I have a response to Robert Costa’s piece from last week, over at National Review Online.
65 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s Conservative Space Program”
Comments are closed.
I have a response to Robert Costa’s piece from last week, over at National Review Online.
Comments are closed.
I’ve read your response, and Costa’s original article, and I think you both miss the point when it comes to understanding conservative reaction to the Obama plan, because you’re both focused on the tenets of the policy itself — as if the space program exists in a vacuum, detached from other politics.
Conservatives put the Obama plan into the context of bowing to world leaders, snubbing allies while coddling enemies, apologizing for American excellence, and what appears to many to be a deliberate attempt at humbling America through deleterious fiscal and foreign policy and see this new direction for space as merely an extension of these efforts. It seems to me, and others, that anything that proclaims America’s virtues is anathema to the current regime. Say what you will about the pragmatic particulars of the Bush vision for space, but it was bold and drew upon American’s belief in their ability to achieve great things. Contrast that with this White House’s apparent conviction that Americans maybe shouldn’t aim so high, shouldn’t try so hard, should pursue more modest goals and accept less than excellence, less than the exceptional, and I think you’ll be getting close to what sparked that letter from Armstrong, et al. It is, indeed, a slow decline into mediocrity. By design.
The so-called conservative opposition to this new direction in space policy seems, at least to me, to come from three motivations: a visceral and intrinsic (and understandable) distaste for any policy that emanates from this White House; a nostalgia for the good old days, when we had a goal and a date and a really big rocket and an unlimited budget (what I’ve described as the “Apollo cargo cult”); and, in the case of such politicians as Senators Shelby, Hutchison, Hatch, et al., pure rent seeking for their states.
So in fell swoop you dismiss from consideration the idea that anybody might oppose the new policy on other principled grounds, for example, the historical record of the agency in question.
What some of us object to is not the attempt to develop commercial spaceflight capability (although I question the belief that the new policy will do that), but the abandonment of the Vision for Space Exploration, which was a strategic path and a direction that if implemented properly, gives us an incrementally increasing space faring capability.
What we have instead with the new policy is the abandonment of existing real spaceflight capability (for all its faults) for the promise of new and better capability at some point in the future and the abandonment of a specific goal for which real and measurable progress is possible for fantasy trips to distant destinations, decades in the future. I don’t think that’s a very good trade.
What we have instead with the new policy is the abandonment of existing real spaceflight capability (for all its faults)
Abandonment of the orbiter, which was the plan all along. No new launch vehicles are needed to continue manned spaceflight (although more are on the way), just new spacecraft. And work on that is continuing as we speak and more work will begin if the new plan is approved.
So in fell swoop you dismiss from consideration the idea that anybody might oppose the new policy on other principled grounds, for example, the historical record of the agency in question.
No, Paul, obviously there can be other reasons. I was trying to understand and describe why conservatives qua conservatives are objecting. Note that the piece was written for and published at a conservative publication.
Conservatives put the Obama plan into the context of bowing to world leaders, snubbing allies while coddling enemies, apologizing for American excellence, and what appears to many to be a deliberate attempt at humbling America through deleterious fiscal and foreign policy and see this new direction for space as merely an extension of these efforts.
That’s just a longer-winded way of saying “a visceral and intrinsic (and understandable) distaste for any policy that emanates from this White House…”
Abandonment of the orbiter, which was the plan all along. No new launch vehicles are needed to continue manned spaceflight (although more are on the way), just new spacecraft.
I’m not talking about Shuttle retirement — I’m speaking of the production facilities that would permit building a new heavy lift launch vehicle using Shuttle parts. By discarding that capability, you’re making an architectural decision, but as there is no real destination yet, you don’t know if that’s a good decision or not. Once discarded, it cannot be resurrected, except at great expense.
And if you don’t think we need a heavy lift vehicle, why does the policy call for spending over $ 3 billion for five years to make a decision on which HLLV to build?
Rand, have you ever asked yourself how it is that you seem to only agree strongly with the President on this one issue? How is it that you have an almost blind faith in his good intentions on this one issue and not others?
Perhaps you can convince me that the Progressive positions that John Holdren explains so well in his speech below is not in fact the underlying agenda that actually explains this policy? That America’s near term decline in HSF and other areas, inherent under this policy, is not a bug but a feature?
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64073
While I understand that you believe, like Jeff Greason, that we need to take one step back (destroy NASA HSF + old tech) in order to take two steps forward (low Cost Advanced Tech + Commercial Space), is it not also possible that those in power advocating this policy really just want to take one step back?
Because like all good Progressives they believe that America must take a step back in order for other nations to have their ‘rightful’ chance to lead? After all it’s the rich that cause people to be poor in the Progressives world view.
How is this worldview not transferable towards explaining how a Progressive would view one of the crown jewels of American Exceptionalism?
Would a true Progressive really want to do anything that had even a chance of increasing America’s ‘self-inflated’ image of its heritage and culture? A ‘self-inflated’ image that continually gets in the way of Progressives attempting to convince American’s that we need to move beyond the Constitution?
