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.