…by a supposed “conservative.” Charles Krauthammer continues his (unusually, for him) ill-informed hysteria over the new space policy:
…the administration presents the abdication as a great leap forward: Launching humans will be turned over to the private sector, while NASA’s efforts will be directed toward landing on Mars.
This is nonsense. It would be swell for private companies to take over launching astronauts. But they cannot do it. It’s too expensive. It’s too experimental. And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high.
Sure, decades from now there will be a robust private space-travel industry. But that is a long time. In the interim, space will be owned by Russia and then China. The president waxes seriously nationalist at the thought of China or India surpassing us in speculative “clean energy.” Yet he is quite prepared to gratuitously give up our spectacular lead in human space exploration.
As for Mars, more nonsense. Mars is just too far away. And how do you get there without the stepping stones of Ares and Orion? If we can’t afford an Ares rocket to get us into orbit and to the moon, how long will it take to develop a revolutionary new propulsion system that will take us not a quarter-million miles but 35 million miles?
I just read that second paragraph, and shake my head in sorrow at the ignorance, not to mention the double standard. NASA has killed fourteen astronauts in the past quarter of a century. On what basis can he claim that private industry (which is highly motivated not to kill people, because it might put them out of business, whereas NASA is rewarded when it fails), will do worse?
And even ignoring their horrific cost, in what way are Ares and Orion “stepping stones” to anywhere, let alone Mars? No one has ever put forth a plausible scenario in which Orion is utilized for a Mars mission.
Meanwhile, a much more sensible piece can be found over at the Asia Times, which points out how ridiculous it is to worry about the Chinese (with quotes from Charles Lurio and Jeff Foust).
[Update a few minutes later]
Keith Cowing points out more historical ignorance on the part of the good doctor:
Um, check your facts next time. We had a 6 year gap between Apollo-Soyuz in 1975 and STS-1 in 1981. We had no way to send humans into space during that time. And, FWIW, between the end of Mercury and the beginning of Gemini, we had no access, and between Gemini 12 and Apollo 7 we had no access to space. Between STS-107 and STS-114 … and so on. Gaps are not a new thing.
And a continuation of the Program of Record would have guaranteed that the upcoming one would be the longest yet.
[Morning update]
Krauthammer link is fixed now, sorry.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jeff Foust has a report on Lori Garver’s speech at the FAA meeting yesterday. It won’t satisfy the die-hard Apollo/Ares huggers of course, but it should appeal to more sensible people, including conservatives.
Of course, the whole Mars project as substitute for the moon is simply a ruse. It’s like the classic bait-and-switch for high-tech military spending: Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative, which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another, even more sophisticated alternative of the further future.
For a piece of “ill-informed hysteria,” he sure as hell has got part this right.
“got part this right” = “got this part right” Sorry; my dyslexia must be kicking in.
For a piece of “ill-informed hysteria,” he sure as hell has got part this right.
Well, either that or it is an excuse for an HLV. Not that it’s a valid excuse, but the American public doesn’t know that. Nelson has changed his line and is now saying he wants Mars. Wouldn’t his real motivation be that he wants to see something lift off from LC-39?
I agree with Paul Spudis
Although I will note that the *Mars direct* project in theory would be comparable to the moon.
As a layman in space terms, it seems many people outside of the industry think a bad program is better than no program at all. I disagree but given this administrations focus, that no program at all may last much too long.
Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated alternative, which either never gets developed or is simply killed later in the name of yet another, even more sophisticated alternative of the further future.
This is the classic example of where “the perfect is the enemy of the good enough.” The future wonder system (WS), because it has not started development and experienced the inevitible delays and overruns, is perfect. What we have now, while in fact good enough, isn’t perfect so it gets shoved aside. Once WS starts the R&D cycle on a cost-plus contract, they keep finding that a) it’s too expensive and b) it’s too hard, so they start reducing the requirements while the price continues to escalate. At the same time, generals keep larding up the system with new requirements that add little value but add tremendous cost until the program collapses under it’s own weight. Then, it all gets cancelled because there’s a new, improved Wonder System on the horizon…
The first link goes to incorrectly goes to Henry Spencer’s article. It’s far more sensible, of course.
>= And the safety standards for getting people up and down reliably are just unreachably high. ==<
Knownig how crappy the NASA’s safty standards are this one made me want to cry.
I guess its more of the NASA Mystique. Even though they do crap fr the amount of time adn money they get. Its so much better then what others are doing, they seem magical.
> Paul Spudis Says:
> “got part this right” = “got this part right” Sorry; my
> dyslexia must be kicking in.
Whats scaring me is I needed to look at it a coulpe times to see what the difference was.
=8O
> Kill the doable in the name of some distant sophisticated
> alternative, which either never gets developed or
> is simply killed later in the name of yet another,
> even more sophisticated alternative of the further future.
I think Charles is to optimistic. They aren’t even proposnig to do something else. They are talking about studying old technologies to verify if in the future they could think about doing something else.
At least when they shut down Apollo they were already ramping up Shuttle.
They are talking about studying old technologies to verify if in the future they could think about doing something else.
With all due respect, will you please stop repeating this horsesh!t?
Both Rand and Keith Cowing needs to read for comprehension. Krauthammer’s point is that not only will there be a gap but (taken his skepticism about private industry stepping up) no way to close it. And even in private industry steps up, there will be no way to go beyond LEO for decades.
I add the note that one knows that the new plan is really falling apart when proponents answer the critics not with facts but with snark.
Krauthammer’s point is that not only will there be a gap but (taken his skepticism about private industry stepping up) no way to close it.
It doesn’t matter what his point is. He is demonstrating a profound ignorance of the history of the space program, and his analysis is therefore not to be taken seriously. Any more than yours, for that matter.
I add the note that one knows that the new plan is really falling apart when proponents answer the critics not with facts but with snark.
Yes, you always add “notes” that have no correspondence with reality. There is no logical relationship between our responses and your fantasy that the new plan (which doesn’t yet exist in detail) is “falling apart.”
There was going to be a gap regardless. That was Bush policy as of 2004. With the Program of Record, that gap was growing more than a year per year, at insanely high costs to the taxpayer. That was what was falling apart. At least now, we have a reasonable hope of closing it, not only affordably, but at reduced costs, Dr. Krauthammer’s (and your) ignorant skepticism notwithstanding. Those are facts, not snark.
Rand,
I believe you will find space policy is one area where Conservatives and Libertarians differ. Conservatives see NASA and its human space flight program as a critical element of America’s projection of soft power. For this reason a human space flight program at NASA is an important element of America’s global leadership. Something that generates America Pride and sends an image of technological strength to the rest of the world. This is why President Reagan called for Space Station Freedom, now ISS, as his key space goal. And why having astronauts have to buy rides on the Soyuz is disgraceful. As a result they see President Obama’s cancellation of the VSE and Ares I as another way Liberals are weakening America’s global leadership.
Libertarians on the other hand see human space flight at NASA as just another government program to turn over to private industry. They are not worried about the implications of soft power projection or see a NASA’s human space flight program as critical to the projection of American soft power and that it makes the United States seem weaker in an increasingly hostile world.
In the coming weeks you will see the battle lines on President Obama’s new space policy drawn along these two lines. You will also see the strange case of Libertarians and Liberals agreeing on it. The fact that Rush Limbaugh is talking about President’s Obama killing the Moon program so NASA could spend more money on global warming is a good early indicator of the direction this is going. Charles Krauthammer’s column is another step in this movement that is taking space policy beyond the traditional advocate community to the generate public. Americans are funny about NASA’s human space flight program. They tend to take it for granted as part of America’s global leadership until something like President Obama’s actions focuses their attention on it.
President Obama may have hit a nerve with his new policy that will actually make space a campaign issue as a symbol of how his policies are undermining American leadership in the world.
And no, they won’t care about the long debate about it in the small space advocate community, or all the study commissions, or techno talk of Ares I verus private, or New Space versus Old Space. They will simply focus that under President Obama NASA no longer has a program to send American’s into space and that just is unacceptable.
I also suspect that whatever the outcome you will see it revisted after the fall election if Conservative Republicans take control of Congress as may well be the case. Or in 2012. The B-1 would be a good analogy here.
BTW The announcement yesterday that Rep. Patrick Kennedy is not running for re-election is another sign of this coming power shift. His quitting may well result in a Republican winning his seat in RI, something unthinkable a few months ago. Expect more long time Democrats to also announce their retirement so they may go out with ‘honor” instead of being voted out in the election. And a completely new Congress may see space policy as one area they could focus on to reverse “America’s decline” in global leadership.