I agree with so many of your other positions but I think you like Newt Gingrich, have been fooled by the illusion of ‘commercial’ space.
You also keep using the ‘strawman’ that is the PoR to defend the Feb 1st plan. Ironically the PoR and the Feb 1st plan are even amongh the viable options found by the Augustine Commission. Option 4B (STS Extension + SDHLV) is and also happens to be the only option that will maintain ‘continuous’ US leadership in space while also retaining the Moon is a key near term objective.
The link below contains a budget spread for option 4B that eliminates the gap, delivers heavy-lift and beyond Earth Orbit capability five years from now, leverages the progress already made under the PoR, funds a robust advanced tech/precursor mission portfolio (efficient s-curve growth to +$4B per year FY15), all while staying within the Presidents top line and not changing by one cent the President’s Science and Aeronautics budget allocations.
http://www.directlauncher.com/documents/NASA-Compromise-Budget-Detailed.xls
The solution to the bad plan that was the PoR is not another bad plan that is the Feb 1st proposal, but a better plan.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1571/1
And if you don’t think we need a heavy lift vehicle, why does the policy call for spending over $ 3 billion for five years to make a decision on which HLLV to build?
That’s to develop an engine to in-source the RD-180, while kicking the HLV can down the road. And even if we really do end up needing an HLV, I’d bet it would be cheaper to do one from scratch than to preserve Shuttle infrastructure. In fact, I think that Elon is proving that. His BFR would be much cheaper to both develop and operate than anything Shuttle derived.
Rand, have you ever asked yourself how it is that you seem to only agree strongly with the President on this one issue? How is it that you have an almost blind faith in his good intentions on this one issue and not others?
If you had actually read my piece, and comprehended it, you wouldn’t ask that question (it’s akin to “when are you going to stop beating your wife?”).
I agree with so many of your other positions but I think you like Newt Gingrich, have been fooled by the illusion of ‘commercial’ space.
Tell Elon Musk, with all the customers he has signed up, that commercial space is an “illusion.”
And if you don’t think we need a heavy lift vehicle, why does the policy call for spending over $ 3 billion for five years to make a decision on which HLLV to build?
Because it is an ugly compromise and because it appears to be designed to divide and conquer. Yes, I happen to believe we don’t need HLV. I would go further than that and say it is in fact unreasonable to assume there is a real possibility we might need it, depending on where you draw the line. But EELV Phase 1 would be an HLV, one which would even reach down to commercial payload sizes. That wouldn’t require a new engine, except perhaps for political or strategic reasons. A common upper stage for Atlas and Delta, perhaps including RL-60, seems more useful to me than a new kerolox first stage engine. And there’s still the possibility of Phase 2 and even that doesn’t require new engines I think. This would be no more complex an upgrade than Shuttle -> Shuttle C -> Shuttle-C + upper stage and Phase 1 would be simpler.
Because it is an ugly compromise and because it appears to be designed to divide and conquer.
Oh yes, now I see. The new policy is a brilliant conceived, forward looking plan, except for those parts which you don’t like, which are ugly, politically motivated ideas.
But the “divide and conquer” part seems to have worked well.
So in fell swoop you dismiss from consideration the idea that anybody might oppose the new policy on other principled grounds, for example, the historical record of the agency in question.
It is precisely the historical record of NASA that leads me to support this new policy. NASA’s historical record of “waste anything but time” during the Apollo years led them to create a capability that was too expensive to be sustainable, so we threw it away. In the almost 40 years since Apollo 17, NASA has spent several hundred billion dollars on manned space and accomplished what, exactly?
– They created the Shuttle, years late and seriously over budget. To justify the Shuttle, they used huge taxpayer subsidizies to launch satellites competing against corporate launch providers. When they were prohibited from launching commercial and almost all other satellites following the Challenger accident, the Shuttle lost most of its reason for existing but they kept flying it anyway. To give the Shuttle a destination and reason for existing, they spend huge amounts on money on the ISS, accomplishing what, precisely?
– Over the years, NASA started one new booster program after another, only to abandon them one by one. In fact, over the past 40 years, it’s hard to find any big NASA projects (manned or unmanned) that came in on time and on budget. Instead, the norm are projects that were late and/or over budget if not cancelled outright. NASA has not been a wise steward of the taxpayers’ money.
So, I’m cautiously supportive of Obama’s change in space policy. While his support of commercial space access may fall into the “broken clock is right twice a day” category, in this area, he got it mostly right. NASA screwed the pooch with how they managed the Constellation program. They were trying to develop a new program based on a failed one, only this time it was “Apollo on Steroids.”
The moment NASA chose to go the Ares I/Orion route, it was doomed to ultimate failure. Why should we continue to reward failure? Indeed, this is an attitude we need to take to all government agencies. Fail and there will be consequences. What a radical thought!
Oh yes, now I see. The new policy is a brilliant conceived, forward looking plan, except for those parts which you don’t like, which are ugly, politically motivated ideas.
Isn’t that the nature of political compromise? Doesn’t anyone who looks at any compromise identify bits they think are good and things they think are bad?
