A Congressman and an Astronaut Propose a New Plan For NASA 221
MarkWhittington writes "Reflecting a rising discontent with the state of the U.S. space program in the wake of the last space shuttle mission, Rep. Pete Olson, R-Texas, and Apollo astronaut Walt Cunningham have proposed a new space plan that addresses space exploration, the role of commercial space, and reform of NASA."
ah, Pete Olson (Score:5, Interesting)
So, he ran on a platform of slashing nearly all government programs, eliminating many agencies entirely, and halving the budgets of others--- because private-sector alternatives are always superior, whether it's private schools, private healthcare, or corporate research labs.
Oh, except NASA, which is a vitally important public service that can't be replicated in the private sector. Coincidentally, he represents a district in southeastern Houston, and NASA is one of the largest employers in that district.
Real soon now... (Score:4, Interesting)
> In coming weeks we, with others committed to the HSF program, will offer a more detailed plan to return to flight.
So... what? Do they have a plan already, and the just aren't ready to tell us? Or are they still thinking about it? What's the point of even making an announcement like this if all you've got to say is a few extremely general talking points?
Basically, we have a TX congressman who wants to get the pork flowing back to his deep-pocket-donor pals in the military/industrial complex. [yawn]
Re:Constellation was not a Shuttle Replacement. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, but it did use a lot of shuttle pieces & parts (like SRB's) which would keep certain contractors flush with money.
I agree with the GP (Michael_gr) that it's nice to see SpaceX showing us how it should be done. The authors of this article are either ignorant of SpaceX or deliberately disregarding it. Notice that they published this piece in Politico, where many non-geek readers are likely to be unaware of SpaceX's success.
Re:There's no plan there... (Score:4, Interesting)
If by "scratch" you mean using existing launch sites, applying NASA discoveries, tech and employees, and taking expertise from ("investing in") existing academic spin-offs and other established aerospace operations, then yes, SpaceX started from "scratch".
This is how it always is when an industry is privatised: following a period where politics deliberately stifles the government programme, there are calls for privatisation; the early gold-diggers plough funds into the project, essentially copying what has gone before and producing what appears to be progress but is in fact little more than a reimplementation of what has gone before. A decade later, we will be back to stagnation, but with control out of the hands of the people and reliance on a bulky corporate infrastructure with no incentive but profit.
The same pattern has been observed with every major industry since the early '80s yet we continue being suckers for punishment. And now we have soooo much choice and everything's so much better, right? If the only pace of government-sponsored technological development from the '50s through the '70s had been maintained for another 30 years! But, no, in the US it was redirected entirely to the purpose of toppling the USSR from the '80s, and then sold off to the friendliest bidder. And China, which is not so friendly, but knows how to be a good creditor.
Re:ah, Pete Olson (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:There's no plan there... (Score:5, Interesting)
So? What is wrong with letting the private sector do what they are best at--taking existing technology and refining it to the point of profitability? It's not trivial work, and we need it done just as much as we need the research in the first place. I think we've pretty well proven that the current system of government funding is incapable of actually producing an efficient production program.
Besides, the minute the space shuttle became a "production" vehicle, the progress stopped. It should never have been elevated to that status; the shuttle was an incomplete and half-baked idea from the start and should have been the first in a long list of modern spacecraft experiments by NASA. Instead, we were stuck with a boondoggle program in need of justification, hence Hubble and the space station. All worthy enterprises, but could have been so, so much cheaper if the shuttle had been refined for another 10 years--or changed completely--before production.
IMHO, the real test is to see if we can jump-start the real research in NASA while simultaneously promoting private-sector production development of existing technologies. And no, a Constellation-style (read: Apollo-style) heavy-lift rocket does not constitute real research. That too can be left to the private sector. I've said it a million times, Constellation was squarely on track to become just as expensive and unreliable as the shuttle--that "$9b wasted" was a drop in the bucket compared to what the program would have cost in the long run. The real research is in ion & plasma drives, space elevators, and planetary exploration vehicles, etc.
Re:ah, Pete Olson (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/18/133875475/Funding-Fight-Puts-Boehner-In-Tough-Spot [npr.org]
And I don't buy this "sigh, those politicians are all the same" line of defeatist bullshit.
Yes, the Democrats have disappointed me in MANY cases, but there is a clear difference, in my book, in the parties when it comes to who is willing to govern with a sense of rationality, and in a manner that supports the interest of the American people.
We need, a comprehensive national health insurance plan, and we need it yesterday. We spend almost twice as much, don't cover everyone, and have health outcomes that are largely no better.
If you want to support small business and entrepreneurship, support national health care. That way somebody starting/running a business can concentrate on the buisness, and not what happens if his kids need to go to the doctor.
Re:Wait, these are not MY corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
The 9 billion was already wasted, Obama simply had the courage to admit that.
Re:This is a "prestige" plan without a mission (Score:5, Interesting)
I see non-manned missions as a sensible prerequisite to manned ones. Before Vostok 1 you had Sputnik. There were 20 robotic launches in the Mercury Program before Alan Shepard went up on Mercury-Redstone 3. Before the manned lunar landing we had the Ranger, Surveyer and Lunar Orbiter programs.
Even if you didn't care about the people you send to, say Mars, it would be financially unconscionable to send them there before we'd done some missions that returned Martian samples to earth. I'll give a few reasons here:
* Experience shows that Mars landings are risky.
* We have no experience with Mars launches; a few test runs are needed if returning human explorers is important.
* Identify targets which can best be studied by humans before sending very expensive missions.
* Maintain and advance planetary exploration skills with frequent cheap missions where failure *is* an option.
* Reduce cost of manned exploration by developing proven and reliable systems.
* Develop a sustainable, successful planetary exploration program before risking everything on a fabulously expensive manned mission with untried technology and uncertain goals.
There are times when you have to be bold, but there are times when being sensible is the bold thing.
Re:All for free (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:When Did Koch Industries Get Into Aerospace? (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember watching Gordo Cooper's flight in the 3rd grade, first time I'd ever seen a TV in a classroom.
I remember Ed White walking in space, and later dying.
I remember Jim Lovell and Frank Borman on Christmas eve.
I remember watching Neil and Buzzy live from the Moon.
I remember getting up at 3:00 AM to watch STS-1 take off.
And I remember getting up at 4:00 AM and tearing up as STS-135 landed, thinking "Well, that's the last I'll ever see of this".
Shit, I got something in my eye again.
Re:There's no plan there... (Score:4, Interesting)
At the risk of Piling On, let me point out that NASA spent nearly two billion dollars on developing plans for their Great Space Station. After years and years of practice, they had produced many viewgraphs and powerpoint presentations. And who flew the first piece of the space station? The Russians, of course. Whose spacecraft ferry crew to and from the space station? The Russians, of course. Who launches resupply missions to the space station? The Russians, of course.
And as for wasting nine billion dollars, what did we get for nine billion dollars? Some nice animations about what a great thing the Constellation program ought to be. We have a booster launch that wasn't even a new booster, it was the same old Solid Rocket Booster that blew up the Challanger, with a dummy fifth segment. And the spacecraft? What a spacecraft. A recycled Apollo capsule.
The NASA we have now is a ghost of what it was. The good engineers have left (and gone to SpaceX, among many others) and what we are left with are slackers and bureaucrats, and a labor force that wants to keep doing whatever they are doing. Should they learn something new? Oh, heck no. Let's just try to go back to the glory days of Apollo, and relabel it "Constellation".
There is absolutely no riskier plan on or off Earth, than not taking any risks.