Category Archives: Space

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

Stupidest Headline Of The Week

12 Comments

So far, anyway.

“‘Citizens’ Group Carries Obama’s Water in Space.”

First, note the scare quotes around the word “Citizens’.” Because, you know, we all know that it’s some Evil-Soros-Funded-Special-Interest-In-Thrall-To-The-One, not a real group of “citizens” actually concerned about government waste.

A taxpayer watchdog group with a history of opposing space projects blasted an Alabama senator for trying to keep the Constellation program alive.

Shocking, isn’t it? Imagine a group that claims to be against government waste opposing a space project. Because, as we all know, there’s never been a wasteful space project.

Just for grins, and in the interest of journalistic responsibility, let’s wander over to CAGW’s web site, shall we? Let us peruse a few of the other headlines there than Dick Shelby’s well-deserved award.

Here’s a good one: “CAGW Urges Obama to Waive Jones Act to Aid Spill Effort.”

Or this: “CAGW Slams Obama’s Plan for More Stimulus Spending.”

Hmmmm…did someone over there miss the Soros fax about the watercarrying?

Maybe they were just anomalies.

But then we find this: “CCAGW Urges “Yes” Vote on McCain Amendment to Rein In Fannie and Freddie.”

Now I’m really confused. So they’re hauling H2O for both Obama and his election opponent? Whatever will ACORN think, after they worked so hard, and drummed up all those Disney-character votes against him?

And perhaps, delirious from the stress of all the water carrying, they missed the memo that they were supposed to be supporting ObamaCare, not coming up with stories like “CCAGW to House: Vote “No” on The Healthcare Bill!” and “ObamaCare is Not an April Fool’s Joke.”

You know, if they’re carrying water for Obama, they seem to be doing it with a shotgunned sieve. I doubt if they could make it halfway across the room with it.

Actually, after looking at that web site, you know what I think that CAGW is “carrying water” for? Call me crazy, but I think that it’s carrying water for opposition to government waste.

And of course, our intrepid reporter lets this bit of ignorance (or stupidity, or…mendacity — take your pick, or choose them all!) from Bill Posey stand unchallenged:

Florida officials, led by U.S. Rep. Bill Posey, R-Rockledge, have lobbied for Constellation to continue while they cast doubt on the White House’s vision for future space exploration.

“The real waste is canceling a program that’s near completion after investing $9 billion into it,” Posey said.

“If Constellation is killed, the president plans to outsource American space jobs to Russia to the tune of more than a billion dollars – that’s taxpayer money spent there, in Russia, and not here,” the congressman said.

First of all, that program that is “near” completion is at least seven years and another thirty to fifty billion (depending on which estimate — NASA’s or GAO’s — you want to use) from “completion.” That is, it’s about sixty to one hundred SpaceXs away from completion, dollar wise. Second, the plan to “outsource American space jobs to Russia” was George Bush’s. You know, the president who shared a political party with Rep. Posey? This president’s plan is to “outsource” those space jobs to commercial launch providers, creating new industry with new jobs, and allowing NASA to finally focus its meager resources on the much more challenging task of getting beyond LEO, four decades late. A competent reporter would have pointed this out, instead of simply being a stenographer for another porkmeister.

All in all, a thoroughly useless bit of “journalism,” and one of the reasons that a lot of “journalists” are being laid off these days (including many who don’t deserve it). Why does this hack still have his job?

[Update a few minutes later]

I just realized that I might have been a little hard on the reporter. The story is bad, but the reporter doesn’t say anything about “carrying water for Obama.” That was presumably the copy editor, who normally comes up with heds. Of course, if it was the reporter’s suggestion, then shame on him, too.

Business, Space

SS2 Takes Wing

11 Comments

It looks like they dropped it today, or recently.

It’s been six months since the roll out. They’ve made a lot of progress. It’s a real rocketplane now. Or at least airplane — not sure about the status on the hybrid motor.

[Update late afternoon]

I am reliably informed that it was not the real thing, but a model that some of the Virgin guys were flying in the parking lot this morning. The day will come, though. They’ve been doing captive-carry flights. At some point, they’ll have to drop the bird.

Business, Space

Aurora

16 Comments

Nah, nobody would pay anything to see something like this.

