,
16 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
I hear people saying we can't use two smaller rockets to get to the Moon because mating two payloads in Low Earth Orbit is too complex. I'm confused. We claimed our reason to build Space Station was because we would LEARN how to build things in space. Here's an example..../1
2/ NASA said "The STS-120 mission was a resounding success and proof once again that learning to work in space is an important part of building the station." nasa.gov/mission_pages/… We beat this drum constantly during that program. It took ~40 launches to build Space Station.
3/ Now it sounds like people are saying that we DIDN'T really learn how to connect things together in space, even though that was one of the main reasons we built ISS. Even though we were SUCCESSFUL building ISS. Even though we have NEVER had a failure connecting things in orbit.
4/ Even though NASA is amazing at what it does. Even though it is the best collection of space people in the world. And they say it is too complex and risky to mate two things together in Low Earth Orbit. What an insult! Harumph.
5/ Even though technology, especially software to control spacecraft and align and dock them automatically, is VASTLY better than it was 20 years ago when we started building Space Station. But they say we aren't good enough to do it today. Double harumph!
6/ The real kicker is them telling us we need a simpler method based on a bigger rocket, but that method actually requires 6 times as many docking + refueling steps in space as the one they say is too complex for us losers. (H/T @rocketrepreneur for pointing out this irony.)
7/ So it is not just super insulting to all the amazing NASA workers who built and operate ISS, but it is incoherent as well. It is also very sad, because...
8/...to be truly honest, I can't see how this Agency I love, where I spent 30 years of my life, where my father worked before I did, where most of my friends have poured out their lives, will be relevant in space unless it can get the cost of rocket-building off its budget.
9/ SpaceX will land humans on Mars in the 2020s - 2030s. NASA won't be able to. Many countries and companies will be landing robotic craft on the Moon. (NASA will purchase payload space on them.) Many will be landing humans on the Moon before NASA has the budget freed up for it.
10/ Here's a happier thought: I believe we're very near the breaking point. A few well-placed taps on the glass and the public will wake up and realize it's not OK for NASA to lag the world because it's building a rocket it can easily find ways to do without.
11/ Here is one of the taps on the glass that might help shatter it. We should point out that the state that is MOST hurt by the SLS is Alabama. Everybody says SLS is a jobs program for Alabama, but it actually hurts Alabama the most, because...
12/ ...the federal dollars being spent in Alabama aren't creating any new industries. Does anyone believe a new rocket industry will arise when NASA builds another rocket? Of course not. The rocket industry already exists. So 1 dollar spent is only 1 dollar in Alabama's economy.
13/ Imagine how those dollars COULD have been spent in Alabama, inventing new technologies that NASA actually needs: robotics, automated manufacturing, space mining. It would have spawned new industries in Alabama, multiplying each federal dollar countless times, forever.
14/ But instead Alabama's leaders had no vision so they went with what they knew, choosing to have its NASA employees compete against industries NASA already spawned 50 years ago. So NASA & the whole country is hurt by SLS, but nobody is hurt as much as the people of Alabama. 🙁
15/15 I try to never criticize what NASA does because the Agency has been my career and my life. I really hate that I'm offending my friends who work on SLS. 😢 But I'm going on record because we need NASA to be effective at this important time in history. (end soapbox)
Appendix: I worked all night, and I might regret that I tweeted this after I get a few hours of sleep.