Just some food for thought.
No, Tom, this isn’t about soft power, or conservatives versus libertarians versus “liberals.” No one wants to see the US have a strong human spaceflight industry than I do. But I want to see decisions made on effectiveness, both in absolute terms and in terms of cost, rather than pork and a misplaced nostalgia for Apollo.
They will simply focus that under President Obama NASA no longer has a program to send American’s into space and that just is unacceptable.
The administration does have a program to send people into space. The difference is that it is going to be cost effective, and actually deploy the American values of free enterprise, rather than socialist state enterprise.
Tom has hit the nail on the head. We conservatives do recognize that space flight has a national security element and thus needs a strong government presence. We also support commercial space flight, but also recognize that it has limitations. Calling NASA “socialist” is just using a meaningless buzz word meant to get a reaction.
It doesn’t matter what his point is. He is demonstrating a profound ignorance of the history of the space program, and his analysis is therefore not to be taken seriously. Any more than yours, for that matter.
This is sad. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for an expert like yourself to have to knock down the same false arguments again and again, but … there’s just no point in this. It’s your blog, you can do what you want, but how is this advancing your point of view?
Have you written Krauthammer? Surely you must realize that space policy is ultimately decided by people who are not only far less informed than you, but likely less informed and less intelligent than the likes of Dr. K. If can’t win him over, what chance do you think you have with the real movers and shakers?
You must be well-known and well-published enough to merit some consideration from him. Maybe you could have a dialogue. He’s clearly interested in this topic. Given how influential he is, if you could straighten him out it on a few things it could be a huge win for the chances of achieving better space policy.
One should remember that Krauthammer is a neo-conservative. This is relevant because the neo-conservatives are actual liberals who left the democrat party over national security issues. They are not and never have been economic conservatives at all. This is why Krauthammer believes in and continues to advocate a national socialist space program.
There is a genuine national-security argument for a robust government hand in promoting a US space transportation capability. Even accepting that, though, the question remains, what is the most effective way to insure that capability? The US did not create a US National Railways to build a Pacific railroad; it merely made conditional grants of otherwise-worthless land as an incentive to have such a railroad (of unprecedented length, and with unique engineering challenges) built. It did try using a government entity to deliver air mail, with disastrous results in loss of human life, cost, and reliability. It cancelled that program and went to the highly successful system of air-mail contracts to private providers, at a time when the fundamental engineering questions of aviation were by no means settled.
If space capability is as important as pro-PO(ex)R people are saying, then we would best be served by declaring specific goals and acquiring the capability of offering defined, guaranteed payment schedules for delivery of those services, and setting up a competent center of expertise in the government (and independent of particular program interests or ambitions; i.e., outside of NASA) capable of defining safety and performance standards.
The idea that the NASA of today as an organization is vastly more capable of designing and/or operating space launch vehicles than the private companies who have actually done most of the work on its programs over the past fifty years is simply not supported by experience. If pressure is put on the Administration by national-secutiy conservatives, it should be to keep the administration’s feet to the fire on end goals, and to insure that purchase terms do not become mechanisms to kill the private option in hopes of returning to the arsenal model.
The administration does have a program to send people into space.
And what prorgam would that be?
The difference is that it is going to be cost effective
That remains to be seen.
actually deploy the American values of free enterprise, rather than socialist state enterprise.
So instead of Lock-Mart and Boeing contracts for vehicles, government money will go to Space X and Scaled Composites? Long live “free enterprise”!
Oh, one more thing. The “new path” doesn’t have any destination yet. I guess we’ll just go everywhere, in random order.
Paul, I don’t know how to answer that unless we establish some common definition of what a “program” is. If you don’t think we have one, then at least we have a policy, and a much better one than Constellation.
When the Air Force contracts with Lock-Mart or Boeing for a new aircraft it either buys a commercial design or it submits performance requierments and asks for propossals. Then, if it is being smart, has alternative prototypes built so it can select the best. It does not produce the design in some Air Force design bureau. Nor does it ask for an aircraft with intended for only one destination. Why should NASA be the United States spacecraft design bureau? Why must a spacecraft be designed for only one destination?
