Not just odd, but rare:
Since Barack Obama took office in 2008, U.S. space policy has shifted in a surprisingly free-market direction. Despite the Obama crowd’s general enthusiasm for big government, where space policy is concerned they’ve taken a decidedly different approach: Instead of building its own rockets as a replacement for the now-retired space shuttle, the federal government is now buying launch services from private companies that are largely free to build their own rockets and choose their own approaches.
There’s nothing new about this idea. The federal government did the same kind of thing in the 1920s with air mail contracts, and that program — along with wind tunnels and other R&D assistance provided by NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics — did a lot to establish U.S. dominance in civil and military aviation in the 20th Century. I wrote articles and position papers advocating such an approach more than two decades ago.
But now that it’s happening under the Obama administration, some conservatives are criticizing them. This led space expert (and former congressional staffer) Jim Muncy to comment “Democrats don’t think that capitalism works within the atmosphere, and Republicans apparently don’t think it works above it.”
But, in fact, capitalism works everywhere.
Indeed. And one of the reasons that we need to get into space as soon as possible is not (as I naively thought over thirty years ago, when I first got interested in this) because we are running out of earthly resources, but because we need a new frontier into which to expand human freedom, lest that, the most vital resource, be lost on humanity’s birth world.
Kinda getting annoyed by the “confusion” over why the GOP is attacking this particular “success”. That’s what happens in bipartisan politics: you attack the opposition’s successes and showcase their failures. Obama could literally make the sky rain chocolate and the GOP would be required to blame him for the resulting childhood obesity.
If you want something different, getting rid of bipartisan politics is a good first step, but ultimately getting rid of politics would be better.
And after you’ve abolished human nature, you can craft some legislative exceptions to the law of gravity and we’ll have space access for all!
P.S. Your explanation is superficially plausible, but it doesn’t hold. The GOP is criticizing the huge Obama success of getting Bin Laden, for instance. Its more that big aerospace-defense contractors and their employees are GOP stalwarts, and some of the challengers (like SpaceX) are coming out of the Democratic-leaning Silicon Valley set.
Your proposed solution is, uh, interesting. And after you’ve abolished human nature, you can craft some legislative exceptions to the law of gravity and we’ll have space access for all!
P.S. Your explanation is superficially plausible, but it doesn’t hold. The GOP is criticizing the huge Obama success of getting Bin Laden, for instance. Its more that big aerospace-defense contractors and their employees are GOP stalwarts, and some of the challengers (like SpaceX) are coming out of the Democratic-leaning Silicon Valley set.
My theory is that Obama leaves to the free market only things he doesn’t really care about.
Indeed.
My initial reaction on hearing the direction the regime was taking space policy was abject disbelief. How could someone so overtly hostile to the free market use it for anything? There had to be more to it.
The other explanation is that you’re mistaken about Obama’s hostility to the market.
Obama didn’t have to do anything about space. The fact that he did, angering Congresspeople and Senators from both parties, and feeding the “Obama killed manned spaceflight because he hates American greatness” smear, indicates that he does care.
What Obama did with space is perfectly consistent with what he did, for example, with energy research. In both cases he appointed smart technocrats, and gave them latitude to pursue sensible, forward-looking policies, without regard for political advantage.
There’s an old joke about the reliability of newspapers that goes something like: I believe everything I read in the local paper. The only times it’s ever been wrong were the times when I knew the story firsthand.
This site’s reaction to Obama’s space policy turns the joke on its head. On the subject you know best, Obama’s the best president we’ve had in decades. But nonetheless you are certain that this data point is an exception, and he must be terrible at everything else.
There’s no political advantage to getting huge campaign donations from the people to whom you hand out taxpayer money?
And the fact that I’m most familiar with this particular policy doesn’t mean I’m clueless about the rest.
“What Obama did with space is perfectly consistent with what he did, for example, with energy research.”
