'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?
FY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago. It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.
Quote from: SpacexULA on 09/05/2010 08:50 pmFY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago. It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.All speculation with zero evidence behind it. Zero evidence can be provided because the FY2011 proposal was vague and ambiguous in itself. It is also another bad attempt at making a "villian". In this particular case, ATK.
HSF launch would be bid out in a fashion similar to how payloads for DOD are bid out.
Aldrin said if industry is asked to develop a commercial crew system under a fixed-price contract, prudent companies will build in big reserves to guard against losing money on the deal, while others might underbid the job in hopes of securing the win. “Here you have an interesting situation — competitive environment and fixed-price development contract. Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,” he said.
Quote from: OV-106 on 09/05/2010 11:13 pmQuote from: SpacexULA on 09/05/2010 08:50 pmFY2011 as written by the administration would have subjected NASA to a similar reform to what we forced the Air Force though 20 years ago. It served them well, and 20 years from now this reform would have served NASA well.But unfortunately "Our experts in Utah" didn't agree.All speculation with zero evidence behind it. Zero evidence can be provided because the FY2011 proposal was vague and ambiguous in itself. It is also another bad attempt at making a "villian". In this particular case, ATK."Our experts in Utah" was a quote from the Senator from Utah at the roll out of the compromise bill, so I would say that's not unfounded.You are right FY2011 was VERY nebulous, but one thing was not. HSF launch would be bid out in a fashion similar to how payloads for DOD are bid out. Humans would be treated like the cargo that they are.The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals, but it includes 1, possibly 2 more Shuttle flights and a fast tracked goalpost for HLV (without funding it). That was enough to calm down most folks.There are no villians here. Everyone is looking out for their self interest, Senators are protecting their state's jobs, NASA employees/ contractors are trying to protect their jobs. ATK is trying to protect their employees. SpaceX/ULA are trying to drum up more business.Just understand, I am a fiscal conservative, and see no reason that NASA should be the only Space Program in the world that does not have to share it's infrastructure and vehicle development costs with the private sector and the nations defense forces. Even the China does that..
My question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it.
Quote from: mr. mark on 09/05/2010 11:28 pmMy question has to be does the author of this post understand that Spacex might be after this October launch 6-8 months from starting Cargo delivery to the ISS? Does the author also realize that Orbital Sciences is only 6 months away from testing their Taurus 2 vehicle and less than a year away from ISS cargo delivery as well? Does the author also realize that Boeing is well along with development of their CST-100 manned capsule and that at about the same time Spacex should have their own manned capsule ready as well. 2011 will be the year commercial cargo will be realized. There is no going back, one way or another commercial cargo spaceflight is going to be here next year. I suggest we get used to it. Nope, I didn't realize all that. I guess I've been so focused on my hopes for Direct that I didn't realize the points above. I just hate to see all the STS infrastructure and workforce lost for the promise of a HLV somewhere down the road. Bad phraseology on my part in the title of the thread, I sure hope no one took it as a flamebait post. I've gone back and forth from cheering on Bigelow and Musk and their accomplishments to my disappointment with NASA for the POR, and my hopes that NASA will return to the NASA I grew up with.
Change is coming, no doubt, via the ISS cargo contracts, but I'm not quite so optimistic about 2011. Don't get me wrong. I'm rooting for success. But I also would not be at all surprised if, by the end of 2011, not one single successful commercial ISS cargo mission (by which I mean berthing and cargo delivery) has been performed. SpaceX has not yet flown a cleanly successful Falcon 9 ascent - and it has a long, long way to go before it has demonstrated a successful, controlled Dragon flight. It has to do the Dragon thing at least a couple of times before NASA lets it carry ISS cargo. Every single flight will have to succeeded between now and the end of next year for 2011 to become "the year of commercial cargo" for SpaceX.Let's not forget that SpaceX has existed for more than eight years. In that time, it has made only six launch attempts (only one by Falcon 9) and managed to orbit only one small, 180 kg satellite for a live customer. It has never orbited its own spacecraft and controlled it in flight.Orbital is even further behind. It doesn't yet have a rocket or a launch pad. Much of its hardware, both rocket and payload, is on the other side of the planet, subject to whatever trouble its many contractors encounter. Whatever Taurus 2 delays we think we know about are probably only the tip of the iceberg.One or both will likely get there, eventually. I'm just not ready to believe it will be by the end of 2011. - Ed Kyle
On the whole "Utah" thing, it does not matter if it was a quote or not. It was the context of the sentance and how you used it. I stand by my statement about your intended meaning, even if you try to back-track now.
