The written testimony submitted by the witnesses is mostly centered on their personal financial interests. Everybody who testified on future launch needs wanted the whole profitable business given to his particular shop:

-- NASA AO Bill Readdy continued to boost Shuttle as the ultimate launch vehicles, in the face of mounting evidence that it cannot perform the 25-30 flights necessary to "complete" the assembly of the ISS. And he got in lots of plugs for the inane Shuttle-C concept too.

-- Thiokol VP Mike Kahn wanted to launch the new CEV spacecraft on a single Shuttle SRB which has no thrust termination system, making escape for the hapless astronauts impossible. As usual, profits and jobs in Utah take precedence over human lives or even common sense.

-- Lockheed -Martin VP John Karas wanted a super-EELV based solely on his firm's Atlas V, with a possible admixture of Shuttle technology for upper stages. He carefully avoided mentioning the Delta IV from the rival Boeing stable; which would be a much better source for LH2-fuel technology.

-- Robert Hickman from The Aerospace Corp. (the USAF's private think-tank) remained loyal to his patrons in the Pilot Mafia by proposing a winged flyback Super-Shuttle that would fly once a week. How many more times will the flyboys smash their heads into this brick wall before they admit that space is not the same as air?

-- Showing that the "alt.space" community is just as blind as the Old Guard, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk whined about the big non-bid contract NASA just gave to his competition at Kistler Aerospace.

I totally agree with the merits of Musk's challenge to this absurd contract.

Kistler is actually now in Chapter 11 bankruptcy (after burning up about $800M of private capital), which would seem to be a strong objection to giving it a contract to purchase flight test data from its non-existent reusable boosters. The deciding factor here was that Kistler is the only one of the many "alt.space" companies with an army of ex-NASA greybeards in management roles. Those good ole boys sure take care of each other.

But it was politically inept of Musk to devote half his tiny written testimony to this contract, which doesn't really affect Musk's projected booster development program.

Even if it is worth fighting about, the fighting should be done by means of legal challenges and quiet lobbying. Trying to make his case in a public Congressional hearing was a bad idea, as Musk learned when Senator Breaux stopped him from discussing it.

Instead of this debacle, Musk could have given us a good essay on why his float-back booster approach is the only one that has a prayer of making a real near-term space program possible within the current NASA budget.

Anyone in Musk's position ought to have such a tutorial in his personal computer already. The fact that he either didn't have this document or failed to submit it to Brownback's staff suggests that this wunderkind from the Bubble Years doesn't understand how things work in Washington.

If these major players in the space-launch industry can't come up with a concept for future launch vehicles broader than "give my company billions of dollars to do exactly what we are doing already", what right do they have to criticize NASA or the Bush Administration for lack of vision? Their vision of Man's future in space is like looking at the universe through a soda straw.

Jeffrey F. Bell is Adjunct Professor of Planetology at the University of Hawai'i at Manoa. All opinions expressed in this article are his own and not those of the University.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Space Analysis and Space OpEds

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News