In 2008, Parker Griffith won the election for Alabama’s 5th Congressional district—which includes Huntsville and NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center—as a Democrat, succeeding longtime member Bud Cramer. In late 2009, though, Griffith switched parties, citing a perceived lack of support among other Congressional Democrats for NASA as one of the reasons for joining the Republicans. Griffith, though, lost in the GOP primary in June 2010 to Mo Brooks, who won the general election in November.
Griffith is back, though, running in the Republican primary for that House seat as the major challenger to Brooks. Saturday night the two squared off in a televised debate in advance of the primary election a week from Tuesday. While the two disagreed on a number of issues in the debate, on space—specifically, whether there should be a greater role for commercial providers in the space program—the two were largely in agreement.
“Should the nation start to privatize more of the space effort or keep it primarily as a government-controlled endeavor under NASA?” asked one of the moderators. Griffith was the first to respond, citing what he considered to be the national security importance of NASA and human spaceflight. “Space exploration is now a matter of national defense,” he said. “And although I’m a free market, private enterprise kind of guy, I really believe that we have to be careful about how much we do allow our commercial space effort to supplant what we’re going to need for national security.”
Griffith in particular was worried about the implications of a accident involving a commercial crew provider. “If we go to private enterprise and private enterprise has a ‘Columbia accident’, and bankrupts or cannot continue, and we’re depending on that space program for our national security, I think we’ve made a mistake.” He added that “free enterprise in space is going to be wonderful, but we cannot we cannot jeopardize our national security.” (He also curiously claimed that “there are three astronauts in orbit right now, Chinese, building their own space station.” While China is expected to launch a three-person Shenzhou 9 mission this summer to its Tiangong-1 module, a prototype of future Chinese space station efforts, there are no Chinese astronauts, or taikonauts, in orbit today.)
Brooks started off his response by taking a dig at Griffith for deciding to “quit” the House Science Committee during is one term in Congress (Griffith had to give up the seat when he switched parties and the Republican leadership appointed him to other committees). The rest of his comments, though, were in tune with Griffith. “I am very much concerned about the privatization of the NASA space program,” he said. National security was one of those reasons, saying that the military and NASA work “hand-in-glove” on rockets and other related technologies. “To the extent that we cut NASA out of it, you’re driving up the cost of our national defense.” He also cited the accident and bankruptcy concerns of private providers that Griffith mentioned. “That’s one of the reasons why I think Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA, has a pivotal role,” he concluded.
Brooks mentioned space later in the debate as an example of how he can reach across the aisle and work with Democrats. “I worked with a bipartisan group of senators and congressmen to get the Space Launch System adequately funded and help force or encourage the White House to reverse their position that would have stripped Marshall Space Flight Center of any adequate role,” he said.
Portions of the debate are available on the WHNT-TV website in the video section; the question about commercialization starts a little over two minutes into Part 4, while Brooks’s comments on funding SLS are in the last half-minute of Part 6.
Boy are those two guys wrong.
Both are concerned about another ‘Columbia accident’ causing a transportation provider to stop, for various reasons, providing service, and their solution is to back the most expensive single-point-of-failure rocket system in the history of the world? Bizarre, truly bizarre.
All they have to do is look around at existing transportation systems to see what the better solution is – multiple providers competing in an open marketplace. You can’t get any more American than that, and it solves all of their problems but one – it doesn’t send money to MSFC.
As for the rest of their arguments, the “facts” they rely upon are so inaccurate that I wouldn’t I believe them if they told me the time of day.
Oh… so if commercial has a “Columbia accident” it’ll be horrible for the space program… but what if the SLS has one? I’m not hearing any fear mongering over shutting down the orders of magnitude more expensive, single point of failure, government-only human spaceflight program. And the whole point of the commercial crew program was to have more than one provider so that if one competitor fails, there are others to take up the charge. I guess that’s why these porkers are so keen to under fund CCP and bottleneck us into only one participant… so that a single failure will end it for good. Self fulfilling prophecies are a bitch like that I guess.
NASA human space-flight: critical to national security!?
Bawhahaha! I guess someone should tell the blue suiters who are providing space support to trigger-pullers around the world that NASA is critical to their mission…
The AF developed two new launch vehicles to guarantee access to space exactly because relying on NASA (remember we were supposed to use Shuttle for all those national defense payloads before Challenger) was a clearly demonstrated *threat* to national security.
Zero *all* of NASA’s budget and national security would probably improve (not that “national security” should be the determining factor for setting NASA’s budget: far from it in fact).
