Space Cynics

We've Moved!

2007-06-20T01:32:00.000-07:00

Space Cynics has a new home, and a fresh new look:

The New Space Cynic Website

Using the Fed to Lower Launch Costs...?

2007-06-19T12:58:00.000-07:00

One of the oft-heard metrics amongst the space-development crowd is that if we could only lower the cost of launch to under $1000 per lb to orbit, as opposed to the $10,000 per pound that the hideously expensive shuttle charges, new markets would be enabled. There may be a bigger problem to consider....

Consider these bits of monetary trivia:

• The US Dollar has lost considerable amounts of inherent value through devaluation (some might argue outright debasement) of the currency as larger amounts of liquidity are pumped into the marketplace.

• The US government, through the Fed (which is actually a private bank, but that's another matter best left for other blogs and other websites to discuss), has borrowed extremely large amounts of money to finance expenditures on everything from Defense to Welfare, in order to support the shortfall in revenues that exists between the taxes collected and the $ spent on programs.

• The Euro, and most other major world currencies, have surged against the US Dollar over the past 7 years. Here in Australia, when I arrived in 2002, the exchange rate was US$0.62 to the Aussie Dollar - now it's US$0.83 and climbing...

• The Dow is *not* at an all-time high. Inflation adjusted, the Dow actually has to hit over 16,000 just to reach it's highs from the past 15 years. Think about that.

• Last year, Linda Goldberg, a vice president and head of the International Research area at the New York Fed, spoke about how in today's global economic environment, dollar depreciations have asymmetric impacts on exports relative to imports. She argued that the wide use of the dollar as the invoicing currency in international trade transactions affects how exchange rate movements influence traded goods prices in different countries and trade balance adjustments. In her analysis, substantial dollar depreciation did not provide much relief for U.S. producers competing with importers; however, markets for U.S. exports could really grow.

• Dollar depreciation reduces activities in upstream through different channels including increased cost, higher inflation rates, lower purchasing power, and lower return on investment.

So what does all this mean?

A couple of things come to mind (but these are not the only likely outcomes - i would be interested in your thoughts on other implications of these macroeconomic forces...)

1) Unless the US manufacturers are raising prices, the true international cost of a US made rocket or satellite should be getting significantly more competitive against their competitors (e.g., Delta II relative price should have dropped by 20-30% against the European equivalent)*

2) The cost of international launches should be getting more expensive in US dollar terms for purchasers of launch services*

3) The "true" cost of a Shuttle launch, in international terms, appears to have dropped by almost 35% since 2000, but then we all know how squirrelly NASA accounting can be...

Finally, as the US financial base gets more strained from increased liabilities (social security, medicare, ongoing wars, etc) and difficulty in obtaining future deficit financing (because of the dangers of raising interest rates - required to make the US debt offerings attractive to foreign buyers, but avoided by the Fed because of the impact it would have on the US domestic economy by punishing all of those mortgage holders who have Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs)...), the ability to fund discretionary expenditures such as a trip to the Moon or Mars will become a harder and harder sell in an era of forced austerity.

* note - this all assumes, of course, no currency hedging has been done by the companies in these industries.

Ooooh.... Aaaahh... zzzz....

2007-06-11T03:19:00.000-07:00

NASA needs a new spokesperson.

Here's a hint - if you have to resort to the following as a way to make the manned space program seem interesting:

"Two vehicles weighing 230,000 pounds going 17,500 mph, it's tough stuff,"
- Mission Management Team leader John Shannon

you're trying too hard.

Two words: relative velocity.

Unless you consider driving a car down the street whilst hurtling through the milky way galaxy "tough stuff".

You are my Sunshine...

2007-06-09T00:33:00.001-07:00

Ok, I'll admit my first reaction to this article in wired:

Military Target: Solar Beaming Sats

was, Oh no, not again (apologies to Douglas Adams). Those of you who have been following the Cynics since we debuted April 2006 will recall a previous blog post on why Space Solar Power is a kool-aid effort of the highest order.

But believe it or not, I am actually partly heartened by this latest push to SSPS.

Why? Because, as many of you have heard me say (or write) before, I am firmly of the belief that only the DoD has the budget, the operational experience, and the political clout to develop truly cheap, reliable, reusable access to space. Not NASA, and not the toy spaceships being developed by the private sector.

But if the DoD does decide that they have a case for development of such technologies (hypersonic transports, responsive space access, etc), then the trickle down to the commercial and private sector will follow - as it has for many other technologies we take for granted now (including GPS). But only the DoD would have the resources to pull off a massive 10km geostationary solar power station - and even then they'd only be able to do it if they had first created a spacelift capability that doesn't exist today (and, of course, had developed the experience to do major on-orbit assembly operations amongst other things).

Of course the Military Industrial Complex (read: big aerospace) would LOVE this kind of model, which means it would be able to get a fair bit of Congressional support. A far cry from NASA's meager attempts to flog a manned space program that barely limps along from year to year, fingers crossed that they don't blow up another shuttle in the process.

For now, though, at least we have a study.

The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first steps.

Good luck to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith of the US Air Force as he develops this study. Note to Major General James Armor (Director of the National Security Space Office) - kudos for having the foresight to look at this problem... just keep an open mind when looking at the implications the report will likely present (and don't let them try to feed you the kool-aid in the process). SSP isn't easy, nor trivial - it will require a major rethink of DoD Space and if the foundation isn't laid, this simply will not pan out.

Electrons 2 : Atoms 0

2007-06-04T15:19:00.000-07:00

For those who say no good can come from Microsoft (we'll avoid any embarrassing mention of the Zune here...), I would like to share with you yet another stunning example of how technology is revolutionizing the way we see the world:

Photosynth Demo

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: the new frontier is NOT space, but cyberspace. Secondlife, Google Earth, and things like Photosynth are making the web the true next frontier for humanity, one where the "cost" of entry is a PC and an internet connection.

How can outerspace compare with that?

Until, and unless, we get truly Cheap, Reliable, Reusable, Access to Space (CRATS), the masses will never leave terra firma. I'm concerned that our window will close in this generation unless that point is absorbed and acted upon by those with the bucks.

Electrons 1 : Atoms 0

2007-06-03T17:15:00.000-07:00

The Space Cynics have officially opened the Cynics Lounge in Second Life!

So come down, bring your favourite beverage, grab a lounge chair on the rooftop, and watch the virtual rockets being tested in the sand box.

In the future, we'll be having chat sessions at the Lounge for those who want to challenge our positions, ask us questions, or just hang out and discuss whatever comes to mind.

Major kudos to Robin Snelson for helping a Second Life newbie (me) get us started there!

p.s. - we're looking for good furniture and fixtures, so any donations are appreciated

p.p.s. - and for those who've never seen it, I recommend a quick trip to First Life

So What IS Their Mission...?

2007-05-30T19:41:00.000-07:00

From a recent interview (courtesy of Space Daily):

GRIFFIN: Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another. We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well. I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to quote "battle climate change."

----

Riddle me this, readers - can anyone point the Cynics to the actual authorization so we can see what NASA really IS supposed to be doing, according to Mr. Griffin's "If it's not in the Authorization, it's not our mission" criteria? Perhaps he can get them out of those silly manned space missions to nowhere while he's at it?

I don't care if you are in the "Global Warming is a crisis" camp or the "Global Warming is Hyped" camp - or, if you're in the Global Warming is a natural phenomenon camp for that matter. The issue I want to dig into here is what IS the mission of NASA? The organisation has many different arms - from the most well known and dysfunctional (Manned Space) to the often times brilliantly successful (robotic space - e.g., Hubble) to the virtually unknown by the masses (biology, aeronautics, etc). When I used to do strategic planning work with NASA back in my KPMG days, their "strategic plans" were a mishmash of different objectives and directions. I doubt much has changed, other than the lettering of Codes at NASA HQ.

The question at the root of all this is: Does NASA even know what it's "elevator pitch" mission is, and can anyone succinctly describe it here?

The soapbox is open, let's hear your ideas.

In Space, No One Can Hear You Groan

2007-05-12T02:00:00.000-07:00

Well, it appears our fine public servants at NASA have been hard at work in the CGI labs, creating a promotional video for the future theme park they intend to build on the Moon.

I'll leave aside for the moment my total disbelief that a meaningful sustainable lunar base will be built by NASA in my lifetime due to a whole range of economic issues which have been written about in previous entries.

Instead, I'd simply like to point out a couple of things:

First, to the geniuses at NASA who created this little promo trailer, trying to cash in on the hype of Hollywood: sorry, but the Transformers movie has a much cooler trailer. Oh, and I really think that if anyone is going to make a trailer of a space base, NASA would at least get it right and not include SOUND EFFECTS. For the love of God people, you do realise that space is a vacuum, right?

