Doug McKinnon is the latest “conservative” to bash American industry, complete with the now-standard out-of-context Rutan quote:
For the past five decades, the United States has held that title. With his decision to cancel NASA’s human spaceflight program and outsource it to private industry, Mr. Obama has now ensured that the People’s Republic of China with its military run program or Russia, will now wrest the title from us and hold it for decades or more.
I feel like I’m playing whack-a-mole.
Hint: NASA’s human spaceflight program has not been cancelled. All that was cancelled was their bloated, unnecessary new rocket. And the notion that China is ever going to be ahead of us in this area, let alone “for decades or more,” when there are superior rockets to theirs sitting on the pad in Florida right now, is ludicrous.
And then we have this bit of sophistry, from the smartest guy in the room.
Michael Griffin, the former administrator of NASA and himself a strong advocate of true “commercial” space, feels the president is misreading private sector capabilities as well as long-term viability. Griffin said to me, “Suborbital flight takes about 2 percent of the energy needed for orbital flight. Understanding that, the reality is that the commercial space industry is a number of years away from fielding economical, capable, reliable, and logistically dependable transportation just for cargo. With human spaceflight being harder yet.”
Nice diversion from the topic. No suborbital flight producer is contemplating going after this market any time soon. And yes, it is a “number of years away,” if that number is “one” or “two.” How economical, or logistically dependable was the Shuttle? How “economical, and logistically dependable” would Ares have been?
I used to think that he had convinced himself that what he was saying was true, but now I just think that he’s a deliberate liar, perfectly willing to gull the gullible.
[Update a couple minutes later]
You’ve gotta love the failed irony sensor here:
Neither space nor our future in it should be a partisan issue driven by politics of the moment.
I sure wish that these folks really believed that. If he’s really a “long-time consultant on space,” it’s kind of frightening, but it would explain why the policy is such a mess.
[Update a minute or two later]
And of course, the first commenter credits NASA with teflon. The myths that just won’t die.
[One more update]
OK, I see that this isn’t a new piece, just new to me. It was from the week of the Florida speech. I wonder if anyone has responded it to it over there yet?
I wish you wouldn’t say that Griffin is a deliberate liar. It is enough that he is wrong. You’ll just turn people off when you call public servants like Griffan a liar, and they might write off everything you have to say, even though they shouldn’t. I know it is pointless for me to give you advice regarding politcal commentary, but in the domain of spaceflight, we are on the same page. I think you have a valuable role as an educator regarding space travel and habitation , a role which you undermine by being unnecessarily provocative. I would suggest, respectfully, that you follow your own advice, which you gave in a different but similar context here:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=25153#comment-115678
Mike Griffin isn’t a public servant (he’s a professor in Huntsville). He remains, however, a public disservant.
I fail to see anything risible there. It gives fair warning that the assessment is one man’s opinion, and offers at least the implication that the conclusion was not arrived at lightly.
Had Rand baldly stated, “Mike Griffin is a liar,” you might have a complaint. He didn’t.
It’s all smoke and mirrors and Chinese rockets.
Rand,
He is not bashing American industry, just noting that commercial cargo via New Space is not ready yet. Given that both SpaceX and Orbital have yet to launch even their first test fights of their systems that is an accurate statement.
COTS advocates seem to forget that until the program is executed its still just an experiment. The jury is still out on if it will be a success or not.
ULA is private industry, too, Tom. To say that NASA is turning it over to New Space is sophistry. And Orbital isn’t even New Space. And it’s not about COTS. So you’re playing the same game — pretending that SpaceX is the only game in town, when you know it’s not true.
Rand,
I am curious, what is your working definition of New Space?
Because I have heard Rick Tumlinson, who seems to have invented the term, refer to ULA as being part of New Space when they behave in an “entrepreneurial” fashion. Isn’t that what Orbital is doing by winning the fix price contract for COTS? Behaving like a New Space firm?
Is McKinnon actually a conservative? According to his bio, he worked for Bob Dole, so he’s probably a Republican, but he also wrote a novel about an evangelical Christian who becomes President and tries to use his office to bring about Armageddon, which is generally a left-wing fantasy.