This is a typical GOP debate…devoid of facts pander to lies and pushing rhetoric that gets the faithful stirred up but really does not advance the agenda at all.
Sadly it is hard to argue with people who fictionalize events (NASA and national security) other then simply to say “you are stupid and wrong all at the same time”…but this is the GOP of today. RGO
Griffith was the first to respond, citing what he considered to be the national security importance of NASA and human spaceflight. “Space exploration is now a matter of national defense,†he said. “And although I’m a free market, private enterprise kind of guy, I really believe that we have to be careful about how much we do allow our commercial space effort to supplant what we’re going to need for national security.â€
……………..
you just have to wonder how the GOP primary process which use to produce people like John Tower and Haley Barbour and ….now produces buffoons. the entire quote is devoid of any single base of reality. Yeah he likes free enterprise but gee he doesnt seem to have a clue about NASA period and then there is that awkward phrase where I guess he thinks that the government builds all the weapon systems.
This is where the party of Ronaldus the Great has plummeted to under the vast right wing nuts.
And here is the funny thing…there is no one who comes up to him and says “HMMM lets talk this over and not say that again”. The Bush years were not kind to the party. It taught them that outright lying is OK…it taught them that personal attacks like Limbaugh did substitute for serious policy discussion…and now the inmates have taken over.
I dont like Obama that much but gee it is going to be great to see the guy the right wing hates most pound them into sand. RGO
you just have to wonder how the GOP primary process which use to produce people like John Tower and Haley Barbour and ….now produces buffoons.
Well, to be fair, it hasn’t been that long since Griffith was a Democrat.
If there is or was a legitimate defense need for the Ares 1 these folks had better state it, and Ares 1 funding should have been from the DoD budget, not NASA’s.
We could have had DIRECT and 2 manned launch systems for what was wasted on Ares 1.
“Should the nation start to privatize more of the space effort or keep it primarily as a government-controlled endeavor under NASA?â€
Isn’t the question really regarding resupply of ISS. If so, the question is should American companies be involve resupply of ISS, or should Americans solely rely on the Russians.
If the question isn’t about resupply of ISS, what is meant by “start to privatize”? SLS is privatizing. As was the Shuttle program engaged in privatizing. It lousy way to “privatize”. But privatize means taking public assets or duties and having the private sector do them [or own them].
It’s maintaining the privatized aspect of the shuttle program “components” that is the heart of SLS.
“And although I’m [Griffith] a free market, private enterprise kind of guy, I really believe that we have to be careful about how much we do allow our commercial space effort to supplant what we’re going to need for national security.â€
Maybe he should listen to the Republican icon Ronald Reagan. On January 5, 1988 Reagan signed NSDD 293 (National Security Decision Directive) which stated:
“Governmental Space Sectors shall purchase commercially available space goods and services to the fullest extent feasible and shall not conduct activities with potential commercial applications that preclude or deter Commercial Sector space activities except for national security or public safety reasons.”
Now maybe Griffith was just pontificating in a general fashion, but in real life there are specific needs that need to be taken care of. For instance, relying on Russia to access our only permanent outpost in space would seem to me to be a National Security issue, which means promoting Commercial Crew not only addresses that concern, but also uses commercial services “to the fullest extent feasible”. Promoting multiple Commercial Crew providers also addresses the National Security issue, since no one provider can stop the U.S. from accessing space – unlike depending solely on the still-mythical SLS/MPCV combo.
Now Griffith may have little birdies whispering in his ear saying “drop Commercial Crew, and MSFC will get lots of funding for using the SLS to transport crew to the ISS”, but if anyone ever looked at the cost comparisons of doing that, they would quickly realize that plan would be fiscal suicide for NASA’s budget.
Just out of curiosity – does the Republican party attract capitalist-believing candidates anymore? Griffith and Brooks sure don’t sound like one on the topic of space.
Just out of curiosity – does the Republican party attract capitalist-believing candidates anymore?
Yes, just none from districts with big NASA centers in them.
“Just out of curiosity – does the Republican party attract capitalist-believing candidates anymore?”
Moderate chance the libertarian and business wings of the party finally decide to break away after the election if this slide to social issues as first, last and only concern continues. Conventional wisdom says starting a new party that can compete with the Dems and GOP is nexta fool’s errand. That wisdom is probably right, but I could see the blue dog democrats jump to join such a coalition. Heck, sometimes I think Ron and Rand Paul are about the only people keeping the libertarian-leaning folk in the party, but I’m not GOP so perhaps my schadenfreude blinds me.
