Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

[Zenon Kulpa <zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl>]

> From owner-starship-design@lists.uoregon.edu Wed May 28 06:42:41 2003
> From: KellySt@aol.com
> 
> In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes:
> 
[...]
> >All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly
> >is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle,
> >e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started
> >this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for
> >introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings...
> 
> Launches to do what?  
>
Sorry, should be "launchers" in my text above.
Fortunately, from the following it seems you have understood 
that properly.

> NASA has nothing to do.  Its not like ISS 
> has a purpose toward some long term goal.
> 
> And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless.  
> So launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose.  
> You might as well just shut it down.
> 
> How does a new launcher help them?  To NASA that would doom them.  
> All new launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction 
> of the number of ground support staff.  I.E. it would gut 
> the staff sizes of the big centers.  
> And hence gut NASA political power and influence.
> 
Quite true...

> >> and since shuttle and statino are the only 
> >> maned space programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, 
> >> canceling eather negates the other, which could trigger 
> >> the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, manned space operations.
> >> 
> >> So station and shuttle are wed.  If one dies, both die - 
> >> and possiobly maned space flight with them.
> >> 
> >There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space 
> >program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning
> >to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions 
> >into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing.
> >
> >-- Zenon Kulpa
> 
> Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, 
> and neiather goal generates much public interest.
> 
If properly formulated, and by a popular and appropriately
powerful political force (say, President of the U.S...) 
it may...

> Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the 
> development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate 
> Shuttle station and  much of the rest.  Thjat would shake up NASA 
> to its roots.  Perhaps it would be shut down and replaced, 
> or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or exploration goals.  
> Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us toward space.
> 
Probably true too.
The promising route now seems to go through X-prize
and subsequent space tourism market development.

-- Zenon Kulpa