I was going to write about this latest attempt to resurrect the mythical “Apollo spirit” by former CNN science reporter Miles O’Brien. But fortunately, Paul Spudis gives him the history lesson so I don’t have to. Well, not just so I don’t have to — that’s just a nice side effect for me, because I’m busy.
As Paul notes, Mike Griffin and (to a lesser degree, even before Griffin) NASA’s biggest mistake is in assuming that we can just pick up where we left off with the unsustainable and unaffordable Apollo program and somehow sustain and afford it. NASA has to get much more innovative, think about how to use existing infrastructure that has other uses (which is why it should, at least initially, be EELV rather than Shuttle derived), encourage and involve the private sector to a much greater degree, and think marginal cost rather than development cost, or they’ll end up with another Shuttle, and station, regardless of what the mold lines of the vehicles look like.
[Update a few minutes later]
Unsurprisingly, Mark Whittington (who really ought to fix his permalinks so they don’t double the tag) is still guzzling the koolaid by the pitcher.
[Another update a couple minutes later]
Over at The Space Review (which now seems to be allowing comments, though there are none yet at this article), Stokes McMillan hopes that Kennedy’s first 100 days will be repeated by Obama.
Don’t count on it. In fact, don’t even hope for it, if it’s a repeat of Apollo. Apollo was a unique set of circumstances, and unlikely to repeat. In order for history to repeat, using the JFK model, would be for him to have some humiliating foreign policy event comparable to the Bay of Pigs (unfortunately, that one’s not at all unlikely…) and then another exogenous event that spurs us into another space race. The only thing that I could think of that would be comparable to the double blow of first being beaten into space four years later, and then beaten into a man in space in the first hundred days, would be a surprise manned Mars landing by (say) the Chinese. And even then, I wouldn’t bet on a revitalized American space program as a response.
Sorry, but compared to other administration perceived concerns (global warming, lack of health care, the economy, etc.) space simply isn’t important. And it hasn’t been for over forty years.
[Update a while later]
Don’t look to the Europeans to scare us into another space race. Space isn’t important there, either:
Sources close to the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV)/Advanced Reentry Vehicle (ARV) team are telling Hyperbola that the November 2008 ESA ministerial meeting outcome was seen as catastrophic for the agency’s hopes for ARV operating before the International Space Station (ISS) is de-orbited, even with a 2020 end of life target, and a follow-on manned version of ARV.
But there will be plenty of jobs, so it’s OK.
Actually, Rand, these days I drink low calorie, fruit flavored water for the most part. The waist line simply will not tolerate the koolaid any more (g).
Gah. Yes that is about it. My hopes are mainly for the so called alt.space firms to deliver something (i.e. SpaceX and Virgin Galactic), since most remaining spending is either state funded or state controlled anyway. It does not help that the economy is a mess though. E.g. if Musk was counting on an IPO anytime soon, he might as well forget it.
I did have some hopes for the military at one time, but they seem to mostly have their head stuck on other things. IIRC USA defense space funding is either Air Force or NRO. NRO seemingly just wants to loft huge satellites with giant mirrors, radars, or whatever. The Air Force is more interested in dumping their money in projects such as F-22. Ok, they do keep GPS up and running as well. They do dabble with X-37 but keep pushing it further and further away into oblivion. Even considering these spendings, they leave zilch to developing new launch vehicle technology. Without new launch vehicles, or at least increased launch rates, launch costs won’t be going down anytime soon.
Oh and WTF happened with NASA funded propulsion research besides J-2X?
The one interesting new line of work is probably the rumored ASAT tests being done as of late. That could fuel a need for smaller/faster/cheaper launches. But I will not be holding my breath.
Regard the international outlook, yeah, ESA will not be going further with manned space which is a shame. They could try to at least emulate the path the Chinese are taking, but instead they are considering ISS is the end all, be all of LEO space stations, which is a terrible case of nearsightedness on their part. It seems the EU considers they cannot do manned space without some sort of international partnership, after the Hermes debacle, which is dumb.
China will probably keep chugging along redoing the Soviet Space program of the 60s and 70s (space stations, moon probes). This should keep them busy for a decade or two. Then they seem intent to redo the Soviet Space program of the 80s and remake Buran to service their space station. Hilarity ensues as the thing is deemed too expensive (again) and gets mothballed.
Japan… I guess JAXA will be too busy building up a defense and reconnaissance satellite network to even consider manned space as anything but a joint exercise with the USA.