Jon Goff says that first impressions matter. A lot.

This is exactly the kind of mindset that we have to break out of. Unfortunately, in its choice of vehicle designs, NASA remains part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.

Hell, what if the Space Shuttle had been built with Max Faget's original (smaller, straight-wing) design? But they just couldn't let the Air Force keep the Titans for their own launches, there had to be the One National Spacecraft.

One Volk, One Reich, One Spacecraft just wasn't the American way, but that's what we ended up with.

The solution is the one that always works. True capitalism and open competition. NASA (and all government agencies for that matter) needs to get out of the business of manufacturer and become a pure customer. Industry today is ready to take up the challenge.

We also need to get the regulators out of the picture except for external issues. We need to get rid of the nanny state. People have a god given right to do things other people consider to be stupid or a waste as long as they only blow themselves up. I'm shooting for concise rather than eloquent here.

But they just couldn't let the Air Force keep the Titans for their own launches,

Right -- the shuttle's fantasy economics would have been impossible to sugarcoat without taking all the DOD launch market.

So where can a space vehicle capable of taking people to and from the Moon be found in the commercial market that is not vaporware?

So where can a space vehicle capable of taking people to and from the Moon be found in the commercial market that is not vaporware?

What difference does it make, since NASA's version is vaporware as well?

"What difference does it make, since NASA's version is vaporware as well?"

The problem is that people are pretending that all one has to do is to buy or lease a mythical space craft from the commercial sector that doesn't exist. NASA, for all of its faults, at least has some experience in building space craft that can take people to the Moon.

NASA, for all of its faults, at least has some experience in building space craft that can take people to the Moon.

No, it doesn't, Mark. Nobody does. The people who did that are retired, or dead.

People have experience, not organizations. To the limited degree that it still exists, the private sector has as much access to that knowledge and experience as NASA does. The last job that George Mueller had, in fact, was working for Kistler.

Right -- the shuttle's fantasy economics would have been impossible to sugarcoat without taking all the DOD launch market.

Actually, it's worse than that. NASA intended to take over the entire US launch market with the Shuttle, not just the DoD market. Their goal was to see all expendable boosters phased out as soon as possible. That's why NASA was directly competing with the commercial launch market by launching satellites on the Shuttle (heavily subsidized by the US taxpayers). That didn't end until after the Challenger accident.

Back in 1985-86, the US had a series of launch failures. There was a Titan 34 lost out of Vandenberg, the Challenger, a Delta II failure (a known fault in the electrical system was reportedly not fixed because Boeing didn't expect to be launching very many more of them), a Atlas, and another Titan 34. For a time, the only operational launcher left was the Scout. Putting all of our launcher eggs into any one basket is a very bad idea.

> The problem is that people are pretending that all one has to do is to buy
> or lease a mythical space craft from the commercial sector that doesn't
> exist

No, Mark, you are the one pretending.

You pretend that Soyuz is "vaporware," "mythical," and "doesn't exist."

You pretend that "no private company" is offering flights to the Moon on Soyuz, when you know that Space Adventures and CSI are both doing so.

You pretend that it's impossible to land a man on the Moon in less than 14 years, for less than $100 billion.

You pretend that it's impossible for human beings to build or do anything that wasn't built or done during the Apollo era.

Most significantly, you pretend that state socialism is a more reliable means of developing transportation systems than private enterprise.

Rand - And Kistler's Moon ship will be taking off when?

Edward - One might be able to get back to the Moon cheaper and in less time, but so far no one is trying to do it. Except, perhaps, the Chinese.

Oh, and by the way Rand, on the subject of institutionsl experience, by your reasoning, the Libyan Army could emmulate the Six Day War because, after all, the knowledge of how to do it certainly exists.

Rand - And Kistler's Moon ship will be taking off when?

Nice non sequitur, Mark. It will likely be taking off at least as soon as NASA's.

Libyan Army could emmulate the Six Day War because, after all, the knowledge of how to do it certainly exists.

Really? Are there a lot of Israeli veterans of the Six-Day War serving in the Libyan Army?

I think you missed my point completely, but that's nothing new.

> One might be able to get back to the Moon cheaper and in less time,
> but so far no one is trying to do it. Except, perhaps, the Chinese.

Mark, I know the people who run Space Adventures and CSI.

None of them are Chinese.

And so what if they were?

Do you have any facts that are actually true?

Mark, I think Clark Lindsay had posted some article last year (not necessarily authored by him) on how poorly NASA had documented the Apollo program. Your argument on institutional knowledge doesn't hold up, particularly as government agencies often don't make decisions based on knowledge, but on politics.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at February 21, 2007 11:05 AM

I love it when small government conservatives are pro government programs instead of private industry.

Are you for nationalized health care now?

Robert

Mark, since when have Delta IV and Atlas V been vapourware?

Paul/Larry:

Actually, there was to my knowledge never a calculation of Shuttle economics with vs. without the DOD market.

The reason DOD was directed to use Shuttle was because Hans Mark (as AF Undersecretary then Secretary under Jimmy Carter) agreed to take a whole bunch of AF budget money and give it to NASA in the late 1970s to save the Shuttle during its development crises. The argument went: instead of upgrading Titans (which was later committed to by AF Sec'y Pete Aldridge), we will simply buy rides from NASA.

But nobody believed it would make NASA's sunk costs pay off. Whether Hans really believed it was a good deal for the AF is almost irrelevant. Hans had run NASA Ames before, and was committed to the U.S. having a spaceplane, however imperfect.

Paul/Larry:

Actually, there was to my knowledge never a calculation of Shuttle economics with vs. without the DOD market.

The reason DOD was directed to use Shuttle was because Hans Mark (as AF Undersecretary then Secretary under Jimmy Carter) agreed to take a whole bunch of AF budget money and give it to NASA in the late 1970s to save the Shuttle during its development crises. The argument went: instead of upgrading Titans (which was later committed to by AF Sec'y Pete Aldridge), we will simply buy rides from NASA.

But nobody believed it would make NASA's sunk costs pay off. Whether Hans really believed it was a good deal for the AF is almost irrelevant. Hans had run NASA Ames before, and was committed to the U.S. having a spaceplane, however imperfect.

Mark,

I'd like to respond to your question... "So where can a space vehicle capable of taking people to and from the Moon be found in the commercial market that is not vaporware?"

About 15 years ago, the FAA operated the 4th largest telephone service in the country... data, everything from radar to radios went from remote locations to the regional ARTCC's. This was because of the A.T.T. breakup. While working in the NW region (ANM) about 15 years ago, I contributed to the contract that put things back into a prebreakup mode, buying services from vendors rather than engineering them ourselves. Things improved a bit. This was a logical progression.

It would have been better if there was no monopoly in the first place (thanks to politics in 1934) and it would have been better if the FAA didn't have to learn the hard way that maintaining it's own network was a bad idea. But that's the problem with politicians thinking tax money is their money and not trusting capitalism to be more efficient (which is always seems to be.)

Capitalism and competition works. Ask your question again in ten years.

BTW, I enjoy reading your blog as well as Rand's.

Your either part of the solution, or part of the problem.

Seems like allot here are part of the problem...

You all should put your energy and time into doing rather than talking shit about who's got what or done this or that.

Put up or shut up folks