Next Big Future has this week’s Carnival of Space. One of the linked articles is to an unintentionally amusing piece on the so-called “space exploration crisis”:
…it will be hard to justify a funding cut (and therefore a delay) of the Constellation Program. We already have a “5-year gap” between Shuttle decommissioning and proposed Ares launch (2010-2015), if this block on US-administered manned spaceflight is extended, the damage inflicted on NASA will be irreversible. However, I doubt we’d ever be able to measure the permanent damage caused to mankind.
Yes, if we don’t fund the current monstrosity, it will irreversibly and permanently damage NASA, and mankind. Riiiiggghhhttt. This part is pretty funny (and uninformed) as well:
It’s one thing dominating the globe, but if China or Russia leapfrogs the US for a dominance in the Solar System, it could spell disaster for the world’s only superpower and could spark a situation more reminiscent of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1961. Think about it, rather than having nuclear weapon silos appear off the coast of Florida, other nations could operate with impunity in the space above the US. This might not be a reality now, but who knows what is going to happen in ten years.
Ummmm…it is a reality now. Other nations can “operate with impunity in the space above the US.” Does he think we currently have an ASAT capability? And even if it were a threat, what is Constellation going to do to solve it? It’s not even a military program.
As is often the case, the blogger ignores commercial activity, and foolishly equates whatever NASA’s latest waste of taxpayer dollars happens to be with “US-administered manned spaceflight.” Nowhere is there any discussion whatsoever of the merits of NASA’s plans — it is simply assumed that because they’re NASA’s they will advance humanity in space, and that failure to fund them will be a disaster.
Unfortunately, this kind of mindless mindset often prevails in actual policy discussions inside the Beltway, and not just on blog posts.
Hi there,
Thank you for enjoying pulling apart my article so much.
Whether you actually understood what I was writing on the other hand is open to debate. My commentary was neither “mindless” or “uninformed”, I am a manned space exploration advocate and I know what we need to do to get space colonization up and running. This may not be your cup of tea, but all you are arguing against are my opinions.
I’m honoured that you should get so fired up over an article on my blog, but understand what and who you are criticising before writing something like this.
I understand that my writing is open to public scrutiny, that’s cool. However, I would have hoped for a better, rounded discussion than this.
So… do you actually have an opinion? Or is it simply that you don’t like my article?
Thanks, Ian
PS. Lol, awesome. I’ve never been filed under “Media Criticism” and “Political Commentary” before… thanks for cheering me up.
Whether you actually understood what I was writing on the other hand is open to debate.
I suppose. It could be because you didn’t really explain what you were writing (for instance, how it would “permanently damage mankind” to not fund NASA’s latest pork-barrel boondoggle).
My commentary was neither “mindless” or “uninformed”, I am a manned space exploration advocate and I know what we need to do to get space colonization up and running.
I share your goal, but if you think that funding Constellation (or, for that matter, NASA in general) is in any way a route to that goal, you are indeed not very well informed.
This may not be your cup of tea, but all you are arguing against are my opinions.
I’m not sure what your point is. Is there some reason that I shouldn’t argue against your opinions? Because they are your opinions, they are beyond criticism?
I’ve never been filed under “Media Criticism” and “Political Commentary” before… thanks for cheering me up.
Well, bloggists, for better or worse, are part of the media. And surely you must realize that when you opine on whether or not, and how, a federal agency should be funded, that it is a political discussion?
The single basic flaw with the article, with all due respect, seems to be the underlying assumption that NASA = US Manned spaceflight. A certain twin fuselage aircraft that took to the skies just recently at the airstrip in Mojave probably has more impact on US manned spaceflight for the next decade than whatever boondoggle MSFC sets their sights on next.
Also the title of the article is very misleading, as it does not deal with exploration at all. Exploration is done by craft like MERs, Messenger, Kepler etc.
STS, Constellation, ISS, in fact the entire manned spaceflight part of NASA hasnt contributed to “exploration” in any
meaningful way since last Apollo lander left the lunar surface.
I think you’ll find some answers in my Universe Today article I refer to in my blog post: http://www.universetoday.com/2008/12/12/what-about-the-space-exploration-crisis-nasa-budget-could-be-cut-to-save-money/ – my Astroengine.com article was far from being a complete analysis of the future of space exploration (in case you didn’t catch that).
My point is that you have taken snippets of an article I’ve written and said “pah, that’s wrong.” By no stretch of the imagination is that an “argument”. Expand on what you mean by:
I share your goal, but if you think that funding Constellation (or, for that matter, NASA in general) is in any way a route to that goal, you are indeed not very well informed.
So, what’s your answer for Constellation? Junk it? Start again? Forget manned space travel for 10 years? Where can I go to get “informed”?
It seems as if you want to get a discussion going, but the discussion you are providing includes no arguments (apart from your contempt for my views).
So, if I’m getting this straight, just because I think NASA could be key to our future in space, I am wrong? Help me out here. If you refer to the linked UT article, you’ll see I am acutely aware about commercial options, and I’m also aware other international agencies are funded differently (probably better).
The Constellation Program may be key to the future of manned spaceflight. This may not sit well for a lot of people (it worries me too), but it’s all we’ve got for now. If Constellation gets delayed, the US will effectively depend on Russia for their robust manned launch capabilities, but who knows where international politics will be in 2010.
SpaceX is a possibility (after all, their Dragon capsule promises to alleviate the situation somewhat). Having chatted to SpaceX and seen their facility first hand, I am totally convinced they will provide an alternative for NASA, but I’m not convinced they can become human rated in only two years.
Also, NASA pushes the envelope of manned spaceflight. That is not an option for commercial entities. Can you see the first Mars expedition to be a private enterprise? Alas, I doubt we’ll see Virgin Galactic going that far quite yet.
So, the only agency capable of getting man back to the Moon and Mars is NASA. I don’t see this changing for another decade at least. However, if this situation does change, the shift of space dominance could move away from the US.
That said, I have very high hopes for ESA, and although many of the European missions promise so much, the organisation is very slow-moving (hence Pres. Sarkozy’s push to make ESA more “politically motivated”). Perhaps more collaborative missions between ESA and NASA will help. I’m also very hopeful for the Aurora program and all the spin-offs that may generate (but, again, I doubt the time-frame of this project will keep its promises).
You’re not the first to call my arguments into question, and I have no problem with being part of the media (New Media if you will), at the end of the day, even blogger’s views need to be called into account. The only issue I do have is when my writing is rubbished out of hand.
You are obviously very confident with your political prowess, as I am confident with my science writing skills. My arguments may not be politically watertight, and some of my views may be considered idealistic. But take each point I make and investigate them fully, rather than just hiding behind accusations that I am wrong. I am not beyond criticism, criticise all you like, but if you think this article is a constructive critique of my writing, perhaps I’m not the “mindless” one.
>>So, the only agency capable of getting man back to the Moon and Mars is NASA
Which gets us back to the question of “Why?”. Once you get to the bottom of it, everyone has their own unspoken assumption of “why”.
NASA can only get so small numbers of men back to the moon or mars, that in the larger scheme of things, quite a few people tend to regard the accomplishment as irrelevant, even if they were able to pull it off.
My point is that you have taken snippets of an article I’ve written and said “pah, that’s wrong.” By no stretch of the imagination is that an “argument”.
It’s as much of an argument as you made. You made an assertion, with no argument behind it. I made a counterassertion.
So, what’s your answer for Constellation? Junk it? Start again? Forget manned space travel for 10 years? Where can I go to get “informed”?
Well, you could start by reading this blog regularly. 😉
I discuss this topic quite a bit. I’m not going to restate things that I’ve written in the past just to respond to a non-argument.
So, if I’m getting this straight, just because I think NASA could be key to our future in space, I am wrong? Help me out here. If you refer to the linked UT article, you’ll see I am acutely aware about commercial options, and I’m also aware other international agencies are funded differently (probably better).
You didn’t say “could be” key to our future in space. You wrote as though it was an indisputable fact that it is (while making no case for it). There was clearly an underlying assumption throughout the article that not only was NASA key, but that this particularly disastrous architecture that they propose to build is as well. I don’t agree with either assumption.
I do agree that NASA “could be” key, but this architecture almost certainly cannot, because it is too costly and economically unsustainable (as Apollo was, and for the same reasons). It does far too little for far too much money. The only way for NASA to be “key” is for them to stop building their own vehicles for their own bureaucratic purposes, and start purchasing services instead, and be a good customer.
You are obviously very confident with your political prowess, as I am confident with my science writing skills.
This has less to do with my “political prowess” (or, for that matter, science-writing skills) as my deep knowledge of astronautical engineering and space policy, history and technology.
Here, go read this.
Other nations can “operate with impunity in the space above the US.” Does he think we currently have an ASAT capability?
Technically, we do. Stratcom has hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs capable of lofting a nuclear warhead high enough to take out satellites.
