NASA vs. the Starship Free Enterprise
Shane Stezelberger
On 7 Jul 1998 14:33:06 GMT, aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan
Anderson) posted:
[defense of NASA STARDUST names-in-space-program snipped]
>>Am I way off-base on this one?
>
>Yes, you are indeed off-base.
>
>The trend is not of decreasing relevance, but of increasing encroachment
>on real commercially viable activities.
Would you buy it if I'd said "decreasing magnitude?"
A names-in-space package is hardly as grand or as lucrative as a
launch vehicle, no? NASA may still be on the offensive against
other payers in the space game, but at least they're lowering their
sights... (*weak shrug*)
Of course, this was before loan guarantees.
>There *are* commercial entities
>with "zero-gee" aircraft. There *are* commercial entities with business
>plans based on sending "tokens" into orbit. If NASA steps in and gives
>away similar services without charging for them, you can imagine how it
>affects said businesses in particular, and the market for such services
>in general.
My nitpick was with the magnitude, not the intent. This particular
spacecraft is going into deep space, not simply "into orbit." On
that basis, there are no competing commercial concerns -- although
on that basis I am indeed picking the tiniest of nits.
SpaceDev and Applied Space Resources may have send-your-names
projects of which I am unaware, but would such projects make or
break their respective missions? If this is the culminating sin of
NASA's campaign against commerce (for which it "must be
destroyed,") then who will win the war?
P.S. A FRIENDLY OPEN LETTER TO POSTMODERN SPACE ACTIVISTS:
Sirs:
If you want to convince people like me that NASA must be destroyed,
you must try harder. I grew *up* with this NASA stuff. I was
raised on old L5 Society propaganda. Hell, I STILL read old Jerry
Pournelle NON-fiction: even the pre-Reagan stuff!
In short, I was trained to revere NASA as the space program (yes,
PROGRAM) and to defend her budget against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. Men's religions are not so easily unfixed.
When exactly should I have parted company with L5 and Pournelle?
Yours most sincerely, etc.
Shane
Shane Stezelberger
sst...@erols.com
Make the world a better place to leave.
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>
> Well, we all parted company with L5 when it was involved in with a
> hostile takeover by NSI a few years back and evaporated. NSS is
> mostly NSI'ers now, and most of the former L5 contingent seem to have
> gravitated to SFF. You seem to be the exception to most ex-L5'ers
> that I know. Most of us (such as Keith Henson) realized a long time
> ago (even before L5 disappeared) that NASA was more of a problem than
> a solution.
--------
----
You have some statistics on this?
I have to assume that you must be making some kind of count of
activists, as opposed to members of the L-5 Society who switched
to NSS after the merger.
I also suspect that the rather small splinter group of the SFF probably
maintains its membership in the NSS, although they may have shifted
their activities.
I joined both the L-5 Society and the Planetary Society because I
thought the major professional societies such as the AIAA and
American Astronautical Society were doing a good job of
maintaining technological background, but were not activist
enough. I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
NASA may not be a solution, but doing away with them
would cause a greater rather than a lesser problem.
The above is my opinion. I haven't taken any polls on the
matter.
Mike Walsh
Phil Fraering
> In short, I was trained to revere NASA as the space program (yes,
> PROGRAM) and to defend her budget against all enemies, foreign and
> domestic. Men's religions are not so easily unfixed.
> When exactly should I have parted company with L5 and Pournelle?
Well, if you believe the statistics, since the Great Merger, L5's
membership has been steadily leaving NSS. And Pournelle was
slightly involved in DC-X, but hasn't, AFAIK, been cheerleading
concerning the shuttle or NASA lately...
--
Phil Fraering "2. The inhabitants of N. Central Texas haven't
p...@globalreach.net changed much in the last 35,000 years."
/Will work for *tape*/ - Cronan, Things I Learned from the X Files Movie
On the internet, nobody knows you're Canadian. But they probably suspect.
Rand Simberg
sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In short, I was trained to revere NASA as the space program (yes,
>PROGRAM) and to defend her budget against all enemies, foreign and
>domestic. Men's religions are not so easily unfixed.
>
>When exactly should I have parted company with L5 and Pournelle?
Well, we all parted company with L5 when it was involved in with a
hostile takeover by NSI a few years back and evaporated. NSS is
mostly NSI'ers now, and most of the former L5 contingent seem to have
gravitated to SFF. You seem to be the exception to most ex-L5'ers
that I know. Most of us (such as Keith Henson) realized a long time
ago (even before L5 disappeared) that NASA was more of a problem than
a solution.
************************************************************************
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
Rand Simberg
P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>You have some statistics on this?
Nope. Anecdotal.
>I have to assume that you must be making some kind of count of
>activists, as opposed to members of the L-5 Society who switched
>to NSS after the merger.
That's right. I have little interaction with non activists.
>I also suspect that the rather small splinter group of the SFF probably
>maintains its membership in the NSS, although they may have shifted
>their activities.
You're probably right, at least for many, since I actually do myself.
Of course, I'm not a "member" of SFF, though I am a fellow traveler.
>I joined both the L-5 Society and the Planetary Society because I
>thought the major professional societies such as the AIAA and
>American Astronautical Society were doing a good job of
>maintaining technological background, but were not activist
>enough. I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
>of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
>larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
I'm not sure which organizations you're referring to as "main line
societies," so I can't comment on this. If you mean NSS, there is an
overabundance of petty bickering, though this may not be obvious to
the membership.
>NASA may not be a solution, but doing away with them
>would cause a greater rather than a lesser problem.
I don't think I proposed that. I'm just taking issue with the notion
of support for their budget, right or wrong.
>The above is my opinion. I haven't taken any polls on the
>matter.
Nor have I.
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 1998 22:26:57 +0000, in a place far, far away, "Michael
> P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
> >I joined both the L-5 Society and the Planetary Society because I
> >thought the major professional societies such as the AIAA and
> >American Astronautical Society were doing a good job of
> >maintaining technological background, but were not activist
> >enough. I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
> >of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
> >larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
>
> I'm not sure which organizations you're referring to as "main line
> societies," so I can't comment on this. If you mean NSS, there is an
> overabundance of petty bickering, though this may not be obvious to
> the membership.
----
----
----
For clarification, I meant to refer to professional organizations such as
the AIAA and the American Astronautical Society as
"mainline societies".
The AIAA is heavily influenced by the big aerospace producers
that seem to be on the same "bad guy" list as NASA among
some advocates.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >I joined both the L-5 Society and the Planetary Society because I
>> >thought the major professional societies such as the AIAA and
>> >American Astronautical Society were doing a good job of
>> >maintaining technological background, but were not activist
>> >enough. I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
>> >of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
>> >larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
>For clarification, I meant to refer to professional organizations such as
>the AIAA and the American Astronautical Society as
>"mainline societies".
In that case, it begs the question, "more effective" at what? At
promoting the status quo, and more and better government contracts,
they're somewhat effective (though their effectiveness has dropped
consderably over the past decade--witness the real-dollar drops in
both NASA and DoD's budgets). In terms of effectiveness in getting
large numbers of people off the planet in any foreseeable future, I
find them counterproductive.
>The AIAA is heavily influenced by the big aerospace producers
>that seem to be on the same "bad guy" list as NASA among
>some advocates.
Yup.
Denise Norris
>
>On 7 Jul 1998 14:33:06 GMT, aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan
>Anderson) posted:
>
>[defense of NASA STARDUST names-in-space-program snipped]
<more snipped>
>SpaceDev and Applied Space Resources may have send-your-names
>projects of which I am unaware, but would such projects make or
>break their respective missions? If this is the culminating sin of
Applied Space Resources is planning a project similar to 'names-in-space'
project on Stardust. The significant difference is that we have greatly
expanded the concept and it's not free.
Our Lunar Time Capsule (not the final market name) will consist of a nickel
disks each containing the equivalent of 17,000 8.5 x 11 inch pages
micro-engraved with names, messages and even images from people around the
world. We will reduce up to three 8½" x 11" pages to gray-scale images
visible through a 100x jeweler’s loupe, and provide a replica disk
containing their pages along with a magnifying viewer to the purchaser, for
about $200. Additional pages would be $5, and additional disks $75. With an
expected life time of 30,000 years, we estimate that the disks will easily
outlast the Pyramids. Should civilization fall with mankind forgetting us
and then a new culture eventually returns to space, the Time Capsule will be
waiting. On it will be a Rosetta Stone of sorts, the great works of
mankind, the history/knowledge of our civilization -- Encyclopedia
Britannica or something similar, and thousands of messages from people.
Messages from ordinary people. It will be easily locatable by future
historians and archeologists. With the Lunar Time Capsule, we are not
simply selling a ride to the Moon by proxy, we are selling a kind of
immortality. It takes more then a name on a microchip to give meaning to a
person's life. The Lunar Time Capsule will offer anyone a chance to
preserve what they consider special about their lives: Photographs,
Drawings, Writings. Anything that can be put on paper.
What NASA chooses to do on Stardust is not a threat to ASR's profitability.
If anything, the increased public awareness of 'things space' created by
Stardust creates a stronger market for ASR.
BTW, courtesy of NSS, my name will be included on Stardust, but courtesy of
ASR, my picture and biography will be on the Moon.
--
Denise Norris
CEO
Applied Space Resources, Inc.
dno...@appliedspace.com
W E ' R E G O I N G B A C K !
Call us: 1-888-GO-4-LUNA
Surf us: http://www.appliedspace.com
Shane Stezelberger
(Rand Simberg) posted:
>Well, we all parted company with L5 when it was involved in with a
>hostile takeover by NSI a few years back and evaporated. NSS is
>mostly NSI'ers now, and most of the former L5 contingent seem to have
>gravitated to SFF. You seem to be the exception to most ex-L5'ers
>that I know. Most of us (such as Keith Henson) realized a long time
>ago (even before L5 disappeared) that NASA was more of a problem than
>a solution.
Pournelle himself might be annoyed by my calling up twenty-year-old
rhetoric as if it were brand-spanking new. (Sorry, sir!)
It is true that the word 'NASA' does not even show up in O'Neill's
_The High Frontier: Human Colonies In Space_ until page 76.
(1989 SSI edition. Technically, he said "NASA" in the Introduction
on page "iii," but I'm through splitting hairs. Remember that for
most citizens of North America still think "space == NASA," if we
are still trying to win hearts and minds out there. I digress.)
And I have no wish to refight in this thread every single
ideological struggle this Movement has had in the past ten years.
However.
There *was* a time in the late 1970s when they almost *did* destroy
NASA. Would we have CATS now, in 1998, if that had come to pass?
If we repeal the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (as
amended), who would get the space science done? Who would fly the
Voyagers and Galileos? Who would provide the dollars to the
scientists who appear to be SpaceDev's customer base? (NSF, I
suppose?) Who would do basic airplane stuff? (NACA begat things
like the DC-3, remember.)
While I admit that NASA isn't "a solution" (after all, the phrase
"colonize space" does not appear at all in the Act, as amended), I
think it is NOT a monolith (the first "A," anyone?) and it is not
the bogeyman some make it out to be. Loan guarantees would be
a threat to competition, yes. Yes, NASA's activities vis-a-vis the
emerging launch providers must be carefully scrutinized. But look
at Celestis, Inc. Twelve years ago, Celestis' spiritual ancestor
was essentially crushed by the mailed fist of NASA. But that
didn't happen this time. Are things not looking better overall for
Industry in these post-Challenger, post-DC-X times?
My ultimate question for now: why capitalism-uber-alles? Have we
abandoned _The High Frontier_ in favor of _Atlas Shrugged_? Will
the first Lagrange colony have a big sign out front: "LIBERTARIANS
ONLY, APPLIED PLASMA PHYSICISTS PREFERRED"? Will there be
*any* role whatsoever for NASA in a post-CATS environment?
(Okay, so maybe that's four questions. :-) I understand you guys
intellectually. I've been following this debate for quite some
time. But that battle cry of "Destroy NASA" goes against twenty
years of indoctrination....)
Remember to look up.
Rand Simberg
sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Pournelle himself might be annoyed by my calling up twenty-year-old
>rhetoric as if it were brand-spanking new. (Sorry, sir!)
Indeed.
>It is true that the word 'NASA' does not even show up in O'Neill's
>_The High Frontier: Human Colonies In Space_ until page 76.
>(1989 SSI edition. Technically, he said "NASA" in the Introduction
>on page "iii," but I'm through splitting hairs. Remember that for
>most citizens of North America still think "space == NASA," if we
>are still trying to win hearts and minds out there. I digress.)
Yes, that's one of the problems, and one to be solved, rather than
encouraged.
>And I have no wish to refight in this thread every single
>ideological struggle this Movement has had in the past ten years.
That is wise--one should choose one's battles with care...
>However.
>
>There *was* a time in the late 1970s when they almost *did* destroy
>NASA. Would we have CATS now, in 1998, if that had come to pass?
We don't have CATS now, last time *I* checked. What do you think that
NASA has done to contribute in any way to CATS since the late 1970's?
For extra credit, how does it compare to the things they've done to
prevent it?
>If we repeal the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (as
>amended), who would get the space science done?
Since I haven't proposed doing such a thing, I don't know how to
answer that question. However, I do think that further amendments are
in order, forty years on.
>Are things not looking better overall for
>Industry in these post-Challenger, post-DC-X times?
Yes, but I think that it is despite NASA, certainly not because of it.
>My ultimate question for now: why capitalism-uber-alles? Have we
>abandoned _The High Frontier_ in favor of _Atlas Shrugged_?
I'm not aware that there is any necessary inconsistency between the
two.
>Will the first Lagrange colony have a big sign out front: "LIBERTARIANS
>ONLY, APPLIED PLASMA PHYSICISTS PREFERRED"?
Probably not the first one, but some may have similar signage.
>Will there be *any* role whatsoever for NASA in a post-CATS environment?
Yes--the same role that NACA played in the development of the
aeronautics industry. Developing basic technology that any can use
(while hopefully not coopting privately-developed efforts).
>(Okay, so maybe that's four questions. :-) I understand you guys
>intellectually. I've been following this debate for quite some
>time. But that battle cry of "Destroy NASA" goes against twenty
>years of indoctrination....)
Not my battle cry. To apologetically use the words of someone totally
morally reprehensible in a more useful context, "Mend it, don't end
it."
>Remember to look up.
I never forget, but there's not much to see in LA...
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Jul 1998 14:14:29 +0000, in a place far, far away, "Michael
> P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>
> >> >I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
> >> >of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
> >> >larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
>
> >For clarification, I meant to refer to professional organizations such as
> >the AIAA and the American Astronautical Society as
> >"mainline societies".
>
> In that case, it begs the question, "more effective" at what?
------
---
Building up general public support, in general, for space
activity.
I hope you are willing to give the technical societies credit
for providing an interface for the exchange of technical
information, which I see as their primary reason for
existence.
Mike Walsh
Robert Reed
going for free enterprise, or would you rather still see nothing in space
different from today 30 years from now with NASA still in charge?
Shane Stezelberger wrote in message <35a27a16...@news.erols.com>...
>
>On 7 Jul 1998 14:33:06 GMT, aran...@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan
>Anderson) posted:
>
>[defense of NASA STARDUST names-in-space-program snipped]
>>>Am I way off-base on this one?
>>
>>Yes, you are indeed off-base.
>>
>>The trend is not of decreasing relevance, but of increasing encroachment
>>on real commercially viable activities.
>
>Would you buy it if I'd said "decreasing magnitude?"
>
>A names-in-space package is hardly as grand or as lucrative as a
> launch vehicle, no? NASA may still be on the offensive against
>other payers in the space game, but at least they're lowering their
>sights... (*weak shrug*)
>
>Of course, this was before loan guarantees.
>
>>There *are* commercial entities
>>with "zero-gee" aircraft. There *are* commercial entities with business
>>plans based on sending "tokens" into orbit. If NASA steps in and gives
>>away similar services without charging for them, you can imagine how it
>>affects said businesses in particular, and the market for such services
>>in general.
>
>My nitpick was with the magnitude, not the intent. This particular
>spacecraft is going into deep space, not simply "into orbit." On
>that basis, there are no competing commercial concerns -- although
>on that basis I am indeed picking the tiniest of nits.
>
>SpaceDev and Applied Space Resources may have send-your-names
>projects of which I am unaware, but would such projects make or
>break their respective missions? If this is the culminating sin of
>NASA's campaign against commerce (for which it "must be
>destroyed,") then who will win the war?
