Interesting comments from Lori Garver

[rcsplinters]

Since the administration threw a bomb into human space flight some months back, we've all discussed, fussed and cussed the resulting chaos. As we all know, recent work in the house and senate have hinted at some order emerging out of the chaos. In my opinion, NASA has been markedly silent since the house and senate embarked on a path to utterly reject the administrations proposal to put US human space flight on ice. It seems this silence has come to an end in at least some small part. The following item from the Huntsville Times includes some quotes from Lori Garver which I find very interesting. As many here have a keen interest in the subject, I thought I would share that link: http://blog.al.com/space-news/2010/08/deputy_nasa_leader_lori_garver.html and then offer some of my own commentary.

I frankly was surprised that she was quite candid in her comments. These remarks, combined with the bills, a rumored migration of the house toward the senate position and other internet chatter lead me to believe that in the late fall, we may again have a path forward to human space flight in the US. The article leads me to believe that we may know with some clarity what that path may be sooner rather than later as one comment is made that Garver placed Marshall squarely in the lead for HLV development and Marshall director Lightfoot stated: "We don't need to study it anymore". (No I don't know what the heck 2015 was all about if that's true) Bolden, apparently, was not to be heard and I wonder if he's been muzzled after the faux pas regarding NASA's reaching out to Islam. Garver clearly demonstrates that she is very adept at changing her position to suit the wind. Fortunately, the winds may now be carrying her and NASA forward.

Of course, all is not finished. The house and senate must reconcile and somebody has to start writing checks. I get the distinct impression that Congress is writing the high level requirements (in fact, the Senate’s reportedly sound very ARES V/DIRECT’ish) for the HLV. I’ve read few if any clues as to what NASA’s plan to fling Orion (or whatever its new name will be) into orbit. Ironically, I have to concede that the administration’s proposal may have had one positive effect. Having worked with some fine engineers over many decades, I’ve learned that they rarely agree on a single plan. One very consistent way to get consensus is to propose a somewhat plausible solution that turns out to be utterly foolish and unworkable. They will band together and promote a consensus solution simply to dismiss the foolish proposal, which in this case appears to have been the administrations plan.

What brought about the change of heart? I have no clue. Perhaps 2012 was starting to look awfully big in the window (apologies to Tom Hanks and Jim Lovell) and without Florida the path back was getting too shallow.

 

[Yuri_Armstrong]

We need a clear plan for the future of our space exploration... right now it just looks like a mess. They need to get it sorted out and stick with it. NASA plans these things out thinking decades ahead, and we can't afford to keep changing plans every time we get a new administration. Was Constellation the best idea? Nope. But even a mediocre plan that gets us to return to the moon in 2020 is better than constantly changing the plan every 8 years and delaying the big landings. We've all heard Moon in 10, Mars in 20. This is the result of congressional debacles like this that keep our program distracted and divided.

Let's hope they get this figured out soon so we can start making some determined progress. If only we had a president like JFK who gave us the immense challenge to put men on the moon before the end of the decade. Would Obama say something similar for a Mars mission? I doubt it. He said sometime in the 2030's he predicts a Mars landing. That's not the boldness and drive that Americans are looking for. What if he had challenged us to land on Mars before this decade is out? It would be very difficult to get the spacecraft, the crew, the technology, logistics, mission plans, landing sites, etc. all organized and ready go go in 9 years. But it was done for the moon, and there have been many published ideas by credible engineers that could get us to Mars quickly- and stay there. My favorite plan, which I'm sure is shared by many others here, is Mars Direct by Robert Zubrin.

All we've got now is vague references to an asteroid mission in 2025 and a prediction that we will land on Mars in the 2030's. Unless we get some serious political backbone and funding we will not see this happen.

I've really had enough bad news. Politicians keep impeding scientific progress because it's politically convenient and all they care about is their survival.

 

[fast3]

Yep. Politics in the truest form. This has gotten to be a mess. We need real leadership in this country.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Can you be more specific? This is not a Politics thread, it is in Space Business and Technology. Do you have anything to contribute appropriate for this forum?

