Those notorious Obamaphiles, Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker, come out with praise for the new direction in space. This just shows how non-partisan an issue is, except to those who are hyperpartisan. If George Bush had come out with this policy, most conservatives (or at least Republicans) would have praised it. Had Barack Obama come up with the VSE and Constellation, he would have been hailed by many (though certainly not all) of the left as JFK redux, and many conservatives would have hated it. I wish that people would actually examine the issue on the merits.
28 thoughts on “The Battle Is Joined”
Comments are closed.
Sadly they do support HLV, but you can’t have everything. Very good news indeed.
Rand,
I just pointed the readers of a Triple Nine Society Yahoo group to your page. It was easier than debating them myself. Oh — at least one conservative in that group hates the new policy.
Gingrich and Walker concentrate their defense on the commercial space aspects of the Obama proposal and not on the retreat from the space frontier aspects. They don’t mention that Americans won’t even start thinking of going beyond LEO until the 2030s under Obama.
“They don’t mention that Americans won’t even start thinking of going beyond LEO until the 2030s under Obama.”
Because that’s not true. Under the new plan, an HLV will be operational in the 2020s, not 2030s.
Newt also said that Dede Scorfezza was a good idea.
Peter Diamandis and Taylor Dinerman go through a pro-con in todays wsj. I’m with Peter D:
This is a good example of arguing for a policy based on philosophical beliefs versus a solid understanding of organization culture and the economics of industrial development.
Note this statement:
[[[The internal culture within the agency was actively hostile to commercial enterprise. A belief had grown from the days when the Apollo program landed humans on the moon that only NASA could do space well and therefore only NASA projects and programs were worthy.]]]
This assumes that Administrator Bolden will be able to magically overturn a culture that has been 50 years in the making. It won’t happen. The work and file will just endure as they did under other Administrators who attempted to change NASA into something its not. The resentment building against President’s Obama’s policy and its rollout will just reinforce NASA culture values while it drives them underground, for a while.
Seeing this statement in the recent press conference with Deputy Administrator Graver is a good indication of this.
[[[Dryden to take lead on airworthiness evals of subobital vehicles with NASA payloads or personnel.]]]
It’s a statement that should send chills through the sub-orbital community, especially as its now finally focusing on the sub-orbital science market. It implies if a vehicle like Space Ship 2 is contracted for by NASA it will have to go through a separate (and costly) evaluation and licensing process (or whatever you want to label it) besides the one it already went through for the FAA. If you want a taste of what it may be like ask the zero-G researchers about the process of getting an experiment flown to the ISS. It should be noted the military doesn’t require a separate airworthiness evaluation for the aircraft used when they charter airlines to transport troops or cargo… They accept the one the FAA did if it’s a commercial airliner.
Also note this statement of philosophical belief
[[[Reliance on commercial launch services will provide many other benefits. It will open the doors to more people having the opportunity to go to space. It has the potential of creating thousands of new jobs, largely the kind of high-tech work to which our nation should aspire. In the same way the railroads opened the American West, commercial access can open vast new opportunities in space.]]]
I recall similar philosophical statements being made regarding the Shuttle and X-33 programs, but they turned out false. First, spacecraft designed for NASA crew will have little if any impact on serving the market for commercial human spaceflight. They will be just too expensive for tourists even if NASA allows its providers to sell excess capacity for that purpose. (NASA: Sorry, but we need ALL the up mass provided to make effective use of the ISS…)
Also there is no evidence the overall space workforce will expand with commercial crew, more likely it won’t.
Finally, the economic development model being used for commercial crew is completely different then for western Railroads so it is one of the common false analogies. The major economic markets for the Transcontinental Railroad already existed. What was needed was merely a secure, fast, alternative to the 6 month plus journey to link those markets to the East Coast and Europe. There are NO commercial markets in space generating a similar demand pull for launch transportation for humans. That is the challenge for space development, creating those commercial markets. A government market is not a substitute for commercial markets.
I am sorry, but I see nothing good about luring the New Space firms into becoming the next generation of NASA contractors. It will just set back the expansion of the human econsphere another generation, as the focus on NASA funded RLVs in the 1990’s with the chill is created on developing RLV vehicles.
Thomas Matula,
The change is paradigmatic not programmatic. NASA, technically, won’t be the customer anymore. It’s not entirely certain that NASA will need an astronaut corps either. The only thing left after after shuttle and constellation is the ISS which is a National Science Laboratory. It’s not a given that ISS scientists must be NASA astronauts. In fact, the 2005 NASA Authorization Act requires NASA “to work with other agencies and organizations to pursue applications.” I hope that the new budget recommends contractor astronauts. If the astronauts are not NASA employees that would help dispense with much of the theater of NASA human rating requirements.
