In a message dated 97-10-13 09:05:39 EDT, you write:
<< Would you mind rebutting his points so those of us who are ignorant can
become <<less so? And, what's the news on Cassini?
I can, but I thought it'll be more appropriate to post an independant "third
party" commentary -- primarily because it's so good.
[IMPORTANT Note: Vandenberg DID have *two* Atlas ICBMs on nuclear alert
during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 -- but that has been the only time
nuclear weapons have been on the base; All ICBM tests from Vandenberg use
"dummy" MIRVs (Multiple Independently-targeted Re-entry Vehicles) -- the
*real* ones are taken off the missile before being shipped to Vandenberg,
where the vehicle is modified with a safety explosive charge and other
telemetry monitoring items].
Subj: Recent L.A. Times Report on California Commercial Space Effort
Date: 97-10-13 08:20:34 EDT
From: John A. Whiting
To: jonathon.weber@latimes.com, WSpaceport@aol.com
Greetings and Salutations!
I've read a Net-posted copy of your article, and I must say, it sounds
decidedly
hostile to having any serious space efforts take place in California. I am
at a loss
to understand why, not knowing your background. If your background is
primarily that of a typical American businessman -- which I would not expect
of someone writing on "The Cutting Edge" -- then it would explain much.
American businessmen tend to disregard anything that can't be profitable
within twenty-four months, something that a complex series of technologies
like a space program can never deliver. Profitable, yes. Profitable within
some short-sighted deadline, unlikely.
The very opening of your article is hostile, bandying emotion-laden phrases
like
"military-industrial complex" and "nuclear warheads" with abandon. If you
want to
talk nuclear warheads, you'll need to talk about ICBM silos in the Mid-West.
Vandenberg may have ICBM capability of some sort, but it hardly seems to be a
"hardened" launch site, but rather, a more open and fragile launch complex
best
suited to spy satellite launches, or perhaps atmospheric sounding probes.
As for the dreaded "military-industrial complex," watchword of the late
sixties and
seventies, if you removed both military and industrial interests from all
American
interests, you would quickly find an America that subsisted on Amish-level
technologies. (We won't discuss the massive emigrations or the massive
starvation
die-offs that would be necessary before the population was small enough to be
able to live that way.)
Now that I've made my own counter-sally regarding your deliberate stirring of
emotions instead of simply reporting on hard facts, may we get to the meat of
the
article?
You said:
>So the question I kept asking myself as I toured the base recently was: Is
>this any place for entrepreneurship?
Are you talking small business entrepreneurship? Like Apple's humble
beginnings in a garage? Then the answer is likely to be 'no.' There are
hobbyists who are probing
the edges of space, but only one has even claimed to reach the 50-54 mile
altitude
that is considered the lower fringe of space, and that vehicle couldn't carry
a
useful payload.
If you're talking about small companies started by men who can afford to
invest a
million dollars or so apiece, like the developers of the Pegasus rocket, then
the
answer is 'probably.' Space development is a high-ticket item, and will
remain so
for some time. This does not mean that space development requires the
billions that
something like the Apollo program required; entire concepts no longer require
being
created from scratch.
You then added:
>It's an effort that seems like a good idea in theory, but carries
>lots of risks in practice.
You yourself are aware that there is nothing about starting or running a
business
that is without risk. You know how heart-breakingly few businesses survive
their
first two years. And you also know (along with Sears, Roebuck & Company,
among many others) that prior success does not guarantee future success. So,
even a well-
established business remains at risk. A risky enterprise should not be
avoided with
no better reason than that it is simply risky. Risk merely means "proceed
with
caution," not "run away screaming."
Continuing:
>There is, however, a lot of competition for satellite launches of all kinds.
Sorry, monopolies are illegal. ANY business we try to get into is going to
have
competition, unless it doesn't fill a need, in which case the business is
going to
die anyway, and not because of any competition.
>California officials, and especially local politicians in Santa Barbara and
>San Luis Obispo counties, are eager to assure that Vandenberg gets its
share.
This is undoubtedly true of a lot of job-seekers, too. Again, more
emotion-laden
phrases instead of a real argument. Remember that when Nixon killed off the
Saturn V program, over a million people in half a thousand different
industries lost their
jobs. Space, by its very nature, requires /very/ broad-based support, thus
increasing jobs in thousands or even hundreds of thousands of different
disciplines.
The only program that requires a broader base and supplies more jobs than
space is
military spending. And with the cutbacks of the last decade or more, that
notion is
increasingly subject to debate. Space programs may very well be providing
more jobs in more fields than the military.
>But a despute broke out over whether WCSC was unfairly favoring its
affiliate
>in the competition for state and federal grants. Another nonprofit entity,
>the California Space Technology Alliance, emerged on the scene. Legislation
>passed last month in Sacramento was supposed to clarify the situation, but
>instead produced an illogical compromise: CSTA has authority over something
>called the California Space Flight Competitive Grant Program, and WCSC is
>given authority over the Highway to Space Competitive Grant Program. The
>descriptions of the two programs' objectives are identical.
Now THIS is an area of genuine concern, and should be looked into vigorously.
The
earlier complaints are merely reasons to proceed cautiously, not reasons to
abandon
the whole thing, which again, appears to be the subtext of your article.
>Now, consider all this in the context of an industry that by its very nature
>is dominated by big business and the military. The newest launch pad at
Don't forget Congressional "pork-barrel" considerations. There's a reason
why
Mission Control is in Houston, nearly two thousand miles from the actual
launch site,
and the reason is not technical. Are ALL functions "tainted" by the
influence of big
business, the military, or the pork barrel so evil as to automatically be
shunned?
If so, we're back again at the level of Amish farmers. Don't kill off
business
opportunities, reform American business practices instead. Although that
will take
an enormous investment of time and energy, so it's probably not worth doing
at all.
After all, it will take more than twenty-four months to see results . . .
>Vandenberg, built by Lockheed Martin for the Air Force, cost a cool $240
>million. The commercial launches at the base don't contribute a penny to
the
>enormous overhead costs: Under federal rules, they have to pay only the
>"direct costs" imposed on the launch site operators -- the Air Force and
>NASA.
In order to properly commercialize space, a /lot/ of Federal rules will have
to be
re-written. Many of them actively work against private industry getting into
space.
Until this particular viscious circle is broken, space companies will find it
somewhat easier to make a profit, while still not having a motivation to
maintain
facilities, or create better, newer facilities. Not to mention lacking
serious
motivation to develop new launch vehicles. (As you know, we have no
heavy-launch
capabilities anywhere near as powerful as the old Saturn V, for which many of
the
critical blueprints appear to be lost or destroyed as "obsolete.")
>The communications companies, the Air Force and NASA all support commercial
>initiatives that might reduce launch costs and expand capacity. Taxpayers
>would benefit if military payloads and scientific missions could be lofted
>more cheaply. But there is a clear danger of government-backed commercial
>space initiatives descending into boondoggles that benefit a few
>well-connected companies.
This is supposed to be news, or somehow unique to space? It is neither.
>The final irony, of course, is that the big defense contractors that
dominate
>the commercial space arena are just as happy to work with their erstwhile
>enemies -- the Russins and the Ukrainians and the Chinese -- as they are to
>supporting a strong industry in California.
Congress continues to starve space research while also upping their
requirements for
capabilities. It doesn't require a degree in /any/ science to predict how
that will work out. Naturally companies are going to try to learn those
areas where
foreign space programs are stronger than ours. Further, this strikes me as a
no-win
situation: if they continue saving money by this "second-hand research,"
they're
being unpatriotic AND disloyal to the California business community. If they
don't
look at adding the strengths of other programs to ours, astute technology and
business reporters can complain about re- inventing the wheel and the
grievous
amounts of money wasted on the effort. Because of that, it strikes me as yet
another
smoke-screen for the real agenda.
Which brings me to my real question: why are you against a serious space
effort?
What do you think we should be investing in that is more important than the
single
human endeavor that advanced our overall technology an average of 10-15 years
(and
created some entirely new industries in the process)? And what makes your
chosen
area so much better?
I really do want to know.
Regards,
-- /*John A. Whiting*/ ******************************************** We appreciated your commentaries during pre-Cassini launch, which helped us temper (very real) fears among its opponents. Please give us the facts as you see them.Thank you. I appreciate reading the above statement, since I think a lot of misinformation has been reported in the media. If you haven't done so already, you could point your web browser to the National Space Society's Cassini debate page at:
http://www.nss.org/cyberspace/ I'll be "tapering off" the commentaries once the launch occurs (It'll be a late 39th birthday "candle" for me Tuesday evening/Wednesday AM). However, if you're interested in "general space announcements," I can put you on my regular "Media List."
BTW -- Nice Web Site.
Regards,
~JS~