 

[sftommy]

As I said elsewhere, "The Visionary has thrown in the towel."

No talk of new technologies, no new corporations bringing innovative ideas to LEO access. No push for robotics. No push for HSF asap. It was as marked for the future she did not speak of.

The next decade of "Space Business and Technology" is being played out by a handful of politicians, administrators and corporate officers. Lori Garver's innovative vision is directly relevant to every dream and dreamer that passes these pages. Political plausibility is what makes space dreams come through.

At a budget of $19B many a dream based upon technical innovation or discovery has just taken a backseat for the next six years in pursuit of this HLV.

America should not choose to choose between the two. Budget is short $2B.

 

[rcsplinters]

Tommy, On that point we are in complete agreement. NASA is underfunded, though I personally feel that its by more than 2B. Add a zero to that and we might be in the ballpark. I have felt for many years that NASA's funding was among the best use of my tax dollars and that comes from a staunch conservative. I would gladly offer up more funding for NASA.

My goal (aside from simple enjoyment of the subject) in all the reading and searching I've done since the administration's announcement was to understand what path we would ultimately take as a nation. Nearly every proposal and comment made by someone in a position to make decisions, involved HLV. That seemed common to all plans, even Garver's. Further, there didn't seem to be any profound game changers out there for HLV and I think Lightfoot's comment sort'a bears that out. There was never any reason to wait till 2015 to start work on the HLV and in that sense, I think this is a good direction. In some ways, having an HLV and designing equipment for travel beyond LEO around that booster might help matters move forward. I look at it in the context of roads. I know the width, height and weight restrictions for highways. If I want to move something, I am well advised to take those parameters into account. So it would be with HLV, our "road" so to speak for equipment to be used in LEO and beyond.

That said, I do believe there are game changing opportunities once in LEO and certainly outside the gravity well. We should (though I don't think we will) pursue those technologies with all the same vigor as the HLV. Further, though I am adamantly against NASA's subsidy of private commercial development, there is funding available in other parts of the federal goverment for critical business infrastructure (re: GM, Chrysler, etc) and if the private solutions are in dire need of funds then that funding should be pursued through those channels and not NASA. Clearly, NASA could and should offer technology transfer. This would free up some budget for pursuit of on orbit and in transit technologies. All this said, I'm still unable to reconcile the supposed existance of a vast commercial market for human ferry to LEO with the apparent unwillingness of private investors to engage in that market (hence the contrived need for public subsidy). This quandry aside, if space is to offer commerce, then it seems to me that federal subsidy for such commerce need not come from NASA's pot of gold. That's one of the reasons I've not objected as strongly to tax cuts as those revenue reductions would not (should not?) be directly accountable back to NASA.

One other tidbit, there is some hint that side mount is not in the picture any longer based on some posts on another forum. This is supposedly a NASA leadership edict. If true, looks like in-line configurations are the future for HLV. Of course, this assertion that NASA is prefering in-line is merely Internet hearsay, but interesting if true. It would mean that SD-HLV sidemount options are off the table. I've not found anything in print as to what NASA's human rated booster will be, though I'm guessing this path will include something to toss the capsule formerly known as Orion into orbit.

 

[steve82]

"Garver told The Huntsville Times editorial board the administration "could have and should have" talked sooner to key congressional leaders such as Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Tuscaloosa.

"We could have gotten off to a much better start," Garver said at one point.

"We had not well explained the issues with Constellation," she said at another.

"It has not been communicated well that the whole point of what we're doing is because we don't want to get behind" other nations, she said at another point.

Ain't that the truth. Due to her incompetence the Orion team has been rocked with personnel upheavals and layoffs using unprecedented means, while the Senate, House, and even the Augustine report she keeps touting all preserved some measure of Orion capability that is beyond LEO/COTS. And now they want to bring it back. The damage they have done will take a long time to be put right. Being a political lobbyist does not qualify one to be a manager of high-technology programs.

