I was thinking about responding to Paul Spudis’s bizarre attempt to resurrect the Shuttle, but Clark Lindsey has spared me the trouble. In fact I had this exact thought when I read Paul’s post title:
…neutral would be a big improvement over reverse, which is where NASA has been going for the past decade. Constellation burned up many billions of dollars on a plan to build retro-tech vehicles that would have been just as expensive, if not more so, to operate than the Shuttle. The administration’s plan, of course, is not in neutral but is moving forward on development of cost-effective commercial launch systems, though this could be undermined by Congress’s insistence on parallel development of a super-expensive, super heavy lift vehicle based on Shuttle hardware.
And the double standard remains amazing:
Dr. Spudis asks,
How long will our rapidly growing government (with its rapidly shrinking discretionary budget) patiently support “commercial” New Space efforts?
This question is bizarre. The alternative to the modestly funded commercial launch services program is another gigantically expensive in-house NASA project that has no more chance of succeeding than all of the previous gigantically expensive NASA space transport projects. There is, in fact, no alternative to commercial launchers. If they don’t succeed at providing reliable transport at significantly lower costs than the Shuttle, NASA’s human spaceflight program will simply fade away. Fortunately, there is a very strong likelihood that they will succeed.
As Clark notes, it’s ironic that Paul continues to champion transportation approaches with the least probability of achieving his goal of a practical lunar base.
I was wondering if you were going to comment on Mr. Spudis’ post or not. What was particularly striking to me is his comparison between the “hype” surrounding the promises of New SPace today with the promises offered by the Shuttle in yesteryear. Um, hello? He’s essentially saying we shouldn’t expect a commercial endeavor to fulfill its promise because some government program failed to do so thirty years ago.
I’m no space expert, and even I lost track of all the logical inconsistencies I found in that post.
Thanks for linking to the Lindsey response.
I haven’t even got to Lindsey’s response yet, as there is too much red meat in the original post.
If the ISS suffers a catastrophic failure the program will be cancelled before news of the disaster hits CNN’s breaking news ticker.
First they justified the Shuttle as a critical item required to build a space station. Now they try to justify the Shuttle as a critical item to crash a space station into the ocean? In such an event, wouldn’t it be cheaper (by many, many billions of dollars) to have the Russians put a small a-bomb in a Progress cargo vehicle, have it dock with the ISS, and then use Captain Kirk’s command code to issue a self-destruct command?
My impression is that his underlying angst is the lack of heavy lift. He wants the F-450 with the optional turbocharged 5 liter V-8 plus strap-on JATOs and ultra heavy duty 60,000 lb towing package, even though the daily grind is just taking the kids to preschool and back.
Have pity, the poor thing is just rationalizing to hold on to what he knows.
Spudis’ closing sentence — “Now is not the time to stop flying Shuttle” — is exactly wrong. “Now” IS the time, before they tempt fate one last time with Atlantis.
They’re going to be flying a very unforgiving vehicle whose tenuous hold one safety depends on the top performance of everyone preparing it for flight. At least 1,500 of those people at the Cape have been given layoff notices, effective early August. Because no recission clause was included in the notices, they cannot be rescinded if Atlantis’ schedule slips. There will be intense pressure to launch on time, no matter what.
Though the personnel involved in a shuttle launch are very good, decent, dedicated people, they are still people. To expect them to perform at the top of their game when they face unemployment as soon as the game ends is simply irrational. There have been a couple of tragic proofs of that so far.
This is one launch I’m not going to watch.
George,
An A-bomb in a Progress to destroy the ISS? What are you smoking? The EMP will fry dozens of satellites!
Thomas, but frying satellites generates new commercial launches! It’s win-win! ^_^
I read a few comments on the original article and someone argued that we need the Shuttle so we can rescue anyone who might get stranded in orbit on the new commercial capsules.
Zowie.
MfK,
The Shuttle workforce are professionals, not clock watchers. If the launch slips I am sure they will be there for it.
That’s the kind of moronic response you get from NASA management, only worse.
In case you didn’t catch the meaning of “[their layoffs] cannot be rescinded,” it means that if the schedule slips, these non-clockwatching professionals CANNOT be there unless they are rehired.
Jeez, what a dork…
At the moment the problem is not Spudis’ mental rut, but that NASA is about to throw FAR frameworks into whatever follows CCDev 2, rather than sticking with SAA’s.
