For a piece on defeating the oh-so-contemptible opposition, it’s strikingly short on…well…an actual plan. “Calling your Congressman” isn’t a plan, it’s a slightly less entertaining take on drunk dialing Washington Journal. It’s a failure to deal with the actual terrain in DC and out in whatever passes for commercial space these days. And ultimately an abrogation of responsibility from those in a position to pitch to real stakeholders.
Be honest about the opposition you face. If you live in Utah, ATK has at least 2,000 more reasons than you do to push for an architecture that probably won’t ever see space. There are 49 other states with their hands in the supply chain. If you aim to do something that’ll upset the apple cart, you better have a credible, juicier alternative ready to go. FY2011 certainly wasn’t it.
There is no question that there are major divisions in the space community. He’s also right that the people that actually care about the topic – and who see it as the answer for so many of the problems here on Earth – are a small fraction of the population.
However, I think he’s got his categories wrong. I very much doubt that anyone in the space community rejects Obama’s position purely out of hate for the man or his other policies or even his political party. Indeed, it often seems as though on the one issue of space Republican and Democrat positions are switched around completely. This might be due to the fact that there are so few people – and in particular so few Congressmen – who are actually interested in space and recognize the potential, that those outliers sway the majority that doesn’t care.
Similarly one cannot say that all Boomers are nostalgic for Apollo, nor are the “Homers” simply looking out for their own district at the expense of the country and its future.
Rick Tumlinson suggested (later expanded upon by Trent Waddingon) a division into von Braunian, O’Neillian, and Saganite camps (to which I would add Heinleinian). I think this is closer to the truth, but still not quite there. There are underlying reasons that lead people into these philosophical camps, and it goes beyond the old Left/Right
Waddington’s formulation is neat summary of the divisions amongst advocates and line participants, whereas Werb captures their partners in elected and appointed office. Nothing really new here; Big Science has a half-century track record of selling entire countries pretty pictures and a major case of head-scratching to the tune of hundreds billions since she took off. Those billions string along thousands of jobs, inspire some measure of awe, and provoke a crapload of budget fights–Saganites and Braunians, who have nothing much else to offer except the occasional shiny–are naturally at home in such a mess.
What’s missing is a powerful political or commercial ally for the O’Neill camp. That ally, of course, should be the private sector. And it will only lend aid when a real business reason emerges. So far, that’s been in spits and spurts, and almost entirely confined to the realm of slashing to the price tag of a satellite launch.
Another division is that between advocates of incrementalism and advocates of one shot development. Commercial space advocates are in favour of incrementalism for most things, but so was von Braun. NASA has largely abandoned incrementalism, but that was not von Braun’s fault, but that of people like George Mueller.
Personally I am an Asimovian, and see the settlement of space as an incremental public-private venture supported by science with the consequence being the unintentional elevation of humanity to the next stage of its development which will be off world. It will move forward in discrete steps driven by short term national security issues and commerce. Which is actually a good description of the drivers that resulted in the settlement and development of North America…
For a piece on defeating the oh-so-contemptible opposition, it’s strikingly short on…well…an actual plan. “Calling your Congressman” isn’t a plan, it’s a slightly less entertaining take on drunk dialing Washington Journal. It’s a failure to deal with the actual terrain in DC and out in whatever passes for commercial space these days. And ultimately an abrogation of responsibility from those in a position to pitch to real stakeholders.
Be honest about the opposition you face. If you live in Utah, ATK has at least 2,000 more reasons than you do to push for an architecture that probably won’t ever see space. There are 49 other states with their hands in the supply chain. If you aim to do something that’ll upset the apple cart, you better have a credible, juicier alternative ready to go. FY2011 certainly wasn’t it.
There is no question that there are major divisions in the space community. He’s also right that the people that actually care about the topic – and who see it as the answer for so many of the problems here on Earth – are a small fraction of the population.
However, I think he’s got his categories wrong. I very much doubt that anyone in the space community rejects Obama’s position purely out of hate for the man or his other policies or even his political party. Indeed, it often seems as though on the one issue of space Republican and Democrat positions are switched around completely. This might be due to the fact that there are so few people – and in particular so few Congressmen – who are actually interested in space and recognize the potential, that those outliers sway the majority that doesn’t care.
Similarly one cannot say that all Boomers are nostalgic for Apollo, nor are the “Homers” simply looking out for their own district at the expense of the country and its future.
Rick Tumlinson suggested (later expanded upon by Trent Waddingon) a division into von Braunian, O’Neillian, and Saganite camps (to which I would add Heinleinian). I think this is closer to the truth, but still not quite there. There are underlying reasons that lead people into these philosophical camps, and it goes beyond the old Left/Right
Waddington’s formulation is neat summary of the divisions amongst advocates and line participants, whereas Werb captures their partners in elected and appointed office. Nothing really new here; Big Science has a half-century track record of selling entire countries pretty pictures and a major case of head-scratching to the tune of hundreds billions since she took off. Those billions string along thousands of jobs, inspire some measure of awe, and provoke a crapload of budget fights–Saganites and Braunians, who have nothing much else to offer except the occasional shiny–are naturally at home in such a mess.
What’s missing is a powerful political or commercial ally for the O’Neill camp. That ally, of course, should be the private sector. And it will only lend aid when a real business reason emerges. So far, that’s been in spits and spurts, and almost entirely confined to the realm of slashing to the price tag of a satellite launch.
Another division is that between advocates of incrementalism and advocates of one shot development. Commercial space advocates are in favour of incrementalism for most things, but so was von Braun. NASA has largely abandoned incrementalism, but that was not von Braun’s fault, but that of people like George Mueller.
Personally I am an Asimovian, and see the settlement of space as an incremental public-private venture supported by science with the consequence being the unintentional elevation of humanity to the next stage of its development which will be off world. It will move forward in discrete steps driven by short term national security issues and commerce. Which is actually a good description of the drivers that resulted in the settlement and development of North America…