I hope not, since his energy policy is mainly giving handouts to companies run by political cronies, who then go bankrupt. The only diff with space so far is the private people there seem to be reasonably competant. One reason mught be that they know that if they blow it, they wont get another chance, and the NASA burocraacy will get everything.
his energy policy is mainly giving handouts to companies run by political cronies, who then go bankrupt
That’s a lot of lies in a short phrase. Specifically:
1. Obama’s energy research policy was mostly about loans, not handouts
2. Despite GOP investigations and huffing and puffing, no proof of cronyism or political favoritism has been found (examples of the opposite, of DOE turning down requests by politically-connected firms, have been identified)
3. Out of dozens of funded projects and companies, two or three have gone bankrupt; the loan portfolio has lost less money than expected (suggesting, if anything, that they were too conservative in making the loans)
Meanwhile, the results are impressive: a doubling of wind energy production (80% in GOP Congressional districts), 600% increase in solar, a domestic lithium ion battery industry, and dozens of promising research projects and startups. One thing that hasn’t happened: a nuclear energy renaissance, despite Obama offering tens of billions in loan guarantees (dwarfing all the green energy funding combined).
Your take on Obama’s energy policy is as misinformed as the average Republican’s take on his space policy.
DOE turning down requests by politically-connected firms, have been identified
Do tell. Don’t leave us hanging.
The New New Deal by Mike Grunwald discusses attempts by Al Gore and Valerie Jarrett to get DOE clean energy funding for corporate friends, to no avail.
There have been more than two or three Obama green companies go bankrupt, Jim. And many of those companies were big contributors to Obama. Gore didn’t get a cut? Maybe he should have been a bigger donor.
The expansion of wind and solar are only as sustainable as the government subsidies propping them up or the mandates that force the use of these more expensive technologies.
That’s a lot of lies in a short phrase. Specifically:
Jim, that’s a rather strong word to use to describe truth.
1. Obama’s energy research policy was mostly about loans, not handouts
Loans that are no longer going to be repaid and for which the federal government is now on the hook for repayment.
2. Despite GOP investigations and huffing and puffing, no proof of cronyism or political favoritism has been found (examples of the opposite, of DOE turning down requests by politically-connected firms, have been identified)
The loans were granted in the first place to failing companies. That’s pretty strong evidence right there.
3. Out of dozens of funded projects and companies, two or three have gone bankrupt; the loan portfolio has lost less money than expected (suggesting, if anything, that they were too conservative in making the loans)
As wodun noted, it’s more than three such companies.
Meanwhile, the results are impressive: a doubling of wind energy production (80% in GOP Congressional districts), 600% increase in solar, a domestic lithium ion battery industry, and dozens of promising research projects and startups. One thing that hasn’t happened: a nuclear energy renaissance, despite Obama offering tens of billions in loan guarantees (dwarfing all the green energy funding combined).
Yes, the ant hill has certainly been stirred up. But so what? This isn’t helping society. You have to recall that public funding is not free money. Dollars that go into building up not very useful industries come from dollars that were going to people who would have done more useful work, such as raising families or investing in the more useful industries.
There is no mistaking Obama’s hostilities.
without regard for political advantage
Glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that. Everything Obama does is about political advantage.
this data point is an exception
We agree. Broken clock tells correct time even as it meant something else and Jim insults host by telling him to stick to the little bit of knowledge he has.
Obama sees free enterprise as the enemy. Quit trying to blow smoke up our arse.
To quote Rand from elsewhere in this thread: I’m sorry, but this is nonsense, and it doesn’t become less so from repetition.
In what way — underestimating it?
You imagine a hostility to the market as an ideological position. But Obama’s a pragmatist. He recognizes the advantages of markets, and is happy to tap their power (commercial space, health care exchanges, cap-and-trade). But he also knows that markets can be broken (e.g. Wall Street, individual health insurance, energy research, carbon emissions), and recognizes a role for regulation and government subsidies.
The word you’re looking for is practical. He may well be a pragmatist, but that is an ideological position and not the exoneration you think it is. Yes, I do consider the fact that his ideology has been stymied and that he’s been forced to compromise is a value to me and any sane person.
Well, the reason NASA isn’t getting funding for space is simple – NASA is SUPPOSED to be doing outreach to Muslims to make them feel comfortable in their own skins.
That’s what N.A.S.A. stands for – Neatly Adaptable to Saudi Arabia
Thanks to Barack Obama, NASA isn’t really in the space business any more, it’s in the business of doing Muslim politics.
Obama hates space – has absolutely no interest in it and wished it would go away. Because he’s a socialist, he THINKS that giving it to the free market will effectively destroy it.
What he doesn’t realize is that he’s made it stronger then he can possibly imagine. He’s a bumbling idiot, but like any other stopped clock, he occasionally gets things right by accident.
That’s what N.A.S.A. stands for – Neatly Adaptable to Saudi Arabia
Thanks to Barack Obama, NASA isn’t really in the space business any more, it’s in the business of doing Muslim politics.
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense, and it doesn’t become less so from repetition.
Sorry, Rand, but Obama directed the Muslim outreach. That’s a matter of record.
Obama doesn’t have a space policy. As it turns out, that’s not a bad thing for space exploration.
There is no “Muslim outreach” other than a stupid comment Bolden made to Al Jazeera. If you think there is, point to it in the budget.
Can you identify an instance in which NASA has engaged in Muslim outreach? Can you point to the line items in the NASA budget under which Muslim outreach is funded? Methinks not.
Bolden made a stupid remark. What we don’t know is what Obama said to him that encouraged him to make such a stupid statement.
In any case, it’s obvious he was speaking to a particular crowd at the time.
At least President Obama didn’t give any Saudi princes a joy ride on the Shuttle (STS-51-G) like President Reagan did 🙂
What Obama did with space is perfectly consistent with what he did, for example, with energy research.
Nonsensical if the debate is an indication.
SDB ran the numbers in posts years ago. Math is hard for the president.
I’m sure Obama, like all other presidents, spends little time thinking about space. But he’s done some things suggesting he cares more about it than any other recent president. On one of his visits to Cape Canaveral, Obama toured the Falcon 9 pad before its first launch. That was risky: had that rocket blown up, as it well could have, we’d have been reminded over and over again of his visit. The safe thing would have been to stick with the original plan that had him visiting Atlas V. Secondly, he did try to eliminate Constellation when the easy option would have been to keep doling out the pork.
I would be very surprised if there was any fuel in the Falcon 9 when President Obama visited the pad, and without fuel its just a pile of metal.
I agree that visiting Falcon 9 on the pad presented little danger. The risk to Obama was that had the rocket failed in flight, it would have damaged him politically.
If that were the case, then I doubt Obama and his team would be worrying about the political ramifications of getting cooked by a nearby explosion. “Does getting burnt to a fine ash make me less attractive to women voters? I hope not!”
Obama bungled the cancelation of Constellation just like everything else. And it looks today like Constellation is alive but without any specific goals, destinations, or over arching strategy.
Obama did back down in killing Constellation — presumably to much political capital would have been required (some say it was a call to the White House from Bill Nelson the night before presentation of the FY ’11 budget that did it). But my point was that if he had no interest at all, he’d have avoided the whole rattlesnakes’ den of interests vested in the NASA gravy train and let Constellation roll pointlessly on.
Tell me again how massive government subsidies to a favored industry constitutes “free market capitalism.”
Why? You’re obviously too stupid or too stubborn to understand because it’s been explained to you ad infinitum.
What, you think that rocket companies should just give NASA their rockets for free?
“Paying for services rendered” is not equal to “massive government subsidies”. To further illustrate the difference, cf. Solyndra.
Yes, NASA really needed all the paperwork and reports SpaceX gave them on how rockets work as part of the first part of COTS. Yes the hundred of millions they paid SpaceX for it was a service well worth it to NASA 🙂
Um, you need paperwork to verify that both sides understand what needs to happen. So yes, some milestones are paperwork, especially the beginning of any large project worth millions of dollars. That paperwork represents work done and hours charged.
NASA already admitted that they couldn’t build a Falcon-Dragon equivalent as cheaply as SpaceX. So, what that means is that even with the “worthless” paperwork SpaceX did, that they still built it for 2 to 4 times cheaper than NASA would have.
So, this means that if NASA can’t be trusted with the small things, why should we trust them to build a bigger thing (SLS) that costs orders of magnitude more? They already blew more than the entire Falcon development cost (~$300 million) on just a single test launch of an Ares I-X prototype, with “prototype” being a generous word for what Ares I-X really was.
For others not-Mark who can be convinced about what actual “massive subsidies” really are, massive subsidies are those where billions of dollars are wasted developing something that is completely worthless. Ares I is roughly equivalent to Delta IV Heavy, and Delta IV Heavy already existed as of 2005. There was absolutely no need for Ares I. This is even before we talk about SpaceX and before SpaceX was even awarded any contracts.
And there is also no need for something as massive as Ares V/SLS. We haven’t even researched and developed the things we need to have in order to start any long-term presense on the moon or Mars. Therefore, SLS is at best too early.
Spare me the talk where conservatives are those who want to “make America proud” or to “do big things”, and therefore that justifies any and all large expenditures as long as it is “conservative” expenditures. It is not the purpose of government to “make America proud” or “do big things” in an active role as a standalone statement. The purpose of government is to protect people’s natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the federal government’s main role in doing that is to repel foreign invasion (the rest largely being left to the states).
America is “made proud” only indirectly by government, by government confining itself to the purpose of protecting the individual rights of people to live and be free. It is a proud country because it is a free country and free society, not because of any large government expenditures for the direct purpose of making America proud.
So, the next argument will be that SLS is somehow part of “defense”. That is crap because SLS is militarily useless. The NRO and military are doing just fine with Delta IV Heavy. So, what else would it do? Would we put Marines on the moon? To protect from what? How would Marines on the moon protect against invasion or attack against America? Would we put nukes on the moon? For the cost of putting one nuke on the moon, I could build hundreds that get put onto submarines here on earth.
SLS does nothing to help the federal government protect natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it is a complete waste for the federal government to be trying to build SLS.
Someguy,
So is that what SpaceX received the $200 million dollars for? For progress reports? That is the service provided?
Someguy,
[[[SLS does nothing to help the federal government protect natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, it is a complete waste for the federal government to be trying to build SLS.]]]
Actually that could be applied to nearly ALL of NASA’s activities in the post Cold War World. How does the ISS or the search for Life on Mars meet those requirements. So why bother funding it at all?
Or does pursuit of happiness apply to the scientists who what to find life on Mars? They sure do seem happy spending government money to satisfy their pursuit of it 🙂
Care to source the $200 million of status reports?
And yes, you are absolutely right about NASA after the Cold War. I would therefore be in favor of completely disbanding NASA, transferring the national defense functions to the military, and letting state universities and/or private organizations band together and fund these projects as they see fit. The Google Lunar X Prize and other such projects are what I envision as taking the place of NASA.
Unsurprisingly, when people have their own money to spend as they see fit, and not an unlimited amount of “not their” money (politicians and tax dollars), good solutions that make business sense are developed. Ones that aren’t good fail and go out of business, all without requiring tax money. By this paragraph, I mean that Google Lunar X Prize is helping develop economical solutions to putting landers on the moon that do economical things, not just pursuing expensive generalized scientific curiosity.
As to ISS, we have what are essentially treaty obligations to uphold for the time being. I believe ISS was only upheld as a “defense” argument, that if we paid Russia to develop modules, that their scientists would be busy doing that instead of helping other counties build nuclear weapons. Yes, I do think it is a complete load of crap argument.
That is why I am in favor of finishing out ISS as cheaply as possible (and not starting another one). It just so happens that this also at the same time puts a new private sector industry in place faster than it would have developed on its own.
So, purchasing development and delivery services from SpaceX and Orbital is the cheapest (or at the very least cheaper) way to fulfill our treaty obligations. And it also leaves in place private sector companies and products not tied to one government program, which was the vulnerability of Apollo, Shuttle, and now also SLS.
Its like in calculus–its not the position, its the vector.
we need a new frontier into which to expand human freedom
Nailed it. It is because this is so very important that I advocate focusing on mars (without neglecting anyplace else) which has the best potential for a new independent society (if we also focus on the liberty that comes with ownership.) By all colonists having a reasonable claim they have the resources to pursue happiness with economic growth. Other proposals that would work lead to a company town that limits growth.
Romney should call Obama out on this and ask why Obama only thinks free markets work above 50,000 feet.
There is only one wee problem with this article as it leaves out a very crucial fact that would change the conclusion. Elon Musk is an Obama campaign bundler…
http://washingtonexaminer.com/carney-green-stimulus-profiteer-comes-under-irs-scrutiny/article/2510619#.UH1kRq5jDlE
Virtually every enterprise Musk is involved with is getting government subsidies or tax breaks worth millions of dollars including SpaceX.
Obama’s action to privatize space launch services is consistent with his green energy strategy – reward your campaign contributors, cronies with tax dollars via subsidies, credits and mandates.
Now having questioned their intent and casting doubt on their motives I do accept that doing something for the wrong reason and getting the preferred results can sometimes be coincidental. But when it comes to the US space industry we need to acknowledge that the US government didn’t build anything for space flight including the lunar lander or the Saturn V rocket that took it there, it was private enterprise with taxpayer dollars. This is what we would call ambivalence. So I accept your analogy of the air mail contract to develop faster communications using private industry because there was a military necessity behind it just like the Eisenhower Interstate system we have today. Just remember government didn’t build that!
He is not a “bundler.” He is a donor. But he is a bundler for Dana Rohrabacher (Republican). He has held fund raisers at his rocket factory for him. He’s never done that for Obama.
Rand,
You are right. The money the SpaceX PAC contributes to federal candidates is nickel and dime compared to Boeing and Lockheed-Martin.
SpaceX PAC
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00411116&cycle=2012
Boeing PAC
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00142711
Lockheed-Martin PAC
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00303024
But at least Elon Musk is learning how the federal contracting game is played 🙂
BTW if anyone is wondering here is the link to the ATK PAC
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cycle=2012&cmte=C00250209
Again, its how the game is played if you want federal money 🙂
the US government didn’t build anything for space flight including the lunar lander or the Saturn V rocket that took it there, it was private enterprise with taxpayer dollars
That’s a silly distinction. By that reasoning Bill Gates didn’t literally build Microsoft; he just paid the people who wrote the code, burned the CDs, managed the servers, mopped the floors, counted the money, etc.
The decision to build Saturn rockets was made by the government. The money to build Saturn rockets came from the government. The design, construction, testing and operation of Saturn rockets was executed and/or overseen by government employees. Saturn was a government project.
The money to build Saturn rockets came from the government
Jim, this is at the core of your misunderstandings. Governments don’t have any money of their own. They only have what they take from taxpayers and borrow from future taxpayers.
Funny how he always gets that money part wrong. It’s almost like his brain is hard wired to think everything belongs to the state.
Governments don’t have any money of their own.
Corporations also don’t have any money of their own: it’s the shareholders’ money. Nonetheless, corporations can and do spend money, and we can reasonably say “Google bought Motorola Mobility” or “Apple bought a new campus in Cupertino” in the same way we might say “John Doe bought a Chevy Cruze”.
The U.S. government bought the Saturn rocket.
Corporations also don’t have any money of their own: it’s the shareholders’ money.
Actually, no. First, not all companies are publicly held. Second, for those that are… while in theory shares are a percentage ownership of a company, in practice they are a traded asset backed by the company as an asset. When bonds are issued a liability is created, but the money is the companies.