They’ll call it “limited” and “necessary for sufficient supervision of human flight” but it’ll have the same effect of heading any NASA-sponsored “commercial” down a dead end, at least in terms of cost.
Since Congress would only screw it up more the only remedy is intervention from what one observer called “higher powers” in the Executive branch, say OMB or something.
Of course, if SpaceX decided to do a “commercial Yuri Gagarin” manned flight (before or) after they get their escape system finished during CCDev 2 that would help a lot…
MfK,
And the problem with rehiring them is?
Charles,
That is why I have been arguing against CCDev, because by putting NASA in the critical path of commercial HSF and gives it a excuse to mandate the safety requirements. Neither will turn out well.
They might not be available to rehire.
I continue to live in hope that Elon actually knows what he’s doing.
I for one don’t understand Spudis. I agree with his oft-stated desire to do ISRU at the Lunar poles. However, I can’t understand why he doesn’t see that in order to achieve his dream, we’ll need to have things like LEO propellant depots, commercialization of the first 200 mile leg of the journey, and so forth. NASA building SLS ensures his dream doesn’t get realized in his lifetime, if ever.
Karl,
You are talking a matter of days, not months. Unlike Cinderella they won’t disappear when the clock strikes midnight….
Trent,
Yes, and he doesn’t give in to the dark side of the force and go the Orbital Science route. His recent hiring of a lobbyist from Orbital Science worries me.
Screw it. I’m getting tired and cynical. It’s to the point where I’m now in favor of building a NASA heavy-lift vehicle … as long as there’s a parallel commercial space program with adequate resources. Because eventually the economy’s going to go into the crapper, and everything will have to be cut back. The NASA heavy lifter will be the obvious thing to sacrifice, especially since (with any luck) commercial space will be a going concern long before any metal gets bent for NASA’s beast. Of course, Congress being what it is, they’re as likely to kill useful, sensible commercial space as a pointless heavy launcher … in which case I’ll start drinking even more heavily. Bah.
Tom, I’m guessing the ex-Orbital guy is looking for job security. Orbital has had nothing but trouble with Taurus II. It’s built around an engine that’s never flown successfully. Orbital bought said engine off of a dusty back shelf in the Joe Stalin Army/Navy Store. They don’t have the capability to build more when the current supply is gone.
Looks like a sharp career move to me.
Murgatroyd, to mix a metaphor or two when it comes to letting the baby have his bottle so they don’t interfere with commercial cargo/crew.. sorry, the genie is already out. You could say they hadn’t recognized the threat before the Augustine committee.. you could even say they were blind to it before the FY11 budget was horribly rolled out. But as soon as Obama went to see the Falcon 9 and get a photo with Elon Musk the possibility of keeping political dirty tricks out of the tiny little commercial cargo/crew program was over. Hopefully the CCDev providers have recognized this and have decided when they’ve had to much and can walk away.
That is why I have been arguing against CCDev, because by putting NASA in the critical path of commercial HSF and gives it a excuse to mandate the safety requirements. Neither will turn out well.
Oh? And you don’t think NASA would mandate safety requirements for Constellation, which you supported, or Shuttle C, or whatever it is you’re calling for today?
Rigggghhhhht…! 🙂
Edward,
As I stated so many times before, I couldn’t care less what NASA does with their systems. It’s the potential to corrupt and transform the space commerce into “New Space” contractors that makes me a foe of CCDev.
And I am not alone. I was at a meeting at NASA Ames when I was discussing it with some folks involved with the DragonLab. They were depressed by how the Borg at NASA HQ seem to be assimilating SpaceX and how the real commercial biotech firms who want to use DragonLab now were getting frustrated with COTS/CCDev pushing them to the end of the line.
Trent,
Yes, as soon the new space policy it put SpaceX in the crosshairs as the program they must defeat in their zero sum view of the world.
Dick,
I am sure it’s a good career move for him. But it indication that SpaceX is on the slippery slope that Orbital Sciences followed to where they are today.
Murgatroyd,
I agree with Trent. It’s too late now to distract them with a high profile. The lost of Constellation showed them the power of the New Space lobby and now it’s a fight to the death in which there will probably no winners, just space policy chaos for years.
…now it’s a fight to the death in which there will probably no winners, just space policy chaos for years.
That’s why I said “drinking more heavily.”
Or to just forget NASA and start looking for real commercial markets.
As I stated so many times before, I couldn’t care less what NASA does with their systems.
