Scroll down to read this post.

 

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 

The print edition can be purchased at Amazon. from any other book seller, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.


The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News


Sign the LunarCOTS petition.

Do you think the commercial space program led by SpaceX is the fastest and cheapest way for the U.S. to get humans back into low Earth orbit? Then why not do it for missions beyond Earth orbit?

The LunarCOTS petition is a campaign to have NASA subsidize private companies to design and build the United States’ future interplanetary missions rather than have NASA do it in big government programs like SLS. Makes sense to me, and so I signed the petition immediately.

Readers!

 

Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.

 

In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.

 

Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.

 

You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:

 

4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

 

You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.

4 comments

  • wodun

    An advantage to doing it this way is that would be parallel development of technologies for less money than it would take NASA to do it. For whatever reasons, NASA has been developing technologies in a series.

    SLS suporters should get behind this because it would mean there could be something to go on the AresV (heh) other than Orion without having to wait another 10-15 years after SLS is finished. Of course if they took the SLS funding and pumped it into this new program and took advantage of existing launchers and in orbit conatruction, we could do something even sooner.

  • alex wilson

    Interesting. Why is it okay for NASA to fund one company for a “lunar COTS” operation, but not fund another company to develop SLS? Both will be designed and built by private companies, so what’s the difference? Is it because one claims to be “NewSpace”, and the other one doesn’t? Who cares, as long as it gets done?

  • libs0n

    1. The problem with SLS isn’t that it awards to the wrong companies, it’s that there was never a fair competition for a heavy lift vehicle provider in the first place, and that SLS itself is a bad way to do space exploration.

    The Senators who wrote the legislation that forced NASA to build the SLS made it a tens of billions of dollars hand out to their favored companies and excluded viable competitors who could have competed for the job. That type of special preference is wrong.

    The SLS locks us into a recurring high cost model that will lead to the extent of space exploration being rare and gimmicky, like the current plan of spending 30 billion dollars and a decade and getting a flyby of the moon out of it. It is a white elephant that puts limits on space exploration rather than leads to a more expansive evolving road that benefits us all.

    2. Part of the COTS program model is a fair competition for the system being developed where any company can compete for the job and isn’t excluded from consideration. If desired it can be structured so that more than one system is developed for the job, like how there are two cargo providers and three companies now developing crew vehicles. Competition allows us to get better knowledge of what is possible under the scope of the funds available and who offers more cost effective solutions so that better choices can be made with our budget for space exploration and get more out of it.

    COTS doesn’t exclude certain vendors from competing. The same company that was handed a SLS contract, Boeing, also won funds to develop a crew launch vehicle under the commercial crew program, but it had to compete for that contract.

    This isn’t about “new space” vs “old space”. Old space firms and new space firms are welcomed alike under the COTS model, but they have to play by the same rules, and face competition to win work.

  • wodun

    A significant different between a COTS/CCDEV and traditional NASA contracting is that the traditional way is cost plus and COTS/CCDEV is a set cost that is only awarded as milestones are reached.

    The most persuasive arguement against SLS is the opportunity cost of what we could do right now with the same funding. SLS isn’t only high cost in terms of development and operation but in time. $3b a year could buy a lot of F9 launches and payloads to go on them and those launches could take place as fast as NASA could procure payloads. We don’t need to wait for a SHLV.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *