The Space Review this week

At risk of saying,"only my fetishes are good, yours are nuts" I will say...something close to just that.

The problem with the article is that Day paints all 'fetishes' as equally 'out there' (so to speak) and ill-considered.

But, e.g., there's a big difference between saying that "competition and new markets for orbit access are good and likely to reduce costs" and saying, "let's start a program for SPS requiring 8-9 figures of federal funding from the start" or, much worse "Helium-3 will kick start human movement into space!" when no one has built a net positive output fusion reactor.

Some of us have learned something over the years about how to "ramp up" interest in ideas, which ones are amenable to that and when. Those that hold such promise cannot be called "fetishes."

Posted by Charles Lurio at 12/21/09 18:37:14

The article is fairly long and I've only skimmed it, but here's one thing I missed: the reason I want commercial involvement is not ideology (though it does fit with my general political outlook) but because I want to see another goal for manned spaceflight, namely commercial development of space. Personally I find that much more valuable than exploration. That is what causes my passion, not ideology. If it were ideology, there are much bigger bureaucracies to complain about.

So you might think this is a case of conflicting goals, commercial development of space or exploration. But fortunately it isn't. There are no good reasons to have this be either/or, you can have both, in fact they are synergistic. The conflict is with people trying to protect their economic interests.

While I believe that a program with more commercial involvement is likely to yield somewhat better exploration results in the short term, that isn't my main issue. My main issue is commercial development of space.

Posted by Martijn Meijering at 12/21/09 19:16:27

"This is a case of conflicting goals, commercial development or space or exploration"

I think we need both commercial and exploration my observation of the past 50 year’s of success and failures has convinced me that exploration drives commercial opportunities for development. I support a pull strategy not a push strategy. By both I mean CATS type commercial and sustained human presence on other worlds. Not gold plated commercial or mere orbital (look but don't touch) exploration.

United Launch Alliance (ULA) showed us we can have both! A little creative innovative thinking and it works even within the existing budget constraints.

NASA and the Augustine panel would like us to believe we are limited to choose between only their short sighted strategies of denial and vagueness. Ares HLV exploration or look-but-maybe-don't-touch commercial? NASA supports a seriously delayed exploration architecture based on an unrealistic budget. Augustine Flex Path simply surrenders to the budget with an architecture that supports a limited LEO ISS based commercial infrastructure and delays any manned landings with a vague goalless till-the-cows-come-home inner solar system exploration time line.

I doubt if Obama is made aware of win-win concepts like the one ULA has outlined. And I doubt he has ever even seen a rendering of Space Dev’s Dream Chaser perched atop an advanced Atlas booster. Conscripted ill informed tunnel vision could again condemn our manned space program to several more decades of limited eventless uninspiring LEO accomplishments. NASA or Augustine plan either way I’ll be long dead and buried before a US manned landing occurs or deep space commercial infrastructure develops. ULA could have got it going by 2018. I have faith that China will eventually get-err-done.
Thanks Griffin…ULA innovated capabilities was right there under your nose all those years and you did horns-down Ares based Apollo on steroids!!!!!

Posted by Doug at 12/21/09 20:54:50

"Reasonable men adapt to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men."
George Bernard Shaw

Posted by Joe Latrell at 12/21/09 21:11:19

Hi Charles,

Yes, he does take go for the "lump of activism" fallacy that makes no distinctions. The basic assumption is that any idea that comes from activists almost certainly has long before been examined and rejected by the really smart guys at NASA/DoD else it would have been implemented already.

There's no allowance for the possibility that institutional inertia and managerial biases (or fetishes) can stymie the implementation of even the best ideas. This is especially a problem in space technology since new ideas often need substantial funding to be developed and tested. There are lots of points along the way where even the best new idea can be sidetracked for funding and other reasons that have nothing to do with its technical feasibility.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/21/09 21:17:43

Dwayne once again shows his Washington elitism and the typical Washington disdain for the "ignorant" masses outside the beltway who are expected to just send money and be quiet like good serfs. What a fool.

Posted by anon at 12/21/09 21:24:42

Hi Martijn,
Yes, focusing on commercial development rather than exploration changes how one views the priority of various technologies. If one, for example, only cares about exploration, then setting up an in-space infrastructure of fuel depots and space tugs is way down on the to-do list. If you do want to see permanent human presence, then those become top priorities.

