I’ve been pointing for a year now that NASA needs private providers a lot more than they need NASA. Jeff Foust has a report from the plenary session of the conference yesterday, in which Charlie Bolden confirmed it. This will, of course, cause exploding of heads in the moronosphere.
[Update a few minutes later]
And as predicted, here is the latest insanity from Mark Whittington:
Charles Bolden was reported to have told Apollo astronaut Gene Cernan that he would provide a bailout for commercial space firms “equal to that given the auto industry” if the private sector faltered in providing space transportation services. Bolden later issued a non denial denial of Cernan’s account.
This raises the question of in what sense is the Obama program “commercial.” Under the Bush era COTS program, the consequences for failure were that a commercial company would be out of the program. Originally a company called Rocket Plane/Kistler was part of COTS. But because RP/Kistler could not meet milestones, it was replaced by another company called Orbital Systems.
But under the Obama plan, the only consequences for failure would be more money pumped into the commercial companies that are developing private space craft. With the demise of Constellation, companies competing for ISS servicing contracts have become too important to fail.
So far this virtual guarantee of money has not had much of an effect on the performance of companies in the commercial space program. Recently, SpaceX successfully orbited, reentered, and landed on the ocean a prototype of its Dragon space craft.
I don’t have time to dissect it right now, so I toss it as chum to the comment sharks. I will note though, that there is no logical connection between the first and second sentences in that last paragraph. Which is not atypical of a Whittington piece.
Given the first sentence, the rest follows pretty logically, doesn’t it? For NASA to purchase from commercial providers via a strategy of “if you fail to show results we’ll drop you and give more money to your competitors” is a very sensible idea and a huge improvement over what we’ve seen of in-house NASA launch vehicle development. But if the real policy is for NASA to purchase from commercial providers via a strategy of “if you fail to show results we’ll give more money to you until you succeed”, that would would be insane but wouldn’t be unprecedented.
But where’s that first sentence come from? It’s a cite to another Whittington post which in turn is a cite to written testimony at senate.gov… which in turn doesn’t make any such claim. Did I miss something skimming through those 4 pages of Cernan’s testimony? And did my PDF reader miss something when it found no search results for “Bolden”, or for “bail”, or for “auto”… Cernan does clearly believe that commercial companies can’t be trusted to put capsules in LEO and return them safely for only $5 billion, but when a purported expert’s beliefs conflict with reality that’s not damning evidence against reality…
I notice that so far Rand cannot explain why I am wrong, which is why he is desperately trying to outsource. Bolden said what he said and that is the flaw in Obama’s “commercial” space plan that few people seem willing to talk about.
I haven’t any difficulty explaining, Mark. Are you unfamiliar with the meaning of “I don’t have time right now”?
Given the first sentence, the rest follows pretty logically, doesn’t it?
Well, not particularly, and it ignores that the cost-plus contractors are always “too big to fail” and they threaten to fail for orders of magnitude more money (e.g., Constellation) but Mark never considers that a bailout, or seems to have any problem with it. It also ignores the lunacy, on which Mark was previously schooled, that “bailing out” a SpaceX or even a Boeing could cost anywhere within a couple orders of magnitude of the auto industry.
But I was referring specifically to the last two-sentence paragraph I quoted. The second sentence in no way follows from the first. It doesn’t even seem to be related.
I asumed that was an excuse, since you usually take just a few minutes, which you just did by the way. In any case, in order to suggest that I am wrong you either have to say that Gene Cernan was lying–which no one has suggested, or that Bolden was off the reservation, which is possible, but so far no one has asserted. Therefore my analysis stands unchallenged. Obama’s commercial space scheme is as commercial as his automobile industry policy. That is to say, not really.
This is disappointing, after Mark’s recent, tentative endorsement of private enterprise. Or “priivate” enterprise — he still isn’t sure of the spelling.
We should be patient, though, I think, with Mark. Recovering alcoholics frequently fall off the wagon, again and again. Mark’s been drinking from the Bush bottle of big government and big spending for so long, we can’t expect him to change completely overnight.
Still, we should be concerned for Mark, because his state of constant fiscal inebriation is leading him to take foolish risks. Honor is something that Marines take seriously, and calling a Marine Corps Major General a liar is something that only a fool does lightly. Which, of course, is why Mark does it with such glee. Of course, it’s cheap and easy for him to impugn the General over the Internet. I’m sure the “senior space policy analyst of the Clear Lake Group” would not have the nerve to say such things in person. That might be one reason why Mark never appears at space conferences or space centers or any other place else where he might actually learn something about space.
