NASA: Situation Normal, All Foamed Up
Nick Gillespie | July 28, 2005, 2:28pm
So let's get this straight: It takes forever for NASA to fly another shuttle mission, the main purpose of which is to see whether the shuttle can repair foam tile problems in space (that and collecting overdue Blockbuster rental tapes left at the Intergalactic Space Station and replenishing dangerously low Tang supplies). And now NASA is grounding the shuttle fleet because of more foam problems.
Is this any way to run a space program?
I don't think so. Give me Burt Rutan and other space entrepreneurs anyday.
More on NASA antics here.
John | July 28, 2005, 4:32pm | #
Someone remind me what manned space flight has actually accomplished? Anything more than a few lunar footprints?
Well, many posts are economic in nature...sats are cheaper, etc. If I'm launching a new sat tv network, yea, big, dumb rocket.
But there is more to space that sats. There is exploration, of man's destiny to move out of the cave, to see what's over the hill, beyond the forest, beyond the ocean.
Man belongs in space because man can. Dogs can't, monkeys can't, birds can't, not without man.
We belong in space because man is a curious creature, with the intelligence to find a way to explore.
Man will go to Mars for the same reason man went to the moon, for the same reason man has always explored.
Because we can, because we should.
Is it cheaper, a better use of resources? Who knows, probably not. But an artist would find a better use for paint on the side of his house, not on a canvas, but he paints because he can.
I was born six months after the first moon landing, and I only hope to see man on Mars before I die.
thoreau | July 28, 2005, 11:41pm | #
First, as a libertarian, I should say that in an ideal world all science would be private, yadda yadda yadda.
Second, as a science geek, I should say that NASA does some pretty freaking awesome stuff, and I admire the accomplishments (even though, as a libertarian, I wish it were privatized, yadda yadda).
Now, I do think manned spaceflight is worth doing for its own sake. (As long as it's privately funded, yadda yadda.) But NASA's approach has been to combine missions: Manned space travel, scientific expeditions, and national security missions (defense satellites, and yes, I know, not all DoD satellites are launched by NASA, but DoD and NASA have a working relationship).
The problem is that manned missions are almost never the most cost-effective way to do science. They may very well yield better science than some unmanned missions, but quality can be balanced against quantity, and quantity is limited by cost. (Note that this limitation applies regardless of whether the science is privately or publicly funded.) The primary exception is studying the effect of zero-gravity on humans. But that brings me to my next point:
Commercial approaches are the best way to get as many people as possible to "boldly go where only a handful of men have gone before." Even if one isn't interested in libertarian ideology, and even factoring in the huge cost of emerging private space travel enterprises, private space travel will still get a lot more people into space.
And more people in space means more opportunities to collect data on how zero-g affects humans.
That's this geek's take on it.
Matt Medlin | July 29, 2005, 3:20pm | #
Private space travel ain't happening, folks. I used to do economic analysis for an advanced space projects study group, so I'm very familiar with the financial aspects of new space ventures.
There are two big problems with commercial space travel:
1. It is a very risky business, which demands a very high rate of return (think venture capital type rates of 25% - 50%)
2. It requires an enormous up-front investment, and any revenue is usually at least 5-10 years out.
Anyone who is familiar with present value analysis knows that when the discout rate is over 25%, revenues that are 10 years out might as well not even exist. So basically you have to have a business concept that makes a LOT of money and makes it QUICKLY, or nobody is going to give you a dime. To my knowlege there is no source of revenue waiting out there in space that satisfies these criteria.
The business models most championed by private spaceflight enthusiasts are "space tourism" and "small satellite launch." Small satellite launching bit the dust when Iridium died, taking $5 billion in investor wealth to the grave along with it. The launch startups who where depending on this market -- Rotary Rocket, Kistler Aerospace, Kelly Aerospace, Pioneer Rocketplane, etc -- all folded when it became apparent that nobody was going to need hundreds of small, low Earth orbit launches.
Space tourism, on the other hand, is a COMPLETELY speculative, unproven and highly risky market. Even if a space tourism market does exist, it won't exist after some space tourism operator blows a Hilton or a Rockefeller to smithereens -- and they will. There is no such thing as a "safe" launch vehicle, and there never will be during our lifetimes. The only reason Rutan has gotten as far as he has with Spaceship One is because Paul Allen was willing to drop a boatload of cash on him. I doubt he could have ever secured regular venture capital financing.
A lot of you seem to be preocupied with the Libertarian debate about whether space travel should be a public or a private venture. There is no debate here. The choice is between government subsidized human spaceflight, or NO human spaceflight. The idea that we can fire NASA and let the private sector pick up where they left off is a complete fantasy. Believe me, a lot of very smart people have been trying to figure out how to make it work for a very long time, and we are all still drawing a blank.
Personally, I'm willing to let my Libertarian principles slide when it comes to basic science and technology research (like NASA, NSF, pharmaceutical research, etc.) The $14 billion NASA gets every year is chump change -- about one half of 1% of the Federal budget. I don't resent the few hours a year I have to work to pay the taxes that fund NASA. I DO resent the hell out of what they have been doing with my money for the last thirty years, though.