Hi Doug,
I think the new space policy will focus on deep space infrastructure but we'll have to see the details.

Hi Joe,
Thankfully the NewSpace community includes a lot of unreasonable people!

Anon,
Dwayne is no fool but I wish he would look beyond the NASA/DoD/big aerospace model for how technological progress is made.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/22/09 01:28:15

"In a world of many competing ideas and approaches battling with entrenched ways of doing things, there have to be champions who will fight for their "cause""

Indeed. If you can't be enthused (but not fanatical) about your ideas, how can you expect anyone else to be? There is an element of natural selection here, and timidity (or fanaticism) can equal extinction...

If that constitutes a 'fetish,' so be it.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats."
- Howard Aiken

Posted by Frank Glover at 12/22/09 03:20:19

Clark,

"Dwayne is no fool but I wish he would look beyond the NASA/DoD/big aerospace model for how technological progress is made."

Given his job at the National Research Council that is like asking a Congressman to see the evils of earmarks.

And that is the danger for new space firms taking government money, the ease it is to slip into the rice bowl mentality that Dwayne is an example of. I often wish Mojave was on another planet where the temptations of government funding didn't exist. My biggest fear is the SpaceX will become Orbital Science Jr. I hope Elon will keep his Silcon Valley outlook on space and be able to keep resisting the dark side of the force.

Posted by anon at 12/22/09 14:49:06

Dwayne reads DAR!

http://www.darcomic.org/200...

Who knew?!? ;)

Posted by Michael Antoniewicz II at 12/22/09 15:47:27

Clark,

Also, one of the things that happens when NASA/DoD/etc look at an idea and then shelves it is that the Materials and/or other Enabling Tech is not mature enough *at the time* to support it.

It's almost as hard, if not harder, to "resurect" an such an idea later in time when the hobbling technology has advanced enough to not just allow the idea to work but in many cases to work in an economical level outside of the Cold War view of costs (it's expensive but it does a job that HAS to be done).

UrbanAero's X-Halk upgrade of the VZ-8/PA-59 and Paisecki's X-49 come to mind along with the B-2 and BWB designs....

Posted by Michael Antoniewicz II at 12/22/09 16:12:10

Dwayne's essay is likely one of the most important I've read for the whole space advocacy movement. I’ve become increasingly depressed by how virtually everything in space advocacy is degrading into nothing but bitter duals of honor over the flavor of Kool-Aid one must swear allegiance to. He lists adn shoots down many beloved flavors. I desperately hope folks will listen and learn.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/23/09 11:10:15

Kelly,

Dwayne's essay is a waste of space. It basically says the current status quo is the best we are able to do in space so be happy with it. It also implies space policy is basically about science not commerce and only experts in science policy, like Dwayne, should have a say in what the nation space program looks like.

I see his essay as a desperate attempt, using the classic Soviet tactic of claiming everyone who doesn't agree with you is "mentality sick", to save his rice bowl from the changes that are coming as the Shuttle and Big Science era in space end.

And its sad to see a scholar like him descending to such low levels of discourse such as referring to the idea others have as fetishes. It makes me wonder what people are drinking in the beltway.

Posted by anon at 12/23/09 12:52:09

Hi Kelly,
Oh come on, I hope you are joking. Essays with an attitude of "I see everything clearly and I'm here to pull the blinders off activists' eyes" are a dime a dozen. That attitude is one of the most common flavors of homemade Kool-Aid. Everybody thinks they see the way things "really are". The only aspect of his essay that make it stand out is its self-indulgent length.

I have argued with Dr. Day for years that taking a negative view of very new idea, company or approach does not show insight or sophistication. It is instead just a cheap and trivial way to look bright by playing the odds. Most new ideas, companies and approaches are going to fail in any area of endeavor. That is just life. Most new restaurants are going to fail. Most new space companies are going to fail. There are a million more ways to fail than to succeed. And most of the failure modes have nothing to do with how good the food is or how great the space technology is. Day's approach is like coming back from the race track and bragging about how good he was at predicting which horses would lose.