[Update a few minutes later]

It occurs to me that the first suborbital vehicles will be capable of reaching the lower ionosphere. How much extra would people pay to fly from high latitudes and see that up close and personal? Of course, there is another issue of whether or not it would be hazardous. I doubt it, but there might be some test flights required first. Perhaps even unmanned, by Masten et al. That’s the reason that they call it the “ignorosphere.” We haven’t really had the opportunity to study it that much. The new vehicles will provide us with one, finally.

Political Commentary, Space, Space History

Space History Bleg

27 Comments

Does anyone have a reference that describes the decision to reduce the size of the Shuttle fleet from seven to five during the Carter administration, and Mondale’s role?

[Update late evening]

Thanks for all the inputs from all the commenters. I’m a little surprised, because my recollection (from the time — see, I’m such a fogie that I actually claim to remember such things) was that Mondale had reduced the fleet size by two in the late seventies. I apparently have some reading to do to get it right.

Political Commentary, Space

How, Not Where

11 Comments

Over at The Space Review today, Dan Lester says we won’t make any progress unless we end our Apollo-driven focus on destinations, and pay more attention to capabilities (as I’ve been preaching for years). I found this interesting:

…how do we get taxpayers to buy into that grand goal of being able to leave, which is a truly unarguable and completely unique justification for human spaceflight? It’s not a matter of just telling NASA to do it. The Space Act that defines the agency says nothing about species preservation, and actually doesn’t even say anything about human spaceflight!

I’m working on a book, and this is an excerpt from the first chapter, a history of the early years:

When it was first formed in 1958, nothing in the NASA charter required that the new agency do more [than the NACA], except to extend the process to space technology development.

And in fact, in light of that, it’s interesting to do something that few (including space enthusiasts) have ever done – to go back and read it. Note that it actually bears little resemblance to the agency that was suddenly morphed into the manned-space behemoth that it became in the wake of the decision to race the Soviets to the moon:

(a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.
(b) The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities.
The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e).
(c)The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.
(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
(2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles;
(3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space;
(4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes;
(5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere;
(6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency;
(7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof;
(8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and
(9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes.

The emphases are mine. Note that nothing whatsoever about Apollo either sought or encouraged to even a minimum extent, let alone the maximum one possible, commercial use of space.

Note also that while (d)(3) authorized the agency to “develop and operate” vehicles carrying “living organisms” (including humans) through space, it says nothing about how they get there. The development of the giant Saturn V was not driven by the NASA charter – it was driven by the need to kick up lunar dust before the Russians did. And take away that clause, and there is little difference between NASA’s charter and what its predecessor, the NACA, did, other than the addition of “space” to aeronautics. The 1961 Apollo decision, in a very profound way, perverted the original intent of the founding of the agency two years earlier. And it’s interesting to point out that the controversial policy change of the Obama administration in early 2010 – to have astronauts delivered to low earth orbit (LEO) on commercial launchers while NASA focused its resources on the “development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space” is nothing more than returning the agency to its original charter of half a century before (and prior to the wrong turn taken with Apollo).

It could have continued on in the NACA model, with private industry developing space vehicles to provide services, for government or commercial markets, and the new agency providing it with the key basic technologies to make it successful. But that approach, while more in keeping with our nation’s successful history of affordable technology development, wouldn’t have achieved the president’s stated objective, or at least couldn’t be relied upon for it.

So with the new rush to get humans to the moon and back, decision makers relied on their own recent experience from the war, in which there had been a massive crash government effort funded by the taxpayer to achieve a critical national goal: the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb. Given the perceived urgency of the space race in an existential Cold War, it seemed appropriate to set up a similar centralized command structure to achieve this new stretch technological objective. As a result, in essence, we established our own state socialist enterprise to compete with that of the Soviets.

We need to break out of that trap in which we’ve been stuck for the past half century.

Political Commentary, Space

The Shuttle Cult

16 Comments

As Clark notes, the phrase “low-cost SDLV” is an oxymoron. It’s only low cost compared to Ares. Any solution that involves preserving the Shuttle infrastructure is going to be intrinsically high cost. Half a billion dollars per flight (and I’ll bet that doesn’t amortize development) is a lot of money. We’ll never open up space that way. The time for a Shuttle-derived vehicle was twenty years ago, when we were still operating the Shuttle and building the station. It’s an anachronism today.