I agree with Clark Lindsey’s post title on the stunningly stupid news that the Deficit Commission has recommended axing Commercial Crew, except it will end up costing a lot more than ten billion. It’s pretty clear from the announcement that they don’t even understand the purpose, and that it would save NASA billions. In fact, they are unwittingly recommending ending NASA human spaceflight, and consigning us to continuing to be held hostage by the Russians for years. More thoughts later, here or elsewhere. All of the nonsense about this in the media over the past many months hasn’t helped, of course.
[Evening update on the Left Coast]
I have more extensive thoughts over at National Review On-Line.
In terms of the Deficit Reduction Commission, and to play the Devil’s advocate, one strategy they might consider is selling some government assets.
I am sure the U.S. interest in the ISS could be sold to China for a good chunk of money, perhaps 10-20 billion. Not only could that be applied against the deficit, but it would also produce huge annual savings since NASA would have no need for further funding to support ISS, not only in terms of buying seats for astronauts and space for cargo, but also technical and flight control. This would probably save 2-3 billion a year over the next 10 years, a total savings of 20-30 billion in addition to what ever cash NASA received for the ISS.
More to the point it would actually get NASA out of the HSF business and out of the way of New Space firms like SpaceX and Bigelow who could then develop the private HSF program NASA has been in the way of for so long 🙂
Really it would be a win-win for both taxpayers and New Space. And have an order of magnitude impact saving over the 6 billion from the “commercial” crew program and probably get Americans to the Moon much faster then the old VSE. Not to mention the cost of Congressional staff time in arguing which launcher is best. With NASA out of the HSF business the market would decide.
Additional savings could be made by privatizing the planetary research program, just as SETI was privatized. Really, is there any justification for why U.S. taxpayers should be paying in these tight budget times to search for life in the Solar System? The Cold War is long over and so is the Cold War race to see who has sent the most spacecraft to Mars or accomplished the latest “first” in space.
“I certainly don’t hate robotic spaceflight and I don’t think Frank does either. ”
Hardly. I was expounding on what tends to get people’s attention and interest. And some of those elements are common to HSF *and* robots. And some important activities for either one, are also ‘unsexy’ things that the public will have little interest in. That interest is not exclusively defined by ‘going’ somewhere, per the example of Hubble, and the extrasolar Pioneer and Voyager probes.
BTW, I doubt most people can name a commercial pilot, either, but that level of commercial importance is the goal. Some things *should* be commonplace, self-sustaining, and part of the background of life.
Let’s not be dubes about this commission. If they were serious about deficit reduction, they’d enact the spending cuts first. Of course, that’s not what has happened in the past and it won’t happen this time, either. They’re using the commission as political cover to raise taxes while promising spending cuts. However, those spending cuts almost never materialize. They’ve pulled this scam more than once in my lifetime. Anyone who falls for it would likely trust Lucy to hold the football.
I am sure the U.S. interest in the ISS could be sold to China for a good chunk of money, perhaps 10-20 billion. Not only could that be applied against the deficit, but it would also produce huge annual savings since NASA would have no need for further funding to support ISS, not only in terms of buying seats for astronauts and space for cargo, but also technical and flight control. This would probably save 2-3 billion a year over the next 10 years, a total savings of 20-30 billion in addition to what ever cash NASA received for the ISS.
The problem is that US systems and operations are integral to the ISS. A lot of the technology would have to be handed over to the Chinese (including classified things like TDRSS) and someone would have to replace NASA’s mission control operations.
I suppose if China is going to steal that stuff anyway in the near future without repercussion, it’d make some sense to sell it to them. But the change of ownership doesn’t sound feasible to me.
Karl,
[[[The problem is that US systems and operations are integral to the ISS. A lot of the technology would have to be handed over to the Chinese (including classified things like TDRSS) and someone would have to replace NASA’s mission control operations.]]]
I am sure commercial substitutes could be found for the ancient technology NASA is using. Isn’t that the whole basis of Commercial Crew, replacing “antique” systems like the Shuttle with state of the art commerical systems.
I am sure commercial substitutes could be found for the ancient technology NASA is using. Isn’t that the whole basis of Commercial Crew, replacing “antique” systems like the Shuttle with state of the art commerical systems.
The transportation system is very modular. You just need something that can dock with the ISS. The systems I’m talking about would need to be either ripped out or left in place.
Karl,
Well if those 20 year old systems represent such an advancement in technology for the Chinese then the Chinese will likely pay more then $30 billion for the ISS 🙂
Or maybe the Indians will buy it.
Even better, maybe we could get the two in a bidding war over it.
Or one condition of the sale is that the country that buys it could simply paid NASA to operate those systems until the ISS is deorbited.