>
>
>P.S. A FRIENDLY OPEN LETTER TO POSTMODERN SPACE ACTIVISTS:
>
>Sirs:
>
>If you want to convince people like me that NASA must be destroyed,
>you must try harder. I grew *up* with this NASA stuff. I was
>raised on old L5 Society propaganda. Hell, I STILL read old Jerry
>Pournelle NON-fiction: even the pre-Reagan stuff!
>
>In short, I was trained to revere NASA as the space program (yes,
>PROGRAM) and to defend her budget against all enemies, foreign and
>domestic. Men's religions are not so easily unfixed.
>
>When exactly should I have parted company with L5 and Pournelle?
>
>Yours most sincerely, etc.
>Shane
>
Shane Stezelberger
(Rand Simberg) posted:
>>most citizens of North America still think "space == NASA," if we
>>are still trying to win hearts and minds out there. I digress.)
>
>Yes, that's one of the problems, and one to be solved, rather than
>encouraged.
I *don't* publicly encourage this public misconception, nor do I
think it is a Good Thing. Are we *still* interested in winning
their hearts and minds?
If so, good. That's one bit of old-time religion I won't need to
relearn. (If the spiritual metaphor bothers anyone, tough.)
But why bother, then, if the only future in space is a
laissez-faire capitalist one (invloving only the Investors and the
Customers, not the taxpaying proletariat?)
If a state-supported space program is wrong NOW, why wasn't it
wrong THEN?
>>And I have no wish to refight in this thread every single
>>ideological struggle this Movement has had in the past ten years.
>
>That is wise--one should choose one's battles with care...
Not to confuse things, but I note Henry Vanderbilt's recent comment
that we probably haven't won yet.
>We don't have CATS now, last time *I* checked. What do you think that
>NASA has done to contribute in any way to CATS since the late 1970's?
>For extra credit, how does it compare to the things they've done to
>prevent it?
One might argue that without NASA to prevent investment and
innovation (via X-33/NLS/NASP/Shuttle/whatever), the private launch
industry would have thrived. Let a hundred RLVs bloom. Or it
might have continued to launch Commercial Titans for megabucks a
pop, toe-to-toe with Arianespace.
Arguably, the market is ready for new vehicles now. Was it ready
for them in 1980? (I don't know economics, but I remember some
history.)
>>Are things not looking better overall for
>>Industry in these post-Challenger, post-DC-X times?
>
>Yes, but I think that it is despite NASA, certainly not because of it.
So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
>>My ultimate question for now: why capitalism-uber-alles? Have we
>>abandoned _The High Frontier_ in favor of _Atlas Shrugged_?
>
>I'm not aware that there is any necessary inconsistency between the
>two.
I don't want to start a flame war... okay, maybe I do. What I
REALLY wanted to do by opening up Ayn Rand was to ultimately invoke
Tom Godwin's law, which says that any Usenet thread mentioning
Hitler must be jettisoned out the airlock. (Whittaker Chambers:
"...to the gas chambers, go") There, I've said the word "chambers"
thrice and "grok" not at all yet. :) :) :)
>>Will there be *any* role whatsoever for NASA in a post-CATS environment?
>
>Yes--the same role that NACA played in the development of the
>aeronautics industry. Developing basic technology that any can use
>(while hopefully not coopting privately-developed efforts).
Thank you. Just out of curiosity, who develops the bulk of today's
new "basic" spaceflight tech?
(I'm not trolling, I really don't know this. Who has answers?)
>>Remember to look up.
>
>I never forget, but there's not much to see in LA...
Even at Griffith Park? :)
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 16:17:10 +0000, in a place far, far away, "Michael
> P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> In that case, it begs the question, "more effective" at what?
>
> >Building up general public support, in general, for space
> >activity.
>
> Assuming, for the moment, that this is a good thing to do, in what way
> have they done that?
>
--------
----
Rand, we are getting into somewhat of a circular argument.
I joined more activist space groups because the technical societies
were not doing a good enough job of building general public
support for space activities. I have since become a bit
discouraged at the effectiveness of space activist groups.
I believe we have kicked this around about as much as it
deserves, so unless some new idea gets into the thread I
will leave it.
Mike Walsh
Edward Wright
In article <35a27a16...@news.erols.com>, sst...@erols.com (Shane
Stezelberger) wrote:
>In short, I was trained to revere NASA as the space program (yes,
>PROGRAM) and to defend her budget against all enemies, foreign and
>domestic. Men's religions are not so easily unfixed.
>
>When exactly should I have parted company with L5 and Pournelle?
Jerry Pournelle wrote, "The three great failures of socialism in the 20th
century are Soviet agriculture, US education, and NASA." I think that was
about five years ago, so I don't think you can keep company with him while
containing to revere NASA as the space program and defend her budget against
all enemies.
I parted company with the L-5 Society about the time Pournelle was purged.
That was shortly before it merged with NSI. At that time, it had already
ceased to be the L-5 Society in anything but name.
Rand Simberg
P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> In that case, it begs the question, "more effective" at what?
>Building up general public support, in general, for space
>activity.
Assuming, for the moment, that this is a good thing to do, in what way
have they done that?
>I hope you are willing to give the technical societies credit
>for providing an interface for the exchange of technical
>information, which I see as their primary reason for
>existence.
I'm certainly willing to do that. I think that the AIAA does serve a
useful purpose, but I don't see it in the vanguard of getting us off
the planet.
Cathy James
>Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
>your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
Reform it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
| Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
| |
| Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
Cfrjlr
James) writes:
>
>>So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
>>Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
>>your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
>
>
I am an abolitionist.
As an interim solution: A small core of low key highly focused pure science
projects should continue, but even that should be transferred to the NSF as
soon as they are ready to absorb it.
Charles F. Radley
http://members.aol.com/cfrjlr/
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> >So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> >your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
>
Reform it.
MARCU$
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> | Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
> | |
> | Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Alan Anderson
>If a state-supported space program is wrong NOW, why wasn't it
>wrong THEN?
A state-supported *space technology development* program made sense
then, and makes some sense even now. A "get to the moon fast" program
made political sense then, but political realities are different now.
As for my vote for what to do with NASA: get it out of the "mission"
business and get it refocused on the technology R&D that it still does
so well *in* the atmosphere today. If a government agency has a need to
do a "space mission", let them contract for it, or have the military do
it.
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
# My employer and I do not speak for one another. # qo'mey poSmoH Hol #
= = = = = === = === = === === = = = === === = === = =
Fred Kleindenst
Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
>
> And I have no wish to refight in this thread every single
> ideological struggle this Movement has had in the past ten years.
>
> However.
>
> There *was* a time in the late 1970s when they almost *did* destroy
> NASA. Would we have CATS now, in 1998, if that had come to pass?
>
> If we repeal the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space Act (as
> amended), who would get the space science done? Who would fly the
> Voyagers and Galileos? Who would provide the dollars to the
> scientists who appear to be SpaceDev's customer base? (NSF, I
> suppose?) Who would do basic airplane stuff? (NACA begat things
> like the DC-3, remember.)
>
> While I admit that NASA isn't "a solution" (after all, the phrase
> "colonize space" does not appear at all in the Act, as amended), I
> think it is NOT a monolith (the first "A," anyone?) and it is not
> the bogeyman some make it out to be. Loan guarantees would be
> a threat to competition, yes. Yes, NASA's activities vis-a-vis the
> emerging launch providers must be carefully scrutinized. But look
> at Celestis, Inc. Twelve years ago, Celestis' spiritual ancestor
> was essentially crushed by the mailed fist of NASA. But that
> didn't happen this time. Are things not looking better overall for
> Industry in these post-Challenger, post-DC-X times?
>
> My ultimate question for now: why capitalism-uber-alles? Have we
> abandoned _The High Frontier_ in favor of _Atlas Shrugged_? Will
> the first Lagrange colony have a big sign out front: "LIBERTARIANS
> ONLY, APPLIED PLASMA PHYSICISTS PREFERRED"? Will there be
> *any* role whatsoever for NASA in a post-CATS environment?
>
> (Okay, so maybe that's four questions. :-) I understand you guys
> intellectually. I've been following this debate for quite some
> time. But that battle cry of "Destroy NASA" goes against twenty
> years of indoctrination....)
> Have we abandoned _The High Frontier_ in favor of _Atlas Shrugged_?
No, most of us are still working....
NASA is a great example of an agency in search of a program is search of a
mission. Sometimes I think that each bill that creates an agency should have an
automatic "sunset" clause, to prevent the need for ever increasing budgets to
pay for the sacred jobs (in other districts than my own).
Many (classical) Liberal thinking people believe (and have documented) that NASA
attempts to maintain a monopoly on "space", sometimes by force, sometimes by
under pricing commercial competitors, and other times by not purchasing
commercial alternatives. As a gov't agency, this behavior is to be expected;
governments do not exist in a competitive environment. As capitalists, we know
that competition in the "space" arena would drive costs down and provide the
appropriate amount of investment and services. [as an aside, this could be
either more or less investment and missions than we have now. Certainly, the
missions would be far different in character] A market based "space" sector
could support some of NASA's current aspirations more cheaply than the current
implementations. In summary, there would be a role for NASA in capitalistic
based CATs environment; as a customer buying national pride and/or science
missions.
As for Libertarians occupying L5, that might be the first place they find where
they are welcome (excepting perhaps Usenet). ;-) On the other hand, I doubt
that the commercial enterprise that makes it out to L5 will care about its
customers' politics.
Should we "destroy" NASA? If you believe that it is near to impossible to down
size gov't agencies, but it is possible (rarely) to kill them, and you agree
that NASA is actively blocking the nascent commercial market than maybe we
should bring down NASA and replace it with additional funding to NSF.
Cheers
--Fred
>
> Remember to look up.
>
> Shane Stezelberger
> sst...@erols.com
>
> Make the world a better place to leave.
Cute.
Jonathan A Goff
>
> >So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> >your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
>
> Reform it.
If you asked me two years ago, NASA could do
no wrong. Ask me
now, and I would have to say that the sooner
we abolish NASA,
the sooner we can get to space.
--
Jonathan Goff
"Specialization is for insects." -- Robert
Anson Heinlein
Michael P. Walsh
> In article <6o56m7$o...@nrtphc11.bnr.ca>,
> caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> > >So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> > >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> > >your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
> >
> > Reform it.
----
-----
-----
NASA is basically a good organization which needs some
minor reform.
I doubt that anyone will be surprised by my response.
Mike Walsh
Charles Buckley
Reform. It's a good R&D establishment when it is allowed to be.
--
He was the boldest and most active one-legged
man that ever came to Iceland.
epitaph of Onund Treefoot
pat
shouldnt your vote be to reform ESA?
pat
mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <6o56m7$o...@nrtphc11.bnr.ca>,
> caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> > >So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> > >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> > >your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
> >
> > Reform it.
>
Rand Simberg
sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>most citizens of North America still think "space == NASA," if we
>>>are still trying to win hearts and minds out there. I digress.)
>>
>>Yes, that's one of the problems, and one to be solved, rather than
>>encouraged.
>
>I *don't* publicly encourage this public misconception, nor do I
>think it is a Good Thing. Are we *still* interested in winning
>their hearts and minds?
Sure.
>If so, good. That's one bit of old-time religion I won't need to
>relearn. (If the spiritual metaphor bothers anyone, tough.)
>But why bother, then, if the only future in space is a
>laissez-faire capitalist one (invloving only the Investors and the
>Customers, not the taxpaying proletariat?)
Because the taxpaying proles are also the future customers, and if you
can convince them that their taxes now could result in rides later,
you might have a better sell that their taxes going to send a few
astronauts around in circles and midnight basketball for the Russians.
>If a state-supported space program is wrong NOW, why wasn't it
>wrong THEN?
Well, it was wrong then if the goal was to expand the nation into
space as rapidly as possible, but it wasn't. It was war, albeit a
cold one, masquerading as a peaceful flexing of technological
muscles.
>So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
>Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
>your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
I'm not sure what you see as mine. I think that it should be
drastically reformed, but if that's not possible, that no NASA would
be better than the existing one.
>Thank you. Just out of curiosity, who develops the bulk of today's
>new "basic" spaceflight tech?
NASA develops a lot of it, either directly or indirectly through the
subsidization of IR&D, but the proportion of their budget devoted to
it relatively miniscule. The Air Force does also, as well as a lot of
small private companies.
>>>Remember to look up.
>>
>>I never forget, but there's not much to see in LA...
>
>Even at Griffith Park? :)
Nope--too much city light.
Robert Lynn
> >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> >your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
Reform it. Get rid of most of the projects. Maintain basic research,
get out of Ops. I think there is some danger that if you entirely
abolish Nasa there is some danger of space related information, know-how
and testing facilities becoming so proprietry that it will be difficult
for new players to enter into the markets, Monopolies are seldom a good
thing. Re-direct the Nasa budget into Prizes and fixed contracts for
some of the things we'd like to see: CATs, manned mars/moon/asteroid
missions, science missions, moon/mars bases and a large LEO Facility for
on orbit assembly, tourism etc.
Robert Lynn
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:27:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >relearn. (If the spiritual metaphor bothers anyone, tough.)
> >But why bother, then, if the only future in space is a
> >laissez-faire capitalist one (invloving only the Investors and the
> >Customers, not the taxpaying proletariat?)
>
> Because the taxpaying proles are also the future customers, and if you
> can convince them that their taxes now could result in rides later,
Sounds almost like some of the Shuttle hype two decades ago...
Back then, lots of folks (even our own James Oberg) were writing
gushing articles in Space World about how some ordinary folks
soon would get a chance to go to orbit. Needless to say, this
backfired badly.
---
I don't think it would be a good idea to tell taxpayers that public
money spent on X-33, DC-Y or whatever "could" result in space
tourist rides for the masses. You really need to reduce the
cost to at most a few thousand dollars per seat and even then,
some folks will complain about "state subsidized joyrides for
the upper class". The Concorde already has the same image problem.
---
Heck, manned spaceflight today is largely a waste of money,
but at least the scientists on Mir & the Shuttle are doing some
real space research. Not that it's really worth the money we
pay for it, mind you, but at least we are getting something
back.
MARCU$
> ************************************************************************
> simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
> interglobal space lines * 307 733-1391 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org
>
> "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
> Replace first . with @ and throw out the "@trash." to email me.
> Here's my email address for autospammers: postm...@fbi.gov
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
David Anderman
This sounds amazingly like the agenda of the Space Frontier Foundation. Note
that the Foundation coined the phrase, "Cheap Access to Space".
The trick is to take that agenda and to make it a reality. That's what the
Foundation does, step by agonizing step.
Check out the Foundation's web site at:
pat
mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <35a8c1a0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:27:56 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> > sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) made the phosphor on my monitor
> > glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> >
> > >If so, good. That's one bit of old-time religion I won't need to
> > >relearn. (If the spiritual metaphor bothers anyone, tough.)
> > >But why bother, then, if the only future in space is a
> > >laissez-faire capitalist one (invloving only the Investors and the
> > >Customers, not the taxpaying proletariat?)
> >
> > Because the taxpaying proles are also the future customers, and if you
> > can convince them that their taxes now could result in rides later,
> ^^^^^
>
> Sounds almost like some of the Shuttle hype two decades ago...
> Back then, lots of folks (even our own James Oberg) were writing
> gushing articles in Space World about how some ordinary folks
> soon would get a chance to go to orbit. Needless to say, this
> backfired badly.
That's pretty amusing, marcus.
you should post a few of these articles.
> ---
> I don't think it would be a good idea to tell taxpayers that public
> money spent on X-33, DC-Y or whatever "could" result in space
> tourist rides for the masses. You really need to reduce the
> cost to at most a few thousand dollars per seat and even then,
> some folks will complain about "state subsidized joyrides for
> the upper class". The Concorde already has the same image problem.
>
it's not an image problem, its a reality problem.
> ---
> Heck, manned spaceflight today is largely a waste of money,
> but at least the scientists on Mir & the Shuttle are doing some
> real space research. Not that it's really worth the money we
> pay for it, mind you, but at least we are getting something
> back.
>
wow marcus, you really are turning around. is this some sort of
americandisease you are getting? Are you going to start bitching about Ariane
5 next? ;-)
pat
Rand Simberg
mlin...@my-dejanews.com made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:
>> Because the taxpaying proles are also the future customers, and if you
>> can convince them that their taxes now could result in rides later,
> ^^^^^
>
>Sounds almost like some of the Shuttle hype two decades ago...
>Back then, lots of folks (even our own James Oberg) were writing
>gushing articles in Space World about how some ordinary folks
>soon would get a chance to go to orbit. Needless to say, this
>backfired badly.
