Brian Micklethwait tries to figure it out. I think he’s overthinking it, myself. I agree with this commenter:
Obama doesn’t believe in space exploration and doesn’t care about it. He is uninterested. Therefore he doesn’t attempt to manage it or fix it the only way he knows – by state management. He is willing to leave it alone, to ignore it, to stay away from it. He cares about social policy (“spreading the wealth”) – space has nothing to do with this. It’s not his cup of tea.
It doesn’t really matter. The policy is what it is. Now we have to fight to get it implemented, and unfortunately, that means (ironically) a fight with people who should be supporting it if they were true to their own principles.
I wish someone would publish a list of subjects Obama is not interested in. It wouldb probably serve as a good investment and employment guide.
His motives matter in one sense: if he is trying to kill US supremacy in space through “The Producers” type approach of picking what he thinks is a losing path, he will have to “blow up the theater” as soon as that approach begins to succeed. Federal government sabotage of such a fragile new industry is extremely easy.
Federal government sabotage of such a fragile new industry is extremely easy.
Yes, but that’s true regardless of the quality of the policy. I still prefer good policy to bad. Also, I don’t think he’ll be around by the time it’s clear that it’s succeeding.
When the Tea Partiers talk about reducing the size of government, they’re really trying to bring back Jim Crow.
When Obama articulates a sensible space policy, he’s really trying to undermine the country.
Jeebus on a pogo stick.
When discussing national priorities it’s necessary to discuss politics and when discussing politics it’s necessary to discuss the players’ motivations, but how about keeping the actual policy positions at center stage?
That supposes that Obama’s policy is actually meant to encourage a commercial space sector. It does not. It instead is meant to control and ultimately smother the commercial space industry, making it totally dependent on government.
The writer spends much too much time here agonizing on the alleged “free market” aspects of the plan. What free market aspects? It’s just government contracting in another guise.
I think the commenter “sherlock” got it correct:
Obama doesn’t believe in space exploration and doesn’t care about it.
If that was true he would have continued a pared-back version of Constellation — it was the political path of least resistance.
Instead he not only ticked off Congresspeople on both sides of the aisle, most of the big-name Apollo astronauts, and thousands of NASA employees in a state he hopes to win in 2012, but made a big speech to draw attention to his decision.
Those aren’t the acts of someone who doesn’t care.
Jim,
Actually continuing Constellation would have left the workforce and infrastructure intact allowing the next administration to use it to advantage to provide a real space program. By getting rid of Constellation the work force is spread to the four winds while they have the freedom to ‘clear cut” the infrastructure in the mane of “progress”.
BTW You best take some pictures of Pads 39A and Pads 39B on your next visit to KSC. By the time of the next Presidential election all that will be left of them will be the concrete pads, symbolic of what will be left to the next President of NASA’s space flight capability.
That should be Name, not mane…
Thomas: While I disagree with you about Obama’s agenda, you are supporting my point, which is that Obama cares about what happens at NASA. Rand wants to believe that Obama absentmindedly stumbled onto (what is to Rand) the best NASA policy in decades; I don’t buy it.
Rand wants to believe that Obama absentmindedly stumbled onto (what is to Rand) the best NASA policy in decades; I don’t buy it.
I don’t “want to” believe it. I merely believe it. What he stumbled onto was not the policy, but the policy advisors. If he’d had different ones, he’d have had a different policy.
Rand: “It doesn’t really matter. The policy is what it is. Now we have to fight to get it implemented, and unfortunately, that means (ironically) a fight with people who should be supporting it if they were true to their own principles.”
Rand, given less than 10% of the Falcon 9 launches are ‘commercial’ (i.e. private sales and not government sales) how is it that you are fighting for ‘free’ market principles again? Not to fault the SpaceX marketing department because ULA has similar level of ‘commercial’ launches. It turns out that the majority of customers for Space are actually governments, shock horror. Why? Because 80-90% of the cost of Space has absolutely nothing to do with the launch cost except ironically when we try to shoe horn more spacecraft capability in the same sized box a fact you continue to ignore.
What is your answer to the 60% cost increase for the firm fixed price COTS development contract? Sounds a lot like Cost-Plus to me, just like what ULA does and is going to require in one form or another?
How is it again that we will save money given that that under the COTS-CRS contract we are paying more per kg delivered to the ISS than the Space Shuttle (which also delivers crew and returns payload to Earth at no extra charge)?
Perhaps you can explain how, shutting down the ISS (due to serious delays in COTS-CRS), shutting down existing contracts, and attempting to restart new ones (18-24 month delay to reach the original cash flow) won’t leave NASA with billions of dollars of unspent funds in FY11, FY12 and FY13. My guess is that this will be an exceedingly bad time frame to have unspent funds in a discretionary budget given the current fiscal situation, don’t you agree?
