Victory will jump-start space plans

[wvbraun]

An article in Florida Today: Victory will jump-start space plans

 

[no_way]

and here's appropriate response:<br />http://www.space-frontier.org/cgi-bin/BBS/MoonBase/read/9148

 

[crix]

I think there's a good middle-ground between 'science fair projects' and Buck Rogers. I think the MER rovers have been fantastic for NASA and I think the robotic construction of a Moon base could be equally awesome in scope and popularity. Live, streaming broadcasts from the bots as they build the base, robot pauses for a moment to glance up at the earth rise... imagine that!<br /><br />In fact, all future human expeditions to the Moon should be covered reality-TV style.

 

[nacnud]

I'd perfer for NASA TV to have a fact finding mission to the BBC, plus there would be no ad breaks <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[thecolonel]

Oh yeah! The fact that yet another domino for MtM has fallen into place has me a very happy camper! <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[spacester]

Well I will be pleasantly surprised if the MTM plan moves forward, I still think it is nothing more than an election year ploy. If I'm right, it will still be a couple of years before y'all find out the truth.<br /><br />But even if it does, as no_way's link indicates, it's still a misguided approach.<br /><br />We will have to wait longer for CATS as long as NASA gets in the way, and if MTM moves forward they will be in the way for a long time.<br /><br />Without CATS, all we will ever have is big gummint <i>programs</i> which require <i>massive funding</i> to send a <i>handful of the elite</i> to space while we are asked to accept this <i>vicarious thrill</i> in lieu of private space flight for <b>as many people as possible.</b><br /><br />Is that what you really want? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thecolonel]

"big gummit programs" employ a large number of people in our fair country. Many employees joke that NASA is a welfare program for engineers... but anyhow... if we want to do it safely then we require the large bankrolls that only countries can provide.

 

[wvbraun]

"We will have to wait longer for CATS as long as NASA gets in the way, and if MTM moves forward they will be in the way for a long time."<br /><br /><br />That doesn't make any sense. NASA would never have given us CATS. <br />With MtM *NASA will finally get out of the way*, i.e. get out of LEO and back to exploring which is what they should be doing. Without the Vision for Space Exploration NASA would start yet another program to develop CATS themselves and we all know what a great success that has been in the past. Let the private sector do it. Nothing is holding them back, now that NASA is no longer trying to do it. <br /><br />I really don't undestand your objections. Please axplain.

 

[wvbraun]

"If I'm right, it will still be a couple of years before y'all find out the truth."<br /><br />We'll find out much sooner. The first indicator will be the way Bush handles the NASA budget request for 2005.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">NASA would never have given us CATS. </font><br />Of course I agree.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">With MtM *NASA will finally get out of the way*, i.e. get out of LEO and back to exploring which is what they should be doing. Without the Vision for Space Exploration NASA would start yet another program to develop CATS themselves and we all know what a great success that has been in the past. Let the private sector do it. Nothing is holding them back, now that NASA is no longer trying to do it. </font><br /><br />I understand your confusion and thank you for the reasonable question.<br /><br />"Getting out of the way" is one of the three options of "Lead, follow, or . . . "<br /><br />Simply put, IMO the fact that NASA will not provide leadership to develop CATS is not equivalent to them getting out of the way. It is simply faulty logic.<br /><br />IMO the statement that "Nothing is holding them back" does not recognize the realities of pork-barrel politics, the NIH (Not Invented Here) syndrome, cost-plus contracting, good-old-boy networks and all the rest of the crap that has been holding us back.<br /><br />Even if dubya is sincere with MTM (and I still believe he is not), there is nothing in that plan (AFAIK) which does anything about those fundamental roadblocks.<br /><br />In this context, there are two kinds of private sector. Those who feed at the public trough and have no particular incentive to actually accomplish anything, and those who actually want to usher in an actual space age. I see nothing to indicate that the former has lost its grip on the public purse nor do I see any support of the latter group.<br /><br />Actually, there is a third kind of private sector and I am running out of hope that anyone else sees it. I'm going to step once more into the breach and try to elucidate on crix' "What do we do on the Moon" thread.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">We'll find out much sooner.</font><br /><br />OK, I have to plead ignorance; I have not studied the MTM "plan" in detail and it's been months since I looked at it at all.<br /><br />Tell me, what specifically is it that will be funded in the next budget request which will tell us that it's not the same-ol, same-ol pork barrel crap?<br /><br />When do the real expenditures kick in, the ones that indicate true committment? The ones at a level which have an actual impact on the Federal budget, the ones which will be competing with other proirities when push comes to shove and the bill comes due for dubya's first-term spending spree? <br /><br />When do they stop creating pretty pictures and start cutting metal? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"I see nothing to indicate that the former has lost its grip on the public purse nor do I see any support of the latter group."<br /><br />Look closer. Craig Steidle, the head of NASA's newly created Exploration Systems Directorate has indicated several times that he will carry out the Aldridge commission's recommendation to heavily involve the private sector and that includes companies like SpaceX and t/space (A consortium that includes Scaled Composites and HMX among others). The statements comming from top NASA people have been really encouraging over the past ten months. An example: O'Keefe has said that he is interested in the Falcon V rocket for future station supply missions.<br /><br /><br />"Tell me, what specifically is it that will be funded in the next budget request which will tell us that it's not the same-ol, same-ol pork barrel crap?"<br /><br />The Centennial Challenges program.<br /><br /><br />"When do the real expenditures kick in, the ones that indicate true committment? The ones at a level which have an actual impact on the Federal budget, the ones which will be competing with other proirities when push comes to shove and the bill comes due for dubya's first-term spending spree?"<br /><br />The idea is to do it without major budget increases (NASA's budget is projected to rise to $18 billion by 2009). The money comes primarily from terminating the Shuttle and station programs in 2010 and 2016 respectively (NASA is doing studies whether the Shuttle could be retired even sooner, in 2008). IMO this is a good idea. There is just no way Congresss will give NASA more than that.<br /><br /><br />"When do they stop creating pretty pictures and start cutting metal?"<br /><br />In 2005. An orbital testflight of a prototype of the CEV is planned for 2008.<br /><br /><br /><br />The election is over. Why don't you just give this new plan a chance? It's the best we'll get in a generation.

 

[spacester]

Well answered, sir!<br /><br />I reserve the right to remain skeptical of course, but OK, I'll give it a chance. Like it matters what I think, lol. <br /><br />I don't have the time these days to research like I ought, so I'm going to take your word for it for now. Which means for the most part I'll be looking to guys like you to keep me abreast of developments. And maybe some handy links?<br /><br />(My scepticism remains but it is pure politics so I will set this argument aside as spacester. Political stuff is what ActivistModerate is for.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

"And maybe some handy links?"<br /><br />VSE<br /><br />Transformational Space Corporation<br /><br />Exploration Systems Directorate<br /><br />Concepts

 

[spacester]

Nice links. <br /><br />Most of those concepts (4th link) are seriously flawed due to "incorrect" (IMO) assumptions, specifically the role of the public.<br /><br />But t/space looks very very good.<br /><br />More later when I've had time to look at it in more depth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Most of those concepts (4th link) are seriously flawed due to "incorrect" (IMO) assumptions, specifically the role of the public.</font><br /><br />I don't follow you, role of the public? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Yeah, well, it's one of my crazy ideas . . . <br /><br />I think the public should be personally involved as much as possible in actual space operations. It's not easy to come up with ways to do it, but I have a couple proposals I'm working on (in fits and starts). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Space-<br />You ought to move to my neighborhood. Even though I'm not in the Space Program, I still feel involved. That's why I moved here, I enjoy being close. To my kids, Mars isn't a dot in the sky, or a picture in a book, it's a destination where that rocket took off for. The rocket that they just heard, and felt, thunder-off into space.<br /><br />I love it here. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

Well, I live in paradise as well. I have a spectacular view from my desk.<br /><br />But I've never even seen a single launch to orbit live.<br /><br />S'okay, I'll fix that one day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Come on down, sometime. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Big or Small NASA Space Vision?<br /><br /><br /><i>"Whether NASA would be willing to take a chance on one of these newer players, or go with the increasingly limited pool of big-name contractors it has used for decades with mixed success, remains the big question.<br /><br />That NASA appears willing to consider some of these new kids on the block, however, seems a refreshing change."</i>