The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Dr. O wrote:

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head.


It is quite possible that people at NASA thinks that way. But human
space flight
becoming economically viable shouldn't kill NASA (specially in the
unlikely case
where it would of been NASA that would of made it become so). The first A in
NASA is still there and air flight has been economically viable for some
time.

Alain Fournier

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html


Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article
points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:42:14 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html


Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article
points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

Actually, it doesn't even need to do that, at least any more than it's
already doing. It just needs to be a good customer.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

With regard to your commments on the NASA "culture":

As a former employee of both NACA and NASA, I would
say, just compare how the two organizations operated.
NACA was always very decentralized with many small
projects--some of which competed directly with each
other. I remember working at Ames on a transsonic
research program that recovered a drop missile that
recorded data with optical levers, etc. Langley
had a similar program that used telemetry. They
would compare notes. There may have been some
friendly rivalry, but never plots to kill one
another off to gain complete control of the program.

I worked for the National Academy of Sciences before
and after Sputnik--and worked indirectly for both
Drs. Van Allen, Pickering (then head of JPL), and
Homer Newell (NRL).

There was a bill in Congress to make JPL NASA, and
another to make ABMA NASA. But NACA was so well
liked and respected--thanks in part to gentlemen
like Hugh Dryden and thanks in part to the NACA culture,
that Jim Van Allen (a later vociferous critic) and
others testified in favor of NACA getting the job--
primarily because, well, it was NACA.

In 1959 while at NASA Headquarters, some of my
colleagues from NACA Langley complained: "We used
to complain about the USAF bureaucracy, but we've
already gotten worse."

How do we go back? Perhaps an Advisory Committee
again, with no big fiefdoms. In order to avoid
the big fiefdoms, the new organization cannot have
any huge programs like ISS or Space Shuttle.
Apollo was an opportunity, a trap, and an anomaly.
Apollo should not be part of the discussion. This
does not mean that NASA could not do things like
a manned Mars mission or a return to the moon. I
think the odds of something like that happening
would actually better with an NACA culture and a
robust commmercial space transportaion industry.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

"Rand Simberg"

That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

Well, you said it was expensive.

"if the agency continues to ignore the pent-up demand for public space travel,
it risks irrelevancy"

NASA will continue to ignore public space travel. Public space travel is an
irrevelancy. We do not pursue manned spaceflight with the goal of inventing a
new public curiosity.

"Dr. O" wrote in message ...
Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

A shuttle concept is not necessarily bad, as Japan and the EU both
have *unmanned* shuttle concepts that look very good. The EU one looks
pretty slick with painted on TPS.

The shuttle has the problems of being the *first* shuttle.

Look at how crappy the very first cars were. It was very common to get
flat tires fixed every thirty miles and other breakdowns.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

NASA would love to both save money on human space-flight *and* keep
their budget. They'd love to switch that to other projects (like Mars
of NEO's asteroids).

But we have to get beyond 1.0 of the shuttle.

Arthur Hansen

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:49:26 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Arthur Hansen) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Dr. O" wrote in message ...
Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

The problem is, as my column points out, it won't. At least not the
less expensive part. Whether it will be safer remains to be seen. I
have my doubts, but I also think that safety shouldn't trump
everything else, so that's another dumb reason to do OSP.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:48:47 CST, in a place far, far away, "Misguided
Hairball" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

"Rand Simberg"

That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

Well, you said it was expensive.

"if the agency continues to ignore the pent-up demand for public space travel,
it risks irrelevancy"

NASA will continue to ignore public space travel. Public space travel is an
irrevelancy.

To who? You?

Who cares what you think?

We do not pursue manned spaceflight with the goal of inventing a
new public curiosity.

How do you know what we pursue manned spaceflight for?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Misguided Hairball" writes:
"if the agency continues to ignore the pent-up demand for public space travel,
it risks irrelevancy"

NASA will continue to ignore public space travel. Public space travel is an
irrevelancy. We do not pursue manned spaceflight with the goal of inventing a
new public curiosity.

Yes, the governments must leave it to the public, to mere people like
Wilbur and Orville. That's why I preconize to close down NASA and all
such administrations, and return the monies to the people.

--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.