I guess they’ve never heard of ULA or it’s success record. So risky.
Moderate chance the libertarian and business wings of the party finally decide to break away after the election if this slide to social issues as first, last and only concern continues.
A lot of that is being driven by the media narrative, not by the candidates themselves (with the possible exception of Santorum, who needs an internal editor). They want to talk about the economy, the media wants to talk about contraception and the “war on women.” Because the latter, rather than the former, benefits The One.
Anyway, where would they “break away” to? Given the structure of the system, in which it is almost impossible for a third party to emerge, they have to reform the Republican party from within.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Nonsense. The media doesn’t set the narrative but reports upon it. Witness ‘Newt Gingrich – Moon President.’ GOP space policy proposals are as dead as the surface of Luna and the minds of the ‘dittoheads’ who follow along. .
Coastal Ron wrote @ March 4th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Just out of curiosity – does the Republican party attract capitalist-believing candidates anymore?
It doesnt matter- capitalism, as histroy has repeated shown over the 80-plus years of modern rocketry- is not going to lead the way out into the cosmos.It will always be a follow-along, cashing in where it can. Reaganomics, a failed economic policy on Earth, is not going to be the fuel by which humans leave it and move out into the solar system. Sober up and buy a histroy book.
Nonsense. The media doesn’t set the narrative but reports upon it.
To rephrase, you’re insane.
It doesnt matter- capitalism, as histroy has repeated shown over the 80-plus years of modern rocketry- is not going to lead the way out into the cosmos.
OK, just to be clear, you’re not only nuts, but also a Marxist (if that’s not redundant).
NASA should not be dependent on private commercial spaceflight companies in order to access space just as the the US military should not be dependent on private militias in order to protect this country or privately owned planes and battleships in order to protect this country. That’s why it was the right move by Congress to insist that NASA have its own manned spaceflight capability.
However, developing private commercial manned spaceflight capability that will eventually be independent of government and the tax payer funds for their existence is also good for NASA and for the country in the long run. That’s why Obama is right to use some NASA funds to help commercial companies to develop their own manned spaceflight capability.
This country needs both a Federal manned space program and private commercial manned space programs. They are both mutually beneficial to each other. And they are both good for national security and economic growth!
Of course, it Republicans seriously believed that NASA was essential for the protection of this country then they wouldn’t be cutting the NASA budget. The Augustine Commission recommended that NASA should increase its annual manned spaceflight budget by about $3 billion. And that’s what should have been done! Cutting the NASA budget does not help to produce jobs or increase economic growth, it actually hurts jobs and economic growth!
Marcel F. Williams
DCSCA wrote @ March 4th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
“capitalism, as histroy has repeated shown over the 80-plus years of modern rocketry- is not going to lead the way out into the cosmos.”
Are you ignorant on purpose, or is it a medical condition?
With the Shuttle now retired, there are no government rockets flying payloads to space, so “modern rocketry” in the U.S. is currently commercial only (i.e. capitalistic). And of course you forget that commercial companies are the ones that have been building rockets for the U.S. Government.
As I have pointed out to you many times (hence my first question), history is a poor predictor of the future. For instance, no one would be able to build a better generation of rockets by starting out with the premise “what did Goddard do?”, yet that’s what you think is best. I guess we’re lucky you’re not an engineer.
It is funny though that you are trying to align yourself with two clueless Republicans. Birds of a feather, I guess…
“Given the structure of the system, in which it is almost impossible for a third party to emerge, they have to reform the Republican party from within.”
As I said, conventional wisdom is probably right. Still, I don’t quite understand how you can reconcile the libertarian wing of the party with the social conservative wing in pepertuity. I’m surprised they’ve coexisted as long as they have, especially after the early 2000s showed GOP talk about fiscal and regulatory restraint was just that – talk.
I’ll be quiet now before someone yells at me for getting too far off the topic of space politics.
“NASA should not be dependent on private commercial spaceflight companies in order to access space just as the the US military should not be dependent on private militias in order to protect this country or privately owned planes and battleships in order to protect this country.”
The U.S. military is dependent on commercial launch vehicles. United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, owns and operates the Atlas V and Delta IV.
@Earth to Planet Marcel
“NASA should not be dependent on private commercial spaceflight companies in order to access space just as the the US military should not be dependent on private militias in order to protect this country or privately owned planes and battleships in order to protect this country. That’s why it was the right move by Congress to insist that NASA have its own manned spaceflight capability.
That is the dumbest excuse for a realistically valid analogy that I have ever seen from you, and you have made some humdingers in the past.
An analogy that more closely matches truly existing objective reality is this:
The Army, Air Force etc. do NOT design and develop their own vehicles. They come up with performance specifications, then have companies compete vehicles that they design and develop. For instance, in the case of both of the F-22 and F-35, Boeing, Lock-Mart, Northrup, etc designed and developed vehicles meeting AF specifications and there was then a “fly-off”. The AF then chose which plane best suited its needs.
You like to fantasize that if NASA does not design and develop its own vehicles, that is the “end of NASA manned spaceflight” (as you put it in another thread). But the Air Force purchasing vehicles it did NOT design and develop does NOT mean there is no Air Force manned air flight, and the same principle applies to NASA spaceflight. As long as NASA is sending astronauts into space (whether it be in NASA designed and developed vehicles or vehicles designed and developed in a competive market), then NASA spaceflight exists.
Again, Marcel, by definition, if you have to either stretch the truth or make something up to prove your point, you are by definition on the wrong side of the issue. If you are on the right side, facts in objective reality will back your position up and you will not have to keep coming up with imaginative rationalizations.
In my SLS backer classification system, you are at least a type 10 of a predominantly type 1, 2, and 3 admixture. There are some types of SLS backers who are mentally flexible enough to adjust to reality as it exists and change their mind accordingly. For some time now it has been very apparent that you are not one of those. See the following post.
From my experience it appears that SLS backers can be classified into the following categories:
1) Those who think SLS is right because it is designed by NASA and is being developed in the traditional way with NASA micromanaging oversight and traditional contracting methods. It is inconceivable to these people that anything but the mega rocket project Apollo paradigm should be followed, because the traditional NASA way of doing things is holy.
2) Super Heavy Lift fans who insist that a launch vehicle of Saturn V size or larger is the ONLY way to go. Alternate NASA and industry studies saying otherwise are conveniently ignored. Cost and lost time waiting while the huge new vehicle is being developed is also totally ignored.
3) Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift enthusiasts who think that SDHL is the ONLY way to go, many of these are also Type 2. Again, alternate NASA and industry studies saying otherwise are conveniently ignored as are relative costs and lost time waiting for the vehicle’s completion.
4) Those who perceive Commercial Crew as a threat to the existence of NASA, even though it can potentially free NASA to pursue cutting edge technologies to increase the capabilities of humans in LEO, back to the Moon and beyond.
5) The NASA Old Guard who either perceive their jobs as being threatened and/or they just don’t want the way things have always been done to change.
6) Those who don’t like Commercial Crew simply because it has Obama’s name associated with it and thus SLS appeals to them as an excuse for taking funds from Commercial Crew by adding those funds to the SLS budget.
7) Those employed by or associated with a company contracted for SLS and thus personally benefit from SLS.
8) Politicians and others who follow the advice of Types 1 through 7 because it economically benefits a particular local area (even when it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole).
9) Some just because they haven’t taken the time to thoroughly investigate the issue.
10) Any subset mixture of the above.
Types 1, 2 and 3 are hopelessly unpersuadable because they are religious fanatics. Type 6 is just as unpersuadable for a different reason that is just as irrational. It is possible that Type 4 can be won over if they realize what the facts are. Some of Type 5 have opinions set in stone because there is some basis in reality to their fear of job loss; on the other hand, others of this type might change because they would flourish under the new paradigm but they just don’t realize it yet. Pure Type 7 people are as unchangeable as types 1, 2, 3 and 6, but at least they have a rational reason. Some of Type 8 can eventually change when they realize that even though the new paradigm may have some negative effects for their local area in the short run, it will be a net plus in the long run. Many pure Type 9s with no personal axe to grind (that is, with no Type 1, 2, 3 and 6 tendencies) may change their position when presented with the facts. Only a minority of SLS backers are purely only one of the types 1 through 9, with most being some form of Type 10. Of course, a particular form of a Type 10 person will only be changeable as long they also don’t possess any of the fanatical mindsets of types 1, 2, 3 and 6, and don’t exhibit Type 7.
In the above comment, the blog translated ‘8’ with a ‘)’ came up as an emoticon smiley face with sunglasses.
