    4) Upper stages (and core stages if they are delivered to orbit) are satellites that are nearly identical in design and architecture to habitats (for instance, Skylab), proposed fuel depots and space tugs

    Upper stages can be used as fuel depots and space tugs, but workspace for humans? No.

    Skylab was outfitted on the ground, not in space, and considering the complexity of human habitable construction (and the certification it has to go thru), I don’t see how it makes economic sense to do it right now.

    Thus far our government and its contractor industrial base has been unwilling to make these relatively easy and straightforward engineering and design decisions

    Why? Your theory is that they are unwilling, but if so, why? Conspiracy? Lack of economic incentives? Certainly we’ve had bad political decisions over time, but that should be considered a constant, not an exception.

    I think the industry is less robust than you imagine it is. No one is taking big risks, and that makes sense considering the track record of companies that have failed when going too big.

    What motivates companies to risk big is big rewards. Identify a big revenue stream and you’ll have lots of companies getting involved. But so far the stuff you’ve identified doesn’t seem to have that big revenue stream that companies are looking for. Maybe that will change, but that’s the situation today.

  • I am not desputing the need for amelioration of space debris. If you had come here for a longer time, you would know that this is one of my main gripes and I have mentioned some of the solutions you brought up. My disagreement is with your saying such things we need for more funding for SLS, when it is a not an economically viable option if we are going to be a true spacefaring nation. You talk about “simple LEO spaceflight development costs that have spiraled out of control and long ago entered a range that can only be described as astronomical (the ISS).”, SLS is the poster child of this problem because it is designed by the politicians to spend the maximum amount of money for the maximum amount of jobs in those politicians’ districts, not to be maximumly effective for the tax dollars spent. Efforts like Musk’s recoverablity plan have a lot more chance of accomplishing both the reduction of debris and making manned spaceflight economically practical. That is because even if SLS is ever completed, it would only fly a couple of times per year and contribute only a fraction of the debris of the entire worldwide launch industry.

  • DCSCA

    “What motivates companies to risk big is big rewards..” -ROFLMAOPIP- AND guarantees of minimal exposure in taking that risk. See Wall St., the banking and the auto industries for details.

  • Matt Wiser

    Hall blew his chance to ream Musk a new one, granted. I guess he’s resigned to Commercial Crew in one form or another. At least we know now where everyone is, for the record. Now let’s see if Lord Musk (and my distate for him has NOT abated) can deliver. IF he can, well and good. If not, Boeing or Orbital Scince picks up the ball and runs with it. What Musk-and the other providers, mind you-have to do is follow what the Commercial Space Federation said last year: “Stop talking and stop flying.” Until he flies people and returns them safely, he’s unproven-and this goes for Boeing, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, and the others. Shut up and fly. And Musk: how’s that Condo on Mars going, hmm?

    Sorry, Rick, but NASA’s not betting the farm on depots-as well they shouldn’t. You need to realize there’s a difference in what YOU want NASA to do and what Congress will allow NASA to do, and NASA can’t spend any money unless Congress authorizes it. And this President is still that Candidate from ’08 who wanted to defer Constellation for up to 5 yrs. to pay for K-5 education programs…said it before, but if you don’t suck up to the Chicago Machine that he came out of, forget it. Thus his Administration’s shabby treatment of the likes of John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell, Capt. Gene Cernan, Gen. Tom Stafford, Chris Kraft, and Gene Kranz, among others.

  • “Sorry, Rick, but NASA’s not betting the farm on depots-as well they shouldn’t.”
    NASA is betting the farm on SLS that the Booz-Allen report says can only be held within budget for the first 4 to 5 years before its costs explode. What good is working on an HLV that won’t be finished because there won’t be enough money in the outlying years when its costs blow ballistically out of the budget?

