Giles Whittell had a misanalysis of the US space program at the Times of London yesterday (registration required):
President Obama is nothing if not rational. He came to office facing the collapse of the US economy and has since ordered a freeze on discretionary non-security spending. He has ring-fenced his education budget, committed the Treasury to paying $1 trillion (£690 billion) over ten years on health insurance subsidies, and still has two wars to fund. In the circumstances, Nasa’s quixotic lunge toward Mars with a “new generation” of distinctly old-fashioned rockets looked vulnerable at best. If Mr Obama has his way, it will be doomed.
I would dispute the assessment of the president’s rationality, but NASA (why can’t the Brits learn to capitalize acronyms?) wasn’t making a “lunge toward Mars,” quixotically or otherwise. It wasn’t even making a “lunge” toward the moon. It was more of a slow crawl, unlikely to ever get there. And it was a smart decision, regardless of the economic environment. No matter how wealthy we are as a nation, it would be foolish to spend tens of billions on so little capability as Constellation offered when we could have much more for much less, and much sooner.
The last graf doesn’t make much sense, either:
There are stronger strategic arguments for maintaining America’s lead beyond Earth’s orbit. If it steps back, China will become the world’s dominant space-faring nation and its goals there remain unclear. Mr Obama understands this. He also knows that the idea of journeying to the next frontier retains a powerful hold on the American psyche, which is why he claims that his plan to outsource research and development for new propulsion technologies will lead eventually to Mars. Yet the frail US economy leaves his hands tied. For at least ten years American astronauts will fly to space in Russian capsules, or not at all — because American consumers borrowed too much for their houses.
It’s not clear who would be the dominant space-faring nation if we were to truly “step back,” (in reality, by any sensible understanding of the phrase, there are no space-faring nations on this planet, and there never have been). China is certainly in no hurry to go anywhere, at their current pace, and the Russians remain far ahead of them. But as I noted in a comment over there, the notion that it will take ten years to put a capsule on a Delta or Atlas, or to get Dragon ready for crew, is a ludicrous one. And it was going to be at least seven years before Ares/Orion would be ready (for a cost of at least a billion dollars a launch, a point that the defenders repeatedly ignore).
Anyway, as a result of the shoddy reporting, Daffyd Ab Hugh (is that a pseudonym?) has an uninformed Anti-Obama rant over at Hot Air:
…it’s hardly a surprise that Barack H. Obama is in the process of killing the Constellation program proposed by (of course) President George W. Bush to return human beings, Americans, to the Moon, this time to stay; to explore lunar science and geology, investigate the origins of our solar system, and exploit the vast mineralogical, energy, and environmental resources found on our nearest neighboring planet.
No, it’s not a surprise to anyone who read the Augustine Report (and particularly to those who read between the lines) — the program was a disaster. But it wasn’t proposed by George Bush, and that’s not why it’s being cancelled. Bush proposed the Vision for Space Exploration, which survives in much better shape than it did under Constellation (with the exception of an explicit goal of moon first). Constellation was Mike Griffin’s deformed brain child.
And in quoting Congressman Bishop, he fails to note that he is the Congressman from ATK, whose oxen is most severely gored by the Constellation cancellation — the SRBs are built in his district.
I actually agree with the criticism of the president’s indifference to (and ignorance, perhaps even loathing of) American exceptionalism, but there are many better pieces of evidence for it than finally fixing a screwed- up space policy. I might email Ed Morrissey to see if I can get space for a rebuttal.
China will never be the world leader at anything, since they have a bare 25 years or so until some kind of weird combined political-economic-demographic implosion the likes of which the world has never seen before takes place.
We need to build more pyramids, damn it! Maybe a Sphinx! That’s the only way to preserve a robust spirit of enterprise, I tell you. Send for more slaves and pharoah’s chief architect, and prepare to empty the treasury.