In what way did it backfire? It doesn't seem to have any significant
impact on how much the public is willing to spend on space. It may
have helped keep the funding going for the program (albeit to a small
degree). That it didn't achieve such a goal was a result of flaw in
the implementation (having NASA develop the operational vehicle), not
the objective itself.
In any event, much of the taxpaying public was unaware of such
promises at the time, or has long since forgotten them--their memory
of even significant political events is seldom retained more than an
election cycle. If it were otherwise, Bill Clinton would have been
turned out of office in 1996 (and likely would not have been elected
in 1992, considering Bush's stratospheric polls less than two years
before the election.
>I don't think it would be a good idea to tell taxpayers that public
>money spent on X-33, DC-Y or whatever "could" result in space
>tourist rides for the masses. You really need to reduce the
>cost to at most a few thousand dollars per seat and even then,
>some folks will complain about "state subsidized joyrides for
>the upper class". The Concorde already has the same image problem.
Concorde was developed with unreimbursed taxpayer funds--operational
spaceliners should not be (or even with reimbursed taxpayer funds).
Anyway, I don't believe that I proposed that. The theme would not be
joyrides for the rich--it would be opening up opportunities in the new
frontier of space for the American public. We'll do it "for the
children."
>Heck, manned spaceflight today is largely a waste of money,
>but at least the scientists on Mir & the Shuttle are doing some
>real space research. Not that it's really worth the money we
>pay for it, mind you, but at least we are getting something
>back.
We'd be getting a lot more back if we were sending a lot more people,
and this would not require any more money, just a shift in the way
that it's being wasted^H^H^H^H^H^Hspent.
Tom Abbott
James) wrote:
>>So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
>>Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
>>your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
>
> Reform it.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>| Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
>| |
>| Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
I agree with Cathy, reform it. Start with a new administrator.
TA
Rand Simberg
P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>I joined more activist space groups because the technical societies
>were not doing a good enough job of building general public
>support for space activities.
Mike, I remain very confused. First you said,
>I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
>of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
>larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
Then when I asked more effective at what, you replied,
>Building up general public support, in general, for space
>activity.
Then when I ask in what way they've been effective at that, you tell
me that they weren't sufficiently effective. So which is it? Are
AIAA et al effective public education organizations or not?
Michael P. Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Jul 1998 21:55:23 +0000, in a place far, far away, "Michael
> P. Walsh" <mp_w...@pacbell.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >I joined more activist space groups because the technical societies
> >were not doing a good enough job of building general public
> >support for space activities.
>
> Mike, I remain very confused. First you said,
> >I still maintain my memberships, and frankly I think some
> >of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
> >larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
>
> Then when I asked more effective at what, you replied,
> >Building up general public support, in general, for space
> >activity.
>
> Then when I ask in what way they've been effective at that, you tell
> me that they weren't sufficiently effective. So which is it? Are
> AIAA et al effective public education organizations or not?
---------
----
No they are not.
I joined a number of space activist groups which include
the National Space Society, the Planetary Society and the
Space Access Society in the hopes that these groups would
do a better job of building up general public support, in general, for space
activity.
In a moment of discourgement I posted that:
I still maintain my memberships, (in the AIAA and AAS) and frankly I
think some of the main line societies are more effective not only because of
larger membership, but because of a lack of petty bickering.
Meaning that I felt the space activist societies were less effective than
I had hoped when I joined some of them. Sadly to say, the main
line societies have not improved in a public education function.
There are some exceptions at the local level, as both the
San Fernando Valley Chapter and LA Chapter of the AIAA
have had some very interesting and relevant local meetings.
Mike Walsh
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
pat <p...@clark.net> wrote:
>
>
> mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> > In article <35a8c1a0...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
> > simberg.i...@trash.org (Rand Simberg) wrote:
> > > can convince them that their taxes now could result in rides later,
> > ^^^^^
> >
> > Sounds almost like some of the Shuttle hype two decades ago...
> > Back then, lots of folks (even our own James Oberg) were writing
> > gushing articles in Space World about how some ordinary folks
> > soon would get a chance to go to orbit. Needless to say, this
> > backfired badly.
>
>
> you should post a few of these articles.
I think I will, if I can get Jim's permission to do it...
Oh, BTW, my intent is _not_ to ridicule him -- I like JO a
lot, and I merely want to show the big difference
between all the 1970s Shuttle optimism & what we have today.
---
On a darker note, I also have another lengthy article by
Max Hunter et al (Aeronautics & Astronautics, June'72 p.50:
"Space Shuttle Will Cut Payload Costs")
which concludes that the 2xSRB+ET+Orbiter configuration
will be a great investment for American space users since
the combination of huge payload volume+low launch costs
will enable spacecraft designers to utilize a standardized,
modularized
lower-cost design philosophy. Ironically, earlier studies
by Mathematica Inc. & the RAND Corporation had concluded
that the Shuttle's life cycle cost would be higher than
if existing ELVs were retained. What saved NASA was
the argument stated by Hunter above -- that payloads would
get cheaper if designed for the Shuttle -- plus claims that
a reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicle could extend the
cost savings all the way to geostationary orbit. So NASA
proposed a ridiculously ambitious flight model to show how
the Shuttle would pay back the DDT&E cost:
Year No. of Flights/yr.
-----------------------
1978 6
1979 15
1980 24
1981 32
1982 40
1983 60 (40 from KSC,20 from VAFB)
1984 60
1985 60
1986 60
1987 60
1988 28
-----------------------
Anyway, my point is that we all make mistakes (even
the "Holy Men" of the space activist movement get it wrong).
It is always easy to point fingers in hindsight and
curse at NASA's strategic decisions. But maybe it wasn't so
obvious as you & Wright seem to believe, after all.
> > ---
> > Heck, manned spaceflight today is largely a waste of money,
> > but at least the scientists on Mir & the Shuttle are doing some
> > real space research. Not that it's really worth the money we
> > pay for it, mind you, but at least we are getting something
> > back.
> >
>
> wow marcus, you really are turning around. is this some sort of
> americandisease you are getting? Are you going to start bitching about Ariane
> 5 next? ;-)
Believe it or not, I actually agree with you space cadets on lots
of things...if you remove the paranoid exaggerations and ideologically
motivated BS, that is.
> pat
MARCU$
Jim Davidson
> Cathy James) wrote:
> > Reform it.
> I agree with Cathy, reform it. Start with a new administrator.
Here is an instance where I find Tom's post slightly more appealing than
Cathy's. While it is not clear from Shane's question, it does seem that
he was begging for some elaboration on what you would do with regard to
NASA, perhaps to include some specifics.
While I can't agree that NASA under Jim Beggs or Jim Fletcher or even
that dick Truly was all that much better than NASA under Dan Goldin, at
least Tom has stated what would make "at once, a better government" if
only in his slightly bizarre way of thinking. Thus, my question for
Cathy would be: what would constitute adequate reform to make you
satisfied with a new, improved NASA?
Another post indicated that severely cutting back NASA operations and
projects would be sufficient, perhaps to include everything except basic
research. I wonder, though, what tools one might use to trim back this
tangled growth so thoroughly. After all these years of effort, we
haven't seen much improvement. NASA is still threatening to commercial
space ventures; it is still Not About Space Anymore but jobs or saving
Russian missile technicians from Saddam, or whatever is in vogue at the
moment; it is still foisting boondoggles on the taxpayers.
Tom's specific approach is easily implemented: the president gets Goldin
to resign and appoints someone new who is then confirmed by the Senate.
If that doesn't seem as easily done, it is at least possible to state an
approach.
Robert Lynn's idea of cutting NASA back to just research certainly
sounds good, but it threatens all those vested political interests which
seem to enjoy throwing money at Congress, the President, and apparently
even such otherwise minor groups like NSS and SFF to get their way. So
how does one go about engendering a spirit of reform? David Anderman
chimes in that Lynn's agenda is being implemented in agonizing steps by
the SFF. No doubt he is right about the agony. I'm sure he will also
chime in with self-serving comments about how far the SFF have brought
us poor benighted souls.
One of the recurring themes in political thought is that politicians and
the public seem to seek a middle ground. The art of compromise involves
finding common ground between extreme positions. Obviously, those who
speak for the vested economic and political interests which are
represented by the status quo budget and allocation of contracts
represent one extreme. The defense/aerospace contractor companies and
their minions seem eager to have things stay pretty much the same, and
they have their arguments lined up. They will tell you that all those
commercial approaches are doomed to failure anyway, and that the tried
and true approach of not getting the space frontier opened is best,
though perhaps not in so many words. Occasionally, one of their speech
writers will decide to issue revisions of history and tell us that all
the railroads were built by the federal government "to open the West."
If the objective we as space enthusiasts seek is a reformed NASA, one
better at serving our purposes of space exploration, space settlement,
space development, and even space exploitation, then someone needs to
hold down the other extreme. Otherwise, the middle ground will be
between those who want some reform and those who want none. In case you
haven't noticed, that middle ground consists of:
Not Very Much Reform.
So, please join me in condemning NASA with every breath. Take up the
grand cause of holding down the extreme position that NASA must be
destroyed. Say it in Latin, "NASA delenda est." Say it in any forum or
venue you can find. Point out its flaws, its foibles, its problems, and
suggest that the only way to solve these is to rip it apart, to tear
every stone from every other, to leave no two boards stuck together, and
sow salt in the ground so that nothing will ever grow there. It isn't
really that hard to point out the negligence, the bad management, the
deaths, the injuries, the waste, the fraud, the corruption sufficient to
justify such a position.
Take that extreme position, breathe life into it. Make it sing with
clarity, make it credible with evidence, make it your avowed purpose.
Help me create a minor movement around that idea, and then we may have
some hope of real reform within NASA. Say only that NASA must be
reformed, and know in your heart that it won't be. Say that it must be
destroyed, and you can look forward to compromising for the reform you
truly desire.
So, come on you reformers. Stop standing in the middle of the road with
a confused expression every time opportunity whizzes by, or runs you
down. Stand over here with me at the extreme, pull the argument over
from the pole, and don't compromise until you see truly meaningful
reform.
Free Yourself,
Shane Stezelberger
Anderson) posted:
>As for my vote for what to do with NASA: get it out of the "mission"
>business and get it refocused on the technology R&D that it still does
>so well *in* the atmosphere today. If a government agency has a need to
>do a "space mission", let them contract for it, or have the military do
>it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[emphasis mine]
In most NASA space science missions (from Hubble to SAMPEX), how
is this different from the status quo? HST wasn't built by the
Marshall Space Flight Center -- it was built by Lockheed. (Even
Lockheed was once a struggling startup, although it had left those
days behind long before WW2. :) SAMPEX isn't operated by NASA
civil servants, but by AlliedSignal contractors.
NASA does act as middleman, overseer, and provider-of-facilities
for these missions, though. But there's a lot of private-sector
involvement already -- has been since almost the beginning. If
NASA weren't building a testbed like DS-1, would Hughes have
built it by themselves?
pat
How abotu This?
Bar NASA from owning or Procuring hardware for anything inside The Earth
Moon District.
If NASA wants missions inside this region they must contract on an open
basis for the service, and not involve any of their staff, in the mission.
EOS? Contract to buy the Data.
ISS? Contract to deliver payloads and science equipment, and vendors
provide a station.
Lunar Science Base? Contract for certain packages to be placed and
operated,
and the data purchased.
Mars Mission? Sure, let JSC-MSFC fight it out and make it happen.
Neptune Orbiter? Sure, let JPL-Ames make it happen.
Solar Observatory at L1? Sure let GSFC-lewis build it.
Sell STS-KSC to USA, and turn over the shooting match.
This way industry is stimulated, Nasa does Good R&D,,,,,
pat
Phil Fraering
> Tom's specific approach is easily implemented: the president gets Goldin
> to resign and appoints someone new who is then confirmed by the Senate.
> If that doesn't seem as easily done, it is at least possible to state an
> approach.
Well, it's a simplistic approach. Goldin has all the responsibility
at NASA and none of the authority to do anything about his responsibility.
This is a common problem with bureaucracies.
I wonder if Tom would give his new administrator authority equal
to his responsibility, and if so, how he would accomplish this
in the current political situation.
THEN I would like to know why you must get rid of the current person
or people in charge before letting them actually have decision-making
power.
Otherwise you might as well start firing the janitors because they
made the wrong decisions about ISS.
(Well, they probably didn't, IMHO. But then again you don't find
people who _have_ made that sort of decision until you've left
NASA behind and moved up to the Administration or Congress, whose
main objective in choosing an administrator is having someone to
blame when things go wrong).
> One of the recurring themes in political thought is that politicians and
> the public seem to seek a middle ground.
It's nice to know that someone's acknowledged a difference in thought
between the public and the politicians.
> Take that extreme position, breathe life into it. Make it sing with
> clarity, make it credible with evidence, make it your avowed purpose.
> Help me create a minor movement around that idea, and then we may have
> some hope of real reform within NASA. Say only that NASA must be
> reformed, and know in your heart that it won't be. Say that it must be
> destroyed, and you can look forward to compromising for the reform you
> truly desire.
I have a better idea for NASA reform.
Support ISS.
Their launch infrastructure probably won't be able to support it.
NASA will probably _have_ to resort to commercial launchers then.
All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
chance...
--
Phil Fraering "I invented the term /object oriented/, and I can
p...@globalreach.net tell you I did not have C++ in mind." - Alan Kay
/Will work for *tape*/
Shane Stezelberger
<tapm...@juno.com> posted:
>Would you rather live on a space colony in the future by abandoning NASA and
>going for free enterprise, or would you rather still see nothing in space
>different from today 30 years from now with NASA still in charge?
If only it were that cut-and-dried...
The Boeings and Lockheeds of the world haven't moved us much closer
to space colonization in the past 30 years either, have they? Few
have, aside from groups like the Space Studies Institute and
individuals like Clapp and Hudson. The new cluster of startups are
a recent phenomenon, and even *they* are not going to lead to
asteroid mines overnight.
NASA is in charge of the NEAR mission, and SpaceDev is in charge of
NEAP. I will ask you the same question I asked Jim Davidson:
should NASA terminate NEAR mission operations out of deference to
the potential market for NEAP data?
I want to maintain space science activities bby any reasonable
means, and I consider tax funding to be reasonable.
Sincerely,
Shane
Alan Anderson
sst...@erols.com (Shane Stezelberger) writes:
>>...If a government agency has a need to
>>do a "space mission", let them contract for it, or have the military do
>>it. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>[emphasis mine]
You chose an odd place to emphasize. Are you inferring that I'm in
favor of "letting" NASA continue to do "space missions" themselves?
>In most NASA space science missions (from Hubble to SAMPEX), how
>is this different from the status quo?
NASA doesn't hire contractors so much as it takes control over whole
chunks of another organization's workforce. It doesn't provide the
specifications and take delivery of finished goods, it provides the
entire management structure for a task. As you later say:
>NASA does act as middleman, overseer, and provider-of-facilities
>for these missions, though.
It's involved at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom. That's
nothing like "contracting" as I intended the term.
>But there's a lot of private-sector
>involvement already -- has been since almost the beginning. If
>NASA weren't building a testbed like DS-1, would Hughes have
>built it by themselves?
Perhaps not, but in the absence of NASA they might have built it for the
Army or for BellSouth instead. I'm not all that worked up over DS-1; it
sounds like an appropriate R&D thing for NASA to be doing.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> In article <6o56m7$o...@nrtphc11.bnr.ca>, caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy
> James) writes:
> >>So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> >>Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> >>your answer. I see yours, too, Rand Simberg. Who else?)
> I am an abolitionist.
> As an interim solution: A small core of low key highly focused pure science
> projects should continue, but even that should be transferred to the NSF as
> soon as they are ready to absorb it.
With what sort of budget?
A typical NSF line is ~ $100 million, is that the level
of space science you want to live with (per year)?
If you want to provide a purchase market for space access
startup companies, what sort of money should be available
per year to purchase space science, and what fraction
of that should be for launch costs (vs instruments,
MO or DA, I'll give you theory for free since it
doesn't cost much either way)?
If you want more than other NSF science, how do you think
that will impact the agency.
If you want less, will that be enough to provide demand
for any launch services, or will you just kill all development
for technology beyond weather satellites and pager services?
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Cathy James wrote:
> > >So should we eager young space activists push to reform the old
> > >Agency, or should we push to abolish it? (Jim Davidson, I *know*
> > Reform it.
> If you asked me two years ago, NASA could do
> no wrong. Ask me
> now, and I would have to say that the sooner
> we abolish NASA,
> the sooner we can get to space.