I didn't have time to respond to any of the entries in his long list of virtually every argument he has ever gotten into on a space forum or blog. He gives his side of each issue as though it was definitive and final. He then misrepresents all those with opposing point of views as having fetish-like obsessions that prevent them from seeing the rightness of his arguments.

In fact, many well-informed people, including many with far more expertise than he has regarding specific issues, are not deterred from offering very strong counter-arguments.

I have great respect for Dr. Day's writing talents and knowledge of the history of spy-sats and various early space projects. However, he always brings a supercilious tone to space issues that is unwarranted and, more importantly, undercuts the points he wants to make. For example, after using a brush as wide as the DC beltway to paint a gross and deceptive picture of space activists, he should not turn around and lecture them about improperly using a broad brush to describe his views.

NewSpace is going to continue to make progress two steps forward and one and half steps backward. Its accomplishments will be instantaneously taken for granted while every delay and failure will be wildly assailed. Fortunately, the NewSpace industry and community keep getting stronger and more resiliant. What someone says in an essay really doesn't matter anymore.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/24/09 01:25:03

> Dwayne's essay is a waste of space.
> It basically says the current status
> quo is the best we are able to do in
> space so be happy with it.
>

No it says the space advocats all gloming onto various dumb ideas and myths are wasting their time, and doing nothing to advance us into space. Mostly they are evidence to skeptics that space must truely be useless. Otherwise all these cults wouldn't be the dominent advocates.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/24/09 13:54:33

> Oh come on, I hope you are joking.
> Essays with an attitude of "I see
> everything clearly and I'm here to
> pull the blinders off activists'
> eyes" are a dime a dozen. ==

But few write it as clearly and get it published out in advocate land where MAYBE advocates will think about it. Right now virtually every space advocacy cult I can think of, from space solar power, to little house no the Mars prairie (Zubrin was actually talking about Mars becoming the farm world for asteroid based civilization), to space elevator folks, etc are laughably – and obviously – round the bend. Oh NASA and its retro “Apollo on Steroids” plan is as bad as any. Its pretty much NASA proclamation that they want nothing to do with opening the frontier. But they have no reason to listen to space advocates.

My fear is the whole movement, and most of alt.space, is a impediment to us DOING SOMETHING in space. Maybe this will shake the cultists out of their ruts. Unlikely, but this essay is certainly more important then another essay on SSPS and how it will bankroll O’Neil colonization or the rest of the myths he easily skewered.

I disagree STRONGLY with the “we should all be polite and not point out the emperors have no cloths” attitude. Its like being polite adn supportive to drunks. I.E. being a facilitator.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/24/09 14:09:32

Kelly,

"But few write it as clearly"

You are able to write clearly without restoring to the "gutter talk" that Dwayne has decide to use lately. Yes space advocates read the space review. But so do kids, including my 10 year old. There is no reason Dwayne couldn't have used a more child friendly term like delusion or obsession to make his point.

But how do you explain to kids reading the article what a fetish is? I had recommended The Space Review to her science teacher, but I wrote her and told her she needs to start blocking the site since Jeff doesn't feel the need to have his writers, nor those who write comments, watch their language.

It a pity that both he and Dwayne are deciding to make The Space Review a "Shock Jock" "Adult-only" website at the very time kids need to have such an informational source on space history and policy.

But I guess the level of dialogue in the Beltway has descended to such lows that neither of them recognize how offensive such language and terms are to masses that live beyond the Beltway. It also shows how much the Washington establishment has lost touch with the American public.

Also as for the Space Advocate community, they have long ago discounted the so-called "wisdom" of the Beltway bandits that got us into this mess. If space advocates actually believed in the opinions of Washington space experts like Dwayne we would not have Spaceshipone or Spaceshiptwo, COTS, Blue Origin, Bigelow, Solaren or the other companies, companies that are proving just how out of touch with reality they are.

Posted by anon at 12/24/09 15:15:08

Hi Kelly,

"...MAYBE advocates will think about it."

Serious advocates of particular technologies know far more about them than you, Dr. Day or me and will not be dissuaded by some essay on the web that misrepresents their arguments for that technology.

"Right now virtually every space advocacy cult I can think of..."

Using over-the-top pejoratives like "cult" for anyone who advocates a particular technology only leads to doors slamming, not to opening anyone's mind to a different point of view.

