Not. Some very useful thoughts from Miles O’Brien.
It is a shame how atrociously this has been reported, with all of the nonsensical talk about “ending human spaceflight.” Of course, it’s partly the administration’s fault, by springing it at the last minute. As Miles notes, anyone with their head in the sunlight could see that Constellation (or at least Ares — killing Orion as well was a legitimate surprise) couldn’t survive in the current (or really, any) environment, but it still came as a shock, with an inadequate description of what is to replace it. I hope that this will be rectified in the coming weeks and months.
> Edward Wright Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
>> That is the truth that is what Obama said, he wanted to shut down NASA
>>and transfer the money to other programs (education specifically if I remember)
> No, you’re making stuff up. ==
No I’m not. Specifically he said NASA didn’t inspire and wasn’t relevant. It was kind of a big item in the space advocacy groups at the time.
>> Of course I see that as a great goal -spectacular -AND NOTHING IN
>> THE PROPOSED BUDGETS OR VAGUE OUTLINED PLANS WORK TOWARD IT.
> Then you know nothing about the budget or plans.
I know what was published, what Bolden and Garver said to the press adn to congres.
This is just you making stuff up because you can’t face whats really being said.
>> They are talking about flying dozens of people to the ISS until 2020. Thats it.
>> Thats not opening any doors or frounteers. Its just getting out of the spaceflight busness.
> No, that is not “it.” They are talking about expanding ISS by adding inflatable
> modules. One Bigelow module would nearly double the habitable volume of ISS
> (and allow for a larger crew size).
Did they say they were going to expend the crew size? Did they say they were going to increase flight rates? Or are you just hoping because you’ld want them to do that.
> But it should be obvious that when General Bolden talks about thousands of people
> living and working in Low Earth Orbit, he is *not* talking about even an expanded ISS.==
And you should know hes not talking about doing it! Its a PR statement, like NASA in the ’60’s talking about cities on the moon, though there was no support, plan, or funding for doing any off it. Talk and smoke and mirrors about visions are cheap and with no substance. Focus on what they actually have plans to do. Not on what dreams of ours they push the buttons of to distract us.
> Rand Simberg Says: > February 27th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
>>> Again, I don’t understand why you and Thomas are so naive as to think that >>> the FAA will kowtow to NASA, and not defend their own turf. ==
>>Because thats how its worked for decades, and thats the political logic of the situation.
> Really? The FAA has been kowtowing to NASA for decades, and not defending
> their own turf?
Rand, don’t play stupid. You know better then this. There is no way in hell the FAA is going to argue before congress that commercial transports don’t need to be held up to the same standards NASA’s flights have been – especially given their is no up side for them to do so. They defeered to NASA expertice on shuttle when “should the FAA certify it” was brought up way back when, and they are not going to go out on a limb adn fight NASA just to please some start ups.
>ken anthony Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
>>NASA and most Gov. programs demand you restructure your company
> I happen to agree with this, but not to the extent you suggest. For
> example, SpaceX opened an office in DC and hired some experienced
> people to deal with the government. I’ve seen the same thing with other
> companies. That’s not the company crippling reorganization that you suggest.
That’s because it wasn’t a government development program. SpaceX had already gotten well along in developing Falcon and Dragon before COTS came along. So what they were really doing was marketing a existing craft to NASA, rather then doing a development program with NASA to develop Falcon/Dragon.
Normally NASA wouldn’t allow that, but COTS had been written to force them to do it so they were stuck. Also COTS was to low cost to be important – so it wasn’t worth fighting. Though now given they may be forced to use COTS launchers from SpaceX or others, they may really be regretting that.
> Trent Waddington Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
> Stupid semantic games and “I know economics do you?” arguments
> aside, NASA employees and stupid politicians keep saying that there
> is no-one who is interested in buying crew seats except NASA. That
> is either incredible ignorance or an outright lie
I was in NASA HQ in the office of Space access technology for a while adn overheard a somewhat heated debate between to senior NASA managers. One said
“But if we cut launch costs to space the market demand weill expload!”
The the higher ranking woman he was talking to – laughed in disbeleaf! And said:
“There is no more market! Were launching everything anyone wants.”
Naturally I waas shocked, but it explains a lot about NASA attitudes. They rae “the space program”. They don’t even like sharing space with the mil or other governments. They may talk great visionary plans for the press and public about cities in space, and mines on the Moon; but thats not what they are working for.
Congress is much the same. occasionally bills get past into law directing NASA to have the goal of human settlement of space; but its noteworthy that congress never funds their doing it – or asks if they are making any progress toward it.
>Ed Minchau Says:
>February 27th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
>> Also as a aside, NASAs lousy safety record by aviation standards
>> is not going to fly in Washington for civilians – which will further
>> push FAA to go well beyond NASA’s standards.
>>
>> So again, NASA standards are going to be the minimum.
> This is like saying that since NACA or USAF or whoemever had a
> lousy safety record with test pilots pushing the edge of the envelope,
> that civilian aviation safety standards would be much higher==
Well naturally civilian standards are higher for test craft then for experimental craft.
More to the point that NASA isn’t pushing the envelop in test craft, these are the standards in maned (and unmanned actually) freighters. Shuttle was the space truck so safe they could, and did, carry congressmen and heads of state on junkets to space. They were the construction craft that carried up the parts of the space station and were critical in its assembly. Shuttles also the safest craft, with the best safty record, of anything ever launched — and has carried the bulk of everything and everyone ever launched.
And sadly its safety record is far lower then that for a lot of the Xcraft. Over 3 times the fatalty rate of the X-15 for example.
> Ed Minchau Says:
> February 27th, 2010 at 9:35 pm
=
> Is NASA “too big to fail”?
In a way. They are – or were, the central research agency for aerospace adn aeronautics for the country. Its like talking about shutting down the Navy or FBI or something.
> Would the various centers better serve the American taxpayer if
>they were independent agencies? Or perhaps privatized outright?
Thats a possibility. Certainly Darpa runs more like that and is more productive. JPL isn’t actually part of NASA, but NASA contracts it to do most all of its robotic exploration.
Rand, don’t play stupid.
Physician, heal thyself. Unless you’re not playing.
You know better then this.
I know what I know, and what I wrote.
There is no way in hell the FAA is going to argue before congress that commercial transports don’t need to be held up to the same standards NASA’s flights have been – especially given their is no up side for them to do so.
Not in hell, perhaps, but there are many ways they will do so on the Hill. One of them is to point out that they have no authority to determine passenger safety. Another is that if and when they do so, they have responsibility to promote the growth of the industry, and to utilize NASA’s costly and ineffective safety standards would strangle it in the cradle, while not necessarily even promoting safety.
They defeered to NASA expertice on shuttle when “should the FAA certify it” was brought up way back when, and they are not going to go out on a limb adn fight NASA just to please some start ups.
Apples and eggs. They deferred to NASA expertise because a) it was NASA expertise — they knew nothing about the Shuttle and b) it is a NASA-owned and operated vehicle, and they had no business telling another government agency how to run its vehicles. It would be as absurd as them certifying fighter aircraft for the Air Force. They will let NASA tend its own turf, and they will defend their own, which is my point.
> ==
> Not in hell, perhaps, but there are many ways they will do so on
> the Hill. One of them is to point out that they have no authority
> to determine passenger safety. Another is that if and when they
> do so, they have responsibility to promote the growth of the industry,
> and to utilize NASA’s costly and ineffective safety standards would
> strangle it in the cradle, while not necessarily even promoting safety.==
And you seriously expect FAA to stand up to congress and say they know better then nASA about spacecraft safty – and NASA was to cautious?! And they would do this to help the alt.space industry?!!
Why the hell would they take the political heat (damn near a suicide effort) in order to promote start up commercial space launchers?
Hint, the FDA doesn’t take that kind of heat for drugs that can save tens of thoudsands of lives a year. Theres about no political upside for the FAA to do that — and no real downside for letting the new space start-ups bleed a little more red ink or die.
And you seriously expect FAA to stand up to congress and say they know better then nASA about spacecraft safty – and NASA was to cautious?!
