On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal had an editorial penned
by retired USAF General William Shelton, who served as the commander of the Air
Force Command as late as August 2014.
Titled National Security After the SpaceX Explosion, he makes the point
that the explosion "should give everyone pause about jettisoning a
dependable arrangement vital to U.S. security." Of course, that "arrangement" is
with United Launch Alliance (UAL), a continual foe of SpaceX, which continues
to argue that it needs access to Russian rockets.
I do not doubt General Shelton's interest in obtaining the
best assets for military and space missions.
Early last year, in reference to Elon Musk, he stated, "I don’t
doubt that guy anymore, by the way...What he says, he’s going to do."
That said, the General goes on to boast about the ULA
rockets, noting:
Current U.S. space policy is implemented by buying both the Atlas V and Delta IV rockets from the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Both rockets have a 100% success record - 83 launches without failure.
I think the General has very selective memory and forgot the
difficulties any rocket maker will experience as they develop new approaches
and technology. Maybe he does not remember this
headline from almost 30 years ago - Delta Rocket Failure Cripples Nation`s Space
Program. The article states:
The accident effectively guts the nation`s space program. This is why: The most dependable launch vehicles, the Delta rockets, are now grounded indefinitely...The $30 million rocket, considered the most dependable and described as the workhorse of NASA`s fleet, was carrying a $57.5 million weather satellite that was to help forecasters track Atlantic Ocean hurricanes. The satellite was destroyed...The Delta rocket has been launched 178 times since 1960, with 12 failures during that time. Until Saturday`s accident, there had been 43 successful launches since 1977.
What makes this Delta explosion eerily similar is this
statement that accompanied the article:
It was the third space-related accident in three months, leaving the space program with no reliable means of getting satellites, or people, into orbit.
Well, here we are again General, and this time it is SpaceX
finding its legs after a disaster. And
while I agree with need some redundancy in the space program, I would rather it
be US-based rocket redundancy. Maybe we
still will need some Russian rockets, and maybe Congress should be a little
more flexible on the issue, but we should be working full speed on multiple
alternatives to the Russian option. Why
does a South African-born entrepreneur running a US rocket company seem to
appreciate this argument more than a USAF general?