Face it, what you are promoting is not ‘commercial’ nor ‘firm fixed price’ nor ‘will it save money’ nor ‘will the budget increase actually materialized’ for the reasons outline above.
What is your answer to the 60% cost increase for the firm fixed price COTS development contract?
When the customer increases what they’re asking for (additional tests and new capabilities), the price goes up, even on a firm fixed price. Imagine that. It just shows that the new administration is taking COTS much more seriously than Griffin did.
Face it, what you are promoting is not ‘commercial’ nor ‘firm fixed price’ nor ‘will it save money’ nor ‘will the budget increase actually materialized’ for the reasons outline above.
You can call it whatever you want, or don’t want. What I am promoting is NASA getting more bang for the taxpayers’ buck, in terms of progress in space.
“…in a state he hopes to win in 2012…”
I met with a lot of people at NSS who I knew to be Obama supporters, and are politically connected in ways no one on this list ever will be. They like his new space policy. But every single one of them, at one point or another in the conversation, said “Well, in 2013 we’ll have a new president…”
Obama, living in his bubble and seeing America through the eyes of the MSM, may be forgiven for daring to hope he has a chance in 2012, I suppose. But if it persists much longer, I’d say it’s symptomatic of bigger problems…
Hey, I didn’t say he was being realistic about it.
I think that next year we’re going to have a Republican congress, both houses. We’ve got to start working now to get them on board with something resembling the new plan, so they don’t try to restore Constellation, at least not in anything resembling its present form.
Rand,
That is probably a lost cause. The mere fact that President Obama tried to kill it will be enough for them to support it. Which is why I expect there will be no NASA budget this year, to keep Constellation the program of record so the next Congress may save it.
That supposes that Obama’s policy is actually meant to encourage a commercial space sector.
Yes, encourage it right into the loving, smothering arms of Uncle Sugar.
Rand, from what you’ve written, it seems as though you believe the only thing that matters in the new HSF policy is the commercial part and regardless of what happens (your repeated assertions of, “It doesn’t really matter”), if politicians try to screw private space over, all you have to do is out-politic them. The alternative is to take them — and their policy statements — at their word. On both accounts, I think you’re kidding yourself. They’re politicians. Politicking and screwing people over is their bread and butter.
I think that Micklethwait is right that goals and motives matter but I think he’s wrong about Obama’s motives. I think Obama thinks his goals are for the best but I don’t see how anyone should assume that his goals and motives for the space program are any different than his goals for healthcare or the banking industry — pull them in closer for more control.
Maybe your strategy will succeed, the feds will be able to lend momentum to private space, and all will be well. I’d gladly say that I was overly skeptical if that turned out to be the case. OTOH, the risk of depending on Uncle Sugar too much, IMO, is that we end up with Big Aerospace Mk2. That’s not necessarily bad, new blood replacing Boeing and LockMart would be fine, but it sure as Hell isn’t anything I would call “private” or “commercial” space.
Starless,
What many New Space Advocates overlook is that one of the best ways to kill a new industry or technology is to force it forward too fast.
By pushing New Space into the main stream with billions of proposed money New Space firms will grow too fast, run into the usual management problems associated with rapid growth, and then collapse when the first accident makes those problems public and the money is pulled out from under them.
New Space will then be set back a generation as investors abandon it.
Yes, President Obama will then talk sadly about how he was deceived by the promise of New Space and he was sadden to find out there was nothing to it. And All America will have left is a down scaled Orion on an EELV. NASA owned and operated with a major perception barrier to private HSF to overcome based on its ability to perform. Just as happened when SSTO was the New Space hype of the day. Of course that will probably still make the Shuttle and Constellation bashers happy as they will have “won”. But for the rest of us who are more interested in building a viable space commercial econsystem it will be another setback to overcome.
What he stumbled onto was not the policy, but the policy advisors. If he’d had different ones, he’d have had a different policy.
He clearly did not stumble onto Peter Orszag, an Obama favorite who is pushing for more use of government prizes (see this week’s White House/OSTP Summit on Prizes and Challenges, keynoted by Peter Diamandis).
Admit it, Obama likes policies that reward innovation, incentivize the private sector, and pay for performance rather than just effort.
Admit it, Obama likes policies that reward innovation, incentivize the private sector, and pay for performance rather than just effort.
I guess that’s why he called McCain’s prize proposal a “gimmick.”
And the notion that Obama likes policies that incentivize the private sector is insane, Jim.