 

[raptorborealis]

an observation;

I read this thread....read the linked page and have NO IDEA....not a clue...what anyone is talking about. Might as well be in Chinese.

comment: Someone at Nasa needs to kick the PR department in the butt. It would help in a democracy if 99.9% of the population wasn't in the complete dark as to what Nasa's plans...options...or whatever are.

And, no, Nasa should not make a plan and stick with it....it should make a plan 'that makes sense'....get the american people on side, and THEN stick with it... fighting like heck to keep the support of the people which is essential in a democracy.

The criticism of politicians flip-flopping is just calling the glass half empty...the half-full view is that leaders need to listen to the voters in a democracy and their wishes (right or wrong) are paramount over that of a government agency. Nasa exists to serve the will of the people and not the other way around.

Nasa has a plan? Explain it to the people. Nasa needs more funding...make the case to the people. Both no brainers in a democracy. In both cases Nasa has been an abysmal failure.

 

[MeteorWayne]

It's almost like what's the point? No matter what plan is made, it will consistently be inconsistently underfunded, no matter which party is in charge.

So you can make a plan with realistic insufficient funding, which is of limited interest, or you can make a plan with unrealistic funding, which might be interesting, but will happen just after hell freezes over.

 

[rcsplinters]

Wayne, slightly over 100 miles from where I sit a venerable old Saturn V lays on its side. It is a beautiful, massive, awesome machine. At one time it was a viable craft with a mission that never took place for precisely the point you make. So much money spent for a museum display. At least now its indoors and somewhat restored after collecting bird droppings and corrosion for so many years. Everytime I look at it and I've seen it many many times, I wonder how can this be here? How could we have wasted this machine? Insufficient funding and lack of continuity.

I'm fairly confident we'll embark on some effort to build an HLV next year. I'm no more confident that we'll have an HLV in 5 - 10 years than I was before I found that news clipping. Why? Insufficient funding and lack of continuity.

I wish I knew what to do about it.

 

[kelvinzero]

I guess we could do worse than the senate bill (for example the house bill).

It still really surprises me how the people who cursed the Obama budget for (a) the human spaceflight gap, and (b) the lack of a clear HSF mission don't decry the fact that the senate budget does nothing to address either of these points.

 

[sftommy]

I guess we could do worse than the senate bill (for example the house bill).

More importantly we could do better; I compared the Senate, House and WH proposals, again, and here is how I would draft TITLE I of the coming NASA compromise legislation:

TITLE I - AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

SEC. 101 FISCAL YEAR 2011.

$21,378,800,000.00 TOTAL REQUESTED


5,970,000,000.00 1. EXPLORATION
1,120,000,000.00 - - A. Multipurpose Crew Vehicle
1,631,000,000.00 - - B. Space Launch System
652,000,000.00 - - C. Exploration Technology Development
215,000,000.00 - - D. Human Related Research
312,000,000.00 - - E. Commercial Cargo
500,000,000.00 - - F. Commercial Crew
415,000,000.00 - - G. HSF-ASAP - (Atlas or Delta)
125,000,000.00 - - H. Robotic Precursor
1,000,000,000.00 - - I. Constellation closeout & realignment


5,533,500,000.00 2. SPACE OPERATIONS
2,804,800,000.00 - - A. ISS Program (w/$75M for space life science)
1,609,700,000.00 - - B. Space Shuttle and related activities
1,119,000,000.00 - - C. Space & Flight Services (w/$428.6M for modernizations)


5,020,800,000.00 3. SCIENCES
1,801,800,000.00 - - A. Earth Sciences
1,485,700,000.00 - - B. Planetary Sciences
1,076,300,000.00 - - C. Astrophysics
652,000,000.00 - - D. Heliophysics
5,000,000.00 - - E. Suborbital supplement for C&D


1,151,600,000.00 4. AERONAUTICS
579,600,000.00 - - A. Aeronautics Research
572,000,000.00 - - B. Related Space Technologies Dev


145,800,000.00 5. EDUCATION
25,000,000.00 - - A. EPSCR
45,600,000.00 - - B. Space Grant Program
75,200,000.00 - - C. Ongoing Ed Support


3,111,400,000.00 6. CROSS AGENCY SUPPORT
2,273,800,000.00 - - A. Center Mgmnt & Ops
837,600,000.00 - - B. Agency Mgmnt & Ops


407,300,000.00 7. CONSTRUCTION
397,300,000.00 - - A. Construction and Environmental
10,000,000.00 - - B. NASA Lab Revitalization


38,400,000.00 8. INSPECTOR GENERAL
38,400,000.00 - - A. Ongoing Support


The real changes occur on 2012 and 2013. Maybe CA Rep Adam Schiff would propose this alternate legislation? I'm about halfway thru editing the rest of the bills text. As always I invite discussion, unlike Lori I don't know it all (no jibe intended).

As I've said I think this is bigger than just SpaceX and Bigelow.
It's an industry, it's America's future, and we must invest it in today to make it happen.

THOMAS S RUDDER
SF-CA

 

[rcsplinters]

More comments from Lori Garver

Thought everyone might like to read the following: http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/09/02/garver-a-lessening-of-tensions-in-the-nasa-budget-debate/. As most of you know, I'm quite interested in understanding what will be the resolution of the state of chaos where US human space flight current resides. Most of you know generally DO NOT like Garver but she does say some things here that make sense. Frankly, what she's saying is 19 billion is not enough money, but you gotta read between the lines for that. I find myself confused in that she seems to want specific HLV requirements removed from the bills. Ok, Congress has NO business designing rockets, but . . . . if not shuttle derived, what options do they realistically have for a 2011 start? Her main guy at Huntsville says they don't need to study HLV any longer. Both SD-HLV and Direct are largely shuttle components (frankly as was ARES). I'm assuming she's not just bumping her gums having the intent to build what the Senate called for but just not wanting them to say that.

Other comments regarding her statement.

- I think that congress is assuming she won't need much of that budget to manage down Constellation if they continue with SD components and Orion. Something between the lines here I don't understand.

- I can solve her commercial funding problems and add to her NASA budget very easily. NASA is not, was not and should not be domestic business development arm of the government any more than they should be responsible for relations with islam. Pull the commercial money out of the NASA budget exception for technology transfer and push the commercial funding to commerce or other aspects of the budget. There is absolutely no reason for that money to come from NASA itself. (That said, I don't think the government should be accepting their risk, period).

 

[sftommy]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

NASA is not, was not and should not be domestic business development arm of the government any more than they should be responsible for relations with islam. Pull the commercial money out of the NASA budget exception for technology transfer and push the commercial funding to commerce or other aspects of the budget. There is absolutely no reason for that money to come from NASA itself

Not sure I understand the animosities toward "Commercial" efforts.

Their motivation for profit seems to held to a different standard than that for ATK, UAL, or Lockheed Martin and their-own well paid officers and shareholders.

 

[rcsplinters]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

NASA is not, was not and should not be domestic business development arm of the government any more than they should be responsible for relations with islam. Pull the commercial money out of the NASA budget exception for technology transfer and push the commercial funding to commerce or other aspects of the budget. There is absolutely no reason for that money to come from NASA itself

Not sure I understand the animosities toward "Commercial" efforts.

Their motivation for profit seems to held to a different standard than that for ATK, UAL, or Lockheed Martin and their-own well paid officers and shareholders.

No animosities on my part. I"m all for it. When they have a product to sell, I think we should give them preferential treatment to buy it. But . . . they don't have a product to sell. They don't want to accept the risk to develop the product. They want the American taxpayer to accept that risk. Heck why don't we fund McDonalds to develop the triple patty big mac. I got some good ideas and would like several 100 million investment capital to try to see if they work with no strings attached. If it fails, so sorry. Again, no problem with their product, if they had one.

Of course, this is a distraction from my point. Musk (for example) wants a pork sandwich because he's getting cold feet. My point is that NASA doesn't have to make his sandwich. He can get his charity from OTHER parts of the federal goverment. All he needs do is demonstrate a sound business model and critical national impact. He can do that, right? GM got enough taxpayer money to fund NASA for a year or more except that it didn't come from NASA. Any engineer knows that a dollar spends like a dollar. It doesn't have to come out of a particular pot.

Why the reluctance to use creative funding options to avoid dropping another funding burden on NASA? When you skin a cat, it doesn't matter if you start with the head or tail.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

NASA is not, was not and should not be domestic business development arm of the government any more than they should be responsible for relations with islam. Pull the commercial money out of the NASA budget exception for technology transfer and push the commercial funding to commerce or other aspects of the budget. There is absolutely no reason for that money to come from NASA itself

Not sure I understand the animosities toward "Commercial" efforts.

Their motivation for profit seems to held to a different standard than that for ATK, UAL, or Lockheed Martin and their-own well paid officers and shareholders.

No animosities on my part. I"m all for it. When they have a product to sell, I think we should give them preferential treatment to buy it. But . . . they don't have a product to sell. They don't want to accept the risk to develop the product. They want the American taxpayer to accept that risk. Heck why don't we fund McDonalds to develop the triple patty big mac. I got some good ideas and would like several 100 million investment capital to try to see if they work with no strings attached. If it fails, so sorry. Again, no problem with their product, if they had one.

Of course, this is a distraction from my point. Musk (for example) wants a pork sandwich because he's getting cold feet. My point is that NASA doesn't have to make his sandwich. He can get his charity from OTHER parts of the federal goverment. All he needs do is demonstrate a sound business model and critical national impact. He can do that, right? GM got enough taxpayer money to fund NASA for a year or more except that it didn't come from NASA. Any engineer knows that a dollar spends like a dollar. It doesn't have to come out of a particular pot.

Why the reluctance to use creative funding options to avoid dropping another funding burden on NASA? When you skin a cat, it doesn't matter if you start with the head or tail.

At the moment there is no commercial human spaceflight industry other than the Russian Soyuz, which means that NASA has to accept some of the risk in developing new human-rated launch systems.

Now there are two options. Option one is that NASA could fund the development of Ares I on its own through cost-plus contracts, in which case NASA would accept all the risk of developing a totally new launch system. Option two is that NASA could fund part of the development of a commercial vehicle like the Dragon or Boeings CS-100 with SpaceX or Boeing funding the other part of it.

Honestly I do not get your animosity particularly toward Elon Musk. Do you realize that he invest over $200 million of his OWN money into spaceX and the Falcon 9 years before NASA added another $200-300 million for COTS? So your accusing this guy of pork. While NASA and Congress are out there squabbling over the budget he is out there getting things done, and he is doing so with a hell of a lot less money than NASA.

Honestly this anti-commercial animosity is why human spaceflight is where it is now. For years we have been spending billions of dollars for NASA to develop and operate these insanely expensive launch vehicles when every other country in human spaceflight simply takes one of the unmanned launch system and adapts it for human spaceflight at a small fraction of the cost.

I do not support these government rockets. All they are just pork. If the commercial vehicles do not work out than I would rather the US pay for the Soyuz.

 

[rcsplinters]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

Ok, so you don't support human space flight by NASA, I thinik we all knew and understand that. Vote your conscience. For myself, I think we should opt for the lowest bidder for human flight without having the taxpayer eat the risk for the poor little rich kids. Right now that probably is the Russians.

Now back on topic.

You're missing the point. Read Garver's comments. She's pushing for the entire package of HLV, research, technology and commercial, PLUS she wants a separate line item to manage down Constellation. If we're to try to understand how this may actually unfold let's avoid our preferences and talk likelyhood. She's going to get 19B. Period. Not a dime more and possibly less. Congress is going to earmark funds for HLV, like it or not and they will mandate a 2001 start. Further, they will mandate Orion completion. ISS will be a mandate. Plus, she's right, Constellation termination costs are going to be significant though perhaps not 2.5 billion if they restructure their contracts right for HLV. There's not enough money. Its not there and something discretionary is going to get cut. If you look at what Congress considers discretionary. its going to be the commercial chariities and research. Where's that money realistically going to come from?