I believe that, after five thousand layoffs at JSC and seven thousand at KSC and most of the entire workforce at MSFC and the fresh hires are made for the new programs then NASA culture will surely change.
DaveP. Says:
February 13th, 2010 at 7:15 am
“Newt also said that Dede Scorfezza was a good idea.”
He also had the courage and the honesty to come back later and say he was mistaken. Not many present or former politicians in this day and age that are willing to admit they were wrong on any level.
This will be interesting to see if Al Gore is willing to at least display some integrity on the same level of Newt here and admit he is wrong about number of his climate change claims. I’ll hold off on getting that umbrella for the possible pig dung falling from the sky though.
Jardinero1,
[[[NASA, technically, won’t be the customer anymore.]]]
If so why is the money in the NASA budget? Also contractor astronauts are not new, they were flying on the Shuttle in the early 1980’s. No change of culture or standards results then, why do you believe it will now?
Contractor astronauts in the 80’s–what are you talking about?
Back before the Challenger accident, when NASA launched a satellite, a representative from the satellite builder or owner was often allowed to ride along on the flight as a mission specialist. They were trained by NASA so I don’t know if the term “contractor astronaut” is accurate. For example, one of the astronauts killed on Challenger was a Hughes employee named Jarvis.
Greg Jarvis, a Hughes Payload Specialist, was aboard Challenger. Charlie Walker was a MDAC payload specialist and flew more than once as I recall.
Bolden has said he hopes an HLV will become available in 2020-30. That means it might be even later. Even if we assume as correct the median of his estimate, that doesn’t mean a NASA manned mission beyond LEO would occur before 2030, especially taking into account the Bolden insistence that any such mission must include international partners.
It is an entirely fair accusation to claim the new Bolden/Obama policy defers NASA manned deep space exploration into the unforeseeable future, beyond 2030.
Thomas,
NASA won’t be the customer because NASA is being removed from the launch business and hopefully from the astronaut business and the payload handling business as well. If there is any follow thru, NASA will become something like a civilian DARPA. In the launch and payload business, the customers will be private industry, the EPA , NOAA, NRO, NSF, et al; each with their own specific customer requirements which ULA or SpaceX, et al will attempt to satisfy.
It is so tiresome to see these arguments that no HLV means no exploration beyond LEO. If there is a good reason to go, a depot can refuel an upper stage to reach any interesting place that an HLV could. And if there isn’t a good reason for a particular destination, why would you spend the money on an HLV anyway? For the money already blown on Aries, a few dozen existing ULA vehicles could already have been sent to LEO. If 50% of the launches had been tankers, then a dozen or more large vehicles could have reached desirable exploration targets beyond LEO. Even a fast Jupiter or Saturn mission could be done with 75% tankers instead of waiting for some hypothetical HLV. Sometimes you get the impression that HLV fans want to prevent exploration.
Almost as annoying is the screaming about no destinations. Aries/Constellation has been like an extended alcoholic binge for NASA. Like an alcoholic that has quit drinking, the agency must suffer the DTs and lifestyle reevaluations before it can come up with a coherent plan for the future. The vital organs of the agency that were poisoned by the Aries/Constellation binge have to have time to recover and get their health back before they can move forward as a healthy group again. At this time we need understanding and patience while they get their new balance and direction.
Jardinero1
What policy are you reading? All the change does is requires NASA to use commercial launchers to deliver NASA astronauts to ISS. It’s not turning NASA into DARPA.
Brad: “It is an entirely fair accusation to claim the new Bolden/Obama policy defers NASA manned deep space exploration into the unforeseeable future, beyond 2030.”
Per the Augustine Committee, if kept on its current track, will finish the Ares V HLV sometime around 2028, but with nothing to put on it. In other words, manned deep space exploration is defered into the unforeseeable future, beyond 2030, with Constellation.
That’s on top of all sorts of other disadvantages, like failing to really use the ISS, dumping the ISS in the ocean in 2015, no technology program, few or no additional HSF robotic precursors, no commercial participation, limited NASA robotic science and aeronautics, etc.
We really don’t know what the beyond-LEO plans for NASA are right now. We don’t know when the HLV will arrive – it probably depends on R&D results and robotic precursor results. It’s possible that they’ll do some beyond LEO work without an HLV. Maybe the cost-effective space access, fuel depot, and other R&D&demos will show the HLV isn’t needed. It may be up to Bolden’s successor to decide in some future year.
Mark: “… not on the retreat from the space frontier aspects. They don’t mention that Americans won’t even start thinking of going beyond LEO until the 2030s under Obama.”
What retreat? Constellation is a retreat from the space frontier. It can’t even do an Apollo reenactment until the mid 2030’s or later. The current approach gets robotic HSF precursors going soon to HSF destinations. It does all sorts of R&D&demos related to making HSF exploration cost effective – billions and billions and billions of dollars for that. We don’t know the details about beyond-LEO operational missions yet, but it looks like we’ll think about going beyond LEO well before 2030.
It seems some people have interpreted my attack on the Obama’s non-plan for NASA as a defense of Constellation or as support for HLV. You are mistaken. I am perfectly happy that Obama cancelled Constellation. Nor have I ever supported HLV as a necessary capability for manned spaceflight.
I am surprised though, at how too many space fans are reading exactly what they want to see out of the initial publicity of the new Obama NASA budget. I am reminded of nothing so much as how Obama voters saw in Obama fulfillment of all their hopes and dreams despite the reality of the actual candidate.
The reality is that while the Obama plan for commercial human spaceflight to LEO is good and a policy change long overdue, aspirations for NASA manned space exploration beyond LEO are deferred indefinitely. Not only that but what lip service is provided to NASA manned deep space exploration shows a clinging to bad policies such as HLV and international partners as mandatory components.
I stand by what I wrote over at spacepolitics.com
I am underwhelmed by the current Bolden/Obama non-plan for Nasa. Consider the reported comments by Garver…
—————————————–
“We plan to transform our relationship with the private sector as part of our nation’s new strategy with the ultimate goal of expanding human presence across the solar system,” she said early in her speech. “So don’t be fooled by those who say we have no goal. That is the goal.”
—————————————–
Is she kidding? That’s an ‘underpants gnomes’ plan for the future! Let’s see, first step: commercial flight to orbit; second step: ? (a miracle happens); third step: human presence across the solar system!
I’m no fan of Constellation and am actually pleased with it’s cancellation, but I do support the prior Bush policy of aiming NASA efforts at manned space exploration beyond LEO, the so-called Vision for Space Exploration (VSE).
And the plain fact is, the Obama non-plan throws out the Vision-for-Space-Exploration baby with the Constellation bath water.
Obama pretends that manned space exploration beyond LEO is still alive, but the fact is it’s dead for the foreseeable future. Any one who says otherwise is at best blinded by wishful thinking. VSE is dead, killed by Obama, and it’s dumb to pretend otherwise.
Thomas Matula:
I am sorry, but I see nothing good about luring the New Space firms into becoming the next generation of NASA contractors. It will just set back the expansion of the human econsphere another generation
This is spot-on. The monopsonistic (one customer) nature of the COTS-to-ISS business and the nasty bureaucratic requirements of NASA man-rating put Space-X and their NewSpace peers on the fast road to becoming the next Orbital Sciences. That company, too, started out with dreams of unconventional space commerce and ended up being just another NASA/DoD gold-plated contractor.
It’s even more dumb to pretend that the program being canceled was executing the VSE.
Thomas,
You can read about it here:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2007/06/the-significance-of-nasas-iss-national-laboratory-report/
It’s time to revive Zero G Zero Tax
Jardinero1,
Yes, I am familiar with it as well as the folks at NASA Ames that help push the idea.
But the problem is to do experiments on ISS you need to go through NASA’s flight safety procedures, or deal with the Russians (and ITAR). I don’t expect the new commercial crew will change that situation.
I don’t follow how if the US portion of the ISS is being managed as a National Science Laboratory and NASA is being removed from the launch business and therefore is unlikely to manage the payloads either; how will NASA flight safety procedures be pertinent?
Jardinero1,
You miss seem to understand the policy. NASA is just contracting for launch systems to support the ISS. It still manages the ISS, and so all the safety procedures in effect for astronauts and experiments going to ISS remain in place. And as a contractor it will also set the safety standards its launch providers need to meet.
The sad thing is that NASA’s standards for human spaceflight safety may now end of extending to all human spaceflight since launch firms will find it a problem to conform to two separate standards, NASA and FAA. You already see a hint of that with Deputy Administrators Graver’s statement that DRC will be in charge of developing safety and airworthiness standards for vendors of human sub-orbital flights to NASA. Yes, the is likely another unfortunate consequence of forcing NASA into commercial outsourcing, a higher, perhaps impossible, safety standard for commercial spacecraft. As I noted, the NASA culture will win out in the long run…
I’m still curious over whether the interactions with private suppliers will be contract-oriented, bid-oriented or flat-rate.
I can see a lot of back-and-forth involved with lofting astronauts. But the consumables should be fairly straight forward. Is there any indication that there could be an actual market for, say, water at the ISS?
John, it’s “Ares”, and I can’t really believe I need to say this to you, of all people.
Hmm.. underpants gnomes.. nice. I’m still trying to figure out if Lori Garver is slimey or naive.. and I’m not ruling out that maybe she’s just not had the right forum to say her honest opinion.