Daniel Handlin has a critique of the new space policy, over at The Space Review today. Many, indeed most, of his concerns are valid, though I think that he overstates the concerns of safety and human rating. All of the plausible vehicles — Delta, Atlas, and even Falcon 9, are most of the way there already, and no major changes will be required to any of them, despite all the FUD thrown up by the Ares supporters over the past few years. The new policy isn’t just imperfect — it’s not even particularly good. But then, we’ve never had good space policy, in the entire history since Sputnik, from the standpoint of becoming spacefaring, so it doesn’t have to be very good to be the best we’ve ever had.
Those who have seen me defending it here for the past three months may have had the impression that I think it’s great, but that’s a consequence of a) the fact that whatever its flaws, it’s such a huge improvement over the previous plan that it looks great in comparison and b) the complaints about and attacks on it have been so ridiculously hyperbolic, nonsensical and over the top that any pushback against them is going to look like great praise. It’s sort of like the idiots who thought that I was a big George Bush fan, for no other reason than that I didn’t think that he went into Iraq to steal the oil, or try to get his daddy to love him.
So of course the policy can be improved upon. And the questions about HLV and Orion are valid, but don’t seem to recognize the politics underlying the decisions. This piece, like many space policy analyses, presumes that the goal of the policy is to actually accomplish things in space. And for some policy makers, of course, it is, but that will always be in conflict with the more salient goals — to feed the pork to the most politically connected interests.
The purpose of the (up to) five year delay is not to figure out the best HLV design, or to develop “new technology” for HLVs — as the piece points out, we’re not going to learn much about that. At best, we may develop a new engine to replace the Russian RD-180 used by the Atlas (though this is for national security issues — it certainly won’t save any money). The thing is, if we develop an HLV now, we know that it will be very expensive, because it will be based on Shuttle infrastructure, and if we know anything about Shuttle infrastructure, it is expensive to maintain and operate, even without the orbiter. I can’t know for sure, of course, but I assume that the point of the delay is to kick the HLV can down the road long enough for the policy establishment to finally figure out that we don’t need one to do serious exploration, and that in fact it would hold it back due to its high costs (as it has for decades). It would be nice to make this decision now, but there’s insufficient consensus for it, because too many continue to be members of the Apollo cargo cult. So a bone has to be thrown to Marshall, and a few billion wasted on HLV “technologies.”
With regard to the now-you-don’t-see-it-now-you-do Orion “lifeboat,” that was clearly a sop to Colorado, which (unlike Texas, Utah, or Alabama) the president still hopes to pick up in 2012. But a full restoration would have guaranteed unwillingness on the part of players like Boeing to risk their own money on a new capsule that might have to compete with the government-subsidized one by Lockheed Martin. Making it a lifeboat only was an attempt to alleviate this concern, but it’s probably not enough, because the hardest part of capsule design is entry, and it wouldn’t take much (including internal LM investment) to convert it back to a vehicle to carry crew to orbit (basically, all it would need is an abort system). The challenge is going to be how to fence off its requirements in such a way as to provide some confidence on the part of the other players that they won’t have to compete with it (and it may in the end not be possible to do so). I have some ideas on that, but they’re available only on a paying basis for anyone who wants to hire me as a consultant…
Anyway, yes, the policy could stand a lot of improvement (though it remains vastly superior to what came before it). The question is whether or not it’s possible to get anything better in the current political environment. And my biggest fear is that out of ignorance and kneejerk reaction to anything Obama, the incoming Republican House (and perhaps Senate) will bollix things up even worse.
[Update late morning]
I think he’s way off here:
In some sense, anyone can design a spacecraft on paper. But the decades of institutional memory, expert systems engineering experience, and management skills for large space projects that will be lost by dissolving NASA’s role in spacecraft development can never be recovered.
If such a thing ever existed at NASA in any useful form, it disappeared decades ago. Part of Mike Griffin’s justification for Ares was to recreate it. To the degree that such institutional memory exists, it’s more in the contractors than at NASA. The same contractors who are now going to be putting up crew on their launch systems.