The problem is we have no way to respond to a space attack *except* by going nuclear. China was a kinetic weapon that is somewhat cleaner than a nuke but still quite messy.
The natural evolution of weapons over time is toward systems with greater precision and less colateral damage. By blocking the development of non-nuclear ASAT weapons in the US, arms controllers guarantee that any space war would immediately go nuclear.
That sort of nuclear hare-trigger ought to be alarming, but it is strangely compatible with arms controllers who are still taking their strategic ideas from “Dr. Strangelove” and view the US military as just another power that must be detered from engaging in hostile acts.
And even if it were a threat, what is Constellation going to do to solve it? It’s not even a military program.
Presumeably, by siphoning money away from the (US) military. Ian’s blog is rife with anti-(US) military paranoia.
One article entitled “Introducing the Multiple Kill Vehicle (aka The Scariest Thing I’ve Seen All Day)” ends with standard claim that NASA is underf the standard line about how we ought to take money away from the US military and give it to NASA.
Another article rails against the USAF’s Airborne Laser: “The ABL is clearly a military weapon that will be used to destroy enemy units. And, it will be used with impunity as there are currently no international laws governing the lethal use of lasers in the theatre of combat.”
(http://www.astroengine.com/?p=2696#more-2696)
Gasp! How awful! The US military is developing something that can destroy enemy units — and there are no laws to stop them!
I wonder if Ian considers it a tragedy that there was no law to prevent the RAF from destroying German bombers on the horizon during the Battle of Britain?
“It would seem that the ICBM threat could be on the verge of becoming obsolete. But does this mean the world will be a safer place? I doubt it. The thought of weaponized lasers destroying targets on the horizon is a worrying notion…”
Who knows what the US might do if we don’t have Chinese and North Korean nukes to keep us in check?
Also, NASA pushes the envelope of manned spaceflight. That is not an option for commercial entities. Can you see the first Mars expedition to be a private enterprise?
How is NASA “pushing the envelope” by going to the Moon in a space capsule, 50 years after going to the Moon in a space capsule?
I don’t see NASA doing any Mars expeditions. Elon Musk has made as much progress toward that goal as NASA has. (Which admittedly isn’t very much, but then again, Mars may be the wrong goal when we don’t eve have affordable access to low Earth orbit yet.)
SpaceShip One did more to push the envelope than Orion is doing. NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe said he’d lose his job if he authorized something as risky. Professor Howard McCurdy said, “Private individuals are willing to take risks that government can’t take.” How do you push the envelop without taking risk or trying anything new?
You’re also mistaken in saying that NASA budgets are going down rather than up. The fact that NASA is getting less money than what was proposed in some previous requests does not mean their budget has been cut. Your claim that ESA is “better funded” simply because it’s an international organization does not hold water.
But ultimately, the size of the budget matters less than what an organization does with it. NASA could be spending the money it has much more effectively than it does. There’s no evidence that NASA is doing a good job of spending the money it has. What makes you so sure they would do a better job if we simply gave them more money?
The Constellation Program may be key to the future of manned spaceflight. This may not sit well for a lot of people (it worries me too), but it’s all we’ve got for now. If Constellation gets delayed, the US will effectively depend on Russia for their robust manned launch capabilities
Who is “we”? Britain has no part of Constellation.
This is perhaps your most bizarre statement. Why should a Brit panic because NASA might “effectively depend on Russia” for access to a joint US-Russian space station? That’s like panicking because some US scientists might depend on a Russian icebreaker to take them to an Arctic research station. Why should it cause you any agnst?
@Rand:- Thanks for the link, I’ll be sure to check it out, I appreciate the info. It looks like there is a lot of negativity toward this particular article, so it will be good to see what you have to say, especially with the experience you have. But just so you know, my “Space Exploration Crisis” article wasn’t intended to put anyone’s noses out of joint. From a space exploration point of view, I see NASA as the world leader for manned spaceflight. Plus I see manned spaceflight as a stimulator for economic growth, strategic advantage and technological advancement, and I make no apologies for that. There are challenges, obstacles and mismanagement issues to address, but these are all the details we need to iron out. I don’t pretend to have solutions to 90% of these problems.
@Edward:- Ouch, so I won’t be expecting a return visit to Astroengine any time soon?
Ian’s blog is rife with anti-(US) military paranoia.
Really? I hadn’t noticed. The MKV article was quite light-hearted. If you understood what I was writing about, I didn’t make any criticism of the US military or the technology. Admittedly, I included my thoughts (that’s what happens on blogs) on how else the propulsion tech could be used (and I left a small comment about how the military has a bigger budget than NASA – shock!)… is that me being paranoid?