Therefore, Type 8 is:
Politicians and others who follow the advice of Types 1 through 7 because it economically benefits a particular local area (even when it is not in the best interests of the country as a whole).
Ron:
I totally agree with the first two paragraphs of your first post.
Rick:
Your conceit is remarkable! Your ten points can be condensed into one sentence. All SLS supporters are either, corrupt, stupid or haven’t yet seen the brilliance of the position I (Rick) support!
There is an 11 and 12;
11) Those whose main concern BEO space exploration and will support what is being funded to do that rather than trying to buck the system in a futile exercise to massage their ego.
12) Those who have studied all (or most of the alternate plans) and still think HLV as the best way to do it.
Marcel F. Williams wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 1:46 am
“NASA should not be dependent on private commercial spaceflight companies in order to access space…”
The bulk of NASA employees don’t fly around the world on NASA owned aircraft, they use commercial flights. Why do you insist on raising NASA’s budget for non-core activities? Next you’ll argue that every NASA employee should be assigned a personal chef, because NASA should not depend on private commercial kitchens to access food. Or NASA should make it’s own toilet paper… where does it end for you?
“That’s why it was the right move by Congress to insist that NASA have its own manned spaceflight capability.”
Congress has not “insisted” anything of the sort. The last official legislation signed into law states that Commercial Crew is the primary provider of crew transportation for the ISS, and the MPCV is only a backup. Unless it’s law, it’s political chatter.
“That’s why Obama is right to use some NASA funds to help commercial companies to develop their own manned spaceflight capability.”
Proof that a broken clock is right twice a day.
“This country needs both a Federal manned space program and private commercial manned space programs.”
Why? NASA is not an entitlement program, although some in Congress see it that way. Many have advocated for letting the need dictate the size of NASA (i.e. # of employees and facilities), and that’s not a bad idea. The DoD increases and decreases the number of Army corps, Naval fleets, and Air Force wings depending on our security needs, so why not have NASA do the same?
As for a “commercial manned space program”, the term you are obviously trying to avoid is “civil transporation”, in which case “space” would be yet another destination you could procure commercial transport to.
We need as many providers as the market can handle (more actually for competitive reasons) so that we can have a robust, redundant and cost effective transportation system that can withstand Challenger/Columbia type disasters. And you probably don’t know this, but the U.S. Government uses commercial transport to move military personnel and cargo around the world (and beyond it too), so NASA would not be alone.
Bottom line – you and DCSCA need to leave your basements and discover what is happening in the real world. Maybe then you’ll understand these issues better…
@Mr Earl
“11) Those whose main concern BEO space exploration and will support what is being funded to do that rather than trying to buck the system in a futile exercise to massage their ego.
12) Those who have studied all (or most of the alternate plans) and still think HLV as the best way to do it.
For decades I also thought an HLV was the best way to go back to the Moon and beyond, but even Griffith says the Chinese can do so without it. If they can so can we.
There are only four things most of us who are anti-SLS care about.
One is your point 11. Whether you admit or not SLS is anathema to that goal.
The four important things:
1) The vehicles sending our astronauts to space (whether orbit or BEO) are American. We don’t give a crap what particular Americans make those vehicles as long as it results in a significant increase in American spaceflight.
2) That we go beyond BEO as soon as possible. (With SLS, we have to wait for the launch vehicle to be developed, instead of using existing launch vehicles).
3) Not waste the hard earned money of the taxpayer (With SLS we have to spend more to go BEO).
4) Make sure that whatever vehicles we choose are as safe as fallable humans can make them.
11 is idiotic. CxP is a good example. Just because it is funded doesn’t mean we should do it. Supporting BEO exploration is not justification for supporting SLS. The end does not justify the means.
12.HLV is not the best to go in this environment. Nor are there any plans that justify an HLV at this time.
Earl, get over youself, SLS is not going to last.
Oops! Meant to say “even Griffin says” rather than “Griffith”
Rick:
We’re close on your 4 points.
No argument on #1 or #4.
On #2, I would amend that to say that we need BOE infrastructure as soon as possible and I believe that HLV’s are the best way to do that. Government has shown with the Apollo program that it will cancel a BEO program made up of sorties, which is what I believe getting to BEO ASAP will be. They have also shown that they will try to save infrastructure, i.e. the ISS extended from death in 2015 to 2020 and probably beyond. So EML1 gateways and lunar bases are the best way, in my opinion, to assure continued BEO exploration even if it stalls at the moon or NEO’s for a time. No I don’t believe that a fuel depot is adequate to be called infrastructure.
