This post by Matthew Yglesias would be a lot more interesting if he explained why it was “advantage, Obama.”
What is Yglesias’ position?
It kicked off a lively discussion in the comments section, in which he doesn’t participate (so we still don’t really know what he thinks), but in which sometime commenter here, Bill White, and Ferris Valyn, do. Ferris has further thoughts, and links.
It also roused a spirited defense of government manned spaceflight programs (at least I assume that’s what he’s defending) by Chris Bowers. I find Bowers’ argument a little (well, OK, a lot) incoherent:
…the space program is about as good an example of stretching and expanding our capabilities as a nation and as a species that one can name. Deciding to not test the limits of our engineering and intellectual potential, and to not explore our surroundings because we have more important things to do, strikes me as a profoundly dangerous path to follow. That is the path of stagnation, and even regression, as a people. Further, it is a terribly utilitarian approach to life, concluding that only bread matters, and that roses are worthless. Personally, I don’t want to live that way, and I don’t think many other people want to live that way, either. Everyone, no matter their financial situation, has aspects of their life that expand beyond mere bread and into roses: art, religion, family, travel, and scholarship are only a few examples of this. To think that we shouldn’t have government funded roses in our lives is to posit a far more dreary nation than the one in which I want to live.
Well, I think that a nation in which one must count on the government to provide either bread or roses a dreary one. Last time I checked, there was plenty of bread, of all varieties, on the shelves of the local grocery, and I suspect that if the government weren’t involved, it would be even cheaper. I also bought two dozen roses last Thursday at the same place–there was no shortage, and they didn’t seem to have a stamp that said they were manufactured by the government. If he means rose gardens, there are plenty of those, too, both government and private. And I sure don’t want the government involved in family or religion, so I guess I just don’t see what his point is.
I do agree with this, though:
Space exploration is not an issue with clear partisan divisions. Some conservatives view it as a wasteful government expenditure that is better handled through private enterprise, while some progressives view it through a utilitarian lens in that it does not provide much direct benefit to humanity.
Unfortunately, this is quite true. In fact, it’s one of the reasons that our space policy itself is so incoherent. The people who promote it don’t generally do so from any kind of ideological base. It’s either a bread-and-butter local issue to provide jobs, or it’s a romantic urge that crosses ideological boundaries. And that’s why the arguments (in both Bowers’ and Yglesias’ comments section) are never ending, and never resolved. Heinlein once wrote that man is not a rational animal; rather, he is a rationalizing animal. Most arguments for a government space program are actually rationalizations for something that the arguer wants to do for emotional reasons, which is why so many of them are so bad. I say this as a space enthusiast myself, but one who recognizes that it is fundamentally an emotional, even religious urge.
I’m not going to beat up on Obama over this (though I’m not going to vote for him, either). Here’s what he reportedly said:
…the next president needs to have “a practical sense of what investments deliver the most scientific and technological spinoffs — and not just assume that human space exploration, actually sending bodies into space, is always the best investment.”
Contrary to what some reading-challenged people write (see the February 16th, 2:22 PM comment), this doesn’t mean that he “hates manned spaceflight.” Those words, as far as they go, are entirely reasonable, and Hillary was pandering for votes in Houston. The rub lies in how one makes the determination of what is “the best investment.”
Unfortunately, in order to evaluate an investment, one must decide what is valuable. That’s where all these discussions founder, because everyone comes to them with their own assumptions about goals, values, costs, etc. But these assumptions are never explicitly stated, or agreed on, so people tend to talk past each other. Until we have a top-down discussion of space, starting with goals, and then working down to means of implementing them, people will continue to argue about what the government should be doing, and how much they should be spending on it.
This is why getting a private space program, a dynamist
Very nice post, Rand.
And yes, a private sector space program paid for with private money (not tax dollars passing through Uncle Sugar) is what is needed to create a sustainable space program.
And that requires finding a market.
= = =
Off topic — I think this cartoon is funny and wanted to share:
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
As always, further thoughts.
Neither Obama nor Clinton will END American spaceflight. The prestige hit would be too great.
The real danger (and this is worse IMHO) is that we stop with Ares 1 and spend billions doing nothing except using Ares 1 to ferry crew/cargo to ISS.
ESAS is what shall be reconsidered and although I originally supported ESAS, unless NASA can obtain an budget increase to at least ~$20 billion each year (rather than ~$17.6 billion) we will not ever develop Ares V.
If budgets will remain tight maybe ditching ESAS is a better way to go.
Clinton and McCain appear more determined to “stay the course” and stick with the stick. Obama wants to drill down to the “why” which I agree is a core question for all of this.
…. aaaaaand Mark Whittington has responded. Guess whether he has actually understood what you were saying in the last couple paragraphs.
No need to guess, even without reading. He never actually understands what people are saying.
He never actually understands what people are saying.
I would have a less charitable interpretation.
I thought Bowers expressed himself pretty well.
that requires finding a market.
Yes, Bill, which is why some of us want to see a space policy that creates incentives for the development of such markets. Much like the incentives the government enactment for the development of the American West after the Lewis and Clark expedition.
unless NASA can obtain an budget increase to at least ~$20 billion each year (rather than ~$17.6 billion) we will not ever develop Ares V.
Good.
If NASA never develops Ares V, then NASA won’t spend the next 40 years telling every investor they proved it’s impossible to get to the Moon without spending $20 billion on an Ares V.
Which means the rest of us can work on finding ways to get to the Moon affordably.