There is going to be a political battle. I think, speaking as a conservative, that Krauthammer and LImbaugh, and others, believe that Obama doesn’t give a hoot about space, and would rather redirect NASA efforts toward things that will help domestically (in his mind) like education and environmental studies (earth oriented projects). I think they are right, by the way.
THe fear of most conservatives is that the private space sector language is just that–language and that it will never be followed up. I think my fellow consevatives also tend to equate NASA with the military, which will always have to be a big government sort of program. They know it is important to have the high ground in terms of strategy, and space is the highest ground there is. I also think that they do not understand how capable the private space companies are. Nor do they understand how things like orbital fuel depots, etc., can really lead to spectacular developments. THey think of space like most people thought of computers before personal computers came into their own. I remember when there were ocassional scare articles about the Japanese coming up with something that would beat the Cray supercomputers. You don’t see those stories so much anymore. The Chinese are building a Cray system. Let them do it. I’ll take a personal computer sort of space system any day of the week.
Don’t be so harsh on the Limbaughs and Krauthammers of the world. Try and engage them. Look at the positive side of this: at least they care about space. That has to count for something.
We conservatives do recognize that space flight has a national security element and thus needs a strong government presence. We also support commercial space flight, but also recognize that it has limitations.
I do not think conservatism means what you think it means. If in order to fulfill national security goals the government needs access to space and related technologies, let the government either purchase those technologies on the open market or develop the ‘specific’ technologies needed within the DOD. Just pumping money into a bloated, graft ridden government agency in the hopes there are ‘national security’ spin-offs is ludicrous.
Rand,
[[[No one wants to see the US have a strong human spaceflight industry than I do. But I want to see decisions made on effectiveness, both in absolute terms and in terms of cost, rather than pork and a misplaced nostalgia for Apollo.]]]
Unfortunately the entry of columnists like Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer into the debate changes the debate from developing a strong human spaceflight industry to how President Obama is undermining America global leadership.
It doesn’t matter if NASA was launching astronauts on gun power firecrackers while private industry was offering off the Starship Enterprise and its Shuttles off the shelf. As I noted they won’t care about the technical or economic arguments. It will be simple sound bites. “No more NASA astronauts under Obama.” “Obama tells NASA to abandon space to focus on global warming.” “Obama outsources NASA space flight to Russia.” “Thousands of American engineers are laid off by Obama turning space flight over to Russian.” These will be the talking points. No they are not accurate, but they hit the “hot” buttons of voters which is what talking points are suppose to do.
If New Space doesn’t want to get steam rollered its going to have to find ways to argue for President Obama’s policy with its own sound bites. Ones that will push the emotional buttons of individuals who DON”T follow space policy, have never heard of the Augustine committee, New Space, VSE and could less about learning about them. Trying to use technical or economic arguments or use logic to “sell” voters on President’s Obama’s policy will be like bringing a knife to a gun fight. if logic or reason won elections President Obama would have never got elected.
No, its not fair, New Space finally getting the policy it wants and then being run over by it being President’s Obama’s space policy, but unfortunately that is what is likely to happen given the raising frustration of the voters with the Obama Whitehouse.
And BTW, as I noted I am indifferent to NASA policy as I don’t see NASA being on the critical path to space. So it doesn’t matter to me which policy wins, anymore then who wins the Super Bowl. I have faith that after NASA runs whatever policy wins through its organization filter it will be turn out the same. Stuck in LEO while the technology for CATS is pursed, while it dreams of missions to Mars someday. This is just my analysis of the developing debate. At its core Political Marketing is not much different then traditional product marketing. Its perception, not reality, that controls the “purchase” decision.
The real tragedy is that if New Space is on the losing side if Congress changes hands, its policies will be tossed out with the rest of President Obama’s agenda and New Space will have to spend another decade to get where is was before this policy shift with its agenda. That is the real danger to creating a space faring society of the debate that is developing.
And why having astronauts have to buy rides on the Soyuz is disgraceful.
It is indeed disgraceful. However, conservatives shouldn’t support programs simply to preserve ‘national face’, support American pride or project images of technical strength. Sheesh, that’s what the damn Soviet Union did.
What is even more disgraceful than losing access to LEO is that forward looking leaders didn’t support creating the political and economic conditions necessary so that a series of SpaceX-type companies could have been formed 20 to 30 years go. If that had been done, we would indeed have been talking about deep space manned missions now rather than wringing our hands because yet another bloated, big-government, make-work project failed yet again.