But I’d like to understand your position better. You’ve said before that HLV for you is a means, not an end. The goals appear to be easier political acceptance and doing meaningful and sustainable lunar exploration as soon as possible. The fewer of us who are dead and buried by the time that happens the better.
What would be a good yardstick of progress? I would submit that it isn’t something like average mission cost over the duration of the program, but the incremental cost of the last mission in the first decade, the idea being that the sooner you lower recurring costs, the more sustainable the program becomes.
None of that requires an HLV. What is indispensable however is a lander and a pressurised rover or hopper, and probably lunar surface infrastructure and ISRU. Couldn’t you be happy with anything that included that even if it didn’t use an HLV?
Conservatives put the Obama plan into the context of bowing to world leaders, snubbing allies while coddling enemies, apologizing for American excellence, and what appears to many to be a deliberate attempt at humbling America through deleterious fiscal and foreign policy and see this new direction for space as merely an extension of these efforts.
That’s just a longer-winded way of saying “a visceral and intrinsic (and understandable) distaste for any policy that emanates from this White House…”
No, actually I disagree. You describe a knee-jerk opposition rooted in partisan differences. I’m talking about a legitimate beef some of us have with the administration with cause. on’
trivialize this opposition under the heading of “well, some people aren’t going to like anything Obama does, just because he’s Obama.”
You describe a knee-jerk opposition rooted in partisan differences.
No, I don’t.
I’m talking about a legitimate beef some of us have with the administration with cause. Don’t trivialize this opposition under the heading of “well, some people aren’t going to like anything Obama does, just because he’s Obama.”
That’s not what I said. I said there is an “understandable distaste.” It’s understandable for exactly the reasons you state.
Excellent piece, Rand. Very thorough and covers most of the bases. I’ve sent it on, with supportive comments, to some of my friends who still work at KSC.
Hopefully they’ll still talk to me.
Martijn,
What is indispensable however is a lander and a pressurised rover or hopper, and probably lunar surface infrastructure and ISRU. Couldn’t you be happy with anything that included that even if it didn’t use an HLV?
Of course I could. What makes you think any of that will result from the new policy?
But I’d like to understand your position better.
My position is documented in what some might claim to be exhaustive length at my blog — click on my name to get there.
Rand,
The point most people are over looking is that this space policy, if approved by Congress, will only last as long as the Obama Administration. If commercial crew proves itself by the administration change it will likely stay in the new policy. If not then it will join Constellation as a “bad” idea by the previous administration. Yes, advocates of commercial crew better hope President Obama wins in 2012 🙂 And that SpaceX has a streak of four successful launches with the Falcon 9 since for better or worst the media has selected it as the poster boy of the new policy.
So given that, the big question is what will the next administration’s space policy look like and what would be possible given the lost of expertise and facilities occurring under this one? And could a strategy be crafted to return to the Moon in 4-8 years given those constraints.
The point most people are over looking is that this space policy, if approved by Congress, will only last as long as the Obama Administration.
That’s true of any space policy, and any administration. That’s one of the big problems with space policy. It’s why we have to start making money at it.
Rand,
BTW, along those lines I expect to see a “scorched” policy at NASA over the next year or two, especially towards Shuttle assets. I expect the towers of both Pad 39A and 39B will be taken down as soon as the last shuttle flies from them. The SRB recovery boats disposed of as well as any tooling related to the ET’s SRBs, SSME, etc. And the orbiters sent to museums as quickly as possible. A year or so from the last flight it will be like the Shuttle never existed and you will be seeing articles on the ghost town KSC has been transformed into.
That is also when the full impact of the policy will hit the average America, right at the start of the next presidential cycle. It will be interesting to see the result 🙂
Would a true Progressive really want to do anything that had even a chance of increasing America’s ‘self-inflated’ image of its heritage and culture?
This statement proves Rand’s point about the source of conservative criticism of Obama’s plans. Beyond that, this comment and others shows a complete ignorance of the desires and intentions of “true Progressives”. It is akin to saying: “Would a true Conservative be concerned about anything or anyone beyond their own family, friends, or nation?” Maybe some Conservatives do think that way, but certainly not all or even most do.
Stephen, a true Progressive simply believes that government has a “progressive” role to play in bettering our nation and the human condition. That’s it.
I am a progressive in many respects who cherishes our heritage and culture. I strongly believe in the power of markets to drive innovation and economic growth. I am also moderately nationalistic, and believe that a foreign policy built of military might is far more effective in achieving national objectives.
An embittered misunderstanding of the motivations of the opposite political viewpoint does not make for good policy, however. Rand’s point is that even if the new policy direction comes for the wrong reasons, that doesn’t make it wrong.
While I regret that we won’t have a heavy lift vehicle this decade, be it Direct or some other design, I am also now tremendously excited to see what private industry and innovation will bring for the US and its continued leadership and excellence in space.
Of course I could. What makes you think any of that will result from the new policy?
I’m not confident it will. I am confident about something else: simply adding SDLV won’t do that either. The landers etc. would be crucial, the SDLV would be optional.
