One of the stupidest and most criminal results of Constellation’s crowding out the rest of the NASA budget was the dismantling of the NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts two years ago. It was only costing a few million dollars a year, and that trivial amount of money, which was providing tremendous bang for the NASA buck, was taken to be poured down the multi-billion-dollar Ares rat hole. Now, apparently, there’s talk of resurrecting it. That would be a small, but vital step in getting the agency back on the right track, if the new administrator follows the advice.
Category Archives: Space
More Thoughts On The Economist Moon Debate
From Gwynne Shotwell. You will be almost as shocked as I was to learn that she favors more commercial participation in NASA’s human spaceflight activities.
It’s interesting that there is no mention of her affiliation.
Bad News For The Stadd Family
Courtney was convicted today. I wasn’t on the jury (and couldn’t have been), and don’t know if he has grounds for appeal, but if not, I hope that the judge will be lenient. He has been a good servant to the private space industry, and space in general, for decades.
“Conservatives” In Space
Adam Keiper (who edited and published my recent piece in The New Atlantis, as well as previous ones) contrasts my approach with Bob Zubrin’s, though (as Glenn Reynolds points out) I’m not sure that “conservative” is a useful label for either. I’m basically a libertarian (though to be fair he does talk about “conservatives and libertarians”) who doesn’t think that the goal of space development has been, or ever will be, well served by a massive centralized government program. My policy advice is predicated on the assumption that it will continue to be funded, regardless, and as a space development (and ultimately space settlement) advocate, I’m just trying to funnel the funds in the most productive direction to those ends. I’m not sure how to characterize that position, politically, and I’m not sure that it really matters.
[Update late afternoon]
Sigh. Where to start with Mark Whittington’s latest uncomprehending blather?
NASA alone wastes money and is buffeted by political shifts as its budget is cut or shifted around according to whim. The private sector is simply not capable of mounting expeditions to the Moon or beyond or constructing settlements in the foreseeable future. Together, though, NASA and what people are taking to calling “new space” can do anything.
How to mesh the two so that the strengths are brought to bear is a fundamental problem of our time. I don’t think Rand, for all he praise he has gotten for his New Atlantis article, has answered that question.
Mark (as usual) confuses his inability to comprehend my answer to the question with a failure to answer it.
Part of the reason is a flawed understanding of the history of the space age; Rand has a simplistic notion of why things happened and why they did not.
Hilarious. Perhaps Mark can provide us with his oh-so-much-more sophisticated notion of “why things happened and why they did not,” and thus enlighten us (not to mention actually make a case for this kind of nonsense — something he never does). Perhaps he could even do it so well that he would be invited to write for a publication such as, well, perhaps Mad Magazine, if not The New Atlantis.
Rand also demonstrates a bias against government and an excessive impatience toward its fundamental inefficiencies that seems to foreclose any notion that NASA has any role but servicing the commercial sector.
A complete mischaracterization of my position, (again, as usual) providing zero evidence for it.
A government space effort, while it should be commercial friendly, is much more than just a conduit toward space faring corporate welfare.
So he ends with (what else?) an idiotic straw man.
[Friday morning update]
Per some thoughts in comments, I went to check Technorati, and Mark has a grand total of seven links in the last couple months. All but one are from either me or Jon Goff (the other blogger whose arguments he fantasizes about)l, and most from me, always in response to some outrageous misinterpretation of what we wrote. So maybe I should stop feeding the troll. His hittage might improve if he’s forced to write intelligent things to get hits, and we stop rewarding him for this behavior. Assuming, of course, that he’s capable of it.
More Thoughts At The Economist Moon Debate
From Gwynne Shotwell. You will be almost as shocked as I was to learn that she favors more commercial participation in NASA’s human spaceflight activities.
It’s interesting that there is no mention of her affiliation.
The Heavy-Lift Empire Strikes Back?
Thoughts over at Space Transport news. It was a little dismaying to see Augustine’s comment.
I have no predictions as to the outcome, but I’m not particularly hopeful, given the nature of bureaucracy and entropy. But we are continuing to get useful ideas out there, for the private sector to pick up on even if we continue to waste billions on NASA’s HSF program.
[Update in the evening]
This article would indicate that the panel overall remains stuck in the conventional wisdom that heavy lifters are on the critical path to space exploration. One of the hopes for my piece in The New Atlantis was to break that consensus, but it doesn’t seem to have succeeded, so far.
[Late evening update]
Here’s an interesting chart (that appears to have been captured by a camera at the actual presentation) that summarizes the seven options currently being considered. I assume that “IP” is international participation (aka the Russians). I’m not sure what “SH” means, but perhaps one of my readers will be smarter at deciphering than me. I’m guessing something like “Super Heavy.”
Note that the panel (as a whole — there could be dissent among individuals) assumes that refueling is not an option within the current budget, as the chart is currently configured. Note also that it assumes that Ares V is required. I assume that these two assumptions are not coincidental. Take away the heavy lifter, and there’s abundant budget for depots, and other things.
