Congressman Ruppersberger (D-MD) has an op-ed piece in the Baltimore Sun on space policy. Here’s his bottom line:
To give up our quest for the moon, Mars and beyond is not what is best for America’s space program. We need a new road map. We must commit to return to the moon through a program run by NASA in partnership with private companies that will invest in bigger, American-made engines to get us to the moon without relying on Russia. This plan must reinvigorate our space industrial base and inspire people, especially younger generations, to dream about our future in space.
While I sort of agree with this, it’s hard to see how he gets there from everything that came before. And what does he mean by “American-made engines”? Does he think that lack of engines is what’s keeping us bound to the planet? Is he referring to the fact that Atlas uses Russian engines? Is he aware that SpaceX has “invested in bigger, American-made engines,” and wants to build bigger ones yet? It’s hard to know.
The entire piece is full of vague allusions and non sequiturs like this. For example:
Today, America is slipping. The president announced plans to cancel Constellation, the plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. This move jeopardizes an $11.5 billion investment, puts thousands of skilled scientists out of work, and shakes the very heart of the space industrial base.
Kids aren’t growing up wanting to be astronauts. China is pumping money into its space plan and setting its sights on a moon landing by 2020.
The implication was that Constellation was actually going to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. Is he aware that this was unlikely to happen before 2030? Is he aware of the Augustine report at all? In complaining about the “investment,” is he familiar with the sunk-cost fallacy? Does he know very few of the people being laid off are “scientists” (perhaps none of them, in fact)? Where is the evidence that China is “pumping money in its space plan” or that it plans a moon landing by 2020? Landing what? People? No way, Jose. Maybe a robot, but so what?
And what does any of this have to do with kids growing up wanting to be astronauts? And why would we want them to? Given NASA’s trivial plans under Constellation, the vast majority of them would be disappointed.
He non-sequiturs on:
Satellites keep us safe. They globally track suspected terrorists, stop future attacks, and provide real-time data to our troops on the ground. At home, satellites allow us to operate GPS systems and cell phones.
None of this has anything to do with NASA, or astronauts or human spaceflight, or Constellation. Then he starts to reminisce:
Four years ago, I took over as chairman of the Technical and Tactical (T&T) Intelligence Subcommittee. We found undisciplined program management and skyrocketing costs, outdated export controls, no comprehensive space plan and inadequate spacecraft launch capability. We were giving Russia and China a head start. I feared that without swift action, the United States would never recover. We immediately started to work to maintain America’s dominance in space.
We passed several measures to ensure better oversight of satellite programs. In the fiscal 2010 Intelligence Authorization bill, we included a measure that forces programs to come in on time and on budget or face immediate cancellation unless critically important for national security. We encouraged agencies to only invest in space systems with proven technology to prevent costly delays when research and development is conducted on the spot. We also promoted greater collaboration between different agencies, sharing technology and saving money.
Well, that all sounds nice but, again, it has nothing to do with NASA and Constellation, or human spaceflight. And if he thinks these were good things, then he should have been leading the charge for the cancellation of Constellation, because it was far over budget and even farther behind schedule, and has nothing to do with national security, let alone being “critically important” for it. He goes on:
We relaxed the export regulations that stifled the American space industry and caused it to shrink to half of its size. The House passed language to ease burdensome restrictions when satellites and components are widely available and do not pose a national security risk. The bill stalled in the Senate, but the exposure got the attention of the Obama administration, which is reforming the regulations. This will allow U.S. space companies to sell globally and offer better products at lower prices here at home.
How did they “relax the export regulations”? As he said, the bill stalled in the Senate, and while the administration has made some noise about ITAR reform (I assume that’s what he’s referring to here, but as with much of the piece, it’s hard to tell), I don’t think that anything has actually happened yet.
Less progress has been made creating a long-term plan for space. While other countries see costs drop, the U.S. is spending more per rocket launch and battling more delays than anywhere else. That is because the United States has committed to a two-company alliance to handle all launches, despite the fact that other U.S. companies are showing promise. Commercial capabilities must be considered in certain cases, including launching earth observation satellites, transmitting images, and traveling to the International Space Station.
Ironically, the United States will soon rely on Russia to provide transportation for our astronauts to the Space Station. When the last shuttle launch takes place this year, the United States will have to pay Russia to bring American scientists to the Space Station. This must change.
What other countries are “seeing costs drop”? He doesn’t say. And are our costs high because of ULA (I assume that what he’s referring to with the “two-company alliance”)? Is he unaware of the existence of Orbital Sciences? I like the line about considering commercial capabilities — I assume with regard to the ISS travel, he’s referring to commercial crew? But why is he complaining about paying Russia? That was cooked in the day that Mike Griffin decided to waste billions on unneeded new rockets, half a decade ago. Did he complain then?
I wonder if he wrote this himself. If not, he should can the staffer that wrote it. I sure can’t tell what it is he proposes to do from it.
The New Space Race
Introduction
Recent media reports suggest that China is stepping up their program to send people to the Moon just as America appears to be standing down from it. This circumstance has re-awakened a long-standing debate about the geopolitical aspects of space travel and with it some questions. Are we in a race back to the Moon? Should we be? And if there is a “space race” today, what do we mean by the term? Is it a race of military dimensions or is such thinking just an artifact of the Cold War? What are the implications of a new space race?
Many in the space business purport to be unimpressed by the idea that China is going to the Moon and publicly invite them to waste money on such a stunt. “No big deal” seems to be the attitude – after all America did that over 30 years ago. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden recently professed to be unmoved by the possible future presence of a Chinese flag on the Moon, noting that there are already six American flags on the Moon.
Although it is not currently popular in this country to think about national interests and the competition of nations in space, others do not labor under this restriction. Our current human spaceflight effort, the International Space Station (ISS), has shown us both the benefits and drawbacks of cooperative projects. Soon, we will not have the ability to send crew to and from the ISS. But that’s not a problem; the Russians have graciously agreed to transport us – at $50 million a pop. Look for that price to rise once the Shuttle is fully retired.
To understand whether there is a new space race or not, we must understand its history. Why would nations compete in space anyway? And if such competition occurs, how might it affect us? What should we have in space: Kumbaya or Starship Troopers? Or is the answer somewhere between the two?
SNIP
The piece is nothing more than garnish for a Congressional resume. It’s not meant to make a serious point, simply to project seriousness. Ruppersberger is being especially silly considering the legislature treats space policy largely as a pro forma matter. Even the “contentious” NASA authorization passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and under suspension of the rules in the House.
I agree with Presley – political fluff to make himself look good. Not intended for serious / knowledgeable readers.
I agree. This is aimed at constituents. I’m doing important stuff! Re-elect me. Also, we need to spend lots more money on space, so I have a larger budget to control, and…er…can bring some ‘bacon’ Maryland’s way, if ya know what I mean, nudge wink. Let your Aunt Foo in Poughkeepsie know.
@ Cannady and Weder
I don’t know about “fluff” and “garnish” guys, Rep Dutch Ruppersberger looks like a serious player.
http://dutch.house.gov/about_dutch.shtml
What makes him serious, Anne? Great speeches? Didn’t we already try out the equation great speeches = serious leader in the 2008 Presidential election?
As a supplier of satellite components, I cannot agree more. We need more satellites, and maybe monorails, too…
and while the administration has made some noise about ITAR reform
I’m frustrated by the incompetence and deceptiveness of this administration to do what it claims it wants to do. The administration also made some noise about net neutrality. They made noise about Guantanamo. They made noise about creating or saving jobs. I think I speak for most people here when I note that they made some noise on a lot of things which they failed to deliver on.
I’d substitute for “made noise”, “lied”, but intent is so hard to prove.
What makes him serious, Anne? Great speeches? Didn’t we already try out the equation great speeches = serious leader in the 2008 Presidential election?
Hi Pham.
I expect he is fairly serious since he holds (perhaps it will change) seats on the Appropriations Committee and House Select Committee on Intelligence — he also serves on the Terrorism, Human Intelligence, Analysis, and Counterintelligence Subcommittee and the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee.
Since he lists a lot of Democrat social issues as important to him, I found it interesting that he would take a stand against NASA’s/Administrations current plans.
My initial impression could have something to do with the fact that “(T)the 2nd District is also home to the National Security Agency, Fort Meade, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, the Coast Guard Yard at Curtis Bay and other installations essential to the country’s national security.”
Recent media reports suggest that China is stepping up their program to send people to the Moon just as America appears to be standing down from it. This circumstance has re-awakened a long-standing debate about the geopolitical aspects of space travel and with it some questions. Are we in a race back to the Moon? Should we be? And if there is a “space race” today, what do we mean by the term? Is it a race of military dimensions or is such thinking just an artifact of the Cold War? What are the implications of a new space race?
Anne, I gather you are in some way related to Paul Spudis. I’ll try to be polite. He really wants to go to the Moon. My view is that arguments like the above are merely a means for him to spur US interest in returning to the Moon rather than a serious discussion of China’s future lunar capabilities or ambitions.
China needs a launch frequency about a factor of ten or greater in order to demonstrate seriousness. The key problem is that at their current low activity, they have no clue what sort of dangers they’ll face in space, especially from the many changes they make between these infrequently manned flights. The more frequently you launch, the more frequently you catch problems and the fewer changes you need to make between flights.
Further there is an implied premise here. Namely, that the Chinese government is so insecure about manned space flights that they only allow the bare minimum to proceed. China obviously has the capabilities to do much more, but until they do, there is no space race here.
As I mentioned at the beginning none of this indicates to me a serious attempt to go to the Moon. While I generally agree with Paul Spudis’s arguments about the Moon and what we should be doing there, this is not one of those.
Hi Karl,
Thank you for trying to be polite.
You say potato, I say potatoe….
Like Karl, I doubt China is in a big hurry to send people to the moon. A launch rate of once every couple years is insufficient to build the kind of experience needed for such a mission. While China doesn’t have to reaccomplish what we did over 40 years ago (e.g. learning how to spacewalk or rendezvous/dock), they do need to develop institutional knowledge that only comes from experience. This experience is needed not only by the flight crewmembers but by the mission controllers and the ground servicing personnel as well.
Project Gemini was hugly important to the US space program back in the 1960s. Not only did it give the flight and ground crews the chance to learn for the first time how to do a host of different essential skills, it gave everyone the experience of working through the inevitable problems. If you look at the Apollo missions, probably every one of them had some serious glitch to work through with Apollo 13’s being the most serious. They were able to work through those problems because everyone had a lot of recent, relevant experience, not only with the earlier flights (Gemini missions happened about once every 2 months) but also with extensive training and simulations. You simply can’t obtain and maintain that level of skill flying a mission every couple years.
Leaving the details of the oped that Rand chooses to nitpick aside, the takeaway is that the Congressman thinks that the abandonment of the Moon was ill advised.