Speaking purely personally I’m happy with ISS extension and commercial crew and disappointed with the HLV propulsion research. I’d rather see HLV killed off for good and the research redirected towards ISRU. It’s also not clear to me why we need more research into storable propellant transfer given that that has been in continuous operational use ever since 1978 and has been demonstrated multiple times by the US too, most recently with Orbital Express. The research that would be needed would be research into cryo transfer and storage and that is best left to ULA/Boeing/LM since NASA has had no experience with zero gravity cryo fluid handling since Apollo, or perhaps Shuttle Centaur which never flew. But all in all I’m happy with the plan and I would like to see it pass.
My position is documented in what some might claim to be exhaustive length at my blog — click on my name to get there.
I’ve been to your blog before, and I expect to revisit it often and I would encourage others to do the same. But earlier you were lamenting the loss of the shuttle stack and that is what I don’t understand. What your blog does not demonstrate is why the shuttle stack is necessary, not even politically given the changed political climate.
I would be thrilled if we could get your support behind a plan that does sustainable lunar exploration as soon as possible whilst using propellant transfer, not HLV. The current plan is not that plan, but I’m suggesting advocacy for changes to it should be redirected towards early exploration hardware such as landers, not back towards SDLV. What I would like to do is to urge critics who lament the loss of early exploration to shift their focus away from SDLV and towards landers, hoppers, rovers, surface infrastructure and ISRU. And of course towards my personal top priority: commercial propellant flights.
To go to the moon, we need a lander. We already have launch vehicles.
Anthony,
Thank you!
Vilifying some extreme caricature of people you don’t agree with debases the whole debate. It makes it more difficult to truly understand what’s going on and makes sound reasoning much harder.
Rand, much of your thinking on space policy is so lucid and practical that it is inspiring and it brings me back to your blog. Isn’t it just possible that the same people who are proposing the best program we’ve seen in decades aren’t completely spawn of the devil?
Rand in your article you wrote:
“There is no recognition in his or any other criticism of just what a programmatic disaster Constellation has become (I write “become,” but it has been this way since its inception five years ago — it only became clearly recognizable to most in the past year or so, its failure accentuated by the report of the Augustine panel last fall).”
Augustine’s report was based on an quick Aerospace study (was it ever made public?); Bolden proudly admitted in Congress that he hadn’t reviewed Constellation. The last status report shows Constellation completing PDR this March. Ares I and Orion have no major technical issues and have only slipped six months since project start and are target for IOC in March 2015. So what do you base your disaster assessment on?
Rand, maybe you should check your facts once and while. According to SpaceX own web site;
http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php
12 of 18 Dragon 9 flights are for the US Government. SpaceX sure doesn’t look all that commercial or independently viable from the US government to me.
Given that the cost per kg to ISS for COTS-CRS is actually ‘higher’ than the Space Shuttle (even at just two flights per year with a free crew rotation for no extra charge) wouldn’t that make the existing commercial companies supporting the Space Shuttle even more ‘commercial’ than SpaceX by your definition?
What ‘commercial’ firm is Bob Walker a lobbyist for again, the name escapes me? Leave it to the beltway bandits to convince the useful idiots among us that something twice as expensive as what we have today is actually a cost savings.
They have also managed to convinced a number of other useful idiots that the destruction of an existing $40 Billion dollar SDHLV industrial base and workforce in order to make way for the construction of brand new $30 Billion dollar Kero/LOX HLV industrial base and workforce five years from now is actually a savings. Even if the new Kero/LOX HLV operational cost was free, this wouldn’t pencil out from a life cycle cost stand point.
Meanwhile a solution that will leverage the $10 Billion already spent on the PoR, that eliminates the gap, produces HLV and beyond LEO capability only five years from now, still has a healthy R&D funding line, prevents the shutdown of ISS and lowers the cost per kg to orbit by a factor of 4 over the Shuttle using proven man-rated systems, industrial base and workforce is falsely accused of being too expensive. Yep the current plan sounds like just what the beltway bandits and their useful idiots would go for.
Rand, while we are on the topic of commercial, have you every noticed how many TV commercials first start out with showing how whatever you are using to solve a particular problem is completely inadequate, expensive and dangerous and how this new shiny thing is so much better? Do you see a pattern here? You don’t happen to own a set of those knives that can cut through tin cans and tomatoes with ease do you?
Bravo.
As I commented a few days ago, I don’t follow space in depth–but I follow it enough to be willing the roll the dice and have the private sector take the lead toward a sustainable affordable human presence.
So what do you base your disaster assessment on?
Even assuming your polyannaish assessment about PDR et al, as I wrote at NRO:
That’s a fiscal trainwreck waiting to happen.
Isn’t it just possible that the same people who are proposing the best program we’ve seen in decades aren’t completely spawn of the devil?
It’s not only possible, it’s certain. I’m not sure why you would think otherwise. Many of those people are in fact long-time friends and associates of mine.
Rand,
you are leaving out one critical piece and I think a semi-legitimate conservative objection to the new Obama manned spaceflight plan:
Military missile spin-off technology from manned spaceflight, and in particular ICBM development and future replacement of the U.S. ICBM fleet.