Mark: “We conservatives do recognize that space flight has a national security element”
Constellation is terrible for national security. Using EELVs and low-cost commercial rockets and spacecraft is good for national security. Developing and demonstrating in space technologies like refueling, communications improvements, sensor improvements, and so on is good for national security.
Red,
Try putting those arguments for President Obamas’ policy into sound bites…
No, what this illustrates once again is the problem with sapce advocates using NASA as the focal point for creating a space faring civilization. Its not the organization for it and no matter how you try to change it, it won’t be.
That is why I been advocating for years new organizations OUTSIDE of NASA.
A Space Development Bank in the DOC to provide bridge funding to entrepreneurs to solve the problem of financing new space ventures.
A Lunar Development Corporation to build the infrastructure needed to extend the human econsphere to Cislunar space.
A Space Markets Act to jump start the markets New Space firms need to get started.
A network of state space academies to create the future workforce while creating additional markets for New Space firms.
Really, its not about which rockets NASA picks to send astronauts into space. Its about creating the environment needed for markets for space entrepreneurship to emerge and develop. In short its about applying the basic principles of evolutionary economics to the challenge of creating a space faring civilization. Not about NASA policy.
Thomas Matula, “Soft Power” can be projected via commercial interests as well as by government policies. Look up what the term meant when Joseph Nye first used it.
Speaking as someone Rand sees as an evil statist liberal Democrat: I believe that the USA projects “soft power” so well because it mixes three messages so well: it is the land of freedom and also the land of opportunity and also a fun hip techno-wonderland. The USA couldn’t project that message without vibrant private companies. There are plenty of other countries in the world which can send that one or two of those messages, a few that can send all three, but none that can send all three as loudly as we can.
Blue Origin and SpaceX (and moreover, Amazon and PayPal) are a better means to project “Soft Power” than the VSE.
Frankly, I’d be more impressed with a Chinese space program that was conducted by private Chinese companies, and I’d be even more impressed if the people running those companies were as free as we are here in the 1st world.
Tom: “… why having astronauts have to buy rides on the Soyuz is disgraceful.”
Former NASA Administrator Griffin has been saying that it’s “unseemly” to be faced with having to buy rides on Soyuz for years, all while he was causing exactly that to happen. Switching to commercial providers instead of Ares which (to noone’s surprise) is delayed faster than time goes by is likely to shrink that unseemly and disgraceful gap, according to the Augustine Committee’s review. If that had been done in 2005 per Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, there wouldn’t be much of a gap at all.
I don’t think it will be too difficult to convince conservatives that a government program is less likely to come in on time than multiple competing commercial efforts. We just need a few sound bites straight out of Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration and from Dr. Griffin.
Tom: “That is why I been advocating for years new organizations OUTSIDE of NASA.”
I agree with this – NASA will always be a political football. There are other markets – purely commercial, other government agencies, etc, and non-NASA policy changes to push for. That being said, with NASA in such an untenable situation as it’s been in the last few years, it makes some sense to put some effort into finding solutions for its problems that happen to improve the space situation, too.
Bob-1,
[[[Thomas Matula, “Soft Power” can be projected via commercial interests as well as by government policies. Look up what the term meant when Joseph Nye first used it.]]]
The question is not what I think, but how Conservatives will use it in the debate plus the image the average voter has for NASA and its association with global leadership. (i.e Soft Power). Don’t try to convince me as I teach strategic management and know the critical role U.S. corporations have in projecting American leadership globally. Its the followers of the Conservative columnists and/or the Conservative columnists that you have to convince. In short you have to look at this as a problem in idea marketing and determine what the best strategy to use to “win”.
However, as I pointed out I think that whatever the outcome is once NASa runs it through its cultural filter the result will be the same. High cost missions to ISS and dreams of Mars.
red,
NASA policy will also need to walk the walk
For example, to openly call for non-NASA LEO destinations sooner rather than later and to propose a lunar development authority existing outside of NASA’s jurisdiction.
Bolden & Garver need to go to Congress later this month and they will need an actual plan.
Commercial crew & cargo to ISS is a worthy component of such a plan but by itself is insufficient to be a politically viable plan to constitute the sum total of NASA’s human spaceflight efforts for the next several years.
Mark: “And even in private industry steps up, there will be no way to go beyond LEO for decades.”