“Leaving the details of the oped that Rand chooses to nitpick aside, the takeaway is that the Congressman thinks that the abandonment of the Moon was ill advised.”
He also concludes that we should support commercial space as a primary method of controlling launcyh costs and making exploration possible.
As an aside, I hardly consider calling the congressman out on stating we only have two launch companies nitpicking as it’s one of his central points. It is equally non-trivial that he points out the common, and totally off-base, criticism that we took out the Moon, Mars and beyond and replaced it with nothing. We replaced it with Asteroid, Mars and beyond and even kept the Moon as a possible step in the path. Obama and NASA have been pretty clear about where they plan to go with space exploration. The lack of clarity consists entirely of critics essentially denying they have the goals they have.
Recent media reports suggest that China is stepping up their program to send people to the Moon just as America appears to be standing down from it.
Which “recent media reports,” Anne? And what sources are those reports based on? Just because you read something in a newspaper doesn’t make it true. Recent news reports also indicate that Bigfoot is having Elvis’s baby.
Are we in a race back to the Moon? Should we be? And if there is a “space race” today, what do we mean by the term?
By “we,” I guess you mean you and Paul. Since the Bush/Spudis vision of very expensive, very limited space exploration makes it impossible for the American people to go anywhere. “We” does not include “us.”
That leads to the question of why We the People should pay hundreds of billions of dollars for your hobby.
Is it a race of military dimensions or is such thinking just an artifact of the Cold War? What are the implications of a new space race?
Yes, it’s a race of military dimensions — and since when have you or Paul given a rip about the military implications of space? Did Paul advocate for funding Military Space Plane when he was on the Aldridge Commission? Or since? No. He wanted (and still wants) the money to go to reenacting Project Apollo, which has absolutely no military utility.
Meanwhile, China is developing its own military spaceplane (“Divine Dragon”). We don’t know how far along they are or how serious they are about it, but can we take the risk? Should we allow China to develop a space weapons system that can sink a US carrier, for example, anywhere in the world, unchallenged, and permit it to achieve complete military dominance of outer space, because you believe it’s more important to plant another flag on the Moon?
A flag that could be planted on the Moon anyway, much *sooner* and *cheaper*, if we don’t follow a mindless policy of stifling innovation and trying to preserve human spaceflight as “the sole providence [sic] of government”?
Soon, we will not have the ability to send crew to and from the ISS.
That’s a complete fib, Anne, and you know it. Soon, the United States will have greater ability to send crew to and from ISS, more cheaply, through SpaceX (and probably other competitors).
How is launching NASA astronauts in a SpaceX Dragon capsule any different from launching them in a Lockheed Orion capsule, as Paul wanted to do? Apart from being less expensive, that is?
JSC’s Human Lunar Return study in the early 90’s showed it was possible to return NASA astronauts to the Moon for around $2 billion. That’s about the same amount of money Paul wanted to spend on a single *robot* — and a small fraction of what’s already been spent on the Bush Vision of Space Exploration to date.
Do you really believe it’s important to return NASA astronauts to the Moon, Anne? If so, why don’t you and Paul advocate for low-cost, affordable concepts like HLR? Falcon and Dragon will make it much easier to do low-cost human missions to the Moon, Mars, and beyond (that’s why Elon is developing them), but here you are trashing them. Why?
Why would nations compete in space anyway? And if such competition occurs, how might it affect us? What should we have in space: Kumbaya or Starship Troopers?
Since the Bush Vision of Space Exploration contained nothing that remotely resembled a military weapon system, I assume you and Paul are banking on “kumbaya.” As a non-pacifist, I believe that to be a very dangerous, reckless course for America. I also grow tired of peacemongers trying to pass off every social program as “national security.” Don’t wrap yourself in the mantle of national security unless you’re willing to support something of actual military value.
Have we abandoned the moon? As far as I can tell it is still there, orbiting once a month, not careening off through space a la Space:1999. There are currently 20 teams vying for the Google Lunar X-Prize – that’s 20 serious lunar return projects on the go, some bending metal right now.
The choice in direction for NASA if it wants to return to the moon is simple. Either it can try to re-do Apollo on a very slightly larger scale, or it can try a different approach.
If NASA is to do Apollo on Steroids, then it needs a budget commensurate with the demands of such a program. In order to demand that kind of budget, the project would have to be a matter of national security on an even greater scale than the Space Race against the USSR. It would also be a brittle, single-string system which would need to survive through many Congresses and several Presidential administrations, at a time when the pension Ponzi schemes are beginning to fall apart.
This might be the case if a hostile nation was itself involved in an Apollo On Steroids program, hence the talk about China. However, the threat does not have the imminence that the threat from the USSR had. If anything, the outsourcing of so much of the US manufacturing base to China is a much bigger threat and in the long term will have more serious repercussions.
There is an alternative. If instead of launching everything all at once on a Really Enormous Rocket, why not draw upon the experience gained in ISS orbital assembly? Why not launch things in bits and pieces and assemble in low orbit? Why not have propellant depots in LEO and L1? Why not have a cycler that only goes from LEO to L1 and back, refueling at each end? Why not have a vehicle that travels from L1 to the moon and back over and over and over, refueling at L1?
Then instead of having to build a single system that has to pass approval through a dozen Congresses over a period of decades, you have system elements that have to be developed and risk retired in a short time frame, a few years. Push NASA to the edge of the envelope to retire the risk, then let private companies step in to the now-known areas while NASA pushes even further.
