…is hugely wasteful and pointless.
Actually, what’s pointless is Hiltzik’s “story” (which is an op-ed). He’s stuck in the sixties, and operating under the delusion that human spaceflight is about “exploration” and “science.”
15 thoughts on “Trump’s Space Policy”
Comments are closed.
1961: “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television or radio service inside the United States.” — T.A.M. Craven, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioner. (H/T Forbes worst tech predictions of all time)
I suspect a heck of a lot more money has been spent to no avail on fighting cancer and poverty than has ever been spent on space.
Most journalists write stuff just to keep eating. It is mostly random noise.
“Let’s hope so, because the idea of sending humans to explore distant worlds is loopy, incredibly wasteful, and likely to cripple American science rather than inspire it.”
If it doesn’t support academicians, it isn’t useful, because NASA was supposed to be about supporting academicians, … right?
From Eisenhower’s Farewell Address:
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
“And that’s assuming that Trump’s notion doesn’t have the ulterior motivation of diverting American scientists from their Job One, which is to fight climate change right here at home.”
Which just shows Hiltzick’s writing degenerate into what I’ve seen in Portland’s californicated town meetings last week, …yet another cheesy whine party.
Hiltzick got it half right, a government funded human space program is a complete waste of money. The part he got wrong is that we have to take the money not spent on human space exploration and spend it on something else. No! Just don’t take it in the first place. If a human space program is so valuable then some entrepreneur will do it. Go Elon go! I happen to disagree that there’s any value in humans in space but I don’t care what he does with his own money, just don’t take mine and give it to NASA or Elon.
But Elon couldn’t do most of what he’s doing without big NASA contracts to provide logistics for….that much maligned human space program.
The reality is that, as yet, there’s no business case for any kind of economic activity in cislunar space, just as there was no business case a decade ago for what SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, Sierra Nevada, and Boeing are doing now (or preparing to do now) in LEO. There’s a role for the federal government in bootstrapping those business cases. But that’s the key: we’re not talking more flags and footprints expeditions, but something that might lead to long-term infrastructure and development.
Here’s to hoping that Trump hears about SpaceX sending two private citizens on a trip around the Moon for a fraction of the cost of SLS / Orion and he asks the question “Why are we building this overpriced monstrosity if SpaceX can do this so much less expensively?”
Don’t forget that Musk is now one of Trump’s advisors.
I do wonder whether Trump is using it as an excuse to shut down SLS: If NASA come back and say they can’t send people around the Moon until 2030, but SpaceX do it next year, that would be a pretty good argument to cancel SLS.
Eww, the Los Angeles Times. Bunch of fat old hippies worried sick about their pensions.
Let’s get to the heart of the matter. This marxist sub creature is a totalitarian Leftist. The people who are likely to move off planet will probably have a libertarian streak in them as wide as Mar’s Valles Marinaris is long. There won’t be any room for the welfare state he’s probably so fond of. Also, it will be very hard to tax people in off-planet colonies if they don’t want to be taxed. If push comes to shove the colonists will have at their disposal all kinds of interesting dual use technology to deal with Earth-based socialist tax hounds. No illegal immigration either, everybody will have to have a usable job skill. Skill based immigration means no women’s studies majors, ethnic studies majors, or gender studies majors until the 19th generation, or more likely never. But maybe they could allow a few sci-fii writers in the immigrant mix. The late Robert Heinlein would have appreciated that.
I think it’s a stretch to say that we know what Trump’s space policy really is, in the first place. The one thing we know concretely is that his administration has asked NASA to look into flying a crew around the moon on the 1st SLS flight, EM-1, before the 2020 election. That would be a very wasteful stunt and may be indicative of a very wasteful policy.
There is still a ray of hope, though. The idea of sending a crew around the moon by 2020 originated with the pro-commercial enthusiasts on the NASA landing team. In my wildest dreams I imagine that the policy is to let NASA announce it can’t fly around the moon by 2020 and let Orion and SLS die of embarrassment now that SpaceX has said it will do it. That’s just a hope, though, not an expectation.
By the way, the article gets the attitude of the Astronomer Royal, Sir Martin Rees, toward human spaceflight dead wrong. In an article published in the UK’s Daily Telegraph in January 2016 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/12100514/Prof-Sir-Martin-Rees-human-spaceflight-is-it-worth-the-money-and-risk.html), Rees says:
“As a scientists [sic] and practical person, I see a small (and diminishing) purpose in sending people into space at all.
But, as a human being rather than just a scientist, I hope some people now living will walk on Mars – as an adventure, and as a step towards the stars.”
The LA Times article is also incorrect in describing Rees at the *former* Astronomer Royal — he still is: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~mjr/
Waste of ink……………..
Do we really think China has a serious space program because they are into “exploration”?
One rationale for a government funded space program has zero to do with Space. Rather, it’s a fairly cheap and reliable means of building a cadre of trained scientists and engineers. This way if you were faced with an emergency and needed to ramp up a Manhattan-like project, you’ve got the cadres to do it with. I’m not talking necessarily about bombs but a project that is of existential importance and which needs to get going rapidly.
In about a year’s time physicists, chemists, etc. and engineers of all sorts would be re-trained into the new project they now have to work on. They come with the basic skill sets and experience.
“The reality is that, as yet, there’s no business case for any kind of economic activity in cislunar space”
Richard M. has it right, and in my opinion there never will be so stop wasting my money.
Why don’t all the space nuts get it, if it’s OK to take money from American citizens for space then it’s OK to take money for all the other crazy government programs. Just stop! If there’s money to be made Elon can figure it out without my tax dollars.
90% of NASA needs to go away.
if it’s OK to take money from American citizens for space then it’s OK to take money for all the other crazy government programs.
There will always be taxes and an ideological competition for how tax revenue should be spent. It is easy to argue that space based endeavours are important for national interests like the ones Gregg wrote about. However, this leads some to think that only government workers or academics should have access to space.
I view the role of government as enabling its citizens to thrive on their own. Opening space to Americans is a worthy goal.
It is hard to predict the benefits because we don’t have a good frame of reference for an uncertain future in a new realm of existence. But without a doubt, technological progress has always benefited humanity and the societies that drive the progress.
Another way to look at it, is that Americans will be in space and our government will be there with them with taxes and regulations. How does a government justify taking money or telling people what to do, if it provides no services or protections?