posted 05-21-2010 08:03 PM               

We believe this is an opportunity for NASA to craft the exploration strategy in partnership with science and applied science that includes the International Space Station, safe and cost-effective access to low earth orbit, robotic precursors, and other missions. Heavy lift launch and in-space servicing enable new realms of exploration and science.

We believe it is critically important that the American people can and must participate and be engaged in the journey of discovery and exploration.

posted 05-21-2010 10:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Under the President's proposal, NASA will be waiting for privateers (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SpaceX, Orbital, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada Corp, etc.) to develop unproven craft (Orion, CEV, Dragon, Cygnus, New Shepard, DreamChaser, etc.) from scratch.

---

I would give the top 3, MAYBE 4, a half decent chance of succeeding, but I'd be willing to bet money not without significant setbacks and delays.

This closed door session, as I understand it, was yet another ploy to convince the alphabet soup of spaceflight organizations that there is something in the proposal for everybody, and they bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Go back and read the bullet points of their joint release and ask yourself how each of those statements could equally apply to a properly funded, focused effort to continue with the "program of record" and accomplish some real exploration in a reasonable timeframe.

posted 05-22-2010 03:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ross426:
Underfunding and cancelling the Constellation programme was wrong and stupid. Public interest is low because nobody's going anywhere.

---

"Underfunding?" That happened the moment the VSE was announced in 2004.

"Cancelling?" Seems to me Constellation is morphing into something new.

But if "public interest is low" it's because there's a tug-of-war going on in Washington over whose right and whose wrong. That's why "nobody's going anywhere."

The "shuttle's purpose" has always been to build a space station in LEO. The station itself was meant to be a staging post to send humans BEO.

posted 05-22-2010 08:42 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
So this argument, that keeps being cited ad nauseam by Constellation supporters, isn't just fallacious but completely baseless.

---

posted 05-22-2010 08:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ross426:
Public interest is low because nobody's going anywhere.

---

It doesn't matter where we go -- Moon, Mars, the asteroids -- once there, the general public will quickly lose interest. The public didn't follow Apollo 15 (for example) like they did Apollo 11.

Had we continued on the Moon, the public would treat the missions the same way they do International Space Station expeditions.

Unlike in real estate, location (location, location) is not the solution.

Rather, you hit the nail on its head when you wrote "nobody's going anywhere" -- as in practically nobody. Five hundred people out of the entire population have been to space, ever. That's woefully low and makes the activity inconsequential to the general public.

If you want the public to care, then you need to get them involved. The sooner when anyone who desires to experience spaceflight can, the sooner the public will start taking a personal interest.

posted 05-22-2010 09:09 AM               

To that end, it was Space Adventures, not Roscosmos or Energia, who drove and funded the Russian engineering studies to design a lunar orbital mission based on existing hardware. This wasn't a simple white paper; it was a full engineering effort, the type you expect to have come from a government-led project. It was expensive but Space Adventures felt it was justified given their clients' interest.

posted 05-22-2010 09:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
Next time I see Neil Armstrong I'll be sure to point out what you think of his argument

---

posted 05-22-2010 11:02 AM               

This point has been made before, and I find no basis for it. Is it nothing more than a wishfully thought up side benefit of taxpayer-funded boosting of these private companies?

I find it disturbing that we are being asked to give our tax money to the privateers, who will then turn around and sell that product back to the government at a great profit. Is there any requirement to repay the infusion of cash?

posted 05-22-2010 01:33 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...any public comment by any NASA or government official which indicates that a goal of this proposal is to open space to the masses?

---

President Obama has also challenged NASA to facilitate the development of a new commercial space industry, one capable of sending astronauts routinely to the ISS. NASA will partner with this new industry of space taxis and lease vehicles that will make it possible in the years ahead for the average person to fly to space and do research or relaxation.

We also believe it [commercial spaceflight] will help to make space travel more accessible and more affordable for an expanded number of users.

...a new generation of Americans will be inspired by these commercial ventures and the opportunities they will provide for additional visits to space.

Once established, these services will not only allow astronauts to travel to the International Space Station, they will ultimately open space travel to many more people across the globe.

NASA Chief of the Vehicle Integration Test Office Jerry Ross, May 3, 2010:

First of all, I don't think we are doing things right if we don't open up more routine and flexible ways for anybody who wants to fly into space to go there.

posted 05-22-2010 02:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Mr. Obama's plan is going nowhere fast. If it looks like he will be a 1 termer in another year it will be dead in the water waiting for the next guy to rewrite everything.

---

posted 05-22-2010 09:38 PM               

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, May 8, 2010:

NASA will partner with this new industry of space taxis and lease vehicles that will make it possible in the years ahead for the average person to fly to space and do research or relaxation.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, April 22, 2010:

We also believe it [commercial spaceflight] will help to make space travel more accessible and more affordable for an expanded number of users.

Again, not in the proposal, just wishful thinking. Interesting wording two weeks before the first... "expanded number" instead of "the average person."

NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver, February 1, 2010:

Once established, these services will not only allow astronauts to travel to the International Space Station, they will ultimately open space travel to many more people across the globe.

So we have some interesting sound bites from those tasked with selling the proposal, but still nothing concrete from the government clearly outlining an intent to open up a U.S. Spacelines as part of this new strategy. Many more questions than answers.

Compare this fuzzy, futuristic fantasy to what is going on at Virgin Galactic. A private company, Scaled, takes private funds from a wealthy investor, Allen, and wins a big prize to recoup some of their R&D money. This in turn attracts another wealthy investor, Branson, to "partner" with Scaled in developing a business plan and product with the specific purpose of transporting passengers to space, albeit suborbital in nature.

No taxpayer money involved there. No debt to repay to them for a huge loan which might allow untold profit for the business. A clear purpose to open space to the "average Joe", once the cost comes down.

Again, I have no problem with commercial companies going out and doing this. I welcome it! But I have yet to see, with these little teasers included, any concrete evidence that this is what Obama's proposal is really after.

One final thought. If we were to leave the moon and other destinations out of the equation, what would you rather have happen after the retirement of the shuttle... press on with a well-funded Ares/ Orion or pay $50 million + per seat on Soyuz while waiting for the privateers to start over from square one?

posted 05-22-2010 11:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...clearly outlining an intent to open up a U.S. Spacelines

---

That said, Jayne Schnaars, vice president for Boeing Launch Services, speaking last week at the Women in Aerospace conference said they "want to become the Boeing Commercial Airplanes of space" (source Jeff Foust/The Space Review).

quote:

---

...what would you rather have happen after the retirement of the shuttle... press on with a well-funded Ares/Orion or pay $50 million + per seat on Soyuz while waiting for the privateers to start over from square one?

---

posted 05-23-2010 12:16 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
Why are American taxpayers funding this private enterprise now?

---

Yes, that ugly word being regularly raised in the Boeing-Airbus rivalry!

If there was a real market for private space "tourism/access," how come it's up to the taxpayers to fund it and not the private sector? I still haven't read any explanation to this one... No market except for a few millionaires? Not profitable? Too risky? Too expensive to raise private capital? How come, if there's a "profitable" market "out there," only the US seems interested? If NASA didn't desperately need space access, would there be a "private space launch industry?"

posted 05-23-2010 12:44 AM               

NASA currently pays its contractors such that there are no incentives for the companies (sorry, "profiteers") to deliver but the bare minimum that the contract demands. They get paid regardless if they succeed or fail.

Under the President's proposal, companies will be expected to substantially invest their own funds into their own R&D, as well as be in constant state of competition with other companies vying to offer NASA the same service.

Taxpayers are not funding space tourism; rather, as has been the case for the past 50 years, taxpayers are funding NASA to purchase services from commercial companies. In return for the funds provided, the companies will produce vehicles that meet NASA's own standards for safety and reliability.

That said, taxpayers will receive more bang for their buck, because in addition to funding NASA to explore space -- as they always have -- they will also now be advancing the day when, if so desired, they can fly to space, too; a spinoff in the same way that NASA has delivered advances in medicine, communications and agriculture (to list just three).

quote:

---

Originally posted by cspg:
How come, if there's a "profitable" market "out there," only the US seems interested?

---

posted 05-23-2010 06:45 AM               

Removing centralized control and encouraging the market to bear the risk isn't necessarily a business model with as much credibility today as it has enjoyed in previous years. It's sad to see NASA being marginalized and US space exploration being sent down this same discredited path.

If any proof were needed to show where we're headed just look at who will benefit most from this model - the super wealthy. Replacing NASA's tiny handful with a new tiny handful is not opening space to more people, simply removing a meritocracy that allowed people of any background with the best skills to fly in space and replacing it with a monopoly for the rich.

Look back to the posts around the time of Dennis Tito's flight, the very informative "Mr. Tito do I want your autograph?" debate. Straight away, even with the novelty factor of his being first, we, the public, could tell the difference between an astronaut with the necessary skills for the job and a rich guy on holiday in space. So space becomes a dilettante's pursuit for who knows how many years, and the public is supposed to be excited by this? I really think most people couldn't care less where Bill Gates & co go on holiday.

posted 05-23-2010 06:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
So space becomes a dilettante's pursuit for who knows how many years, and the public is supposed to be excited by this?

---

quote:

---

I really think most people couldn't care less where Bill Gates & co go on holiday.

---

quote:

---

In the meantime trying to force space exploration into the public sphere without a workable business model for the mass-market in place will simply take it even further away from ordinary people & place it firmly in the hands of the extremely wealthy.

---

Even if a private space travel market were not to emerge, that doesn't discredit the benefits of NASA having multiple paths into space. The same contractors who have designed and built every NASA spacecraft say they are ready to invest in their own vehicles.

posted 05-23-2010 08:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
But the people going into space aren't celebrities - that's the reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
...why put NASA's exploration budget onto the commercial space roulette table while we wait to find out?

---

This idea that only one spacecraft design at a time can take U.S. astronauts to space is an outdated liability that has posed a much larger threat to derailing the U.S. manned space program than any uncertainty associated with commercial spaceflight.

posted 05-23-2010 11:29 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA cannot afford to fund two or more separate spacecraft development paths alone. They need the companies to invest in their own work. The companies won't do that unless they have a controlling interest in the vehicle they produce and can use it to recoup their investment in anyway they see fit.

---

These companies should invest in their own work. They should have a controlling interest in the vehicle they produce. But they also should be able to do this on their own without taxpayer money. If they firmly believe in the "if you build it, they will come" business plan, it should not have taken government intervention to make it happen.

posted 05-23-2010 11:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
I will not take any pleasure in watching Joe Billionaire orbiting the Earth in a private spacecraft which I helped pay for, yet have no affordable access to.

---

posted 05-23-2010 12:00 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
Mr. Armstrong aside, can I assume it's your argument too? In which case, please explain why it's a sound and valid one.

---

posted 05-23-2010 03:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Then you should take no pleasure in watching professional astronauts flying on public spacecraft which you helped pay for, yet have absolutely no access to.

If your gauge of pleasure is based on your personal access to the vehicle, then there is no difference.

---

That's a fallacious position Robert. The professional astronauts are there as the outstanding members of a meritocracy certainly - but it is a meritocracy open to the vast majority of Americans if they choose this goal. The commercial sector is undisputedly open to only a tiny minority and will remain so, even at Virgin Galactic prices.

So the US tax payer absolutely will be funding the joy rides of the wealthy for a long time to come. And in the light of the recent removal of more than a trillion dollars from the world's taxpayers to the world's financial institutions and thus to their shareholders & executives I feel they've already had enough free rides.

posted 05-23-2010 10:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Then you should take no pleasure in watching professional astronauts flying on public spacecraft which you helped pay for, yet have absolutely no access to.

---

I take a great deal of pleasure in watching American astronauts take part in the very complicated, dangerous business of spaceflight as professionals operating very expensive, complex equipment. I will take a great deal of pleasure watching professional astronauts begin exploring the solar system again. Rest assured, my chances of being one of those people rank right up there with the chances the Gulf oil leak shutting itself off, but I am still happy to contribute some of my income to see it happen. It will help better our country, and that will make me proud.

The President has never said that he submitted this proposal in order to make personal spaceflight more commonplace (reference the proposal outline at the beginning of this thread). It has been pointed out that Bolden and Garver have dropped some hints that this is a very distant possibility, but may have inadvertently revealed yet another flaw of the "plan."

I stand by my position regarding the public funding of space taxi development. The American people have no interest in being taken advantage of (yet again) under a misrepresentation of how such a huge expenditure will benefit them, when in fact it will only benefit the corporations and the uber-wealthy.

quote:

---

If your gauge of pleasure is based on your personal access to the vehicle, then there is no difference. Wait, strike that. There is a difference. Under the professional astronaut/public spacecraft model you will never have access; with self-funded passengers/private spacecraft you will always have a chance (win the lottery, win a sweepstakes, work hard and save your money

---

Now, if I were to make an investment, in the form of a downpayment or loan to a private space tourism company, then yes, my expectation would be that at some point it would provide me the opportunity to take part.

Did the U.S. use taxpayer money to build the B-2, F-22, C-17, or any other purpose-built aircraft and say to us, "Hey folks, if this works out, Lockheed Martin or Boeing can sell these to anyone who will buy them and you might get a ride!"? Uh, no.

However, when Boeing studied the global airline market in the 1960's it worked very closely with Juan Tripp and Pan Am Airlines, which invested substantially in the 747. Two private businesses working together in a very high-risk program which was initiated for the sole purpose of transporting the "average Joe" from A to B.

Personal spaceflight will not be a spinoff of CCDev. This is a pipedream being floated around in order to make this proposal sound more promising than it really is. It will only be made possible if enough people or private entities with the means express an interest (demand) and pony up some real dollars (investment) to a visionary company that has the talent and the tools to make it happen.

But the highest price paid will be the lack of progress toward any real exploration. Just look at the slow pace of development at Virgin Galactic right now. Just look at the Falcon 9 sitting on the pad at the Cape (still looking at that May launch?). These things are not easy, and the cost rapidly spirals out of control when the inevitable delays occur.

posted 05-23-2010 11:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You're kidding right? At least here in the U.S., we are an entertainment-driven society (and judging by the success of British tabloids, the UK is, too). The public takes more interest in what their favorite celebrities are doing then they do most other things in life.

---

That's the best explanation NOT to fund such program!

posted 05-24-2010 03:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by robsouth:
It is my argument too.

---

I was in fact referring to why you, Mr. Armstrong and other Constellation supporters insist other nations will overtake the US (or NASA) when America's former rival Russia wishes to co-operate in future projects.

In the meantime, Chinese taikonauts last flew in 2008 and will not fly again until 2011. Not to the Moon, and certainly not Mars! Yet, Mr. Armstrong did not (and will not) emphasise this key point.

posted 05-24-2010 07:36 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
So how will the US be overtaken by other nations in human spaceflight? Has China developed warp-drive technology(?)

---

It does not matter what you did, it's what can you do for me today. These countries or country will be seen as a world leader. That's the way it works.

Please do not assume that a few brief spaceflights means they must fly the same number as the US before flying more advanced missions. Russia and the US have done the development work. It will be much easier (although still hard) for another nation to accomplish.

While this is happening, it looks like the US will be sitting on its hands waiting for a company to develop a mythical commercial craft, which at best will take many years to develop, and a huge infusion of government funds to make it fly, and then at the end of this decade the US will once again only have the ability to get into LEO...only this time in a sardine can like spacecraft. Welcome back to the world of Mercury and Gemini.

posted 05-24-2010 08:14 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
I think you underestimate Obama's widespread support, and overestimate the opposition's zeal for science of ANY kind. When was the last time Republicans actually FUNDED space exploration? Eisenhower, in 1957. Nixon CANCELLED Apollo, remember?

---

posted 05-24-2010 08:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Welcome back to the world of Mercury and Gemini.

---

It's all an ifs-and-buts hypothesis that China will send people to the Moon before whomever and whenever. Does it even matter? National prestige is all style and no substance.

posted 05-24-2010 10:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
...but it is a meritocracy open to the vast majority of Americans if they choose this goal.

---

quote:

---

The commercial sector is undisputedly open to only a tiny minority and will remain so, even at Virgin Galactic prices.

---

quote:

---

So the US tax payer absolutely will be funding the joy rides of the wealthy for a long time to come.

---

Of the privately-funded fliers to date, at least two flew to advance their scientific research, one did so for education and a fourth flew for philanthropic reasons. Richard Garriott funded, flew and conducted more protein crystal growth research than all that has been accomplished by professional astronauts to date.

Secondly, the taxpayers are paying only to send professional astronauts to the ISS. Those flying privately will be paying for their own flights (otherwise it would be like suggesting that every time the government reserves a rental car or buys a ticket on a commercial airline, taxpayers are underwriting others' vacations and business trips).

quote:

---

...giving up a deep space exploration program to fund the building of space yachts.

---

I think there is a very serious and appropriate desire for this country to turn over access to low Earth orbit to commercial companies, and that is to free up the assets so that as a country we can go do the things that have absolutely no business model yet, which is space exploration. I completely and a thousand percent agree with that approach.

So if that is the national goal or the national will, then I suspect we're going to try to do everything we can to help these commercial companies get established, get a system that is affordable, reliable, so that they can find a business market that is stable.

And I think that makes a lot of sense. I am not exactly sure how we are going to pull that all together but I think that is the right direction to go.

posted 05-24-2010 10:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
...never spent a dime of our country's investment under the false pretense of providing access to me or anyone else.

---

quote:

---

...but I am still happy to contribute some of my income to see it happen.

---

quote:

---

The President has never said that he submitted this proposal in order to make personal spaceflight more commonplace

---

quote:

---

Personal spaceflight will not be a spinoff of CCDev.

---

quote:

---

This same slow progress will come to pass under this proposal, and our entire future in space hinges on it.

---

posted 05-24-2010 11:00 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
It's about perception.

---

posted 05-24-2010 12:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
You make it sound as if being successful and raising wealth is not an equally obtainable (or admirable) goal as compared to rising to the top of your scientific or engineering field.

---

quote:

---

Secondly, the taxpayers are paying only to send professional astronauts to the ISS. Those flying privately will be paying for their own flights (otherwise it would be like suggesting that every time the government reserves a rental car or buys a ticket on a commercial airline, taxpayers are underwriting others' vacations and business trips).

---

posted 05-24-2010 12:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Statements like "mythical commercial craft" are based solely on some people's perceptions and not reality.

---

With all due respect, you are kidding, right? If not, please name one orbital spacecraft where a commercial firm put up their money to design, build, and operate the craft and made a profit doing this.

As I have repeated too many times in these threads, please show or point to a business model where this can and will happen... and please do not play with what is and is not commercial. It's an endless and pointless game. So, where is the business model where the any government does not put up most if not all the capital?

posted 05-24-2010 01:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
National prestige is all style and no substance.

---

National prestige, like it or not, has played a major part of keeping NASA going in the past... it is also what most likely drives China and India. They want it too, because they understand the benefits.

posted 05-24-2010 01:46 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt T:
I would rather well trained professionals took us beyond LEO than this year's internet genius took an iPad into orbit to do some vital email research.

---

quote:

---

...as you well know the government didn't first heavily subsidize the design and assembly of the rental cars and planes.

---

Ever hear of AM General and its Humvee and Hummer?

quote:

---

I would absolutely expect the government to demand profit-share or subsidized rentals/flights.

---

posted 05-24-2010 01:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
it will remain a mythical craft...

---

Or if you prefer (with all due apologies to Shakespeare)...

That which we call a spacecraft, by any other name would launch to space.

posted 05-24-2010 02:22 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Spacecraft exist. How they are paid for is regardless. Unlike in many myths, the cost-plus contract possesses no magical powers.

---

The President's plan calls for and is about (in part) commercial manned orbital spacecraft replacing the Space Shuttle and Orion. That is the plan. How they are paid for makes all the difference. Changing it to something else and saying something different will be built is fine, it just reinforces the argument that the President's proposal is completely without merit in his and my lifetime. I wish it were otherwise.