What will you say two years from now?
Cathy James
>chunks of another organization's workforce. It doesn't provide the
>specifications and take delivery of finished goods, it provides the
>entire management structure for a task.
That's one of the things I would reform... NASA should
learn to write _requirements_, not design documents. Sadly,
that problem is also rampant in private enterprise software projects.
I took a class a couple of years ago. One of the
group-think problems was to give the group a set of ridiculous
requirements for a sign at the end of a tunnel ("If it is night
and your lights are on, keep them on. If it is day and your
lights are on, turn them off. If..."), and ask that the
group rewrite the requirements.
Every team except mine rewrote the requirements as
"Put up a sign that says 'check lights'". I was the only
person to argue that this was _still_ a design, albeit a
better one. A more appropriate set of requirements would
be "provide a simple, cheap mechanism to remind a driver to put his
lights into the appropriate state upon exiting the tunnel."
The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
limited to NASA or even to government.
Michael K. Heney
Cathy James <caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com> wrote:
>
> I took a class a couple of years ago. One of the
>group-think problems was to give the group a set of ridiculous
>requirements for a sign at the end of a tunnel ("If it is night
>and your lights are on, keep them on. If it is day and your
>lights are on, turn them off. If..."), and ask that the
>group rewrite the requirements.
>
> Every team except mine rewrote the requirements as
>"Put up a sign that says 'check lights'". I was the only
>person to argue that this was _still_ a design, albeit a
>better one. A more appropriate set of requirements would
>be "provide a simple, cheap mechanism to remind a driver to put his
>lights into the appropriate state upon exiting the tunnel."
>
> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
>resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
>limited to NASA or even to government.
I *LOVE* it!! One of the more succinct and accurate descriptions of
the problem that I've seen to date!
With your permission, I'd like to clip this for future reference and use
(with attribution) when I inevitibly get into another "requirements vs.
design" debate....
Rand Simberg
mhe...@access1.digex.net (Michael K. Heney) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>I *LOVE* it!! One of the more succinct and accurate descriptions of
>the problem that I've seen to date!
Yes, it is a good example.
>With your permission, I'd like to clip this for future reference and use
>(with attribution) when I inevitibly get into another "requirements vs.
>design" debate....
Actually, I think of it as "functional requirements" versus
"specifications." NASA (and many others) seem always loathe to issue
functional requirements (what does it have to do?) as opposed to a
spec (how does it do it, and what trades (if any) were performed to
determine if that's the best way?).
This is probably because they don't feel like they have sufficient
control over the process if they don't specify it down to the bolt
patterns. Also, if they are too explicit about the functional
requirements, political agendas become too obvious.
For example, if they had simply specified a space station that
supported a certain number of crew with a certain amount of power and
equipment racks in a certain amount of time for a certain budget,
someone might have inadvertently submitted a proposal that launched it
with something other than Shuttle, and didn't sufficiently involve
Marshall, JSC, the Cape, and our foreign "partners." The latter were
the true functional requirements for the program (and ones which it
has in fact satisfied all too well).
Even when the customer is internal, as a systems engineering
consultant, I often find that people jump immediately to specs, when
if instead they would sit down and think about and document what the
system actually has to do, they might find more clever ways of
accomplishing it and make sure that their spec really satisfies the
requirement.
Cathy James
>>[example deleted]
>> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
>>resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
>>limited to NASA or even to government.
Michael K. Heney wrote:
>I *LOVE* it!! One of the more succinct and accurate descriptions of
>the problem that I've seen to date!
>With your permission, I'd like to clip this for future reference and use
>(with attribution) when I inevitibly get into another "requirements vs.
>design" debate....
Feel free to quote it, but please maintain the attribution.
Cathy James
>If they are too explicit about the functional
>requirements, political agendas become too obvious.
Which, of course, is exactly what I want to happen.
I would like to see the political requirements removed
from the program. If there isn't sufficient Congressional
support to fund a science program without pork, the program
should be terminated. This applies to _any_ program, not
just ISS.
Note that NSF seems to survive just fine without pork.
I don't see much controversy over unmanned space science, either.
There seems to be a certain funding level below which pork
is not an issue, and it would be a good thing if NASA funding
were below that level. I suspect that the level would still
be high enough to fund a lot of good research.
>For example, if they had simply specified a space station that
>supported a certain number of crew with a certain amount of power and
>equipment racks in a certain amount of time for a certain budget,
>someone might have inadvertently submitted a proposal that launched it
>with something other than Shuttle,
Which would have been great, and almost certainly cheaper
than a Shuttle-based launch manifest...
>and didn't sufficiently involve Marshall, JSC, the Cape...
Which, of course, is precisely what we need to get
away from if we are ever to save money. The "requirement"
to involve all of NASA is increasingly at odds with the
ever-more-important requirement to save money.
>and our foreign "partners."
Here I'll hedge a bit. A written requirement to
make all station proposals support European and Japanese
modules of mass between m1 and m2, supplying at least V volts
at A amps, life support sufficient for n crew, and specifying
docking, power, water, and gaseous interfaces would have
fulfilled the political requirements just fine without
damaging the free hand of the designers.
Perhaps you were referring to Russian involvement.
That could have been handled by including a Russian module
in the requirement I stated above. Of course, if the
RFP was issued after the fall of the USSR, and if it was
made clear that Shuttle/Center political requirements
were nonexistant and cost was all-important, the winning
proposal would almost certainly have made extensive use
of Russian boosters, without any need to force it to do so.
Jonathan A Goff
> What will you say two years from now?
Two years from now I'll be off serving
a mission in some far away land, so I
won't be saying anything about rockets.
When I get back though, I doubt I will
have changed my tune. NASA has got to
go. They killed the MCD criteria, they
got the Air Force to stop building an
MCD ELV that was putting stuff into
orbit at a cost of around $700-900/lb.
And that was with low technology,
with some of the massive improvements
in Operations Management and Manufacturing,
we could have $200/lb tickets to space
right now off of MCD SLVs. But NASA
had a space cow that they needed to
subsidize. Good thing challenger
changed that. Too bad it took a
couple people dieing to convince our
government that they were idiots.
--
Jonathan Goff
IMTU tn++ t4-- ru+ ge++ -jt+ ls+(--) kk++ so
Rob Rodgers
>a Rosetta Stone of sorts, the great works of
>mankind, the history/knowledge of our civilization -- Encyclopedia
>Britannica or something similar, and thousands of messages from people.
May I suggest a library of journals? There is very little that is as
out of date and devoid of content in modern life as the typical set of
encyclopedias.
Allen Karchmer
>
> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
> resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
> limited to NASA or even to government.
>
Well, one can carry this philosophy too far. Sometimes the design
solution is unique: it is intrinsically part of the requirement. For
example, if I set down a requirement that a sub-development contractor
shall put STOP sign at every intersection, how many choices are there
for the design of the stop sign?
Allen K.
(o o)
=======o00o==(_)===o00o=========
Keep your eyes on the prize.
Michael P. Walsh
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
>
>
> When I get back though, I doubt I will
> have changed my tune. NASA has got to
> go. They killed the MCD criteria, they
> got the Air Force to stop building an
> MCD ELV that was putting stuff into
> orbit at a cost of around $700-900/lb.
----------
-----
What is the MCD criteria?
Do you have a name for that MCD ELV that was putting
stuff into orbit at a cost of about $700-900?
This sounds very much like nonsense.
I will apologize for that remark if you can back
your statements up.
-----
-----
-----
> And that was with low technology,
> with some of the massive improvements
> in Operations Management and Manufacturing,
> we could have $200/lb tickets to space
> right now off of MCD SLVs.
----------
-----
What are SLVs? Solid Launch Vehicles?
Most solid propellant launch vehicles have not provided
anywhere near that amount of cost effectiveness. They are
the currently operational system that new launch systems
must beat out cost-wise.
-----
-----
------
Mike Walsh
Allen Thomson
>Cathy James wrote:
>
>>
>> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
>> resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
>> limited to NASA or even to government.
>>
>
>
>Well, one can carry this philosophy too far. Sometimes the design
>solution is unique: it is intrinsically part of the requirement. For
>example, if I set down a requirement that a sub-development contractor
>shall put STOP sign at every intersection, how many choices are there
>for the design of the stop sign?
Er, you've missed the point of earlier posts. The requirement should
be "Ensure that traffic crossing the intersection will not collide
with greater than a 1/1,000,000 (or whatever) probability per vehicle,
based on Official Traffic Model XYZ." If the cheapest way to do that is
to put up STOP signs, great. If someone else develops a bettercheaper
way to do it, even greater.
The point is goals, rather than means to achieve the goals.
Allen Thomson
[snip]
[I, unwisely, said]:
>The point is goals, rather than means to achieve the goals.
Ack. A couple of seconds after sending that, I realized that a
good paraphrase would be "The ends justify the means."
No, all this should be taken in the context of morally justifiable
goals, constrained by all the reasonably possible consequences of
the means undertaken to achieve the goals.
[Goes off to an extended sackcloth and ashes session.]
Allen Karchmer
> >Cathy James wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
> >> resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
> >> limited to NASA or even to government.
> >>
> >
> >
> >Well, one can carry this philosophy too far. Sometimes the design
> >solution is unique: it is intrinsically part of the requirement. For
> >example, if I set down a requirement that a sub-development contractor
> >shall put STOP sign at every intersection, how many choices are there
> >for the design of the stop sign?
>
> Er, you've missed the point of earlier posts. The requirement should
> be "Ensure that traffic crossing the intersection will not collide
> with greater than a 1/1,000,000 (or whatever) probability per vehicle,
> based on Official Traffic Model XYZ." If the cheapest way to do that is
> to put up STOP signs, great. If someone else develops a bettercheaper
> way to do it, even greater.
>
We've come full circle, here. V.P. Gore received a great deal of
attention when he appeared on the Letterman Show back around 1993 to
give an example of what happens when the government writes very
complicated requirements or specifications to procure very simple
things. He displayed with a flourish a multi-page set of specifications
for office ashtrays. He had the audience in stitches when he read truly
absurd excerpts from the spec. And then he rhetorically asks the TV and
studio audiences "Why can't it just say 'Give us an ashtray'?" (or words
to that effect). Audience applauds with approval. Great sound-byte for
the 6:30 PM news the next day.
I'm just expecting a little bit of common sense in this thread, Why
can't we just say "Put up STOP signs". For all intents and purposes, in
hundreds of countries, hundreds of millions of motorists know what a
STOP sign looks like, and what they're supposed to do when they
encounter one. Even if they can't read, and/or they're color blind. This
is a case where there is a virtually unique design solution for a
specified requirement (due to standardization). The solution is embedded
in the requirement.
Would you truly want your community to request a proposal for a device
containing a set of verbal or graphic directions to motorists such that
when properly obeyed "Ensures that traffic crossing the intersection
will not collide with greater than a 1/1,000,000 (or whatever)
probability per vehicle, based on Official Traffic Model XYZ."? Or would
you rather they simply say place STOP signs at the intersections?
Allen K.
(o o)
=======o00o==(_)===o00o======
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> >If they are too explicit about the functional
> >requirements, political agendas become too obvious.
>
> Which, of course, is exactly what I want to happen.
> I would like to see the political requirements removed
> from the program. If there isn't sufficient Congressional
> support to fund a science program without pork, the program
> should be terminated. This applies to _any_ program, not
> just ISS.
> Note that NSF seems to survive just fine without pork.
> I don't see much controversy over unmanned space science, either.
> There seems to be a certain funding level below which pork
> is not an issue, and it would be a good thing if NASA funding
> were below that level. I suspect that the level would still
> be high enough to fund a lot of good research.
This was essentially my conclusion as well, when I debated
the cost-effectiveness of government-funded vs. privately
funded space science with Jim Davidson a few months ago.
As the budget becomes lower, less and less money and effort
needs to be devoted to paperwork or making sure the
"hidden political goals" are met. You have got Mars Pathfinder
at one end of the scale (given the cost of commercial communications
satellites, I doubt very much that the private sector could have
done that mission for much less money), and ISS at the other.
---
Micromanagement and oversight have been a fundamental part of
NASA/ESA operations since the Apollo days. I suppose it's
mostly because politicians do not trust their space agency
executives and engineers (=we are paying all the bills,
so we demand to have full control over all important
decisions), and the same thing holds true for the relationship
between government space agencies & their contractors from
the private sector. Shrinking budgets only made the problem
worse in the 1970s and 80s, resulting in fewer but larger
and more expensive space science projects, further encouraging
total control. The only viable
solution to the problem is to have a set of smaller but
faster & cheaper missions which don't put as much money or
PR risk on the line. You can then give the organizations
building and managing the spacecraft more freedom and
responsibility to make their own decisions. I regard the
proposals for stuff such as "government prizes" to encourage
the private sector to land men on Mars as wildly impractical,
however...this won't be possible for large projects. Free-flying
space platforms perhaps, but not for large space stations costing
$8 billion.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> | Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
> | |
> | Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Rand Simberg wrote:
> >If they are too explicit about the functional
> >requirements, political agendas become too obvious.
> Which, of course, is exactly what I want to happen.
> I would like to see the political requirements removed
> from the program. If there isn't sufficient Congressional
> support to fund a science program without pork, the program
> should be terminated. This applies to _any_ program, not
> just ISS.
But, what about programmes that have a science element
but aren't principally science programmes?
What about engineering development programmes, or
capability maintenance programmes, or "feel-good"
programmes, or muddle-along-with-foreign-partners-hoping-for
-some-long-term-massive-benefit programmes?
> Note that NSF seems to survive just fine without pork.
> I don't see much controversy over unmanned space science, either.
> There seems to be a certain funding level below which pork
> is not an issue, and it would be a good thing if NASA funding
> were below that level. I suspect that the level would still
> be high enough to fund a lot of good research.
Sorry, NSF gets a number of line item amendments for
few million dollar "research centers" in particular
congressional districts - happens regularly, many are
fought off, some get through. This is where a lot of the
real "pork" is, several little projects in small districts,
not the high profile mega-projects.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> I'm just expecting a little bit of common sense in this thread, Why
> can't we just say "Put up STOP signs". For all intents and purposes, in
> hundreds of countries, hundreds of millions of motorists know what a
> STOP sign looks like, and what they're supposed to do when they
> encounter one. Even if they can't read, and/or they're color blind. This
> is a case where there is a virtually unique design solution for a
> specified requirement (due to standardization). The solution is embedded
> in the requirement.
But that didn't just happen. Stop signs used to be
different in different countries and were only
harmonised in the 70s (I remember when my home country
switched to the now standard design) - and switching
is locally hazardous, takes time for motorists to adjust
to new sign and respond correctly, accidents temporarily
increase.
Jim Davidson
> Well, it's a simplistic approach.
No argument from me. It has lots wrong with it, but at least it is
something around which one can get one's fingers.
> Goldin has all the responsibility
> at NASA and none of the authority to do anything about his responsibility.
He has quite a bit of authority, and seems to exercise it with such
un-useful campaigns as the Meatball vs. Worm logo conniption. A lot of
money and a lot of energy was spent fighting that particular battle.
The only good to come of it is K. Cowing's combination logo, showing so
nicely how NASA likes to pretend it is the NASA of the '60s when it is
in fact the NASA of the '70s and '80s playing dress up.
> This is a common problem with bureaucracies.
It is also a common problem with bureau-rats. A friend of mine who is
otherwise a sensible, highly intelligent, Ph.D. artificial intelligence
expert, asked me recently what might happen if the bureaucrats got
behind what we believe. My response was something along the lines of,
"The heavens would part, horns would trumpet, and the angels would
sing."
> I wonder if Tom would give his new administrator authority equal
> to his responsibility, and if so, how he would accomplish this
> in the current political situation.
Is authority really what is needed? Congress has plenty of authority,
and hasn't come up with a very good approach to space development or
settlement. It seems to me that the idea of a bureaucratic,
authoritarian, top-down conceptualized, centrally planned and operated
space "program" simply isn't viable. It only works if you throw
enormous amounts of money at it, and you never get what you want, only
what you've paid for, and sometimes (e.g., Mars Observer) not even that.
> THEN I would like to know why you must get rid of the current person
> or people in charge before letting them actually have decision-making
> power.
You see the beauty of my approach: don't get just rid of the current
person or people in charge, and don't let them have decisionmaking
power, either. Get rid of NASA and you do away with the whole set of
problems.
> Otherwise you might as well start firing the janitors because they
> made the wrong decisions about ISS.
> (Well, they probably didn't, IMHO.