Sure, Tom. You’ve posted about it hundreds of times because you don’t care at all.
Denial is a river in Egypt, right? 🙂
It’s the potential to corrupt and transform the space commerce into “New Space” contractors that makes me a foe of CCDev.
And you don’t think Lockheed/ATK/International Lunar Development Corp. will be corrupted by SLS because…?????
Yes, as soon the new space policy it put SpaceX in the crosshairs as the program they must defeat in their zero sum view of the world.
So, now you’re blaming Bush for your insanity?
Tom, you were shooting off your mouth about how “CATS must die so NASA can return to the Moon” even before the Bush Vision of Space Exploration was announced.
BVSE merely encouraged you to change magazines and increase your rate of fire, that’s all.
Gee Ed, you aren’t even able to tell the difference between CATS and COTS anymore….
And an ILDC would not have the engineer/science culture NASA has, so it wouldn’t be interested in micromanaging system development like NASA does. Like Comsat it would be focused on creating markets, not pushing technology.
Gee Ed, you aren’t even able to tell the difference between CATS and COTS anymore….
Sure, I can, Tom. Since you’re having trouble, I’ll help you out.
COTS is Cheap Access To Space. Like SpaceShip One, which you insanely blamed for the fact that NASA hasn’t been back to the Moon in 40 years. Because Burt Rutan was somehow preventing Bush from spending enough money on Constellation, or some such nonsense.
And an ILDC would not have the engineer/science culture NASA has, so it wouldn’t be interested in micromanaging system development like NASA does. Like Comsat it would be focused on creating markets, not pushing technology.
Those who do not learn from history —
In the real world, the sat comm market did not really take off until private companies found a way around the government Comsat monopoly.
Socialism simply does not work as well as private enterprise, no matter what academics believe.
Of course, you think that *your* international socialist bureaucracy would not behave like an international socialist bureaucracy. Social engineers think they can create institutions that have any characteristics they desire. In reality, human nature is much less malleable than you guys realize. The laws of human nature which govern institutions are as unavoidable as the laws of physics that govern auto mechanics.
And good luck running your International Lunar Development Corp without engineers or scientists. Who’s going to design the rockets, you and Richard Shelby?
Gee Ed, you aren’t even able to tell the difference between CATS and COTS anymore….
Sure, I can, Tom. Since you’re having trouble, I’ll help you out.
COTS is Cheap Access To Space. Like SpaceShip One, which you insanely blamed for the fact that NASA hasn’t been back to the Moon in 40 years. Because Burt Rutan was somehow preventing Bush from spending enough money on Constellation, or some such nonsense.
And an ILDC would not have the engineer/science culture NASA has, so it wouldn’t be interested in micromanaging system development like NASA does. Like Comsat it would be focused on creating markets, not pushing technology.
Those who do not learn from history —
In the real world, the sat comm market did not really take off until private companies found a way around the government Comsat monopoly.
Socialism simply does not work as well as private enterprise, no matter what academics believe.
Of course, you believe that *your* international socialist bureaucracy would not behave like an international socialist bureaucracy. Because you’ve said it won’t. Social engineers think they can create institutions that have any characteristics they desire. In reality, human nature is much less malleable than that. The laws of human nature which govern institutions are as unavoidable as the laws of physics that govern auto mechanics.
And good luck running your International Lunar Development Corp without an engineer/science culture, Tom. Who’s going to design your hardware, you and Richard Shelby? 🙂
Edward,
[[[In the real world, the sat comm market did not really take off until private companies found a way around the government Comsat monopoly.]]]
Ahh, another Space Frontier Foundation myth. If it was a government monopoly like you claim then how could private firms get around it? And how could its stock have been traded on the NYSE? And why does Lockheed own 100% of Comsat today?
Thanks! I needed to laugh…
If it was a government monopoly like you claim then how could private firms get around it?
Through the FCC Open Skies policy, the development of domestic communications satellites, and an effective lobbying campaign that allowed domestic companies to enter the international marketplace.
This is common knowledge in the commercial space industry.
And how could its stock have been traded on the NYSE? And why does Lockheed own 100% of Comsat today?
I guess it’s because you live in your own universe.
In the real world, Lockheed sold Comsat off to British Telecom quite a while ago. That lemon was never able to compete successfully once it lost its monopoly status.
For someone with such authoritative opinions, you don’t seem to have done much research.