Yes. Or rather, not that NASA is “too cautious,” but that NASA has ineffective and expensive procedures that wouldn’t allow the industry to thrive. They should, and would argue that spaceflight can be made safe, but that it doesn’t make sense to take advice from an agency that has proven unable to do so, after spending billions in the attempt. They would also argue that spaceflight passengers fly at their own risk with informed consent, for their own reasons. They might in fact be willing to take more risk for a flight than NASA is willing to accept. There will be a variety of providers, and people will have choices. That’s how you develop an industry.
And they would do this to help the alt.space industry?!!
Yes. And lots of exclamation marks do not somehow make your questions make more sense.
Why the hell would they take the political heat (damn near a suicide effort) in order to promote start up commercial space launchers?
Because it’s their job. Go read the law.
Hint, the FDA doesn’t take that kind of heat for drugs that can save tens of thoudsands of lives a year.
Because they don’t have it in their charter to promote the drug industry, as FAA-AST has it within theirs to promote commercial spaceflight. Again, educate yourself.
rather then doing a development program with NASA
There ya go, you’ve identified the danger. I’m not so naive as to think it could never happen with SpaceX but suspect that as long as Elon is in charge it’s not going to happen. Remember why he started SpaceX in the first place… because he wanted to build a Mars lander but found it would cost more to launch it than to build it. Look how vertically integrated they are. Elon is a young guy, NASA may not even exist when he passes on the reins.
> Rand Simberg Says:
> February 28th, 2010 at 10:43 am
>> And you seriously expect FAA to stand up to congress and
>> say they know better then nASA about spacecraft safty – and
>> NASA was to cautious?!
> Yes. Or rather, not that NASA is “too cautious,” but that NASA has
> ineffective and expensive procedures that wouldn’t allow the
> industry to thrive. They should, and would argue that spaceflight
> can be made safe, but that it doesn’t make sense to take advice
> from an agency that has proven unable to do so, after spending
> billions in the attempt. ==
NASA may be in reality spend thrift and incompetent, but politically they are held up as the gold standard of world spa e flight. Claiming that is of great value in Washington. They aren’t going to fight with the public to tarnish NASA (congress of FAA) to foster a new industry. They barely allowed New.space to not be held to the full safty standards of commercial aviation.
>> And they would do this to help the alt.space industry?!!
> Yes. And lots of exclamation marks do not somehow make your questions make more sense.
No but they do help emphasize how insane your argument seems. Its completly alien to the way Washington and its agencies ever act.
>> Why the hell would they take the political heat (damn near a
>> suicide effort) in order to promote start up commercial space launchers?
> Because it’s their job. Go read the law.
And they would care why? Lots of agency actions – especially NASA’s while were on the subject – go directly counter to what they are legally tasked to do, but is not in their political interest to do.
>> Hint, the FDA doesn’t take that kind of heat for drugs that can
>> save tens of thousands of lives a year.
> Because they don’t have it in their charter to promote the drug industry, ==
Irrelivant, and they do have it in their charter to protect the health of the public by assuring effecacy of drugs etc. But really like all federal agencies they must do what congress will authorize them to do.
> as FAA-AST has it within theirs to promote commercial spaceflight. =
So what? They can enterpret that however the political winds require it. Promoting a commercial industry by at least holding to the failed standards of safty of NASA could play well as proper for the growth of the industry. Or they could simply ignore it in favor of other political pressures. Boarder patrol doesn’t work TOO hard to close the borders. Nor are such laws enforced in cities that make to much of a stink. Most gun laws are never enforced, they are just written for show. etc etc.
new space has no political clout, especially not in this term of congress, against interests of NASA image and Obamas budget proposals.
> ken anthony Says:
> February 28th, 2010 at 10:44 am
>> rather then doing a development program with NASA
> There ya go, you’ve identified the danger. I’m not so naive
> as to think it could never happen with SpaceX but suspect
> that as long as Elon is in charge it’s not going to happen. ==
Its hard to say. Musk could lose control – finding he needed to bring in more investors to fund things then he could control. Could be he’ld want to get involved in big projects and swallow it to get to play.
Hey the other aero companies got trashed little by little by the gov games. Musk isn’t naturally immune.
>== Elon is a young guy, NASA may not even exist when he passes on the reins.