Mind you, I think it is a pretty stupid reason to spend a quarter of a trillion dollars (presuming Constellation gets used extensively over the next 20-30 years) merely to be able to cheaply build ICBMs for the next generation of whatever the Air Force may eventually plan for the replacement technology. I think it is even arguable that allowing private enterprise to push launcher development and to drop prices substantially for LEO access will also have spin-off success for American missile development as well. I don’t know if John Carmack has the stomach to get involved with ICBM development, but I’m certain that the “new space” companies certainly could deal with the problem if necessity really came up to try and improvise a solution to get it to happen.
There are sound reasons for maintaining an industrial infrastructure in place to build weapons of war, and certainly not outsource that sort of industrial capacity for what may be our future military enemies (aka Russia or China). I would have loved to see this argument at least engaged in terms of why or why not having Constellation continue. This reason has been specifically invoked by Representative Rob Bishop (R-1st district Utah) as one of the major reasons why he wants the Ares I built. He has also been called the most conservative congressman in the House, and is going to be easily re-elected in November so he is somebody NASA will have to deal with for at least a few more years, particularly if the Republicans somehow get control of the House again.
The message among the conservatives, from people like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh, is that Obama is gutting the “space program” and only relying upon private enterprise to have any American presence in space. The assumption is that no money is getting put into NASA, ad that as an agency it will exist no more. I attended a recent “tea party” rally and among the participants and ordinary folks attending there, that is the message they are receiving. Somehow it is that message which needs to be changed, and where the real problem lies. I think conservatively principled individuals who can at least set the record straight here can make a difference, and at least try to show how the proposed changes to NASA can be something that conservative members of congress should support, at least in principle.
Thanks for at least trying, Rand.
There are sound reasons for maintaining an industrial infrastructure in place to build weapons of war, and certainly not outsource that sort of industrial capacity for what may be our future military enemies (aka Russia or China). I would have loved to see this argument at least engaged in terms of why or why not having Constellation continue. This reason has been specifically invoked by Representative Rob Bishop (R-1st district Utah) as one of the major reasons why he wants the Ares I built.
If we need an industrial infrastructure in place to build weapons of war, then the Pentagon should pay for that, not NASA, with its much smaller budget. It is no coincidence that a Utah congressman is making this argument. See motivation number three…
It appears that, by silence, everyone seems to agree that the Constellation program was financially unsupportable, regardless how interesting it’s ultimate goal was. The discussion now is in regards to what do we do next.
For those that don’t like the new space plan, maybe you should look at it from a different perspective. If you look 30 years into the future, who should be the main driver of activity in space – NASA/government or commercial companies?
If you said NASA, then I would say that you don’t like the new space plan. If you said commercial, then you would probably say that the new plan is a start towards building a robust commercial space industry.
Constellation was a huge monolithic program that did not rely enough on the services of others. NASA launched and operated everything, and they did nothing to train other companies on how to do operations in space.
The new plan starts the transfer of knowledge and ability from NASA to U.S. commercial companies. This will be a long process, but I think we have a number of companies that are ready to learn from NASA, and to turn that knowledge into profitable businesses. For the taxpayer, this is one of the ultimate paybacks.
From a political standpoint, both parties are quite capable of their own financial deficits (when was the last time a Republican President ended office with a budget surplus?). Programs like COTS (kudo’s to Griffin/Bush) are a wonderful example of how NASA should be transitioning out of operations side of space. NASA should always be focused on cutting edge work, the type of stuff companies couldn’t possibly afford, and leave the routine to the private sector.
I’m more of a hardware & business person – the political comments are amusing and sometimes a reflection of pre-election posturing (it’s always election time now). Even taking all of that into account, I think this new plan is much better that the previous one.
Anthony, you might want to read the book:
“The Roots of Modern Liberalism”
http://www.amazon.com/Woodrow-Liberalism-American-Intellectual-Culture/dp/0742515176
before you call yourself a Progressive again since your stated beliefs are antithetical to this world view. Progress is only progress if it is actually going in the direction you want to go. Again John Holdren did a good job the other day in describing the near term America in decline world view.
We saw the same mind set under Carter. And you know what he was a Progressive as well. I’m simply suggesting that America’s decline in Space exploration and development inherent under this policy wouldn’t be viewed as a bug but a feature by those supporting this world view. We must decline so others can rise just like the rich need to be taxed more so the poor can succeed.
The Progressives drive for more and more centralized power is driven by their desire to equalize outcomes thereby replacing the founder’s Constitutional world view of equality of opportunity and equality before the law.
We have learned again and again that the power needed to equalize outcomes is ultimately used by those in power to produce unequal benefits for themselves and their supporters. It is a false hope whether driven at the point of gun or via democratic socialism. The first approach collapses in blood the second approach collapses under its own weight because as Margaret Thatcher said eventually you run out of other peoples money.