I don’t know whether ULA is “New Space” or not, but when you ignore them in this context, you’re being disingenuous. You’re the one who brought up the phrase, not me. I stand by my statement that McKinnon is bashing private industry, and you’ve said nothing to refute it.
Rand,
Because there is no evidence to support your opinion he’s bashing private industry. His statement merely reflects the new model of COTS is still unproven which is accurate. You simply are choosing to interpret that statement as bashing American industry.
He doesn’t use the phrase COTS, either.
When he says that private industry (with NASA as a customer) will be “behind China for decades,” that is bashing American private industry. Because it’s nonsense.
Rand, it seems you think Tom should be engaging in a fact based discussion.. perhaps you even think he should have clicked on the link and read the article that you linked to. May I be the first to say, you’re expectations are too high 😉
your*
ho hum.
He didn’t even have to read the link. I blockquoted the slander.
Rand,
And that is exactly what may happen with the Commercial Crew model. After all the designs are out of the 1960’s and there would be no incentive to innovate if it doesn’t profit the bottom line. And no one is confident we will ever have heavy-lift under the new policy, 2015 is only a decision point, so China may gain ground there as well.
And the odds of ULA sitting out commercial crew is high given how they got burned with the EELV, X-33 and other commercial space models. So it may well be just SpaceX and Orbital bidding.
So the U.S. may well stagnate with just taxi’s to the ISS while other nations move forward with lunar capable exploration systems. That is not bashing industry, just describing what is likely to happen as a result of the new policy that pushes destinations and goals into the distant future for more tech “development”. And replaces the search for commercial markets that might drive technology with major incentives to just be a government contractor.
Also there is another problem with the new policy. it calls to visit an NEO in 2025, but there are few options to do so.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627584.400-were-flying-to-an-asteroid–but-which-one.html
[[[Even if a space rock passes that test, few have close approaches to Earth in the right time frame, in 2025 or the following few years, points out Martin Elvis of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who was to speak on the subject this week at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Division on Dynamical Astronomy in Boston.]]]
Yes, going to a NEO is looking to be an order of magnitude more difficult then just going to the Moon. I expect once all the problems are identified the next administration will quietly drop it as a goal.
Also there is little incentive under fixed price contracts to take technical risks, which is why the government pushed cost plus contracting on the aerospace industry in World War II and afterward, to drive technical innovation. Looks like that lesson will need to be relearned, which will set the industry back a decade or so.
So he is NOT bashing American industry, just pointing out how the new policy will put the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage.
Which is why I file that statement along with your Apollo Cargo Cultist statement.
And no one is confident we will ever have heavy-lift under the new policy
I see that as a feature, not a bug. Not a very strong feature, as I would have preferred it if Obama had decided to leave all launch vehicle decisions to the market, but better than building an HLV straight away.
And that is exactly what may happen with the Commercial Crew model. After all the designs are out of the 1960’s and there would be no incentive to innovate if it doesn’t profit the bottom line.
Sorry, Tom, but that’s nutty. If anyone’s designs are “out of the sixties,” it’s the Chinese. SpaceX is a twenty-first century company, and ULA is pretty up do date as well, though burdened by an older corporate culture.
So the U.S. may well stagnate with just taxi’s to the ISS while other nations move forward with lunar capable exploration systems.
That’s nutty, too. Lunar-capable exploration systems are exactly what the new policy focuses on, leaving the mundane and mature task of getting people to orbit to private industry.
Also there is another problem with the new policy. it calls to visit an NEO in 2025, but there are few options to do so.
Who cares? 2025 is fifteen years away, and some other president will decide where we’re going after we’ve developed the technology to do so. Under Constellation, it was the moon or nothing. Now, we’ll have lots of options in a few years, if the policy survives.
And ditto to Marttijn’s comment about bugs and features. In all, your comment just makes you look completely clueless about both space technology and policy.
Why is the SpaceX capsule a product of a “twenty-first century company” but the Chinese capsule “out of the sixties”?
I’m very certain that however much the Chinese capsule looks like a sixties design (Soyuz) it is most likely to be quite modern inside.
