I often have a sense that opponents of the new policy fear it not because they are afraid that private enterprise isn’t up to the job, but because they are afraid that it is. Here’s an example of what I mean, over in comments at the Lori Garver interview:
Simply speaking the reset button has been hit again and once more our astronauts are left standing on the pad with no ship to take them to where no man has gone before. We will one day get back to the moon, but my only fear is that the landing will be covered live by a CNN crew who landed on the last Virgin Galactic flight.
This is an interesting comment, and I’d like to understand more. First, what does the commenter mean by “we”? Does he (or she) mean the nation? Does he mean NASA? Does he mean literally himself and others?
And does he fear it because it is a non-American company? Or because it’s a private company?
If he means that his fear is that NASA will get to the moon, but be (as I’ve noted in the past) greeted by the concierge at the Lunar Hilton, why does he “fear” it? Do any of my readers have such a fear? If so, why? Do you think it a rational fear (in the sense that it is actually something to be feared, independent of how likely it is to occur)?
This reminds me of the boasting of a certain Soviet leader upon hearing JFK’s man to the Moon within a decade, saying, “Well, we’ll be there to greet them.” We know how that one turned out.
Sadly, under Obamaspace, the first Americans back to the Moon are likely to be greeted by Chinese customs officials asking if they have anything to declare…
I’m just a primitive cave man. Your modern corporate associations frighten and confuse me. My tribal insticts don’t allow me to use the word “we” unless I can feel good about waving their flag or at least a giant foam “We’re #1” finger.
There was no “boasting.” Once again, Mark demonstrates his world-class inability to read. Or actually respond to the post.
And the notion of “Chinese customs officials” on the moon is ludicrously hilarious. Only someone completely unaware of the costs and schedules of space technology as practiced by the Chinese (or anyone right now) could have such a stupid fantasy.
Domestic considerations will have diverted Beijing’s attention downward long before they ever reach the moon.
An unrealistic fear. CNN have gone the way of Pan-Am by then.
Fox might be there waiting however……
He says that as if it were a bad thing….
If a private concern (preferably, yes, and even most likely a US based company, but I’ll let that chip fall as it may) could establish a presence on the Moon before NASA could get there, it would be the best of all possible worlds.
It is similar to the article last month (I forgot where, in GQ I think) that lamented more freedom for Cubans will mean McDonald’s and other chains, and you should travel there now to see “the real Cuba” before evil corporate america homogenizes it.
Rand,
[[[I often have a sense that opponents of the new policy fear it not because they are afraid that private enterprise isn’t up to the job, but because they are afraid that it is.]]]
Thanks! I needed a laugh to start the week with 🙂
I needed a laugh to start the week with
And it was funny because…?
why does he “fear” it?
Your suggestions sound plausible, though they are not good reasons.
Another possibility could be that the commenter honestly believes NASA could somehow arrive at the moon faster than private companies and that that possibility is now lost. I don’t think that is true with the current budget level or that of recent years and with NASA’s current culture. With an Apollo-style effort they could do it again of course, but there isn’t the support for that.
A government-funded effort that made maximum use of the private sector and really attempted “to seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space” also has a good chance of arriving at the moon sooner than purely commercial endeavours. Whether that is a good way to spend taxpayers’ money is another question, but it would likely work.
Maybe the commenter mistakenly thinks NASA would go faster because it still has “the right stuff”, whereas in reality access to taxpayers’ money is its only edge over private industry.
This reminds me of the boasting of a certain Soviet leader upon hearing JFK’s man to the Moon within a decade, saying, “Well, we’ll be there to greet them.” We know how that one turned out.
Indeed, we should ask ourselves, What Would Khrushchev Do?
Ongoing Bio for Lunar Hilton:
born to a bio-mechanical surrogate mother, 2021, on the Moon, after being cloned from her mothers butt fat cells. The cells were harvested after the elder Hilton was the first recipient of liposuction on the Lunar surface. A service of the Lunar Hilton Moontel Spa and Retirement Center, LLC.
The younger Ms. Hilton, like her mother, is best known for clubbing, dithering, tacky catch lines, a lack of substantial under garments and vivid sex tapes. But all in 1/6th Earth Gravity.