On #3, It’s not a waste of taxpayer’s money if it accomplishes what it was designed to do. The real waste of taxpayer’s money are things like fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps program that accounts for even more money than NASA’s total budget.
@Mr Earl
“On #2, I would amend that to say that we need BOE infrastructure as soon as possible and I believe that HLV’s are the best way to do that.
Yes, BEO infrastructure as soon as possible. We can start now with existing launchers, rather than wait for SLS to be competed. Note the latter of those two options is the EXACT opposite of your “as soon as possible”. You’ve just contradicted yourself according to this NASA study:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.pdf
This study from Georgia Tech:
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/21.jul2011.pdf
And this study from ULA:
http://www.ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf
“It’s not a waste of taxpayer’s money if it accomplishes what it was designed to do.”
When other methods offer more for the taxpayers’ dollars and get it done in less time, it is indeed “a waste of taxpayer’s money”. So, yes, even if it does exactly what it is claimed to be designed to do, it’s still a rip off. But according to the Booz-Allen report, it will probably blow its budget in about 5 years and thus be an even bigger rip off.
“The real waste of taxpayer’s money are things like fraud and abuse in the Medicare, Medicaid and Food Stamps program that accounts for even more money than NASA’s total budget.”
Ah, so it’s alright for this smaller rip off to occur because those others are so much bigger? In the words of the late Senator Dirksen, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about some real money!”
MrEarl wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 1:31 pm
“I would amend that to say that we need BOE infrastructure as soon as possible and I believe that HLV’s are the best way to do that.”
So, between Fast, Good or Cheap, you choose Fast? That of course means that you leave behind Cheap, which to me means “sustainable”. Echo’s of CxP.
“Government has shown with the Apollo program that it will cancel a BEO program made up of sorties, which is what I believe getting to BEO ASAP will be.”
The Apollo program was ended because it had achieved it’s goals. Kennedy challenged the nation to “commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to earth.†We did that, and then we did it five more times.
Maybe you and a few others thought we should have created a new goal of expanding our presence on the Moon? Instead NASA was given a new goal of creating a much less-expensive means of access to space, which was embodied by the Space Shuttle program. That program went on far too long, but at least now it’s done.
Right now there is no official NASA BEO program. Obama has proposed an asteroid mission, but it is more a goal than a hardware commitment. But if you think we should have a BEO program, then Congress needs to appropriate funds for it. So far the SLS and MPCV are only components of BEO-capable transportation system, but there is no planned use for them. No payloads, no missions, no goals. In my industry we would say they address forecasted demand, but not actual demand.
We can go BEO without the SLS, and even without the MPCV. They are fungible transportation elements that may be unique, but are not irreplaceable. What we are missing though is an agreed upon BEO goal in order to focus NASA’s meager budget. No one is talking about the need for such a mission or program, so who knows when it will be funded. Not much public enthusiasm for any HSF really, and that hasn’t changed since the 70’s.
So getting back to Fast, Good or Cheap, I think we all agree that “Good” is mandatory, so that leaves “Fast” or “Cheap” as the big decision. Me and others think “Fast” is the wrong way, and NASA can’t afford it. We’ll see.
get over youself, SLS is not going to last.
Sure, but while it ‘doesn’t last’ it’s going to burn up a whole lotta cash and waste a whole lotta our time, and that’s what you guys are good at, eh Jim?
@Coastal Ron
“So getting back to Fast, Good or Cheap, I think we all agree that “Good†is mandatory, so that leaves “Fast†or “Cheap†as the big decision. Me and others think “Fast†is the wrong way, and NASA can’t afford it. We’ll see.
For once I may need to disagree with you somewhat. Mr. Earl’s SLS is not truly “fast” even under the most ideal of fiscal conditions, as I indicate in my last post. Even if we poured money into SLS, we would still have to wait while it was being developed before we could use it to launch BEO infrastructure such as depots. SLS is “the wrong way” because it is the least fastest implimented option AND it costs more.
The place to begin a BEO journey, as von Braun proposed long ago, is in LEO. The ISS is not just a footprint in space, it is a foothold. Therefore the first step in any journey BEO is to develop an affordable system to access, maintain and supply the ISS.
Rick Boozer wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
“Mr. Earl’s SLS is not truly “fast†even under the most ideal of fiscal conditions…”
I agree, and I like the examples you provided on your previous post.
