In a message dated 3/6/2015 12:00:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
writes:
It's amazing how many false economies we consistently fall for, whether
it's JSF or the idea of a "reusable" box to carry things to orbit that
weighs three or four times as much as its contents. When you realize how
comparable Shuttle was to Saturn V, both about 1/2 billion $ per launch,
6.8 million pounds thrust vs. 7.5 million, and realize that S-V could put
about 2.5 times as much mass into LEO (and for Shuttle only 1/4 of that
was payload, 3/4 was "reusable" box) and twice as much to the Moon as
Shuttle could to LEO, the false economies are appalling. If you figure 135
shuttle launches times the waste mass of the orbiter itself, which was
almost identical to the mass of Skylab, that's 135 Skylabs we could have
put up, or almost 24 ISSs.
That's because post-Apollo NASA was a Jobs-Program, not a Space Program.
A lot of money (for the time) was thrown at beating the Soviets in the
space race and key Congress-critters made sure they brought some of that money
home. There was no national political need to push beyond the Moon since
nobody was going to solve the technical difficulties of getting to Mars
anytime soon. However, they weren't about to let that gravy train end...
somehow I don't think the 'reusable39; efficiency argument was the primary reason
NASA budgeting for the project was approved. Granted iirc it led to the
Challenger disaster (the boosters had to be shipped by rail since they were
made in a key C-critters district so O-rings were required since the
boosters were too long).
While China may push that space race button or some other black swan event
occurs (making space projects a factor in voting), I'd put my bet that more
and more of the heavy lifting will be seen on the private sector projects
in the future. To make space development stick (beyond what we have) I
think it has to have a direct profit motive beyond snapping up a government
contract\subsidy. That just isn't going to happen in a government directed
project... the political nature of the beast creates way too many economic
mal-incentives. For historical example, the only transcontinental railroad
not to go bankrupt was the only one not built using public subsidies (the
Great Northern Railway...now merged into the BNSF Railway). All the other
transcontinental railways (all major receivers of public funds) went
belly-up.
It may take a little longer, but I'd rather see profit motive and economic
self-interest drive space development rather than the government good idea
fairy getting involved. It's more likely to stick that way.