Lori Garver Claims That NASA Is 'Wary' of Elon Musk's Mars Plans (arstechnica.com) 103
MarkWhittington writes: Ars Technica reports that former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver claimed, during a panel discussion at the Council for Foreign Relations, that many at NASA are "wary" of the Mars ambitions of SpaceX's Elon Musk. While the space agency has yielded low Earth operations to the commercial sector as part of the commercial crew program, it reserves for itself deep space exploration. Garver herself disagrees with that sentiment: "I thought, fundamentally, you just don’t understand. We’re not in a race in a swimming pool where everyone is racing against one another. We're in a cycling race where the government is riding point and the others are drafting behind us, and if someone comes alongside us and can pass us because they’ve found a better way, we don’t get out our tire pump and stick it between their spokes."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly I think Musk is smarter than that. He knows that if he fucks up big in that arena he is going to set back privatize space flight/exploration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Remember how many times Western governments messed up huge projects when the German experts had issues with some aspect of an early launch, test after WW2?
The UK spent huge amounts on its own failed early Skynet satellite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] only to buy into a US system.
Government or private sector, the cash needed is huge, the testing is spectacular in public until a nation or project finally understands or decades later reinvents the
Re: (Score:1)
Congrats, you are suffering from Global Warming Denialism, where you'd rather question the expertise of scientists and handwave warnings of experts.
Here's a tip: If you are siding Lamar Smith? You are probably wrong.
Re:Of course they don't like him. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No, we have to retort him at the stake, so that he and the stake will be converted into biochar for the Organic Food Co-op. The volatile gases given off will be sequestered in an approved seabed carbon sink.
Re: (Score:3)
He promises stuff he fails to deliver.
Compared to who? You just described the majority of established aerospace actors including government agencies.
Re: Of course they don't like him. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The AC is probably a climate change denier..
Re: (Score:1)
Like the US oil and coal industries, do you mean? Or perhaps not quite that "good".
Re: (Score:2)
What subsidies do oil companies get that no other business is privy to? Unless you mean the US buying and stockpiling some oil (at less than market value) or them buying oil to heat poor people (at less than market value)? They get the same tax breaks every other company gets and no subsidies that I'm aware of. Oil companies aren't even really all that profitable, the vast majority of money spent on oil is in the form of taxes.
I don't know about coal but that's probably much the same. Government paying for
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HEAP is the name as I recall. States may call it something different or have a separate program. HEAP is Heating Energy Assistance Program. If you are below the poverty line then you may be eligible for assistance where the government buys you some heating fuel so that you don't freeze to death. I believe they also will pay for firewood and electricity if those are your main or only sources of heat.
It's kind of tough to call that an oil subsidy but I've seen folks try to include it in the list of things so
Re: (Score:2)
They don't get *any* special subsidies or tax breaks.
Oil companies get to deduct expenses just like any business, which includes writing off the expenses for the first year when drilling a well, whether the well is profitable or not. Specific to the oil/gas industry are the depletion allowance and Domestic Manufacturing Deduction [motherjones.com], which allow the industry to avoid over $1B in taxes per year.
The last 2 sure look like they are special to that industry.
Re: (Score:2)
Depreciation seems to be something that anyone can use, I don't think it's specific to those industries but it is enumerated as specific items but, if I recall correctly, that was something they didn't want - I seem to recall reading that they were wanting to wait and write it all of. However, depreciation is something most businesses can write off or even defer and write off all at once. You can depreciate computer equipment, cars, and other resources as their value decreases. It's not really special, it's
black orchid time, losers! (Score:1)
Elon is great,
We surrender our will
As of this date.
Re:I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score:5, Insightful)
He seems really good at using government subsidies to make money for himself.
Well, that's the point isn't it? To jumpstart private industry? You can't do that without the profit motive.
Tesla paid it's 450 million 2009 loan back with interest in four years and went from the brink of bankruptcy to a market cap of 29 billion dollars. Sounds like a success story to me.
Re: (Score:1)
No, it isn't. Market capitalization has nothing to do with profitability, it is about perception. Tesla is still bleeding cash (more than $1 billion a year) and if they don't get their costs under control and/or increase sales, they will run out of money by the summer of 2016. They are losing money on each car sold because they don't sell enough to make up for the R&D. They are a gnat in the automotive market, with global sales at about 50K cars annually. They already cut production targets for 2015 and
Re: I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also their giant battery factory thing, which is worth something all by itself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"they will be producing at around 100,000 cars by end of 2016 and when model 3 hits, should be able to do 150-200k just on model S and X. Combine with an easy rampup of 50-100k M3 just for the first year, and we are looking at over 300k by end of 2017."