It won’t take as long as the Republican House to bollix things. Leaving that aside we’d be lucky to get _anything_ of the useful parts of the budget proposal given the internal/existing Hill resistance. If we don’t get the (non-HL) R&D and/or commercial crew then we’ve lost. This – along with the fact that the useful R&D is relatively inexpensive, but has been skipped over for pork for 40 years – was the unifying theme of my latest Lurio Report, last friday.
I can’t know for sure, of course, but I assume that the point of the delay is to kick the HLV can down the road long enough for the policy establishment to finally figure out that we don’t need one to do serious exploration, and that in fact it would hold it back due to its high costs (as it has for decades). It would be nice to make this decision now, but there’s insufficient consensus for it, because too many continue to be members of the Apollo cargo cult.
If this is the plan, doesn’t it depend (in part) on Congress not knowing this is the plan?
And you just spilled the beans, Rand. 😉
any pushback against them is going to look like great praise
It’s a little more than that. You have accused opponents of the policy of being driven by fear and ignorance, which was an unnecessarily divisive bit of hyperbole. Like Kevin Kline’s character in A Fish Called Wanda, frankly I get annoyed when people call me stupid. I’ll accept your apology whenever you’re gracious enough to grant it.
And despite your assertion that the science is settled, there is a significant technical demurral to your assertion that the Ares configuration is fatally flawed. I, for one, am intimately familiar with Ares and there is nothing in the technical dossier beyond the usual development challenges. IMNSHO, that is — but I’ll stack my scientific and aerospace experience against anyone’s. But I’ll admit that there are valid differences of opinion on the issue, hopefully without resorting to name-calling.
BBB
You have accused opponents of the policy of being driven by fear and ignorance, which was an unnecessarily divisive bit of hyperbole.
Because many of them are.
And despite your assertion that the science is settled, there is a significant technical demurral to your assertion that the Ares configuration is fatally flawed.
I have never made such an assertion, if by that you mean that it cannot be built and flown, though I have said that this may end up being the case, if it ever got far enough along to find out. My objection to Ares has always been, first and foremost, its outrageous costs (something that its proponents completely ignore).
Rand,
> > You have accused opponents of the policy of being driven by fear and ignorance, which was an unnecessarily divisive bit of hyperbole.
> Because many of them are.
How do you know this? A massively parallel crystal ball farm?
Yours,
Tom
How do you know this? A massively parallel crystal ball farm?
When someone declares a policy the “end of the human spaceflight program,” and that “China will beat us to the moon,” what emotion other than fear would drive it? When someone makes a statement that is demonstrably false, to what else would you attribute it than ignorance? The only other option is that they are liars. I’m simply granting them the benefit of the doubt.
Rand,
[[[When someone declares a policy the “end of the human spaceflight program,” and that “China will beat us to the moon,” what emotion other than fear would drive it? When someone makes a statement that is demonstrably false, to what else would you attribute it than ignorance? The only other option is that they are liars. I’m simply granting them the benefit of the doubt.]]]
The third option is they may have more insight then you on how it will likely turn out. I seem to recall New Space advocates claiming there would be a boom in sub-orbital tourism following the X-Prize. At 5.5 years and counting the “boom” is still in the future….
China’s progress may be slow, but like the Turtle they are moving towards their goal and under President’s Obama’s plan the Moon is not even on the agenda with no provisions for BEO flights until 2025 IF a HLV is developed post 2015.
So China may well reach the Moon even at their turtle pace before American astronauts, public or private do so. As for the political consequences of that, well it would depend on the political environment of the time.
Similarly, American HSF is now totally dependent on ISS staying operational. If a single point failure causes it to be lost (and it is a very complex system) then the justification for both COTS and Commercial Crew disappears instantly. At least under Constellation the ISS continued operation was not critical. IF the ISS fails then even the fig leaf that sending U.S. 2 astronauts a year to the ISS only on Soyuz means the U.S. HSF is continuing would disappear, to say nothing of Human Space Launches (HSL) by the United States.
Yes, the U.S. may try to replace the ISS, but then again, like the Moon, opponents may simply argue we have been there and done that so why bother?
Also by disassembling NASA HSL infrastructure and the ability to manage to develop vehicles means that to reverse this policy, if it turns out to join the other failed strategies highlighted in the article, may take many years and a major financial investment, one that the U.S. may not be willing to make. So again there is a reasonable basis for arguing it will lead to an eventual end of American HSF.
Simply dumping folks who use those arguments into the categories of ignorance or liars effectively seeks ignores what are very real issues with the new policy. Issues raised by individuals who do indeed have a deep understanding of both space policy, its long history and a desire to not lose the global leadership it has cost so much for this nation to achieve.
And despite your assertion that the science is settled, there is a significant technical demurral to your assertion that the Ares configuration is fatally flawed. I, for one, am intimately familiar with Ares and there is nothing in the technical dossier beyond the usual development challenges.
All you need is more money, amirite? Here’s what I see as the fundamental flaw. Ares isn’t a commercial US launch system. There is nothing that NASA does that requires it to make its own launch system. As I see it, if the choice is between having NASA compete, yet again with private industry versus the end of NASA, I’d rather have the latter.
Rand’s cost issue is secondary to me. It’s just further evidence that this was a very bad idea (as is the numerous redesigns of the Orion spacecraft).
Yes, even really bad projects can lag greatly behind schedule, fall well below expectations, and simply fail to achieve their goals, but that doesn’t mean you have to throw more money at them. Cutting your losses is a valid strategy in space projects.
The third option is they may have more insight then you on how it will likely turn out.
Nope. It may in fact turn out to be the beginning of the end of the human spaceflight program — no one can know for sure what the future holds — but that’s not what the hysterical claims are. The claims are that a policy that extends the ISS program for at least five years is “the end of US human spaceflight.” It is not possible to take such claims seriously.
So China may well reach the Moon even at their turtle pace before American astronauts, public or private do so.
That is exceedingly unlikely, since they have no specific plans to do so. They are talking about a space station after 2020, and that’s it.
At least under Constellation the ISS continued operation was not critical.
No, under Constellation what was critical was Constellation, another single-point failure. The new plan offers redundancy. I know you hate that, though — you think we should build another Shuttle.
China’s progress may be slow, but like the Turtle they are moving towards their goal
Do you have evidence of this? My take is that the Chinese are one brazen accident away from setting back their space program a couple of decades.
Similarly, American HSF is now totally dependent on ISS staying operational.
No, it’s not. In fact a lot of money for HSF would be freed up by ending the ISS. Especially, if as claimed by some Shuttle boosters, you need the Shuttle to support the ISS. Then that would be two birds with one stone.
My view is that the ISS may end up having some positive value in the long run (keep in mind its heavy maintenance costs), but that return is going to be a poor return on investment for what was put into the ISS. Technically, yes, it is human space flight. There are humans flying in space. But I don’t see evidence that any long term goals for human space flight are supported by the ISS aside from demonstration of orbital construction (which phase is almost done) and some testing of relevant technologies (but not aggressively, for example, they only test a few life support-related systems at a time).
One critical benifit of ISS is that it gives us a way to test human response to long term space flight, the kind that we would undertake on a trip to Mars, while still keeping everyone close enough to home to recover when something goes wrong. That is an issue which still needs attention; until we had people who have lived in space for months, we were only speculating as to the result. The effects of prolonged weightlessness, exposure to radiation and closed environments, we now know, are more detrimental to human physiology then previously suspected and we know less about how to counteract them then we thought. Whatever its short comings, or other uses, ISS presents the best environment we currently have for this necessary work.
Rand,
[[[The claims are that a policy that extends the ISS program for at least five years is “the end of US human spaceflight.” It is not possible to take such claims seriously.]]]
The assumption you are making is that the old policy would have not extended ISS. Keep in mind the international agreements on the ISS require that the partners agree to decisions on the future of the ISS. And there was very little probability that the Russians would have supported its ending in 2015, nor that the other partners would have supported NASA. So implying the new policy ‘saved” ISS is misleading.
And is the US having the same level of access, being dependent on Soyuz, really the same as the currently accepted view of HSF as HSL?
[[[That is exceedingly unlikely, since they have no specific plans to do so. They are talking about a space station after 2020, and that’s it.]]]
Again this is an interesting argument being used to defused opposition to the new policy, but goes against many statements made by individuals in their program over the years.
It also ignores the differences on how Asian cultures implement plans and how western cultures do so.
[[[The new plan offers redundancy. I know you hate that, though — you think we should build another Shuttle.]]]
The plan Only offers redundancy for ISS access IF two commercial providers are selected AND succeed. That is a big “IF” to gambling the future of HSL on.
By contrast keeping the Shuttle flying while commercial crew is developed without time pressure DOES offer true redundancy. So did Constellation with the CEV serving the ISS alongside COTS-D.
So this new plan actually offers less redundancy then the old plan since it puts all the HSL into the fragile basket of Commercial Crew which in turn is dependent on ISS survival.
Karl,
[[[No, it’s not. In fact a lot of money for HSF would be freed up by ending the ISS. Especially, if as claimed by some Shuttle boosters, you need the Shuttle to support the ISS. Then that would be two birds with one stone.]]]
And exactly where would those vehicles be going? If there were no ISS would NASA keep funding Commercial Crew? What would be its purpose without the ISS?
The assumption you are making is that the old policy would have not extended ISS. Keep in mind the international agreements on the ISS require that the partners agree to decisions on the future of the ISS. And there was very little probability that the Russians would have supported its ending in 2015, nor that the other partners would have supported NASA. So implying the new policy ’saved” ISS is misleading.
I’m not implying, or saying that the new policy saved ISS. I’m saying that it is explicit in continuing US human spaceflight by doing so. If ISS had continued without us, that wouldn’t have been a continuation of US human spaceflight per se. And the old policy did not continue ISS, at least with NASA support.
Again this is an interesting argument being used to defused opposition to the new policy, but goes against many statements made by individuals in their program over the years.
Individuals in their program can say lots of things. That doesn’t make them policy. I see no sign of the Chinese even building a space station soon, let along going to the moon. If they are preparing to do so we will see either a) a heavy lifter under development or b) an orbital propellant facility under development. These things will be hard to hide, and we will have plenty of advance warning of the Chinese going to the moon. We can decide when we see this kind of actual evidence (as opposed to “individuals in the program saying things) if it warrants our trying to beat them back there.
The plan Only offers redundancy for ISS access IF two commercial providers are selected AND succeed. That is a big “IF” to gambling the future of HSL on.
It has a lot better prospect for redundancy than Constellation did (i.e., more than zero).
By contrast keeping the Shuttle flying while commercial crew is developed without time pressure DOES offer true redundancy. So did Constellation with the CEV serving the ISS alongside COTS-D.
That’s nice, but it wasn’t the old plan. And there were reasons that Shuttle was ended. They were good ones. Have you forgotten them already?
And exactly where would those vehicles be going? If there were no ISS would NASA keep funding Commercial Crew? What would be its purpose without the ISS?
Exploration. NASA has to get its astronauts to LEO, if they’re going to go beyond.
Rand,
[[[Have you forgotten them already?]]]
There were also very good reasons to keep in going that were lost in the emotions following Columbia.
But I know that the New Space credo is “Shuttle must die so New Space may live” so its a waste of time arguing them.
[[[Exploration. NASA has to get its astronauts to LEO, if they’re going to go beyond.]]]
But not until 2025, so no need to rush, especially under an Obama Administration. Beside if the gap is long enough the political support for HSL may dry up and Americans may get used to having Russia fly their astronauts just as the Europeans do, so no need to waste money on HSL.
But I know that the New Space credo is “Shuttle must die so New Space may live” so its a waste of time arguing them.
I don’t think there is a “New Space credo” about the Shuttle, so I’m not sure how you know that. Can you provide some citations from the official New Space website? There were many sound policy reasons for ending the Shuttle, and as I said, they haven’t gone away. Do you really think that it was “New Space” that influenced the Bush decision? If it had so much power, how did it allow the Constellation disaster to happen?
But not until 2025, so no need to rush, especially under an Obama Administration. Beside if the gap is long enough the political support for HSL may dry up and Americans may get used to having Russia fly their astronauts just as the Europeans do, so no need to waste money on HSL.
If ISS ends, then the schedule for exploration will be accelerated, since a lot of money will be freed up for it.
As I see it, if the choice is between having NASA compete, yet again with private industry versus the end of NASA, I’d rather have the latter.
I was struck the other day by a realisation of exactly how harmful this policy has been over the past thirty years. It’s not just that it has made sure the moon remained beyond reach and that the path to real RLVs has been obstructed. To be sure, that is depressing, but only because it thwarts the dreams of space enthusiasts.
But it gets worse. The existence of the Shuttle nearly killed commercial launch systems and probably killed kerolox propulsion experience for a long period. Once NASA had been told to get out of the business of launching private payloads, it went on to build a space station to find something to do for the shuttle and willfully designed it in such a way that it could only be launched by the shuttle.
Imagine what would have happened if NASA had developed Dyna Soar or HL-20 instead of the Shuttle. It would have bought 12-16 EELV class launches (initially Titan, then Atlas/Delta) a year to support the ISS. In all likehood Atlas and Delta would then be two competing, commercially viable launch vehicles, ULA wouldn’t exist and US launchers would be market leaders in the comsat market.
If you think about it, this is nothing short of outrageous. A government that has harmed one of its own industries (one that is vital to national security no less) to the point it cannot survive without government subsidies.
Rand,
[[[I don’t think there is a “New Space credo” about the Shuttle, so I’m not sure how you know that. Can you provide some citations from the official New Space website?]]]
The Space Frontier Foundation is about as close to an official New Space website as any. From July 14, 2003.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=12071
Scuttle the Shuttle! Foundation Urges
[[[Rather than continuing to waste taxpayer funds, the group believes an era of commercial orbital space flight could be in the making, if the government would nurture it using the money currently spent on government-only space systems. ]]]
and
[[[To begin the hand off to the private sector, NASA should be banned from developing any replacements]]]
Pretty clear the argument is to kill Shuttle so New Space could be funded. And its basically been one of their talking points since the mid-1990’s.
Yes, just as the environmentalist took advantage of Three-Mile Island to convenience the U.S. nuclear energy is bad New Space leveraged the Columbia accident into “proof” the Shuttle is a “bad” system.
[[[If ISS ends, then the schedule for exploration will be accelerated, since a lot of money will be freed up for it.]]]
Dr. Sagan believed the same would be true when Apollo ended, it would free up money for lots and lots of robots. It didn’t, Congress spent the savings from ending Apollo on none space activities instead. In his last book, Pale Blue Dot, he admitted he was naive to think that.
Forgot this quote to illustrate my second point on leveraging the emotions after Columbia.
[[[None of the Shuttle’s capabilities are indispensable, argued Tumlinson, and the ISS should not be used as an excuse to keep flying it at the risk of more astronauts lives. ]]]
Yep, they were even willing to risk the ISS to get the money for New Space.
So, Rick Tumlinson is the voice for New Space? I could imagine that a lot of people who think we need a new direction might disagree. Particularly after that recent loving tongue bath that he gave The One at the HuffPo…
Not that there’s anything wrong with that… 😉
Rand,
[[[So, Rick Tumlinson is the voice for New Space?]]]