Telling an engineer with decades of experience at a major aerospace company that his advocacy of, say, fuel depots means that he is a member of a cult or has a fetish is not going to change his mind about that technology. He is just going to think you and Dr. Day don't know what you are talking about.

"But they have no reason to listen to space advocates."

Centennial Challenges came after decades of space activists pushing for space prizes. The law requiring NASA to use commercial launchers where possible, and the recent recommendation by the Augustine panel that NASA use commercial crew launch systems, came about after many years of efforts by activists to make that happen. The use of suborbital reusable rocket vehicles for science has been advocated for many years and is now bearing fruit at NASA. Etc. Etc.

It was only by relentless advocacy of such things that they came about. Dr. Day's opinion about such advocacy is simply irrelevant. His essays and forum postings since the 90s routinely criticize all new ideas for advancing space development and so are worthless in terms of predicting which will succeed and which will not.

This essay is typical in that it mishmashes every topic one can find on a typical space forum and makes wildly broad generalizations about everyone who takes a side against his point of view. Several of the topics don't even fall under the standard space activism umbrella. The primary "activists" for VASIMR, for example, are not in the public space advocacy community but are within NASA, especially at JSC. Similarly, the issue of MSL lies within the space science community. If its Rube Goldberg landing system results in a hole in the red ground of Mars, it will be space scientists who are going to raise hell about too many eggs in one basket, not space enthusiasts in a blog or forum somewhere.

"I disagree STRONGLY with the “we should all be polite and not point out the emperors have no cloths” attitude."

Too much politeness is hardly a threat to space forum discussions. Too many participants think that the more forcefully one declaims a view, the more true and convincing that view is. In fact, higher volume level, more name calling, more obscenities, etc. have nothing to do with truthfulness and persuasion. Such things are only about venting and the emotional satisfaction that they can bring.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/24/09 16:07:59

> Kelly,
>
>> "But few write it as clearly"

> You are able to write clearly without
> restoring to the "gutter talk" that > Dwayne has decide to use lately. ==

What like Fetish? Hell you hear a lot worse then that on afternoon TV or the news. Certainly anyone wandering the web hears and sees a lot worse.

If hitting folks in the head gets their attention….

More then my statements ever seem to do.
> But how do you explain to kids reading the article what a fetish is? ==

Its when folks get to really like doing and thinking about something really really weird. Often things that are going to hurt them.
> == But I guess the level of dialogue in the Beltway has descended to such lows
> that neither of them recognize how offensive such language and terms are
> to masses that live beyond the Beltway. It also shows how much the
> Washington establishment has lost touch with the American public.

In DC that is polite language, though his showing disrespect to the idea of fetishes brands him as intolerant and bigoted.

Course you overlooked that VIP BLOT also insults the NASA and DC ellettes. Probably they were the intended target.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/24/09 20:34:40

> Hi Kelly,

Hi Clark -- oh, and Merry xmas!

;)

>> "...MAYBE advocates will think about it."

> Serious advocates of particular technologies know far more about
> them than you, Dr. Day or me ==

Most I’ve delt with have actually been completely clueless. SSPS, space elevator, etc. How many folks have you heard go off on how it’s the delta-V energy or rocket equation that’s holding costs up?

Space Elevator folks whose business plan is not only can they develop nanofiber composite cables to approach the theoretical strength limits of the fibers as the ave cable strength –but that they can make it for 1/100th the cost of carbon or Kevlar composite cable?

Hell, Blue Origins PM was telling me 3-4 years ago that by now they would have started commercial suborbital tourist flights, and orbital test flight.

>== and will not be dissuaded by some essay on the web that misrepresents
> their arguments for that technology.

You right they won’t listen. Its like a religion. Like the folks blaming bush for hurricanes, and the US not ratifying Kyoto. Irrational, and unquestioning

Add that cult like faith. Combined with a complete unwillingness to consider basic facts, basic arithmetic, is self destructive.

> Telling an engineer with decades of experience at a major aerospace company
> that his advocacy of, say, fuel depots means that he is a member of a cult
> or has a fetish is not going to change his mind about that technology. ==

Those are folks who do actually have a idea, and do look at facts and figures, so they are not a good example.

>> "But they have no reason to listen to space advocates."

