Re: [ERPS] Washington Monthly reposts April 1980 critique of theshuttle

[Adrian Tymes]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Feb 2003, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>>Consider, though, that NASA gives a lot of funding to contractors who
>>would like to establish all kinds of hurdles to the kind of private
>>space we envision, mainly to protect their funding.
>
> Actually, no. *They don't believe in it.* They do believe in possible
> competition for their comsat launches, and *that* they will fight most
> vigorously (as witness some of Beal's woes). But on a corporate scale --
> as opposed to occasional mavericks within the structure, who seldom see
> much real support from upper management -- they think any sort of cheap
> spaceflight is so far off in the future that it's completely beyond their
> planning horizon.

I'll grant, this is just speculation. We can't know for certain whether
they personally believe it or not. But the economics work out that they
get a lot more money reliably without cheap spaceflight than with, and
history provides any number of examples of large companies trying
desparately to protect their industries as they fade into obsolescence.

>> > NASA *cannot* compete with cheap private spaceflight...
>>
>>But they can try to put all kinds of regulatory/legislative barriers in
>>place.
>
> They are neither in the regulatory path nor in the legislative path; they
> simply have no power to do such things.

I said try. I didn't say suceed. The attempt itself would be painful
to us.

>>("You're under arrest because you didn't have a launch license from
>>NASA." "NASA doesn't issue launch licenses! That's the FAA!" "We'll
>>let the courts decide that. In the mean time, we're impounding your
>>vehicle. You're liable if we mishandle it and the explosion injures
>>anyone.")
>
> Um, been reading too many conspiracy novels before bedtime lately? Or
> just eating too many anchovy pizzas? Nothing of the sort was happening
> five years ago, when innovative launch looked like *much* more of a threat
> to NASA than it does now.

Comparing what I knew of the situation then to what I know now, I'd say
it's much more of a threat now than back then. Besides, you're
referring to what NASA's own contractors were doing on NASA contracts,
right? Of course NASA's not going to object to that.

>> > The single most effective way to put the shuttle out of business is to
>> > demonstrate the ability to offer cargo and passenger shipments to ISS at
>> > $100/kg...
>>
>>To the ISS's orbit, anyway, whether or not NASA lets us actually dock
>>with the ISS.
>
> Well, yes, meeting -- and getting JSC to agree that we meet -- the
> "visiting vehicle" specs might perhaps be a little difficult. (No space
> vehicle ever built meets them -- the existing and near-future vehicles
> which do visit the station are grandfathered in.) So we'd have to stay
> well clear, and work our way in one flight at a time. Take up CNN camera
> crews, with long lenses, to film the arrival of the later station modules.

Something like that. The intent is to demonstrate we can do it, as
close as permitted. If that means staying well clear, fine, we stay
well clear - but to a point from which all can see we could easily go
the rest of the way if we had permission.

_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list