Yeah, well, they'll be producing a lot of cars... The question is: will they be able to sell them?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The demand is outstripping their supply. Right now, if they could product 250,000 MS, they would be able to sell it just in America and Europe ALONE."
Quite a faith step given that they managed to sell just 8800 cars in Europe on 2014, with numbers for 2015 that won't be much higher.
About 80% of all these cars were sold in only two countries: Norway and The Netherlands, the only two countries in Europe were these cars are heavily incentivized (they go with above 30% discount at purchase plus a lot of recurr
Re: I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score:2)
Re: I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because you're looking at some faux value in a 'stock market' that you think has actual meaning and value.
The reality of it is that a single incident can drive Tesla stock to be worthless (and I don't mean anything related to the actual cars either).
If you measure success by the stock market, you're an idiot. The stock market is a measure of how well scammers can get stupid people to buy virtual pieces of paper (they don't even use real stock certificates anymore) as if it had some meaning or value.
Re: I'd be wary of Musk, too (Score:2)
Re: Elon Musk is for cows. (Score:2)
Re: Elon Musk is for cows. (Score:2)
Ya ya (Score:1)
Musk does burn government $$$ but NASA does so as well. I'm indifferent but some people aren't happy unless they're complaining.
He gets stuff done, making others look bad (Score:2, Insightful)
At this stage, NASA should just funnel money to SpaceX as fast as they can, before the space programs of other countries make them an irrelevance.
Yes I know that's harsh, but how else can NASA sidestep the politicians that meddle with NASA's long-term plans every election cycle?
Re: (Score:3)
At this stage, NASA should just funnel money to SpaceX as fast as they can, before the space programs of other countries make them an irrelevance.
Yes I know that's harsh, but how else can NASA sidestep the politicians that meddle with NASA's long-term plans every election cycle?
Well, nothing Musk has done so far is deep space-specific. In fact, the whole manned flight program comes from NASA money. Is he going to design the Mars lander, outpost, return vehicle and fund it all? I doubt it. So in practice it's going to be on the politicians' whim for quite some time still.
Re: (Score:2)
Well shit, why would they have bothered to call it Space eXploration, then? WHy not just call it "Space UPS" or "SpacEX" or some other delivery company name?
Re: He gets stuff done, making others look bad (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He is at least slightly visionary. I figure I'm averagely visionary, and here's what I come up with:
Screw that throw away flimsy ass lander vehicle thing. For what, red dirt on boots? Where's the profit in that?
Think big man. A real space ship. A real ship that lasts 100 years. It rotates for gravity and surrounded by water for radiation. Stay as long as you like. It's really big.
Impossible you say?
That's where the cheap ass subsidized reusable rocket comes in handy. It's a game changer in the right hands.
Re: (Score:2)
"in practice it's going to be on the politicians' whim for quite some time still."
Ah, my friend, but there's a giant difference, here: SpaceX is a private company, NASA is not.
No, no, I'm not implying anything the like of "government can't do anything right, let's handle it to the private initiative". The difference is that NASA, being a public entity, can't bribe congressmen to ensure its money provision, Musk can.
Re: (Score:3)
At this stage, NASA should just funnel money to SpaceX as fast as they can.
This would turn SpaceX into a NASA clone.
People at SpaceX aren't fundamentally smarter than those from NASA. Their advantage is that, as a private company, they are profit-driven, which prompts for cheaper and more reliable design. Good for routine missions. NASA is more about research and development, that's two different approaches.
Flooding SpaceX with money and asking them to do the same job as NASA is a recipe for disaster IMHO as it will go opposite to where SpaceX is good.
Re: He gets stuff done, making others look bad (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Being profit driven is not a bad thing. Making profit is the duty of any private company, because a company that is not profitable will eventually bankrupt and this is good for no one.
This is especially essential for companies with good engineers, because these are the ones that should stay alive.
What you are talking about is optimizing for short-term profits. This is bad, and in fact, it is not even seeking profit, it is sucking the company dry, leaving just an empty shell behind. And that's important that
Re: (Score:2)
However, Musk is NOT profit driven. He is goal driven, of which the making of profits is a side-effect, not the ONLY goal.
Re: He gets stuff done, making others look bad (Score:2)
Swimming pool vs. cycling race (Score:5, Insightful)
Worst. Analogy. Ever.
Re: Swimming pool vs. cycling race (Score:2, Funny)
NASA had to lay off their analogy writers too.
Re: (Score:1)
There's this fish, see, and it has a bicycle...
No, no, wait. There's a bicyclist and a unicyclist...