With commercial orbital passenger launch service just around the corner, and the addition of propellant depots, a LEO-L1-LEO cycler, and L1-Luna-L1 cycler, you’ve got the moon on a much bigger scale than Apollo on Steroids. You’ve also got it within a possibly-smaller NASA budget. You probably have it sooner, too.
Anne, I gather you are in some way related to Paul Spudis.
Karl, I don’t know why Anne won’t answer your question, but she’s his wife.
Of course, Paul and Anne never answer any questions. They keep repeating the mantra that America should go back the future and never try to do anything new, but don’t ask them why!
It seems that the congressman downplaying commercial capabilities is very similar to those not taking China seriously. Flight rates are important, but they aren’t everything. Learning is the important thing.
I cheer for SpaceX but they’re flight rate is much less than China.
China will continue to be a serious threat. If I were wargaming and could not pick the U.S. I’d pick either China or India. Then I’d go on to win. China is playing to win regardless of what flight rates tell you. If I picked India I’d have to some serious work to fix it’s economy. China doesn’t have that problem. Peasants are a resource that can be turned into whatever skill you like and China has the cash to do that. They don’t all have to become rocket scientists. It’s not about per capita. They are the second largest economy. They have proved in the past by regional incidents that they are a serious threat.
This congressman may be being fed wrong info, but he’s definitely near the eye of the storm. We should be helping him get the right info (which he may ignore for other political reasons, but that shouldn’t stop us from helping enlighten him.)
Will we wait until China takes out an aircraft carrier with one of it’s new missiles before thinking they may be a threat? Are they not already a serious threat to our satellites?
As Georgia demonstrated, are we going to just speak loudly and forget where we put the stick?
So just out of the blue China would sink a US Carrier? No warning, no build up to this event, a pearl harbor if you will?
If they did that trade would immediately cease and China would become the third to fifth largest economy in less than one year and would lose trade ties with about 25 of the top economies, that would be my guess anyway. It would take one hell of a provacation for China to sink a carrier for no reason.
Edward. You sound hostile. When did I trash Elon Musk?
I’m sorry you don’t like the idea of lunar return. That is unfortunate.
You must have missed the part about commercial and international participation.
However, because I agree with Rep. Ruppersberger about national security concerns (since our national and economic assets reside in space) and support it by quoting and linking an article Paul wrote supporting that premise, you take off on a tangent about Paul’s and Tony Lavoie’s recently released lunar architecture. Why don’t you go sound off on Paul’s blog about your criticisms and personal observations.
It would take one hell of a provacation for China to sink a carrier for no reason.
I have no doubt they would wait for such provocation or create the situation if they thought they had an advantage. They wouldn’t do it today, but that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t do it ever. I’m still waiting for an apology for the spy plane their fighter pilot knocked out of the sky.
Bush visited Georgia and made them feel we were behind them and even provided limited military support. Then when Russia invaded (falsely claiming it was Georgia that started it) we didn’t support them enough to prevent the rape of half their country.
Nobody fights… until they do.
One way to avoid fights is to get what you want without it. Russia wants the shipyards in Sevastopol. Watch them get those without a fight.
@ Ed Minchau
Why not have propellant depots in LEO and L1? Why not have a cycler that only goes from LEO to L1 and back, refueling at each end? Why not have a vehicle that travels from L1 to the moon and back over and over and over, refueling at L1?
Indeed we should. And perhaps it would be better if such infrastructure were deployed by an entity other than NASA.
That way NewSpace can develop RLVs by going around NASA rather than waiting on NASA to get with the program.
This type of non-NASA lunar program would also create demand for mass in LEO, creating markets for RLVs.
“I cheer for SpaceX but they’re flight rate is much less than China.”
SpaceX has flown their capsule (admittedly one was a boilerplate) twice this year, the first year it has become available. How many times has China flown it’s rocket capable of human flight in the last year? They haven’t. In fact, the LM2F, China’s current Shenzhou launcher, hasn’t flown since 2008. The prior flight was in 2005 and the one prior to that was on ’03. SpaceX’s manifest calls for five launches of Falcon 9 this year, four with Dragon on board, all four will rendezvous with ISS and three will dock. China, by the way, has never rendezvoused or docked anything and are several years from that capability.
SpaceX only falls short of China in that they haven’t flown people. Once manned Dragon comes on line, SpaceX will have a larger, more capable rocket, a larger, more capable capsule, and rendezvous capability as well as several multiple flight years under its belt. In one flight Dragon could launch more astronauts than all Chinese manned flights over the last decade.
I find the fear of China surpassing us in manned spaceflight to be absolutely laughable. Maybe one day, but not this decade or likely the next. So far they’re exactly as capable in manned space as we were in 1962, and they’ve taken 8 years to get there.
As to whether or not China has plans for going to the Moon. I see evidence of widespread intent in the Chinese space program from the statements of various officials associated with the program, but absolutely zero support from the Chinese government. It sounds like their space people want to get the ball rolling right now and probably have drawn up schemes for doing so, but the main government is far more worried about saving face.
“Recent media reports suggest that China is stepping up their program to send people to the Moon just as America appears to be standing down from it. ”
This (and other articles) imply a causal connection that I don’t see. Whatever China’s plans are, they’ll pursue them, whether, whenever and however we return to the Moon.
And if they do it in an Apollo/Constellation-esq manner, they’ll not be able to sustain it either. I’ll be okay with being the tortoise that arrives later, but can make it stick. Perhaps we could sell their then-abandoned Lunar hardware back to them…
Also, as Karl and Larry suggest, they’re not exactly doing HSF at a rate that gives them regular experience and economies of scale, at this time.