Most would say so since he invented the term 🙂
Tom, you really do a great job of making Rand’s point for him.
The absurd claims are bad enough, the implausible horror story is beyond belief.
Rand, thanks for attempting to putting together a post that makes it clear you’re not a blind advocate of the new policy. So much good it seems to have done.
>…expert systems engineering experience, and management skills for large
> space projects that will be lost by dissolving NASA’s role in spacecraft development ..<
I don’t know if I shuold laugh or cry.
Sadly in the ’60’s NASA was one of the leading developer of systems engineering methodology. By the ’90’s they were so incompetant in it they disolved their own space station program office and gave the lead position to Boeing to sort out.
> When someone declares a policy the “end of the human
> spaceflight program,” and that “China will beat us to the
> moon,” what emotion other than fear would drive it? ==
And any opion other then yours must be driven by emotion?
> When someone makes a statement that is demonstrably
> false, to what else would you attribute it than ignorance?
Like the statement that apposing oppinions must be driven by emotion?
Trent,
The statement I quoted speaks for itself no matter how much you wish to dismiss it.
It also illustrates the emotionally charged atmosphere the Shuttle decision was made in, and policy decisions driven by emotion are usually bad ones as we are founding out now.
Rand,
[[[So, Rick Tumlinson is the voice for New Space? I could imagine that a lot of people who think we need a new direction might disagree. Particularly after that recent loving tongue bath that he gave The One at the HuffPo…]]]
I find it interesting that after all that Rick Tumlinson has done to promote New Space to bring it to the point where its taking over the HSL program, it goal, you claim many in movement are just dismissing him as not being representative of New Space even though the current policy bears a striking resemblance to the Manifesto for the Frontier he advocated for in 1995.
http://www.ricktumlinson.com/sections/appearances/House/House_3_95.html
Manifesto for the Frontier
A Call for a New American Space Agenda
Testimony Before
The House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee
Washington D.C., March 16, 1995
Some quotes that may right some bells.
[[[Let’s face it, our space program is based on a W.W.II German National Socialist model.]]]
[[[The White House must use the power of the bully pulpit to declare not another destination.]]]
[[[The government will use its massive purchasing power to create and catalyze viable markets.]]]
[[[The government will fund multiple parallel technology development and demonstration programs in cooperation with private sector.]]]
[[[NASA should announce the shuttle will be phased out as soon as new commercial fleets are ready to bid for payloads.]]]
[[[pace policy makers should end any talk about a single new national vehicle. The U.S. government must never again own and operate a national fleet of vehicles for civilian purposes.]]]
[[[At the end of Phase One we must require that all cargo and crew transfers to and from the US elements of the station be commercially bid by American private vendors. ]]]
[[[No more government employees should be sent to the Moon for artificial reasons of prestige or loosely disguised science. Instead, we must let the market decide when the time is right for humans again.]]]
Sounds a lot like the President’s space policy doesn’t it? And if a President adopted Your Space Policy wouldn’t you praise his wisdom?
> Thomas Matula Says:
>
> May 3rd, 2010 at 9:47 am
>== Yes, the U.S. may try to replace the ISS, ==
Without a shuttle HLV?
Good luck.
>== Also by disassembling NASA HSL infrastructure and the ability to
> manage to develop vehicles means that to reverse this policy, if it turns
> out to join the other failed strategies highlighted in the article, may take
> many years and a major financial investment, one that the U.S. may not be
> willing to make. So again there is a reasonable basis for arguing it will
> lead to an eventual end of American HSF.
Its not unreasonable to suppose that was part of the apeal of the proposal. If Comercial crew works, you maintain ISS international comitments, but decimate the operation capacity of NASA and the US. If it fails – you’ve done the above and invalidated comercial industryabilities in space and general, and the concept of busness use of space. NASA support of ISS
stays on the Soyuz.
And any opion other then yours must be driven by emotion?
No.
