Procurement “irregularities” at Marshall Space Flight Center? On the Ares program?
Why, who could ever imagine such a thing? Particularly after it got off to such a completely non-corrupt start, with no conflicts of interest at all, via Scott “Revolving Door” Horowitz.
Procurement “irregularities” at Marshall Space Flight Center? On the Ares program?
Why, who could ever imagine such a thing? Particularly after it got off to such a completely non-corrupt start, with no conflicts of interest at all, via Scott “Revolving Door” Horowitz.
Or should it be “wither VSE and ESAS”?
My analysis on what the presidential election could mean for NASA’s current plans for human spaceflight, over at Popular Mechanics.
Bottom line: don’t expect “steady as you go…”
[Update late evening]
Mark Whittington has his usual (i.e., idiotic) response:
The problem here is that without a lot of those billions being spent not only on technology development, but operational experience, it will be a long time before private business gets us to the Moon, if at all. And we they do get there, they may have to have visas signed by the Chinese who will have beaten everyone there.
Yes, [rolling eyes] having to have visas signed by the Chinese to land on the moon should be our biggest concern. Not the fact that NASA has chosen an architecture that is fundamentally incapable of establishing a fully-fledged lunar presence and is unlikely to survive politically (and ignoring the fact that the Chinese are on a track to get a human on the moon sometime in the next century, at their current rate…).
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but Dennis Wingo has a long essay on NASA’s forty-year failure to close the deal with the American people. More thoughts when I have a chance to read, but some of the other folks here may be interested.
Apparently, the Soyuz entered hatch first, instead of leading with the heat shield, and burned off an antenna. I hate when that happens.
Yi said during a news conference at the Star City cosmonaut training center outside Moscow that she was frightened. “At first I was really scared because it looked really, really hot and I thought we could burn,” she said.
I’ll bet it was some serious pucker in that capsule for all three of them.
As the article notes, this is the second time in a row they’ve had a non-nominal entry, and the third time in five years. Is their quality, in manufacturing or launch processing, declining? Not good news if we’re reliant on them for transportation after 2010. And no, I don’t think the problem was too many women aboard (what an idiot).
Faster please, Elon.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Oberg shares my concerns about Russian quality problems. And he’s in a lot better position to know.
No, not in Pennsylvania (though they’re having an election there as well today, so I hear). In New Mexico. Will Spaceport America get funded?
[8 PM EDT update]
We should know in a couple hours whether or not it passed, unless it’s very close, because polls close in less than an hour.
[9 PM EDT update]
The polls are closed now. This is probably the best place to track results. Folks in Las Cruces have a lot at stake in the vote. There are also a of related stories there.
[11 PM EDT update]
Looks like a big vote of confidence. Two to one for the tax (and the spaceport) is what I’m hearing. This is good news for Steve Landeen, who might have been out of a job had it gone the other way.
Lee Cary is concerned. I’m not, mostly because I don’t think that Obama has a chance in hell of winning, but also because I don’t believe that Ares/Orion is “the way forward,” so it’s hard for me to be very upset about either a delay, or cancellation.
Lee Cary is concerned. I’m not, mostly because I don’t think that Obama has a chance in hell of winning, but also because I don’t believe that Ares/Orion is “the way forward,” so it’s hard for me to be very upset about either a delay, or cancellation.
Lee Cary is concerned. I’m not, mostly because I don’t think that Obama has a chance in hell of winning, but also because I don’t believe that Ares/Orion is “the way forward,” so it’s hard for me to be very upset about either a delay, or cancellation.
In the comments section of a post public support for the space program over at Space Politics, a twenty something asks a damed good question:
Those who support the current lunar program often forget the opportunity costs. There are better ways to spend the same money on developing space. I’m 24 – with the current Constellation program plan, I’ll be in my mid 30s by the time we get back to the moon. If we operate the system for a decade or two after that, as is likely, all I can expect in my career is to see 4 people land on the moon twice a year. That is not exciting – nor is it worth the money. Maybe by the time I retire we’ll be looking at another “next generation system”.
What’s the point of any of this for someone my age?
Well, it’s been more than a couple decades since I was twenty something, but it seems like there’s even less point for someone my age. Why in the world does Mike Griffin think that anyone, other than those getting a paycheck from it, are going to be inspired by such a trivial goals?
Of course, as usual, we heard the typical chorus of “space is hard, and it will take a long time, and you’re doing it for your grandchildren, or great-grandchildren, or great-great-great…grandchildren.”
But it doesn’t have to be this way. There was nothing inevitable about ESAS, and it isn’t written in granite that government space programs must do the least possible with the greatest amount of money, and the money invested provide such a poor return in either output or future capability on which to build. It is likely that this will be the case, but it’s not inevitable. As I’ve said many times, we won’t have a sensible government space program until space (that is, actual progress in space, not jobs in certain districts) becomes politically important. The last time that occurred was in the 1960s, and even then, it wasn’t politically important to have sustainable progress–only a specific space achievement (and that only because it had almost arbitrarily become a technological gladiatorial arena).
Anyway, Jon Goff followed up with a good comment, and then a blog post on the subject:
If our current approach to space development was actually putting in place the technology and infrastructure needed to make our civilization a spacefaring one, I’d be a lot more willing to support it. Wise investments in the future are a good thing, but NASA’s current approach is not a wise investment in the future. It’s aging hipsters trying to relive the glory days of their youth at my generation’s expense.
Patience is only a virtue when you’re headed in the right direction and doing the right thing. If Constellation was truly (as Marburger put it) making future operations cheaper, safer, and more capable, then I’d be all for patiently seeing it out.
While Constellation might possibly put some people on the moon, it won’t actually put us any closer to routine, affordable, and sustainable exploration and development. I have no problem with a long hard road, just so long as its the right one.
Unfortunately, it comes back to the fact that we never have had that serious national debate about space, and why we have a space program, that we so badly need (and despite his wishy-washy words now, I doubt that it will happen in an Obama administration, either). As the Chesire Cat said, if you don’t know where you’re going, any road will get you there.