Edward. You sound hostile. When did I trash Elon Musk?
Anne, you trashed Elon (and everyone else involved in CCDEV) when you state, “Soon, we will not have the ability to send crew to and from the ISS.”
Surely, you must know that statement is completely bogus. Why would you state something like that, except to trash the commercial companies who are already doing what you want NASA to do (and doing it cheaper and sooner)?
As for sounding hostile, well — do you think Paul sounded friendly when he was slandering anyone who didn’t believe Mike Griffin and Constellation were the Second Coming?
Sorry, Anne, but Paul did nothing to support us when he was in power. Now that he’s out of power, he wants everyone to rally around him so he can get his funding back. Why, exactly, should we do that?
You must have missed the part about commercial and international participation.
No, I didn’t miss the part about “commercial participation” — which, in Aldridge terms, meant nothing more than allowing private companies to build hardware for NASA’s space missions.
The Aldridge Commission did not believe private companies should be allowed to conduct their own human spaceflights, which according to the Commission “requires extraordinary care and will likely remain the providence [sic] of the government for at least the near-term.”
Remember, that statement was made just *after* SpaceShip One demonstrated the ability of private companies to just what Aldridge said they could not do. Nor did the Commission limit that statement (as Paul subsequently claimed) to lunar flights. Anyone who doubts that can simply look up the report, which is still available online.
I agree with Rep. Ruppersberger about national security concerns (since our national and economic assets reside in space) and support it by quoting and linking an article Paul wrote supporting that premise
Paul’s article doesn’t support national security, Anne, it only supports “national security.” It’s a typical call for more social spending — “soft power,” as he euphemistically calls it — directed toward his program, of course, at the expense of military spending. Paul ridicules military systems as “flying saucers blasting lasers at speeding spaceships.” He doesn’t support innovative programs like Military Space Plane, he just wants the government to put more money into his failed Apollo Redux.
In other words, he comes across as a typical peacemongering academic scientist. Calling every piece of social spending you want “national security” is an old rhetorical game. It’s not only disingenuous, it’s an insult to those who really protect the national security.
you take off on a tangent about Paul’s and Tony Lavoie’s recently released lunar architecture
Huh? Not only didn’t I mention Paul and Tony’s recent architecture, I haven’t even examined it.
I don’t need to. Until Paul gives up the national socialist vision that NASA can develop space as an exclusive government enclave, he will continue going down the wrong road. If you don’t have a workable economic system, the architecture doesn’t matter.
Paul claims to be in “soft power” struggle for “free markets and capitalism” over the Chinese “government-corporatist oligarchy,” but he doesn’t favor or advocate free markets and capitalism in space exploration. He wants the Moon to be developed not by private enterprise but by a “government-corporatist oligarchy,” albeit an American one.
If a Chinese oligarchy is bad, why would an American oligarchy be good?
I find the fear of China surpassing us in manned spaceflight to be absolutely laughable. Maybe one day, but not this decade or likely the next. So far they’re exactly as capable in manned space as we were in 1962, and they’ve taken 8 years to get there.
Aremis, that is undoubtedly true of the public Chinese space program.
The question is, what about secret programs like Divine Dragon that we don’t hear about? Could they lead to an unexpected breakout in Chinese capabilities?
Of course, Divine Dragon might be a paper tiger. It’s hard to tell — but can we take that chance? (Perhaps the CIA has secret intelligence that indicate Divine Dragon is no threat — although, given the record of intelligence failures, could we believe that?)
What’s galling is that all the Moonies who claim to be so concerned Communist China are only willing to talk about China’s completely nonthreatening and frankly unimpressive public program, because that’s the sort of program they want the United States to have. They won’t even talk about Divine Dragon, much less support the sort of military space programs that would be appropriate responses to a genuine military space threat.
I find the fear of China surpassing us in manned spaceflight to be absolutely laughable.
They don’t have to ‘surpass us.’ Everybodies capabilities are laughable right now. They only need to have the capability to be dangerous. A point they’ve already reached. My point about flight rates is to point out it’s not the whole story. Pooh poohing China’s progress does not help.
SpaceX is a great success. I wish we had a hundred more like them.
Pretending that China is nothing to worry about is a set up to be blind sided. I’d much rather be wrong in the other direction while we do all we can to support free enterprise in space.
@Vladislaw:
Sure would. Good thing nobody here suggested anything of the like.
@Wright:
In what language? Basque?
Is that so?
Probably to note that the Shuttle retires this year.
Really? Because in the sentence right before the one you quoted, it reads: “the Commission believes NASA should procure all of its low-Earth launch services competitively on the open market.”
I don’t see how you get “should not be allowed” to “will likely remain the providence (btw, that’s the correct spelling) of the government for at least the near-term.”
Rutan provided launch services to NASA?
I agree, though I usually provide a link when recommending some reading.
You might try giving it a shot.
Why bother reading Paul and Tony’s recent architecture at all? I mean, just scrolling up I see Bill White has posted.. his fictional architecture is more practical and realistic – and as I’m probably going to get someone asking me what I mean by that, I mean it has higher TRL.
How freakin’ hard is it to get to the moon? We have access to LEO soon with Dragon and others. A supply ship to go between LEO and Lunar Orbit total cost to orbit about $300m in two shots. Then you need a lunar lander, another $200m tops. You sell fuel to the supply ship. The supply ship keeps the lunar lander cycling between lunar surface and orbit.