Does anyone actually have a transcript of the congressional hearing? From what I recalled, the “auto bailout” thing was Cernan’s interpretation of what Bolden said, rather than what Bolden actually said.
I don’t see the political motivations for providing any kind of bailout to any new space companies as of today, regardless of what Bolden may or may not have said.
Culturally and economically they are completely different from the recipients of previous bailouts. They aren’t enormous industries employing hundreds of thousands of (unioned) voters. They aren’t considered critical infrastructure by any significant part of the population. Fearmonging commercial space collapse would be far less effective than fearmongering financial sector collapse, or American automotive industry collapse.
And what Rand and others have mentioned time and again, the current cost-plus contracting the govt. uses to funnel endless amounts of money for little to no return to taxpayer commensurate with the expense is a consistent year to year ‘bailout’. The majority of high-visibility government space programs have all been ‘too big to fail’, regardless of gross cost and schedule overruns on the order of billions of dollars.
I empathize with and also worry that the new commerical space companies like SpaceX will go the route of ‘businesses’ like LockMart and GM when they realize that it is far easier to succeed in ‘business’ by colluding with the power of the state than by unrelenting innovation to ensure market dominance. Unfortunately this will always be the progression when government is permitted to meddle with the market. Government officers have the personal incentive to meddle if they are able, because it increases their power, wealth and influence. Business are incentivized to collude with government because if they don’t they will be made to suffer by the meddlers, and if they do collude with government they can raise unsurmountable barriers for their competitors.
And then everyone loses in the long run. First the customers, then the ‘businesses’, and finally the government leeches. Unfortunately in this instance the long run is often longer than a lifetime, and the aftermath is left for future generations to deal with.
Wright, it was not I who is calling Cernan (not Bolden) a liar, but those who deny my analysis. Also, I was always under the impression that free enterprise is dependent on government subsidies. Neil, Bolden gave a non denial denial and said that he would “do what it takes” to make sure that the Obama “commercial” space scheme succeeds. By any other name, that smells bailout to these old eyes.
There are some more obvious meanings to “do what it takes” besides bailouts on the order of the auto industry. Surely Gene Cernan is smart enough to figure out that the NASA administrator is not in control of money of that magnitude – the auto industry bailout was about three and a half years of NASA funding blown in one shot – nor is Bolden able to simply toss whatever money is allocated to NASA about willy-nilly.
For one obvious meaning, ending the shuttle program and severing ties with ATK is part of “whatever it takes”. So is shutting down non-productive areas of NASA (such as wherever James Hansen is practicing animism-as-pseudoscience nowadays).
“Whatever it takes” might include turning all NASA centers into FFRDCs like JPL, to streamline the personnel side of things – or maybe pressuring Congress to do so. The new Tea Party guys will probably want to do that anyhow.
It would also include things like sticking to their guns if a company misses a milestone. If SpaceX misses a milestone, there’s Armadillo and Virgin and Masten and Altius and Unreasonable and others who would jump at a chance.
Mark, who cares what Bolden said or didn’t say or what Cernan said what Bolden said that he later said he didn’t say… what is this? The 4th grade? Again we have this conversation.. The NASA Administrator does not decide WHERE THE MONEY GOES. Wake up to yourself.
when they realize that it is far easier to succeed in ‘business’ by colluding with the power of the state
This really is the biggest danger to our future. The government octopus is too damned big. Cutting it to a tenth would still leave it too big but would be a great improvement. The problem is those in government that could do the pruning are the ones that benefit from a big government where they can move people around regardless of what the voters do.
One hopeful sign is that most of the tea parties are working below the radar on local elections. In a few decades that may turn us around. An ignorant electorate allows crony capitalism to expand.
Uh no wonder Mark is having comprehension issues:
“Also, I was always under the impression that free enterprise is dependent on government subsidies.”
The definitions he uses for words are apparently contradictory…
“…that smells bailout to these old eyes.”
…and his sensory organs are strangely mis-wired.
Which would explain why his words seem to come out of his…
Right-o Ken,
The problem is those in government that could do the pruning are the ones that benefit from a big government where they can move people around regardless of what the voters do.
Unless we burn the connection between government and economy, that Hydra will always regenerate those lost heads, and sprout new ones.
it was not I who is calling Cernan (not Bolden) a liar, but those who deny my analysis.
That’s Major General Bolden, Mark — not “Bolden.” Your constant disrespect for someone who spent his lifetime serving his country and protecting people like you doesn’t prove your policy views are right. It only proves what a chickensnot you are.
Your sentence makes no sense. (No surprise there.) It was General Bolden who you called a liar. “Nondenial denials” is a chickensnot euphemism.
Also, I was always under the impression that free enterprise is dependent on government subsidies.
That’s not surprising. You never did understand what free enterprise meant.
As a proud reader of AOSHQ, I take offense at referencing insular self serving narrow minded policy pundits as Morons.
This will, of course, cause exploding of heads in the moronosphere.
(Common readers and commenters at AOSHQ refer to themselves as morons)
Maybe “Tardosphere.”
Commercial space had already delivered.
Old space suddenly claim they can run the shuttle for $.50 and a bag of smarties.
ATK offer Le Shtick in a super one-time-only sale on a sale price reduction (this local car dealer)….
Of course there are some minor flaws – shuttle is still the shuttle. No escape system. Le Shtick can’t carry any of the proposed manned spacecraft. It can’t carry Orion which has has a LAS that is big enough to escape a solid booster destruction debris cloud. None of the others has a LAS big enough for that…
douglas:
I haven’t commented at AOSHQ very much, but I was First! in the Free Frontier video thread.
I failed to say First! at the time, though. Now I’ve rectified that.
Mark Whittington wrote:
I notice that so far Rand cannot explain why I am wrong… Bolden said what he said and that is the flaw in Obama’s “commercial” space plan that few people seem willing to talk about.
I’m still not Rand, nor do I play him on comment threads, but I was willing to talk about why you’re wrong on a recent thread:
Are you going to ignore this post like you ignored the other one?
Mike
PS: Sorry about the bold. The blockquote code seems to randomly bold text for some reason.
Michael Kent wrote:
PS: Sorry about the bold. The blockquote code seems to randomly bold text for some reason.
And then sometimes it doesn’t. 🙂
Mike
Also, I was always under the impression that free enterprise is dependent on government subsidies.
Clearly Mark missed this during proofreading, and forgot to insert the word “not” before “dependent”. It simply isn’t consistent with other things he has written about payments under COTS or CCDEV being “subsidies”.
So, Mark, why are these payments to SpaceX and others considered to be subsidies? How else is government supposed to get products or services from the private sector, besides paying for such? Is every government purchase from the private sector a subsidy?
Clearly Mark missed this during proofreading, and forgot to insert the word “not” before “dependent”. It simply isn’t consistent with other things he has written about payments under COTS or CCDEV being “subsidies”.
“Clearly”???
In case you’ve been living on some other planet, Mark wants over $100 billion in government subsidies for Project Constellation, or whatever it’s called this week — and he’s been calling that “free enterprise” for years.
How is a Federal bailout of Lockheed and ATK “consistent” with opposition to subsidies?
Edward, in the article Mark is decrying a possible bailout of SpaceX (or others) if they fail to perform. I cannot recall him speaking out against free enterprise before (that may have changed since I stopped reading Mark’s blog a few years ago) but to speak out against a possible bailout on one hand and then later in the comments section here to say that free enterprise is dependent on government subsidies makes no logical sense.
I type around 70 words a minute and the comment section here handles about one keystroke a second. I have the patience to go back and read what I write, most of the time. Others might not. Is it not more logical that there was a typing error of the sort not caught by spellcheck?
Ain’t none of us perfect. Let’s have arguments, sure, it clears away the bad ideas. But let’s cut each other a little slack too, ok?
I cannot recall him speaking out against free enterprise before
Then you don’t recall much at all about his posts. What he advocates is not free enterprise. It’s socialism.
Sure, Mark’s posts make a lot more sense if you insert the word “not” into every sentence. When he claimed to be a writer for the Washington Post, a space policy analyst, a professional novelist, etc., maybe he meant he is not any of those things — but that’s *not* what he wrote.
Unless we burn the connection between government and economy…
Which would require clean slate tax reform. This is what makes the fair tax so interesting. I wish I could determine its consequences but I can’t see how it would be worse than the current situation.
Mmm. Fair Tax.
The most moral tax system I’ve ever seen.