One potential path forward is SO simple. Move the commercial risk mitigation to another column other than NASA. The federal government backs critical businesses all over the economy which are critical and have a sound business model (maybe I just answered my own question) and NASA is not the branch that funds them all. This would free up some few NASA billions over the next 5 years for needed research of technology for BEO missions.

There is simply not enough budget. Commercial will very likely be a candidate for reduction or chopping. Now, you prefer than or would sucking the money out of another coffer be preferable? This is decision that faces Garver as I see it. Rumor has it that she's a clever girl. We shall see.

 

[DarkenedOne]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

Ok, so you don't support human space flight by NASA, I thinik we all knew and understand that. Vote your conscience. For myself, I think we should opt for the lowest bidder for human flight without having the taxpayer eat the risk for the poor little rich kids. Right now that probably is the Russians.

Now back on topic.

You're missing the point. Read Garver's comments. She's pushing for the entire package of HLV, research, technology and commercial, PLUS she wants a separate line item to manage down Constellation. If we're to try to understand how this may actually unfold let's avoid our preferences and talk likelyhood. She's going to get 19B. Period. Not a dime more and possibly less. Congress is going to earmark funds for HLV, like it or not and they will mandate a 2001 start. Further, they will mandate Orion completion. ISS will be a mandate. Plus, she's right, Constellation termination costs are going to be significant though perhaps not 2.5 billion if they restructure their contracts right for HLV. There's not enough money. Its not there and something discretionary is going to get cut. If you look at what Congress considers discretionary. its going to be the commercial chariities and research. Where's that money realistically going to come from?

One potential path forward is SO simple. Move the commercial risk mitigation to another column other than NASA. The federal government backs critical businesses all over the economy which are critical and have a sound business model (maybe I just answered my own question) and NASA is not the branch that funds them all. This would free up some few NASA billions over the next 5 years for needed research of technology for BEO missions.

There is simply not enough budget. Commercial will very likely be a candidate for reduction or chopping. Now, you prefer than or would sucking the money out of another coffer be preferable? This is decision that faces Garver as I see it. Rumor has it that she's a clever girl. We shall see.

Last time I checked NASA was the only agency even remotely interested in human spaceflight, so how you justify moving manned spaceflight activities to another agency of government is beyond me.

What you could do is take the aeronautics department at NASA and place them in the FAA. That would technically change NASA from being the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to being the National Space Administration. To me this would make the most sense because it would place all of the civilian aeronautics work in one agency the FAA and all of the civilian astronautics in NASAs. Other nations have followed this path. Like the European Space Agency, the Canadian Space Agency, and etc. NASA spends like 5 billion a year on its aeronautics department.

Lastly my problem is that Congress has no plan. In engineering you figure out that you have a need for something then you design something to fulfill that need. Congress is essentially doing the opposite. They are telling NASA to build a heavy lift rocket without knowing what to put on it or whether or not they will have the money to put anything on it. In contrast, Constellation made sense. Under Constellation NASA was going to develop the Altair and a moon base while it developed the Ares V so that it would have something to launch once Ares V was ready. Congress is essentially telling NASA to develop all of these space craft simply for the sake of developing them and no plans to actually use them.

rcsplinters I cannot support a human spaceflight program that simply builds rockets and spacecraft with no plan to actually use them.

 

[sftommy]

Re: More comments from Lori Garver

The "Plan" is

to develop LEO so it's a "world community zone" to support peaceful human efforts worldwide, rather than see it become a militarized area used for intimidation, attack, and denial of capability as other world actors gain LEO access.

Long term plan is colonization, what we're doing and planning to do are incremental steps along that path.

Any funding from Dept of Commerce would have to be funneled through NASA to see it properly applied, some sort of joint effort (the two departments do seem to work well together).

She's going to get 19B. Period. Not a dime more and possibly less.

The world of politics is one of possibilities, the funding game isn't over until the bill is signed, the political atmosphere may yet change that makes a fully funded NASA possible. Senator Murkowski for instance just lost her parties nomination for reelection and she's the purse string holder in the Senate.