Another thing now, fly humans, "like the cargo they are, is an assanine statement. Just theoretically, would buy a ticket on an airline that had an advertisement like "fly with us, and we will treat you like the cargo that you and all humans are".
It is about doing what one believes it right and standing for something. But you and others can call it as you will because you have been caught up in the "internet-feed" and if enough people say it on the internet, then it must be correct.
I'm glad that you are a fiscal conservative, I am too. More should be in my opinion. Your statement however is flawed. Government cannot share the costs with the "private sector" if the government is to be the only customer. The private sector today is not going to just invest their capital money into something to provide to the government when they can sell it nowhere else. That is the case right now for an HLV. If there were demand right now for an HLV, beyond NASA use, and ULA or someone else was bending metal right now to give that capability, then NASA too could be a customer and a SDLV would be a waste. Again, that is not the case.
People need to stop looking at this so black and white and see there is a future here for everyone to participate and stop drawing arbitrary battle lines.
I'm glad that you are a fiscal conservative, I am too. More should be in my opinion. Your statement however is flawed. Government cannot share the costs with the "private sector" if the government is to be the only customer. The private sector today is not going to just invest their capital money into something to provide to the government when they can sell it nowhere else. That is the case right now for an HLV. If there were demand right now for an HLV, beyond NASA use, and ULA or someone else was bending metal right now to give that capability, then NASA too could be a customer and a SDLV would be a waste. Again, that is not the case. Given that, NASA should be able to choose what that HLV will be since they will be funding it. From a cost perspective, that vehicle essentially exists today. There is no need to re-invent the wheel. In today's fiscal climate, we should be using what we have to the maximum extent possible. While I certainly appreciate ULA, and no doubt they will play a role in the future, there is more to making a "EELV HLV" then you are giving credit. That is publically available. In addition, ,where does it address recurring and fixed costs for the "EELV HLV", given they will be pretty different?
The Senate compromise is just as nebulous on it's time lines and goals
This is where I will be really unpopular. As a fiscal conservative, I don't see NASA as being special enough to justify it's own HLV. If commercial interests don't need it, then no HLV for NASA. If exploration can not be done with commercially available launchers, no exploration for NASA. That's true for every other nation, it should be true here to.
In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule. It will handle everything without there control. As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo. Capsules don't need pilots.
Is running an Aerospace program well below it's projected costs ever a good idea?
I am under the impression that she just wants to keep furthering her personal agenda politically, and space is just a tool for her to do so.
I just find it weird that a true space advocate would want to limit us to LEO. What would you think if the head of the US Maritime Service suggested that American boats should restrict themselves to the continental shelf and no further?
My extreme pessimism about NASA's future budget leads me to want to get some type of LV man rated as fast as possible, and to obligate as little money as possible in the budget LV to development and as much as possible to near term development of in space infrastructure.
The Stratos Mission is funded in large part by Baumgartner's corporate sponsor, RedBull. Sponsoring extreme athletes is RedBull's way of telling the world that the brand stands not just for caffeinated pop, but for, as the press releases say, "pushing limits" and "making the impossible happen." Teenage boys with little hope of becoming pro skateboarders or record breaking BASE jumpers can nonetheless drink the drink and feel the feeling. NASA might do well to adopt the RedBull approach to branding and astronautics. Suddenly the man in the spacesuit is not an underpaid civil servant; he's the ultimate extreme athlete. RedBull knows how to make space hip.
And, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts.
The name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 09/07/2010 01:31 pmThe name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed KyleJupiter is a bit quick on the name reuse for my tastes, as well, but...With that mindset the present orbiter fleet would all need different names, as surely the great exploration ships and their names are sacred- wouldn't want to name another exploration ship after one, right?
Which one of these is the major launcher of science missions, supports our defense forces, and provides the greatest service to the private sector?
...any other company or organization for that matter, is any better with their political machines and lobbying tactics. In other words, it cuts both ways and again so many on here refuse to see that or acknowledge that because of political "bias"...
I suggest we get used to it.
Trust me on this, the management reserve in these bids is going to overwhelm the differences in cost efficiencies or design efficiencies,”
In that time, it has made only six launch attempts...
I whole heatedly agree, too bad some people like to refer to others opinion as, assanine, amusing, or internet-feed.
But note that the same bill mandates a commission to determine time lines & goals.
At one point in the 1990s Lockheed had a conservative forecast of 19 Atlas 5 launches a year; current launch rates are instead about five a year, virtually all for government customers.
... before establishing a definite, near term beyond LEO destination ...
Quote from: Bill White on 09/07/2010 12:29 pmAnd, I believe actually flying the Jupiter 130 as soon as possible is NASA's best defense against future budget cuts. I've had a problem with the DIRECT proposal from day one. I can't abide the use of the name "Jupiter". Jupiter served as the first stage of NASA's Juno II launcher, and tanks built using Jupiter tooling served as the core, the keel or foundation if you will, of Saturn, America's first super-booster. A series of test flights using Redstone missiles in support of Jupiter development led to the use of "Jupiter A" and "Jupiter C" vehicle monikers. The name has deep historical significance. Build and fly this DIRECT launcher if you will, but please don't call it "Jupiter"! - Ed Kyle
OV, I think you miss an important point. FY2011 sure seems to have been an attempt at "reform", and the ensuing debate sure has, to me, a "reformist" attitude about it. And there's plenty still to reform, which is why I would want the new LV delayed a bit more, while we fly the shuttle five or siz more times, and see how NewSpace delivers. These new "facts on the ground" will provide a good bit of information as to what the new government LV should be.
1. we, if we so choose, can particpate in the debate about the "reform" as you call it. 2. That did not and will not happen. Within these absolutes there are certain realities. 3. If shuttle is not going to fly longer, than in order to proceed with a SDLV then that work needs to be started sooner than later in order to capitalize on the end of shuttle and still get or retain ... 4. If SDLV does not happen, fine too. 5. There is not any technology on the horizon that is on the cusp or revolutionizing transport to orbit.6. I understand and appreciate ULA too ...7. There are those who say we don't need an HLV.8. ... there is no certainty on prop depots... There is no certainty that you do not miss the "sweet-spot" where one is spending more to assemble everything in orbit...
the same shallow rationale that is repeated over and over again by "user names on the internet".
...In a capsule, the passengers will be almost completely out of the loop on the operation of the capsule. It will handle everything without there control. As far as the capsule & launcher is concerned, humans would be just very delicate cargo. Capsules don't need pilots.....
...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?
Quote from: JAFO on 09/05/2010 07:23 pm...why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden - not so much. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.
Orion's pilots will have in-the-loop control on many phases of operation, such as launch abort, orbital burn abort, 6DOF proximity ops, docking, remote control from other spacecraft, and entry/landing (roll).
There is inertia at JSC to keep some things for the astronauts to do so that they can have some control vs being passengers.
In general it is cheaper to train an astronaut to fly a vehicle then it is to design a fool-proof automated system to fly the vehicle. Obviously there are reasons why most vehicles need to be able to fly autonomously, but it does come at a cost. There is also an issue with trying to attract the best to the astronaut core and keeping good morale; massaging commanders' egos might not be that big a sacrifice in that respect.
1. It is a dangerous thing to ascribe motive to anyone for the things that they do. 2. We would all do well to ... steer clear of making pronouncements wrt to "why" she did or did not do something. There is really no way of knowing short of asking her. 3. Has anyone on this thread actually done that?
I. NASA HSF doesn't matter, US HSF is what matters2. The 5 strategic needs are NASA's and not Garver's3. NASA's charter says nothing about manned space exploration.
1. Lori Garver seems to be immune to the risk of killing existing NASA/contractors HSF expertise. Charlie Bolden - not so much. 2. Lori Garver is an expert in politics. Charlie Bolden has flown the Shuttle. 3. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. Charlie Bolden said Joe Shmuck won't make an ascan. 4. Lori Garver finds a potential victory in the Senate Bill. Charlie Bolden is MIA.
...Quote from: renclod on 09/07/2010 09:23 pm... 3. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration. ...3. I took a quick googol to no avail. What are these five things?...
... 3. Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration.
Let's put those guys on one team
Folks who think NEO missions are just a little bit more than lunar missions might look up the delta V for NEO vs Mars missions.
QuoteIn that time, it has made only six launch attempts... ...and I've made how many attempts? Oh. Right. This is not about me. People are gonna complain: Look, Ares was painted a different color than Falcon. You can't compare apples and oranges, but that's wrong. In this business, I think it's about time to start comparing apples and oranges. Why does this delicio.us little red apple cost $500M, but this huge, pulpy orange cost $13B? What apple do you get when you give pre-reform NASA $500M? Hint: we're sending it to the scrapyard, unused.So yeah, NewSpace is somewhat behind schedule. And the "experts in Utah" are ahead of schedule?
Garver likes commercial because.. 1. her boss says that... and 2. she thinks Nasa made everything seem much harder than it is..... ( they didnt , it is very hard !!! ).witness Rutan's space ship one............However, Rutan only went 1500 mph... and it was not easy nor cheap...... 17,500 up then down... that separates the men from the boys.We succeeded because we had the best in the country, maybe the world, and I am not sure even Nasa has that right now.
perhaps she has eyes, that are hooked to a brain, and watched the spacex and nasa tests on youtube and came to the same conclusion anyone with eyes and a brain would, nasa is losin' it.ares-1x with a dummy 2nd stage that the first stage rams into.falcon9 with a working 2nd stage. orion crashes.dragon gently sets down perfectly.maybe we need to give eyes and brains to our opinions.where did all that nasa money go anyways?, not towards a working rocket thats for sure.
Quote from: dks13827 on 09/12/2010 08:29 pmFolks who think NEO missions are just a little bit more than lunar missions might look up the delta V for NEO vs Mars missions.LEO to lunar surface: 5.93 km/sLEO to a close NEO: 5.22 km/sLEO to Martian surface: 10.22 km/sSource: en.wikipedia.net/wiki/Delta-V_Budget What exactly are you getting at?
Quote from: Tony Ostinato on 09/12/2010 11:04 pmperhaps she has eyes, that are hooked to a brain, and watched the spacex and nasa tests on youtube and came to the same conclusion anyone with eyes and a brain would, nasa is losin' it.ares-1x with a dummy 2nd stage that the first stage rams into.falcon9 with a working 2nd stage. orion crashes.dragon gently sets down perfectly.maybe we need to give eyes and brains to our opinions.where did all that nasa money go anyways?, not towards a working rocket thats for sure.NASA is capable but atm they are ham strung. Political reality supports shuttle derived even if shuttle derived isn't the best tool(Ares-1). NASA choose an Orion capable of lunar flight almost asap(block I is LEO only but has many lunar requirements). This drives up the cost for ISS missions with Orion. Like Orion, Apollo had a need for a LEO booster. NASA wisely choose the existing Saturn I. They upgraded it to Saturn IB and Apollo could do it's unmanned LEO tests without much delay. Imagine if Orion were on an EELV and NASA put that $10 billion into an HLV, instead of Ares 1. They might not have made it but they would be much closer to the goal today.
... she had a specific Houston to Orlando astronaut travel in mind when she wrote that
With or without the blank checks of the Apollo era?
LEO to lunar surface: 5.93 km/sLEO to a close NEO: 5.22 km/s
Ask yourself: do you believe Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt don't really know what they are talking about ?? I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.
Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.
The old guard can act high and mighty all they want...
What do they know about how ULA/Orbital/SpaceX/any other alt space firm operates?
These key national priorities that I am referring to are: Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs) International leadership/geo-politics (world peace) Education (societal advancement) Environment (future of planet and humanity)
We gotta go to a rock out in the middle of an asteroid field ASAP, before we do anything else.
Kind of a late response, but here goes:Quote from: dks13827 on 09/12/2010 08:11 pmAsk yourself: do you believe Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt don't really know what they are talking about ?? I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.What do they know about how ULA/Orbital/SpaceX/any other alt space firm operates? They're astronauts from the Apollo era, not spaceflight demigods.QuoteLet's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.Your constant referral to "internet kids" is getting annoying. Out of all of the alt space companies, SpaceXs' staff is the youngest (30-something), but they are hardly basement dwelling teens who still live with their parents. They are adults and just because they aren't old enough to remember the civil war, like some people, doesn't make them completely incompetent. So far they've done alright. Like it or not the yongins are the future, because no one lives forever. The old guard can act high and mighty all they want, but they'll all die one day and then it's the "internet kids" that will take over. Also, putting "internet" (code word for 'keyboard engineer') in front of "kid" fails, because practically everyone is on the internet. In case you slept through it, it went mainstream around the year 2000.
Renclod said:Lori Garver has 5 strategic needs for NASA to serve, and none has anything to do with manned space exploration.Garver said:"The President’s budget, should it be approved by Congress, will enable NASA to align with the priorities of the Nation and to more optimally contribute to our Nation’s future.These key national priorities that I am referring to are:· Economic development (poverty, hunger, jobs)· International leadership/geo-politics (world peace)· Education (societal advancement)· Environment (future of planet and humanity)"***Garver isn't saying that those are NASA's priorities. She's saying those are national priorities. And that NASA's mission can be relevant to the nation's priorities, not that NASA has no agency specific directives like those in its charter.You are not interested in what people say, you are interested in twisting people's words to support your antipathy.
Garver is whats known as a "dyed in the wool liberal" Meaning that she will do whatever is in the liberal agenda (both hers and Washington's) regardless of any rhyme or reason. Its that simple. Look around you for proof.
You are not interested in what people say, you are interested in twisting people's words to support your antipathy.
Ask yourself: do you believe Kraft, Kranz, Cernan, Lovell, Armstrong, Schmitt don't really know what they are talking about ?? I feel sorry for those who would say.. right,, they dont know what they are talking about.Let's put those guys on one team and the internet kids on the other team and see what happens.
...b. The same can not be said for NASA or
Very good letter. MAkes a great deal of sense. What is the point you were trying to make?
An internet kid, in this context, is someone who does not know what they don't know and who might work for a new start up space company. ( that is, not LM or Boeing, for example).It also refers to folks who think Apollo was not too hard, actually. Not to mention just orbiting a crew and then getting them back.And to folks who think that writing Luminary software ( the code listing alone was 1 to 2 feet high of large, old, greenbar computer paper. ) I suspect that Don Eyles ( look him up ) would readily admit that writing that code was way more than 'not that hard'.Burt Rutan's views:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575085810715611660.html
Quote from: JAFO on 09/05/2010 07:23 pm'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.
Quote from: Cog_in_the_machine on 09/18/2010 08:23 amThe old guard can act high and mighty all they want...As a card-carrying member of the "old guard" I have to object to this mischaracterization. The vast majority of us not only welcome the younger generation, who we *KNOW* are there to replace us, but we gladly mentor them, turn them loose and get out of their way, just as our mentors did to us when we were 30-somethings.
Clearly that is your opinion.
Its not fact. At all.
An internet kid, in this context, is someone who does not know what they don't know ...
Commercial space pioneer Burt Rutan has sharply criticized Obama administration proposals to outsource key portions of NASA's manned space program to private firms.The White House wants NASA to use outside firms to develop and operate new rockets and spacecraft ... that had previously been considered a core function of [NASA]. Mr. Rutan ... says he is "fearful that the commercial guys will fail" to deliver on the promises ... "That would be a very big mistake for America to make," according to the letter ... [Mischaracterization!!!]Such comments are unexpected from a maverick engineer long identified with pushing the boundaries of commercial space projects..."From my past comments on NASA's" lack of direction and success, "an observer might think that I would applaud the decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers," the letter says. However, he adds, that's "wrong." [This is very misleading. Read Rutan's actual remarks below.]Mr. Rutan has prided himself on avoiding being tied to federal funds...While reiterating his support ... Mr. Rutan compared depending too heavily on them at this point to giving up "an airport where I know I can get in on the approach, for one where I might" be able to land. [Also a misquote: That was Griffin!]
To my friends in the Press...Since the WSJ chose to cherry-pick and miss-quote my comments to Cong[ressman] Wolf and since the blogs have taken that to further mischaracterized my comments, I am forwarding the Wolf memo in its entirety, in the hopes that some of this gets corrected. Some additional clarification of my thoughts follow:My basic concern is that the real value of NASA's contributions that America realized in the 60s and early 70s is now being completely discarded. ... Yada yada.In short, it is a good idea indeed for the commercial community to compete to re-supply the ISS and to bring about space access for the public to enjoy. I applaud the efforts of SpaceX, Virgin and Orbital ... However, I do not see the commercial companies taking Americans to Mars ... and I doubt if they will take the true Research risks ... to fly new concepts that have low confidence of return on investment. Even NASA ... has not recently shown a willingness to fly true Research concepts.For years I have stated that a NASA return-to-moon effort must include true Research content... The current Ares/Orion does not do that. While I have been critical of Constellation for that reason, I do not think that NASA should 'give up' on manned spaceflight, just that they should be doing it while meeting the ... criteria above.Some have guessed that my recent comments are based on my overall displeasure with the Obama Administration. They are not; however it does seem that the best technical minds in U.S. industry are still striving to find HOW America can continue to be "exceptional", while the Administration does not want America to BE "exceptional". [I noticed this too. Anybody agree with me?]Burt Rutan
Burt Rutan has given Hyperbola permission to print in full the original memo...I occasionally banter with my friend, Mike Griffin on ... NASA policy. After sending him my latest tirade, he shared with me his recent letter ... I promised him that I would send you [Wolf] my thoughts ...:From my past comments on NASA's post-mid-70s manned space efficiencies/accomplishments, an observer might think that I would applaud a decision to turn this important responsibility over to commercial developers. However, he would be wrong. [This is the cherry picked paragraph which was twisted bay Pasztor.]No question, it would be good to see commercial companies quickly succeed at orbital access ... However, I am fearful that the commercial guys will fail; i.e. they will do little more in my remaining lifetime than NASA accomplished in 3.5 years with Gemini in the mid 1960s. [He is fearful that they cannot take the place of NASA.] That would be a very big mistake for America to make, as we move into an era of real competition in space exploration as well as risk the loss of our leadership in nearly every other technical discipline.Mike Griffin's excellent statement says it best; "I too want, in the strongest possible terms, to have government policies which serve to stimulate private development of space. But at the same time, I too am reluctant -- with an analogy to instrument flying -- to give up an airport where I know I can get in on the approach, for one where I might".What I would like to see is a decade or two of overlap - an initial push in the commercial arena of manned spaceflight (Development programs, not Research programs), while NASA flies risky new ideas (read, true Research programs, giving at least a chance of discovering an important new Breakthrough), and at the same time pushes the forefront of Exploration beyond the earth's moon.Imagine how much better America could motivate our youth ...Two years after Neil and Buzz landed on the moon, America led the world in ... yada yada yada.The attachment ...As always, I am ok with the distribution of my thoughts without limitation. [Moderator Note: Why I went and posted the whole thing.]While I usually offer candid remarks at the drop of the hat, I am not interested in Congressional testimony... [Heh-heh-heh. I like this guy. Somebody have him call me.]Burt Rutan
...read what Lori says rather than what they think she says...
Who's opinion would it be if not mine?
Quote from: khallow on 09/19/2010 06:30 pmQuote from: JAFO on 09/05/2010 07:23 pm'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.Good post, thanks. I think that some other folks should take the time to read what Lori says rather than what they think she says. One place to start might be:www.nasa.gov/pdf/428838main_Garver_Suborbital_Conference_0218.pdfBottom line, I know of no one more personally committed to the idea of human spaceflight than Lori. I doubt that any of the naysayers out there have undergone surgery just to get the opportunity to fly in space:http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/garver_sacrifice_020325.html(She subsequently had the surgery; the article dates from prior to....)I've worked with Lori off and on for decades and know her very well. Even though we may disagree on politics, the vileness expressed towards her motives by some frankly disgust me. We may argue means and methods, but kindly put a lid on discussions of evil personal motivations. Time for some civility.
Quote from: HMXHMX on 09/22/2010 06:07 amQuote from: khallow on 09/19/2010 06:30 pmQuote from: JAFO on 09/05/2010 07:23 pm'scuse me if this has been covered or is obvious but why is Lori Garver pushing commercial operations of HSF, even at the risk of killing our HSF program?I can't speak for Garver, but my take is that commercial space flight is far more important than the NASA program. To be blunt, with profitable and active US commercial space flight you have a US presence in space. Without US commercial space flight, you have a space program. If we're going to burn the money anyway, might as well do it in a productive way.My belief is that the dominant goal of any publicly funded space program should be the establishment of enterprises in space, both profitable and not dependent on public funding. I'll give two reasons here though I have several more. First, such enterprises are self-funding hence, we don't lose access to space, if some future administration or disaster should neuter the US space program for a time. Second, economic expansion has always been one of the most important tools and strengths of the US. It makes sense to use what worked best for us in the past.Now maybe Garver has some nefarious reasons for her beliefs, but as I see it, there's a lot of positive reasons to support commercial space flight, even if there should happen to be some extra risk involved.Good post, thanks. I think that some other folks should take the time to read what Lori says rather than what they think she says. One place to start might be:www.nasa.gov/pdf/428838main_Garver_Suborbital_Conference_0218.pdfBottom line, I know of no one more personally committed to the idea of human spaceflight than Lori. I doubt that any of the naysayers out there have undergone surgery just to get the opportunity to fly in space:http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/garver_sacrifice_020325.html(She subsequently had the surgery; the article dates from prior to....)I've worked with Lori off and on for decades and know her very well. Even though we may disagree on politics, the vileness expressed towards her motives by some frankly disgust me. We may argue means and methods, but kindly put a lid on discussions of evil personal motivations. Time for some civility.Ms Garver may indeed be very nice. IMO she is way too naive about 'flight test', and this is indeed the subject.