After Half a Century Space Advocacy/Policy Is Broken

1. I think the more viable alternative that has emerged of late: earn a fortune and then go develop or tour space yourself, instead of arguing before Congress, conferences or Internet forums.

   1. Amen….

   2. Funny that as Branson’s Virgin Galactic has yet to log a single minute in surborbital space 😉 FWIW, if NASA HSF advocates live in hope of a sustainable plan then taxpaying laypersons won’t care either way. Explain the relevance of things in a manner similar to what Ed Lu was saying at the B612 Foundation press conference. That or trying to prove Hoagland’s glass domes on the Moon theory would be a better rationale for Orion and SLS than Tito’s pie in the sky(!)

      1. That or trying to prove Hoagland’s glass domes on the Moon theory

         [Laughs] That’s crazy enough to work. NASA usually tries so hard to either debunk or just avoid conspiracy theories. Maybe they need to go full retard.

         “NASA demands right to explore Mars animal sightings – ‘We need to send expert trappers now!'”, “NASA director asks: What is Obama hiding? Demands to send moon landing skeptics to check supposed Apollo sites once and for all.” “Is there an alien base on dark side of the moon? NASA says yes! And wants to visit. [Photos]”

         1. Maybe Buzzfeed-esque sensationalism really is the answer, heh.

            “NASA wants to prove humans can live on Mars. You won’t believe why Congress doesn’t want to give them the money”

            “Experts say we can explore deep space with existing rockets. You’ll never guess who convinces Congress to design their own monster rocket anyway.”

            “Astronauts and scientists tell Congress we should explore space more aggressively. What happens next to NASA’s budget will amaze you!”

            “Most people won’t notice how many exoplanets have been discovered in this picture. Want to find more?”

2. Keith, someone, explain in more than one or two words why Mars One, Exploration Mars, SpaceX and Mars Society have no presence at this conference.

   On the bright side, the H2M conference shows that there are plenty of concept studies and ongoing refinement of old ideas. But the conferences discussions are founded on the assumption that SLS and Orion and the present costly EELVs will enable the missions to Mars by humans. For us on the outside, the best we can assume or hope is that these LVs and return capsules function as placeholders to enable the conference discussion.

   However, to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the conference is a promotional opportunity. But we needn’t worry that they will run with these ideas soon, in haste and waste of public funds. The present NASA budget, the cost to build and then maintain SLS and Orion dash any hopes of establishing humans on Mars by the 2030s. If as they agree, the effort will be international, then there will be powerful and unbiased partners that look at the low cost alternatives to using SLS and Orion and insist on the most cost effective paths, starting with heavy lift and the capsules for launch to LEO and re-entry.

   Despite all the talk of the importance of ISS as a testbed and proving ground of Mars H2M tech, when 2024 arrives, there could be a lot of pressure by these established contractors and supporting NASA administrators to drop ISS into the Pacific to free up $3 Billion. If this is prevented, NASA and contractors are faced with asking for increased funding for HEOMD while promoting an expensive launch system while Washington continues to struggle with the huge deficit, taxes and waste in government.

   So some breaking point will be reached where additional funding will require a hard look at SLS and Orion. Bolden has spoken publicly of the hardship to engineers when the plug was pulled on Constellation. Whether we want to call it a high priced welfare program or not, there may be no choice but to allow these contractors and engineers to build and execute EM-1 and EM-2 but at that juncture, it appears that commercial alternatives will offer an alternative that frees up NASA funds for executing a roadmap to Mars.

3. Keith – To be more precise, for a half-century, mainline space policy advocacy has been broken. The mainline advocacy groups’ core concept has long been to convince 50%+1 of the population to tell their Congressmen to fund NASA at Apollo levels again, then Bob’s yer uncle. Shoulder to shoulder en masse we’ll march, forward into the universe!

   I figured out it’s nonsense within months of showing up to work at L5 Society HQ in 1986. The basic data has been remarkably consistent, the 1970’s through now: Poll them, and about two-thirds of the US public will tell you space is cool stuff. (Call it ~70%.)

   Poll them further, and maybe a tenth of that 70% have any clue what we’re actually doing or how much we’re actually spending in space, or would actually support (passively) our spending more. Call it ~7%

   And ask them to put any of their personal time, effort, or money into it, and you’re down another factor of ten – call it .7%.

   IOW, the trad advocacy 50%+1 approach is utterly obviously farging hopeless, and has been since Apollo wound down, and space fans really should know better by now, yes.

   What I and a few others figured out in the late eighties is, if what you’ve got is a small but very motivated minority, work with what you’ve got. Forget 50%+1. Adopt minority pressure group tactics, then stick with it patiently for a decade or two. Subvert the dominant paradigm, man…

   It works. Else gay marriage would still be illegal in 50 states, and NASA cargoes wouldn’t be traveling to Station on commercial (!) ships. (Honestly, having watched NASA these last few decades, I’m more shocked at the latter.)

   Henry Vanderbilt
   Space Access Society

4. The first requirement for human flight to Mars – abandon all space activities that don’t contribute directly to human flight to Mars. This doesn’t make sense to me. Mars isn’t an end in itself. Why the deadline? What happens after the landing?

   “If your intention is to go to Mars, go to Mars.” If it isn’t part off a sustainable and practical program of space development with long-term customers, how will it be sustainable? And why the commitment to SLS and Orion?

   Jeff Bingham said that the VSE was a response to the CAIB Report. However the CAIB Report said that a Shuttle replacement should be designed solely for transportation too and from LEO, since the resources were not available to safely accomplish a more ambitious goal.

   I suggest a different goal, to build a future in which large numbers of people will be working, vacationing and living in space, producing value greater than the cost of going there.

5. Marburger 2005 did…

6. Funding from the president as a ‘vision” isn’t sustainable. Two market studies have shown that the demand for spaceflight follows the curve of supply and demand. A viable market simply requires shifting the supply curve. If the price of a seat to LEO can be brought down to $1M the number of customers will increase to the point where a viable market will exist. This isn’t possible by increasing government demand. Rather, the government needs to do exactly what they did 100 years ago for aviation; reduce the cost by helping manufacturers (like SpaceX) develop new reusable launch technologies.

Comments are closed.