No, but because Cecil is so cool, and attracts such activist nerds. Who likely vote. And maybe bug their elected officials.
Great link regarding the science committee.
Given what we see of the science committee, among other things, is it any wonder things seem to be standing still?
Actually, there’s been progress - mostly on privatization of launch system development. Scuttling the Shuttle program basically killed our Low Earth Orbit capabilities, which could have been leveraged while the private firms came up to speed. You’d have put the onus on Charlie Bolden about that one. He seems to suffer from a vision deficit. The Administration basically followed his uninspired lead.
No matter what we do next, NASA needs to work from Low Earth Orbit. Cutting the manned LEO programs was akin to plowing your corn under before you ran the combines through, to save on operating costs. It’ll cost us about five times more to reconstitute LEO capability, rather than scaling back and carrying some of it forward.
If memory serves, Bolden was CEO of an aerospace company between being an astronaut and being NASA Adminstrator. Wonder if he has any stock/options or venture money in any of the spin-offs, start-ups, competitors?
Follow the money is always the first rule of politics.
That cuts both ways. You need to ask why the military might be so happy about SBSP.
My answer is that in a sane world, the military budget would be cut by half. They know this and it terrifies them. Dangle a piece of a trillion-dollar spending plan in front of their face and they’ll snap at it like hungry dogs. But it is simply not possible in our contemporary political world for the military to be anywhere near SBSP, nor should it be. That’s one reason it will never get further than enthusiastic feasibility studies.
Proponents of Big Tech never seem to realize that projects of that magnitude as much social and political as they are scientific and engineering. Everything on SBSP falls onto the latter side. Personally, I find both equally impossible. Even if I didn’t, I would be spending all my time studying how to get a Big Tech project going in a world that is extremely suspicious of them and doesn’t want to spend the money on currently imaginary future benefits. That’s the more important facet today, and the solution would help a hundred projects besides SBSP. Ignore the social side, though, and I guarantee failure even for the most obvious and most critical programs. Look at climate change for an example of how people remain unimpressed by evidence that is staring them in the face. If you can’t do anything there, you cannot do anything with future tech.
Such a project would likely require international cooperation, which would not be likely given military overtures of the project (China and Russia would dissent, most likely).
“Follow the Money” - I totally agree. That’s why I’m calling out Bolden on his NASA mis-leadership, among other issues here. There’s also the issue of how there could have been strong media interest around SBSP back in 2007, but basically nothing made it out to the public.
If you check out the list of contributors, big energy and big defense contractors were absolutely in the mix. I don’t think you’ll find many who deny links between big money and big media.
Media consolidation in the U.S. is NOT a boon to representational democracy.
I don’t see the military as “happy about SBSP”. We don’t see the Joint Chiefs pushing for it. If the tool was there, it would help them reduce costs, and save lives. They noted benefits for disaster recovery efforts, too.
The Pentagon isn’t proposing the military build this thing, nor have any part in controlling. They were looking at national security, and concluded that hydrocarbon sources of power are a serious threat to U.S. security/economic viability. Their findings and recommendations are, simply, that Space Based Solar Power is prudent, pragmatic, and necessary.
They noted, that fostering socioeconomic stability internationally, reduces the “need” for such a large military. If other countries are linked to us via trade relations, and they have money to support their own regional security AND grow their economic infrastructures, we are more secure.
It’s absolutely clear that Space Based Solar Power is pragmatic and feasible. You are absolutely right - the big roadblocks ARE really only social and political.
I submitted Criswell’s proposal to my congresswoman, who was on the energy committee at the time. This was in 2002. The response I got was that the system had merit, but congress needed to do something NOW (that year), and there were more immediate solutions available that would do the trick.
We see how that’s worked out, ten years on.
The problem of human influence on climate change has to be addressed via politics, hence, social awareness - and activism - is key; as you so rightly observe.
BTW, I loved your statement: “At this rate the program will get off the ground at approximately the same time that the sun swells to encompass the earth.” That’s one of the most clever and sophisticated retorts I’ve ever seen. I still chuckle every time I think of that.
I think you’re putting far too much blame on Bolden. The end of the Shuttle Program was started by Bush. Shuttle was set to retire before the Constellation Program had launch capability. That was W.
Further added to that was the Columbia accident and the reassessment of the safety of the Shuttle Program. The risks were higher than previously assumed.
Bolden is stuck in the unenviable position of executing a plan put in place by the President - first the plan put in motion by Bush, and as adapted by Obama, but ultimately - and this is the key - the plan as funded and directed by Congress. Congress sets the national budget - they take the President’s recommendations, but they bleed all over it and hack it to bits and reassemble it into a Rube Goldberg of their own making. NASA’s budget is down. FY 2013 (what they are debating right now) at best it will be flat with 2012, and that is if we manage to avoid the fiscal cliff looming over the country. The partisanship in Congress is such a disaster right now I am not convinced they will pull their heads out of each others’ asses and find a solution. Anyway, the 2012 budget was down from 2011. Bolden has to make do with the funding he’s given, and make hard tradeoffs with the money approved.
While I lament the loss of an operational launch system before a replacement system is in place, I cannot agree that terminating the Shuttle hampers our ability to build the next system. Commercial systems are already in work - SpaceX is well along. The money just isn’t there for operating the bloated beast of Shuttle while trying to build the next launch system.
If the nation could afford it, then it would have been better from a different aspect. The risk is the loss of personnel who know operations while a new system is in design phase. It’s certainly not helping the economic recovery in Houston (and likely Florida) to have Shuttle ramp down and lay off.
We’re fortunate that we do have the ability to rely on the Russians for human space access during our own launch capability gap. Between the Russian Soyuz and Progress, and ESA (ATV), Japan (HTV), and now SpaceX (Dragon), we’ve got continued support to keep Americans in LEO on ISS.
We will weather the storm, and America’s space access will be stronger and more diverse as a result. We just have to get through the pain of transition.
Technically and financially, the USA could do this alone. There’s plenty of money and expertise to be had with public/private partnership. The business case is only weak to the extent taxpayer dollars continue to overly subsidize hydrocarbon and nuclear, actual costs to environment and society are absent from balance sheets, and the hydrocarbon reserves aren’t overly depleted.
All the big energy players are looking ahead, but as long as there’s milk, they’ll protect their cow.
That’s not a bad thing, but the lack of honest disclosure regarding taxpayer subsidies is warping our understanding of the actual costs involved.
As to consent/dissent, that’s a non-issue.
My personal concern is that China can’t build power capacity fast enough to stay on top of it’s economic development - and according to Henry Kissinger, they have to move 300 million people from the countryside into cities. China is working with Russia on nuclear power. They have stated plans for the moon, and the arc of their space program development has taken everyone by surprise. If they team up with Russia, that cooperation could put those two countries together on the moon, building a Lunar Solar Power system, ahead of anyone else.
Forget weapons of war. Try negotiating for energy rates with someone who needs/wants a competitive advantage over you, who has a monopoly on the cheapest source of power available.
Cecil said “if — big if — tidal generators were ever built.” Perhaps he didn’t research that line to Straight Dope standards. The Rance Tidal Power Station in France has been operating since 1966 and generates approximately 540 GWh annually. Wikipedia lists 7 operating tidal power stations, with 9 more under construction or proposed.
This is a case where the dangers are obvious and within everyone’s memory, where the science is sound and established, where working measures are in place elsewhere and don’t need new technologies to be invented, and where the political establishment is generally favorable. And even after last year’s disaster, it’s taken a second disaster to get doing something just to the talking about stage.
I come at this from an unusual place. I have social science training but I’m also a science fiction writer who knows people for whom Big Tech is a profession and an obsession. (Jerry Pournelle still talks about putting the Star Wars system into place.) I’m trying to combine both sides by researching how the public responded to these big plans about the future across the 20th century. They embrace some even when they seem ridiculous and shun others which might have huge benefits. This is one of the latter. That’s only my opinion, obviously, but I was right about Romney so I’m on a prediction high.
Obama didn’t set the vision for NASA, and evaluate NASA’s contributions in light of the financial circumstances of the country. Bolden did that. Bolden came up with Obama’s plan for NASA.
As such, Bolden’s vision and leadership was roundly criticized by the likes of Gene Krantz, Neil Armstrong, Kris Kraft, Jim Lovell, Eugene Cernan, and 21 other respected space professionals.
I watched a number of shuttle launches and ISS dockings live, via NASA TV. They changed their launch condition criteria, adopted on-orbit heat shield inspection and repair procedures. The Colombia accident was tragic, but the circumstance that created it was completely mitigated. Not a reason to discontinue the program.
Bolden wasn’t compelled to adopt a previous president’s plan. That’s not how it works. He was compelled to do his own review, make his own plan, present it to the president. The Constellation program was bloated, and the problem was there was not a unifying vision based on a tangible, time targeted main goal.
The way this went down doesn’t smell right.
Shuttle program, ramped down to minimum launches to support the ISS, was 2 Billion/year. Hardly a bloated beast. As you later mentioned, thousands of jobs were lost, and the economy took a hit.
Not mentioned, is the fact that much of the science planned for the International Space Station was only possible because of the Shuttle cargo bay, and the ability to return experimental modules and samples to earth in a glider’s bay. In addition, at this point, the ISS has no backup ammonia coolant pump, because the spare they sent up before the end of the program, had to be installed already. Without that pump, there’s no life support system. There were two planned launches, and no room or time in the manifest to deliver a proven spare.
So, to save the budget 2 billion/year, we destroyed thousands of jobs, lost vast institutional memory of safe space systems operation, shut down hundreds of science experiments, now spend over 50 million per seat for our astronauts to ride the soyuz, guarantee that the next phase of our space program will cost taxpayers about five times what we cut, AND put a 10 trillion dollar investment at risk because the next time the cooling pump goes down, we’ll have to abandon the ISS, and dump it into the Pacific Ocean.
In reality we actually could afford the shuttle program.
Also, the shuttles were designed for a lifetime of 100 missions each. None of them were anything close to that.
As for the private space contractors, all that was already in the works before Bolden became administrator.
Yes, Obama selected Bolden and then asked Bolden to develop the plan. But I underlined a key element for you.
I am aware of the criticism.
I am well aware of the changes instituted to reduce the risk. I know they implemented more launch video and video review, in addition to the above mentioned changes. I also am aware that the risk was not eliminated, that the root of the risk is the fragile nature of the shuttle tiles combined with the placement of the orbiter and the structure of the foam itself. I know they also implemented some tile repair options, but I also know the limits of that tile repair and that even with the systems they implemented there was no system available to repair Columbia in orbit. If the post-Columbia operations had been in place for Columbia, there is nothing they really could have done. Their best option would have been to rush the follow on shuttle to flight status. I forget what CAIB’s finding on that was.
Shuttle ramp down was already in motion. The supply chain had already started shut down. Shuttle could have been sustained, but Congress was already aware Shuttle was supposed to be retired after completion of the ISS. Shutting down Constellation is what put Congress in a tizzy, and the call to reevaluate Shuttle retirement.
Opinions differ.
That’s a criticism that hits close to home. The original plan had Constellation ramping up to take on those jobs. When it was cut, that left a hole for the shuttle workers.
There’s a lot of science for ISS that does not require payload return. But yes, the big hit from the loss of shuttle is the loss of payload return. Dragon has some capability, and it has been demonstrated. Not huge items like satellites, but payload racks for the interior.
I’m sure they are looking at how to get another one up there without Shuttle.
The airframes were designed for 100 missions, but they were also expected to fly those 100 missions within a decade. And as we discovered, the actual risk of those vehicles was 100 times greater than the originally believed risk.
Bolden’s contribution was to commit early to the idea of commercial manned space access not in competition with government launch.
Bolden had real work to do, definitely, because Constellation was out of control, and had pulled NASA adrift. His initial approach was to axe the whole thing, disrupting the bureaucratic inefficiencies that disturbed him, and figure out how much cost savings he could hold onto in the restructuring. Period.
Nothing about his approach showed much focus beyond what he could cut. Saving aspects of Constellation were done in spite of Bolden, not because of him.
NASA was already committed to private commercial access to space. Bolden didn’t do anything new there - he just put more money behind existing programs, to justify deep cuts elsewhere. Any acceleration or refocusing accommodated cuts, and/or was possibly self serving.
At the time he was appointed, he was owner and CEO of JackandPanther, a private consulting firm to military and private aerospace firms. Simultaneously, he held a separate consulting gig with SAIC. http://www.linkedin.com/pub/charles-f-bolden-jr/10/5bb/516
TechTrans was just awarded a NASA contract. The base contract is about 20 million dollars, with options and provisions that put the potential contract value as high as approximately 103 million dollars:
"WASHINGTON, Aug. 30, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — NASA has selected TechTrans International Inc. of Houston to provide Russian language and logistical services for the International Space Station Program at the agency’s Johnson Space Center in Houston.
Under the contract, TechTrans will provide Russian interpretation, translation and language training, as well as office management and administration, international travel processing, ground transportation and other related services to support the International Space Station Program. The work will be performed primarily in Houston, Russia and Kazakhstan.
The two-year base contract valued at $19.9 million begins Oct. 1 and extends through Sept. 30, 2014. Four potential options, totaling approximately $62.9 million would extend the contract through Sept. 30, 2020. The contract provides for possible additional work not to exceed $20 million. The total potential value of the contract is $102.8 million."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/business/1112684916/nasa-selects-russian-language-and-logistical-services-contract/
Astronauts and administrators in ESA (European), JAXA (Japanese), Roscosmos (Russian) space agencies are in consensus that the Low Earth Orbit working capability, of the U.S. shuttle program is necessary, and dismantling the shuttle program entirely was tremendously wasteful, a lousy economic move, based on where space systems operations are going.
Bolden is a smart, bold, capable individual. When something doesn’t make sense, there’s always some reason. If I follow the money, so far, I see his old company getting that huge NASA contract. Makes me wonder if there are behind the scenes financial involvements among private space launch contractors, that have influenced his decisions.
Maybe I’m wrong about that. I have no proof. Maybe he really is just a gutless, visionless leader.
Nope. Public/private partnership. Nothing new there. This should/will be a business, not a federal agency.
The financing is an investment pool. The Treasury gets a return. The Department of Energy gets to oversee it, like it oversees electric utilities now.
The problem with this, is the system becomes profitable. As the U.S. runs energy now, every major system we have, feeds on taxpayer subsidies. Follow the money. Who benefits from a system of subsidies that never end?
Those interests have no appetite for reducing the market for energy subsidies.
On the flip side, if the U.S. gets in front of Lunar Solar Power, as those energy sector subsidies decrease, the U.S. treasury position improves. Think about it: Corporate welfare subsidies to U.S. energy sector decrease; simultaneously, revenues from a world-wide energy project start coming in.
So, you want to reduce taxes? How about the U.S. Treasury partnering with private investment, and taking a little piece of the pie from a 10 Billion person monthly power bill? How low do you want your taxes to go?
The incentive for private industry? The U.S. investment in the basic science, and Low Earth Orbit, needed to get the project started - put a value on it, put it into play as up-front equity in the deal, and make a commitment.
Chicago Stonepro, you appear to be passionately in favor of the microwave-on-the-moon power scheme. I’m not qualified to shoot it down nor shoot the moon. I must say that it seems to smell a bit like other grandiose Star Wars-like ideas that look good on paper, but rarely get off the ground. If you want to work hard to make it happen, more power to you.
So I’m going to take a wait-and-see attitude. Let’s check back in 5 or 10 years and see if there has been any progress, or if something has come along that is even better. It’ll give us a good excuse to revive a zombie thread.
I’m also passionate about methane capture systems. Why this country isn’t all over that, is a whole other topic. Heaven knows, with all the BS around, seems a shame to let it all go to “waste”, doesn’t it?
But, this thread is about the value of the moon, after all.
I’m passionate about real measures to cut greenhouse gas emissions, getting our fiscal house in order, and keeping the U.S. secure and competitive.
A private/public partnership based on U.S. leadership of the Lunar Solar Power would accomplish those things. Like I mentioned above, there’s a great opportunity there to use Treasury involvement to generate ongoing revenue, to pay down the debt, and bring down tax pressures.
Viewed that way, the moon’s valuation is beyond what I originally proposed.
Chicago Stonepro, you are a passionate advocate, and you do appear to be well informed on this issue and the related topics. Whether or not we agree, you argue well and don’t resort to temper tantrums. Welcome aboard.
I’ve actually enjoyed the interactions with Exapno Mapcase. I think his posts have done a lot for the discussion in this thread. I believe him to be sincere, intelligent, well-intentioned, and genuinely interested in seeing our country do better, but perhaps a bit discouraged, and tired of people spreading unhelpful bullsh*t. I can certainly relate.
Besides, we’ve been having some good-natured fun with each other. I love his one-liner, " At this rate the program will get off the ground at approximately the same time that the sun swells to encompass the earth." That was Priceless. How can anyone not be entertained by that?
I do appreciate your sentiment, bup, and thank you for the warm welcome.