No, indeed. The janitors are the only ones willing to throw stuff away,
it would seem. ISS needs to be turned over to the janitors.
> (But then again you don't find
> people who _have_ made that sort of decision until you've left
> NASA behind and moved up to the Administration or Congress, whose
> main objective in choosing an administrator is having someone to
> blame when things go wrong).
So, why permit this mockery of a travesty of a facade of a sham to
continue? Why not kill it, get rid of it, and stop pretending that Bill
Clinton or Congress know anything about getting people and cargo into
space? You recognize where the power is located, so you must also
recognize their inherent ineptitude.
Let's get beyond NASA and look at where the real work gets done. The
people who know how to make money in space or with space-related
projects aren't in NASA, nor are they in Congress, nor the White House.
The best you can expect from NASA, Congress, and the White House, is the
corrupt allocation of space-related contracts based on such pathetic
criteria as campaign contributions, post-retirement job offers, the
distribution of subcontracts throughout many Congressional districts,
and the willingness to go along with the charade that the billions being
spent are being used to open the frontier for ourselves and our
posterity rather than to feather a lot of nests.
Isn't space too important to leave to politicians and bureau-rats?
Let's take it away from them. Make them stop using our future as a
political football. If we have to knock some sense into them at the
voting booths, by all means, lets do so.
> It's nice to know that someone's acknowledged a difference in thought
> between the public and the politicians.
Quite. More than a few, actually. Both in _The Prince_ and in his
_Discourses on Democracy_, Niccolo Machiavelli does an excellent job of
making this distinction. He was truly the father of modern political
science, as such, precisely because he was willing to look objectively
at an area so rife with homilies and slogans.
> I have a better idea for NASA reform.
Would that it were.
> Support ISS.
Hee-hee. A neat reverse psychology ploy.
> Their launch infrastructure probably won't be able to support it.
I'm not really prepared to risk coming out in favor of ISS on the basis
of a probability.
> NASA will probably _have_ to resort to commercial launchers then.
Or two.
You don't think they will just insist on another boondoggle, call it
VentureStar and pretend it is a commercial venture, do you? Given their
behavior in the past, what would you guess?
> All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
> the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
> that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
> chance...
Yah. Or we may get shafted. Again.
Jim Davidson
> How abotu This?
It is not entirely without problems, nor is it entirely without merit.
> Bar NASA from owning or Procuring hardware for anything inside The Earth
> Moon District.
Why stop there? What does NASA need with hardware anywhere in the
universe? Shouldn't it be gathering data, instead? Or should it even
be doing that? Wouldn't the data be better off in private hands?
> If NASA wants missions inside this region they must contract on an open
> basis for the service, and not involve any of their staff, in the mission.
Good start, but there are plenty of folks, Jim Benson to name just one,
who are interested in going beyond the Earth Moon system for space
resource utilization. Do we really want to set things up so NASA is in
charge of everything on Mars? Sounds like a bad idea, and a great way of
selling the future short.
> EOS? Contract to buy the Data.
The boyz at Space America offered such a deal in 1983-4. Commerce
turned them down. Not enough opportunity to corruptly allocate
contracts and the like.
> ISS? Contract to deliver payloads and science equipment, and vendors
> provide a station.
Why just one? Why not more than one? After all, there has long been
reason to believe that there are a bunch of things one could do from a
space platform, but also plenty of reasons to think that some of these
applications would tend to interfere with each other. Even the orbital
elements of platforms for different applications are quite distinct.
> Lunar Science Base? Contract for certain packages to be placed and
> operated,
> and the data purchased.
Not a lot different from Apollo, except that the delivery system was
operated by NASA. Contract for data purchase only, and you have a
start, but even that isn't enough.
> Mars Mission? Sure, let JSC-MSFC fight it out and make it happen.
Why? So we can have another boondoggle? Or more than one more?
> Neptune Orbiter? Sure, let JPL-Ames make it happen.
Why? Another boondoggle? Or another Mars Observer? Or just another
Galileo?
> Solar Observatory at L1? Sure let GSFC-lewis build it.
Why? There are plenty of commercial applications for solar climate and
weather data. Let the private sector handle it. Stop subsidizing
everything with tax dollars and you'll soon see much more activity.
> Sell STS-KSC to USA, and turn over the shooting match.
USA in this case would presumably be "United Space Alliance" although
there is another organization which was using the acronym previously
(United States of America). Now, let me suggest that you insist that
United Space Alliance pay full fair on this purchase. We taxpayers paid
for the designs, the development, the production, the redesign, the
restart of production, as well as the operations. There are hundreds of
billions of taxpayer dollars involved. Don't let United Space Alliance
walk away without compensating the taxpayers for all the costs.
And don't imagine that it is STS-KSC's to sell. Those dollars should go
to the US Treasury, and they ought to be disbursed to the taxpaying
public. (The first is likely, the second won't happen unless some
Libertarians get elected.)
> This way industry is stimulated, Nasa does Good R&D,,,,,
And there are plenty of government contracts to corruptly allocate. It
doesn't change much.
Nope. I'm sticking with NASA delenda est.
Jim Davidson
> subsidize. Good thing challenger
> changed that. Too bad it took a
> couple people dieing to convince our
> government that they were idiots.
Well, aboard Challenger it was seven, not just a couple. There was also
that guy who died in the training incident while McAuliffe was in the
area. Quite a number of folks have died from the shuttle program. They
just don't make as big a deal of it unless they happen to be astronauts.
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> Jim Davidson <davi...@net1.net> writes:
>
> All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
> the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
> that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
> chance...
Could you please elaborate a bit further and define what you
mean by "this woeful state?" Also, what makes you think it
is US private industry's fault that we don't have better
launchers? They merely build what NASA, USAF want, and
what Congress is willing to pay for. The Space Shuttle is
a prime example of this.
---
Of course, one could complain that Boeing/Lockheed-Martin
haven't been willing to step up and develop better, fully
commercial LVs. But that is their business decision -- not
necessarily a sign of engineering/management incompetence.
> --
> Phil Fraering "I invented the term /object oriented/, and I can
> p...@globalreach.net tell you I did not have C++ in mind." - Alan Kay
> /Will work for *tape*/
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
davi...@net1.net wrote:
> pat wrote:
>
> > How abotu This?
>
> It is not entirely without problems, nor is it entirely without merit.
> > Neptune Orbiter? Sure, let JPL-Ames make it happen.
>
> Why? Another boondoggle? Or another Mars Observer? Or just another
> Galileo?
...or another Voyager? Or Mars Pathfinder? Gee, NASA has lost
*one* planetary probe in 35 years due to non-launch vehicle related
failures and you are suggesting MO is a good example of NASA's
space exploration efforts?! How one-sided can you get, Jim?
If there is *something* NASA traditionally has been very good at,
it's unmanned planetary exploration.
---
I am just not convinced you could do planetary missions much
more cheaply than Mars Pathfinder -- at least not using
current technology, current launchers. Most of the valid
accusations against NASA management (porkbarrel politics,
heavy-handed micromanagement etc.) tend to be centered on
major, expensive programs. The small science programs have
always tended to do well, I think.
> Nope. I'm sticking with NASA delenda est.
What a major surprise -- I'm shocked:-)
> Free Yourself,
>
> Jim
> http://www.houstonspacesociety.org/
Cathy James
>I'm just expecting a little bit of common sense in this thread, Why
>can't we just say "Put up STOP signs".
I think you are reading too much into the analogy.
For STOP signs, the example may look ridiculous. For an
aerospace project, it's not ridiculous at all. There is
no way the requirements writers can possibly foresee all
of the possible designs that may be proposed to fulfill
their requirements; ergo, they cannot choose the best of
these and should not try.
Another trap to avoid is requirements written with
a specific design in mind, such that it is essentially impossible
to meet them without using that design.
Cathy James
>As the budget becomes lower, less and less money and effort
>needs to be devoted to paperwork or making sure the
>"hidden political goals" are met.
Right.
>Shrinking budgets only made the problem
>worse in the 1970s and 80s, resulting in fewer but larger
>and more expensive space science projects, further encouraging
>total control. The only viable solution to the problem is to
>have a set of smaller but faster & cheaper missions which don't
>put as much money or PR risk on the line.
Yes. The "a few large projects" -- really "one large
project" -- mentality is a big problem. I'm cautiously hopeful
that ISS will be NASA's last megaproject.
Cathy James
>but aren't principally science programmes?
Can you give a specific example? I'm
guessing you are referring to missions such
as Mars Pathfinder. I don't really see an
issue with writing requirements for an
engineering program that also does science or,
better, write requirements for the engineering
program while noting that preference will be
given to proposals that do some worthwhile
science without significantly increasing cost
or impacting the primary engineering mission.
>What about engineering development programmes
No problem. Just write a good, clean
set of requirements specifying as little as
possible, while still supplying enough specifications
to guarantee that a responsive proposal will,
if successfully implemented, answer the engineering
development question that was asked.
DC-X seems to be a good prototype for
this style of management.
>or capability maintenance programmes
I don't understand what you're talking
about here. Military?
>or "feel-good" programmes
Kill them. Kill them now. Science
and technology funding are about increasing capabilities
and knowledge, not feeling good.
>or muddle-along-with-foreign-partners-hoping-
>for-some-long-term-massive-benefit programmes?
I addressed foreign partners in another
message in this thread. Look it up. They
can be fit into this paradigm.
Alan Anderson
Allen Karchmer <all...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>...Sometimes the design
>solution is unique: it is intrinsically part of the requirement. For
>example, if I set down a requirement that a sub-development contractor
Saying "place a STOP sign at each intersection" is a reasonable
specification, but it's not really a functional requirement. The true
functional requirement is to provide a way to keep cars from hitting one
another at intersections. But in this case, the installed base of car
drivers is certainly great enough for the customary solution to be used.
>...how many choices are there for the design of the stop sign?
There are many choices for a design of a stop sign. The standard merely
specifies the shape and color; it says nothing about how that shape and
color are embodied. There's a neighborhood I've visited in Florida
which has its stop signs cantilevered from stone pillars at each corner.
An industrial park near my uncle's house has four-foot-wide granite-look
metal panels with a stop sign printed in the top part and directional
information in the bottom part.
The sign can be bolted to a post in the ground. It can hang from an
overhead cable. It can be mounted on a high wall. It can be placed
central to the intersection or at one or both sides. Specifying that a
STOP sign be used does not unduly restrict the designer's options.
"Place a three-foot STOP sign on a galvanized steel pole at a height of
five feet above the ground with eight feet of clearance between the sign
and other permanent features" would be an inappropriate specification.
"Use a STOP sign" is still a specification, but a much better one.
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
# My employer and I do not speak for one another. # qo'mey poSmoH Hol #
= = = = = === = === = === === = = = === === = === = =
pat
mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <87af6dm...@globalreach.net>,
> Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> > Jim Davidson <davi...@net1.net> writes:
> >
> > All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
> > the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
> > that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
> > chance...
>
> Could you please elaborate a bit further and define what you
> mean by "this woeful state?" Also, what makes you think it
> is US private industry's fault that we don't have better
> launchers? They merely build what NASA, USAF want, and
> what Congress is willing to pay for. The Space Shuttle is
> a prime example of this.
> ---
> Of course, one could complain that Boeing/Lockheed-Martin
> haven't been willing to step up and develop better, fully
> commercial LVs. But that is their business decision -- not
> necessarily a sign of engineering/management incompetence.
STS-T4 are classics of the worst procurements.
Delta 3, Stlas 2AR of commercial procurements.
the world is getting better.
pat
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> >What about engineering development programmes
>
> No problem. Just write a good, clean
> set of requirements specifying as little as
> possible, while still supplying enough specifications
> to guarantee that a responsive proposal will,
> if successfully implemented, answer the engineering
> development question that was asked.
> DC-X seems to be a good prototype for
> this style of management.
Hmmm...note that this was possible mostly because of the
limited funding & scope of the DC-X project. If the project
costs hundreds of millions or even billions, you can't
just "leave a note for the boys & girls at engineering and
come back a year later to see the finished product".
There has been a chronical lack of stability within
NASA since Apollo ended. Budgets are mostly allocated on a
year-by-year basis, which means the programs tend to
be re-evaluated on an annual basis as well. Which means
the specifications (particularly those pertaining to how
much it's allowed to cost) keep changing all the time.
Just look at the Shuttle's tortured development: Congress
kept making changes well into the mid-1970s. The Station
is even worse -- look at what the user requirements & missions
were supposed to be back in 1984 and compare it with the
current situation. Heck, I guess the only constant requirement
is "keep as many people busy while spending as little money
as possible":-)
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> | Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
> | |
> | Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> Marcus Lindroos wrote:
>
> >Shrinking budgets only made the problem
> >worse in the 1970s and 80s, resulting in fewer but larger
> >and more expensive space science projects, further encouraging
> >total control. The only viable solution to the problem is to
> >have a set of smaller but faster & cheaper missions which don't
> >put as much money or PR risk on the line.
>
> Yes. The "a few large projects" -- really "one large
> project" -- mentality is a big problem. I'm cautiously hopeful
> that ISS will be NASA's last megaproject.
Well, it is one of those things that makes me shake my head
in frustration. Why does NASA keep insisting on these giga-
projects?! The bottom line is that they (and Congress-)
want JOBS and MONEY from those programs. Which (sorry, Jim Davidson)
are fairly legitimate requests. But why do we need a _single_
large Station that must attempt to be everything to every
possible user (most of which don't really want to share
a space station with other users, anyway) and invariably
ends up being an expensive underachiever? Why can't
we spend the same amount of money on many small space stations
instead?? Let's have one semipermanently manned platform for
microgravity researchers. Let's put another in a polar orbit
for Earth observation or military missions (if those users
still need manned spaceflight). And let's put a tethered
pair in lunar orbit, for some variable-G life sciences
research.
---
For Space Station Freedom, I guess the problem was that
it had to be much bigger than anything the Soviets were
flying at the time. Today, the Station+Shuttle gobble up
40% or so of the NASA funding. Extremely bad PR, I would
say.
MARCU$
Steinn Sigurdsson
> >But, what about programmes that have a science element
> >but aren't principally science programmes?
> Can you give a specific example? I'm
> guessing you are referring to missions such
> as Mars Pathfinder. I don't really see an
I was actually thinking of ISS itself...
better examples are some of the flight testing
programmes that are starting to bubble up,
like the interferometer testbeds or
automatic deployment testbeds
(can't remember the current acronyms)
...
> >What about engineering development programmes
> No problem. Just write a good, clean
> set of requirements specifying as little as
> possible, while still supplying enough specifications
> to guarantee that a responsive proposal will,
> if successfully implemented, answer the engineering
> development question that was asked.
What if the development question is the
equivalent of "learn how to build a bridge"?
In situtations like this the issue is not purchasing
a particular object or action, but the knowledge
base to build on in the long run.
This is different from "build a bridge from A to B"
or even "find a way to transport goods across this river";
its a "learn ways in which transport over gap-class obstacles
can be done, and have experts around on what can be done
as we may encounter them soon".
> DC-X seems to be a good prototype for
> this style of management.
> >or capability maintenance programmes
> I don't understand what you're talking
> about here. Military?
Not specifically. Though something like the
sealift capability programmes that is (or was)
in place in several countries would be an example
- in those examples you pay for an ongoing programme
of providing for both equipment and trained personnel
in the anticipation they will be needed at some point
but there will not be time then to develop the
capability from scratch. Alternatively think of it
as bootstrapping the knowledge base, keeping together
a critical mass while the precursor technology is
sorted out - a conceivable current example is precisely
the rash of launch vehicle companies; maybe the technology
is finally maturing and the people with the knowledge - much
of it acquired at NASA and the aeropork companies can
go out and get on with it.
> >or "feel-good" programmes
> Kill them. Kill them now. Science
> and technology funding are about increasing capabilities
> and knowledge, not feeling good.
Well, that's generally my inclination, but the reality
seems to be that you have to somehow motivate people
to give a shit about science - anecdotally showpieces
are good for that, the alternative would be to pay
scientists the market rate, showpieces might be cheaper...
There is value in maintaining a cultural imperative that
certain actions are worthwhile and should be striven for
by individuals who can do that - its sort of why a lot
of money is spent on the Olympics when in terms of
rewarding athletic excellence you could just keep track
of individual performance at separate monitored events,
the costly spectacle is the motivator, a showpiece,
even when the material rewards are small - the benefits
are not one or two good sprinters, but a whole bunch of people
who think that being fit is a good idea and a base of amateur
athletes from which the competitors are drawn.
Question: how many people on s.s.p. feel strongly
about space because of the Apollo programme?