However MrEarl and others perceive the SLS as the fastest route to BEO exploration. Assuming the SLS is as safe as any other rocket (which assumes enough time & money), then the only two categories left are “Cheap” and “Fast”. Since MrEarl admits that the SLS is not the cheapest alternative, then by default he is assuming the SLS is the fastest. It’s a wrong assumption nonetheless.
Rick Boozer wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 9:25 am
Pretty good breakdown…I would add this.
There are two main groups fueling the SLS discussion but only one of them is relevant.
This is the group that wants SLS for infrastructure maintenance. IE maintaining the stakeholders in both “private” enterprise AND the government infrastructure. Almost everything else is trivial.
All of the various groups you mention really in terms of the decision makers who have the “heft” to push SLS are doing it for the reason I stated above. There is a “psuedo” group; ie the “America must explore, we need a big rocket because we are American….” etc but they are mostly powerless…to go along with being clueless.
The folks who want to maintain the infrastructure have no idea what they want to use the rocket for…and really it is not important…they dont care as long as the rocket is built (and the longer that takes the better) and then once built is maintained as a program…doing what? Who cares.
They wrap themselves “mostly” in the “exploration” thing…but really that is a fraud because the building and operating of the rocket insures that there will be no exploration because there is no money to build other hardware.
In the end this is why the program dies…it has no constituency outside the usual suspects…there are the happy fools like the political figures who are desperate to give it some constituency…but those people dont want it.
I dont know about MrEarl or some of the other folks here…it is hard to judge their motives and for the most part I just assume they are like the vast majority of people who supported the Iraq foolishness or any other nutty idea that is pushed at the government level…they are happy warriors who have no real clue of what they are talking about…Wind fits here.
But they are irrelevant. SLS is pushed and reasons for it manufactored because it preserves government and private infrastructure and that is what is important in technowelfare.
Robert
Mo Brooks: “To the extent that we cut NASA out of it, you’re driving up the cost of our national defense.â€
Karl Rove couldn’t have spun a falsehood anymore eloquently.
Especially as DoD starts looking to SpaceX to achieve more with their own fewer space dollars.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 2:32 am
As I have pointed out to you many times (hence my first question), history is a poor predictor of the future.
Past is prologue— and with respect to modern rocketry, and you’ve been schooled on this repeatedly— along with Comrade Simberg–unless you’re prone to learn the hard way– which, by the content of your posts, it seems you are. Or you’re just crankin’ to crank.
@vulture4 wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 4:00 pm
“The place to begin a BEO journey, as von Braun proposed long ago, is in LEO.”
In the context of his times, perhaps… Von Braun supported EOR too– he was wrong.
“The ISS is not just a footprint in space, it is a foothold.”
In its current configuration compared to what Von Braun envisioned, it’s not. In the context of today’s technology, the moon is the natual space station.
@Rand Simberg wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 12:10 am
LOL Always enjoy somebody from the outside telling a media person how their business works. You’ve been schooled on this before, of course,. As to capitalism leading the way out into space, please indicate where free market capitalism has stepped up to assume a ldeadership role and carry the burden of modern rocketry development and HSF. Every time the pendulum of history has swung toward them, they’ve ducked out of the way, avoided it and let government carry the burden, socializing the risk on the many. It never has lead the way in this field and has always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. Not that there’s anything wrong with that– that’s the nature of capitalism. Fits and starts. But right wing hacks and commercial HSF shills will never convince Americans that a failed policy like ‘Reaganomics’ or ‘free market’ capitalism should be financed/subsidzed with seed monies from the Treasury when private capital markets remain wary; when there’s no markets or ROI for investors– or taxpayers. Especially when there are several government space programs- civil, DoD, etc., operating already competing for dwindling resources.The largess is too costly for private firms to go it alone. Even Armstrong has stated this over the years. That’s why governments do it– unless you’re planning to pitch to the People to market bottled water from the moon, know asteroids are full or oil or that Martian rust cures cancer. Good grief.
“We need as many providers as the market can handle…”
LOL you mean ‘want.’ Big difference– and what is clear to wary, private capital circles is the ‘market’ is minimal to nil with little or no ROI.
That’s why governments do it.
Better to invest in oil well than commercial space- especially with several government space programs- civil, DoD, etc., in operation already competing for dwindling resources in the Age of austerity..
DCSCA wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
“In its current configuration compared to what Von Braun envisioned, it’s not. In the context of today’s technology, the moon is the natual space station.”