My point stands, for some reason Rand seems to have blind faith on this one issue alone (ie the destruction of NASA and the rise of commercial space). I’m simply suggesting that their may be another motive behind this that has nothing to do with increasing efficiency of the taxpayer dollars of which I fully support. Having butted heads with the supporters of the PoR over the last five years I assure you that the PoR has a number of inefficiencies but right now I see us throwing out the baby with the bath water.
Likewise ‘commercial’ space is a myth by virtue of the fact that 80% money being spent to utilize space is non-commercial. Launch services therefore can only become commercial once the utilization of space is ‘also’ commercial since launch services is $10 Billion dollars of a $250 Billion dollar worldwide industry. Until then, political influence, like that demonstrated successfully on behalf of SpaceX, will be political.
Rand keep on ignoring ‘all’ the points I have made with your cute little one liners. I’ll take that as your acceptance of my arguments.
My point stands, for some reason Rand seems to have blind faith on this one issue alone (ie the destruction of NASA and the rise of commercial space).
No one is destroying NASA. This is hyperbolic nonsense.
Likewise ‘commercial’ space is a myth by virtue of the fact that 80% money being spent to utilize space is non-commercial.
Even if that’s true, gee, by my math, that’s 20% that’s commercial. Some “myth.” And we get much more for the buck with the commercial. It’s nutty to use the amount of money being spent on which sectors to say that one of them doesn’t exist.
I’ll take that as your acceptance of my arguments.
You are obviously free to indulge in whatever fantasies you wish.
I’ve learned recently, from a credible source, that Obama’s interest in commercialization of space is genuine, and dates back to the days when he was running for the Senate. A space entreprenuer engaged him in conversation, and evidently convinced him of what needed to be done.
This thows a new light on things for me, though I have a very tough time reconciling it with all of the evidence suggesting that Obama doesn’t think the private sector can or should be allowed to do anything — especially something once the province of government.
I’m a conservative who is happy about Obama’s new direction for NASA. I don’t like much else about his administration, but this policy change has impressed me. I believe that most conservatives will support it, once they understand that Constellation really wasn’t working out. Far too many people fell for the illusion of what Constellation was claimed to do. This new policy seems much more inline with the direction of the Bush administration’s VSE before Griffin hijacked it with his ESAS study.
This new policy seems much more inline with the direction of the Bush administration’s VSE before Griffin hijacked it with his ESAS study.
Yes. Except for the part about not going back to the moon first.
reconciling it with all of the evidence suggesting that Obama doesn’t think the private sector can or should be allowed to do anything
Obama isn’t about privatizing or nationalizing, he’s about fixing stuff that’s broken. He passed up a chance to nationalize banks, and not only left non-elderly health insurance in the private sector, but even forced tens of millions of new customers into the private health insurance market.
The most prominent thing that Obama has taken from the private sector is the ability of a select group of banks to make government-subsidized, government-administered, government-guaranteed student loans. The only thing the private sector was providing in that case was campaign contributions to Congressmen and Senators who defended the subsidies. Removing the private sector middlemen saved tens of billions, and excised a source of corruption.
Government-run manned spaceflight was failing to meet national goals, but it was funding campaign contributions meant to perpetuate the status quo. Moving LEO launches from government-designed, cost-plus-procured launchers to commercial rides simultaneously makes the program more effective and protects it from malign political influences.
In both cases Obama’s interest isn’t in favoring the public or private sector, but in fixing a broken program and reducing the harmful influence of concentrated government money on policy decisions.
I have issue with those who deride the Obama plan for its lack of direction. If the cost of space is not coming down in a Moore’s Law type manner, then we are going in the wrong direction.
Constellation had a pretense of a physical destination, that was to take NASA yet further away from the direction of economically sustainable space development. Every physical destination I have seen so far suggested is the wrong direction. You do not scale up a design you already know to be economically unsustainable.
NASA has shown with the shuttle and ISS that even with decades of substantial budget it can not continuously grow space infrastructure – something fundamental had to change. There should have been many tens of people living in LEO by now, and traveling beyond.
And the shuttle has started looking increasingly good of late, which should tell everyone that NASA was very much going down the wrong track.
As Jeff Greason recently said – if you are not on a track towards $100/lb, then you are on the wrong track.
Even forget medium lift launch vehicles, NASA needs to be promoting the development of small launch vehicles, that is where the the necessary evolution will occur. The HLV R&D budget needs to be shifted to SLVs if NASA is to get back on the right track and make doing new things in space again possible. Shifting NASAs HLV R&D budget to SLVs is going to be politically difficult, but it needs to be done. So many new launch technologies need to be researched and developed, and HLV R&D makes no technical sense.
“Obama isn’t about privatizing or nationalizing, he’s about fixing stuff that’s broken.”
Obama is about forcing people to do things, no matter what the outcome. Your examples of “fixing” things are the best evidence of that I can imagine.
Rand “Even if that’s true, gee, by my math, that’s 20% that’s commercial. Some “myth.” And we get much more for the buck with the commercial. It’s nutty to use the amount of money being spent on which sectors to say that one of them doesn’t exist.”
Actually Rand, the ‘actual’ commercial customers is running at about 10% unless you consider foreign governments as ‘commercial’? The number drops to near zero depending on if and who pays for the stuff going up in the two ‘commercial’ Dragon Lab flights. It would be interesting if when you wrote your articles about the ‘commercial’ guys coming to save the day from the evil clutches of NASA you mentioned that SpaceX is between 90-95% commercial free.
Then again I think that little fact would spoil your message so I understand why you ignore it. In fact their entire business model collapses without the COTS-CRS contract paid for by taxpayers. The only significant commercial exchange I can see is first the taxpayers pay the taxes, then SpaceX uses seed money to pay DC lobbyists to convince our elected representatives (and their advisors some of which used to be commercial space lobbyists, funny how that works) to give those dollars via NASA to SpaceX in the name of new space ‘commercialization’ good, NASA and experienced space bad. SpaceX then goes and factors the significant profits baked into to those sweet heart government contracts to raise more money and bring on new investors and the cycle begins anew. Have I missed a step? Is this what you mean by ‘commercial’? See I always thought ‘commercial’ transactions were solely between other ‘commercial’ companies or private individuals for goods and services. Maybe you were asleep for that portion of business 101?
Speaking of which all the above probably explains how we managed to convince ourselves that signing a ISS support contract that is actually more expensive than the Space Shuttle (no small accomplishment) is actually a savings because after all its ‘commercial’ and ‘commercial’ is always better, except that is when its not ‘commercial’, but I’m sure you already know that.
Don’t believe me, let’s do the math.
The GAO puts the COTS-CRS contract at 20 flights for $3.5 Billion delivering 36,900 kg to the ISS or $94,850/kg (GAO-09-618). Okay so far? you can use a calculator if you need to. Two flights of the Space Shuttle can deliver 32,000kg of payload, (pressurized if needed by using the MPLM) to the ISS. Based on the price we are paying under the COTS-CRS program this represents over a $3 Billion dollar value. Plus we can rotate upto 4 crew member per flight or 8 per year representing a $50 million dollar value per seat or $400 million. That’s $400 million dollars we spend right here on American jobs and not paying the same Russian organizations also helping Iran extend the range of their soon to be nuclear tipped ballistic missiles so they can reach the US, important safety tip, one of those guys could really ruin our whole day.
Oh and did I mention that the ISS will need to be shutdown until ‘both’ Orbital (even further behind) and SpaceX are up and running and there are critical spares only the Shuttle can deliver that are needed in order to actually extend the ISS to 2020, minor details, don’t even know why I brought them up. So you can check off using the ISS for about three of the five years we extended it and even then at only 40% of capacity which was the original COTS-CRS sizing plan under Mike Griffin. Assuming something too big to fail doesn’t fail that is.
See under Mike Griffin COTS was a way of keeping ULA from showing up Ares-1 which is why the logical choice for COTS back in 2005 was prevented from bidding. Plus Mike didn’t care one red cent about the ISS mission. As far as he was concerned if COTS arrived after the ISS splash down that was just their tuff luck, we told you 2010-2015 don’t blame us if you couldn’t deliver.
Now fast forward to 2010, COTS under Obama has been transformed as a way of getting a few useful idiots on the conservative side to provide cover for his plan, that would be you, to basically support the ending the United States of America’s Human Space Flight program, industrial base and workforce. Plus we get to send money to Communists in order so they can help our bestest buddies in the whole world, ie Iran, so they too can one day send big heavy stuff our direction.
It’s not easy coming up with a plan that Mike, Russia, Obama, Newt, Rand, Iran can all get behind and support.
“Now fast forward to 2010, COTS under Obama has been transformed as a way of getting a few useful idiots on the conservative side to provide cover for his plan, that would be you, to basically support the ending the United States of America’s Human Space Flight program, industrial base and workforce. Plus we get to send money to Communists in order so they can help our bestest buddies in the whole world, ie Iran, so they too can one day send big heavy stuff our direction.”
If this is so, the policy by the Obama Administration is a miserable failure and certainly doesn’t meet this goal. So far I’ve seen nothing suggesting a change in policy in terms of human spaceflight that is any less than what has already happened so far. The only significant issue is that NASA won’t have a vehicle design of its own to get people into space…. and you can’t blame Obama for that issue.
The last NASA administrator to get a manned vehicle design into space was none other than Jim Webb (with the Space Shuttle originally proposed under his administration). The singular failure of any design to move from the engineering drawing board to flight status should be seen as endemic to the NASA culture, and a sign of the real problems facing the agency. When viewed in this light, Constellation and its cancellation is really more of the same, not something unusual because it was canceled.
The shutting down of the Shuttle is something completely independent of any other effort to get into space by anybody else, including the COTS program. It is something long overdue and there are multiple reasons for insisting that the Shuttle be mothballed and sent to museums. Trying to compare the economics of sending up additional flights on a vehicle that is scheduled to shut down is living in a fantasy land of make-believe. It is a decision made under the Bush administration, and frankly something that should have been decided under the Reagan administration, when the handwriting for the end of the Shuttle era should have been quite obvious.
