In the aftermath of the end of Shuttle, and in the middle of a muddle in Congress over what to do next, many are skeptical that the US has a real space program.
Well, we do. NASA are still conducting the world’s finest space science missions and the commercial operators are building new launch systems that will operate far more cheaply than the Shuttle did. Last night, 60 Minutes did their worst story in years, about the laid-off workers at the Cape – without any mention that this reduction in staffing is inevitable, if we are to shift to more economical flight ops.
Meanwhile, chest-thumping patriots are voicing concerns that the Russians will now ‘own’ space. That may not be a problem. Here is the latest news from the Russian agency, dogged by a string of recent disasters. The core of the story is here:
Popovkin did indeed hit his head, but it wasn’t on a marble railing. Reportedly, a man smashed a bottle over the head of the Russian space chief after the two men got into a fight over a woman at a party. The woman in question? Popovkin’s personal press secretary, Anna Vedischeva, a 27-year-old former model he hired last year despite her complete lack of knowledge of the Russian space program and zero experience in public relations.
Oh boy.
And, to add a touch of irony to the whole situation, the incident supposedly took place during a party on March 8 to mark…wait for it….International Women’s Day.
Here is something from Google’s picture gallery on this press secretary, to illustrate the matter:
Meanwhile, the Chinese are running their own thing and have reached the point of development that NASA achieved . . . . back in the early 1970′s.
If Congress does not screw this up (which is an open question just now), we will do fine.
I dunno Kevin, she doesn’t look like she has “zero experience in public relations” to me.
Of course, I’m no expert in such things.
In terms of capability, yes. In terms of infrastructure to generate that capability, almost certainly (or how could they be where they are?)
But just because we once had such an infrastructure — and, especially, the will to use it — does not mean we still do. Yes, NASA still does wonderful things, and yes, they don’t get the notice (and support) they should. But NASA’s big ticket procurement has been a disaster for years, even decades. (Oh, the stories I could tell you, if I could, which I can’t…) Even technologically, as you certainly know, capability is a matter of “use it or lose it.” People who assemble lawn furniture at Wal-Mart don’t make complicated things out of materials we no longer produce, no matter what they or their parents did almost a generation ago.
Congress might have the will to allocate a few hundred billion for a project that will end in flag-waving, hubristic triumph before the next election. It almost certainly does not have the will to embark on a ten year program to restore the capability to start such a thing. The debate in Congress now is whether to destroy the whole remainder of the national scientific infrastructure, or only part of it.
I’d love to continue this, but I have to run off to work in a place where, a dozen years ago, I was working for one of the last, long ago terminated projects to replace the space shuttle. Needless to say, we’re doing nothing of the kind today.
Gunnison:
that was the reporter’s take on the matter, not mine.
I am sure that she is quite adept at relating to her fellow humans.
Feminism Marches On, I suppose.
NF:
the new private launch systems, if simply given the chance, can easily replace NASA’s in-house ability to reach LEO. But the Senate Launch System, as an expensive boondoggle, may waste those funds on yet another pointless failure.
Most of the US space capability resides in the contractors, not within NASA staff.
One more thing: that fine little USAF vehicle, again spending months on orbit, can easily be upsized to a version that can carry humans. Boeing have done things like that before, in fact repeatedly.
The 707 began as the KC-130 tanker,
the 747 began as a military airlift project (thus the bubble up top),
and so on.
Kevin,
Wrong tense. Resided.
Yes it did. (KC-135, actually. The KC-130 is the tanker variant of the C-130, which is a whole nother story.)
No, it didn’t. The configuration of the 747 was sketched out on a napkin by Juan Tripp of Pan Am at an informal meeting with Boeing. It was his vision of the ultimate cargo aircraft (which it still is). The idea of the cockpit on top was so four of the largest size of cargo containers could be stacked nose to tail, two on the bottom, two on top. Tripp promised to buy such an olane if Boeing would make it, so they did.
Now I really am gone.
NF: thanks for those corrections, I did type too quickly.
But my point remains: we can do this, we have done it before.
But the SLS boondoggle must be stopped.
What I’d like to see around here (maybe on a slow weekend) would be a review of state capitalism in this country: how it really works, where it is these days, what it’s good for and what it isn’t, and how it could be applied to other needs (that quite possibly can’t be addressed in any other way).
How it really works: we hear “military industrial complex” thrown around a lot, but I don’t think many people outside of it know much about it.
Where it is these days: spitting blood, basically, but making reams of money for the last few players.
What it’s good for: complicated things that take a huge efforts over a long time to invent and then build.
…and what it isn’t: just about everything else.
How it could be applied to other needs: think infrastructure, especially green infrastructure.
Anyway, it’s too big a topic to just spit out, which is probably why it’s just about never discussed at all. Anywhere.
Except in succinct and enlightening political terms, of course.
Ooo, defense industry, bad!
Noo, defense industry, good!
NF:
Jerry Pournelle has long argued that at least part of the basic infrastructure building for the opening of a real space frontier could be turned over to the military. They do tend to Get The Job Done, whatever the job is.
That is why this quiet little USAF project, currently on orbit, is so fascinating to some of us. That robotic puppy could be upsized, something the maker knows how to do, a point I made (clumsily) a bit earlier today.
What we do not need: any new NASA boondoggle. They should be returned to their NACA roots – now there was a useful little agency!
Kevin and Natasha
A couple of years ago we built rocket fairings and payload support structures for the NASA Glory and OCO atmospheric science missions. Two of the first NASA birds to be flown on commercial launchers. Two really interesting, low cost and relevant scientific missions. They didn’t go well with lots of lessons all around. OCO-2 is scheduled for launch next year and should go well.
What I meant before by “…NASA’s big ticket procurement has been a disaster for years, even decades.” It’s broke beyond fixing. Not NASA. Its procurement arm. The Air Force structure isolates and localizes rot. NASA’s encourages it to spread. This matters enorously because rot is inevitable. Successful agencies — there really are a few — are designed to find it, control the damage, and cut it out.
Hope you’re spending that tax money wisely, Expat.
We sure are – And proud to be contributing to our shared endeavors by delivering quality and value as part of our overall medical/aero/industrial/defense/space mix.