Rand,
No, it shows you are the one clueless about global competition and the role of government in making industries competitive. I bet you couldn’t even define the national diamond without going to Wikipedia 🙂
Yes, the rockets are being built now, but Kerosene\LOX is a 1960’s approach as is the cluster concept. Indeed, many referred to the Saturn family as Cluster’s last stand. So the Falcon series is a 1960’s era concept of building a single rocket, the Falcon 1 (Juno) using less efficient Kerosene\LOX and clustering then into a larger rocket, Falcon 9 (Saturn IB).
Yes, the electronics are updated, but then so is the electronics in the B-52. That doesn’t make it a 21st Century bomber.
Hey, Elon Musk even used a 1960’s pop song to name his capsule.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1095
[[[Originally dubbed “Magic Dragon” (inspired by the antics of a dragon immortalized in that 1960’s song) the vehicle that emerged from the design process is now being called simply “Dragon”. ]]]
Elon is not afraid to say admit he’s just updating a 1960’s HSF model, why do you feel the need to make it something its not? He just went back a bit further then your “Apollo Cargo Cult” for inspiration 🙂
[[[That’s nutty, too. Lunar-capable exploration systems are exactly what the new policy focuses on, leaving the mundane and mature task of getting people to orbit to private industry.]]]
If I recall the President’s response to the Moon was “been there, done that” so how do you get the new policy is about lunar capable systems? The RFP for commercial crew will be just for ISS taxi service, nothing more. There’s no requirement for lunar capable systems. The BEO portion requires heavy lift as the President stated, but no decision will be made on it until 2015. And Orion has been downgraded from a BEO spacecraft to a CRV.
So once the heavy lift is killed and NEO missions are determine to be too expensive all we will end up under the new policy with is a ISS taxi service and a CRV. And no incentive for the winners to take any risks to develop commercial markets or new technology to serve them. While other nations push forward…
So again, his statements are not bashing American industry, merely pointing out the likely effect the new policy will have on the competitiveness of America’s space industry in global markets.
Cecil,
[[[I’m very certain that however much the Chinese capsule looks like a sixties design (Soyuz) it is most likely to be quite modern inside.]]]
And very probably lunar capable, although they haven’t demonstrated it yet.
And that is exactly what may happen with the Commercial Crew model. After all the designs are out of the 1960’s
That is certainly a possible outcome. Even if that happens, it will still be a success if we have created a precedent for private services that the next generation of (reusable) vehicles will be able to take advantage of.
It’s certainly preferable to the BVSE era when Mike Griffin and his minions told investors that NASA had “proven” reusable vehicles were impossible and Orion would be “the only way Americans go into space for the next 40 years.”
And no one is confident we will ever have heavy-lift under the new policy, 2015 is only a decision point
Or that one is necessary. It sounds like that’s what you’re really afraid of. If you were confident of your position, you wouldn’t feel the need to rush the decision before the data is in.
So the U.S. may well stagnate with just taxi’s to the ISS while other nations move forward with lunar capable exploration systems.
In that case, you can just buy those lunar capable exploration systems from the Communist Chinese, who you consider to be so efficient. What’s the problem?
going to a NEO is looking to be an order of magnitude more difficult then just going to the Moon.
Like flying across the ocean was an order of magnitude more difficult than flying across the Great Lakes. So, you think no one should ever tried to fly across the ocean?
Didn’t you used to love to quote Kennedy’s line about doing things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”? Now, suddenly, you’re against trying anything hard? No one must never attempt anything more than what NASA did 50 years ago?
Remember, Tom, just because you don’t want to go the asteroids, that’s no guarantee the asteroids won’t come to you. Will you volunteer to stand at ground zero, if (when?) the big one comes?
Also there is little incentive under fixed price contracts to take technical risks, which is why the government pushed cost plus contracting on the aerospace industry in World War II and afterward, to drive technical innovation. Looks like that lesson will need to be relearned, which will set the industry back a decade or so.
Right, because 50 years of Matula-style cost-plus contracts have led to so much innovation, right? All the stuff you predict — a huge mining base on the Moon, Sea Dragons launching every hour, fuel-cell powered cars and Helium-3 reactors? Does any of that exist?
