Quote from: RanulfC on 08/08/2016 05:54 pmProbably should take this one to the alt-history boards instead but I'd like some opinions Here's one: I think you're using quotation marks when you generally mean to italicize.
Probably should take this one to the alt-history boards instead but I'd like some opinions
The business case for satellite delivery, (obviously) could be made and assuming that NASA is still tasked with some type of human spaceflight mission the question is could a similar business case be made for human space flight?
I've been working on space history for 25 years now. I was one of the editors on the first two "Exploring the Unknown" volumes mentioned up-thread. I worked for Logsdon as a grad student and I also helped edit his manuscript for "After Apollo?" So I've been steeped in a lot of these issues for many years. Yet I still found a number of things in "After Apollo?" to be surprises. In particular:-the breadth and depth of animosity within the Nixon administration to continuing any further deep space exploration;-the opposition within NASA itself to continuing lunar missions beyond the first six or so;-the degree to which some Nixon administration officials wanted to get rid of NASA entirely, or at least human space flight.For a long time I clung to the view that a lot of the blame for what happened after Apollo could be laid at the feet of NASA administrator Tom Paine and the Space Task Group. I thought that when Paine/STG proposed a Mars mission that it was so expensive, so ambitious, that it poisoned the well and no other options, such as continuing lunar missions, were possible. If only they had been more realistic in their proposal (like Nixon's own transition group for space), then maybe they could have kept the Apollo hardware and continued missions beyond low Earth orbit.But as "After Apollo?" makes clear, this wasn't even an option. NOBODY wanted more lunar missions, not even NASA. And Mars was just too big and too expensive. But it wasn't even the case that more Skylab missions were under consideration. The Nixon administration was looking at various options that even included changing NASA's name and making it a technology agency, perhaps with no human spaceflight at all. They just did not see the point. And if the opposition had been weaker, it is possible that we could have ended human spaceflight in the early 1970s and maybe even stopped robotic space exploration as well. Maybe the Soviets would have then been the only ones doing this stuff.Although I am not thrilled with the shuttle program that we got, considering that most of the other policy options were for far less, I think we were pretty lucky.
Quote from: RanulfC on 08/08/2016 05:54 pmThe business case for satellite delivery, (obviously) could be made and assuming that NASA is still tasked with some type of human spaceflight mission the question is could a similar business case be made for human space flight? A crafty history grad student could write an interesting dissertation about the definition of "privatization" (or choose your own word--maybe "commercialization"?) in spaceflight over the decades. There have been numerous efforts to do this over many eras, and understanding it requires understanding the context and politics of the time period.For example, in the early 1980s the Reagan administration looked into the idea of commercializing/privatizing Landsat. I believe that Comsat Corporation was interested, but only if the deal included the weather satellites, because they figured they could make real money selling weather satellite data. Congress balked at that, and the idea evaporated.But wait, there's more!Turns out that there have been quite a few proposals like this over the years, most of them forgotten:-TDRSS in the 1970s (originally supposed to be a rental agreement, not government-owned)-Navy Leasat, late 1970s/early 1980s-the various variations of rocket launches, both before and after Challenger, as well as the 1990s-Industrial Space Facility, 1989-privatizing a single space shuttle, 1990s-privatizing parts of ISS, 1990sLots and lots of examples of activities that were exclusively government where somebody proposed turning over portions of it to the private sector to run. Almost all of them collapsed early on, either for political reasons, or because no commercial customer could be found (or at least none with serious money and management).Lots of case studies to be explored there. Probably some interesting lessons in what worked and did not work.
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/08/2016 09:22 pmQuote from: RanulfC on 08/08/2016 05:54 pmThe business case for satellite delivery, (obviously) could be made and assuming that NASA is still tasked with some type of human spaceflight mission the question is could a similar business case be made for human space flight? A crafty history grad student could write an interesting dissertation about the definition of "privatization" (or choose your own word--maybe "commercialization"?) in spaceflight over the decades. There have been numerous efforts to do this over many eras, and understanding it requires understanding the context and politics of the time period.For example, in the early 1980s the Reagan administration looked into the idea of commercializing/privatizing Landsat. I believe that Comsat Corporation was interested, but only if the deal included the weather satellites, because they figured they could make real money selling weather satellite data. Congress balked at that, and the idea evaporated.But wait, there's more!Turns out that there have been quite a few proposals like this over the years, most of them forgotten:-TDRSS in the 1970s (originally supposed to be a rental agreement, not government-owned)-Navy Leasat, late 1970s/early 1980s-the various variations of rocket launches, both before and after Challenger, as well as the 1990s-Industrial Space Facility, 1989-privatizing a single space shuttle, 1990s-privatizing parts of ISS, 1990sLots and lots of examples of activities that were exclusively government where somebody proposed turning over portions of it to the private sector to run. Almost all of them collapsed early on, either for political reasons, or because no commercial customer could be found (or at least none with serious money and management).Lots of case studies to be explored there. Probably some interesting lessons in what worked and did not work.Spacehab
The reason some of us wanted EOR was not just to go to the moon but to have something afterwards: orbital operations, a space station, a springboard. LOR was a one-shot deal, very limited, very inflexible.
Nothing in history is inevitable. There are lots of ways that simple random chance can have major impacts on outcomes.