Since we don’t know the full details of the new NASA approach yet, I think it’s too early to say this. Let’s wait a few weeks. If they go full bore on difficult new technology straight for Mars, you could be right. If they go for more incremental development with technologies having near-term practical use that appeal to commercial or other interests (that would pitch in funding), and they start with some more easily achievable beyond-LEO goals, it shouldn’t take that long.
At any rate, “there will be no way to go beyond LEO for decades” is already true for Constellation.
Since we don’t know the full details of the new NASA approach yet, I think it’s too early to say this. Let’s wait a few weeks.
With Limbaugh and Krauthammer taking swings at NASA policy already, Bolden & Garver may not have a few weeks.
Red,
[[[That being said, with NASA in such an untenable situation as it’s been in the last few years, it makes some sense to put some effort into finding solutions for its problems that happen to improve the space situation, too.]]]
That is unfortunately the fallacy that has burned up years of space advocacy and effort. Believing that somehow changing NASA will help create a space faring civilization. Or at least benefit it. Any possible gains from a program like COTS are more then likely to be offset by the distraction they cause by getting New Space firms to look away from private markets to government ones.
RocketPlane-Kistler is a good example. if they stuck to their business plan with the Oklahoma Tax Credits they may have well developed their sub-orbtial tourist craft, or a least a version of it that went high enough to attract customers. Instead the siren call of NASA COTS reached out and caused them to shift focus, with the result that they lost everything while creating a higher barrier for future advocates of tax credits for space development.
> Mark R. Whittington Says:
> == Krauthammer’s point is that not only will there
> be a gap but (taken his skepticism about private
> industry stepping up) no way to close it. And even
> in private industry steps up, there will be no way
> to go beyond LEO for decades.
You seem to have a couple schools of thought.
1- Of course NASA will in just a few years start huge new programs after “demonstrating” these generally no brainer technologies. [Often folks previously advocating tech like on-orbit fuel depots as part of VSE. Now say its perfectly reasonable that NASA needs to do demos of them so they can be sure. So a month ago they were obvious and no risk, but now years of study are reasonable and necessary?] So private industry can step in and build the huge fleets to support these new programs.
2- Its beyond private industry to do it. {So whose been building adn launching all NASA ships for decades?} So NASA must.
3- Private industry will do it on their own without NASA, and the need for government supported exploration is over.
4- If this goes through it means the end of exploration, or of US leadership in space.
The Air Force trying to figure out how to maintain basic space launch technologies with the end of constellation seems to put them in camp 4. CK’s column suggest he’s in there as well.
Certainly if a significant market for deep space exploration developed, private industry could do it just as they have for NASA. But given no other group has ever stepped forward to fund anything on a scale like that, certainly doesn’t give great hope one will anytime soon. And private industry won’t do it for free – and these projects are still a long way from what a foundation could reasonably raise.
Also historically NASA or agencies going off studying or testing technologies to be used in someday hoped for programs – doesn’t bring forth the programs. Though its often a red flag in congress motivating them to kill the study programs.
You could suggest space tourism could evolve to the point of Virgin Galactic resort on Luna that scientists could operate out of. Mars missions would be pretty damn hard to get to though.
> I add the note that one knows that the new plan
> is really falling apart when proponents answer
> the critics not with facts but with snark.
😉
Perhaps folks lack confidence in their convictions.
Bill: “With Limbaugh and Krauthammer taking swings at NASA policy already, Bolden & Garver may not have a few weeks.”
I was thinking in terms of us waiting for however long it takes Bolden & Garver & etc.
From their point of view, they’re stuck in the bad Constellation situation they inherited. It’s too bad they didn’t or couldn’t move faster. Basically they were going to be hit with the gap no matter what, and they’re choosing the route that independent reviews say will shrink the gap the most.
Not only that, but even now with the Shuttle we already need and totally rely on the Soyuz, since we need crew rescue capability for the ISS. We’re in the same boat we’ve already been in with respect to Soyuz and ISS.
Finally, if Bolden and Garver (etc) stuck with Ares, not only would they have a longer gap (according to independent assessments), but they’d have to (and consider the outrage here) dump the ISS in the ocean in 2015 (or come up with much more than $3B/year more), and still have no new technology program or money to fund things they need to fund based on Obama’s political priorities (eg: restoring Earth observations, fuel-efficient Aeronautics work).