“That’s LIGHT!”
Just announced, her reality show, “Lunar’s lunatic Lune-antics!”, a minute by minute view of Lunar’s special life, will be shown continually 24 / 7, from the moon, on the Celenian Broadcasting System.
Developing…
I think the commenter ‘fears’ commercial space flight because they only understand NASA doing it. In their minds, that is the only way to go into space. After all, NASA has the astronauts and “the right stuff”, and they can’t see the commercial world having that.
Oh they of too narrow a focus.
I think the problem with these people is that they have watched Apollo 13 way too many times and they just can’t imagine any other paradigm.
China has a prosperous ~100 million, and a desperately poor 1B+. The government is going to be overwhelmingly focused on not getting into a situation where the latter group upsets things. Overly flamboyant space spending is probably not something they see as wise.
I see the problem. S/He watches CNN.
From what I remember, NASA (and its congressional supporters) were not that enthusiastic about the whole space tourism thing in the beginning, so I’m not surprised that private space access might frighten them now.
I would suspect that the commenter quoted was absolutely sincere, and that “fear” is his/her actual emotion — not quake-in-the-boots fear, but “to be avoided at all costs if possible”.
There are a substantial number of Americans (and a supermajority of non-Americans, I believe) who have fully accepted that “private” == “crass, vile, often evil” and “public” == “pure and good”. Since there is no such thing as “public” in the sense they accept the notion, they are the lawful prey of people whose ambition is power and who see Government as the path to power.
Regards,
Ric
Blakey Calls for a U.S. Space Strategy
WEST PALM BEACH, Fla., April 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In a speech today, AIA President and CEO Marion C. Blakey asked President Obama to lay out a clear strategy for human spaceflight with concrete timelines and goals when he comes to Florida for a space summit this week.
“In 1962, President Kennedy didn’t say we’d go to the moon today; he said, this decade,” Blakey said at a meeting of the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches in West Palm Beach, Fla. “Despite the financial troubles that lapped at his feet, President Kennedy stepped up to the challenge and urged us forward, with a goal and a vision and a plan. Today, a lack of urgency and specificity will not sustain the vision and, as we know, where there’s no vision, the programs — and the skills and workforce that go with them — perish.”
President Obama is scheduled to speak Thursday in Florida on the future of the space program.
Blakey insisted that America needs specific metrics for a concrete commitment to human spaceflight beyond low earth orbit, including clear goals and milestones. Shifting the focus of human spaceflight programs is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the main goal is keeping America strong and in the lead.
“We require a roadmap for the future, with milestones along the way and a sense of urgency that space exploration is important to our country and proclaims in clear terms that this is who we are as Americans,” Blakey concluded.
Founded in 1919, the Aerospace Industries Association represents the nation’s leading manufacturers and suppliers of civil, military, and business aircraft, helicopters, unmanned aircraft systems, space systems, aircraft engines, materiel, and related components, equipment services, and information technology.
This will all change when/if a truly useful space access company comes on the scene ala Fed Ex. The problem is that the present situation is like shutting down the airmail service before a commercial firm even has a plane built to take it over.
I think the response though is that “NASA had their chance and muffed it.”
If (as I suspect) the commenter works for the govt/NASA, then the fear (as relating to loss of control) is valid.
Sounds like clAssic statism to me. When some people say “we” need to do something about, say, homelessness (or poverty or healthcare costs or you name it), by “we” they mean the federal government and nothing else. Any other institution or organization or even any other level of government simply doesn’t enter their minds. Nothing else counts.
If the concern is that the “Moon Concierge” greeting the next US Astronauts ( on steroids) to the moon will be Chinese, or a employee of some corporate entity, the certain response to the US Astronauts would be, ” I assume you will be staying only one night Mr/Ms. American on Steroids? Would you like to enroll in our frequent guest loyalty program? No….?”
NASA taking 2-3 decades and a hundred billion dollars to get a couple of people back on the moon would be inspirational! Being greeted by a McDonalds would make it far less so.
Many people are far more interested in the idea of space than the reality – and they do not want that romantic ideal taken away from them.
It reminds me a little of the Antarctica situation where private adventurers are very strongly discouraged – Antarctica is to be kept pure and pristine, and only for scientists.
Pete,
[[[It reminds me a little of the Antarctica situation where private adventurers are very strongly discouraged – Antarctica is to be kept pure and pristine, and only for scientists.]]]
Actually the reverse is true of Antarctica. The seals and whales were mostly hunted out before the scientists arrived. In fact Antarctica itself was discovered by a sealer, Nathan Palmer while looking for new hunting grounds.
As for mining its minerals, most are locked up under the ice cap which makes mining too expensive to bother with, which is why the mining industry signed off on the Antarctic Treaty.
And private adventurers are not discouraged, they just need to provide their own transportation like the Antarctic tourist firms do. But unlike space, none of the Antarctic tourist firms are asking the U.S. to close their business models or provide financing, or facilities.
But then the story that private adventurers are discouraged from going into space in basically a New Space myth. All that is standing in their way is money. If some multi-billionaire wishes to travel to the Moon all they need to do is come up with the money needed to build the system to get there.
Maybe he simply fears that this will indeed come to pass, and the colossal waste of dollars to land NASA astronauts there on NASA-built rockets will actually happen ? Regardless of the regular flight service by VG ?
I have this fear as well. I also fear that there will be more and more billions poured into all sorts of make-work programs. Thats a reasonable fear, but you cant really do much to help.
But unlike space, none of the Antarctic tourist firms are asking the U.S. to close their business models or provide financing, or facilities.
You seem fond of pointing that out, yet you seem to have no problem with a government agency that is shielded from competition closing its business model through the IRS. Why is that? Why is it allright for one group of people to get all of their money that way and all wrong for another group of people to get only some of their money that way and through competition at that?
It’s based upon their religious view.
Capitalism is evil.
But they also hold the notion that there isn’t actually anything which is evil.
So, Capitalism is evil, but there isn’t anything which is evil. Hello?
Emotionally Capitalism is evil, but “rationally” evil doesn’t exist- therefore they don’t know why they fear capitalism, but they feel scared.
Capitalism is a made up word which stops Marxism for being realized- and the big “idea” of Marxism is that the original sin is that people own stuff.
Which does sort of tie in with the view of most major religions- hence it’s not really a new idea and it’s familiar idea to many idiots.
Of course the reason money and wealth is problem, as far as the major religions are concerned, is because it distracts a person from more “spiritual interests” or more precisely, it distracts a person from things which are more important to the happiness of a person.
And it’s not much different than the idea that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Though if you understood that idea, you might not be in favor of any govt which had absolute power- socialism or any other totalitarian variant.
So if you ask them, it’s same as asking anyone who irrationally fears anything- if they actually knew “the reason” they would not be afraid.
Rand,
Looks like its eating responses again. I tried three times with the same one.
Looks like its eating responses again. I tried three times with the same one.
Email it to me, and I’ll post it myself.
Rand,
[[[I needed a laugh to start the week with
And it was funny because…?]]]
That somehow firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrup-Grumman are afraid of New Space firms. They recognize the majority of them are not to be taken seriously. As for the handful that have potential, they will just buy them out when they actually produce sometime that is worthwhile. That is the likely future for SpaceX if it actually succeeds in commercial crew.
So that is why your statement is so funny.
10 years from now the “dinosaurs” will still be here. And the successful New Space firms will be mere divisions within them. Or like Orbital, if they escape being bought they will become “dinosaurs” themselves.
And it was funny because…?]]]
That somehow firms like Boeing, Lockheed Martin or Northrup-Grumman are afraid of New Space firms.
Then apparently you were laughing at some other post, because no one said that any of those companies are afraid of New Space firms. Why don’t you go find that post, and put this comment there?
In my experience, those most afraid of private space are space fans who happen to be national greatness conservatives (i.e., intellectual descendants of the folks who championed Teddy’s American Empire and all that colonial B.S., as well as Texas Republicans not named Ron Paul). They abhor private industry they view space as a state-constructed marble pillar to American greatness, and a kind of fourth branch of the military.
“That is the likely future for SpaceX if it actually succeeds in commercial crew.”