And on that topic, today’s typically brilliant XKCD comic includes the following note in the alt-text (about JFK): “Also, if you read his speech at Rice, all his arguments for going to the moon work equally well as arguments for blowing up the moon, sending cloned dinosaurs into space, or constructing a towering penis-shaped obelisk on Mars.”
Can’t resist:
NASA (why can’t the Brits learn to capitalize acronyms?) wasn’t making a “lunge toward Mars,” quixotically or otherwise. It wasn’t even making a “lunge” toward the moon. It was more of a slow crawl
Well, compared to the British effort at space, a lunge is fairly long.
Russia’s ability to do anything in space is deteriorating, according to friends of mine at NASA and elsewhere. The senior people are retiring or dying, and no one new is coming in to take their places. Dennis Tito once noted that, during his training, he observed and was told that no one in the Russian space program wrote anything down — it was a matter of job security. Well, now there’s nothing to pass on.
China may or may not continue to press into space. Like everyone else, they may just consider it too difficult and give up.
According to the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, Dafydd ab Hugh is his legal name. Wikipedia reports that he was born David Friedman, of a Jewish father and a Welsh mother who converted.
He’s a Science Fiction writer, whom I’d vaguely heard of.
None of which has anything to do with his ability to keep track of the various political and bureaucratic hacks involved in the U. S. space program.
Well Carl, instead of a Pyramid or a Sphinx, that great culture of far east Asia built the Three Gorges Dam. Yeah, they built the Great Wall, but that was centuries ago. And the point of it was to keep others with more advanced technology away. That lasted the test of time, but the Dam isn’t likely to make it too long. When it goes, there will be an implosion.
America will put men back on the moon before the Brits put their fingers on the SHIFT key when typing acronyms.
“–but NASA (why can’t the Brits learn to capitalize acronyms?) wasn’t making a “lunge toward Mars,” quixotically or otherwise. It wasn’t even making a “lunge” toward the moon. It was more of a slow crawl, unlikely to ever get there. And it was a smart decision, regardless of the economic environment. No matter how wealthy we are as a nation, it would be foolish to spend tens of billions on so little capability as Constellation offered when we could have much more for much less, and much sooner.”
Of course Obamaspace doesn’t do that. Not much more. Not for less. Not much sooner. Not at all.
Normally, people don’t preface nonsensical statements with “of course.” Only Mark does that.
C’mon, Leland. You can’t criticize the Chinese, who make “optimal” decisions and then impose them from the top. Tom Friedman said so.
Only the Chinese can do that. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1671000,00.html
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
Of course Obamaspace doesn’t do that. Not much more. Not for less. Not much sooner. Not at all.
Constellation is spending $35 billion to develop a launch vehicle by 2019 that can carry 55,000 lbs to LEO. America already has a launch vehicle that can carry 55,000 lbs to LEO, the Delta IV Heavy. It cost $500 million to develop back in the day, but since it’s available now, its current development cost is zero.
Constellation is spending $8 billion to develop a capsule that will carry a 4-man crew to LEO in 2019 at a launch cost of $1 billion per flight. “Obamaspace” (if you insist on calling it that) plans to spend $6 billion to develop three spacecraft that will each carry a 7-man crew to LEO by 2014 at a launch cost of $50 – 150 million per flight.
Constellation plans to spend $40 billion to develop a heavy-lift vehicle that will be ready to fly by 2028 (but will have no payloads to carry by then). Obamaspace plans to spend $1 billion to develop orbital fuel depots by 2015, eliminating the need for a heavy lift vehicle.
Constellation has vague currently unfunded plans to develop an Earth Departure Stage and a Lunar Surface Accommodations Module for a manned lunar landing by 2035. Obamaspace has vague unfunded plans to launch a manned asteroid flyby mission by 2025.
In every comparison, “Obamaspace” is faster, better, and less expensive than Constellation.
Perhaps, given your politics, you should quit calling it “Obamaspace” and start calling it the “FY11 budget proposal.” You might actually come to like it then.
Mike
@Michael Kent:
No, no. Stop! You mustn’t confuse Mark with the facts.