BTW, I’m really curious about which “commies” you are referring to here that NASA money is getting sent to for manned spaceflight, and in particular COTS money. I was not aware of sub-contractors working for Orbital or SpaceX that were located in Iran or North Korea. As far as I knew, that was illegal according to ITAR rules. Perhaps something else?
As for commercial customers for SpaceX, there are a number of customers who are waiting for the success of the Falcon 9 and the Falcon 1e before they commit to more flights. They are hoping that SpaceX matures more as a company and demonstrate flights already on the SpaceX manifest.
Mfk, was the space entrepeneur Dr. Kathuria of Illinois? (Planetspace, Mircorp, Republican candidate for Senate)
I can neither confirm nor deny that…
Paul Spudis, don’t you have anything new to say? You’re becoming as one dimensional as Zubrin.
We’ve *heard* that you think Obamaspace abandons the VSE. Half a dozen people on this site have told you why you’re wrong.
We’ve *heard* that you think Constellation was at least building some vehicles that you could use in your pet vision. Half a dozen people on this site have told you why you’re wrong.
We’ve *heard* that you think NASA is incapable of change. Half a dozen people on this site have told you why you’re wrong.
Come back when you have something new to say.
Hi All,
Looks like Ares I may still be kicking…
http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100421/NEWS02/100421031/1007/news02/Senate+panel+considers+budget+boost+for+next+rocket
Senate panel considers budget boost for next rocket
BY BART JANSEN • FLORIDA TODAY • April 21, 2010
[[[Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Orlando, requested the funding to test the solid-rocket motor for the Ares 1X. He said the testing is crucial to the Defense Department missiles, in addition to developing the next NASA rocket to send people beyond low-earth orbit.]]]
I wonder what will be test given the number of times the Ares IX motor flew as part of Shuttle missions. Or is it the real Ares motor they plan to test. This is getting interesting again.
Nice piece, Rand. One silver lining is that Democrats have similar narrow vision in support of the President so votes to pass the budget are unlikely to be scarce. We’ll see what the next Congress, President and Administrator do with the new direction.
So, basically your worst case projection for this plan is, “Yeah, maybe they’ll totally f*ck it up, but that’s okay because we can come back later and remediate it.”
For some reason, this came immediately to my mind.
Needless to say, your argument has not convinced me of the merits of completely chucking a program (acknowledging that it may well have sucked) which actually flew a test article when every other previous new HSF launcher/spacecraft program (if you don’t count DCX) since Shuttle was aborted shortly after they were put to paper.
You New Space guys have got your sight fogged by visions of dollar signs. Dollar signs which may or may not ever turn into actual money.
visions of dollar signs
The visions are not of dollar signs but of a future where more people than just a handful of government employees get to go into space each year.
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> April 21st, 2010 at 9:33 am
> I expect to see a “scorched” policy at NASA over the next
> year or two, especially towards Shuttle assets.==
> == A year or so from the last flight it will be like the Shuttle
> never existed and you will be seeing articles on the ghost
> town KSC has been transformed into.
The one way politician can influence policy after the next election is to build or destroy expensive assets. If you don’t want the next congress to restart your fighter or spaceship program — order all the tooling and facilities scraped or sold off, and lay-off the staffs. The next set of politicals might want to shut it down – but the cost become prohibative.
What Obamas doing is scrapnig eveything out now, laying everyone off now, while leaving until 2015 for anything to be built or anyone to be hired. No contracts for commercial crew until after they decide how to certify it, certify some, do a competative bid, etc. Maybe after 2015 or ’16 — or not. So funding or dumping the Commercial crew concept can be argued about by his successors – but shuttle or shutle derived will be prohibativly expensive. Thus he drives policy long after hes gone.
> Coastal Ron Says:
>
> April 21st, 2010 at 11:35 am
>
>== For those that don’t like the new space plan, maybe you
> should look at it from a different perspective. If you look 30
> years into the future, who should be the main driver of
> activity in space – NASA/government or commercial companies? ==
That kind of misses the point. Are you assumnig the Obama plan would in anyway make the vision of commercial dominence in space more likely then Constellation?
Does it make the odds of any activity in space less likely?
Its not doing things to lower space access costs – or really give a boost to commercials.
It gives a lot of quick action to shut down the NASA capacities, systems, etc. Massive lay-offs right now. Gives some congressional goodies and money to sweeting the deal for the lay-offs and shutdowns. Talks about maybe hiring a handfull of taxi flights to the ISS in 5 years, with a bunch of ifs attached, and no attempt to get the congressional or public support for it.
Most likely outcome. NASA loses its capacities, the teams break up, etc. Boeing and L/M get money to study adn field a commercial crew transport thats cost competative with SpaceX, but has their brand to give it cred. Whatever Obama decides about HLV in 2015 (assuming he gets a secund term) a few months before the end of said assumed secound term, will be ignored after the 2016 elections. And their will be a debate to
1- abandon ISS
2- keep ISS until 2020 and keep buying flights no the Russian craft to make Russia happy (making friend with Russia was the mani point of the ISS
3-keep ISS until 2020 and buy commercial taxi flights from Boeing or L/M