Yes, the government did buy the Saturn rocket. But they did not use their own money since the government doesn’t have any money. That’s why they spend so much. IT ISN’T THEIR MONEY.
If the government ever pays down all it’s debt. Stops taking money from the taxpayers and still has money left over. Then and only then will Jim have proved me wrong and we can say the government has money (even if it’s worthless paper that nobody wants.)
Want to place a bet, Jim?
No, it doesn’t become the shareholders’ money until a dividend is paid. ’til then, it remains the corporation’s.
The Gov’t bought the Saturn with GDP coupons (called FRNs) created for that express purpose. Wealth was then transfered from the private sector to the public (opportunity costs) which the Gov’t then consumed going to the Moon.
it doesn’t become the shareholders’ money until a dividend is paid
Or if the company is liquidated (in theory) in practice the shareholders are usually screwed in that case.
Close. Replace “money” with “wealth.” “Money” is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve (via deficit spending). Money is destroyed via federal taxation.
That is, what’s “borrowed” from “future taxpayers” is their wealth, the cumulative sweat of their brows.
The COTS program predates the Obama administration.
Ed,
As does the decision to retire the Shuttle, but you should know Candidates never let little things like facts get in the way of their attacks 🙂
Obama did have a chance to keep the shuttles flying but his indecisive nature took that opportunity away from him. As with everything else, he abdicated responsibility to other people. #eastwood
wodun,
The production lines were already shutting down before President Obama took off. Dr. Griffin saw to that. The only way to have kept the Shuttles flying was to cut the flight rate to a couple a year to extend the flight period 2-3 years until the production lines were started again, at a very high cost for NASA.
Indeed, it should always be pointed out that Bush killed the shuttle program whenever someone tries to pin it on Obama. It should also be pointed out that it was the correct decision, suggested by the Aldridge commission after the loss of Columbia.
Obama’s space policy is as free-market as it is because it’s basically George W. Bush’s space policy, with SLS taking the place of Constellation as the white elephant launch system designed to appease the politically entrenched legacy companies. That’s not a criticism: it’s one of the few things Obama has done right.
But it is odd to call it a shift towards the free market when the previous administration was every bit as much in favor of building a commercial space launch market, and took the lead in doing so.
SLS is not Obama’s policy. It’s Congress’s. The Obama policy was to turn over crew transport to private industry, while the Bush policy was to do it with Constellation. It really is a significant change, and one that the porkers hate.
Rand,
It may not have been originally but as the Obama-Biden Space White Paper shows below, they have adopted SLS as part of their policy and space accomplishments.
Has the administration made any effort in fighting the SLS? As the thing is taking a lot of money away from NASA’s other programs, that would seem like a good place to make cuts.
Chris,
Actually the opposite. The Obama Administration is taking credit for it in their space white paper.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/obama.3cdn.net/161d9a44862de87902_lhm6bh7be.pdf
From the last page
[[[Under President Obama, NASA is developing a new vehicle, the Space Launch System, which will serve as the backbone of its human space
exploration program in the post-Shuttle era. Support for the Space Launch System by 1.5% in President Obama’s latest budget request, and the system continues its steady progress – in July, SLS completed its preliminary
review, allowing the program to continue ahead to its preliminary design phase.]]]
I’m sorry, but this is nonsense
Nonsense Obama himself has confirmed in his book, Jim. Read his account of the one time he was employed with a business. He sees all business as the enemy with the exception of money laundering cronies. All are fatcats to steal from.
Indeed, there is no speculation about the man’s values — he’s written them down. We know who his teachers were, etc, etc. Jim’s unstated but completely false premise is that Obama could get whatever he wants — no one would stand in his way if he wanted to turn the US into the USSR. Duh, of course not, and thus that is part of his political calculations. Politics is the art of the possible, Gramscian Long March, etc. This is real basic stuff.
rowland chandler