ISS is an example of success achieved by the making, not necessarily the having. We’re learned a tremendous amount about building, maintaining, and keeping people alive in space from ISS. Unless some purpose in keeping such a facility operational can be clearly demonstrated, it’s less a space station than a space accomplishment. That’s not a bad thing, assuming we can use that accomplishment to take new steps. That is, ISS as a completed facility never really had a clear and unambiguous role to play. I guess when you have a completed facility for which the role is somewhat questionable, you associate it with answering questions and, voila, a national laboratory appears.
Unfortunately, Griffith probably just sees ISS as an occupation node for LEO. A “fort” so to speak, that conveys authority over LEO. That’s how human space flight is, in his mind, a tool for national defense. Now, how a national laboratory becomes Fort LEO is a bit hard to grasp.
DCSCA wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
“Past is prologue”
Last I looked, William Shakespeare (who used that phrase in the Tempest) wasn’t in the rocket business. And that phrase doesn’t mean you are limited by the past, it means that history influences, and sets the context for, the present.
You use that phrase whenever you are unable to articulate a clear defense of your position, which is certainly the case here.
However if you really dig into the history of spaceflight, and truly understand the trends, you would see that more and more companies are taking over the tasks that were once the exclusive domain of countries.
There is no reason for that trend to abate, as the current situation of the U.S. government relying 100% on commercial rockets proves. Crew is next for routine transportation, and the MPCV, if it survives, will be relegated to exploration only. The trend is clear, and you are wrong. Sorry.
Rand Simberg wrote @ March 4th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
A lot of that is being driven by the media narrative, not by the candidates themselves (with the possible exception of Santorum, who needs an internal editor). They want to talk about the economy, the media wants to talk about contraception and the “war on women.†..
LOL yes it was the “elite media” that forced D. Issa to hold his goofball hearing with only male participants, it was the elite media that forced the GOP to bring the Blunt amendment up for a vote…and it was the elite media which cued Limbaugh to go off on his tirade.
The right wing of the GOP always trying to blame someone else. Yawn RGO
DCSCA wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
“…and what is clear to wary, private capital circles is the ‘market’ is minimal to nil with little or no ROI.”
Of course you have no proof of that. Boeing continues to have the confidence of it’s stockholders, and SpaceX, Sierra Nevada Corp. and Blue Origin are all privately held. If this were anything more than conjecture on your part, you would provide some evidence to back up what you say.
Like usual, your “facts” fade away when confronted with reality.
Past is prologue— and with respect to modern rocketry, and you’ve been schooled on this repeatedly— along with Comrade Simberg
You have never “schooled” anyone on anything, other than how to be a cowardly pseudonymous Internet troll, and it’s hilariously ironic that a implicitly declared socialist like you calls me “Comrade” anything.
Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
The engineering success isnt really the issue. That’s a given. But in its current configuration, it’s not a cost-effective investment as an integral element of a space exploration plan per von Braun’s vision– as originally proposed to Congress in August, 1969. When revisited in the Reagan days of the mid 80s, it was morphed into a works program for the aerospace industry, as Deke Slayton rightly noted shortly before his death– and today is a vastly over-priced research perch with high levels of maintenence and minimal return to show after a decade plus on the job. If anything, for space exploration purposes as a research outpost- it would have been better if firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms with regular visits and servicing as part of a cislunar HSF program rather than doomed to a Pacific grave.
LOL yes it was the “elite media†that forced D. Issa to hold his goofball hearing with only male participants
This is getting completely off topic, but please stop repeating ignorance and idiocy, and supporting the media narrative, even if it is your specialty.
@Robert G. Oler wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
“A lot of that is being driven by the media narrative”
No it’s not. Gingrich broached the moon base concept. SNL followed his lead and made it into as punch line. The candidates pitch, the media swings. This week, Romney’s fed the beast. Think of what could be made of Davy Crockett or could it be Davy Rocket– King of the Final Frontier.
@Coastal Ron wrote @ March 5th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
“However if you really dig into the history of spaceflight…”
=yawn= You’d learn that over the past 80 years of modern rocketry, it has been governments in various guises, for military and geo=political purposes, , not private enterprised, for profit entities, which have stepped up and moved the technology forward. Private enterprise has always been a follow along, cashing in where it could. Every time the opportunity for private enterprise to invest and take a leading role- they’ve balked and let governments carry the load, socializing the risk on the many. Because there’s a minimal market with virtually no ROI. That’s why governments do it. Class dismissed.
This comment thread has gone off topic and is now closed.