> Centennial Challenges came after decades of space activists pushing for space prizes.==

It took Trekkies much less time then that to get the first shuttle renamed Enterprize. Course they have a lot more numbers.
> The law requiring NASA to use commercial launchers where possible, ==

Generally not a law they had to obey – course now they are about to ground their fleet, and have no credible replacement in development….

Technically they could list shuttle as a commercial launcher, given how they subbed it out to the Launch Alliance. I.E. Boeing.

>==and the recent recommendation by the Augustine panel that NASA use
> commercial crew launch systems, came about after many years of efforts
> by activists to make that happen. ==

No, that happened because NASA face planed with Ares/Orion. So Falcon/Dragon is shoving them out of their intended niches. Advocates could have kept on for years without getting anywhere there. And lets face it – that’s not going to change anything.
>== His essays and forum postings since the 90s routinely criticize all new
> ideas for advancing space development and so are worthless in terms
> of predicting which will succeed and which will not.

Wellyou’ld have to show a example where he predicted incorrectly that something would fail, that actually got some where. But really the article was more about the cultlike uncritical faith driving some of these advocacy groups – more then particular ones that won’t or will succeed. Sometimes totally clueless folks do succeed, but theirs dam,n little examples of that in the space advocacy groups, or various cults he pointed out as examples in the essay.
>== The primary "activists" for VASIMR, for example, are not in the public
> space advocacy community but are within NASA, especially at JSC. ==

NASA was also a target of the essay.
I think Day had a very important point, and he presented it forcefully, but not cras or trash talking folks.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/24/09 21:01:48

Kelly,

"In DC that is polite language, though his showing disrespect to the idea of fetishes brands him as intolerant and bigoted."

Thanks. You just proved my key points and demonstrated that the dysfunctional dialogue in Washington extends to space policy as well. Maybe Dwayne could get his own TV show news show. He seems to have the attack language down.

Posted by anon at 12/24/09 21:13:42

Kelly,

BTW just so we are on the same page, below are two definitions of Fetishism from a couple of web sources. Neither seems to have any connection to anything involved in space policy or how Dwayne choose to use it. But I guess if you are a “great” space expert like Dwayne you are able to invent you own definition as needed to make a point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://www.healthline.com/g...

But if you see that term as acceptable for the current level of discourse in Washington then maybe there needs to be a special Washingtonese - English dictionary for the rest of use hayseeds outside the beltway so we don't misunderstand your "constructive" criticism of our foolish ideas.

Posted by anon at 12/24/09 21:22:56

Sorry - That should be "us hayseeds"

Posted by anon at 12/24/09 21:24:29

Hi Kelly,

Merry Christmas to you as well!

I should say that I really don't find broad generalizations very useful or enlightening. There are space enthusiasts of all ages and backgrounds who participate in forums and get into arguments and flames about this or that space topic. There is an overlapping smaller group of enthusiasts who become activists, in the usual political sense of the word, by joining space advocacy groups like NSS, SFF, Planetary Society, etc. with a wide diversity of priorities and philosophies. And there is a really, really small subset of enthusiasts who become entrepreneurs and/or the engineers and staffers who start and populate NewSpace type companies.

Day makes no distinction among all of these people. Life is complicated and messy and sweeping everyone who disagrees with you into one big pile may be rhetorically convenient and help score debate points but doesn't really make any sense.

"No, that happened because NASA face planed with Ares/Orion. So Falcon/Dragon is shoving ..."

The Commercial Space Launch and other legislation that activists helped to get enacted have had major impacts ranging from the creation of AST/FAA to COTS to a regulatory framework for suborbital spaceflight. It's true that NASA resisted these guidelines until the agency had no choice but once that situation happen, NASA had a legal basis on which to create COTS and other commercial related programs.

"Hell, Blue Origins PM was telling me 3-4 years ago that by now they would have started commercial suborbital tourist flights, and orbital test flight."

So a firm under-estimates the time it takes to get a brand new technological product out the door. That's hardly rare in any business or technological area. What I care about is whether what they are doing is fundamentally flawed or not. I see nothing to indicate that what Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, etc are doing will not work in the end.

"Well you’ld have to show a example where he predicted incorrectly that something would fail, that actually got some where."