>When someone makes a statement that is demonstrably
> false, to what else would you attribute it than ignorance?
Like the statement that apposing oppinions must be driven by emotion?
I made no such statement.
…if a President adopted Your Space Policy wouldn’t you praise his wisdom?
I would praise his wisdom in that particular regard. I wouldn’t praise all of the other policy disasters that he’s propounding.
I disagree that the hardest part of capsule design is entry. ESA built a perfectly workable ARD reentry capsule for $43 million ECUs. Even SpaceX thought an abort system would cost a lot more than that.
An Orion based CRV is going to have a few advantages over an unmanned Dragon as a starting point for a taxi, in that it will have seats and life support for a few hours. It will also have the significant disadvantage of starting from a design optimized for Lunar orbit rather than LEO.
Also, a pure CRV like the X-38 or Orion CRV is going to be pushed towards multi-year orbital life, which is not needed for a taxi.
>>Like the statement that apposing oppinions must be driven by emotion?
> I made no such statement.
Not directly, but you did say:
>.. When someone declares a policy the “end of the human
> spaceflight program,” and that “China will beat us to the
> moon,” what emotion other than fear would drive it?===
Assuming that because someone states those two beleafs, emotion (specifically fear) “must” be driving it.
Assuming that because someone states those two beleafs, emotion (specifically fear) “must” be driving it.
Well, it certainly can’t be facts, or logic.
Rand,
[[[Well, it certainly can’t be facts, or logic.]]]
Funny, that is how I see the New Space support of President Obama’s space policy, driven by a mystical belief in “free markets” with any real understanding of what it takes for a true free market to emerge.
Think about it. Why would a President whose policy is the opposite of free markets do a 180 in terms of space policy? Is it because he believes free markets are good for space development? Or that he knows his policy will produce just the opposite and just create a new generation of “New” space contractors which will set back by years the development of true markets in space.
The question is who is smarter and more likely to understand the consequence of the this policy more. New Space advocates? Or the political professionals? Keep in mind that rule one for finding someone to con is to find someone who thinks they are too smart to be conned by someone 🙂
Oops, that should be – without any real understanding of what it takes for a true free market to emerge.
One of the things with the Obama space policy that should be without dispute is that it is “not Bush”. That seems to be the modus operendi of the Obama Administration that anything Bush and his appointees did was wrong and therefore something different should be tried. Heck, that was the very basis of Obama’s presidential campaign, with the slogan “Hope and Change”.
What is getting “new space” advocates nearly orgasmic here is that finally some of the things that have been advocated for years are finally being suggested from a source that at least doesn’t appear to be a lunatic fringe source and may actually get enshrined into active policy on an official level. Getting rid of the cost-plus system of paying for spaceflight is long overdue, and the rationale for keeping that system around for non-military purchases that don’t have the pressures of a war-time emergency never really made sense in the first place. I can’t imagine what sort of emergency would require a crash program to send American astronauts to Mars, but such an emergency doesn’t exist right now.
We will get back to the Moon, to Mars, and elsewhere beyond low-earth orbit. I am of the firm belief that private enterprise will be doing most of the exploration of the Solar System, and it will eventually take active efforts on the part of the major governments to keep people, private citizens, from going elsewhere in the universe. I’ve long said that CNN is going to cover the first landing of NASA astronauts on Mars live from Mars…. as they will have arrived there first. I guess that shows my lack of faith in my own government as anything else.
There is currently a market for completely privately funded spaceflight, but admittedly that market is still small compared to government spending. In fact, in terms of government spending on spaceflight including the Shuttle budget, NASA isn’t even the largest source of government funding or even number two. Look to the Air Force and the National Reconnaissance Office for that instead, and note there are other “space agencies” as well.
I see no sign of the Chinese even building a space station soon, let along going to the moon. If they are preparing to do so we will see either a) a heavy lifter under development or b) an orbital propellant facility under development. These things will be hard to hide, and we will have plenty of advance warning of the Chinese going to the moon. We can decide when we see this kind of actual evidence (as opposed to “individuals in the program saying things) if it warrants our trying to beat them back there.