No. Yet, you expect us to believe all of that will change — if we just keep doing all the things we’ve done in the past. Do you know the definition of insanity, Tom?
Why is the SpaceX capsule a product of a “twenty-first century company” but the Chinese capsule “out of the sixties”?
Because SpaceX was founded in the 21st Century and Soyuz was designed in the 60’s?
A is A, Cecil.
(But of course, Tom will insist that A is not A, it’s B divided by the square root of imaginary pink unicorns. 🙂
Soyuz is actually a pretty modern vehicle. It’s continuously improved.
If you want to know about how SpaceX makes their vehicles, there’s plenty of video tours of their facilities around, some which have actually been done by a manufacturing industry magazine. They’re all quite impressive.
If you want to know how Soyuz is made, talk to Richard Garriott. He’ll talk your ear off about it.
If you want to know how the Chinese vehicles are made…. uhhh… ummm… yeah.
Because SpaceX was founded in the 21st Century and Soyuz was designed in the 60’s?
I suppose you think a 1965 Ford Mustang and a 2010 Ford Mustang are the same… same name and same basic shape so they must be the same huh?
To use your lame example “A is A”, but 2010 Soyuz/Shenzhou is NOT 1967 Soyuz.
Edward,
As usual you did not understand one word I wrote…
Trent,
So is the Shuttle constantly improved. The Shuttle Orbiters launching now are more capable and safer then they were in 1981. So its not a 1970’s era spacecraft either as many claim. And would have been able to fly at a safe level until 2020 if it hadn’t been shut done prematurely because of the emotional reaction to Columbia. A mistake equal to the ending of the Saturn V missions.
Also I don’t know how someone is able to claim that a commercial crew solution, which is really nothing but a space taxi, is a step forward. If anything it takes us a step back to the same level of China and Russia, so all that is needed for one of the countries to build a HLV capable of taking their craft BEO, along with a lunar lander, to take the lead. And make the prediction of the article come true.
Edward,
[[[All the stuff you predict — a huge mining base on the Moon, Sea Dragons launching every hour, fuel-cell powered cars and Helium-3 reactors? Does any of that exist?]]]
I know you don’t keep track of events in the real world so here is the latest on Hydrogen Fuel Cell Autos.
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
[[{ Honda Delivers FCX Clarity to Canadian Olympic Hockey Team Captain Scott Niedermayer January 6, 2010
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., delivered a zero emissions hydrogen-powered FCX Clarity fuel cell electric vehicle to its latest customer, 2010 Canadian Olympic hockey team captain, Scott Niedermayer.]]]
The Honda FCX Clarity has been available to select customers in the U.S. since 2008.
So the hydrogen fuel cell cars are closer to reality then you think 🙂
Thomas,
Last time I checked, it’s part of NASAs’ charter (also known as federal law) to promote to the maximum extent possible the commercial uses of space. How is commercial HSF not part of that?
I must confess that I’m more than somewhat indifferent on the subject(s) of goals, timetables, and architecture. I don’t believe NASA should be competing against aerospace companies that pretty much know what they’re doing. IMNSHO, NASA should confine itself to more NACA-like activities.
So is the Shuttle constantly improved.
Twice is not “constantly”. Soyuz, the spacecraft, the launch vehicle and its operations are improved constantly, as in, by minor improvements after every flight and major improvements after tens of flights. That’s why the Soyuz is the safest launch vehicle in the world.. it wasn’t “designed to be safe” whatever that means, it was improved and improved and improved until it got to what it is today.
Also I don’t know how someone is able to claim that a commercial crew solution, which is really nothing but a space taxi, is a step forward.
Hint: it’s an analogy. Every single Shuttle mission you will hear at least one person say “this vehicle is so overspec for the mission”. They even said it for the Hubble repair missions. You may have heard that Shuttle is a LEO space truck. So now think about it.. you’re in Manhattan, you need to go to the station, do you hail a taxi or take the truck?
The fact that you even have a taxi as an option is the step forward!