Elon musk did not build SpaceX to be a snack for BoLochMart, he built it so he could fulfill his vision. He will likely go public at some point but I bet he maintains a controling interest.
While I don’t share the following view myself, I interpreted the fear comment to mean this:
“Virgin Glactic will one day ferry people to moon, but that will take much longer than simply having NASA send people back to the moon.”
Poll the average person on the street, and they’d readily agree with that assessment. They have no idea what happened with constellation, DC-X and X-33, NASP, etc. Oh, and by the way, the commenter may or may not see Obama’s plan for NASA as having any connection with the development of Virgin Galactic lunar charters – they still think NASA could do it faster themselves. Anyway, I thought this was the obvious interpretation of the comment.
For clarity: I think the commenter was expressing the fear that a slow process like the commercialization of space will be faster to arrive at the moon than poorly run NASA can get there, while a properly run NASA (without constant reset buttons, run like the NASA of the Apollo-era, no doubt) could have easily beat Virgin Galactic and its fellow commercial companies, since, after all, NASA’s greatest achievement was to get to the moon quickly. I don’t think the commenter was at all afraid that private endeavors to get the moon and beyond will succeed, just that they are the fastest ticket available due to an otherwise fast NASA getting slowed by the reset button.
My view: I wish that really was NASA’s primary problem!
Rand,
[[[Then apparently you were laughing at some other post, because no one said that any of those companies are afraid of New Space firms.]]]
Then who are the “opponents”you are referring to that are afraid of New Space firms succeeding?
Then who are the “opponents”you are referring to that are afraid of New Space firms succeeding?
Gosh.
Here’s a novel idea. Why don’t you actually read my post? I gave an example. As to who he is, or why he is afraid, I have no idea.
THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE POST…
I was looking for suggestions as to why such fear existed, not nutty straw men. You know, like the one you provided…?
Bob-1: You have explained nothing at all. Or reiterated the bizarre fear that private enterprise would beat socialism to the moon. Either way, I’m not sure what your point was.
Mike,
[[[Elon musk did not build SpaceX to be a snack for BoLochMart, he built it so he could fulfill his vision.]]]
But he is also a serial entrepreneur who has a track record of cashing out of firms once they are no longer start-ups and moving on. When SpaceX reaches that point, and when the hassle of managing it to benefit stockholders, and/or to meet NASA’s expectations, starts diverting him from his vision I would not be surprise to see him cash out and start a new firm to continue his quest. And BTW I see that as a good thing. Perhaps his next firm will build the deep spaceship he needs to get to Mars 🙂
Rand,
I did read it and the sense I get from your post is that much of the opposition to the new policy is based on fears that New Space would succeed. I for one would not worry about it if I had confidence of the success of New Space. The problem is I don’t see New Space succeeding as its too big a jump too soon. And I suspect that is the view shared by most of the opposition. Actually even more I see the new policy as a death sentence for New Space.
So in terms of self interest the only major group that might fear its success would be the old space firms the New Space constantly position as “the dinosaurs going extinct”, but then I showed that is not a logical fear.
So eliminating them the only group left to fear the success of New Space would be radical environmentalists who hate all technological progress, and they would just oppose any space development anyway… So who cares if they fear the success of New Space?
Pete: “It reminds me a little of the Antarctica situation where private adventurers are very strongly discouraged – Antarctica is to be kept pure and pristine, and only for scientists.”
Tom: “Actually the reverse is true of Antarctica. The seals and whales were mostly hunted out before the scientists arrive.”
That was in another age. Nowadays, self interest encourages governments/scientists to try and keep Antarctica to themselves.
For example, rescue insurance costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, and prevents most would be adventurers from going, it is difficult to be allowed onto Antarctica without such insurance.
I hope a similar thing does not happen for space – a NASA “Apollo on steroids” type rescue would not be cheap, and would likely result in highly prohibitive regulatory restrictions on private space. The public would likely demand that such rescue attempts be made.
I did read it and the sense I get from your post is that much of the opposition to the new policy is based on fears that New Space would succeed.
Yes.
How does one make from that the massive logical leap to the lunacy that I was referring to Boeing or Lockmart? And then laughing at such a straw man? Hint: when you have to laugh at your own jokes, they’re probably not funny.
I was simply asking questions, not implying or even suggesting answers. I was simply pointing out that a lot of people apparently have a deep emotional investment in NASA leading the way, regardless of cost or results.
But then the story that private adventurers are discouraged from going into space in basically a New Space myth.
Please explain why this is a myth to Lance Bass.
Rand
Have been following with interest the comments on the change in direction at this site and others (Nasa Watch, space transport / politics) for the last year
Thought your question on above was a good one. Was hoping the responses would be intellectually interesting. However, as seems the case on most of the subjects the responders are mostly incapable of hitting or even acknowledging any of core issues being explored
On a different tack, I notice that few of these responders are willing to take on the likes of a Jeff Greason or Augustine on the merits of their ideas when they put something out on other subjects.
Coats probably came closest to framing the issue/ fear for most of these guys (non prejorative) (JSC;Astronaut Office etc)
they really want a their own Bird to manage and fly and they want to be in charge – – its really why they come to the office
the funny thing is – – the reality has dawned on them that because of the Road Mike went down and the assumption set he made was wrong. They won’t admit that, for any number of psychological or organizational reasons. The HLV rant is a sideshow.
The rules mgmt leaders play by require one to not unduly trash past leadership rather to emphasize the future. In the case of Mike G and his inner team this in retrospect may have been a mistake. They ran the play in textbook fashion
Coats et al. knew they were on a very sloooow path. Most would have retired before anything meaningful happened.
Ultimately, in a couple years, when its time to move beyond tech demonstrators (which will be unmanned/run from the ground) – – their will be a “real” mission to fly to NEO/BEO and JSC and some form of astronaut office will be in the thick of things
Think we should be focused on how to develop a space faring eco system – – where most of the hardware stays on orbit somewhere.
Rand – – Keep up the good work
Rand, I’m very surprised you didn’t understand my comment. I’m suggesting that the commenter believes that NASA could get to the moon faster than private enterprise if only NASA wasn’t getting hobbled by the president’s reset button. Contrary to what many here think, I think the commenter does not fear private enterprise’s success. I think the commenter merely fears that NASA is getting slowed down by outside forces. The commenter is wrong, because the commenter doesn’t believe what you and I believe: that NASA’s primary problems come from within.
Bob, you’re still missing the point. Even if NASA doesn’t beat private enterprise to the moon due to forces beyond its control, and it’s not NASA’s fault…so what?
Why is it important that NASA get to the moon before private enterprise?
I do NOT believe the commenter believes that it is important that NASA gets to the moon before private enterprise. I think the commenter’s fears relate only to speed.
I think the commenter believes that NASA is capable of getting to the moon very fast. To the commenter, speed is good in and of itself. I think the commenter believes that Virgin Galactic will be very slow to get to the moon, and the commenter believes that NASA on its present course will be even slower that that, and the commenter believes that such slowness from both parties is bad in and of itself. I think that’s all that should be read into what the commenter said.
I do NOT believe the commenter believes that it is important that NASA gets to the moon before private enterprise. I think the commenter’s fears relate only to speed.
Well, you are free to believe whatever nutty things you want to believe, or are compelled to believe based on your prejudices. I can only conclude things based on whatever the commenter wrote. He said he feared that NASA wouldn’t get there faster than private enterprise. It seemed pretty clear to me.
I don’t know why you think I have some prejudice that is relevant — I certainly don’t agree with the commenter and more importantly, I think you’re right nearly 100% of the time about space!
Consider a rabbit enthusiast watching a hare racing with a turtle.
My theory: When a commenter says “I fear the hare won’t cross the finish line faster than the turtle”, the commenter isn’t wishing ill on the turtle, but just wants the hare to run at its potential.
Your theory: the commenter actually thinks it is important for the turtle to beat the hare.
Either theory makes some sense — it just depends what the commenter cares about. If the commenter is a high-level old-school NASA administrator, maybe you’re right. If the commenter is just a space enthusiast who has innocently worshiped NASA, your theory is probably wrong.
Ed,
[[[Please explain why this is a myth to Lance Bass.]]]
The Russians are capitalists – no money, no space flight…
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/tourism-02n.html