    You’ve swallowed Griffin’s B.S. vis-a-vis using EELVs vs SLS, but within the last couple of months he has contradicted himself on that issue. As is illustrated by Griffin himself in the following quotes in an article by Rand http://www.competitivespace.org/2011/11/04/the-sls-empire-strikes-back/

    “The fuel depot concept may be — we think will be — valuable when propellant can be harvested from in-space resources, such as water trapped in lunar craters or oxygen extracted from the regolith. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to exploit such resources, and so for now fuel depots are an answer to a question that is at best premature. The SLS and the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) are needed today. Fuel depots will be needed tomorrow, when a robust space operations infrastructure has been established and operations beyond LEO are common.

    As Rand points out:
    “That is simply not true. I have already described the benefits of depots above, even without the use of extraterrestrial resources. And if we really need SLS today, then we’re in trouble, because NASA tells us we aren’t going to get it until the end of the decade. But fortunately, we don’t need it today (or any day). In fact, as I noted over at Popular Mechanics today, Dr. Griffin recently testified before Congress that one can go to the moon without SLS, at least if one is Chinese:”
    Here’s the Griffin testimony about the Chinese that contradicts his other testimony wherein he stated Atlas/Delta/Falcon class rockets won’t do the job because an SLS sized rocket is required:
    “Q: I know the Chinese Long March 5 rocket is in development. I wondered if you could compare that to anything we have in the American inventory. When it’s built will it really be larger than anything we have? And why do you think that the Chinese are building such a large rocket?

    Griffin: Well, the Long March 5 is comparable in scale to today’s Delta IV Heavy or to the Ares I crew vehicle—which we were going to build and which was cancelled. So it’s on the order of, and of course until it flies regularly we won’t actually know, but it’s on the order of 25 tons of payload to LEO. So it’s not in the class of, say, the Saturn V or the new SLS [Space Launch System].

    But it’s a very significant capability and in fact by launching and rendezvousing four of those in LEO it would be possible for the Chinese to construct a manned lunar mission with no more than that rocket and no more than Apollo technology. And I have in the past written up on how that mission would work from an engineering perspective. So with the Long March 5 the Chinese inherently possess the capability to return to the moon should they wish to do so.

    Q: And you are saying that we do not have anything comparable to that other than what had been talked about?

    Griffin: We do not. Well, we have nice view graphs (laughter in the background).”

    As Rand summarizes:
    Actually, contrary to Griffin’s implication, the Delta IV Heavy has flown, so it’s more than “view graphs.” And the Long March 5 isn’t scheduled to fly until 2014. But even in that timeline, China could be thinking about a moon visit relatively soon. In the U.S., by comparison, the Space Launch System NASA is now mandated to build couldn’t return Americans to the moon until at least the late 2020s (and would add tens of billions to the cost), according to a recently leaked NASA internal document.”

    So all I have to say is, will the real Mike Griffin please stand up? Either SLS is required and Delta/Falcon sized launchers can’t hack it, or not. You can’t have some magic difference between us and the Chinese that allows them to do it with normal ELVs, but does not allow us to do the same.

    Quit being a sucker.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    Hall blew his chance to ream Musk a new one, granted.

    You’re fantasizing Matt – there was nothing for Hall to “ream” Musk about, since he has been performing to contract.

    I’ve asked you this before, but you didn’t answer – what should Hall have asked that would have been so damning? You know, such a “gotcha” moment for Musk?

    I guess he’s resigned to Commercial Crew in one form or another.

    I don’t see any evidence of that, but why shouldn’t he? It’s in the law Congress passed, so is he against the law he voted for? Why is Commercial Crew bad?

    Now let’s see if Lord Musk (and my distate for him has NOT abated) can deliver.

    Well NOW you’re being honest. Previously you denied you didn’t like him.

    IF he can, well and good. If not, Boeing or Orbital Scince picks up the ball and runs with it.

    And vice versa. That’s the whole point of having more than one service provider Matt. NASA won’t have that with the SLS though, so one accident shuts down the NASA exploration program for years. YEARS!

    But you seem to be OK with that, which is weird.

    Until he flies people and returns them safely, he’s unproven-and this goes for Boeing, Orbital, Sierra Nevada, and the others.

    And Congress with the SLS – shut up and fly the SLS Matt. And when was the last time Orion/MPCV flew? And when will it fly with people in it? Shut up and fly Matt!

    See how childish that sounds? The only entity NASA is paying to fly crew to orbit is Russia, and they are already doing it. NASA is only paying for DEVELOPMENT for Commercial Crew, not flights. This is the distinction that you and others keep missing.

  • Dennis

    It is not that people are not interested in spaceflight, but just about everyone says yes to that question. However when you ask them how it should be paid for, then they back down. At least that is the people I have talked with. Everyone seems to like the adventure, but dont want to pay for it. Will commercial save the day? I doubt it, as the cost on that end will rise too.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    ” Shut up and fly.”

    another goofy post. But you got the phrase correct…I’ve been saying that about Ares/SLS for what now 6 or 7 years?

    Gemini was DONE start to finish in 18 months…they built a spacecraft, qualified two launch vehicles and flew them all for a cost in today’s dollars of 5.5 billion dollars.

    NASA has spent nearly 20 billion on Cx/SLS and as you put it one wants to tell them “shut the frack up and fly”.

    F minus Matt try and get control of yourself RGO

  • @Dennis
    “Will commercial save the day? I doubt it, as the cost on that end will rise too.
    Dennis, what part of the term “fixed-price contract” do you not understand? Price can only rise when the contract is renegotiated, but if you have more than one competing company, any increase will be kept to a minimum. Since the makers of SLS will have he combination of no competition and “cost-plus contracts” they will have very little incentive to keep prices down. Therefore, you can bet dollars to navy beans that SLS will increase in price a hell of a lot faster than CC.

  • Matt Wiser

    What should have Hall asked His Majesty Musk? Plenty. First, besides NASA, does he have any customers for his proposed service re: HSF lined up? Second, does he have any plans to undercut NASA’s BEO activities or offer BEO exploration under contract to NASA? Third, what did he mean by that “retiring on Mars” nonsense exactly? Fourth, what are your plans in case NASA doesn’t choose Space X for crew services? And no doubt others would’ve arisen.

    In case you’ve forgotten your history, all of the great explorers did so under government auspices, not the private sector. Columbus, Magellan, Vespucci, Cabot, Drake (a privateer, but an explorer on his return trip), etc. Governments explore. Private entities exploit. NASA goes BEO to explore. When it’s time to exploit BEO resources-such as asteroids, that’s the private sector’s job-along with supporting NASA and other space agencies’ exploration work with depots and the like. But going someplace first? That’s NASA’s job.

    Ron: a lot of the anger, acrimony, and bitterness could’ve been avoided. The Administration blew it with that FY 11 rollout, and things snowballed from there. Having a “space summit” which was really a choir meeting with no dissenting or disagreement allowed, didn’t help. Not to mention not dangling carrots to the pro-Constellation members of congress (say, offers to have contractors working on CxP become second-source suppliers for the expanded EELV-based program many here are so fond of, for example, or some kind of DOD or other NASA related work to maintain the workforce and industrial base until whatever new exploration program the Administration may have had in mind got started in, say, FY 12 or 13). Instead, they blew it, and not only did they have to do damage control, but play catchup. And they’re still recovering from their self-inflicted disaster. And remember, it was a Congress controlled by Democrats that passed the 2010 Authorization Act. One more thing: if the economy was doing a lot better than it is currently, the Administration’s original plans in FY 11 may have had a better chance of passing.

    Said it before, and I’ll repeat: If NASA can get two commercial providers to handle the ISS cargo and crew mission, that enables NASA to do the hard stuff-like go BEO. Success in the former enables the latter. But will the program that emerges be purely EELV/Depot or purely SLS? Probably not. It’ll be a blended program. Some depots, along with the 70 Ton SLS variant are what we’re likely to see. Again-it’s politics. As long as the key committees in Congress have members from the “space states”, they have to be satisfied. Or you won’t fly anywhere.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    What should have Hall asked His Majesty Musk? Plenty. First…

    Those aren’t hard questions – they sound more like questions somebody interviewing Musk for a magazine article would ask. In fact Musk has already talked about three of your four questions, and the fourth one is just plain weird. You asked:

    Second, does he have any plans to undercut NASA’s BEO activities or offer BEO exploration under contract to NASA?

