New Space Alliance Forming

Received the following invite in my email box today.

You’re invited!

To an announcement of the formation of a new coalition of organizations focused on space development – with special guests Rep. Dana Rohrabacher and Rep. Chaka Fattah.

The National Space Society and the Space Frontier Foundation, along with 9 other space organizations, are joining together to create a new strategic alliance for space development and commerce.  We will be unveiling the details on this new alliance, as well the details on our joint national legislative campaign to advance space policy in 2015.

We are pleased that Congressmen Chaka Fattah and Congressman Dana Rohrabacher will join us, along with representatives of other space organizations, to explain why this is important to space development, commerce, and settlement, and how we will implement our legislative agenda.

Please join us in Rayburn 2325 on Feb. 25th at 10 am for the press conference announcing the formation of this exciting new partnership.  We will explain how the legislative agenda of our alliance will create a trillion-dollar space economy, improve national security, and establish America as the unequivocal leader in space far into the 21st Century.

  • Hug Doug

    What delusions?

    Please, do explain.

  • No, you are an ill informed curmudgeon who presents himself as a know it all while being grossly removed from scientific and technical development and operations.

    An anime fan. A philosophy major.

  • Hug Doug

    Am I ill-informed? By all means, if you’ve heard news of SpaceX successfully landing a first stage and reusing it, I would be extremely happy to hear about it! Please, inform me!

    And I’d love for you to explain how my non-space interests and college major have anything to do with this conversation (by the way, curmudgeon, excellent word! However, the only surly and bad-tempered one here is yourself…).

  • Your position (incredible as it is) would be vastly more believable if you had not previously advertised yourself as an overt Constellation hugger. You need to familiarize yourself with how test flight programs and software and hardware development works. His problem now is simply ‘the barge’. It has nothing to do with actual landing and reuse. That part is a done deal.

    You come off as thinking SpaceX is just moving ahead blindly.

  • Hug Doug

    Please direct me to where I have “advertised [myself] as an overt Constellation hugger,” because I am severely skeptical of your ability to do so.

    I am very much aware of how flight test programs, software development programs, and hardware development work. Indeed, hardware development is part of what I do in my professional work.

    You should know that I have followed SpaceX’s Grasshopper / F9R development programs very closely. I am quite aware of what SpaceX is doing and why, what challenges they have faced, what has set them back and what they have overcome, what they have accomplished, and what they have yet to accomplish.

  • And I should drop everything I’m doing and search through Parabolic Arc archives (and elsewhere). Sure. It’s already a waste of my time trying to educate you on this subject at all. This is amusement and lurker enlightenment. Suffice it to say that your technical credibility is perfect for the new space advocacy alliances. You’ll go far, Doug. Welcome aboard!

  • Hug Doug

    As the one making such an absurd claim, the onus is on you to demonstrate what you are saying is true.

    You need not “waste your time” doing anything. I’m already quite familiar with what SpaceX is doing.

    While your wildly presumptive (and outright incorrect) remarks here and your website filled with “papers” and “recommendations” that went nowhere are a sign of a stellar career on your end, I’m sure.

  • And yet mathematics, physics and engineering continues to progress, Doug, how can that be? I suggest you learn some.

  • Hug Doug

    Your progression of non sequiturs continues…

    How deep and dark is the rabbit hole of your mind?

  • As deep as the financial black hole and was and still is Constellation, and the United States civilian space program.

    And as shallow as the minds of their blind unthinking supporters. This is a condemnation. That’s how they usually read. Isn’t there another congressional hearing tomorrow? No, that’s commercial. Thursday, 2 PM, all the bad actors collected together. Be there or be square, Doug.

  • Hug Doug

    Well, I’ve followed your meandering stream-of-consciousness blathering for some 3 or 4 hours now. It’s been quite a ride, thank you.

    However, I think this is where I must leave you. When you’ve hopped off the incomprehensibility train and have found your way back onto a more coherent pathway of thought, let us know!