(As an aside, I don’t understand why you persist in referring to NASA as “we.” I’m pretty sure your law firm has nothing to do with NASA.)
Yes, Bill, which is why some of us want to see a space policy that creates incentives for the development of such markets. Much like the incentives the government enactment for the development of the American West after the Lewis and Clark expedition.
In an ideal world, well okay. But good luck with Congress and I suggest NOT holding your breath.
Many people do want to go to Mars and telling them to STFU, but still asking Congress to give private sector incentives is not politically feasible. Tell Lou Freidman (or any of the Mars First! people) “No! to Mars!” and they will Congress to tell you “No!” Also Congress-critters from FL & TX & AL are NOT going to be in the mood to fund NewSpace visions after they lose pork in their districts.
If ESAS is scrapped, what Congress will do (IMHO) is buy a big-Gemini for ISS access and reduce the human spaceflight budget from ~$8 billion to ~$2 billion, or less. All of that will go to ISS crew ferry missions and the costs to de-commission the STS infrastrucure at Kennedy. Also employee re-training and re-location costs will trump prizes for NewSpace. At least from the point of view of Congress.
No Moon? No Mars? Why do we need Centennial Challenges?
There are advantages to ending ESAS but there are downsides as well. Such as very little federal money for anyone other than the above for at least ten years.
= = =
President Bush consistently UNDERFUNDING the ESAS architecture might very well cause federal funding to go away for everyone. Except for building a Big-Gemini do-over that can carry 6 crew to/from ISS.
Which could well be a feature rather than a bug because that will force NewSpace to find revenue streams that do not pass through Washington DC. That enormous fire hose of money flowing through Uncle Sugar very often distracts people from seeking to exploit the other potential revenue streams.
In an ideal world, well okay. But good luck with Congress and I suggest NOT holding your breath.
I rarely hold my breathe unless I’m swimming, Bill, and I don’t live in an ideal world, I live in the real world. I actually meet and interact with elected officials. I just helped add some provisions to a bill that’s about to be passed into law. Many other people have similar experience. You can’t imagine how irritating is to listen to you constantly telling us that our real-world experience is worth less than your armchair theorizing and pontificating.
Maybe we should start telling you how to practice law, based on episodes of Perry Mason and Matlock?
Many people do want to go to Mars and telling them to STFU, but still asking Congress to give private sector incentives is not politically feasible. Tell Lou Freidman
Lou Friedman does not want to go to Mars, Bill. He has less interest in human spaceflight than you do. All he wants to do is send some robots to Mars and maybe a few token humans just to say they’ve been there. That’s not a space program, it’s a rounding error.
If “many people want to go to Mars,” then they better ignore Mike Griffin and Lou Friedman because their time table for getting many people to Mars is “never.”
If ESAS is scrapped, what Congress will do (IMHO) is buy a big-Gemini for ISS access and reduce the human spaceflight budget from ~$8 billion to ~$2 billion, or less.
And that’s the worse thing you can imagine? NASA might actually do something to make human spaceflight cheaper, rather than more expensive?
Somehow, I find that prospect less than terrifying.
A big Gemini would be a huge advance over Apollo on Steroids (and better suited for lunar missions, too). You probably think Gemini was more primitive than Apollo, because Gemini flew first, but that isn’t the case. Gemini was a “better, faster, cheaper” program. The conceptual design for Gemini was done when Apollo had already started. As a result, Gemini was able to incorporate lessons learned from both Mercury and Apollo. It was the most advanced capsule NASA ever flew. Griffin would know that if he’d done a little more research.
No Moon? No Mars? Why do we need Centennial Challenges?
What Centennial Challenges? If you aren’t aware, Centennial Challenges was defunded to pay for your beloved ESAS. (Including the two challenges that resulted from my personal lobbying, but again, I know, real-world experience means nothing to you. Sigh. 🙁
Nice cartoon Bill (xkcd has some good ones) and in its spirit I’ll ask you to stop pretending that the President decides the budget ^_^ (you know that’s not true right?).
Sure you could say he should make a big stink out of pushing for more money* but that’s very different from your “President Bush consistently UNDERFUNDING the ESAS architecture…”.
* Considering the original intent of the VSE I would instead say that he and his administration should be making a big stink out of how NASAs ESAS goes counter to the VSE and the Aldridge Commission report (you know, Congress). More money is the last thing ESAS should get.
Senators Mikuksi (D-MA) and Hutchinson (R-TX) had significant momentum for a billion or two in supplemental funding for NASA late in 2007. That effort died out because President Bush imposed a hard cap on discretionary spending linked to a veto threat.
But you are correct Habitat Hermit, Congress can reject the President’s budget and unless they do so, ESAS will continue to be underfunded making it a likely target for termination.
As for this:
* Considering the original intent of the VSE I would instead say that he and his administration should be making a big stink out of how NASAs ESAS goes counter to the VSE and the Aldridge Commission report (you know, Congress).
That is a 100% legitimate point. However the Administration did not do that and in fact embraced ESAS as shown by the last few budget requests. ESAS simply is White House policy now regardless of what might have been, or should have been.
Senators Mikuksi (D-MA) and Hutchinson (R-TX) had significant momentum for a billion or two in supplemental funding for NASA late in 2007
Massachusetts has no Senator “Mikuksi.” You’re thinking of Senator Mikulski from Maryland.
That effort died out because President Bush imposed a hard cap on discretionary spending linked to a veto threat.
No, it died because the Conference Committee refused to support it. It takes both Houses of Congress to pass an appropriation, Bill. There was no “momentum” except in the minds of fanboys.