Slashdot Mirror
Commercial Space: Spirit of Apollo Or Spirit of Solyndra?
MarkWhittington writes "Andrew Chaikin, the author of A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts, believes that the spirit of Apollo no longer resides at NASA, but rather in the nascent commercial space companies such as SpaceX. This assessment is disputed by many, who see in the Obama administration program of government subsidies for commercial space the spirit of Solyndra."
They deliver stuff that works. They also don't have Chinese competition (at least for US customers). Solyndra had a bit of an Iridium-style problem, where the market got undercut by other sources.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
If SpaceX gets humans back on the moon, then more power to them. Currently, though, the notion that "private sector will solve all!" seems like more of an ideological excuse than an honest assessment of what the U.S. is capable of in space.
I'm starting to think we haven't gone to the moon since 1972 because we forgot how.
Take a great idea, throw your own money at it, make it work and get an immediate hunk of cash to do the next milestone/level/whatever. What is not to love about this?!?
Do you want to know why the American economy is swirling down the shitter? It's became Americans have become nancies. They have become sissies, if you will. They don't have the guts to take real risks. They don't have the guts to try something new.
Maybe this shouldn't be surprising. America often has been a backward "conservative" nation for much of its history. Aside from a few generations at the very beginning of America's modern history, the tolerance for risk has been decreasing rapidly. Without real risk you can't have real gain.
This story is a perfect example. This is clearly a very minor issue with a simple solution: send some willing astronauts in spacecraft into space, knowing that some missions may not succeed or even return! But America as a culture will overlook this, and will overlook the immense economic and environmental benefits that this technology would bring, because they are TOO FUCKING SCARED to take what's a very minor risk.
There simply is not much demand to put stuff into orbit. Annually, about 20-30 satellites are put into orbit. A significant number of those are military/spy satellites. Because of the military/spy importance of space, the major powers (US, Russia, and China) finance their own launch vehicles, manufacturing and launch infrastructure. From an economic standpoint, a single rocket design and launch infrastructure would be sufficient for a few hundred launches / year.
In other words, the space launch market exists, only because the insanely rich military makes it exist.
I generally see Mark Whittington as being the chief cheerleader for the "let's do Apollo again" school of space flight. There's nothing wrong with that, except that NASA has pretty definitively proven over a period of decades that it's too bureaucratic, too sclerotic, and too much organized as a patronage/jobs organization to do anything big in manned space flight. Even were that not the case, it's a shame that Whittington continually elides the fact that the commercial space contracts — both cargo and crew — only pay out when specific milestones are achieved, and they pay fixed amounts for those milestones. In other words, this isn't Solyndra, where money is just thrown down the drain with no expectation of success; that actually better describes NASA's normal manned space flight program than it does the commercial space companies.
I think Chaikin's right, and that the entrepreneurial spirit that characterized NASA in the 1960s now resides in the private space companies. And as a bitter critic of the Obama administration on pretty much every other point, I nonetheless have to say that this is the one area where they've definitely improved on the Republicans.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
We could sure use some Jack K. spirit right about now.
A segment of people want to enforce their way of life on everyone else, and knowing that their beliefs are unpopular with voters, seek government power to forcefully do it. It's a story as old as time.
what these fucking morons forget is that the only ONLY ONLY reason we went into space was because the Soviet Union did.
the ONLY reason we went to the moon was to beat the Soviet Union.
there hasn't been a Soviet Union in 20 years. there is not going to be another space program.
Don't know who Jack K. is, but I sure wish for the spirit of Deke Slayton right about now.
We show geeks how to get their dream girl at EyesOfOdessa.com
Mars? Perhaps, but it makes much more sense to send probes there.
Considering that Deke Slayton was heavily involved with the construction of the Conestoga rocket system in the 1980's, I'd say he certainly has a foot in both the early days of Apollo (even being one of the original Mercury seven), and in some ways one of the very early pioneers of commercial rocketry. He embodies perhaps the whole of what was once upon a time NASA of a long ago era and what could have become of commercial spaceflight.... if America will only let it happen.
Yeah, the spirit of Deke Slayton would be of particular interest at the moment, and it would be good to invoke him in any such discussion of the intersections of NASA's past glories and what is happening now for spaceflight in America today.
The rocket they delivered worked. End of story.
The Obama administration has a lot of problematic policies related to tech (Solyndra, Yucca Mountain, green energy, etc.) but as far as NASA and space is concerned, they for once have the right idea of buying services from the private sector.
Congress is the group that wants the return to the old NASA, primarily because that keeps the money flowing to the old NASA centers.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
SpaceX only had ONE (partially) successful flight. Nothing more. All others were fatal failures with loss of the cargo. And the one where the cargo made it to orbit, it put the spacecraft (satellite) in an orbit lower than the target orbit and the secondary (test) cargo failed miserably.
On the last "test" flight, the nose cone (where the cargo was supposed to be) fell off in mid-flight and the vehicle auto-destroy itself. But SpaceX put out a claim that the flight was a complete success. The ONLY test of the "Dragon" capsule was a success according to the company .... but they failed to tell people that the vehicle crash landed and was destroyed on impact because the "re-entry" system failed to activate.
SpaceX talks the talk, but so far has shown that they CAN'T deliver anything safely.
We should be willing to take risks. But spending hundreds of billions on a manned space program with poorly defined goals only to watch the astronauts burn up in reentry is not the kind of risk we should be taking. You found a very good way of pointing out how little truth there is in claims that dead astronauts' sacrifices pave the way for others.
Until we're willing to make large and meaningful goals and commitments (like a lunar base/observatory) we have little reason to spend money and lives taking unnecessary risks.
SpaceX does not have anybody experienced in MANNED SPACE FLIGHT. At best, all they got is a few Electrical Engineers that managed some satellite project while at JPL.
JPL is known for claiming that they built this and that, when in reality all they have done is manage or coordinate the work done by others. For example, out of all the Mars proves and rovers they claim to have built, not a single one was designed or built by JPL personnel or anywhere near a JPL facility. Every single one of them were designed and built by sub-contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, TRW, General Dynamics, Space Science Corp, etc.
the book i read described it as follows.
1. the soviets knew they could never compete with US on conventional force levels
2. the soviets decided that ICBMs would be the only way to counter a US threat
3. Korolev managed to pack a lot of sciency hippie carl-sagan type shit in under their noses
4. Eisenhower had almost no interest in the exploration of space.
so in essence, the soviets 'started it' to compete with our conventional forces.
why did the soviets do that? well there was this gigantic asshole called Karl Marx...
The Dragon test flight were successful only in SpaceX press release. IT CRASH LANDED.
Whom ever told you that there was some cheese wheel that flew into space in the Dragon is probably laughing at your dumb face right now. The Dragon space capsule has NEVER flown into space. The only test done was a high altitude test drop that FAILED. The videos an pictures you see of the orange striped parachutes are images of the system test done over a year ago using a "mockup" (as in fake) capsule simulating the weight.
2011 is passing and SpaceX hasn't launched jack. I thought these jokers were supposed to be fast. Definitely the 'spirit of Solyndra'.
Uh, dude: http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
I believe SpaceX have been waiting for NASA to give them the go-ahead to fly the first Dragon flight to ISS, so complaining that SpaceX are slow is amusing.
Of course advancing space travel sounds good, we all grew up with science fiction. Also, the notion of "leaving the cradle" has a nice ring to it. ... ? These rocks are filled with it. Then there is also helium-3 on the moon, endless supply of hydrogen in the gas giants, solar radiation which can be harnessed much better from orbit (the old microwave beam idea), ...
But the main problem is the incentive. Why should we really go into space? The cradle argument is valid, but not a very big short-term motivator.
Instead, I think harvesting resources is the real motivation. Getting materials from the asteroid belt alone would end resource problems pretty quickly. Running out of iridium, indium, platinum
The initial costs are enormous, but if there is a realistic reason why space travel should march on, it is this. Not the romantic picture of astronauts zipping through space.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
Spacex is making it happen! I can't believe that my generation is finally witnessing Apollo-like endeavors from a private enterprise.
Ayn Rand would be proud of these SpaceX folks; but what do we have now instead? The socialists of both parties upset that their 30-year old world view is crumbling by the forces of engineers applying themselves systematically!
Anecdotes from a supplier of NASA and Space-X:
NASA: They called for support, but could not follow suggestions because the person on the phone was a software person, not a hardware person. They were not authorized to use a screwdriver and reseat a PCI card.
Space-X: Support calls from knowledgable people around the clock and on weekends. Apple employees had their "90 hours a week and loving it" t-shirts. From what I can tell, Space-X is living that sentiment.
Many different, diametrically-opposed segments of people want to enforce their way of life on everyone else, and knowing that their beliefs are unpopular with voters, seek government power to forcefully do it.
There, fixed that for you...
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The fact is that Apollo was one of our greatness. So is Solar PVs. The problem with private space, like solar PV, is that others are cheating. For example, here in America, federal law PROHIBITS the feds from competing against private space. Yet, with Ares and now with the Senate launch system, that is exactly what they are doing. Add to that the fact that China is dumping on the world their heavily subsidized launches, as well as money manipulated system, and it is just digusting.
Now, as to 'Spirit of Solyndra', was it a disaster? Nope. It was profitable. So where was the issue? China was dumping on the market. They are dumping WELL BELOW COSTS. Solyndra SHOULD have had several years of great profits from their plant. It did not happen. Why? All be China dumps heavily. Sadly, O has been like W: do nothing about China's cheating. Thankfully, several weeks ago, Germany, and possibly EU, are screaming about China's illegal actions. So, we joined in on that. BUT, we should have done it 2 years ago. And private space in America is going to have the same issue. It is not just illegal competition from the feds, but from China that is going to cause the real issues.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry, but you are talking about a company with a 90% failure and only ONE of their cargo has ever made it into orbit (and not the target one).
The issue with at cost contract being more expensive has nothing to do with greed or even poor engineering. The problem is that the government has the tendency to CHANGE THE REQUIREMENTS late in the game, adding additional cost that wasn't accounted for on the beginning. They also force contractors to use specific vendors that don't necessarily have the experience or track record to support the project .... and they cause a lot of delays when their parts are not delivered in time or within minimum specs, the tests are faked to pass requirement or even deliver untested devices. Then the government forces the contractor to SKIP testing to meat artificial deadlines. An example of all this are the MPO (Mars Polar Orbiter) and MPL (Mar Polar Landing) projects.
True. And the fast and easy way to solve the issue is to rigorously clip government's wings.
The people who put together the Mars Science Laboratory at JPL will be surprised to hear that. Yes, I know that some components such as the robotic arm were developed and built elsewhere.
You really shouldn't just make stuff up.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Only one attempt has been made under the COTS program. And and it was a success. Your subject line would have the reader believe that there were 9 unsuccessful attempts. Both flights of the Falcon 9 to date have been successful (the first of which was not even under COTS).
I would suggest that perhaps you meant to include the Falcon 1 (even though no Falcon 1 flights have been part of COTS), but clearly we would then need to increase the total number of successful missions (even though it had 3 failed launch attempts, it had 2 successful launches). Even though that number is not relevant to a discussion of COTS, it would be 4 successful flights (2 Falcon 9 launches and 2 Falcon 1 launches) and 3 failures (all Falcon 1 launches, none under COTS) that's 3/7 or 43% failure rate. And that's completely misleading because it includes test flights which no sane person would count.
Thank you for not detailing your claim, but perhaps you were referring to this:
Before the launch they noticed some cracks in the second stage engine. Rather than delaying the flight, they trimmed the cracked section from the nozzle and proceeded with the launch. They cleared the change with NASA prior to the flight, and NASA and SpaceX understood that it would interfere with the performance with the vehicle.
Given the nature of the flight, the orbit achieved did not need to precisely match the target in order to meat mission goals. In any case, they did pretty well.
That's right, even if you wish to contend that the orbital objective wasn't met, you can't honestly say that the Falcon 9 was not capable of making them, because after the mission was over they flew the second stage out to a much higher altitude just to show that they could.
In summary, you numbers way off the mark. You either don't know what you are talking about, or you intend to spread lies. Check you facts before spouting nonsense like this.
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
Anyway, rigorously clipping the government's wings would lead to an even worse corporate oligarchy than now exists.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
Mark Whittington is notorious for getting these things so very wrong. For some reason, we're supposed to view SpaceX and related companies as nacent Solyndras waiting to go wrong, but not the companies that will consume vast amounts of federal funding on the space launch system, a heavy lift vehicle that a) isn't planned to do anything for a decade (and may never launch at all!), b) has no payloads planned for it, c) is vastly more expensive than alternatives (such as commercial plus orbital propellant depots), and d) is IMHO less likely to complete than the commercial programs that Whittington slams (yet again).
Have you ever read about the few airborne nuclear propulsion tests they did? Running a small research reactor in a plane, the small amount of shielding they could put in it left the aircraft so radioactive from neutron activation that they couldn't get near it for weeks.
Plus, the plutonium for RTGs is some REALLY nasty stuff. It would be a lot safer if we could put that reactor in lunar orbit - since the RTGs are only used on deep-space missions, and we're getting pretty good at remote processing of fuels, someone will put the idea together. However, ther would never be enough to justify the huge costs associated with it...
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
- how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to achieve the perfection of a society on this planet? I mean you believe that as an absolute ruler you'll achieve something valuable, some form of 'paradise' on this planet, but doesn't that mean that your goal is so wonderful (in your eyes) and it is so noble and so honorable and so holly almost, that anything and everything must be done to achieve it, and you can then justify any means to achieve your goal?
What if some people disagree and do not do what you want them to do, to achieve your wonderful, holly goal, will you sacrifice the lives of say 5 people?
If the goal is for the benefit of 7,000,000,000 people, will you be able to justify a sacrifice of say 1% of the population to achieve it, if they don't do what you want and go against your rule?
How about 10%, it's still the same wonderful and holly goal, do you think it may be worth the 10% sacrifice?
Maybe anything below 50%, right? But maybe your goal is so great, that it's worth the sacrifice of many more than that, after all, you are aiming for 'perfection', right? And the crowd, if it doesn't go along with your goal, they don't matter, the goal is more important.
Dostoevsky in his The Brothers Karamazov looks at this question in detail, if your goal is what you believe the ultimate goal, a goal of modifying the society and then the men will just 'change their way', because your society will be so perfect... isn't it easier to love the society, the humanity more than loving any specific individual?
How many specific individuals would you sacrifice for your perfect goal? How about 85%? 95%? 99%? Everybody except the few who are totally devoted to your goal?
Is it really such a great goal when it becomes obvious that you need to sacrifice a SINGLE life to achieve it?
You can't handle the truth.
The faster, easier way is to make me absolute ruler of all Earth.
- how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to achieve the perfection of a society on this planet? I mean you believe that as an absolute ruler you'll achieve something valuable, some form of 'paradise' on [snip] Everybody except the few who are totally devoted to your goal?
Is it really such a great goal when it becomes obvious that you need to sacrifice a SINGLE life to achieve it?
I think you forgot to take your medications.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
As someone who works as a contractor at Goddard Space Flight Center (just outside the Washington DC Beltway), I can tell you that NASA spending in my district is heavily promoted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D).
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
It's sort of second-order right now - NASA is one place where shifting activity to the private sector will almost certainly reduce costs, which will leave more money to be redirected elsewhere.
The Obama administration should be supported when they do the right thing, like at NASA, and flamed when they do the wrong thing, like basically everywhere else in tech.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.