Oh but they are building that capacity. This is one of the reasons for the new facilities at Hainan island for Long March 5 and other future designs. AFAIK the Long March 5 family itself is to have a capacity range similar to the EELV family including the Heavy.
The question is what they will use their extra launch capacity for. Most people think it will be to launch the next generations of satellites the Chinese have planned on their roadmap.
The Chinese do have long term plans to go to the Moon. They also likely have the capacity to do it. This is probably still a generation away however.
>> Assuming that because someone states those two
>> beleafs, emotion (specifically fear) “must” be driving it.
Rand Simberg Says:
May 4th, 2010 at 11:39 am
> Well, it certainly can’t be facts, or logic.
ROTFL!
Thank you for proving my point, and your prejudices.
😉
Rand,
[[[Well, it certainly can’t be facts, or logic.]]]
> Thomas Matula Says:
> May 4th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
> Funny, that is how I see the New Space support of President
> Obama’s space policy, driven by a mystical belief in
>“free markets” without any real understanding of what it
> takes for a true free market to emerge.
Agree! Its the word, not substance that seem to be drawing them. Otherwise rational space advocates seriously talking like Obamas going to pour billions into newspace, expand the commercial space efforts dramatically, and open up space for thousands. Create a whole new market!!
All in the face of dramatic cuts going to commercials or any maned space flight in the Obama NASA proposal. The fact that a couple ferry flights is not a market – and realistically could cost more per flight dividing so small a Market amoung more groups with more over head — adn likely still all – (or from the budget appearence – more ) NASA overhead.
> Think about it. Why would a President whose policy is the
> opposite of free markets do a 180 in terms of space policy?
> Is it because he believes free markets are good for space
> development? Or that he knows his policy will produce just
> space contractors which will set back by years the
> development of true markets in space.
I don’t think there is a big conspiracy like that. nore do I think New Space is going to get anything out of the new contracts. REaly I think its Obama putting a happy face no shuttle down the US manned space program, adn having NASA astrounauts flying only on Russian craft through at least the bulk of the next presidential term. Throw some money at Nelson, thropw some pretty meaningly words at sopace advocates, adn everyones smiles while you do it,.
>==
> Keep in mind that rule one for finding someone to con is to find
> someone who thinks they are too smart to be conned by someone
8)
Oh yeah!!
Kelly,
Not a big conspiracy, just out foxing space advocates politically by the recognition that the hardest part of ending HSL has always been getting rid of NASA HSL capability and the Congressional self-interest in supporting it that President Johnson built into the system.
Once the NASA contractor force is scattered to the four winds, the launch infrastructure plowed under, NASA retirees not replaced and the jobs gone from the Congressional districts then the next phase is easily politically. Simply declare that commercial crew is behind schedule and will be too expensive, then shut it down. Who are the Congressional leaders that will speak up for them? Hint, how many in Congress are speaking for them now.
With the public used to U.S. astronauts on Soyuz as their only space access, and most of the Congressional support gone with the jobs in their district, there will be no strong objections to ending the failed “experiment” in commercial crew.
I expect if President Obama is re-elected in 2012 you will see Commercial Crew declared a failure by 2014, as well as a statement that developing HLV is too expensive given the current budget problems of the U.S.
I’ld mostly agree. Certainly once you divest NASA of maned space flight, its political support and visibility with the public is gone. Congressmen will still want the pork in their districts – but that can be funneled through other agencies. Like one big cut in the space station program was acceptable to Florida when a similar amount of money went into a Parking structure in Miami and other efforts.
Also certainly when you break up the teams, knowledge base, etc. The cost to reform them could well be politically unacceptable.
Ther is political opposition to this new plan though – likely enough so the plan as listed won’t go through. As to the likelyhood that US will retani a maned space exploration program… who knows.