Bureaucracies are eternal. They are like the wind and water that wearith down the mountains.
😉
And its federal contract and procurement practices, and national politics rather then NASA thats the real issue. NASA just has to play the federal games and passes it on.
Its completly alien to the way Washington and its agencies ever act.
Again, you don’t understand how jealously agencies guard their prerogatives vis a vis other agencies (e.g., how 911 happened). FAA-AST will not allow NASA to dictate how it regulates spaceflight, human or otherwise. It never has, and it never will.
No I’m not. Specifically he said NASA didn’t inspire and wasn’t relevant. It was kind of a big item in the space advocacy groups at the time.
Correct. What NASA was doing at the time (spending a hundred billion dollars to repeat what it did in the 1960’s) did not inspire. That’s why it’s being shut down and replaced with a new plan.
Which part of that do you not understand?
> Then you know nothing about the budget or plans.
I know what was published, what Bolden and Garver said to the press adn to congres.
No, you know only the parts that you choose to read and hear — mostly filtered through Shuttle-huggers and Constellation-huggers. The rest of the facts, you ignore.
Did they say they were going to expend the crew size? Did they say they were going to increase flight rates? Or are you just hoping because you’ld want them to do that.
Are you incapable of making logical inferences?
When per-flight costs go down, flight rates go up. This is basic economics, Kelly. BTW,
I don’t care whether those thousands of people are living on ISS — I’m pretty sure most of them won’t be — or on new platforms in LEO.
Again, increasing the number of humans living in space by two or three orders of magnitude is not killing human spaceflight, no matter how hard you try to spin it.
> And you should know hes not talking about doing it! Its a PR statement,
That’s your opinion, Kelly. Did you tell Bolden that during the all-hands meeting at JSC?
You can believe that a Marine Corps Major General is a liar, if you want to. I don’t. (Have you ever heard the phrase “to keep our honor clean”? Do you know where that comes from?)
like NASA in the ’60’s talking about cities on the moon, though there was no support, plan, or funding for doing any off it. Talk and smoke and mirrors about visions are cheap and with no substance. Focus on what they actually have plans to do.
Why should I? You’re operating in the old Stalinist/Von Braunist meme that nothing can ever happen unless it’s spelled out in a five- or 20-year plan. Private enterprise doesn’t work that way. The NACA didn’t have a 20-year plan for creating the aviation industry, complete with every airplane flight that was going to occur and every airport that was going to be built. Only sillies think NASA needs to have such a plan for space development.
Centralized planning doesn’t work, no matter how hard you believe in it.
>Edward Wright Says:
>February 28th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
>> No I’m not. Specifically he said NASA didn’t inspire and wasn’t
>> relevant. It was kind of a big item in the space advocacy groups at the time.
> Correct. What NASA was doing at the time (spending a hundred billion
> dollars to repeat what it did in the 1960’s) did not inspire. That’s why it’s
> being shut down and replaced with a new plan.
>
> Which part of that do you not understand?
The part where you think smoke and mirrors statements like NASA has given for generations, is going to inspire any more — and the part where you assume a Obama who has should no interest or enthusiasm in this – sees it as inspirational.
Or the part where you assume politicians and agencies that traditionally promise FAR more grand plans then they deliver – are now going to deliver far more then they promise.
politician can be held to deliver on
>==
>> Did they say they were going to expend the crew size? Did they say they were
>> going to increase flight rates? Or are you just hoping because you’ld want them to do that.
> Are you incapable of making logical inferences?
> When per-flight costs go down, flight rates go up. This is basic economics, Kelly. BTW,
Thats economics in a commercial market. This isn’t. Were talking about NASA and politics. Its the political capital and value that counts – and here your dramatically dropping the political value of the flights.
Actually your also lowering the political value of nASA – side issue.
Also your assuming the costs are going to go down from this. Musk and company are not talking huge cost cuts compared to existing, adn NASA is not proposing a big new market for launch to drive costs down.
>>> Again, increasing the number of humans living in space by two or three orders
>>> of magnitude is not killing human spaceflight, no matter how hard you try to spin it.
>> And you should know hes not talking about doing it! Its a PR statement,
> That’s your opinion, Kelly. Did you tell Bolden that during the all-hands meeting at JSC?