The real question to me is: what is the driver for the perceived heavy-lift requirement? Is it a credibility factor with the flight rate necessary for smaller vehicles to deliver all the propellant for (say) a Mars mission? Or a “smallest biggest piece” (again for, say, a Mars mission) that begs credibility in terms of ability to assemble it on orbit? Or a “let’s keep the options open for some kind of need that we can’t anticipate”? Or all of the above? I expect that we will know the answers to these questions in a very few weeks. I don’t think that the panel will hide the ball the way that NASA did with ESAS.
But one hint might be in noting that the Mars mission (presumably to the surface) is the biggest driver — it assumes both “many” Ares V launches while also noting that refueling is “enabling” (i.e., cannot be done without it). This is a simple recognition of the reality that at some point, even the heavy-lift fetishists have to recognize that there is a limit to the degree to which they can afford to avoid orbital operations — there are some missions simply a bridge too far to do with a single launch.
Anyway, I’m slightly more encouraged by this chart, if for no other reason that it recognizes refueling as a viable option, and that minds are clearly starting to change. I may have more thoughts anon, though, and it’s a long way to August 31st, I suspect, with a lot of perturbations to come.
[Update a few minutes later]
One other point. The chart isn’t good news for Ares I.
[One more update before crashing to catch with with loss of last night’s sleep]
“Brad” has some more comments on the table:
1) The porklauncher, Ares I, looks dead. Only two of the seven options use Ares I, and one of those two options uses commercial crew services as well.
2) Commercial crew services is going to happen. Five out of the seven options exploit commercial crew services.
3) The Shuttle orbiter looks like it will still retire close to schedule. Only one of the seven options extends orbiter operations through 2015.
4) Ares V may not survive. Even though HLV is endorsed with every option, Ares V is only included in four out of the seven, and those four (IMHO) consist of the less probable choices.
5) Propellant depots are enabling to one option, and mentioned as enhancing three options, so depots are not ignored and have a fair chance for future development. Particularly when you take into account that commercial services are included in every option.
6) The ISS is not going to de-orbit in 2016. Five of the seven options extend ISS operations through 2020. The committee’s hope to expand international cooperation will only emphasize the importance of the ISS. Perhaps this might not be a drain on NASA, if international cooperation offsets the cost of flying ISS beyond 2016.
[Thursday morning update]
Todd Halvorson reports on the subject. Does anyone else see something missing in the reporting? You know, the thing that’s “enabling” for Mars First?
Sorry, Mark
But no matter how you want to idiotically mischaracterize it, “Flexible Path” is not “Look But Don’t Touch.” It is a plan to allow us to go affordably and sustainably wherever we (and our inheritors) wish in the (or at least the inner) solar system, including planetary surfaces, if we can raise the money and motivation for the additional hardware necessary to do so. And we’ll certainly be able to touch Phobos, Deimos, and near-earth objects, whether to move or mine them.
[Wednesday morning update]
If you follow the above link, you’ll see that Mark continues to fantasize that I have a “chain,” and that I “leap the length” of it. He should really broaden the range of his clichés, not to mention finding some that have some basis in objective reality. It’s of a part with his imaginary friends in the “Internet Rocketeer Club.”
The Great Moon Debate
It’s started over at The Economist. It seems pretty clear that neither debater had an opportunity to see their protagonist’s input. Gold’s criticism is not of opposition to going to the moon per se, but against NASA’s ability to do it effectively, particularly with its chosen architecture. Gregg’s position (and pretty much standard boilerplate from his old Space Studies Institute days) is that the moon is important as a destination, but he is basically silent on how to get there, or even whether or not NASA should do it, or someone else.
At least for this round, they are basically talking past each other. Tomorrow should be more interesting, since they will both be able to respond to what the other said today. As I predicted previously, I suspect that they will be more in agreement than the people who set up the “debate” expect.
Feeling Old
The morning anchor (a twenty-something, by the looks and behavior) on Fox 29 in Palm Beach was reporting on a Star Wars story, and pronounced C3PO “See Three Poh.” She was ribbed by her co-anchor, and defended herself by saying, “I’ve never seen the movie.”
I was too old to be influenced by Star Wars (in my early twenties when it came out) — 2001, a real SF movie, was my cultural touchstone, but this is the first time I’ve run into an adult that is too young.
It’s Been Forty Years
Time to finally abandon the Apollo paradigm. It was a success in terms of winning the brief “space race,” but when it came to opening up space, it was an utter failure, and I agree with Paul — Mars is a planet too far right now, and such a mission would result in another false start, even if successful. We need to focus on developing the infrastructure needed to affordably go beyond earth orbit, regardless of ultimate destination. Of the options being considered by the Augustine panel, “Flexible path” offers the most promise in that regard.