Second, to the general public out there that get sucked in by these sort of promotional vapor ware extravaganzas. Google "VentureStar". You'll see some really cool promo videos of the supposed successor to the Space Shuttle.

Computer simulations are easy.

Space is hard.

One Year Later, A Refresher

2007-05-08T22:34:00.000-07:00

A series of back and forth comments on a recent posting of mine ("Space Race 2.0? Hardly.") made me realise that, having reached our 1-year anniversary here at the Space Cynics...

Happy Birthday to Us
Happy Birthday to Us
Happy Birthday dear Space Cynics
Happy Birthday to Us...

Anyways: as I was saying, it being our one year anniversary, perhaps it's time for a quick primer for those who haven't been with us from the beginning (and can't be bothered to actually read the archives - you know who you are) and a refresher for those who simply have lost the plot as to what we Cynics actually believe and hold dear.

So, without further ado, here you go.

Development of outer space (this solar system, the galaxy, whatever) WILL likely happen some day by humanity. I say likely because we have to first win that race against self destruction that we seem so hell bent upon. Assuming that humanity manages to get past our adolesence, then developing the "final frontier" is inevitable.

That doesn't mean it will happen in our lifetimes.

The likelihood of lunar bases of any meaning, asteroid mining, L5 colonies, or any of that High Frontier gobbledegook (that's the scientific term) happening in the next 20-30 years is so vanishingly small even the Hubble Space Telescope can't see it. So get over it.

The same goes for massive space solar power satellites, an observatory on the far side of the moon, a meaningful Mars mission, etc.

The missing link, painfully bad analogies of the New World notwithstanding, is Cheap, Reliable, Reusable Access to Space (or, CRRATS). Without the ability to get things off Terra Firma easily and regularly, the markets (commercial ones, not just selling to NASA or the DoD) won't develop. WHEN it happens, however, it will be like any other new market where the cost of entry has dropped considerably - more applications, more entrants, inevitable successes and failures, etc.

Dennis Wingo, for instance, had a great concept with SkyCorp - build satellite components on the ground, assemble the satellite in orbit, so that it costs less and has a better reliability (no need for the fully assembled version to suffer the extremes of the launch regime when you can send it up in pieces...). Unfortunately, without an industry configured around such a model, and no way to regularly get those pieces into orbit, assemble them at a station, etc., we're stuck with the "Big Dumb Booster"(TM) approach.

Fanciful concepts of massive stations at GEO, or even a Space Elevator, ignore the reality that we can barely manage to assemble a station in LEO, which is tiny by comparison, and yet hugely expensive (and yes, many of the ISS costs were a waste, and there is virtually no amortisation of the NRE, but even still it is a ridiculously expensive way to go about things, building a station with overpriced launches).

We are cynical by experience, not because we are ill-informed. Combined we have decades of experience in a wide range of space-related businesses - so give us a little credit. That being said, to those of you who tune in from around the world to read our missives, thank you. It's nice to know we are being read, even if we are but a small, often drowned out by the kool-aid crowd, voice in the wilderness.

Which brings up another point - this "us vs. them" mantra that gets touted every now and then about how we need to develop space to make sure that the core values of the US - "democracy and freedom" (or insert whatever jingoistic babble floats your boat) - is what takes root in space, instead of the evil commies or terrorists or whatever.

Get over it.

If anything, the lack of collaboration on the ground amongst the peoples of the Earth bodes ill for the future of humanity in space, at least in an organised fashion. If we can't figure out how to play nice on the ground, it'd be hard to see how we'll last long in space. And we'd better figure that out, because the "we need a space colony to preserve humanity in case a big asteroid wipes out the planet" kool-aid group needs to realise that some sad little outpost on the moon or, worse, in orbit doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of maintaining the Homo Sapien line if Earth is wiped out. At least for the next 100 years.

And that, my friends, is all that matters.

Because we (the current generation of adults in America, anyways) has shown it has no real concern for our own grandchildren and the world (and DEBT) we are leaving to them, so why should we be concerned with the world 100+ years from now?

Sure, in a touchy-feely leave no impact kind of way this is important - but be sure that you recognise that the vast majority of humanity will continue to do what they do because the laws of inertia and conservation work on a human level as they do in the realm of physics. Wishing otherwise won't change that - and planning your business model around it is just the height of stupidity.

One Man Can Make A Difference

2007-05-04T16:15:00.000-07:00

Congratulations, in this case, to two men.

