Two of the most infuriating things I’ve been rhetorically battling ever since the new NASA plan was rolled out at the beginning of the year are the bizarre (to me) argument that I should oppose the plan because it came from the Obama administration and the related complex question “Why do I trust Obama on space?”
It came up again in comments at the previous post.
Back in April, I wrote:
Many don’t trust President Obama to execute this policy along these lines. Neither do I, necessarily. But I’d rather have good policy poorly executed than poor policy well executed. The execution can always be improved later. Do I believe that Obama really cares as much about human spaceflight as he said in his speech at the Cape? No, and I think that’s a good thing. I think he sees NASA as a problem he inherited from George W. Bush, and in that, he is right for once. He assigned to the problem people who do care about getting humans into space and, like Bush, he now wants to move on to other matters. Really, we should fear the day he gets interested in spaceflight; that will be the day that private enterprise is no longer trusted to conduct it. Let’s hope that day never comes. In the meantime, remember that when government does the right thing, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done for the wrong reason. Whatever the motivations behind it, this is a much more visionary space policy than we’ve ever had before.
Did I say I trust Obama? No.
Did I say I think he has good motivations? No.
Yet I am perpetually asked why I place so much trust in Obama and his motivations when it comes to space.
Back in 2004, many science bloggers said something to the effect that the Vision for Space Exploration would be a good policy. If only it hadn’t come from that anti-science idiot, George Bush. It was just a reelection ploy (you know, because a new big expensive human spaceflight project is always so politically popular). There just had to be something evil about it.
Well, this doesn’t make any more sense with Barack Obama than it does with George Bush. Policy and president are really completely orthogonal issues. And this is true even if Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.
Let me put it simply.
We have four theoretical options in a two-by-two matrix: good policy, good president; good policy, bad president; bad policy, good president; bad policy, bad president. Realistically, absent the simultaneous removal from office of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, sometime after next January, when John Boehner is Speaker, we don’t have the option of having a good president until January, 2013. And from the standpoint of space, it’s not clear that John Boehner would be very good. So our only options until then are good policy, bad president, and bad policy, bad president. I prefer the former. I don’t understand why people think I should prefer the latter.
I don’t get it either. Not looking for arguments (but ending up there anyway), it’s depressing how hard it is to get anyone to look at this objectively. The only reason the subject even comes up is during political discussions with people who ordinarily don’t pay much attention to this stuff.
Spaceflight equals NASA to most people, and I gather most people further equate NASA with national-pride coolness. I’ve also found a surprising number of people with more than passing interest who are totally unaware of SpaceX’s progress.
You’ll unfortunately have to keep playing whack-a-mole with this subject until Elon’s crew finally gets paying passengers into orbit, and/or Boeing is running scheduled service to a Bigelow complex.
I think it’s because most people are enamored with having a nationally funded fireworks show. People turn out in droves to see the Shuttle launch but once the vehicle disappears over the horizon they go home and tune into Dancing with the Stars. They could care less what’s really happening up in orbit where all the interesting stuff is really occurring. We could just fund the development and launch of a Eiffel Tower sized bottle rocket with sparklers and mortar cannons that fire off once it reaches sufficient height. Put a NASA logo on the side and play the Star Spangle Banner so people can tear up at the thought of how well we blow shit up. Penn Jillet, who is highly critical of NASA, admits that the launch of the Shuttle makes for a good show and has been to several himself. But once you get past the nostalgia of what NASA has accomplished in the past and the pride that we can build something so monumentally sophisticated one should come to the understanding that it is all just a bunch of pork laden bullshit.
But whether the President is good or bad or has a D or an R after their name wouldn’t really change people’s perception or reaction to this policy of dismantling NASA heavy lift rocket club and giving the keys to the private sector. But Obama is really only one of a few Presidents that could come along and have the chutzpah to actually do what is the prudent move going forward. No surprise to me actually, seeing how tone deaf he is on a number of his other policies and willingness to plow right ahead with what he feels right despite the aggravations of the public. A stopped clock is right a couple times a day and all that.
I think it’s because most people are enamored with having a nationally funded fireworks show.
It can continue to be nationally funded, only now with multiple competing suppliers instead of a single source.
My only qualms are about whether the “good policy” is actually an honest policy … as opposed to a trap. Our beloved President is the master of the bait-and-switch con. I would not be at all surprised if he were to spend a few billion bucks on his plans for NASA and then cancel the program (including paying for commercial space services) in the name of fiscal austerity, leaving us back at square one wit nothing to show for it and six years lost.
Remember, in early 2008 candidate Obama actually proposed cancelling all space activities until 2018 so America could spend the money here on earth, on education. It’s for the children, you know.