Pajamas has covered extensively the end of the ability of the United States to put astronauts into orbit and those advocating privatization of the space program.
An unmanned private spacecraft built by Blue Origin, a company funded by Amazon.com billionaire Jeff Bezos, catastrophically failed last week. The Wall Street Journal:
The vertical takeoff and landing spacecraft, developed by closely held Blue Origin LLC, was on a suborbital flight from the company’s West Texas spaceport last week, these officials said, when ground personnel lost contact and control of the vehicle. The exact nature and cause of the failure were unclear, but remnants of the spacecraft could provide clues for investigators. . . .
The serious malfunctions, which haven’t been disclosed by the company or reported previously, also could set back White House plans to promote a range of commercially developed spacecraft to transport crews to the International Space Station by the second half of this decade.
Championed by President Barack Obama’s administration, the goal is to support a number of rival projects, including Blue Origin, to ensure that in the end the U.S. will have alternatives to reach the orbiting station, following last month’s permanent retirement of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s space shuttle fleet.
Obama’s decisions on space, like these, now jeopardize the viability of the International Space Station. More at the WSJ:
SpaceX, as Mr. Musk’s company is known, is years behind in testing its Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule. But if all goes well, the Hawthorne, Calif., start-up could initiate regular cargo deliveries to the station next year.
That’s encouraging. Years behind, but “if all goes well” maybe next year cargo can be delivered to the space station. Maybe by then I’ll get that flying car I’ve been waiting for.
Mr. Adams:
On this subject (the space program): What is wrong with you?
On the subject of law and DOJ malfeasance yu are magnificent and courageous. On space issues you know nothing.
Blue Origins isn’t even on the top of the list of so-called “private space” or “commercial space” ventures, so it’s “spectacular failure” is a not too-uncommon feature of flight experimentation that doesn’ “set back” the space program(s).
The demonization of private-sector space efforts by conservatives trying to score points against Obama is both baffling and stupid.
Let me clue you in to the vision: What companies like SpaceX — and perhaps Blue Origins at some point — are doing is working to dramatically lower the cost of space launch. This means that, in the case of NASA and AF launch contracts, they will save the taxpayer gobs of money, and, at the same time, provide greater incentive for private space ventures to become more ambitious in their own commercial plans. How is this a bad thing?
With so much to excoriate Obama on, why pick on something positive that needs all the support it can get from supposedly free market, free enterprise people? Or, do you and other “conservative” critics of a “bad” space program not believe in the free and open American economic system?
….I don’t think there is any free and open space program out there (civilian).
I might be mistaken but I don’t read the article they way you do. The government (obama and clowns inc) have never done anything that is free or open. and nothing good anyway you look at things unless you have no ambition and think welfare is a career choice.
cheers
Ah, nothing brings out mosquitoes like rain, and nothing quite brings out the opinionated space purists than bad news afflicting anyone besides NASA. I’ve not seen the Left errupt with equal vitriol round here.
An aside about delays and reports about a wrecked craft invites nice kind comments like “you know nothing.” To the contrary. Nothing means zero. For starters, I know that pieces of a Blue Origin spacecraft are all over West Texas. That is greater than zero. I also know that, so far, the alternative launch models to replace the shuttle still aren’t working. You don’t end one system before another is ready. Hopefully it will eventually work or else Americans will have a reason to end this alternative “private” model and go back to proven NASA platforms.
And while privatization is a good thing (when it can actually deliver) I can think of about 500 different topics which should be ahead of space in the privatization queue (headed by the USPS). Space one of the hardest to privatize because of the capital required. Of course what you so zealously defend isn’t even really true privatization, is it now? It’s still tax dollars fueling it, so maybe such purist zeal isn’t quite so warranted here.
One other thing I do know, when you get a reaction like Pajamas gets anytime soemthing appears critical of (government subsidized) “private” spaceflight, it usually means there is big money behind the efforts, and thus lots of people with skin in the game willing to chrip. Criticism can be a tough thing. Hopefully someone besides the great engineers at NASA will be able to figure out what the heck they are doing before too much damage is done.
“Space one of the hardest to privatize because of the capital required”
this is the essence
not only the capital but an opportunity to pour in enormous swaths of money without the nuisance of turning a profit, which would ultimately tap out the private sector, is a necessary prerequisite for government intervention in a capitalist framework
Christian, I don’t disagree with you about the Shuttle program — we shouldn’t have cut it off before the replacement was ready, and we’re being hurt directly by that right now. And concluding you know “nothing” about private space programs is obviously hyperbole and wrong.
On the other hand, I’ve been an engineer involved in big projects for more than 30 years, and I’ve got to say that while you may not know nothing about this kind of engineering project, the difference is probably in the measurement error. The recent SpaceX test did things that no vehicle has done before, NASA or private: take off, land, shut down the engines, restart, take off again, and accelerate to Mach-1-plus at high altitude before some flaw caused it to become unstable. The notion that this failure means the SpaceX engineerings don’t “know what they’re doing” simply supports the contention that you know effectively nothing about this kind of engineering.
The implication in your last paragraph — that your critics are somehow financially involved in the private space projects and therefore criticizing you from pecuniary motives — is unworthy and uncalled for. You should withdraw that suggestion and apologize.
Charlie Martin:
The recent mishap referred to in this post was of a Blue Origin vehicle, not SpaceX.
But your comment reminded me of something: When SpaceX flew its first Falcon 9 in June 2010, the first launch attempt ended in an ignition abort. They counted down to zero, ignited the engines, and shut them down a second later because the computer detected that something was not quite right. They recycled the count and launched successfully about two hours later.
An ignition abort on the Shuttle would have meant a delay measured in weeks, if not months.
Duh, sorry, brain fade.
No need for anything to be taken back Charlie. In point of fact, it was true about a prior post. Happy to share some details with you at some point privately.
Christian, you’ve got my email. But the way you state it, without naming who you believe is a paid shill, smears all your critics, including in this case me.
The vehicle that crashed was an unmanned vehicle being tested. I am old enough to recall the space race between the US and the Soviet Union. It took many years, and a lot of failed attempts, before we got to the point of having fairly reliable spacecraft.
If private companies are testing new spacecraft technologies with a view to creating space vehicles that are both safe and economical, it will take a lot of time and probably numerous failed attempts. As long as no people are getting hurt or killed, there’s no need to get upset about failed attempts.
1389AD:
You are confusing spacecraft with launch vehicles.
The first incarnation of the Apollo spacecraft, Apollo 1, killed three astronauts in a fire.
And Apollo 8 made it to the Moon and back without a Lunar Excursion Module (LEM). That was just sheer luck on their part, because we all know what happened to Apollo 13 after that.
To say that we shouldn’t shut down the Shuttle program until a replacement is ready, ignores the fact that the Shuttle was never “ready” in the sense of providing safe transportation to space. It killed 14 astronauts in two separate disasters, representing 4% of all those who ever flew on it. A launch system that gives you a 1 in 25 chance of being killed is not “ready” for regular servicing of the Space Station. Oh yes, NASA claims that the Shuttle was made much safer in its final years of operation. But then they claimed that after the Challenger disaster too.
This is one thing Obama got right. NASA failed to make space transportation safe and cost-effective. Let private enterprise have a try.
That’s encouraging. Years behind, but “if all goes well” maybe next year cargo can be delivered to the space station. Maybe by then I’ll get that flying car I’ve been waiting for.
This is the kind of snarky ignorance I’m talking about. Even with delays, SpaceX will most likely be several years and many billions of dollars ahead of any deadline that the catastrophic Orion/Constellation/Ares would have been likely to meet. I can’t believe that you are shilling for huge, costly corporate welfare programs, which is what the legacy aerospace programs are.
When babies try to walk and fall we don’t immediately grab them and start carrying them around. When nascent space programs and now moving out of their infancy we don’t expect foolish governments which monopolized space to immediately move to quell development.
I can only imagine what would have happened to the Wright Brothers if they started developing airplanes in 21st century America.
For years after the Wright Brothers’ first flight, airplanes were used for stunt flying by daredevils and bored milllionaires (“barnstormers”). Other than that, they were unable to be commercially successful. America’s fledging airlines were dependent on the subsidy of a guaranteed government market: The Post Office had a contract with the airlines to deliver air mail. Without that, the airlines would have gone out of business early.
It took many more years of technological development–LORAN navigation, bigger airliners like the DC-3, safety improvements–before commercial airline travel became cost-effective.
In a sense, space travel is where air travel was in the 1920s. We have to wait for private enterprise to create the “DC-3 of space”–a workhorse, reliable spacecraft. We don’t need any more Government subsidies and guaranteed markets.
Just like we didn’t need the Federal Government to have a monopolistic control of air travel with only their planes allowed in the air.
More importantly, Rutan has the only high altitude platform concept that can complete the equation MASS X VELOCITY. Musk taking too long? We will soon have an unmanned space station. Why?
A more disturbing failure was with our recent missile defense test. And our Minute Man test.
But at least, due to the courageous vision of our president, and his willingness to re-prioritize NASA spending, the self-esteem of Muslims will be much higher.
That’s another of Obozo’s crazy delusions. The last thing we need would be Muslims having access to our space technology.
In any event, this is not how the Muslim mindset works. For more about that, see:
Why ‘unobservant’ Muslims suddenly become dangerous
You should’ve taken a minute to ask fellow PJM writer Rand Simberg his thoughts on this before going on your rant.
Don Rodrigo’s response, while overly harsh, was otherwise pretty much on point.
I linked to Mr. Simberg’s piece in the post. I am aware of his views and disagere with many of them as he disagrees with some of mine. Many defenders of privatized space exploration (not including Mr. Simberg,) tend to appear and toss about all manner of personal attacks whenever someone midly criticizes this so called privatized space flight. Some post that those questioning it “know nothing,” even though I tend to agree with three
astronautsmoonwalkers that know a great deal: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-05-24-Obama-grounding-JFK-space-legacy_n.htmFrankly, the level of purist outrage is rather suprising given the very un-pure government subsidized efforts of these companies. It is a curious position to defend the “free and open American economic system” and “free enterprise” when in fact these launch models represent no such thing. If the taxpayers weren’t subsidizing the efforts, then a purist defense of liberty and free markets is more justified. But that isn’t what is being defended by the zealots of space free enterprise, particularly ones who don’t post under their real names. Whenever there is a knee-jerk reaction, with repeating patterns of personal attacks, it sometimes means there are one or two people posting under different pseudonyms with some skin in the game. The discussion would benefit if people with the courage to post with their real names and disclose any interest in the issue, were to join it. I’ve seen people attack the Armstrong/Cernan/Lovell article in nasty terms too. It indicates a different breed of commenter is at work.
SpaceX spent approximately $300 million of private capital to develop the Falcon 9 booster. NASA has not only verified those numbers, they admit it would’ve cost them at least 10 times as much and taken longer to do the same thing.
SpaceX has spent approximately $200 million developing their Dragon capsule. It has flown successfully once and more flights are on the way. NASA has dumped over $5 billion on Lockheed’s Orion capsule and it’s years away from flying.
I’ve worked on space systems for over 20 years. Offhand, I can’t think of a single major NASA program of the last 30 years that hasn’t been significantly over budget, significantly late, or both. The agency is broken. If it can’t be fixed, it should be closed.
NASA is a Federal Government agency. It is not the USA. It is a Soviet-style mistake.
Private Space exploration is the way to go. It is the true American way and it is way ahead of NASA.
“Way ahead of NASA,” how? All ears. You couldn’t mean launching humans into low earth orbit. Certainly not unmanned probes. Perhaps there is some technology that the companies have invented that is “way ahead” of a similar technology nasa uses. That would be good to hear about here.
NASA has been wasting time in near-Earth orbit for decades.
The private enterprises are way ahead in that they are ready to go to near-Earth orbit very soon and plan to exploit that capability for profit.
This is the American way.
NASA is a Soviet-style approach to progress, and as such is collapsing.
As it happens, just moments ago I looked at the Blue Origin webpage, thanks to an Instapundit link. There are some nice photos, and video of earlier test flights.
Any time somebody tries to develop new technology and push the envelope of what can be done, there will be failures and setbacks. Everyone working in this field is well aware of that. You analyze the data from the failure, fix the problem, and press on. The text on the Blue Orgin page doesn’t sound like they’re ready to give up. It mentions that they’re already working on their next test vehicle.
Luckily nobody was hurt in this accident. At least a dozen people lost their lives attempting to fly the Atlantic before Lindbergh succeeded. Today’s airline passenger flying in air-conditioned comfort at 30,000 feet knows nothing of their struggles and sacrifice. They’re remembered only by historians and aviation buffs. Of course, unmanned test flights were not an option in the 1920s.
As for SpaceX, they’re 2-for-2 in successful Falcon 9 launches, and they’ve orbited and recovered a bare-bones Dragon capsule. They’ve spent this year preparing for the next flight which will feature a much more capable version of the Dragon. Originally it was supposed to be a longer duration test flight of the Dragon, but due to the success of the first test and the retirement of the Shuttle, if all goes well this second flight, scheduled for November 30, will link up with the ISS. And because of the recent Progress failure, Dragon will be carrying some cargo. What began as the second Dragon test flight may well end up as its first cargo delivery.
Do NASA worshipers really believe the Solar System will be colonized by a Federal Government agency?
The Solar System will be colonized by people who go there to make money.
Period.
{SteveGreenVoice=1} Rocket science is hahrd {StevenGreenVoice=0}
Cost of doing business, I’m not seeing a problem.
I agree the postal service should be privatized, however, it’s not an either-or proposition. There’s no reason why we can’t privatize the postal service and space exploration. In point of fact it should have been done years ago.
NASA has been a private pork barrel for legislators on both sides of the aisle for years and it’s time it was stopped.
Patrick
What I think NASA supporters mainly are is Star Trek junkies, dreaming of unrealistic future goals like “colonizing the solar system”. I don’t think the solar system will ever be colonized. The technical obstacles to overcome are too great – the great distances, speeding up is not a problem, but how do you slow down, how do you survive with no oxygen atmosphere. etc.? An outpost on the moon is possible. Other NASAists want to continue with NASA for public relations purposes by maintaining a presence in space with Russia, China, etc. They seem to ignore that the US will realize more PR with private companies in space orbit than with government bureaucracies. NASA is nothing more than a government welfare program for scientists and “a private pork barrel for legislators”. And if private space companies are subsidized by the feds, so what? It’s in the government’s best interest. They will still want to get into space to run their secret Star Wars tests. And it’s better than subsidizing the green industry to create “millions of green jobs” that never materialized and never will.
The technical hurdles are too great? What? If we can build a base on the moon then we can do so on Mars or anywhere else.
As to Oxygen. Well, there’s plenty of it locked up in the Lunar regolith, so there’s plenty of O2 there and if you have O2 and hydrogen water is easy to make.
Mars HAS an oxy/nitrogen atmo, it’s just too thin to breathe, but can be compressed.
The hurdles to colonizing the solar system are mainly implementation and motivation. Right now there’s little in the way of motivation to do so.
Until there’s a profit reason to head to space in a big way it won’t happen. Privatizing space flight is the first step toward that future.
Pat
It’s called Research. That’s when you test things, and sometimes the things break. Really, you can look it up.