First, to Rand Simberg, for posing the idea of a prize-driven contest to create a better astronaut glove. NASA took your idea, ran with it, and the contest was a success.

Second, to the winner of the contest: Mr. Peter Homer, an engineer in Maine who used that old Yankee ingenuity to get himself a $200,000 prize for coming up with a better glove.

And, third, to NASA - for a willingness to try new models, and in the process, help to stoke the engine of innovation at the grassroots level that is essential to keep the entrepreneurial spirit alive.

Godspeed, Wally

2007-05-03T18:42:00.000-07:00

Just a brief note to mark the passing of one of the original Right Stuff rocketmen, astronaut Walter M. "Wally" Shirra Jr. Wally was one of the Mercury 7 team, as well as having flown in both the Gemini and Apollo programs.

No comment, no moralising, no pithy statements - just Godspeed, Wally, as you begin your next great voyage.

RIP.

Space Race 2.0? Hardly.

2007-05-01T16:14:00.000-07:00

The internet this past week has been abuzz with stories of NASA vs. their old nemesis, the Russkies - this time about plans to return to the Moon, and how NASA has turned down Russian offers of cooperation on the mission. Speculators speculate that this is to "deny Russia access to an isotope in abundance under the moon's surface that many believe could replace fossil fuels and even end the threat of global warming."

I initially thought to just ignore this and other similar articles because they are written by journalists who are paid to produce, regardless of the actual nutritional value of the content they churn out. However, when this particular article made its way to the Motley Fool financial discussion boards, and people there started discussing this as if it were serious, I realised that the Kool-Aid problem is as real as ever. And so we don our trusty capes and swords and once more proceed into battle with the forces of stupidity.

Problem: there are so many things wrong with this NASA vs Russia for the future of He3 story it's hard to know where to start.

Let's stick with the basics, then:

1) We don't have the ability to mine the moon
2) We don't have the space vehicles to go to or from the moon, much less transship anything of significant mass.
3) The ISS as we know it won't be functional in another 15 years (i'll take wagers on that if anyone doubts me), and can't serve as a staging post for any such transshipment.

oh, and here's the real doozy:

4) We don't have a functional fusion reactor on Earth, so fuel for such a "reactor" is, as the article points out, the equivalent of medieval alchemy.

But hey, they get paid to write, so they'll write, even if it's nonsense. And we'll continue to be Cynics, even though we don't get paid to be.

p.s. - Happy 40th Birthday to my brother Baber. Technically it's still May 1 where you are, but here in Sydney it's already the 2nd.

An Argument For "Youth"-anasia, Redux

2007-04-23T15:30:00.000-07:00

Apologies again for those who come here looking for space-related commentary (I would not hazard to use the word "insight" since I'm sure a fair number of our readers would be loathe to call us insightful...). This posting, in part a followup to this one:

An Argument for Euthanasia

has been spurred by the latest gem I found in my morning paper:

We Wanted to Kill Someone - Teen Killers

There are those who have objected to my comments in the past (backed up by the psychiatric profession, no less) that people who begin by torturing and killing animals have a high likelihood of moving on to people at some point. Sociopaths come in many flavours, from our recent gun-toting loon at Virginia Tech and the gang-bangers who roam the streets of towns around the world to the soccer hooligans and thugs who are regularly featured in the news media (outside the US) for their behaviour at sporting events.

But these two little angels really defy description. And should be removed from the gene pool before they are allowed to breed. Or, as the mother of the victim rightly said, "If we had a death penalty they should get the death penalty."

Submitted for your consideration - and to raise a thought point. Is our species ready to make the leap off this rock, before we figure out what is fundamentally wrong with our culture/civilisation/society/whatever, or are we doomed to carry the seeds of this sort of behaviour with us throughout the cosmos? And, if we were to run into an alien species somewhere in the course of our relentless expansion, would they have the same sorts of behaviours in their society, or would they be like the Asgard* in Stargate?

*(in action, not appearance - because, frankly, they do look a lot like cheesy puppets to me..)

Looking for a New Political Party...

2007-04-13T16:22:00.000-07:00

So on a random surf this morning I came across this particularly stupid editorial/ article:

Pigs in Space

Courtesy of The Nation magazine. Thankfully most of the commentors on that posting excoriated the author for his naive and regressive viewpoint. I think I recognised a few fellow Cynics readers over there....