What a mess: Ares/Constellation.
1. > Thomas Matula Says:
> February 12th, 2010 at 8:05 am
> == space policy is one area where Conservatives and
> Libertarians differ. Conservatives see NASA and its
> human space flight program as a critical element of
> America’s projection of soft power. For this reason a
> human space flight program at NASA is an important
> element of America’s global leadership. Something that
> generates America Pride and sends an image of technological
> strength to the rest of the world. ====
I think more critical then soft power, is that voters have wanted America to have a space program. Having gotten to the moon is a big point of national pride, as well as a demonstration of technological superiority. The later having good trade implications, and a space program in general is assumed to help maintain critical aerospace skills for civilian and military use.
> == Libertarians on the other hand see human space flight at
> NASA as just another government program to turn over to private industry.
They are not even convinced the military shouldn’t be comercialized
;).
> In the coming weeks you will see the battle lines on President
> Obama’s new space policy drawn along these two lines. You
> will also see the strange case of Libertarians and Liberals agreeing
> on it. The fact that Rush Limbaugh is talking about President’s
> Obama killing the Moon program so NASA could spend more
> money on global warming is a good early indicator of the direction
> this is going. Charles Krauthammer’s column is another step in this movement ==
Also its pretty clear that’s what Obama sees it as, and it plays into the political currents saying that Obama is across the board lowering Americas political, economic, and military power and stature in the world. Shutting down ”THE space program” and mixing that announcement with refocusing those efforts toward climate change studies.. The uber left will applaud it and be energized. They will see it as a great symbolic tearing down of old American exceptualism attitudes and posturing, and refocusing those energies toward planetary stewardship. Focusing us back down to Earth.
The right, and a lot of moderates will see it as throwing away one of the things that made America great. Where we truly excelled and gained world wide respect. A further terrifying sign of American decline.
And a lot of politicians will see their districts cash cows being scheduled to shut down and lay off people (regardless of their district being no the chopping block) during a major depression, in a election year.
This is not the most politically astute thing Obamas done.
> President Obama may have hit a nerve with his new policy
> that will actually make space a campaign issue as a symbol
> of how his policies are undermining American leadership in the world.
>
> And no, they won’t care about the long debate about it in the
> small space advocate community,
I can see Garver or Bolden trying to argue that Closing NASA launch services will spawn a new era of commercials like SpaceX.
>== And a completely new Congress may see space policy
> as one area they could focus on to reverse “America’s decline” in global leadership.
Ooo. Good point.
I stand corrected, red
Time is indeed on the side of Holdren, Bolden & Garver. If NASA policy remains unresolved in Congress for any extended period, commercial crew & cargo (or warmed over Orbital Space Plane with a “commercial” logo) will become inevitable.
But then, I predict NASA’s human spaceflight budget will be reduced to what is needed to buy ISS flights and nothing more. No depot R&D, no lander development, no advanced propulsion development.
And that will flow into what Dr. Matula has been saying – becoming spacefaring will need to wait until private demand for spaceflight is sufficient to pay the bills, with minimal use of tax dollars.
1. > Mike Thompson Says:
> February 12th, 2010 at 10:16 am
> What is even more disgraceful than losing access to
> LEO is that forward looking leaders didn’t support creating
> the political and economic conditions necessary so that
> a series of SpaceX-type companies could have been formed 20 to 30 years go.
??
There were such companies. The big aero firms then and more recently offered such capacities – though they didn’t find any buyers. It seems likely NASA will move to give some of the COTS-D contract to Boeing or L/M EELV. Trying to convince congress to give SpaceX the chance to launch NASA astrounauts to ISS cuold be prohibativly difficult.
> Blue Origin and SpaceX (and moreover, Amazon
> and PayPal) are a better means to project
> “Soft Power” than the VSE.
Ok lets get real here. Blue Origins a virtual non presence, and SpaceX to the tiny fraction of voters that know of it, is just a also ran that maybe is starting to build – something. NASA turnnig over key maned space efforts to them, projects the US duping the space program to cut rate also ran launch providers, noe who started this a couple years back after maknig a killing doing PayPal.
These aer not headlines that are going to impress folks around the world.
I’m becoming more adn more convinced this proposal may be DOA?