  • Sure, and just as soon as the United States government and NASA gets their own launch vehicle, let me know. I’ll pass that news along to the space cadets of the Alliance.

    Hopefully the Federation and the Alliance will sign a treaty.

  • Hug Doug

    I think I’ve just had the conversational equivalent of an out-of-body experience.

  • ThomasLMatula

    You illustrate the Space Advocate problem well. I don’t hate NASA, I admire it for what it did during Project Apollo. But NASA is a Cold War relic that has long outlived its value in terms of opening the space frontier. Like an over the hill quarterback who needed to retire years ago its from a different era and has neither the culture, organizational ability or resources to contribute to the economic development of space. But it seems impossible to suggest its “retirement” without folks claiming falsely you hate it.

    Your statement of “just give it a goal”, is a classic example of why NASA is not suited for the commercial development of space. Goals are closed ended development but industries develop in an open ended fashion. No one gave the mobile phone industry the goal of developing smart phones, its where free market competition took the industry. That is one the basic weakness of both government organizations and socialist economies, they are great at focusing on goals, but their very focus on it kills the innovation and inventiveness that creates new industries and new wealth.

    And getting rid of politics won’t help. The problem is not politics but the closed minded “grand goal” focused organizational culture it is built around. That was perfect for Project Apollo, but it has left the agency helpless and adrift since than as it keeps waiting for the next grand goal to focus on.

  • ThomasLMatula

    Government interference is not the problem. Its incidental. The problem is that NASA has never shaken off the Project Apollo mindset of needing a great goal to organize around.

    There were no great goals in the settlement of the west, not even the Transcontinental Railroad, it was instead a classic example of the freedom to follow independent paths that developed it.

    The exact opposite was the Russian East, Siberia, which also benefited from a transcontinental railroad, the Trans-Siberian. But due to NASA like central planning, first under the Czars then under the Communist Central Committee, it was never really developed and is just as wild in many areas as it was at the end of the Neolithic.

    And again I note. The very folks that founded NASA recognized it would not be able to develop commercial markets, that is why they created Comsat Corporation in 1962 which gave birth, without and advocate groups lobbying for it, the more comsat industry. NASA would have never been able to carry out President’s Kennedy’s goal of creating a global communication system as efficiently or as effectively.

  • ThomasLMatula

    Easy enough to create a new R&D agency under the FAA and transfer the Armstrong Flight Research Center to it along with other needed assets to it. And without the drag of NASA’s high political profile it would probably do the research a lot better.

  • Hug Doug

    but why? NASA already exists, does the same work, and is extremely productive. so why make a new organization?

    also you forgot about Ames, Langley, Goddard, Glenn, and JPL.

    NASA does a lot of aeronautical research. it’s not glamorous, headline-making stuff (the vast majority of the time), but it is a great deal of the productive / academic / practical applications side of what NASA does. this research is already largely ignored by the general public, so i don’t think a “high political profile” is any problem for it lol. if anything, a higher political profile is a huge benefit, it gets them funding they otherwise would not have.

  • Hug Doug

    oh, please. we all know that government interference is the problem.

    i’m going to corner you into a false dilemma so you can make up your mind. you either want NASA (or your brand new space agency) to have a specific goal with funding specified for that goal, or you want it to have no goal at all, and allow them to spend their funding as they choose. pick one.

    no arguments. no conditionals. pick one. which would you rather have?

  • windbourne

    I hear you.

  • Matt

    Even if Putin did recognize also the apparent decadence of
    the liberal political system, installed in large parts of Western world, which will end mid-term in a catastrophe and decline, I do not thing that Putin takes Alexander Dugin’s ideas or geopolitical visions as a direct blueprint. Putin is not a foul, for example he knows about the value of private business (similar as China). However, Putin is right if he tries to leave the exploitative and criminal dollar currency system, which ensures that USA can live on expenses of rest of world by importing real goods and exporting instead “fresh printed” money year by year.

  • Matt

    Thank you for the term “NASA’s high political profile”. I would add the word “ideologized” to profile.