About one billion should do it and you’d have the infrastructure to keep doing it. How freakin’ hard is it?
Once we’re on the surface (any part we want to explore) then we can worry about how to use resources on the moon. There’s no reason to add failure modes. Everything has already been built at one time or another. We can’t do it again? This isn’t 1960. Give it the right software and a ten year old could be your pilot. The can’t do attitude is alive and well today.
Edward
As for sounding hostile, well — do you think Paul sounded friendly when he was slandering anyone who didn’t believe Mike Griffin and Constellation were the Second Coming? I don’t know where you get your information but you are (and have for some time now) repeatedly made comments like this, along with others (as demonstrated again in you post) that are not truthful. I will not dignify them with a response, but I am calling you on it.
Anyone who knows Paul, knows his work and/or has read what he written know what you say is false. If you are trying to influence those who don’t know Paul’s work or his stand on space policy, you are a curious fellow indeed.
You must have a dedicated purpose for continually spreading such misinformation.
In what language? Basque?
I’m pretty sure Anne was writing in English, Presley.
Because in the sentence right before the one you quoted, it reads: “the Commission believes NASA should procure all of its low-Earth launch services competitively on the open market.”
Sure. In governmentspeak, NASA awarded Lockheed a contract to build the crew exploration vehicle “competitively on the open market.”
Do you really believe that Aldridge (a director of Lockheed) intended something else?
The Aldridge report is filled with recommendations that NASA build new rockets and crew exploration vehicles. Surely, you don’t think those recommendations were typos, do you?
You missed the keywords in that sentence: “low-Earth orbit.” In Aldridge Commission terms, that does not include launches that go *beyond* Low-Earth Orbit. The only “low-Earth orbit” missions NASA has are a few unmanned satellites (which it already launches commercially) and missions to ISS — which were expected to end in 2016 when NASA turned ISS over to the Russians or dumped it into the ocean.
In other words, they’re saying private enterprise should stick to launching satellites and leave human space exploration missions to NASA.
I don’t see how you get “should not be allowed” to “will likely remain the providence (btw, that’s the correct spelling) of the government for at least the near-term.”
No, the word they clearly meant was “province,” not “providence.” They are not spelled the same, and they don’t mean the same. Unless you think they were equating the government with God.
I don’t see how you get “should be allowed” from “will likely remain, etc.” In 2004, private enterprise was launching humans into space while NASA’s own launch systems were completely grounded. It’s hard to believe that members of the Aldridge Commission would not know that. If private enterprise was already launching humans in 2004, why would a government commission declare that it was impossible for private enterprise to do so “in the near future”? Unless it was intended to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I don’t know where you get your information but you are (and have for some time now) repeatedly made comments like this, along with others (as demonstrated again in you post) that are not truthful
You can deny the facts as much as you like, Anne, but anyone who does an Internet search can find the things Paul said and written in the past.
In 2005, Paul was asked, “Are you saying that the architecture released is in line with what the Commission was after?”
His answer: “In broad terms, yes. Undoubtedly, you can quibble with each specific decision, but that’s true for any architecture — one thing I’ve learned in 25 years in this business is that you can never please everybody.
However, what we require to do the tasks I describe is access to the Moon’s surface with people and machines and enough time to understand the magnitude of the tasks involved. No, it’s not “lunar-base-in-a-box”, but it is a system that can be evolved into a transportation infrastructure that can access cislunar space. That’s the real objective — if you can move freely throughout cislunar space with people and robots, you can go to the planets.”
He also said, “I think it’s the right direction and an achievable, valuable goal. If NASA screws the pooch on this, they have no future, something a lot of people would like to see.”
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2005/10/03/a-question-of-why-not-how/
Well, Anne, you guys screwed the pooch, but you won’t admit it. In 2005, Paul was telling people that ESAS / Constellation / whatever-you-call-it was broadly in line with the Bush Vision of Space Exploration and the Aldridge Commission recommendations. Now, suddenly, he’s trying to tell us that it wasn’t what the Aldridge Commission wanted at all.
Ed, you’re kidding right? A number of people testified at the Aldrige commission that although it was amusing what Burt had done it was completely irrelevant to orbital spaceflight. There was much talk around that the X-15 program already did what SS1 had done (it never did, but that was the sentiment at the time) and, frankly, they turned out to be right..
The poster boy for private space at the Aldrige commission was the late great Jim Benson. His testimony blew them away, but not enough to change the basic premise that human spaceflight was NASA’s job and would remain so.
The great achievement of the Aldrige commission was the effect it had on then NASA administrator Sean O’Keefe.. he actually asked industry for their plans and ideas. The result was an outpouring of innovation and rather than discourage it he directed NASA to help the development of those ideas. There was real money that went into the development grants.
Edward.
The VSE changed under Mike Griffin despite heroic behind the scene efforts by many to convince Mike to stay on the original path. You were not there having the door closed in your face and your emails ignored once Mike took the helm and his untouchable plan to build ARES became apparent; when he no longer wanted to be reminded of what the VSE was intended to be or to work with the people who had supported him and the original Vision — people who were putting their careers on the line to save the Vision and the mission.
So you are way off base blaming this on Paul. He worked as hard as anyone to stop the sea-change that occurred. The VSE became Project Constellation despite Paul’s considerable efforts.
And if you cared to know the truth, you would read Paul’s own words. He is still working for the same things he always has. I challenge you to find another person as dedicated and honest as Paul Spudis.
You have been ill-served by those who have used you to malign him.
Edward Wright Says:
“Karl, I don’t know why Anne won’t answer your question, but she’s his wife.
Of course, Paul and Anne never answer any questions. They keep repeating the mantra that America should go back the future and never try to do anything new, but don’t ask them why!”
Yeah, I got it she is trying to hide the fact that she is Paul Spudis wife, by the clever ruse of calling herself Anne Spudis.
Damn these tricky infidels. 🙂
@Trent Waddington
And . . .
My fictional EML-1 based architecture was lifted from what Boeing, Andrews and other proposed between January 2004 and 2005 when Mike Griffin became NASA Administrator.
I merely plugged in the Russian Proton to replace Delta IVH in the Boeing proposed architecture.
But thanks for the comment! 🙂
You were not there having the door closed in your face and your emails ignored once Mike took the helm and his untouchable plan to build ARES became apparent;
The hell I wasn’t! And Paul was one of the people slamming the door in my face.
Griffin never planned to build ARES. He planned to build Ares — which is not an acronym and never capitalized that way. Ares was a rocket. ARES was “Agile Responsive Effective Support” — a close air-support aircraft developed by Burt Rutan. The two have nothing in common, except for an accidental similarity of names.
So you are way off base blaming this on Paul. He worked as hard as anyone to stop the sea-change that occurred. The VSE became Project Constellation despite Paul’s considerable efforts.
No, Anne, *I* tried to stop the sea change (as did many other people). Paul was on the other side. I know because I was there — no matter what you choose to claim. In those days, anyone who did not “support the President’s Vision” was insulted and accused of being anti-GOP, un-American, and maybe even pro-France. I warned people about Mike Griffin’s plan when it was first proposed by the Planetary Society, and I took the heat for it.
Paul didn’t take the heat, he took the money. Mike Griffin directed a big non-competitive, sole-source contract for work on a lunar robotic exploration mission to Paul’s lab. That was hardly secret information. It was even reported on NASA Watch — http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18895.
As I’m sure you’re aware, JHU/APL is where Paul worked at the time.
So, yes, VSE “changed.” It overran its budget and Griffin had to cut certain things as a result. One of those cuts was the money for JHU/APL. That was when Paul had a change of heart. You can rewrite history any way you like, Anne, but those are the facts.
You have been ill-served by those who have used you to malign him.
No one is “using” me, Anne. I speak for myself. Please stop making stuff up.
The United States has spent over $10 billion on the Bush Vision of Space Exploration, and what do we have to show for it? Nothing. If NASA had supported Cheap Access to Space, instead, we might have one or more orbital RLVs flying right now — and we would be much closer to returning humans to the Moon (and keeping them there, affordably) than we are right now.
As I’ve been saying for years, Anne, you Moonies (and Marsies) are your own worst enemy. By insisting on another Apollo program, you have done more to delay the return of humans to the Moon and the start of missions to Mars than any budget-cutter ever could.
Edward,
As you said in your reply, Paul worked at JHU/APL. He was not in charge at APL. It was not “Paul’s lab.” He did not work for NASA. He was not contributing to Senator Milkulski’s re-election campaign. But because APL got a lunar robotic exploration mission (that Mike Griffin pulled the plug on) you are upset with Paul? Paul has successfully worked on lunar studies and missions for a very long time. I think it is fair to say he is an expert in his field. Was APL unqualified to be selected? Did something illegal occur?
The president’s mission was not Ares. The president’s space program was VSE. I get the impression your personal political position is involved someway in your heated posts.
I know nothing about you sir. Where you work (?) What missions you have been involved with (?) What lab you work with(?) What university you are employed by (?) Nothing, except what you’ve been spewing on blogs and that you are now saying Paul slammed doors in your face. Did he oversee some project you were on? I don’t know how that is possible. Did APL get that mission over some lab you were working with? JPL? I see you hate “Moonies” and “Marsies.” I guess that gives me some clue. Are you anti-manned exploration? Help me out here?
Your tone, your pattern of posting lies, your personal insults and your lack of information tell me you have some other reason for the vendetta you have embarked upon. Since it makes no sense, the only reason I can fathom is that you are hiding your real agenda and involvement in something that didn’t happen in your professional life and have decided to use Paul as a scapegoat.
Forgive me for speculating but you are so wrong on so many things.
Speaking of Marsies… (Martianistas?)
Zubrin popularized a new perspective after the 90 day report thankfully killed any NASA Apollo to mars. Of course, his plan assumed Apollo style NASA and heavy lift, so it didn’t go far enough.
NASA is willing to pay for rides to LEO. That’s huge. Would they be willing to pay for rides to mars orbit? If so, a private company could put such a ship in earth orbit today from existing components. They’d have to send kerosene ahead to mars for the return trip. Oxygen is very likely easy to manufacturer from either of the mars moons.
Then you need a mars lander for the third leg of the trip. With that Zubrin’s heavy lift isn’t needed at all. I’m not sure if free enterprise is up to that particular job yet.
My takeaway from this whole discussion is that Paul is a lucky guy.
But because APL got a lunar robotic exploration mission (that Mike Griffin pulled the plug on) you are upset with Paul?
Anne, are you actually trying to deny that Paul was involved in that mission? APL got a huge, sole-source, non-competitive, non-peer-reviewed award from NASA to work on lunar exploration, and their top lunar expert wasn’t part of it? Do you expect anyone to believe that, Anne?
I never said Paul worked (directly) for NASA or that he “contributed to Senator Milkulski’s re-election campaign.” Please stop making stuff up.