Haven’t worked at JSC for over 20 years.
> You can believe that a Marine Corps Major General is a liar, ==
Didn’t say hes lieing – said thats not what he said. Your reading into what he said what you want to here, or infer.
He utterly refused to say anything related to post ISS nASA activities no mater hard congressmen adn senators pushed him during his testimony. So if you trust what hes saying – he ain’t saying your vision.
>> like NASA in the ’60’s talking about cities on the moon, though there was
>> no support, plan, or funding for doing any off it. Talk and smoke and
>>mirrors about visions are cheap and with no substance. Focus on what they actually have plans to do.
> Why should I?
Because its the same agency again alluding to grand futures without saying anything solid that would leed to it. If they didn’t deliver then, why expect they will deliver now.
Same agency – certainly no new big public political pressure, now big support in Washington. So its not ilogical to expect similar lack of results.
> You’re operating in the old Stalinist/Von Braunist meme that nothing can
> ever happen unless it’s spelled out in a five- or 20-year plan. Private enterprise
> doesn’t work that way.==
NASA and the Obama admin are not private industry, nor do they support it. (He’ll Obama staffers adn apointees have been and are Communists and give speaches praising Mao and Chavez!! So don’t expect they embraced a freemarket space utopia) This is NASA and washington doing things there way. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting dramatically different results is the definition of insanity.
The part where you think smoke and mirrors statements like NASA has given for generations, is going to inspire any more
Wow? You think NASA has been offering to buy commercial spaceflights from private companies for generations? What planet are you living on again, Kelly?
you assume politicians and agencies that traditionally promise FAR more grand plans then they deliver
LOL. The same politicians who are now attacking General Bolden? Whose arguments you buy completely? You don’t see any irony in that?
Didn’t say hes lieing – said thats not what he said.
Horsecrap. The words are right there, in the statement he made at the NASA budget press conference on February 1: “trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of “firsts….” [and] enabling hundreds, even thousands of people to visit or live in low Earth orbit, while NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizon beyond Earth.”
If you think those are bad goals, please tell us why.
If you think Bolden didn’t mean what he said, please tell us why we should believe you rather than him.
Claiming he didn’t say those words just makes you look uninformed.
Haven’t worked at JSC for over 20 years.
So, all the first-hand knowledge you tout is actually two decades out of date?
He utterly refused to say anything related to post ISS nASA activities no mater hard congressmen adn senators pushed him during his testimony.
No, he didn’t. He said quite clearly that the ultimate goal was Mars and that there would be intermediate destinations between ISS and Mars. The Orlando Congressman who said Bolden wouldn’t answer his question was grandstanding. Even the Orlando Sentinel criticized his behavior during the hearings.
NASA and the Obama admin are not private industry, nor do they support it.
Well, they’re supporting it a lot more than Kelly Starks is. I look forward to your explanation of why SpaceX, OSC, Boeing, Lockheed, Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, Masten, Armadillo, etc. are not private industry.
Trent,
[[[NASA employees and stupid congressmen are often saying no-one is wanting to buy seats on crew launch vehicles….]]]
That is my point about using the wrong terminology. What they are trying to say is that no one wants to buy seats on crew launch vehicles that don’t exist and have an unknown price structure. This is like HP saying in 1975 that no one wanted to buy a PC. And no one did because there were none available yet. There was a latent demand for information processing and document creation, but no existing market for the PC. The market emerged only AFTER someone figured out how to produce a supply at a price the innovator segment of the demand curve could experiment with. Then the PC market started co-evolving to where it is today.
And this reinforces my point why commercial crew may not produce the results expected as the needs and requirements of human spaceflight by non-NASA markets will be different then the needs of NASA markets. So like the C-17 there will be no commercial demand for the vehicles. Successful markets emerge as a result of co-evolution between the customers and the suppliers. NASA’s commercial crew is going to short circuit that process.
Expecting a rocket designed to government specs to also satisfying consumer and non-government needs is like expecting a truck designed to government needs to be widely adopted for civilian needs. Tell me, how many M35’s have you seen for rent at your local U-Haul?
