Transterrestrial Musings




Defend Free Speech!


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay




Site designed by


Powered by
Movable Type 4.0
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« SpaceShipThree? | Main | Crickets Chirping At The ICRC? »

The Real Space Race

Chair Force Engineer writes about it:

In a true competition for transporting astronauts to low earth orbit, NASA would be beaten hands-down by SpaceX at this stage in the game. SpaceX has a capsule with more astronauts (seven versus six,) a cheaper booster (Falcon 9 vs. Ares I,) and a faster schedule.

The only thing SpaceX doesn't have is thousands of jobs, and access to billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

[Update about 5 PM EST]

Mark Whittington continues to live in a fantasyland on this subject:

My sense is that under the scenario, COTS will be cancelled and the manned space program will consist of astronauts going in circles around the Earth forever and ever.


At least until the Chinese land men on the Moon. Then there will be a rather rude awakening.

Like it or not, the only hope for near term commercial space flight in LEO is that NASA continues to explore beyond LEO.

COTS is helpful, but in no way essential for commercial human spaceflight.

SpaceX was developing the Falcon 1 and 9 before COTS, and it would continue to do so in the absence of COTS. OSC might not move forward without COTS, but Dragon development will continue, Falcon 9 development will continue, and Atlas V upgrades will continue. The real market is not COTS, which is a sideshow from a payload standpoint, but Bigelow's private space facilities, which were also moving forward before COTS, and would continue to do so in its absence.

I simply don't understand Mark's blindness to these realities that intrude so rudely on his theories, and his continuing obtuse insistence that commercial space is doomed without COTS, other than some sort of faith-based belief that it is not possible to put people into space without government funding.

And the notion that China is going to land a man on the moon any time within the next twenty years, at their current pace of development (far slower than Apollo was) remains laughable. So is the notion that they would suddenly do so out of the blue and that it would be a "rude awakening."

This isn't the Sputnik era, in which one can slip a satellite on a missile, in a world in which there was no space-based surveillance. There will be no surprise. If the development pace of the Chinese program picks up, it will be quite obvious, given the need for either a very large Saturn-class vehicle or (if they're smart) orbital infrastructure, long before it actually happens. We will have plenty of time to respond, from a policy perspective, should we decide to.

CFE has it right--the race is between NASA and the private sector, not between slow-paced, expensive and moribund government space programs.

 
 

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Real Space Race.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9160

19 Comments

Phil Fraering wrote:

Actually, Rand, you're wrong. There _is_ a "rude awakening" style space program the Chinese could accomplish.

They could actually run a moon mission using their current launchers and orbital assembly, just like NASA and its fanboys keep telling us is too risky to do without a humongous HLV and solid-fueled first stages.

daveon wrote:

NASA would be beaten hands-down by SpaceX at this stage in the game.

As we say in England. Bollocks.

NASA have put people in orbit and brought them back. SpaceX have not. They can have as much mock up and paper designs as they like and still not actually have done it. In fact, they still haven't actually sucesfully orbited a vehicle yet.

But don't let that get in the way of things.

Alan Bond was on the BBC World Service last night making some very cogent points about this sort of silliness but then, what does he know. It's not like he's a rocket scientist...

Rand Simberg wrote:

NASA have put people in orbit and brought them back. SpaceX have not.

So, your argument is that because they have not yet done it, they cannot?

Don't leave your day job for a debate gig...

steve h wrote:

Rand's not saying they "can't", only that it's ridiculous to assert at this stage that "NASA would be beaten hands-down" by a group that's never actually orbited.

A.C. wrote:

I can't find where SpaceX has put _any_ thing into orbit. They have a 100% failure rate. They're using kerosene-LOX rockets; these have been around since before WWII; nothing new there. Even with 80+ years of rocket design information available to them (starting with Goddard in the 1920's) they still can't build a rocket that can reach orbit. New ideas, new technology? I have no doubt that there are engineers long dead or retired from NASA, Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed and the other Aerospace companies that can explain to them the technical reasons why SpaceX's designs failed when their companies tried them. Not political reasons, technical reasons. All SpaceX is doing is learning how hard it really is to get something into orbit reliably. The NASA COTS funding is just another government boondoggle that you all despise.

Ole Eichhorn wrote:

I'm a big fan of Elon and SpaceX but there is one thing they don't have that Nasa has - a successful launch.

Right now, for all the progress they've made and development they've done and customers they've signed and plans they've made, they are 0 for 2 trying to get something into orbit.

Not saying they won't - as I say, I'm a fan - but they have a ways to go yet.

Cecil Trotter wrote:

I have high confidence that SpaceX will be successful with their Falcon launch vehicles as well as the Dragon spacecraft, but to say that SpaceX "has" these capabilities now is simply not true.

Mark R. Whittington wrote:

I have a much longer response to Rand's tirade on my own blog, but suffice to say that he not only has no understanding of what my position is concerning commercial space (or else he is being dishonest about it deliberately) and he has a somewhat inflated view of the *current* capabilities of commercial space (as opposed to the potential capabilities.)