I never said I was upset because Paul got money from Mike Griffin. I’m upset because of what he did to get that handout, and what he’s still doing.
Paul was a water carrier for Sean O’Keefe and Mike Griffin. He helped lead the charge to kill support for Cheap Access To Space, replace the Shuttle with an even more expensive launch system, and set NASA back to the 1960’s. The fact that he ultimately had a falling out with Griffin and now disagrees with certain details of the HLV design does not change that.
The president’s mission was not Ares. The president’s space program was VSE. I get the impression your personal political position is involved someway in your heated posts.
Anne, you are either misinformed or playing stupid. Ares was part of the Bush Vision. President Bush requested funding for it each and every year. It wasn’t some rogue op that Bush knew nothing about. Saying that Ares was not part of his vision is nothing but political spin-doctoring.
And again, Paul was a supporter and defender of Ares — right up until the moment when APL lost its funding. Do you really expect people to believe that was a coincidence?
Yes, my political position is involved in this. I believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. I don’t believe that bigger government, higher taxes, and more spending are the solution to every problem. I believe that space is important to America’s future, and I don’t want to see NASA stuck in the past, reliving Project Apollo for another 50 years. I believe that large-scale asteroid impacts and global extinction events are a bad thing, and that the United States should be working on planetary defense. I believe in national security, and that requires a strong military, not “soft power.” I believe that space will be an important battlefield in future wars, and the United States needs to develop weapons to fight on that battlefield. I believe the space frontier should be open to all Americans — not just a few government employees. I believe that the American space program belongs to the American people and all Americans should have a say in how its run — not just a handful of political insiders like Paul.
You and Paul have a right to disagree with me on all these things. You are entitled to your own opinions — but you are not entitled to your own facts. So, please, stop trying to rewrite history to fit your agenda.
I know nothing about you sir.
Yet, that didn’t stop you from making sweeping statements like, “you weren’t there.” Why is that, Anne?
Where you work (?) What missions you have been involved with (?) What lab you work with(?) What university you are employed by (?)
I work in Texas. I’m involved with a number of missions and a number of labs. I am not employed by any university (although some of my team members are). But all of that is irrelevant. Do you think only researchers and university professors have a right to a say in how taxpayer’s money gets spent?
you are now saying Paul slammed doors in your face. Did he oversee some project you were on? I don’t know how that is possible.
Please don’t be coy, Anne. Paul served on the Aldridge Commission, as you know very well. The Aldridge Commission oversaw the whole of US space policy.
Did APL get that mission over some lab you were working with? JPL?
Did you beat your husband today, Anne? With a club? In broad daylight?
It’s sad that you think anyone who expresses a political opinion must be protecting some government handout he’s getting.
APL wasn’t competing with any entity I was connected with, but it was funded by my tax dollars. That gives me the right to express an opinion, whether you and Paul like it or not. A lot of my tax dollars also went into the Constellation boondoggle, which Paul publicly defended as long as Mike Griffin continued funding his robot project. I have the right to express an opinion on that, too.
I see you hate “Moonies” and “Marsies.” I guess that gives me some clue.
No, I don’t “hate” Moonies or Marsies. Like Mark Whittington, you have the strange idea that anyone who disagrees with your political views must “hate” you.
I am, however, frustrated with the counterproductive actions of the Moonies and Marsies who insist on believed that “CATS must die” so their programs can live. Five minutes of rational analysis would show that Cheap Access to Space (along with commercialization) is the key to opening up the Moon and Mars — along with the entirely space frontier.
Are you anti-manned exploration?
Anne, have you read *anything* I’ve written?
I am *pro* manned space exploration — and womanned space exploration, too. (“Manned” space is a term NASA phased out in the 1970’s. It referred to the male-only astronaut program, which was replaced by “human” space exploration during the Shuttle era.)
I want to *reduce* the cost of human spaceflight so *more* people can go. Paul’s vision will *increase* the cost so *fewer* people can go. Wanting more humans to explore space does *NOT* make me “anti-manned space exploration.”
The Bush Vision — deorbiting the International Space Station, retiring the Shuttle, and replacing it with an even more expensive launch system — would lead to far *fewer* NASA astronauts flying in future decades.
I want to see *more* NASA employees flying in space. And military personnel, and private citizens, too.
As General Bolden has said, we should have thousands of Americans living and working in Low Earth Orbit in the near future, and NASA astronauts exploring everywhere in the inner solar system (not just the Moon).
That is a much more exciting goal than the Bush Vision of spending more money to send fewer people into space. That is the goal Paul (and other members of the Aldridge Commission) slammed the door on, and that is what Paul is attacking now.
As I said before, Paul wanted NASA to spend $2 billion to land one robot on the Moon. One robot. The “Human Lunar Return” program would have sent astronauts back to the Moon for $2 billion. If the Aldridge Commission had supported something like HLR, NASA might have astronauts on the Moon right now — and it wouldn’t have had to kill support for CATS or aeronautics or any of the other things that were cut for the Bush Vision.
Spending $2 billion so one robot can go to the Moon, or $100 billion so a tiny handful of astronauts can go, isn’t worth doing. We need a space program that’s worthy of a great nation. An innovative, cost-effective program that opens the space frontier for all Americans.
I’m happy that you are now content with your “worthy of a great nation” plan Edward.
I still know nothing about you due to the fact that you have managed for some bizarre reason to totally twist Paul’s views on just about everything.
Good day sir.
Edward, I just had to quote you on my blog.