The summer of 1961 was the busiest in the lives of many NASA engineers, certainly in John Houbolt's. "I was living half the time in Washington, half the time on the road, dashing back and forth." In mid-July, he was to be in Washington again, to give a talk at the NASA-Industry Apollo Technical Conference. This important meeting was to include about 300 potential Project Apollo contractors. It was so important that Langley management, in association with the STG, in the tradition of the NACA-NASA annual inspections, was holding a formal rehearsal of all its presentations prior to the conference.Houbolt was to give his talk at the end of the day of rehearsals because he had another NASA meeting earlier that day in Washington. "I was to rush out to the airport at Washington National, get on the airplane, they were to pick me up here and then bring me to where they were having the rehearsals." However, when he arrived breathless at the airport, the airplane could not take off. In refueling the aircraft, the ground crew had spilled fuel on one of the tires, and the Federal Aviation Administration would not let the plane take off until the tire had been changed. That made Houbolt a little late—and the STG member waiting for him a little impatient. "They dashed me back to the conference room, and with all of the other rehearsals finished, "everybody was sort of twiddling their thumbs," complaining "where the hell is Houbolt?"
The book mentions that there were a couple members with a "Libertarian" bent, (no names given) who suggested in the initial meeting that space access be "privatized" and operated by private industry which was roundly ignored and IIRC the member left and never came back.This was probably linked to the late 70s/early 80s idea that the Libertarian's were all for selling the US space program to the highest bidder and junking the Space Program but with hindsight sounds more like a very early concept of Commercial Crew/Cargo. Though it has to be recalled that at the time there was no "destination" for such and each flight would in effect be an orbital delivery of a satellite with little or no commercial incentive for manned flights...
Spacehab
QuoteSpacehabBob Citron and Walter Kistler Spacehab was a success,
Jesco von Puttkamer (hopefully I got the spelling right) famously said http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htmQuote The reason some of us wanted EOR was not just to go to the moon but to have something afterwards: orbital operations, a space station, a springboard. LOR was a one-shot deal, very limited, very inflexible.
Which bring us back to 1961 and JFK deadline that had to be done at any cost, including mortgaging NASA future
The alternate history where NASA stuck with EOR remains to be done. Something must happens to John Houbolt. Well, the monograph Enchanted rendezvous provides an interesting "point of divergence"
The man was William Niskanen (thanks google books !) Mind you, he even has a Wikipedia entry (which says a lot about the man - one of these guys pretty obessed with privatizing everything but the kitchen sink) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Niskanen
Ok so nothing like current ideas, which begs the question of what exactly would have been the point at the time? There was no 'real' government systems which to privatize per-se at the time and having a private company design, build and operate a shuttle wouldn't make sense with no place for it to service or missions to perform.
Jim's not really correct that "It isn't really a commercial venture if your only customer is the USG" since there was a time, (around the period we're talking till the mid-80s) where contractors were in fact trying to sustain themselves by having the USG as their sole customer.
QuoteOk so nothing like current ideas, which begs the question of what exactly would have been the point at the time? There was no 'real' government systems which to privatize per-se at the time and having a private company design, build and operate a shuttle wouldn't make sense with no place for it to service or missions to perform.The late Klaus Heiss of Mathematica (infamous) shuttle economic study did tried to gather private funding for that fifth orbiter Carter refused to fund in 1978. It did not went very far with the proposal, however. Until the end of his life that man was still very bitter about all the flak he took (it's all fault of Mathematica - he couldn't stood that fact...) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Peter_Heiss
Never considered there would be no footprints on the Moon without Apollo. Hmmmm.
Quote from: RanulfC on 08/09/2016 05:06 pmJim's not really correct that "It isn't really a commercial venture if your only customer is the USG" since there was a time, (around the period we're talking till the mid-80s) where contractors were in fact trying to sustain themselves by having the USG as their sole customer. No, the hype was that they were going commercial and were looking for customers other than the USG
Quote from: Proponent on 08/03/2016 10:13 pmI agree with much of your post, but ....Quote from: Michel Van on 08/03/2016 08:03 pmQuoteHad Soviets land on Moon a cosmonaut, Nixon had continue the Apollo program !Restart the Saturn V production (the production line were mothballed until 1974 then destroy) they had even potentially study (before 1974) how to reactivate the Apollo program during Shuttle program.That is very interesting. Do you have a reference for the study?I search my space archive to find it but i got around 10000 files in there and that take some time sadly if found several dammage PDF, let's hope that the one is not of them...
I agree with much of your post, but ....Quote from: Michel Van on 08/03/2016 08:03 pmQuoteHad Soviets land on Moon a cosmonaut, Nixon had continue the Apollo program !Restart the Saturn V production (the production line were mothballed until 1974 then destroy) they had even potentially study (before 1974) how to reactivate the Apollo program during Shuttle program.That is very interesting. Do you have a reference for the study?
QuoteHad Soviets land on Moon a cosmonaut, Nixon had continue the Apollo program !Restart the Saturn V production (the production line were mothballed until 1974 then destroy) they had even potentially study (before 1974) how to reactivate the Apollo program during Shuttle program.That is very interesting. Do you have a reference for the study?
Had Soviets land on Moon a cosmonaut, Nixon had continue the Apollo program !Restart the Saturn V production (the production line were mothballed until 1974 then destroy) they had even potentially study (before 1974) how to reactivate the Apollo program during Shuttle program.