No that's not it. A Rabbi, a Priest and a Mechanic walk into a bar...
Can we get back to you?
Swimming pools? Cycling races? (Score:1)
We can put a man on the Moon ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It sure beats the bad car analogies from SCO v IBM
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point of the analogy.
Near Earth orbit and Mars insertion are two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Just because are fast in a swimming pool ... doesn't mean you have dick of a chance in a bike race with the same people.
Re: (Score:2)
Just sayin' what? That you're entirely too literal and missed the point because while you're trying ridiculously to show us how smart you are ... you weren't even smart enough to realize that an analogy isn't meant to be 100% factually accurate and is instead intended to convey a point? Is that what ya'r say'n?
That sound you hear? Thats the other slashdotters laughing at you as if you ... kind of like the other riders you refer to.
Re: (Score:2)
great metaphor (Score:3)
That's a great metaphor. Keep in mind that (1) riding point doesn't mean you're the winner, (2) bicycling relies heavily on doping, and (3) once they see themselves losing their funding, any remaining good intentions of "playing fair" will fall by the wayside.
Wary that it gives congress and excuse to defund (Score:3)
Launching to Earth orbit has a clear business plan. Companies with real revenue streams will pay for this service for sound business reasons. Thus, it makes sense for a private company to do this. They can make money this way and that is what all business are out to do.
Going to Mars, though, does not have a clear plan. Where is the profit? Even if you can do it for a reasonable cost, how do you make money? Thus, I'm sure many in NASA and outside, are doubtful that Musk will actually do this.
However, if Elon Musk does send humans to Mars then funding NASA to do the same thing is an expensive redundancy. If enough of Congress believes that story then there will be no funding for NASA.
If Elon Musk does not go to Mars and NASA does not go to Mars (because congress thought Elon Musk would do it) then I guess nobody goes to Mars.
That is the sort wariness I would expect from smart people working at NASA.
Re: (Score:2)
Any private company can do space now until it gets a bit interesting with the Missile Technology Control Regime or established gov contractors try and keep their decades of no bid contracts.
Re: (Score:1)
Where is the profit? Even if you can do it for a reasonable cost, how do you make money?
people pay to go, same as suborbital flights, Musk has said he has done the figures and he wants to get the costs down to $500k per person, which implies that it will be in the millions for the first few trips, and implies he is going to make money out of it.
His companies are making money, so I don't think you can doubt he has planned it out to make money.
Musk isn't going to Mars (Score:2, Informative)
Musk isn't going to Mars. Just a financial breakdown of the Apollo missions will demonstrate easily why Musk isn't going to Mars. He can't afford a spacecraft that big. He can't fund it, and can't build it. There's no business case for going to Mars. It's a frontier that business won't fund the exploration of. To be honest, I don't think America is smart enough to get to Mars anymore. The general population is too pacified/enthralled to pay for a Mars mission or even care about why they should go to mars.
Re: (Score:1)
You could wind back an extra ten years and have said there is no way Musk could get to orbit based on a breakdown of the original Vostok human space flight program. But he has and it didn't cost a significant portion of the nation's GDP to achieve that. The reason why, of course, is that technology has marched forwarded significantly in the last 40 years. Are we at a point where it is within the realms of a billionaire to stage a mars mission? Maybe not. But technology is trending towards that point, and it
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that's not what he's planning on using. He's planning on building a super-heavy lifter roughly comparable to the Saturn V or SLS. Here's the link from the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. If you scroll down you'll see a cross-section comparison. This thing makes the Falcon Heavy look like a toy.
He is planning on some Falcon 9 based flights to Mars, but those will be just be landers and/or supplies. Here's the wikipedia link for that one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. I haven't seen anything about re-usability on the SLS which is just nuts. I actually think Airbus' approach with the Adeline is a more realistic approach, but they don't seem to be nearly as far along as SpaceX is. Any sort of re-usability is clearly better than none.
My main disagreement with Ms Garver is that she portrays this as a turf war. Musk has an edge of bravado about him that can make him seem a bit un-serious. Re-using rockets sounds great. Re-using them on the same day sounds like a gree
NASA Shouldn't Even Be In Space (Score:1)
NASA may be reduced to FAA status (Score:2)
We're not in a swimming pool! Really we're not!!! (Score:2)
Lori Garver said: "We’re not in a race in a swimming pool where everyone is racing against one another."
If you're not in a swimming pool, why are there bubbles coming out of the astronauts' helmets and spiraling upwards? If you're not in a swimming pool, why did an astronaut's suit suddenly fill with water, and "makeshift snorkels" were required?