Slogan for Soft Power: Armadillo, Masten, SpaceX, Bigelow, Blue Orgin — Come to America where you too can have your space program!
Nuts! Blew it.
Should have read:
Come to America where you too can have your own space program!
Hmmm, Obama repeatedly vowed during the campaign that no one making less that 250,000 dollars will see their taxes go up. Now he says he is “agnostic” about raising taxes and nothing is off the table. If he reneges on this pledge than there is absolutely nothing this man says that holds true much further past his nose. Practically every industry and business sector is paralyzed right now because no one knows what is going to happen next with this administration. I was cheering before about this decision to go with private space but now I’ve grabbed hold of the fence again cause anybody’s guess is good right about now — color me frustrated.
Some of this has already been said, but speaking as a self-identifying Conservative, I think the columnists and pundits can be brought over. They’re just snapping at Obama like a trout at a worm on a hook. They can’t help it; if it’s there, they bite just to keep it from the other fish. I have no doubts at all that, broached as separate from Obama, they would love a larger role for the private sector on ideological grounds, and the subsequent INCREASE in soft power that comes from 1. greater access to advanced space capabilities through purchase from a dynamic private sector (just like the military enjoys in other weapons technology, and currently enjoys in launch craft since they contract with Boeing/Lockheed-Martin/ULA, I think; I could be wrong about that), and 2. the vision throughout the world of our private citizens vacationing in a place that most governments can’t reach. Personally, I think it’s a massive soft-power boost to see Elon Musk doing BY HIMSELF what most governments, even in the developed world, can’t do without international partnerships.
Most of the them see it has as risky only because they genuinely don’t know what we can already do now. I appreciate Rand’s recent pieces reaching out to Conservatives; I think there is fertile grounds for support there.
It’s incredible; I’m in business school now and I have already seen two people this year, completely unrelated to me or my efforts, wax on about the importance of private space, one talking about space solar power and another about space tourism, not knowing my connections (such as they are) to the industry and organizations. People are figuring it out.
When the Air Force contracts with Lock-Mart or Boeing for a new aircraft it either buys a commercial design or it submits performance requierments and asks for propossals. Then, if it is being smart, has alternative prototypes built so it can select the best. It does not produce the design in some Air Force design bureau. Nor does it ask for an aircraft with intended for only one destination. Why should NASA be the United States spacecraft design bureau? Why must a spacecraft be designed for only one destination?
Google “Fighter Mafia”. The Saturn V, Shuttle, or the X-33 design process, were not that different. Ares was different, but that was because Mike Griffin wanted to play Von Braun.
As for soft power… perhaps we could build some Pyramids. We cannot have a building in Dubai holding the record as the world’s tallest. We need something bigger.
>== As for soft power… perhaps we could build some Pyramids. We
> cannot have a building in Dubai holding the record as the world’s
> tallest. We need something bigger.
😉
Hell yeah!
Certainly better then how were replacing the World trade center towers with shorter 80 story buildings – but one gets a 1000 foot spike so it can say its tall.
A few points that need making, I think:
First, we must point to the utter failure of NASA to achieve the mission of opening up manned spaceflight. After a half century of efforts (a time-span that saw huge strides in aviation, automobiles, electronics, computers, even textiles) NASA managed to put forth a paltry 4 different manned vehicle designs. They failed at dramatically reducing the cost of manned orbital launches. They failed at dramatically increasing the capabilities of manned orbital missions. And the tack they were taking with Ares I was toward even more expensive, less capable manned spaceflight. There is every reason to assume that NASA would be in a substantially similar state as today if it had kept Gemini era hardware and merely continued onwards with a budget similar to today’s. Given NASA’s failure to achieve its mission even over numerous decades and gargantuan budgets I think it’s fair to give others a try.
Second, let’s keep in mind that we’re not just talking about SpaceX, XCOR, Armadillo et al, we’re also talking about LockMart and Boeing, Delta and Atlas. It never made sense for NASA to get into the launch business because there are already launch vehicles on the shelf that are perfectly suitable to the task.
I suspect that a lot of the nay sayers will be utterly shocked at the progress that will be made in manned spaceflight in the coming decades. The seeds are there (at Virgin Galactic, at SpaceX, at XCOR, at Bigelow, and even at LM and Boeing), and once they no longer have to struggle against government subsidized competition there’s every reason to believe they will make great strides in little time.