Jonathan A Goff
> What is the MCD criteria?
Minimum cost design Criteria.
> Do you have a name for that MCD ELV that was putting
> stuff into orbit at a cost of about $700-900?
Check out his series of articles
at http://www.launchspace.com
Check under site index, then
minimum cost design.
> This sounds very much like nonsense.
>
> I will apologize for that remark if you can back
> your statements up.
He's got the data to back it. And
the OTA reports too.
> What are SLVs? Solid Launch Vehicles?
Space launch Vehicles.
Charles Buckley
<mlin...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>In article <6oia0b$a...@nrtphc11.bnr.ca>,
> caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
>> Marcus Lindroos wrote:
>>
>> >Shrinking budgets only made the problem
>> >worse in the 1970s and 80s, resulting in fewer but larger
>> >and more expensive space science projects, further encouraging
>> >total control. The only viable solution to the problem is to
>> >have a set of smaller but faster & cheaper missions which don't
>> >put as much money or PR risk on the line.
>>
>> Yes. The "a few large projects" -- really "one large
>> project" -- mentality is a big problem. I'm cautiously hopeful
>> that ISS will be NASA's last megaproject.
>
>Well, it is one of those things that makes me shake my head
>in frustration. Why does NASA keep insisting on these giga-
>projects?! The bottom line is that they (and Congress-)
In this particular case, I don't think NASA is the main driver of the
giga-project. Yes, they are behind it - they have to build it. But, given
the wide difference between how the current NASA administration is managing
this program compared to how it is managing it's other programs makes me think
that internal support in NASA for ISS is not exactly solid. Plenty of
space scientists testified against ISS and that area is the only high
profile area active in NASA (the departments operating quietly seem to be doing
some very good work) that is doing well at NASA.
If it were a new project coming off the board this year, it would be a
non-starter. It's a combination of foreign aid and pork keeping it alive at
this point. Kill the inertia, and it's over. 2-3 years ago, NASA could not have
survived ISS not flying. Now, it is doing enough other things that some
portions of NASA will survive any major mishap with ISS. Killing ISS as
a program has never had the potential of increasing the budgets in other
departments in NASA, but NASA is on much more solid ground since they have
had numerous successes the past couple years in the space science arena.
I agree about the scale of the space station. If someone were to write
a requirement to build a space station right now, the odds of reaching the
current design is small. There are a lot of side requirements that are the
real design drivers.
--
He was the boldest and most active one-legged
man that ever came to Iceland.
epitaph of Onund Treefoot
Cathy James
>limited funding & scope of the DC-X project. If the project
>costs hundreds of millions or even billions, you can't
>just "leave a note for the boys & girls at engineering and
>come back a year later to see the finished product".
Ah, but I am against billion-dollar projects!
What are these large projects you have in mind? Given
that I am opposed to ISS and any gov't-backed Shuttle
followon, I don't see any inconsistency in my position.
Unmanned probes have run up into the $1 billion
range in the past, but this is unlikely to occur again.
Cassini will be the last behometh. Future probes are
more likely to have a cap in the $250 million or so range.
>There has been a chronical lack of stability within
>NASA since Apollo ended. Budgets are mostly allocated on a
>year-by-year basis, which means the programs tend to
>be re-evaluated on an annual basis as well.
Incidentally, is this also true of ESA? This
is not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know.
>Which means the specifications (particularly those pertaining
>to how much it's allowed to cost) keep changing all the time.
NO!!!! This has to stop. What we need are
limited-scope projects that can be finished in a couple
of years, before the bean counters change their minds.
It's futile and wasteful to spend money on longer-term
projects in this funding environment.
Shorter projects are also less likely to
overrun their budgets, and more likely to be killed
promptly when they do. (Mind you, this is a _good_ thing.)
In any case, what the infant private launch
industry needs is short-term, focused development
of specific technologies that can benefit them.
Stretch the program too much and you've missed the
window. This is not the time to be funding open-ended
X-30 style boondoggles.
>Heck, I guess the only constant requirement
>is "keep as many people busy while spending as little money
>as possible":-)
I realize this was a flippant remark, but still,
I have to point out that "keep many people busy" is
in direct opposition to "spend as little as possible".
Labor hours are the single largest budget item in many
of these big R&D projects; it's certainly the case for
ISS! If Congress really wants "cheaper", then need to
be honest with themselves and admit that implies
"will employ less voters". This is true _regardless_
of the details of private enterprise vs gov't contracts vs
gov't civil servants doing the work.
Michael P. Walsh
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> Michael P. Walsh wrote:
>
> > What is the MCD criteria?
>
> Minimum cost design Criteria.
--------
----
It is always nice to have things defined. Please don't
assume everyone knows an acronym. I have long term
experience in the aerospace industry and did not recognize
it before the definition. One thing you should realize is that
it may even be true that one set of letters has more than
one meaning.
----
----
----
> > Do you have a name for that MCD ELV that was putting
> > stuff into orbit at a cost of about $700-900?
>
> Check out his series of articles
> at http://www.launchspace.com
> Check under site index, then
> minimum cost design.
--------
----
The author was Arthur Schnitt and his series of articles are worth
reading as a good set of arguments for MCD. I read all of the
articles posted as of this date.
However, is seemed clear to me from these articles that no such
vehicle was ever built and flown so there never was a
"MCD ELV that was putting stuff into orbit at a cost of about
$700-900 per lb."
Perhaps I missed something and you can point it out. The
whole series of articles was about how MCD was never
really attempted, as well as giving the pro-side of the
argument.
-----
-----
-----
> > This sounds very much like nonsense.
> >
> > I will apologize for that remark if you can back
> > your statements up.
>
> He's got the data to back it. And
> the OTA reports too.
---------
----
I saw no such statement or reference anywhere in
the information that your referencesd.
I found no reason to retract my remark and I read all of the
articles. I also noted your comment as a reply where
Arthur Schnitt regularly asks for comments.
This is one reason I find it pays to go to the pages which
people who post reference. On occasion I find that it
doesn't back up their argument.
----
-----
-----
> > What are SLVs? Solid Launch Vehicles?
>
> Space launch Vehicles.
>
> --
> Jonathan Goff
--------
----
OK, Arthur Schnitt did define his terms properly so there
was no equivalent problem in reading his articles.
Schnitt does believe that NASA's campaign to fill up
Shuttle payloads was the reason for the demise of early
MCD efforts.
So far the MCD vs. Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) pro and
con arguments remain unresolved. I expect the eventual
outcome will be in favor of the RLV but that also remains
to be proven.
Mike Walsh
Jonathan A Goff
>
> It is always nice to have things defined. Please don't
> assume everyone knows an acronym. I have long term
> experience in the aerospace industry and did not recognize
> it before the definition. One thing you should realize is that
> it may even be true that one set of letters has more than
> one meaning.
Good point. Sorry, I thought that you had been around
for the earlier discussion. My bad.
> The author was Arthur Schnitt and his series of articles are worth
> reading as a good set of arguments for MCD. I read all of the
> articles posted as of this date.
I would also recommend them as reading to anyone that
wants to keep an open mind on RLV vs ELV, and other
things related to manufacturing and operations of
Space Launch Vehicles.
> However, is seemed clear to me from these articles that no such
> vehicle was ever built and flown so there never was a
> "MCD ELV that was putting stuff into orbit at a cost of about
> $700-900 per lb."
------------------------------------------------------
Air Force Sponsored "Minimum Cost Design Launch
Vehicle Design/Costing Study," awarded in 1969,
completed in 1970.
Martin-Marietta, McDonnell Douglas, and North
American Rockwell competed for this contract. Boeing's
dominant design feature was to configure the propellant
tanks as spheres rather than cylinders with dome ends,
maintaining the Aerospace design feature of common
bulkheads between the fuel and oxidizer. The
configuration traded a small loss due to increased
aerodynamic drag for an appreciable decrease in tank
weight. The initial configuration did not include
strap-ons; however, the final configuration used
parallel staging as used in Aerospace's baseline
design. Launch costs ranged between $700 and $1100 per
pound of payload to LEO, depending upon the payload
weight configuration. The Air Force program office
applied the MCD criteria in devising the management
plan for the development of the vehicle.
-----------------------------------------------------
This was in the article on other MCD studies.
Anyhow, I guess this wasn't actually flown,
just designed and cost estimated. I must have
missunderstood the article above.
> Perhaps I missed something and you can point it out. The
> whole series of articles was about how MCD was never
> really attempted, as well as giving the pro-side of the
> argument.
Yup, and as I said, it is a definite good read for
anyone interested in cheap space launchers.
> I saw no such statement or reference anywhere in
> the information that your referencesd.
See above.
> Schnitt does believe that NASA's campaign to fill up
> Shuttle payloads was the reason for the demise of early
> MCD efforts.
>
> So far the MCD vs. Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV) pro and
> con arguments remain unresolved. I expect the eventual
> outcome will be in favor of the RLV but that also remains
> to be proven.
That it does.
Phil Fraering
> Phil Fraering wrote:
>
> > Well, it's a simplistic approach.
>
> No argument from me. It has lots wrong with it, but at least it is
> something around which one can get one's fingers.
>
> > Goldin has all the responsibility
> > at NASA and none of the authority to do anything about his responsibility.
>
> He has quite a bit of authority, and seems to exercise it with such
> un-useful campaigns as the Meatball vs. Worm logo conniption. A lot of
> money and a lot of energy was spent fighting that particular battle.
I think he was allowed the authority there because, at most levels,
the Meatball vs. Worm logo fight isn't any sort of basic change.
> > I wonder if Tom would give his new administrator authority equal
> > to his responsibility, and if so, how he would accomplish this
> > in the current political situation.
>
> Is authority really what is needed? Congress has plenty of authority,
> and hasn't come up with a very good approach to space development or
> settlement. It seems to me that the idea of a bureaucratic,
> authoritarian, top-down conceptualized, centrally planned and operated
> space "program" simply isn't viable. It only works if you throw
> enormous amounts of money at it, and you never get what you want, only
> what you've paid for, and sometimes (e.g., Mars Observer) not even that.
All very good points.
> You see the beauty of my approach: don't get just rid of the current
> person or people in charge, and don't let them have decisionmaking
> power, either. Get rid of NASA and you do away with the whole set of
> problems.
Except Congress is attempting to make the problems independent of NASA.
Consider the Breaux bill, for instance: it's a whole group of probably
LockMart-specific subsidies for VentureStar that doesn't go through
NASA or its declining budget.
> So, why permit this mockery of a travesty of a facade of a sham to
> continue? Why not kill it, get rid of it, and stop pretending that Bill
> Clinton or Congress know anything about getting people and cargo into
> space? You recognize where the power is located, so you must also
> recognize their inherent ineptitude.
Fine. I tell ya what, I'll vote against Breaux next time; too
bad it looks like he's running unopposed... so's Livingston and
Tauzin, to name two La. Republicans also for the Breaux bill;
so's my current representative.
Now what do I do?
> > I have a better idea for NASA reform.
> Would that it were.
> > Support ISS.
> Hee-hee. A neat reverse psychology ploy.
> > Their launch infrastructure probably won't be able to support it.
> I'm not really prepared to risk coming out in favor of ISS on the basis
> of a probability.
> > NASA will probably _have_ to resort to commercial launchers then.
> Or two.
> You don't think they will just insist on another boondoggle, call it
> VentureStar and pretend it is a commercial venture, do you? Given their
> behavior in the past, what would you guess?
> > All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
> > the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
> > that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
> > chance...
>
> Yah. Or we may get shafted. Again.
I'm just trying to find a battle I can lose instead of one that's
already lost in advance.
Phil Fraering
> In article <87af6dm...@globalreach.net>,
> Phil Fraering <p...@globalreach.net> wrote:
> > Jim Davidson <davi...@net1.net> writes:
> >
> > All we need to do is make sure the Breaux bill is stalled, so that
> > the commercial launch industry isn't dominated by the companies
> > that have brought us to this woeful state, and we may get our
> > chance...
>
> Could you please elaborate a bit further and define what you
> mean by "this woeful state?" Also, what makes you think it
> is US private industry's fault that we don't have better
> launchers? They merely build what NASA, USAF want, and
> what Congress is willing to pay for. The Space Shuttle is
> a prime example of this.
It is the fault of both the government and those "private"
companies that consider the government their dominant customer
and won't do anything without government hand-holding.
> Of course, one could complain that Boeing/Lockheed-Martin
> haven't been willing to step up and develop better, fully
> commercial LVs. But that is their business decision -- not
> necessarily a sign of engineering/management incompetence.
Most major aerospace contractors in the US have been absorbed
into either Lockheed or Boeing. They must have been making bad
business decisions of some sort.
Jim Davidson
> Gee, NASA has lost
> *one* planetary probe in 35 years due to non-launch vehicle related
> failures
Which seems to suggest that NASA isn't to blame for the variety of
launch vehicle related failures in its history, a rather odd idea to
which I won't subscribe.
> and you are suggesting MO is a good example of NASA's
> space exploration efforts?!
It is certainly a clear and recent example. Galileo is another example,
and while much has been salvaged from that mission, it was also very
clearly threatened by what appears to be NASA ineptitude. One could
also mention Hubble as a troubled NASA mission, and one needn't stop
there.
> How one-sided can you get, Jim?
Why, just about as one-sided as I care to get, Marcu$. There doesn't
seem to be a shortage of weasels willing to say nice things about NASA,
yet.
> If there is *something* NASA traditionally has been very good at,
> it's unmanned planetary exploration.
That has been the tradition. NASA has not always adhered faithfully to
that tradition. I'm not willing to gloss over their failures just
because they sent some pretty pictures back from Neptune. Nor am I
willing to stipulate that NASA is necessary for very good unmanned
planetary exploration to take place. I don't think that the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory is great because it is part of NASA, but rather
because it is part of the California Institute of Technology. Making
NASA go away doesn't need to change CIT, or have much affect on JPL.
> I am just not convinced you could do planetary missions much
> more cheaply than Mars Pathfinder -- at least not using
> current technology, current launchers.
I am. Moreover, I think one could make such missions pay, from the
volume of hits to their web site alone. You wouldn't even have to
charge admission, just put some tasteful ad banners up and rake in
hundreds of millions. I'd rather companies run such missions at a
profit than have the peasants beaten for taxes to pay for them.
> Most of the valid
> accusations against NASA management (porkbarrel politics,
> heavy-handed micromanagement etc.) tend to be centered on
> major, expensive programs.
True. Mars Observer and Galileo are not what I would call minor or
cheap programs. As I recall, MO cost about a billion, and Galileo,
thanks in part to the stand down, quite a bit more. I like to bring up
these problems, because I'm convinced that throwing all the available
payloads on one big spacecraft is a bad way to do space science. I'd
like to hope NASA has learned that lesson, but it doesn't seem likely.
> The small science programs have
> always tended to do well, I think.
In comparison to the really big boondoggles like Mars Observer, sure.
Which is hardly an endorsement.
> > Nope. I'm sticking with NASA delenda est.
>
> What a major surprise -- I'm shocked:-)
Excellent. The shock heard 'round the world. <grin>
Phil Fraering
> Well, it is one of those things that makes me shake my head
> in frustration. Why does NASA keep insisting on these giga-
> projects?! The bottom line is that they (and Congress-)
> want JOBS and MONEY from those programs. Which (sorry, Jim Davidson)
> are fairly legitimate requests.
Not really. Government has too many other critical things to be doing
than to do things simply because someone wants the money.
mlin...@my-dejanews.com
caj...@nrtpda93.us.nortel.com (Cathy James) wrote:
> >Hmmm...note that this was possible mostly because of the
> >limited funding & scope of the DC-X project. If the project
> >costs hundreds of millions or even billions, you can't
> >just "leave a note for the boys & girls at engineering and
> >come back a year later to see the finished product".
>
> Ah, but I am against billion-dollar projects!
> What are these large projects you have in mind?
Well, I personally would like to see a crewed lunar program
in about ~2010 once ISS is out of the way. I think it would
be possible to reduce the initial cost to that of today's
"flagship" space science, i.e. a few billion dollars. But
that is still too much for laissez-faire skunk works
management although the political considerations should
be less constraining than for ISS or Shuttle since there
is less money involved.
---
Another large effort where government money *might* be
required is experimental RLV flight test vehicle development,
e.g. SSTO -- although this of course depends on whether
Gary Hudson & co. can make their RLVs work without government
support.
> Unmanned probes have run up into the $1 billion
> range in the past, but this is unlikely to occur again.
> Cassini will be the last behometh. Future probes are
> more likely to have a cap in the $250 million or so range.