So here's my problem - I can't find a political party in the US that represents the majority of my views. I think this is a problem that is much broader than the mainstream realises.

I've been told that my views - which can be briefly described as "government should not spend money it doesn't have, and should stay the hell out of my private life" (or, alternatively, a fiscal conservative and social liberal) would fall into the category of "libertarian" - but the Libertarian party (with the notable exception of Ron Paul, who is a libertarian regardless of his actual affiliation) has NO traction in US politics.

They say that if you're 20 and aren't a democrat, you have no heart, and if you're 30 and aren't a republican, you have no brain. But what happens when you turn 40...?

Mr. Simonyi - congratulations on your well-deserved trip. I certainly envy you, and would do the same if I had the cash. As for the hordes of Xena-worshippers out there (you know who you are) - i've got a separate post for you in a moment...

Why Homeschool: Announcing the Carnival of Space

2007-04-13T15:48:00.000-07:00

We're Going To The Carnival!

Ok, not really. I'll admit I'm intrigued by this (new to me) concept of the "Carnival" in cyberspace. Consider it a new form of social meme-ing enabled by cyberspace... and yet another example of how electrons triumph over atoms.

Thanks and congratulations to Henry Cate for organising this forum for spectators and participants alike.

For those of you who are visiting the Cynics for the first time - welcome. Be prepared, we aren't like your "usual" space bloggers. To understand some of the terminology, and philosophy, that underpins the Cynics' positions, I invite you to go back into our archives from a year ago and read through the postings. You will find terms like "space tragic" explained there.

Pauly Shore... your agent is calling

2007-04-07T14:31:00.000-07:00

In the "life imitating art (imitating life)" category...

Saw this news item in the Dutch News this morning.

Space Agency Wants Mars Volunteers

Seems the European Space Agency, having missed the whole Biodome saga here in the US back in the 90's, wants to run an isolation trial of 6 victims/volunteers "isolated in metal tanks for 18 months."

Granted, i'm guessing they won't have to grow their own food, but I have a feeling that even if this actually gets kicked off, the simulated "mission" is going to quietly be "cancelled" somewhere along the way when either (a) the Jack Nicholson character goes nuts and tries to kill his fellow mars explorers, (b) they realise that they forgot a recharger for their iPod or some other key techno device they'll need to keep from dying of boredom, or (c) a real emergency actually does come up (although apparently appendicitis is not considered such an emergency....). Even so, I suspect such a cancellation will occur with the usual self-congratulatory kudos for all that they have learned even though they didn't complete the mission.

Because, you know, in real space, you get do-overs too.

Those who can, launch; those who can't, PowerPoint.

2007-03-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

In my regular gig as a systems/software analyst, I have to wade through a lot of material each day just to keep up with current trends. While my RSS reader has helped me gather it an order of magnitude faster, the reading of the material itself often remains tedious. (The speed reading class helped, but now I have to clean my monitor more often.)

Every now and then, however, I pick up a tidbit like this one, which I found was also very useful in another context, like, say, alt.space...

It's a rant about the signal-to-noise ratio in the software industry. The author, a real, honest-to-God programmer, discusses his frustrations in trying to convince customers to buy his product on its actual merits. His product solves a customer's specific problem. He has actual code that actually ships. Custom onsite configuration is also available as part of the service.

However, more often than not, he finds himself competing with firms who have only vaporware to sell - but their "software architects" come a-calling with a slick PowerPoint show replete with color, animation, and impressive buzzwords. So the poor guy gets caught up in the trap of trying to explain meaningless "architecture" questions asked by the potential client's pointy-haired boss, rather than allowing him to explain how his very real, shipping product would actually solve specific problems and make end users more productive.

I find there is a strong parallel here between the rantings of buzzword-spouting "software architects" selling vaporware, and the unquestioning, romantic worship of future-boy rocketry by the alt.space crowd. They can create or join one startup after another; they raise funding from naive angels by selling the Dream, fall flat, reinvent themselves in another enterprise, raise money from still more naive angels, fall flat again, and keep doing it over and over.

Like "software architects", they are teflon when it comes to failure - they'll never admit to it, except, when pushed, in terms of blaming others or unique circumstances beyond their control - like the regulatory environment, failure to raise sufficient capital, or the blunders of key partners. They never mention, however, how their now-failed product or service was laced with 6 degrees of unobtainium, or violated the laws of economics (sometimes even physics).