Edward Wright wrote:

COTS will be cancelled and the manned space program will consist of astronauts going in circles around the Earth forever and ever.

I've never understood this particular piece of NASA Fanboy rhetoric. Can anyone explain it to me?

ISS isn't a cool enough destination for NASA astronauts because it's "going in circles"?

So, we need to spend hundreds of billions sending NASA astronauts to the Moon because the Moon is a cool destination?

But the Moon is going in circles around the Earth, too -- isn't that the very thing that supposedly makes ISS uncool?

And what about Mars, which goes in circles around the Sun? Is that uncool, too?

Or do the people who say this not understand that the Moon circles the Earth and Mars circles the Sun?

Why is there this strange phobia or aversion to circles, anyway? Were they frightened by circles in plain geometry? Do they belong to some religious cult that shuns circles, or is there some Freudian explanation?

Is there a psychoanalyst in the house? :-)

Mark R. Whittington wrote:

"If you persist in believing that merely working for NASA confers some special powers and abilities that other people lack, then riddle my this: Mike Griffin got over $100 million from NASA to build a suborbital vehicle (X-34). Burt Rutan got $25 million from Paul Allen to build a suborbital vehicle (SpaceShip One). Which one failed? Which one succeeded? Did working for NASA help or hinder Griffin in developing X-34? "

FYI, Edward, X 34 predates Mike Griffin's tenure as NASA Administrator.

Edward Wright wrote:

FYI, Edward, X 34 predates Mike Griffin's tenure as NASA Administrator.

Mark, did it ever cross your mind that Mike Griffin might have worked on NASA space projects before he became NASA Administrator?

Did you think he was a college new hire? That NASA Administrator was an entry-level position???

Before he became NASA Administrator, Mike Griffin was Chief Technology Officer for Orbital Sciences where he was responsible for X-34 and other projects.

How can you be so sure Mike Griffin is infallible and not have even the slightest knowledge about his background?

Anonymous wrote:

I have a much longer response to Rand's tirade on my own blog

My "tirade"?

Without bothering to go read it, I seriously doubt that you have a response to anything I've actually written, because you rarely do, instead "responding" to things that you fantasize that I've written.

Edward Wright wrote:

So, now Mark's claiming Genesis 1 and 2 don't exist??? Does he never tire of making a fool of himself?

On the other hand, he claims "the Chinese are busily doing everything they need to do in preperation [sic] for a lunar landing mission."

Really? "The Chinese" are doing rendezvous and docking? Building lunar landers? Transfer stages?

Where's the evidence?

What about Ares-class superboosters? Those aren't really necessary for lunar landing -- but Mark thinks they are, because Mike Griffin says they are. Does he think the Chinese are building Ares-class boosters?

Again, where's his evidence?

There is none. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that Communist China is developing a military spaceplane. But the military has no place in Mark's "vision of space exploration," so he ignores that unwanted evidence.

And once again, Marks denigrates human spaceflight. It's only "tourist joy rides" according to him (unless it's limited to a tiny handful of government supermen, of course).


Rick C wrote:

I get a kick out of the people suggesting SpaceX can be dismissed since they haven't had a successful launch yet. Have you guys looked at NASA's early history? They've had a few failures, too, you know. It's probably fairer to compare SpaceX of today with NASA of 40 years or so ago.

Rand Simberg wrote:

I get a kick out of the people suggesting SpaceX can be dismissed since they haven't had a successful launch yet. Have you guys looked at NASA's early history? They've had a few failures, too, you know. It's probably fairer to compare SpaceX of today with NASA of 40 years or so ago.

Actually, NASA hasn't successfully developed a launch vehicle since the Shuttle, over a quarter of a century ago. They've had many failed attempts since, from developing engines (FasTrack, anyone?) to aborted vehicle programs like the X-33 and X-34. They are floundering with this one. What evidence is there to think that they know how to do it any more? Elon has a lot more hardware on the pad, and under construction, and more test flights, than NASA does with Ares.

Sam Dinkin wrote:

I think the race is between SpaceX and the Chinese or Indians. NASA shows no interest in racing.

incongruities wrote:

Nasa fanboys are obviously not to be confused with Nascar fanboys.

DensityDuck wrote:

Ahem. SpaceX is also missing one big thing: A working system. SpaceX has a PowerPoint presentation, just like NASA does. You scoff at "jobs program", but I'd rather have a jobs program than a rich man's hobby. "Oh, but early aviation was just rich men, Howard Hughes hurr durr!" Yes, but early aviation didn't have a fifty-year history of flight ops behind it.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Ahem. SpaceX is also missing one big thing: A working system. SpaceX has a PowerPoint presentation, just like NASA does.

No, SpaceX has hardware sitting on the pad, with two test flights under its belt, and more schedule this year.

You scoff at "jobs program", but I'd rather have a jobs program than a rich man's hobby.

Well, in case there was any previous doubt that you're an economic and technological ignoramus, you've removed it all.

Leave a comment

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
 

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on March 1, 2008 12:30 PM.

SpaceShipThree? was the previous entry in this blog.

Crickets Chirping At The ICRC? is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.1