>
> >There has been a chronical lack of stability within
> >NASA since Apollo ended. Budgets are mostly allocated on a
> >year-by-year basis, which means the programs tend to
> >be re-evaluated on an annual basis as well.
>
> Incidentally, is this also true of ESA? This
> is not a rhetorical question; I'd really like to know.
ESA programs receive multiyear funding, and it is fairly
rare for programs to get cancelled after they have been
selected for full development. The only major exception
I can think of, is Hermes. The Columbus program has been
redesigned a lot since receiving approval in '87, but this is
mostly as a result of changing plans in the US. E.g., or
Man-Tended Free Flyer was cancelled because Freedom would
not have been able to support it (the capability was
removed in the 1991 redesign, to save money).
> >Which means the specifications (particularly those pertaining
> >to how much it's allowed to cost) keep changing all the time.
>
> NO!!!! This has to stop. What we need are
> limited-scope projects that can be finished in a couple
> of years, before the bean counters change their minds.
> It's futile and wasteful to spend money on longer-term
> projects in this funding environment.
I agree. Space ventures ought to be firmly based on the
realities of politics and the marketplace.
> Shorter projects are also less likely to
> overrun their budgets, and more likely to be killed
> promptly when they do. (Mind you, this is a _good_ thing.)
Yup. In contrast, the Space Station has been hanging by
a thread since its inception, but it remains a very difficult
program to kill because vast sums of money are tied to it.
The political cost of cancelling it will be immense.
MARCU$
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> | Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
> | |
> | Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Ah, but I am against billion-dollar projects!
A billion dollars is about 10,000 man years, doesn't
buy you what it used to...
Developing a new product line for a mass market item,
or a largish civil engineering project are billion dollar
items. Is it clear that space development and space science
can always be done for smaller sums?
...
> NO!!!! This has to stop. What we need are
> limited-scope projects that can be finished in a couple
> of years, before the bean counters change their minds.
> It's futile and wasteful to spend money on longer-term
> projects in this funding environment.
What about long term monitoring projects - stuff where the
critical information comes from the time series.
NASA usually budgets for short fixed term missions, one of
the reason they run into problems is a lot of missions last
longer than planned and have ongoing operational costs, those
can quickly build to billion dollar lifetime costs.
Cathy James
>> What are these large projects you have in mind?
>Well, I personally would like to see a crewed lunar program
>in about ~2010 once ISS is out of the way. I think it would
>be possible to reduce the initial cost to that of today's
>"flagship" space science, i.e. a few billion dollars.
Well, I hate to disappoint you, but it simply
isn't going to happen in that timeframe. To quote you:
>Space ventures ought to be firmly based on the
>realities of politics and the marketplace.
...and the reality is that a multi-billion-dollar
Lunar program won't have any significant support.
Perhaps you can find the support in ESA to do it; they
could afford a $2 billion high-visibility project.
But nothing like this is likely to be politically
feasible in the US.
>Another large effort where government money *might* be
>required is experimental RLV flight test vehicle development
I am increasingly of the opinion that flight
vehicle development should be left to private ventures.
This is _especially_ true if the flight vehicles are
going to be X-33-style joint ventures where the contractor
is allowed to sit on the data for an extended period.
NASA R&D funding would be better used to develop specific
system, e.g. a minimal aerospike program (LASRE), or
basic materials research, or hypersonic wind-tunnel
research aimed at simplifying design of reentry vehicles.
I supported DC-X, and I would have supported DC-Y,
but times have changed. What made sense in an era of
SDIO funding does not make sense today.
>> Shorter projects are also less likely to
>> overrun their budgets, and more likely to be killed
>> promptly when they do. (Mind you, this is a _good_ thing.)
>Yup. In contrast, the Space Station has been hanging by
>a thread since its inception, but it remains a very difficult
>program to kill because vast sums of money are tied to it.
>The political cost of cancelling it will be immense.
Exactly. Another reason why your manned lunar
proposal is not a good idea. It would be best to stop
funding programs where cancellation has substantial
political costs.
Cathy James
>dollars; over the life of a 20 year program, $1 billion costs
>imply $500 million per year.
It's too bad I am numerically illiterate
early in the morning. 20 x 500 = 10,000, of course,
not 1,000. I tried to cancel the old article, but
my newsreader is acting up. *sigh*
Steinn Sigurdsson
> >What about long term monitoring projects - stuff where the
> >critical information comes from the time series.
> >NASA usually budgets for short fixed term missions, one of
> >the reason they run into problems is a lot of missions last
> >longer than planned and have ongoing operational costs, those
> >can quickly build to billion dollar lifetime costs.
> For projects like this, annual funding makes
> sense. Each year the benefits of continuing the monitoring
> vs shifting it to something else can be weighed.
Not necessarily. The people involved may have planning
horizons beyond a year and simply won't accept year-year
uncertainties like that. Science is not done on one year
time scales, you can barely hire someone in one year, typical
prior commitments mean 3-6 months from someone being hired
to them arriving, and 3+ months to become productive on
a new project is to be expected. Unless you want a large
pool of unemployed scientists and engineers to draw on,
in which case don't be surprised if they all wander off
to become lawyers or financial analysts, and there is
no experience base left to do anything!
> The important thing here is to start getting
> data back from the program within a couple of years of
> initial start. And costs still shouldn't reach a billion
> dollars; over the life of a 20 year program, $1 billion costs
> imply $500 million per year. I can't see $500 million of
> the NASA yearly budget tied up in one monitoring program
> for the next 20 years. Long-term monitoring has to be
> cheap, or it won't be done.
Ah, factor of 10 too much there. 20 years at 50 million
per year is a billion. That's 500 staff, roughly, maybe
2-300 science and engineering staff. You really want that
to be larger than the largest project activity?
> >A billion dollars is about 10,000 man years, doesn't
> >buy you what it used to...
> >Developing a new product line for a mass market item,
> >or a largish civil engineering project are billion dollar
> >items. Is it clear that space development and space science
> >can always be done for smaller sums?
> You need to think in terms of entrepreneurial
> development of new products, not new products that come
> from the research lab of a mulitnational.
That's a nice thought, but what if it doesn't work?
Some projects are simply large. They need a lot of
metal, or space, or energy, and the man power committments
typically scale with it. Putting together something that
can achieve 10-15 km/sec, holding together a communication
infrastructure that can get information back from things
far away, and simple making sense of large amounts of information
is hard. Its not a garage hobby level activity, even with current
technology (it may be in 10-100 years, but the technology
and infrastructure that has made it easy was bought by
the big spenders - the astounding thing is that the knowledge
to build on from there has been made available).
I keep getting the sensation that a lot of sci.space.policy
people think the ability to do everything they want in space
pre-exists, that the only thing to do is to implement it.
Research and development is not purchasing, it only happens
by learning from doing. NASA isn't conspiring to hold people
back from space, they've just learned the hard way that there's
a lot to learn before it can be done. The nice thing is we may
be over that hump at last and things will get easier from here,
I wish.
Michael P. Walsh
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> Michael P. Walsh wrote:
--------
----
I will comment that I probably did participate in earlier
discussions on Minimum Cost Design (MCD) vehicles
but for some reason this acronym doesn't seem to
stick in my memory very well.
Some kind of high tech aversion maybe?
----
----
----
> >
>
> The initial configuration did not include
> strap-ons; however, the final configuration used
> parallel staging as used in Aerospace's baseline
> design. Launch costs ranged between $700 and $1100 per
> pound of payload to LEO, depending upon the payload
> weight configuration. The Air Force program office
> applied the MCD criteria in devising the management
> plan for the development of the vehicle.
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> This was in the article on other MCD studies.
> Anyhow, I guess this wasn't actually flown,
> just designed and cost estimated. I must have
> missunderstood the article above.
-----
-----
-----
Yes, it never was flown.
The design study was conducted and there has
been a considerable amount of discussion of
this particular issue.
The actual achievability of the quoted costs is one
of the big issues in determining what is a MCD.
Mike Walsh
Shane Stezelberger
<davi...@net1.net> posted:
>mlin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> Gee, NASA has lost
>> *one* planetary probe in 35 years due to non-launch vehicle related
>> failures
>
>Which seems to suggest that NASA isn't to blame for the variety of
>launch vehicle related failures in its history, a rather odd idea to
>which I won't subscribe.
Is the USAF also to blame for the variety of launch vehicle related
failres in ITS history? Is Gary Hudson to blame for all of the
launch vehicle related failures in HIS history? The rockets of the
early 1960s blew up because they represented an IMMATURE
TECHNOLOGY, not because their builders were not True
Free Market Libertarians!
You are biased.
You categorically refuse to say anything nice about NASA or NASA's
record of scientific achievement. Furthermore, you think the
entire social contract can pay for itself without taxing its
citizens.
>> If there is *something* NASA traditionally has been very good at,
>> it's unmanned planetary exploration.
>
>That has been the tradition. NASA has not always adhered faithfully to
>that tradition. I'm not willing to gloss over their failures just
>because they sent some pretty pictures back from Neptune.
Why not? Must I accuse you of being a Luddite for not paying
adequate homage to this country's space science missions?
>Nor am I
>willing to stipulate that NASA is necessary for very good unmanned
>planetary exploration to take place.
NASA hasn't sent a probe to Mercury in about 24 years. If there
were a latent market for a Mercury mission, or spinoffs thereof,
why hasn't some enterprising young libertarian taken advantage
of NASA's, um, lapse?
I rebut that NASA most certainly IS necessary for SOME kinds of
space research. If you maintain that anything non-profitable is
not worth launching, then that edges you dangerously close to
Luddite-ism. If you do that, I might try to declare victory on the
grounds that pure research is a morally worthwhile goal.
>I don't think that the Jet
>Propulsion Laboratory is great because it is part of NASA, but rather
>because it is part of the California Institute of Technology. Making
>NASA go away doesn't need to change CIT, or have much affect on JPL.
It will have a tremendous affect on JPL's *funding* picture. NASA
pays for the Deep Space Network, for example. There's been talk
privatizing that over the years, so maybe CIT could do just that.
But I doubt you'll find funding in the private sector for more than
one or two Mars sample-return missions. And even *that* would be
struggle. DSN Inc. could occupy its time downlinking NEAP data,
I'm sure. There certaily wouldn't be any Goddard missions left
alive to tie up its dish time.
Now, I went to public schools, and I haven't looked it up, but I
don't think CIT is rolling in enough dough to fly NASA's current
planetary-science agenda indefinitely. (We can debate the
relevance of that agenda, of course.) Your earlier comments have
implied that private universities could easily take up NASA's, and
even NSF's, slack.
SpaceDev is in this business because they see a long-term market,
Apllied Space because they see a more near-term one. Neither one
is interested in sending back pretty pictures from Neptune at a
profit, and you have thus far failed to nominate anyone who would
be. So I'm glad NASA sent that particular mission while it could.
[Mars Pathfinder snipped]
>I am. Moreover, I think one could make such missions pay, from the
>volume of hits to their web site alone. You wouldn't even have to
>charge admission, just put some tasteful ad banners up and rake in
>hundreds of millions. I'd rather companies run such missions at a
>profit than have the peasants beaten for taxes to pay for them.
The peasant's elected representatives think otherwise -- obviously
a sign of MilitaryIndustrial corruption at work :) Besides, you
stated earlier the supposed improbability of a media-funded
Mars Pathfinder:
<Shane Stezelberger asked:>
>> Could Mars Pathfinder have been funded solely from its media
>> interest?
<Jim Davidson replied:>
>Almost certainly not. Media interest alone is not much of an approach.
>There are other far more intriguing possibilities which only a few
>companies and people have looked at.
When I said "media," I meant ALL media, including this
socialist-derived Internet we're using. Which is it? Can we or
can't we do a private Mars mission by selling the ad rights?
Remember:
1. If you charge folks to log on (even modestly), you may not get
the same number of "hits."
2. Mars Pathfinder 2 will not stir the same media interest as its
ancestor -- which was, after all, only the second US Mars probe
(NASA or libertarian), and the first successful one, in 21 years.
>As I recall, MO cost about a billion, and Galileo,
>thanks in part to the stand down, quite a bit more. I like to bring up
>these problems, because I'm convinced that throwing all the available
>payloads on one big spacecraft is a bad way to do space science. I'd
>like to hope NASA has learned that lesson, but it doesn't seem likely.
How do you explain the very existence of Mars Global Surveyor? Or
the ENTIRE SMEX program? Or the fact that TRACE got launched 20%
under budget? Like it or not, NASA's space science program has
learned and applied the SmallerFasterCheaper sloganeering. Don't
pretend they haven't, as you did in the above paragraph.
>> The small science programs have
>> always tended to do well, I think.
>
>In comparison to the really big boondoggles like Mars Observer, sure.
>Which is hardly an endorsement.
Those "really big boondoggles" are a thing of the past. Cassini
was the last one, although you might argue AXAF and SIRTF share
some vestigial "bigness." If you endorse successful smallness, why
isn't the current NASA space science program acceptable?
(I know the real reason is that it's funded by extortion. If that
IS your real reason, why don't you drop the sneering attitude
toward NASA's recent science results?)
>> > Nope. I'm sticking with NASA delenda est.
Would you have said so in AD 1958?
Shane Stezelberger
sst...@erols.com
Make the world a better place to leave.
Jonathan A Goff
> The rockets of the early 1960s blew up because they
> represented an IMMATURE TECHNOLOGY, not because their
> builders were not True Free Market Libertarians!
Actually, some of the launch problems could have been
avoided if they hadn't ignored the Minimum Cost Design
criteria that Schnitt brought forward. If they had,
the designs would have been simpler and more robust.
Not to mention far cheaper and far safer. Minimum
Weight design practically exludes safety without driving
the costs to insane levels. I think it has a lot to
do with the fact that the person running a lot of the
space program back then was an ex-Nazi.
> You are biased.
As are you. Life is merely choosing your biases.
> You categorically refuse to say anything nice about NASA or NASA's
> record of scientific achievement.
Crap, if I had hundreds of billions of dollars to
waste over a couple decades, I bet I too could make
something that would get everybody to justify it.
The fact is though, some poor farmer out there in
Arkansas or Kansas is getting his house forclosed
on because he can't pay taxes that you want to use
to fund some sci-fi delusion of yours. Its rather
sobering trying to explain how NASA and its spinoffs
are helping everybody when the person you are talking
to just lost his farm. I've done it, maybe you ought
to try it.
> Furthermore, you think the entire social contract can pay for itself
> without taxing its citizens.
Ok, contract means that both parties have obligations.
If government violates its social contract, it is null
and void. When I have SEC people bringing in a dozen
armed police officers to excercise an illegal search
warrant against my father, I start to wonder about how
well the government is at keeping its contracts. When
I have the local sheriff and his goons defaming my
father and lieing to people telling them that he has
been defrauding them out of hundreds of thousands of
dollars, I start to get annoyed. And when I find out
that the SEC and FBI illegally siezed upwards of $50
Million from honest law abiding citizens, then has the
gall to claim that my dad took it and hid it, I become
rather pissed off.
Tell me where in article I section 8 of the United
States Constitution that it allows for government to
invest in research, launch vehicles, or jack booted
thugs. I'd love to hear it. The fact is that NASA
is illegal under the social contract that you like
to wave over our heads. As is about 90% or more of
the federal government. I have seen hundreds of
people have their lives ruined because of government
agencies that are out there to protect us, and to
help us. I'm sorry, but if government is the answer,
it must have been a rather stupid question.
> NASA hasn't sent a probe to Mercury in about 24 years. If there
> were a latent market for a Mercury mission, or spinoffs thereof,
> why hasn't some enterprising young libertarian taken advantage
> of NASA's, um, lapse?
Well, the fact that until we had a half dozen
astronaughts and a school teacher die on the
firecracker o' doom, it was illegal to launch
satellites on anything other than NASA's space
cow. Not to mention that in any society where
the government takes such a massive chunk of
people's money, it becomes easier for them to
allow government to do it, then to do it all
by themselves. Fact is that between direct
and indirect taxes, over 60% of the average
joe's budget is blown. And you think with all
that economic dead weight that somebody is
going to launch a probe to mercury? Plus,
many spinoffs could be developed individually,
without that space program for far cheaper.
Also, if MCD hadn't been shot down by the Iron
Triangle, it would have been cheap enough for
say a college or two to throw together a Mercury
package. Now that would be putting your tuition
to good use.
> I rebut that NASA most certainly IS necessary for SOME kinds of
> space research.