The only thing they've ever launched is a PowerPoint show, filled with thrilling 3-D animated effects of their new/improved launcher/spaceship/what-have-you, declaring they'll be taking passenger reservations/client orders in only two years. And every two years that self-imposed deadline keeps getting pushed back. But undaunted by reality, they press on.

They go to all the "right" conferences, make sure they are photographed with luminaries such as Aldrin, wave their arms on panel discussions, and quote liberally from all the books on space and aviation history that festoon their offices.

From now on, whenever I'm confronted by these people, I going to chant to myself the following mantra:

"Rockets launch, payloads fly;
Rockets help customers
Do their work in the sky."

Then I might be able to sit through another annoying PowerPoint show without my breakfast threatening revolt.

I've said this on more than one occasion, and I'll say it again: Entrepreneurial enterprises - of whatever kind - are created to solve problems, offering unique or innovative solutions that inspire customers to buy. This is their primary value proposition, and it's what makes such enterprises potentially worthy of 3rd-party investment. This is the biggest contrast I see between presenting firms at a conference like SmallSat, for example, and those that attend many space advocacy conferences. The SmallSat firms understand the concept of solving problems for customers and adding value - as a result they prosper. The others sell mostly dreams, promises, and vaporware.

Up for a challenge? PROVE US WRONG.

2007-03-08T23:03:00.000-08:00

(originally posted by Old Space Cynic as a comment on the last post thread, but raised to level of separate post by me to make sure you all had a chance to see it... and see if you will respond...)

AmberJane, you have nailed it again, but the blindly faithful will trash you for doing so.

If a younger, high income, interested professional isn't the target market for suborbital flight, who is? The old rich farts with hypertension and questionable AV conduction? When the vast majority of the public is not interested in space, the market numbers for suborbital flights make no sense. A number of prepaid deposits held in escrow are meaningless.

An Australian academic recently did credible market research directly supporting your opinion about preferring orbital to suborbital flight. But, like all dissenters to the party line, he is defined as wrong. Just like Dr. Hertzfeld is wrong on economics according to the true believers.

Trying to refute Dr. Bell's argument with logic based on examples of RATOs (low performance, low energy density) and failure to understand that some severely damaged X-15s were rebuilt using the same tail numbers is both ignorant and silly.

From a business standpoint, are we to accept a hypothetical PowerPoint spaceplane over a tangible data history spanning more than 1/2 century? Which is the more valid approach to guessing reliability numbers? The challenge to the alt.spacers is to prove us wrong: Get the investment capital, build and test and prove the sceptics wrong. Quit arguing about how many angels are dancing on the head of a pin and PROVE US WRONG. If Dr. Bell had used the column headings “major event” instead of “loss” some of the criticism could have been avoided.

We have recently been treated to the spectacle of a BS level engineering space cadet taking on a PhD aeronautical engineer with extensive personal flight test experience and a faculty slot in the UC system over pros and cons of different flight configurations with "opinions" on one side and a wealth of peer-reviewed literature on the other.

I have put my money where my mouth is and have invested in several alt.space companies. Their business plans and structures were clearly flawed, but I hoped that over time they would grow into acting like real businesses. My hopes have not been realized after 4 years. Reading their 5 year projections today is amusing.

You are correct that alt.space investment opportunities are very few and very far between. In my opinion, sure to be trashed as ignorant and ill-informed, the commercial case will not be closed until cheap orbital access is achieved. Suborbital joy-riding will probably not do it. If the space-geeks want capital they have to convince people who think like the Cynics to part with theirs or raise it in other ways. Arguments with ad hominem attacks and distorting logic, omitting inconvenient observations, and the like is best left to the politicians and news media, not to Kool-Aiders frustrated by those who have the wherewithall to fund alt.space ventures but can't see the business case closing.

Finally, it was amusing to see Rand Simberg’s final dig at you (“Have you changed professions from plastic surgeon to aerospace market researcher?”). This is especially silly – insult a person who brings interest, enthusiasm, and potential investment capital to the table because he or she asks a perfectly reasonable question (“What am I missing?”). Great way to encourage investment in the field, Rand. I suspect Rand has no concept of the analytical resources surgeons and other high income/high net worth people can bring to bear for market research, analysis, etc. as they consider investments – including fliers.

For your further illumination, get Dr. Livingston’s recent lecture at USC on the subject or better yet take him up on his long-standing offer to discuss your approach to alt.space investment analysis on his show. Given the way the community seems to operate, it is unlikely that anybody will call up and challenge you face to face. That will all occur behind your back.

It Was Safer Flying Against the Nazis...

2007-03-06T20:20:00.000-08:00

Jeff Bell's scorching editorial on Space Daily skewers the suborbital tourism market six ways from sunday, through a thorough disection of the risks and safety record of rocket-powered suborbital flight to date.

It doesn't matter if your favourite beast is a rocketplane, DC-X lookalike, or spaceship one - he does an admirable job of ripping them apart.

I'll be interested to see the reaction from the kool-aid crowd to this one.

Kudos, Jeff.

An argument for euthanasia

2007-02-28T00:57:00.000-08:00

Warning: to those of you who are looking for a space related blog post (this being the Space Cynics after all), this post is most decidedly NOT space related.

First, the event: People who should be removed from the gene pool

I don't care if you're a dog person, a cat person, or someone who is completely ambivalent to animals. The young retards featured in this article merit my "they should be removed from society, permanently" award. Go ask a homicide detective - these pieces of filth are future serial killers. Spare society the hassle, just toss them on the scrap heap.

For those of you who think that settling the stars is such a great idea, I suggest you spend some time focusing on getting the species fixed, first. On the other hand, I think the idea of some alien slowly dismembering the descendents of these clowns has a certain charm to it - and yes, cretins like these always find a way to breed. Just like cockroaches.

Making it Relevant or "Does Anyone Care?"

2007-02-24T19:15:00.000-08:00

So a recent email posting on MapCom (basically a mailing discussion group of Alt.Spacers with a large overlapping membership of Advocates in the Space Frontier Foundation) brought to my attention this website:

Stop Global Warming

This website has over 640,000 signups already. Can you think of a single space entity which has garnered this level of popular support in terms of people responding to an actual call to action?

Neither can I.

As I've said before, both in conferences and on various Space Show radio interviews, the Space Community MUST take a lesson from the environmental community and find a way to build a bridge with them, because they are ostensibly our best ally in rallying public support for space development as a solution to many of the long-term environmental problems facing mankind.

"Very Accomplished Woman in Tragic Local Story"

2007-02-19T11:23:00.000-08:00

Ok, i've debated posting about this one for over a week now, but two recent media pieces steered me towards weighing in. However, rather than poorly restate what was so eloquently put out there by these two gentlemen, I simply provide their words to you.

First, Jon Stewart's skewering of the media and their coverage of the sad "NASA Astronaut Love Triangle" story (from which I took the title of this blog post as well)

Space Puns Might Astro-Not Be A Good Idea

Second, a great essay by Homer Hickam, which originally appeared in the LA Times.

Space cadets: What would make an astronaut crack?
Too many astronauts for too few slots part of problem

By HOMER HICKAM

As a former NASA astronaut training manager responsible for crew training for shuttle missions, I was not entirely surprised by the initial reports of the sad, bizarre case of Lisa Marie Nowak.

This isn't the first case of astronauts having difficulties in their personal lives. Usually, the straying astronaut simply resigns or retires, and everything is hushed up. But being charged with assault, attempted kidnapping and attempted murder is far greater than anything I ever observed or imagined could occur. Perhaps this tragedy will bring some of the agency's long-ignored problems into the open.

First is the tremendous and unnecessary pressures brought to bear on the members of NASA's cloistered astronaut office. This is the division at the Johnson Space Center in Houston where the astronauts work. It is the office that assigns each astronaut his or her job. Since most astronauts are waiting to be put on a mission, these jobs — such as working on the shuttle hydraulic system or sitting in on meetings about a new science payload — are important, but they're usually no more difficult than the ones accomplished routinely by other NASA engineers and scientists. The difference is the astronauts come under constant scrutiny by their management to determine who will fly and who will not. Some never get assigned to a space mission, yet they are called astronauts as long as they work for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Nowak was hired as an astronaut in 1996. It was a decade before she flew into space. During that time, she was passed over again and again. Somewhere along the line during those disappointing years, I think she became brittle. She finally flew, landed and then was sent to the back of the astronaut line again. My guess is that her personal life started to become unglued from the accumulated strain, and she finally cracked.

But why did Nowak have to endure 10 years of scrutiny and constant competition with her fellow astronauts before she got to fly? The fact is, there are too many astronauts (more than 125) and not enough opportunities to fly. The NASA inspector general said the same thing in a 2003 report. Yet the astronaut office hired 11 more astronauts in 2004. Last year, the shuttle flew three times, carrying just seven astronauts per flight. Its replacement vehicle, which is under design now, will carry at most six astronauts.

