Video: Reason.tv: Porker of The Month: Pigs In Space

"Founded in 1968, Reason advances a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law."

Interesting organization

Interesting video. While I think it's great these watch-dog groups exist, this video is unfortuantely not totally accurate either.

Of course it shows Virgin Galactic, which is not operational with SS2 yet, let alone intended to be orbital.

It shows SpaceX, and while the Falcon 9 launch should be applauded for its success on its maiden flight, Dragon itself is not operational or proven.

Basically, it fails to mention that none of these private vehicles that could potentially someday compete against one another are ready and no one knows exactly when that will be or what that will really cost yet.

While CxP definitely had its share of problems and politics, the way some things are handled, are frustrating, this video also ignores the other components of this Administration's plan that replaced the "Bush-era moon effort" with.....um, um, yeah.

While certain details can be nit-picked and others are omitted, the crux is correct - Shelby is less interested in NASA's work than in his district getting it's cut of the pork. This is not a party thing, both parties are guilty of it, which makes it even more frustrating to deal with.

The Obama space policy relies on commercial companies to get astronauts to LEO but I have yet to hear of a well defined plan for what to do beyond LEO. For instance the Obama space plan cancels the Ares V and replaces it with designing a heavy lifter in 2015. Why the delay? What is the point of waiting 5 years to begin designing it? When will the first heavy lifter be built? Where will it send astronauts? When Holder has been questioned by Congress I get the impression that the Obama space policy has goals beyond LEO but lacks details, explanations, and timelines. That is a major issue that needs to be addressed since it needs to be a well defined plan.

Folks:

It's good to see someone on the left dish it out like Fox TV! Let's see some more liberal infotainment .

tinker

Cute, but that video leaves out so much and distorts so much that it is a sorry excuse for what it claims to be about.

If that group is really Libertarian, they should be also whining about how much money "private" space vehicles get in terms of government contracts and support.

Government vehicles are mostly built by private companies, and supported by private contractors, and private vehicles rely on government contracts.

It's all pork. The only difference is who owns the pig!

Goodness me, that was professional! I liked the fast cutting. As for it leaving out so much, no it didn't.

It's intended to get the key relevant points across to the general public in a clear and concise manner.

Remember, they are experienced at it.

Mike.
The Obama era effort is largely identical to the Bush era effort. As it *returns* the US to the VSE of Marburger: affordable and sustainable deep space exploration. I watched, from afar, as an architecture predicated on the above, morph into an unsustainable Moon Base and then just Apollo redux. "We've been there!" Alas much time and money have been wasted so any successor program must be even more cost effective.
The Moon is sufficiently close that TeleOps are way more efficient for the forseeable future. Meanwhile the President's HSF goal/challenge is an Asteroid by 2025 and a Mars landing 'in his lifetime!' Both are reasonable if everyone, including IPs, supports NASA on a trip 'way' beyond Earth Orbit. In the process humanity will expand upon it's current expertise: assembling ever larger structures in space: Telescopes; Earth Observation Sats; Solar Arrays; Piloted Complexes; Deep Space Vessels and Lagrangian WayStations.

Personally I had hoped for an accellerated SPS program but then MY Vision was always O'Neillian!
Dave.

Some references on Visions:
Marburger (44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999
Dennis Wingo's Thoughts
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1116
(46th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium)
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=27253
And a must read IMHO
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/376646main_11%20-%20jhm%20Augustine%20Committee%2009-05-09B.pdf
(Marburger's testimony to HSF Committee.)

My guess and IANARS is that if some of the "game changing technology" pays off over the next five years then, rather than monolithic structures of the Cx program and a monolithic HLV, the next generation of American space construction will involve: autonomous assembly; inflatable structures; space tugs of various flavours; propellant depots; habitats and human tended facilities in various critical locations: LLO; EML1; EML2; SEL1; SEL2; etc.

None of these NEED a HLV.

The economies of multiple low cost medium lift have been demonstrated by the Russians. And at a time of economic duress they abandoned both Buran and Energia as not being cost effective. ESA (CNES) is downsizing its Ariane to a smaller modular core. Just as the Russians with their Angara and Rus-M. America can learn from these experiences.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/asd/2010/01/15/01.xml&headline=ESA%20Begins%20Work%20On%20Ariane%206&channel=space

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/ppts_lv.html

But perhaps Shelbian Exceptionalism will not permit common sense to prevail?