If Space Adventures had listen to Dr. Day, then Tito and the rest would never have reached the ISS and generated a couple of hundred million in revenue for Space Adventures. If Elon Musk had listened to Dr. Day on the feasibility of lower cost launchers, he never would have started SpaceX. Etc. Etc.

OTOH, I can't think of any space innovation where Dr. Day took a risk and predicted it would be a success when most were saying it would not be. When he does that, I will start to take seriously what he says about the feasibility of innovative space ideas.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/24/09 22:11:56

>Kelly,
>
> .. below are two definitions of Fetishism from a couple of web sources.
> Neither seems to have any connection to anything involved in space
> policy or how Dwayne choose to use it.

I don’t know Clark – they really seem to fit better then I expected.

;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

A fetish -- is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a man-made object that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is the attribution of inherent value or powers to an object.
…
Initially, this concept was used by the Portuguese to refer to the objects used in religious cults by the West African natives.

http://www.healthline.com/g...
> The essential feature of fetishism is recurrent intense sexual urges and sexually arousing fantasies involving specific objects. <
Given the breathless dewey eyed claims and justifications for everything from space elevators, Mars colonies, evils of the rocket equation (really folks it’s a perfectly friendly little equation. Much more approachable then its big brother the jet propulsion equation), space frontier. Etc. I think Day was on to something.

;)

Certainly the claims that their X was critical for the survival of humanity, our spirit of explorers, etc. ; frequent claims that if “X” doesn’t progress and space open up in the next few years were doomed as a species. I mean this is sounding like faithfull seeing the end of days is people don’t embrace the new faith.
Even your argument that “Serious advocates of particular technologies know far more about them than you,” has a certain ring of not questioning the profits.

Given how many of these great causes claims can be torn apart almost offhandedly with casual research, or the general truth in the world that NOTHING should be accepted completely uncritically, and extreme claims require extreme evidence. I’m not drinking the Kool-aid without some straight answers. I think willingness to unquestioning take all these space religions ( cults ) on faith is crippling.

As to your offence of my use of the word cult

http://www.healthline.com/s...
Cults (Trust Mark: Doctor-Reviewed)
Groups of people intensely devoted to a person, idea, or movement. Traditionally,"cult" was a term used for any new religious movement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...
Cult, a cohesive group of people devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream.
• Cult of personality, a political leader and his following, voluntary or otherwise.
• Destructive cult, a group which exploits and destroys its members or even non-members.

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/25/09 12:21:02

Opps sorry anon and Clark, I one of your posts as coming from the other – sorry.
> from Clark
> I should say that I really don't find broad generalizations very useful
> or enlightening. ==

Kind of inevitable for a essay covering a generic problem though? And in mant cases each of the groups you listed, and certainly the ones Day listed, fall into the generic trap

>> "No, that happened because NASA face planed with Ares/Orion. So Falcon/Dragon is shoving ..."

> The Commercial Space Launch and other legislation that activists helped
> to get enacted have had major impacts ranging from the creation of
> AST/FAA to COTS to a regulatory framework for suborbital spaceflight. ==

>== NASA had a legal basis on which to create COTS and other commercial related programs.

It has always had such a basis. Most everything it does – even providing the vast bulk of its personnel. Very few people in the centers, mission control, KSC pad support, etc are actually NASA staff, is almost all contracted out to commercial firms. Thers no big legal or regulitary jump from contracting Beoing to design and implement the IS, then for nASA to contract SpaceX to carry cargo and people to the ISS.

>== What I care about is whether what they are doing is fundamentally
> flawed or not. I see nothing to indicate that what Blue Origin, Virgin
> Galactic, etc are doing will not work in the end.

Well Blue shows little, but given they are taking so long to develop a craft that’s derived from a 15 year old McDonnell Douglas design that they implemented in a year or two, and Blue Origin has not gotten very far with in several years, and is reporting they have developed several generations of the Sheppard – it does suggest they are not up to the task.

Virgin and scaled are old hands in the business, and other then the accident and Rutans heart attack, not having any real problems.
>>"Well you’ld have to show a example where he predicted incorrectly
>> that something would fail, that actually got some where."