If one accepts the $19B limit then they're probably right,
but the possible is still out there looking for the right political context for fully funding NASA and some of us are still pushing to find that context and make it happen.

 

[EarthlingX]

nasawatch.com : Lori Garver at Space 2010

By Keith Cowing
on September 4, 2010 3:41 PM

Prepared Remarks at AIAA Space 2010 By NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver

"We have so many resources that we need to channel for the future of continued success. And you ask what's next. First, I think we're going through some philosophical changes - better determining what government can and should do; what we as a people can do; what is possible, desirable, necessary. There will always be a government role to buy down risk, push the technology envelope and open new markets, but then get out of the way. The government should always be at the leading edge of what's next, but it's going to be up to established and emerging companies to carry the ball forward. As we continue to push forward new technologies making space exploration more efficient and effective, we will increase opportunities for the private sector to use these technologies in unimagined ways, growing the space economy even more. As always, we have a young generation who is passionate, who wants to make a difference and contribute to the world. Like any generation, though, they want a future as exciting, more exciting, than the past."

 

[RVHM]

No, it's none of the above. The plan is to further Garver's political career at any price. She's just trying to disguise it with pretty words.

 

[uberhund]

Since this thread seems to consist of those in favor of HSF (it's well known that I don't), let me pose a question to that occurred to me while watching the recent Augustine commission hearings:

Picture yourself as a US legislator eight years ago when George what's-his-name was president. Given the chance, would you have favored HSF funding over the war-funding priorities being enacted at the time? Not now - sure, no one would favor the US wars now - but then. Only if the answer is yes could someone favoring HSF claim to have the courage and dedication to step up to the resources and sacrifices required: In the US economy today, one must choose between inane wars or HSF. The US economy evidently cannot support both. Recall that the Apollo program was terminated to direct funds to the other Viet Nam in US history - well, Viet Nam. the original.

Norm's commission was given an impossible charter - to create an HSF plan with the available funds and public demand, rather than take a more sensible approach and design a viable HSF program to fit the scientific goals of the day.

 

[neutrino78x]

A lack of leadership in Government for space is what we want. It should be private enterprise driving it. The Government doesn't have a vision for how to move passengers from New York to Southampton on The High Seas, rather, it is Cunard (owned by Carnival now) which has the vision. People don't go from New York to London in aircraft owned and operated by the US Air Force, but rather, they take that trip in aircraft owned and operated by American Airlines. No one asks "what is the President's vision for air travel from New York to London?".

Obama's Space Plan is Conservative.

--Brian

 

[uberhund]

I'm torn on this one neutrino. On the one hand you have Eisenhower's excellent Interstate Highway system that could not have been accomplished without his government leadership. From that example, infrastructure seems to be government's strong suit.

More recently, the US government left a vacuum in the development of cellphone infrastructure, and the US has the scrambled-egg mess of multiple, redundant towers in each cell, none that talk to each other, as a result. Compare that to the development of comparatively elegant GSM, which has had 3G for a decade, in other countries.

I dunno. I'm usually a supporter of laissez-faire, but the evidence seems to recommend against entrusting infrastructure to the commercial agenda.

 

[neutrino78x]

I dunno. I'm usually a supporter of laissez-faire, but the evidence seems to recommend against entrusting infrastructure to the commercial agenda.

Yeah but this isn't infrastructure, this is the vehicle and the travel itself. No infrastructure is really needed here, apart from spaceports (which are usually built by the government anyway). If I am NASA and I want to do a Louis and Clark mission to Mars, I need to contract someone to create the vehicles that will land on Mars, not the means to get to LEO. All I have to do is design the vehicles to fit on commercial rockets, which are already being used to launch satellites. There shouldn't be many such missions to the same place, if any. One or two, then the private colonists should go.

This whole business that somehow the government needs a vision for space exploration is nonsense, in my book. Private players will do that. The British Government did not have a Vision for colonizing North America, the colonists did.

--Brian