G Clark,
[[[Last time I checked, it’s part of NASAs’ charter (also known as federal law) to promote to the maximum extent possible the commercial uses of space. How is commercial HSF not part of that?]]]
So we get rid of the Shuttle in favor of a capsule just because its commercial….
That is like getting rid of your 2 1/2 ton truck because someone is offering rides in a Volkswagen taxi.
Trent,
The Shuttle Orbiters are sent through a process of refurbishment and updated on a regular cycle every several years during which they are upgraded with new technology. Many of the upgrades, like glass cockpits, came during these routine refurbishments. The ET has gone through about 3-4 cycles of improvement as technology advances has allowed the tanks to be made lighter. Same for the SSME which now put out 109% of the thrust level they were originally able to provide.
Tom, you’re simply wrong. There is no regular cycle of refurbishment, there has been exactly two refurbishment efforts of the orbiter fleet. During the first one the tape drives were replaced and during the second one the glass cockpits were added. That is all. The refurbishment of each orbiter takes 10 months.. from what you’re saying every orbiter would be out of commission for 10 months every “several” years. This is clearly not the case.
Twice is not “constantly”. Soyuz, the spacecraft, the launch vehicle and its operations are improved constantly, as in, by minor improvements after every flight and major improvements after tens of flights.
As has been true of pretty much all Soviet/Russian space technology since Korolev put pen to paper, Soyuz has been continuously evolved. In fact, contrary to the argument you seem to be making, Soyuz has been continuously evolved away from it’s original manned lunar mission role toward that of space station taxi. A job, BTW, which it has definitely not executed flawlessly over the years.
That is like getting rid of your 2 1/2 ton truck because someone is offering rides in a Volkswagen taxi.
You have to remember the cost too. That “truck” is handmade, requires a bunch of people just to drive it, and extremely expensive to operate and maintain. The taxi is a bit pricey too, but nothing like the cost to operate the truck.
And let us not confuse capabilities with source. If what you want is a commercial vehicle with Shuttle capabilities, solicit for that. That’s not what NASA asked for.
Trent,
Its you that don’t seem to understand. The Shuttle is just not the Orbiter. Its the entire STS system, the Orbiter, SRB, ET and SSME. And all have have gone through upgrade cycles as technology moves forward.
Karl Hallowell,
[[[You have to remember the cost too. That “truck” is handmade, requires a bunch of people just to drive it, and extremely expensive to operate and maintain. The taxi is a bit pricey too, but nothing like the cost to operate the truck.]]]
Yes, but its awful difficult to use that VW for anything but as a taxi…
So you have just gotten rid the capability to build things in space, to move things, to repair things….. Which is a major downgrade in anyone’s book.
G Clark Says:
April 29th, 2010 at 5:56 am
[[[And let us not confuse capabilities with source. If what you want is a commercial vehicle with Shuttle capabilities, solicit for that. That’s not what NASA asked for.]]]
Please, the New Space Contractors are having a hard enough time replacing the Progress. How many years would it take the to supply the equivalent of the STS?
Please, the New Space Contractors are having a hard enough time replacing the Progress. How many years would it take the to supply the equivalent of the STS?
New Space vs NASA? False dichotomy. How about Old Space, the people who built the orbiters? Rockwell, now Boeing. Maybe our gracious host can tell us a few relevant stories.
Martijn,
For traditional space contractors it would be no problem. A traditional $10 Billion NASA contract would likely produce a TSTO with capabilities capable to the Shuttle in 4-5 years. But it would mean the end of the New Space Contractor’s NASA market so New Space advocates would fight it tooth and nail until they kill it.
A traditional $10 Billion NASA contract would likely produce a TSTO with capabilities capable to the Shuttle in 4-5 years.
I think that would be very unlikely, and it would be repeating the mistake of the Shuttle, which you don’t seem to have learned.
I wouldn’t care if the idea was 1860’s if it works (Yeah, a big cannon, that’s the ticket.) But at least the link above gave me this morsel that I had missed before…
Initial designs for Dragon were somewhat similar to a blunt nose version of the DC-X – complete with landing legs.