Rand,
One thing you are forgetting is the two elephants in the room, the space insurance industry and the liability lawyers.
The presence of two sets of standards creates all type of issues. For example does the insurance industry adopt the NASA standards for underwriting their policies or wait for the FAA to develop standards. Or just develop their as other segments of the insurance industry has done in the past (which is how Underwriters Laboratory came into existence…).
And of course when something goes wrong the lawyers will love to have a different and stricter set of standards to illustrate their point that FAA and the industry was lax. And they won’t to making the arguments to some professionals but to a jury who like most of the generate public, associates NASA with the last word in space.
And of course the actions of the lawyers, even the threaten actions of the lawyers will weight heavily on the insurance industry who may be caught holding the bag.
Yes, I know, there is a movement by space to pass laws that allow space passengers to waive liability. They will only be minor speed bumps for lawyers wishing to sue…
So even if the FAA AST officials are willing to fall on the sword for the benefit of New Space other forces may make it irrelevant.
But we shall see what happens when NASA releases their human rating standards and SpaceShipTwo actually starts taking pay customers in 2012…
The space insurance industry has always had their own standards, which are informed largely by the FAA licensing process (though the recognize that the FAA is indifferent as to whether or not the payload gets to orbit). They have never relied in any way on NASA, as far as I know.
That is my point about using the wrong terminology. What they are trying to say is that no one wants to buy seats on crew launch vehicles that don’t exist and have an unknown price structure.
What makes you think the price structure is unknown?
This is like HP saying in 1975 that no one wanted to buy a PC. And no one did because there were none available yet.
Er, Tom. Nuclear fusion plants that burn He-3 and fuel-cell cars that use lunar platinum-group metals are not available yet, either. Yet you have no doubt there is a market for those things, if the government will just give you $130 billion a year.
To paraphrase Carl Sagan, extraordinary budgets require extraordinary proof. Why do insist that other people must provide *more* evidence than you do when you’re asking for two or three orders of magnitude more money?
As for insurance and safety standards, let me get this straight. If the government buys a few launches to orbit, it’s going to impose standards no one can meet — but if the government gives you $130 billion to mine the Moon, you don’t think they will impose those same standards on you?
NASA employees and stupid politicians keep saying that there is no-one who is interested in buying crew seats except NASA.
Close enough: compared to the NASA subsidy, the real market demand is lost in the rounding error.
Odd that you bash NASA on the one hand while trumpeting companies who get most or all of their revenues from NASA on the other.
Rand,
[[[They have never relied in any way on NASA, as far as I know.]]]
True, but NASA never had any publish human rating standards for the vehicles they were insuring before, as will be out at the end of the year if Administrator Bolden keeps his promise time table.
Insurance in an information based business, the more information, the better to calculate probabilities. If foolish to think they will ignore NASA information in calculating premiums and determining underwriting standards IF its available.
As for the New Space firms, they will have the option to shop around for the best insurance rates so it will be interesting to see what standards the space insurance market settles on.
True, but NASA never had any publish human rating standards for the vehicles they were insuring before, as will be out at the end of the year if Administrator Bolden keeps his promise time table.
Do you think that insurance companies, with tens and hundreds of millions at stake, are stupid enough to rely on NASA? They know the history of the reliability and safety of space launch as well as anyone else.
>Edward Wright Says:
>February 28th, 2010 at 2:48 pm
==
>> Didn’t say hes lieing – said thats not what he said.
> Horsecrap. The words are right there, in the statement he made at the NASA
> budget press conference on February 1: “trips to Mars that take weeks instead of nearly
> a year; people fanning out across the inner solar system, exploring the Moon, asteroids
> and Mars nearly simultaneously in a steady stream of “firsts….” [and] enabling
> hundreds, even thousands of people to visit or live in low Earth orbit, while
> NASA firmly focuses its gaze on the cosmic horizon beyond Earth.”
And none of that – NONE – was on a budgeted program timeline or task list. I.E. it was smoke and mirrors and grand PR, like decades of similar grand outlines (many far more detailed) that NASA has presented before, while the actual programs stick to the mundane.
>== If you think Bolden didn’t mean what he said, =
I think he ment exactly what he said – he just didn’t say what you infer must be the implications and logical inferences of what he said.
After a few decades of these games – why are you expecting this round is different?
>> Haven’t worked at JSC for over 20 years.
> So, all the first-hand knowledge you tout is actually two decades out of date?
nope. Just haven’t been at JSC for that long.
>> He utterly refused to say anything related to post ISS nASA activities no
>> mater hard congressmen adn senators pushed him during his testimony.
> No, he didn’t. He said quite clearly that the ultimate goal was Mars and that
> there would be intermediate destinations between ISS and Mars. ==
I listened to his evasive answers. He said the eventual goal is that. He also refused to list any planed step past ISS, or any plan or program toward Mars a Mars program. And he stated previously it would be at least 20 years before they could field the required HLV.
>> NASA and the Obama admin are not private industry, nor do they support it.
> == I look forward to your explanation of why SpaceX, OSC, Boeing, Lockheed,
> Bigelow, Virgin Galactic, Masten, Armadillo, etc. are not private industry.
I look forward to your explanation of how NASA adn the Obama administration are commercial companies?
>== for example does the insurance industry adopt the NASA standards
> for underwriting their policies or wait for the FAA to develop standards. ==
Traditionally they – or the “maned space experts” they hired as consultants – refer to NASA as the gold standard. So that’s not unlikely until a more prestigious group comes along.
Traditionally they – or the “maned space experts” they hired as consultants – refer to NASA as the gold standard
Not if they can’t even spell “manned space.”
Or are you talking about zero-gee barbers? 🙂
Rand,
[[[Do you think that insurance companies, with tens and hundreds of millions at stake, are stupid enough to rely on NASA? They know the history of the reliability and safety of space launch as well as anyone else.]]]
Exactly. With hundreds of millions at stake they do look very closely at history of space launch and reliability, not the hype. Just as they do in other industries. And NASA’s 50 years of experience, both with orbital systems and X-Craft will be a great data base to mine for their purposes.
But time will tell.
And none of that – NONE – was on a budgeted program timeline or task list.
Yes, I know — and you think that nothing can happen unless it’s listed on a timeline or task list 10 or 20 years in advance.
That’s nonsense. The NACA didn’t have a timeline or task list for every airplane flight that would take off in the next 10 or 20 years. That doesn’t mean America “abandoned aviation” or that there were no airplane flights.
I listened to his evasive answers. He said the eventual goal is that. He also refused to list any planed step past ISS, or any plan or program toward Mars a Mars program.
He listed a lot of steps — the Moon, the Lagrange points, the asteroids. You stopped your ears because it wasn’t what you wanted to hear.
And he stated previously it would be at least 20 years before they could field the required HLV.
That’s fine. None of the destinations NASA wants to go to require a new HLV.
I look forward to your explanation of how NASA adn the Obama administration are commercial companies?
They aren’t. They’re customers for commercial companies, just like when they buy airline tickets or air mail service.
> Edward Wright Says:
> March 1st, 2010 at 6:59 pm
>> And none of that – NONE – was on a budgeted program timeline or task list.
> Yes, I know — and you think that nothing can happen unless
> it’s listed on a timeline or task list 10 or 20 years in advance.
If it’s on their list of things they are going to do, they might really do it – if its not to far out.
If it isn’t even on their list of things they are going to do, they aren’t going to do it.
==
>> I listened to his evasive answers. He said the eventual goal is that.
>>He also refused to list any planed step past ISS, or any plan or
>> program toward Mars a Mars program.
> He listed a lot of steps — the Moon, the Lagrange points, the asteroids. =
No those were things he said might be donesomedayus, but he explicitly refused to say they would do any of that. NONE, under even most direct questioning from Senators and congress were planed tasks.
>> And he stated previously it would be at least 20 years before they could field the required HLV.
> That’s fine. None of the destinations NASA wants to go to require a new HLV.
He said that he knew of noone who thought any could be reached without a HLV.
>> I look forward to your explanation of how NASA adn the Obama
>> administration are commercial companies?
> They aren’t. =
Then why do you expect them to act like them?