<sarcasm>
So, we better get anti-missle defenses to protect
NASA, because if it blows up mankind is too stupid
to do it themselves, and we will be stuck on this
planet forever! Oh no whatever shall I do?!?!?
</sarcasm>
> If you maintain that anything non-profitable is not worth launching,
> then that edges you dangerously close to Luddite-ism.
Ludditism? You must be smokin something really
impressive. Most basic research has monetary
worth due to the general improvement in other
areas that it brings about. However, launching
a couple of Space Trashcan Systems into orbit
just so that our astronaughts can spend a night
in Uncle Boris's Deepsh*t Nine is idiotic.
> If you do that, I might try to declare victory on the
> grounds that pure research is a morally worthwhile goal.
Taking other people's money at gun point just so
you can get a one up in a scientific pissing match
is hardly a morally worthwile goal.
> It will have a tremendous affect on JPL's *funding* picture.
Oh no, they might just have to do some contracting
studies for different companies! They might actually
have to turn a profit?!? Heaven forbid!
> NASA pays for the Deep Space Network, for example. There's been talk
> privatizing that over the years, so maybe CIT could do just that.
> But I doubt you'll find funding in the private sector for more than
> one or two Mars sample-return missions.
And why not? If there is a good reason for going
to Mars, it will be gone to. If all NASA wants
to do is put a flag in the ground, and have a 22
day photo-op, then I think it is a waste of money.
> Now, I went to public schools,
There's part of the problem.
> and I haven't looked it up, but I don't think CIT is rolling in enough
> dough to fly NASA's current planetary-science agenda indefinitely.
You mean they might actually have to do something
cost efficiently? How unfair, how calloused can
we be.
> (We can debate the relevance of that agenda, of course.)
And that would be an understatement if I've ever
seen one.
> Your earlier comments have implied that private universities could easily
> take up NASA's, and even NSF's, slack.
BYU is launching a X-ray telescope called Gold-Helox
or some such. I almost got involved. They are also
getting together with a couple of other universities,
and building a sounding rocket. No biggie, just
requires some connections in businesses to loan some
equipment, some alumni that donate good money to the
project, and some cheap college student labor.
> SpaceDev is in this business because they see a long-term market,
> Apllied Space because they see a more near-term one. Neither one
> is interested in sending back pretty pictures from Neptune at a
> profit, and you have thus far failed to nominate anyone who would
> be.
Why do we need to spend billions of dollars for pretty
pictures? Have you ever thought that through? If there
is useful scientific knowledge to be gained, and the cost
is less than the value of the knowledge, it will be sought
out. That is how markets work.
> So I'm glad NASA sent that particular mission while it could.
I bet that Kentucky farmer that I was talking to didn't
agree. Really hard to sell him on pretty pictures when
he is having to live out of his cousin's trailer home.
> The peasant's elected representatives think otherwise
So just because a small chunk of the population voted
on something means that some dorks in washington can
write our rights away as if they had the legal right
to do so? So if most of the voters were cannibals,
would murder become legal?
> 1. If you charge folks to log on (even modestly), you may not get
> the same number of "hits."
Ads and banners sound pretty good. You can get
decent money for it.
> 2. Mars Pathfinder 2 will not stir the same media interest as its
> ancestor -- which was, after all, only the second US Mars probe
> (NASA or libertarian), and the first successful one, in 21 years.
Weren't there two Viking missions?
> If you endorse successful smallness, why isn't the current NASA
> space science program acceptable?
From an engineering standpoint they were cheaper. That
still doesn't mean that its morally acceptable. Just
because a dictator can take over a country with only killing
a couple dozen, doesn't make his actions any better.
> (I know the real reason is that it's funded by extortion. If that
> IS your real reason, why don't you drop the sneering attitude
> toward NASA's recent science results?)
My entire point is that it is both funded by extortion, and
also less efficient than it would have been if they left.
Just because NASA's performance is floating higher in the
gutter than it was a few years ago, doesn't mean that it is
anything compared to what a true free-market could do.
John Christensen
>
> The urge of requirements-writers to dictate the
> resulting design is, apparently, overwhelming, and not
> limited to NASA or even to government.
This is called "being a control freak".
It is a form of sadism which many people indulge
in when they believe that they can get away with it.
It almost always leads to trouble, but if you are a
bureaucrat who gets paid to fix the trouble you cause,
all the better.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> | Cathy James <caj...@alumni.princeton.edu> PPSEL, N5WVR |
> | |
> | Anti-ultralight backpacking: http://home1.gte.net/cajames/ |
>
Hail to the Gods!
John Christensen
Edward Wright
In article <35AC7F...@net1.net>, Jim Davidson <davi...@net1.net> wrote:
>Now, let me suggest that you insist that
>United Space Alliance pay full fair on this purchase. We taxpayers paid
>for the designs, the development, the production, the redesign, the
>restart of production, as well as the operations. There are hundreds of
>billions of taxpayer dollars involved. Don't let United Space Alliance
>walk away without compensating the taxpayers for all the costs.
Why not? If the government (or private industry, for that matter) builds an
office building, and the value of the finished building turns out to be less
than the cost of building it, liquidating the building for whatever the
market will bear may still be the best way out. Better the taxpayers/owners
get something back than nothing at all. That's not to say one shouldn't try
to avoid getting into situations like that.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> > Your earlier comments have implied that private universities could easily
> > take up NASA's, and even NSF's, slack.
> BYU is launching a X-ray telescope called Gold-Helox
> or some such. I almost got involved. They are also
> getting together with a couple of other universities,
> and building a sounding rocket. No biggie, just
> requires some connections in businesses to loan some
> equipment, some alumni that donate good money to the
> project, and some cheap college student labor.
URL http://www.physics.byu.edu/~iraf/research/goldhelox/goldhelox.html
The GOLHELOX [sic] Project is BYU's
connection to NASA and its Hitchiker
program. The Hitchiker Program allows gropus from
across the country to send experiments into
space aboard the Space Shuttle and do significant
scientific research. We are planning to
collaborate with satellites such as SOHO to take
simultaneous measurements and get the most
significance out of our data.
...
The Goldhelox Project has been possible thanks
to funding from a NASA research grant, and
funding from BYU.
So, NASA paid for it and is flying it.
No biggie.
Jonathan A Goff
> So, NASA paid for it and is flying it.
> No biggie.
Sorry, you are right. One of my
examples is bad. However, what about
Unity IV? I'm almost dead sure that
NASA's not paying for that.
Steinn Sigurdsson
> Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> > So, NASA paid for it and is flying it.
> > No biggie.
> Sorry, you are right. One of my
> examples is bad. However, what about
> Unity IV? I'm almost dead sure that
> NASA's not paying for that.
??? Which is what. Only Unity I know of
is an ISS module! Don't see a "Unity IV" in
your post.
- Ah, I found it, the Utah State AIAA rocket project.
Have they actually flown anything? Even to their
design altitude - which is decidedly sub-orbital.
Get what you pay for, I guess.
Going back to previous post, I'm also curious - what
is CIT currently doing that is inefficient?
As I give them money I'd like to know!
Jonathan A Goff
> - Ah, I found it, the Utah State AIAA rocket project.
> Have they actually flown anything?
A couple years ago (Unity I,II and II) or at least that
is what I got from my friend who was one of the main
guys on the project.
> Even to their design altitude - which is decidedly
> sub-orbital. Get what you pay for, I guess.
Its a start.
> Going back to previous post, I'm also curious - what
> is CIT currently doing that is inefficient?
> As I give them money I'd like to know!
I don't know about CIT per se, I was mostly referring
to NASA. Plus, we can argue about efficiency all we
want. You still haven't answered my question about
what ammendment to the constitution makes NASA legal?
pat
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
> > The rockets of the early 1960s blew up because they
> > represented an IMMATURE TECHNOLOGY, not because their
> > builders were not True Free Market Libertarians!
>
> Actually, some of the launch problems could have been
> avoided if they hadn't ignored the Minimum Cost Design
> criteria that Schnitt brought forward. If they had,
> the designs would have been simpler and more robust.
> Not to mention far cheaper and far safer. Minimum
> Weight design practically exludes safety without driving
> the costs to insane levels. I think it has a lot to
> do with the fact that the person running a lot of the
> space program back then was an ex-Nazi.
well that and they were designing to military minimum volume, maximum
performanceideas. I am workign up a project, where cost is the driving
constraint, not volume,
it's creating a very funny looking vehicle. short, stout and economical.
> > Furthermore, you think the entire social contract can pay for itself
> > without taxing its citizens.
>
> Ok, contract means that both parties have obligations.
> If government violates its social contract, it is null
> and void. When I have SEC people bringing in a dozen
> armed police officers to excercise an illegal search
> warrant against my father, I start to wonder about how
where is your lawyer? if the warrant is illegal, get it tossed.if the judge
won't toss it, then it's legal.
> well the government is at keeping its contracts. When
> I have the local sheriff and his goons defaming my
> father and lieing to people telling them that he has
> been defrauding them out of hundreds of thousands of
> dollars, I start to get annoyed. And when I find out
> that the SEC and FBI illegally siezed upwards of $50
>
sounds like you have a gripe with the State, county and Federal
government.Maybe you ought to look real close at the situation. It takes a
fair bit
to get all these fellas riled up.
> Million from honest law abiding citizens, then has the
> gall to claim that my dad took it and hid it, I become
> rather pissed off.
>
don't confuse malice with stupidity.
> Tell me where in article I section 8 of the United
> States Constitution that it allows for government to
> invest in research, launch vehicles, or jack booted
> thugs. I'd love to hear it. The fact is that NASA
>
The preamble where it says promote the general welfare.
> is illegal under the social contract that you like
> to wave over our heads. As is about 90% or more of
> the federal government. I have seen hundreds of
> people have their lives ruined because of government
> agencies that are out there to protect us, and to
> help us. I'm sorry, but if government is the answer,
> it must have been a rather stupid question.
>
there was a reason thefounding fathers wanted a small multi-layered government.
> > NASA hasn't sent a probe to Mercury in about 24 years. If there
> > were a latent market for a Mercury mission, or spinoffs thereof,
> > why hasn't some enterprising young libertarian taken advantage
> > of NASA's, um, lapse?
>
> Well, the fact that until we had a half dozen
> astronaughts and a school teacher die on the
> firecracker o' doom, it was illegal to launch
> satellites on anything other than NASA's space
> cow.
Um, all through the 70's and 80's people were launching on Ariane.US birds were
going to guyana for launch. It's where they got the
large market share.
> The peasant's elected representatives think otherwise
> So just because a small chunk of the population voted
> on something means that some dorks in washington can
> write our rights away as if they had the legal right
> to do so? So if most of the voters were cannibals,
> would murder become legal?
>
I think the part in the constitution where it says "Lifeliberty and pursuit of
happiness"would tend against it, but the constitution allows you to be drafted
into slavery to kill.
no society is perfect.
pat
Michael P. Walsh
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> Shane Stezelberger wrote:
>
> > The rockets of the early 1960s blew up because they
> > represented an IMMATURE TECHNOLOGY.
------
---
I snipped an irrelevant political comment.
----
----
----
> Actually, some of the launch problems could have been
> avoided if they hadn't ignored the Minimum Cost Design
> criteria that Schnitt brought forward. If they had,
> the designs would have been simpler and more robust.
> Not to mention far cheaper and far safer. Minimum
> Weight design practically exludes safety without driving
> the costs to insane levels.
--------
----
I snipped out all the irrelevant material which was below
this.
No one has built one of the Minimum Cost Design (MCD) vehicles
that you mentioned and whether or not these designs would have
had the benefits you state is unproven. Not only that, I believe
you are making claims that are over and above what Schnitt
claims.
The ballistic missile designs were accomplished during the
1950's when there were no MCD designs. MCD designs came
later.
Which rockets of the early 1960's that blew up are you talking
about (either one of you)? As far as launch vehicles go, the
Saturn program had a perfect record as far as vehicle failure
went. There were some engine failures, but the vehicles
did not suffer destruction and I believe they all met there
operational goal.
There were some military missile launch failures during
the 1960's during development of the Minuteman and
Polaris missiles.
Minimum Cost Design practically excludes safety if
you maintain minimum cost as your primary goal.
This is equally accurate as your remark about minimum
weight designs.
In the two cases, if you save too much on
development cost, analysis, and quality parts the MCD
vehicle
If you carry minimum weight design to the extreme then
safety will be compromised and cost will rise.
Mike Walsh
Jonathan A Goff
> No one has built one of the Minimum Cost Design (MCD) vehicles
> that you mentioned and whether or not these designs would have
> had the benefits you state is unproven.
Such is the case for RLVs also. But that
is another thread.
> Not only that, I believe you are making claims that are over
> and above what Schnitt claims.
He specifically mentioned in one of the
first papers that minimum weight makes
it very tough to get reliability. He
also stated that if you design a MCD
vehicle, you will probably use large
margins of safety, and have easier to
meet tolerances.
> Which rockets of the early 1960's that blew up are you talking
> about (either one of you)? As far as launch vehicles go, the
> Saturn program had a perfect record as far as vehicle failure
> went.
Yup, it also cost a lot of money to put
in all the falesafes, engine out capabilities
and all the other safety features.
> There were some engine failures, but the vehicles
> did not suffer destruction and I believe they all met there
> operational goal.
Yup, note my words up there "Minimum Weight
Design practically excludes safety without
driving the cost to insane levels." Whether
Saturn cost insane amounts of money or not
is up to the interpretation of the reader.
> Minimum Cost Design practically excludes safety if
> you maintain minimum cost as your primary goal.
Not really, in saving cost, you will typically
allow for more wide tolerances, which typically
means higher margins of safety. Some of the
steel tanks they were working on had Fs of
as high as 4! Thats getting it pretty safe there.
> This is equally accurate as your remark about minimum
> weight designs.
Not true at all. When you simplify a design,
you usually make it safer and cheaper at the
same time. Since you can't have ultra tight
tolerance (which drive up costs), you just
have to tolerance the design in such a way
that it can accept a lot of variation. That
adds in safety.
> In the two cases, if you save too much on
> development cost, analysis, and quality parts the MCD
> vehicle
Your browser must have flaked out here.
I'm assuming that you are saying that
if you minimize Development costs, you
increase danger. Well, that is pretty
true. MCD vehicles are easier to do
the design work for, so you should make
sure it is done right the first time.
As for quality parts, it all has to do
with how you design it. Older Japanese
electronics were fairly decent despite
having large variations in quality. They
just used a non-linearity to their
advantage.
This is just like my GD&T class I took
as a freshman. If you build the
tolerances right, then any part that
meets tolerances should fly right.
Thus you add in some Factors of
Safety, simplify the design, and use
GD & T (Geometric Dimensioning and
Tolerancing) to know if the parts will
work, and you can cut costs and
increase quality simultaneously.
BTW, have you ever studied TQM?
> If you carry minimum weight design to the extreme then
> safety will be compromised and cost will rise.
And this is exactly what has been done
on most launchers. Cost shoots way up,
and safety isn't very good.
Jorge R. Frank
What would be the pros/cons of long-term lease vs. outright purchase?
It would certainly settle the question of who gets the vehicles when
it's time to retire them.
--
JRF
Reply-to address spam-proofed - to E-mail reply,
check "Organization" and think one step ahead of IBM.
Thomas L. Billings
<jon...@et.byu.edu> wrote:
> You still haven't answered my question about
> what ammendment to the constitution makes NASA legal?
I believe that NASA is in the same vein as other
programs which are usually lumped in under the
'general welfare clause' in the preamble, and not
in any amendedment. To wit:
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity,
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
In my opinion this is something to be removed from the
Constitution, specifically because of the broad-brush
application that has been made of it. IIRC, many have
noted that this phrase was hotly disputed for just this
reason in the constitutional convention. Does anyone
know of that?
Regards,
Tom Billings
--
Institute for Teleoperated Space Development
it...@teleport.com(Tom Billings)
ITSD's web site is at, http://www.teleport.com/~itsd1/index.html
Michael P. Walsh
Jonathan A Goff wrote:
> BTW, have you ever studied TQM?
---
---
---
I snipped out the discussion on Minimum Cost Design
where I believe we have both stated our cases.
Failure for me to provide additional comment does
not indicate agreement.
TQM, Total Quality Management
It is either:
1. A meaningless buzz word.
or:
2. A good management tool for engineering and production.
Fairly well proven when applied intelligently but not
a cure-all.
I remember reading that McDonnell-Douglas put into effect
something they described as TQM and then violated most of
principles that had been described as being necessary for it
to succeed. It didn't work very well.
I believe other companies have been more successful.
Mike Walsh