> If Space Adventures had listen to Dr. Day, then Tito and the rest would
> never have reached the ISS and generated a couple of hundred million
> in revenue for Space Adventures.
> If Elon Musk had listened to Dr. Day on the feasibility of lower cost
> launchers, he never would have started SpaceX. Etc. Etc.

And the example where he said those enterprises were hopeless is?
>== When he does that, I will start to take seriously what he says about
> the feasibility of innovative space ideas.

His essay was not discussing the feasibility of innovative space ideas, but the crippling impact of cult like faith in some concept. Branson and Musk never had fanatic unquestioning belief in their ability to launch tourist or build a competitive launcher. (Though musk seems to have run Tesla on faith, which is leading them off a clif.) You can’t develop industries or vehicle without constantly asking and demanding answers to a lot of rude questions. You certainly can’t raise a lot of money unless you’ll answer investors and customers hard questions.

No room for cults or fetishes. Not the cult of the expert, the VIP BLOT, the apocalypse will come unless x, etc.

Kelly

Posted by Kelly Starks at 12/25/09 12:53:43

Hi Kelly,

Well, at this point we are just repeating ourselves. As emperor of this blog I will have the last word and shut this thread off after this entry. I want to go enjoy our Christmas desserts.

You are just repeating the same sweeping generalizations as Dr. Day. Everyone who has a different point of view on the feasibility of a particular technology or approach to space development is suffering from a cult-like faith and fetish. There's no differentiation, just a lot of gross generalizations in which no one will recognize their own interest or enthusiasm. This approach is absolutely worthless.

His essay will change no minds. Those who want to feel superior to those who are championing new ideas will find confirmation in the essay. Those who are championing new ideas will know that they are not suffering from any fetish or belonging to any cult and so will justifiably dismiss the essay as nothing but preening rhetoric.

How in the world you or Dr. Day ever expect a new idea, the sort that needs a huge amount of work, time, and struggle, will ever become reality without people championing it with passion is beyond me.

There is a phony, high-school "cool guy" aspect to Dr. Day's essay. People who are too excited about some new idea are suffering from excessive nerdiness and earnestness. They should be sophisticated and worldly like Dr. Day and not get all worked up about anything. They should know that any new idea or approach is almost surely going to fail or only help at the margins and so they really shouldn't bother trying. Well, if everyone thought that way, then nothing would ever get get done and the rigid mess in the aerospace world will never change.

"Well Blue shows little, ..."

It is Bezos's choice not to show what they are doing until he is good and ready to. They are carrying out a very substantive and elaborate program. Alan Stern, who is a consultant for them, has given strong hints that they will be unveiling their vehicles in the not so distant future. I look forward to seeing them flying soon afterwords.

"It has always had such a basis..."

No, that is not true. Centennial Challenges, COTS, etc are in no way similar to standard procurement or subcontracting. Furthermore, the legislation restricting NASA from flying commercial satellites and requiring it to use commercial launch when feasible were enacted specifically because there was no prior basis for them.

The regs for commercial spaceflight under which the new suborbital RLVs are going to fly would never have happened without the space advocate community fighting for them. I participated in several efforts on Capitol Hill to lobby for them. These things don't just happen. They need dedicated, enthusiastic effort by people who see things very differently than Dr. Day.

"And the example where he said those enterprises were hopeless is?"

A much tougher question is to find something he has written where he has said any new commercial space idea had any chance of success. One of the first things I remember reading from him was a long, long, long essay attacking all the commercialization ideas that MirCorp intended to pursue. Though MirCorp bit the dust, those ideas are being pursued by companies like Space Adventures, which has made orbital space tourism a reality. MirCorp helped to encourge Bigelow is making private habitats a reality.

Dr. Day also refuses to admit that small satellites have found very successful and substantial markets. It was an enormous struggle for companies like Surrey to bring this about. He never predicted any of this.

"You can’t develop industries or vehicle without constantly asking and demanding answers to a lot of rude questions..."

It is one of the vanities of such essays that people who are taking huge risks with their fortunes and careers are doing so without having asked serious questions. Of course, they have. They know more about the possible failure modes than anyone.

Anyway, let's see how things go. The coming year will be an important one for the development of a number of NewSpace enterprises. I expect that more than one will show significant progress by this time next December.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 12/25/09 17:08:01