Does it make sense to have this many overachievers all walking on eggs, vying for such a limited number of slots?

Only in a dysfunctional bureaucracy like NASA's astronaut office, which keeps hiring more astronauts than it needs.

As a training manager, I was aware that many astronauts felt as if they were powerless, stressed-out peons within their own organization. I observed their daily competition with one another to get a seat into space. In many cases, this trial by fire changed enthusiastic young astronauts into bureaucratic combatants with warped personalities and shaken confidence.

For a long time, I also have been aware of the corrosive resentment many NASA engineers and scientists feel toward the astronauts. The astronauts have a sense of entitlement, and what they want, they get, or so it seems. For instance, I was in a meeting once in which an astronaut who only had a few years of NASA experience constantly interrupted and belittled a 20-year space engineering veteran. That's the kind of thing that fuels discontent.

My suggestion to lessen the pressure on the astronauts and also to decrease the resentment others in the agency feel toward them is to reorganize their office, first by shrinking it. There are two types of astronauts — pilots and mission specialists. The latter are more or less like flight engineers who are generalists. They operate robotics, perform experiments and go on spacewalks. They make up the bulk of the astronaut corps, and we just don't need so many. They should be offered other jobs within the agency. There would remain just a small, core group confident that they will fly.

The remaining seats on shuttle flights should then be opened up to the top tier of space scientists and engineers in the country from outside NASA. Right now, the only Americans allowed to fly aboard our spacecraft are the employees of the astronaut office, who live in a closed community with little outside influence. That is just not right, nor is it healthy.

To bring in the best of the best from outside the agency to fly would not only result in better science and engineering, it would also inject a constant stream of fresh air into a program that, as the Nowak tragedy reveals, is very much in need of it.

Hickam is the author of "Rocket Boys/October Sky," and "The Keeper's Son," among others. This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

Walking Eagle Award Announced!

2007-02-15T19:44:00.000-08:00

This is the season of awards. In keeping with the finest tradition of awarding the best of the best such as with the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, the Academy Awards, the Nobel prizes, the Grammy's, the Emmy's, and the Country Music Awards, and the IgNoble Prize, we at The Space Cynics are now awarding 2007 Walking Eagle awards.

The Space Cynics Walking Eagle Award goes to the person, organization, or group of people best deserving an award in their respective categories. Awards can go to those in traditional space, alt.space/New Space, and related divisions. By receiving the Walking Eagle, the recipient receives well-deserved public recognition for his/her consistently outstanding performance in his/her field during the year.

This highly sought after award is not granted lightly, nor often - please return to Space Cynics each Quarter as we celebrate future Walking Eagle awardees.

Space is HARD

2007-01-30T20:15:00.000-08:00

Condolonces to the men and women of SeaLaunch over the failed attempt to loft the NSS-8 satellite today. Hopefully the Odyssey platform, which is based in my hometown of Long Beach, California, did not suffer much damage and will be back to sea launching again soon.

For those of you who think that space is easy, take a good look at the picture.

It isn't.

The hits keep coming

2007-01-29T08:27:00.000-08:00

Here's another example from the MSM under the rubric of "stuff you can't make up."

Apparently Brian Emmett, who had won a "flight to space" in a loudly promoted public contest in 2005, believed he had to "give up his seat" because he wasn't able to pay the taxes on his "winnings."

Well, I try to use polite, high-road language on this forum, so rather than say what I truly feel, I'll just say that poor Mr. Emmett was..."misinformed".

The fact is, the so-called "prize" he won has no cash retail value of any kind. Why? Because commercial space tourist flights - other than the $21 million a pop Soyuz excursions to ISS, which arguably do not fit the definition - simply do not exist.

Emmett should not have been liable for any tax whatsoever until the day he could actually claim a real seat on a real rocket that was really going somewhere. Those do not exist, yet. Not Rocketplane, not Virgin Galactic, not anybody has anything that is blessed by AST and ready to take paying passengers. And until they do, his "prize" is just a blank sheet of paper, with about the same cash value as that deed to Mars acreage I bought from that guy a few years back, just for fun.

However, should a real seat actually materialize in 2009-11 timeframe, Emmett would have had 4-6 years to set aside enough personal savings to pay the tax.

Think he was disappointed when he gave up his seat? Imagine his chagrin should he read something like this and realizes he did so for no good reason??