> He listed a lot of steps — the Moon, the Lagrange points, the asteroids. =
No those were things he said might be donesomedayus, but he explicitly refused to say they would do any of that. NONE, under even most direct questioning from Senators and congress were planed tasks.
Of course not. NASA is going to go a lot of places in the next 20 years. You don’t make detailed plans 20 years in advance for something that’s going to be commonplace.
The Army and Navy can’t tell you where their troops and ships are going to deploy 20 years from now. The Air Force can’t tell you what missions its fighters are going to be flying. They’ll go wherever the need arises. Do you think that means “the end of American land, sea, and air warfare”?
> That’s fine. None of the destinations NASA wants to go to require a new HLV.
He said that he knew of noone who thought any could be reached without a HLV.
If that were true, he wouldn’t be investing in orbital propellant depots. Why do you keep making up nonsense?
Not to mention words like “donesomedayus,” “planed,” and “noone.” What language are you speaking?
>> I look forward to your explanation of how NASA adn the Obama
>> administration are commercial companies?
> They aren’t. =
Then why do you expect them to act like them?
I don’t. As I told you before, I expect them to act as government customers for commercial companies, just as the government did when it bought airmail flights.
If you can’t understand the concept of government buying from commercial sources, that’s your problem, but please don’t lie about what I said.
>Edward Wright Says:
> March 2nd, 2010 at 7:17 pm
>>> He listed a lot of steps — the Moon, the Lagrange points, the asteroids. =
>> No those were things he said might be donesomedayus, but he
>> explicitly refused to say they would do any of that. NONE, under
>> even most direct questioning from Senators and congress were
>> planed tasks.
> Of course not. NASA is going to go a lot of places in the next 20
> years. You don’t make detailed plans 20 years in advance for
> something that’s going to be commonplace.
NASA isn’t planing to do any of them. They are doing nothing to move toward doing any of them. Boldens stament was that in 20 years NASA might be building the HLV they need (according to him) to go anywhere.
> The Army and Navy can’t tell you where their troops and ships are
> going to deploy 20 years from now. The Air Force can’t tell you
> what missions its fighters are going to be flying. ==
But they can tell you what kind of places they could need to deploy to, what craft are on order to do it, which ones are underdevelopment to replace them. What the capacity of all the forces will be in 20 years. Otherwise they wouldn’t have anything in 20 years, because it takes 10-20 years to get things out the door so you can use it.
==
>>> That’s fine. None of the destinations NASA wants to go to require a new HLV.
>> He said that he knew of no one who thought any could be reached without a HLV.
> If that were true, he wouldn’t be investing in orbital propellant depots.
It’s what he said (yes its nonsence – I’m not saying it) and he didn’t say orbital propellent depos weer on the critical pather to anything.
===
>>>> I look forward to your explanation of how NASA adn the Obama
>>>> administration are commercial companies?
>>> They aren’t. =
>>Then why do you expect them to act like them?
> I don’t.=
When I mentioned that NASA was only planing to by 2 maned flights a year, you said as costs go down they will buy more.
>==
> If you can’t understand the concept of government buying from
> commercial sources, that’s your problem, ==
Ed What you don’t understand is they ALWAYS bought from commercials. Commercials design their ships and station, build them, service and launch them, train the astrounauts, plan the missions, staff mission control.
This is just a change of part of the contracts, and a massive downsizing of all operations.
Come to think of it Ed – you made the same mistake in the CATS group. You saw CATS as a advantage to NASA because with lower cost aunches, they could do more flights with the same money. Like they were a business or person with x money to by Y things with. There not, they are a gov agency. their currency is votes not dollars. It doesn’t mater if something costs a million or a trillian – it maters if it delivers votes to senators adn congressman, so they feel its worst buying (supporting) with their votes.
If the flights, the program, cost to little – they arn’t going to motivate voters. So they aren’t worth voting for.
Same reason Griffen wanted flights much more rare, with fewer astrounauts per year – but much much more expensive per flight (Ares was expected to cost several times as much perflight as Shuttle). More spectacal with fewer more famous astronauts, and more cost per flight to keep the payrolls up.
They are not going to open up space to the masses if they can avoid it. In that case they don’t have the status to get the political support they need to survive.