As for the flying laser… I actually thought it was quite cool. Yes, I found it ironic that “blinding lasers” were banned, but airborne megawatt lasers were allowed, and I said so. Still, no paranoia. My little blog posts pretty inconsequential compared with the opinions held in other, larger online blogs and magazines (like Wired, say). Why you thought it was necessary to bring my other articles up here, I’m not too sure.
The RAF didn’t destroy German bombers on the horizon by the way. If we did, I’m sure thousands of people wouldn’t have died during the Blitz. Radar detected the attacking aircraft, that’s a far cry from scrubbing them out of existence from a remote location before they’d even taken off…
Oh, and why do I care about what NASA does? Well, I live in the US, I am a space science writer and I would love to see man walk on Mars someday. Me being a “Brit” doesn’t have much to do with it, but you obviously think that it does. I have an opinion and I wanted to share it, I’m not asking you agree with me, but I think my NASA article might have been blown out of all proportion after getting hammered on this popular site.
The hazards of blogging eh?
It looks like there is a lot of negativity toward this particular article, so it will be good to see what you have to say, especially with the experience you have. But just so you know, my “Space Exploration Crisis” article wasn’t intended to put anyone’s noses out of joint. From a space exploration point of view, I see NASA as the world leader for manned spaceflight. Plus I see manned spaceflight as a stimulator for economic growth, strategic advantage and technological advancement, and I make no apologies for that. There are challenges, obstacles and mismanagement issues to address, but these are all the details we need to iron out. I don’t pretend to have solutions to 90% of these problems.
Ian, I am quite confident that there was no ill intent. Just consider my critique a little wake-up call, and try to get out more in the space blogosphere.
I understand, and applaud your interest in space settlement and even (the politically incorrect phrase) colonization. But if NASA is the “world leader in space exploration,” that is damning the agency with very faint praise considering the competition, and doesn’t offer much hope for the future.
I hope that you will continue to educate yourself on these issues, and not simply be a cheerleader for NASA, and its plans, which are predicated far more on pork and maintaining bureaucratic prerogatives than in settling humanity in space.
One other point. This discussion is barely at all about “science.” It is about technology. Are you a technology writer as well, or just a science writer?
Oh, and speaking of the hazards of blogging, don’t mind Edward. But also don’t mind the US military… 😉
and I left a small comment about how the military has a bigger budget than NASA – shock!)
Budget for what? Communication satellites? Weather satellites? NASA doesn’t do those things, private industry and NOAA do. Why does NASA automatically deserve to get as much money as the military does when NASA doesn’t do the same thing the military does?
Human spaceflight? The military budget for that was zeroed when MOL was cancelled. New launch vehicle development? NASA’s getting billions for Ares. DoD can’t scrape up a few million for Military Space Plane.
The domestic side of the budget outweighs the military side almost four to one. Why does everyone who alleges that NASA’s being cheated point fingers at the military, never Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other domestic programs that consume far more money?
The RAF didn’t destroy German bombers on the horizon by the way. If we did, I’m sure thousands of people wouldn’t have died during the Blitz. Radar detected the attacking aircraft, that’s a far cry from scrubbing them out of existence from a remote location before they’d even taken off…
I’m pretty sure that RAF Fighter Command did its very best to destroy German bombers *before* they came over the horizon and Bomber Command did everything possible to scrub them out of existance before they had even taken off.
Oh, and why do I care about what NASA does? Well, I live in the US, I am a space science writer and I would love to see man walk on Mars someday.
If all you want is to see pictures of men walking on Mars, it’s cheaper to do that on a Hollywood sound stage. You can rent those movies right now.
Me being a “Brit” doesn’t have much to do with it
Obviously, it does, since you want the US government to provide those pictures for you, not the British government. Can you imagine the uproar if Americans told Britain to cancel the Royal Navy or National Health Service so we could see Englishmen walking on Mars?
“Technically, we do. Stratcom has hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs capable of lofting a nuclear warhead high enough to take out satellites. ”
I suspect our ABM interceptors located in Alaska can also perform this role, at least in regard to high-inclination and polar orbiting birds.
“Technically, we do. Stratcom has hundreds of ICBMs and SLBMs capable of lofting a nuclear warhead high enough to take out satellites. ”
I suspect that we have some high powered lasers/masers already in existence that can effectively do the same job without all the litter. Hopefully, our fully capabilities are just classified, but the DOD/NRO do seem to have messed up a number of classified programs lately. My confidence in them has gone down a bit.