Which shows that Elon is thinking lander sometime in the future. Makes sense to me. It takes a business person!
Rand,
I guess New Space advocate feel if they keep making the statement the Shuttle was a mistake long enough folks will believe you. Its sad the the only way many New Space advocates see to get their agenda accepted is by destroying and degrading the accomplishments of NASA. Its one of the reasons I stopped going to New Space conferences and supporting New Space groups who promote their “faith belief” that space policy is a zero sum game and NASA’s space program must be destroyed for New Space to move forward…
The only mistake with the Shuttle was that it wasn’t followed up with a Shuttle II, a TSTO craft that built on the Shuttle’s success in demonstrating its possible to do all the things dreamed of in science fiction, like repair satellites, build space stations, do on orbit construction, manufacture products in orbit, carry non-astronauts into space…
That is why, for the record, I agree with NASA and the vast majority of Americans that Shuttle is the most advanced and capable spacecraft ever built. Its the one spacecraft that came closer then any other to making living and working in space routine, even with the Congressional budget cuts driven by the anti-space crowd in the 1970’s.
Its just starting to sink in to the majority of Americans that the Shuttle will fly no more and the thousands who made the Shuttle fly are being shown the door. Its very fertile ground to become an issue in the next Presidential debate. And it will be interesting to the results when it does. Hopefully it will be junking President’s Obama’s policy and starting work on a Shuttle II TSTO and reverse the 20 years wasted as we looked for the “magical” New Space answer to CATS.
OK, Tom, we get it.
You’ve not only drunk the NASA koolaid, you’ve been marinating in it.
Do you have an intelligent critique of my piece in The New Atlantis?
If not, why do you waste our time with this kind of NASAphilia blather?
…by having lots of people wandering around and peering over the next rill in search of adventure or profit.
I still think this is one of the best lines you’ve ever written.
Rand,
Just because you, from a narrow New Space perspective declare the Shuttle a mistake doesn’t make it one. Not in the context of the times. The Shuttle was the best that NASA could get in the political climate of the time. The Saturn production line was already closed and without the Shuttle there were no future prospects for HSF. Perhaps NASA would have gone back to Gemini on Titian, but I suspect not.
The Shuttle provided a system that allowed NASA to pioneer many new technologies. To experiment with ideas like manufacturing in orbit, satellite repair and construction. And it built interest in the commercial uses of space which laid the seeds for the New Space movement. It also provided the imaginative spark to the view of space as a commercial frontier with routine access. These are all impacts of the Shuttle you are ignoring in you narrow perspective of it in that article. Indeed one has to wonder if their would even be a New Space movement today without the Shuttle….
And as a side note, you should realize that the vast majority of Americans tend to look favorably on NASA and the Shuttle. Even in the wake of Columbia and the CAIB decision to end the Shuttle 60% of Americans favored continuing it, disagreeing with the CAIB.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/03/opinion/polls/main713808.shtml
So you are not making any friends among the general public by now declaring the Shuttle a mistake. And New Space is going to need all the friends its able to find following the next election or two if it wants to preserve the commercial crew option.
…there were no future prospects for HSF.
There’s your error Thomas. It simply isn’t true.
Just because you, from a narrow New Space perspective declare the Shuttle a mistake doesn’t make it one. Not in the context of the times. The Shuttle was the best that NASA could get in the political climate of the time.
I’m not declaring it a mistake “from a narrow New Space perspective.” I’m declaring it a mistake from a rational policy analysis. And I don’t think you even understand why I think it was a mistake.
Ken,
[[[…there were no future prospects for HSF.
There’s your error Thomas. It simply isn’t true.]]]
Evidence?
Rand,
[[[I’m not declaring it a mistake “from a narrow New Space perspective.” I’m declaring it a mistake from a rational policy analysis. And I don’t think you even understand why I think it was a mistake.]]]
Policy analysis is always a prisoner of the paradigm its conducted it, and yours is conducted from the perspective of New Space, so its only rational from the New Space perspective. Until you recognize the limits of the paradigm you are arguing from you, and move beyond it will not be ‘rational” to anyone outside of your paradigm.