WSJ editorial on the "vision"

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

n_kitson

Guest
NASA's Coming Crack-Up<br /><br />By HOLMAN W. JENKINS JR.<br />October 5, 2005; Page A21<br /><br />President Bush has his hands full with critics of his Iraq policy and his hurricane cleanup policy. So let's give him a hard time about NASA.<br /><br />It may not be important in the grand scheme of things, a $16 billion a year agency. But one thing has changed: There's now a popular constituency for space policy that does more than just tune in for the blast-off extravaganzas. Blame the Web: We told you last year how seething space fans had kept Congress's feet to the fire and ended up saving a bill designed to speed development of private space tourism.<br /><br />The same folks are also a source of critique of NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study, issued last month, mostly in consultation with the usual suspects -- the giant aerospace contractors, who've been NASA's primary iron triangle sounding board since Gemini. Now there's an effective peanut gallery, their voices magnified by the Web, which has sprouted numerous sites devoted to criticizing and kibitzing about NASA.<br /><br />The critics won't be flyswatted away for one big reason. NASA's "return to the moon" efforts over the coming decade, as budgets bloat and deadlines are missed, will take place against a background of much faster progress in private spaceflight endeavors.<br /><br />Last year, Burt Rutan won the X Prize for the first private space flight. Next year, his new backer Richard Branson, billionaire chief of the Virgin conglomerate, hopes to fly test passengers to the edge of space in a Virgin Galactic ship based on Mr. Rutan's design. Paying cargo will soon fly aboard a rocket built by Elon Musk, owner of an eBay fortune. In all, at least a dozen entrepreneurial companies have serious space projects in the works.<br /><br />These companies have tight, pained little smiles on their faces right now. Many hope to benefit from contracts, and thus don't publicly criticize NASA's plans. But they're doin
 
D

darkenfast

Guest
Not much different than some of the garbage posted on this forum.
 
T

tmccort

Guest
<br /><font color="yellow">Not much different than some of the garbage posted on this forum.</font><br /><br />Would you mind elaborating on that?
 
F

franson_space

Guest
I think he means it's not news, it's someone's opinion, like you find on any message board. Theres no news value in reading that at all.<br /><br />Read it, got bored and wondered why I read it <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Read it, got bored and wondered why I read it</font>/i><br /><br />The most eloquent posting in these message boards pretty much have no effect beyod the few dozen people who read these boards.<br /><br />A posting in a national and well regarded source (even if just in the opion section) has a much greater impact. Also, it is good for us to know what the rest of the world is thinking or at least reading/hearing (and <i>not</i> reading/hearing).</i>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
I agree. While the WSJ may not set trends, it is one of the most highly regarded publications in the world. If there is a tendency to emphasize a view on Nasa, be it negative or positive, it will have ramifications in the business world.<br /><br />Close Nasa partners, such as LockMart and Boeing, will hesitate to remain involved in projects that continually cast them in a negative light. The opposite also applies.
 
S

shuttle_man

Guest
One minute you're all saying Griffin's mistake comments won't have any impact in the papers, then you say an opinion writer in a far lesser publication than USA Today will have ramifications? Will you guys make your minds up?
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Close Nasa partners, such as LockMart and Boeing, will hesitate to remain involved in projects that continually cast them in a negative light."</font><br /><br />That's a laugh! Private companies will continue to fight for a piece of the NASA pie as long as it makes them money. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
My perception of the WSJ is that it is the most prominent paper in the world, never mind the US. In the business world, it is respected for its high journalistic standards. Articles published in the WSJ move the markets.<br /><br />In contrast the US Today is a tabloid that would probably be bankrupt if they hadn't managed to contract with ever hotel chain to shove it under guestroom doors every morning.<br /><br />The bottom line is that NASA and associated contractors need to ensure that the plans and concepts they design will be favorably portrayed by credible publications such as WSJ, NYT and the Washington Post.
 
S

spacester

Guest
Actually, that's a pretty well written opinion piece in my book. I agree with his approach in terms of analyzing the current situation, but disagree on what it means for the future. The headline writer got "NASA's Coming Crackup" out of it, but that overstates the writer's intent IMO.<br /><br />First, it's a Very Good Thing for the Space Advocate Community to get a mention in the WSJ. It plants the idea in the general public's mind that there is a growing groundswell of support.<br /><br />The following, however, is not comfortable reading:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> Let's be serious. In return for the right to mothball the shuttle by 2010, NASA's new chief Michael Griffin had to promise 18 or so more flights to finish the space station, mainly to keep the pork flowing and the Texas GOP delegation happy. But fulfilling these promises would blow through the agency's fixed budgets, consuming all the money Mr. Griffin hopes to squeeze out for a shuttle replacement vehicle plus a moon mission. <br /><br />NASA's moon plans are a budget bluff -- at best, a cipher for a space policy to be named later, once the political landscape has shifted and it will be possible finally to pull the plug on the shuttle, the space station and NASA's whole failing model of human spaceflight. </font><br /><br />Well Mr. Jenkins would have us believe he is a NASA budget expert and I doubt that. I'll trust Dr. Griffin to work the budget. But I'm actually on a similar page as far as this being a "budget bluff", a placeholder. But no one is going to pull the plug, Mr. Jenkins' true colors seem to be showing there. The 'whole failing model' is sheer hyperbole.<br /><br />For me, the "placeholder" aspect is that Mike Griffin is setting the stage for something else. I don't know what exactly, not yet. But this guy just landed his dream job and he's too brilliant and has too much vision to be satisfied with the state of affairs for the next 4 years as currently described. I think he is going <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
While writer opinion over official quotes will never be more important, the US media tends to hold more value than is warranted over op-ed opinion.<br /><br />That's a shame, but the WSJ is huge in the US - so NKitson is absolultey right to note its importance because of where it's published.<br /><br />I would respectfully ask that people don't copy and paste articles - and provide a link as it does reduce the amount of people that read the article where it's published and that damages writers.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">That's a shame, but the WSJ is huge in the US - so NKitson is absolultey right to note its importance because of where it's published.</font>/i><br /><br />Along that line, Aviation Week & Space Technology (AW&ST) is a relatively important souce for decision makers, and their Sep 26 issue had an opinion piece by the Space Access Society that was similar to the WSJ. A longer, more rambling version is available at:<br />http://www.space-access.org/updates/sau112.html<br /><br />I find two things interesting from these (and other) pieces. First, support for the new plan is relatively tepid. There have been a lot of strong positions against the plan, and the ones in support aren't necessarily very strong. The Space Review has a similar summary of views: The reaction to the exploration plan<br /><br />Second, the WSJ editorial does posit an interesting "What if" scenario. If t/Space, SpaceX, or someone else does manage to achieve commercial manned orbital flights by 2012, and Bigelow is able to launch his inflatable space platforms in a similar time frame, NASA and the commercial space market will be in a very similar position at the same time: LEO and space station. If that happens, people may ask, "Why fund NASA?"<br /><br />The real next space race might not be between America and China, or America and Russia, but between America and America -- NASA, the government owned and operated space program, and private enterprise.</i>
 