    Undercut NASA’s BEO activities? Are you making that up? How could anyone “undercut” NASA’s BEO activities without Congress allowing it, in which case it wouldn’t be an “undercut”.

    Is your real question will Congress allow the commercial space industry to become the sole provider of launch services for NASA? Because the commercial space industry already builds everything for NASA, so what’s to undercut? The “profit” for collecting Moon rocks? The profit from discovering new stars?

    The second part of that question was more sane – “or offer BEO exploration under contract to NASA?” – and maybe you haven’t kept up with the news, but NASA has been looking at using SpaceX for low cost Mars exploration.

    Apparently your rage and anger over anything Musk and SpaceX has blinded you to the fact that Musk has stated on numerous occasions that he is building SpaceX to be a transportation company. If you’re having trouble understanding what that means, go ask someone that is more dispassionate than you.

  • Coastal Ron

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    Ron: a lot of the anger, acrimony, and bitterness could’ve been avoided.

    When you cancel a $200B program people are not dispassionate about it, and some (like you) will hate the decision no matter how much fiscal sense it makes. And you continue to relive the moment far longer than Congress has.

    Let’s remember that after all that kerfuffle and mock rage Congress didn’t even debate the cancellation – they agreed completely. The only part they had a problem with was the loss of jobs, and that’s why they created the SLS. Entirely understandable from a political standpoint, but still a complete waste of taxpayer money.

    Said it before, and I’ll repeat: If NASA can get two commercial providers to handle the ISS cargo and crew mission, that enables NASA to do the hard stuff-like go BEO.

    Uh, no, you haven’t been saying that. But if you want to believe that you have, fine, as maybe that means you have seen the light and you now believe that the SLS is a complete waste of time and taxpayer money.

    But will the program that emerges be purely EELV/Depot or purely SLS?

    NASA and the aerospace industry already know that the SLS is not needed for exploration and that fuel depots can get us out exploring quicker and for far less money. Why you’re against that is unfathomable…

    Some depots, along with the 70 Ton SLS variant are what we’re likely to see.

    Congress doesn’t want the 70 ton SLS, they want the 130 ton SLS, which is an even bigger waste. Try to keep up with the news.

    As long as the key committees in Congress have members from the “space states”, they have to be satisfied. Or you won’t fly anywhere.

    I don’t know about you but I fly on commercial transport wherever I go, so I don’t have to worry about getting Congress to fund each flight I take. Same can’t be said about the SLS, whose status will hang in the balance every year when the Appropriations committees take up the NASA budget.

    All it will take is one budget committee to put the SLS out of it’s misery – we’re taking bets on which year it will be. Want to join the pool? ;-)

  • @Matt Wiser
    I noticed how you completely ignored the points I brought up in my comment. Funny how you do that with comments that you know you cannot counter. I showed you how Mike Griffin contradicted himself on saying we need an Ares V/SLS launcher for going to the moon and indicated China can use Delta/Falcon size ELVs for doing the same thing. Why can the Chinese do this and not us?

    “Said it before, and I’ll repeat: If NASA can get two commercial providers to handle the ISS cargo and crew mission, that enables NASA to do the hard stuff-like go BEO.”
    For once you got it right, but for the wrong reasons. Yes, NASA should handle the hard-stuff like going BEO. Just not with SLS, but by building a true spaceship such as Nautilus.

    BTW. If you are talking about going to the moon, that is not Beyond Earth Orbit. The moon is orbiting earth. It is beyond Low Earth Orbit.

  • What should have Hall asked His Majesty Musk? Plenty. First, besides NASA, does he have any customers for his proposed service re: HSF lined up? Second, does he have any plans to undercut NASA’s BEO activities or offer BEO exploration under contract to NASA? Third, what did he mean by that “retiring on Mars” nonsense exactly? Fourth, what are your plans in case NASA doesn’t choose Space X for crew services? And no doubt others would’ve arisen.

    Goodness, what stupid questions. Fortunately, Hall isn’t that idiotic.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    What should have Hall asked His Majesty Musk? Plenty. First, besides NASA, does he have any customers for his proposed service re: HSF lined up? Second, does he have any plans to undercut NASA’s BEO activities or offer BEO exploration under contract to NASA? Third, what did he mean by that “retiring on Mars” nonsense exactly? Fourth, what are your plans in case NASA doesn’t choose Space X for crew services? And no doubt others would’ve arisen. ”

    You are becoming a troll…but sometimes I enjoy engaging the weak.

    in order? “Congressman that is not any of your business, we are a private free enterprise company, do you ask other companies what other business they have?” Second question “Undercut what? What BEO activities so far they have a power point rocket and capsule that they cannot even find a powerpoint mission for”

    Third “Retiring on Mars? What did I mean, go read the statement it is in English”

    Fourth? “Launch satellites, I have a pretty good backorder of those. As for Dragon? Well I have said before I intend to develop it on private money if necessary”

    Now wasnt that easy? And All I did was glue together statements already in the public record with a little snark on question three.

    Dont be goofy RGO

  • Robert G. Oler

    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 7th, 2011 at 9:42 pm

    “Ron: a lot of the anger, acrimony, and bitterness could’ve been avoided. ”

    sure if Obama had only had the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders there ready to pose with all who are losing their jobs… with free food for whoever wanted it then everyone who was losing their technowelfare job would have felt far better about it…

    the only thing that was going to keep people who are losing their technowelfare job happy about it is to get another technowelfare job…and if we did that then there is no money to save for real technology programs.

    you are moving into Wind status RGO

  • Dennis

    Well it seems however slow it appears, things are moving forward, with the CST getting built in Florida, with Mush preping his COTS flight, with NASA going for the test flight of Orion aboard a Delta, things seem to be shaping up. Oh yes and the test of the J2X engine.

  • DCSCA

    Robert G. Oler wrote @ November 7th, 2011 at 12:38 pm
    Matt Wiser wrote @ November 6th, 2011 at 10:25 pm

    ” Shut up and fly.”

    another goofy post.

    ROFLMAOPIP there’s nothing ‘goofy’ about the truth being matter-of-factly stated. And it merits reiteration to the ‘goofy’ commerical space community that cranks and begs about everything but fails to do the one thing necessary to establish credibility: “shut up and fly.”

  • Commercial Space is one gigantic dead end! All talk, & NO action. Relying on those hobbyists to put American astronauts into space is like waiting for the dead to rise up from their graves. You are all betting on a dead horse! Spaceflight, especially human flying, and particularly the grand out-of-LEO variety, is simply TOO difficult & complex for mere commercial firms to initiate and carry out to fruition. Government absolutely must lead the way, in this enterprise, or else the whole thing will flounder! The physics & engineering requirements have NOT changed in the last forty years. Manned spaceflight is a very dangerous business, and it is way TOO premature to believe that rocket hobbyists are up to the task, and can carry things out safely. Commercial Space is a hallucination. Too much science fiction fantasy thinking! The sooner this delusion bubble is popped, the better off this country’s space program will be in the long run.

  • Coastal Ron

    Chris Castro wrote @ November 11th, 2011 at 6:23 am

    Relying on those hobbyists to put American astronauts into space is like waiting for the dead to rise up from their graves. You are all betting on a dead horse!

    And yet multiple Presidents and multiple Congresses have stated that we need more commercial space participation, and the NASA Authorization & Appropriation laws last year specifically stated that commercial crew was to be the primary method of getting U.S. astronauts to the ISS (the MPCV was only a backup).

    So howl at the wind all you want Chris, you’re not going to change what’s happening.

    Spaceflight, especially human flying, and particularly the grand out-of-LEO variety, is simply TOO difficult & complex for mere commercial firms to initiate and carry out to fruition.

    Yes, the companies that design and build all of NASA’s hardware are too dumb and stupid to know how to use them. Gee, if only everyone would realize that… ;-)

    What a maroon.

Leave a Reply to Dennis Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

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