L

lampblack

Guest
Well... the Wall Street Journal is hardly "the rest of the world." It's a mouthpiece of the U.S.'s well-heeled business establishment, but hardly reflects grassroots opinion.<br /><br />I believe its message more or less boils down to this: "Trust the entrepreneurs and market dynamics and the all-consuming power of human greed to take men (and women) to the moon again. Somebody'll figure out how to make a buck or two off space travel -- let's just wait and catch a ride with them."<br /><br />I say, give Griffin his chance. If market forces can overtake "the vision" and cause something miraculous to spontaneously flower into existence, then more power to it. But if the market sits on its butt because nobody sees a way to make any dough outside of earth orbit -- then let Griffin be Griffin. Let the big dog roam.<br /><br />In addition to being an investment in vital infrastructure, NASA's moon-Mars program is a plausible insurance policy -- in case the market forces that folks applaud with such religious fervor fail to produce anything interesting.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Well... the Wall Street Journal is hardly "the rest of the world." It's a mouthpiece of the U.S.'s well-heeled business establishment, but hardly reflects grassroots opinion.</font>/i><br /><br />Nonetheless, it is an important source with regards to the influence it has over decision makers, more so that virtually any other news source. Other sources with a level of gravitas (AW&ST and The Washington Post) have run negative editorials too.<br /><br />But just as importantly was the unscientific survey mentioned in The Space Review I referenced:<br /><ul type="square"><li>58 editorials and columns surveyed<li>30 were negative<li>12 were neutral<li>16 supported the plan<li> Many of the supporters came from places with NASA facilities<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br /><br />So the plan is having problems picking up steam at the grassroots level too. As I have said, in the short run this probably won't matter (e.g., for FY2006 NASA is probably getting all its money), but I am getting a little concerned.<br /><br />I like Griffin. I like his honesty. I like his plan. But I also think it would be a good idea if someone with a passion and eloquence for the program could step forward -- maybe a Zubrin with charisma.</i>
 
N

n_kitson

Guest
Apologies for pasting the whole article. The WSJ site is subscription only, and would have been inaccessible to many members on the board. However, next time I'll try and extract the gist of the article.<br /><br />- N
 
S

scottb50

Guest
In the meantime, we will eventually get Shuttle RTF in earnest, we will be watching the truss elements go into place, then we will see the international partners' labs go up, and Hubbell gets fixed somewhere in there. NASA is positioned to recover their good name with the American Public....<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Does that Pigasus hint <i>doubts</i> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>Apologies for pasting the whole article. The WSJ site is subscription only, and would have been inaccessible to many members on the board. However, next time I'll try and extract the gist of the article. <<br /><br />No apology needed, thanks for taking my comment the right way.
 
S

spacester

Guest
Hehehehehe, yeah, that's funny. 'When Pigs can Fly', I get it. It took a little while, but I get it.<br /><br />Well to each his own opinion . . . <br /><br />Wanna make a big fat bet? You know, since you don't want to talk about it . . . . I mean I have to assume you're not prepared to actually debate the matter . . . . . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
Good to hear from you again! I agree with your post completely. It would seem as if the NASA bashers on these boards have found their paradise!<br /><br />What is ironic is that these have all along been the people who have bashed NASA for being stuck in LEO for the last 30 years!! Now they are bashing the current NASA chief and president Bush for having a vision of finally getting out of LEO, how unbearably silly can you get!<br /><br />The pure new private interests may very well be able to do all of the things they claim as possible, I for one certainly hope so! After all, it does not matter who gets humanity into space in a big way, but I for one would like very much to just see at least the beginning of such a resurgence! But it IS just possible that companies that are in business for pure profit (and the WSJ should know this more than anyone!) such as the new start up companies are going to not only have to demonstrate that they can indeed place people into orbit (and sub orbital flights may very well be a start, but they are not even close to what is actually needed here) but do it at a profit! I am NOT being negative, just realistic, but this may take considerably longer than some of the more entusiastic supporters of such efforts think that it should take.<br /><br />So what happens in the meantime? Well I would have to say that NASA happens in the meantime, and if NASA should fail then who knows whether or not these other efforts will also succeed? After all, some of these efforts would quite possibly be directed towards supplying the ISS with people and/or materials.<br /><br />What Girffin is trying to do is to balance ALL of the objectives that not only he wants, but other interests want also. He has been told not only by his direct boss (president Bush) but also by his real boss (congress) that we need to do several things in the reasonable future.<br /><br />One is to finish the ISS as we have promised our other international partners that we were goin
 
F

frodo1008

Guest
If all of the clever people on these boards would be able to appy their cleverness to the problem of getting humanity into space, we would be well on our way......<br /><br />Or at least that is what they would want us to believe at any rate. Perhaps, it actually takes more than web knowledge?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts