I have some thoughts on Bob Zimmerman’s thoughts over at Open Market.
23 thoughts on “More Space Socialism From Republicans”
One thing the left knows and has down pat is the purge. It’s something the right could learn. Space socialism is as good a litmus test as any.
What’s even more nutty on the part of the (retiring) senator is that the heavy lifter doesn’t even deliver jobs to Texas. The states that benefit most are Utah, Alabama, and Florida.
I can believe she’s dumb, but that dumb? I wonder what drives her actions. What’s in it for her?
As I noted over a year ago, the most likely reason we haven’t been visited is because there are Congresses on other planets.
Heheh, good one.
Why do people act surprised when these politicians demonstrate their ignorance? It is a proud fact of this administration that they don’t consult with Congress. Bolden has never had a private conversation with Chairman Wolf or Sen. KBH. They regularly ignore requests for documentation, or are so late in delivering them that they are unavailable for the hearings. Not that it matters, because those documents often say stuff that contradicts OMB.
Simply, this administration is so ignorant of how politics works that it makes you long for the days of Mike Griffin.
I’m longing for the days of Genghis Khan (played by John Wayne of course.)
Could we focus on getting one US commercial provider [SpaceX] as highest priority and once that is established work towards others getting involved.
If NASA can demonstrate it can work well with US provider, doesn’t make better for the other potential providers?
I think that’s a seductive trap.
“I think that’s a seductive trap.”
If SpaceX was a Microsoft would there be a question?
And are we worried about Boeing and Lockmart somehow being shut out?
SpaceX is leading, and any real market would reward a company that gives you the product in the shortest time frame.
What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
It’s isn’t NASA’s job to equalize the market, nor is it NASA job to thin the herd or pick winners. It’s NASA job to buy the best product for the tax payer’s dollars.
NASA delaying the use of SpaceX is sending a bad signal to the market. It’s saying NASA prefers to buy rockets from the russia [for no reason other some misguide political reasons].
All I am saying is NASA should get to the finish line as fast as is safe as it can in terms of cargo and crew to ISS using any US launch company. And I think other companies will have an easier time, if NASA has already bought cargo and looks like it will be buy passenger seats to ISS from US private sector.
I also think that any company that puts fuel depot in orbit, NASA should select that company to use as priority- use it as soon as it’s available to use. And Bigelow put spacestation up, NASA should look for somehow to be customer.
Because rewarding companies who provide NASA with product which would cost NASA billions to develop, is something NASA needs more of- if NASA wants to open the space frontier.
What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
In a nutshell, because it’s the govt. Should they prefer American to foreign companies? Sure. Should they be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. No. That doesn’t mean SpaceX shouldn’t be able to competitively bid against others (but even that opens the chance for govt. to rig the results.)
Govt. is a corrupting influence and should be as limited as possible. Limiting govt. is not something they do to themselves. The voters have to do it.
“What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
In a nutshell, because it’s the govt. Should they prefer American to foreign companies? Sure. Should they be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. No. That doesn’t mean SpaceX shouldn’t be able to competitively bid against others (but even that opens the chance for govt. to rig the results.)”
If you had to get crew or cargo to ISS, within a month- what American launcher provider do you use?
NASA needs that capability. Right now all they got would some shoestring ability. NASA needs for this ability at the point where where routine [safe].
I am disappointed in the slowness in which NASA has proceeded on this matter- anything which would slow down more, should be lessened. That is what mean by having it a priority.
How many launch providers does the US need- 20 or 100. It’s similar to saying how many airlines do the US need. In terms of free market there shouldn’t be a govt deciding this.
I think govt should buy water test payloads- this means provider delivers, govt pays. It’s not complicated. Little red tape. Launch when you can launch.
Granted the cargo and crew to ISS is more complicated.
“Govt. is a corrupting influence and should be as limited as possible. Limiting govt. is not something they do to themselves. The voters have to do it.”
Delaying the commercial delivery of cargo and crew is the corruption. It’s going on for over a decade. Plans to go to some unknown space rock by 2025 is corruption.
It would be nice if the govt. spent our money better. Have you noticed they don’t?
So the answer isn’t to make govt. smarter, it’s to make them less relevant.
I’m willing to bet that if the govt. just gave you a billion dollars it would be better spent.
“ken anthony
March 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm
It would be nice if the govt. spent our money better. Have you noticed they don’t?”
I believe the federal govt should do certain tasks.
For example I think the US military could spend our money better- but I am not Ron Paul fan.
I believe that exploration is a task belonging to federal govt. And I think we need a space agency. I believe that ISS should be continued to be operated. I don’t think we should be dependent upon Russia to send crew and cargo to ISS. I do think it would better if some other entity would run the US aspect of ISS, but until such point I don’t favor abandoning ISS or continuing indefinitely dependent upon the Russians.
In summary I would favor a better political solution regarding US military in regards to global security and would favor some means of handing off ISS by NASA, and obviously more focus of space exploration by NASA rather than building and operating space stations and/or rockets.
So both the US military and NASA could be improved significantly, but both these functions are done a lot better than compared other areas in the federal government. So I am not “against” either of them.
“So the answer isn’t to make govt. smarter, it’s to make them less relevant.”
I would say the idea of trying to make govt smarter is fairly hopeless. Centuries of “effort” in that direction, has been more or less futile. And I would say that one doesn’t need to make them less relevant- they tend to go in that direction without any assistance.
But what I see as relevant in regards to NASA is there duty to explore space- and I believe NASA could explore space, and don’t see any other prospects of some other entity doing this task.
I still have patience that NASA could explore the Moon and Mars and other bodies in the solar system.
Even if Bill Gates wanted to explore the Moon, I would prefer that NASA explore the Moon. I think NASA could do a better job- of course having Gates involved in some way would certainly be good. A billionaire or group of private investor, could politically affect NASA direction [make the current no direction, so heading in right direction]. National leaders don’t need to be elected. I think it’s too bad that Musk is focusing on Mars [though certainly better not having such interests] but if he focused instead on the Moon, I think he would get to Mars quicker. The Moon is simply easier to get to and has more near term commercial potential. The important thing about non-elected interests such as Musk and Bigelow would be there affect upon Congress.
“I’m willing to bet that if the govt. just gave you a billion dollars it would be better spent.”
I would use prizes.
But having billion to spend on space, would also have political power regarding any space activity, and so probably try to leverage that power. Get more billionaires involved, get more congress attention on space, and work with NASA.
In general the most important direction seems suborbital, fuel depots, and Lunar exploration for minable lunar water.
Well, actually I have to spend couple million developing a pipelauncher- mainly because I would obviously regret not doing it:)
And if I get that to work, it worth it just in terms PR.
Oh, and related to that is look into some way getting a spaceport at equator. Ideal would be international spaceport which allows American as well as other nationality to use it as launch site. I imagine that would be a legal and political nightmare. ITAR would the problem. Or it’s opportunity fight ITAR- and I regard ITAR as serious obstacle to opening space frontier.
Next thing I regard as important is having satellite that can make rocket fuel from water in zero gee environment.
One way is design contest.
Winner get dollar amount that could enough to build a prototype, and in addition if or when prototype built, this prize winner gets free rocket launch of the built prototype.
Maybe nanosat, and maybe students. If involves high school and/or college it have good PR value. Maybe different sizes, such small prototype, and if win that and launch and it works, then grand prize would small commercial “gas station”.
Well said, Gbaikie with good ideas. Here’s where I think you’ve identified a problem…
don’t see any other prospects of some other entity doing this task
While some companies have exploited partnership with NASA to expedite development that doesn’t mean it’s required.
Space is commercially viable. It just hasn’t been realized as such because people focus on the wrong things. It just needs to reach a critical mass. Part of which is to recognize assets that are being ignored for now. Eventually these will not be and people will wonder what took us so long. I have hopes we have finally reached that tipping point and what govt. does ultimately will make little difference in future achievements.
I’m a huge fan of the commercial approach — but commercial companies don’t produce the results they have because they’re “good” and traditional approaches are “bad”. Start treating the new entrants like the old entrants and you will quickly reach the same results.
I respect SpaceX and I think they have done and will do great things. But you make them a monopoly provider and pretty soon they’ll have the same cost structure and schedule as Orion (or at least Soyuz). They’re the only game in town then, so “failure is not an option” and they can’t fight back against requirements creep, and besides, why should they try, they can just past the costs along to the customer, and …. and pretty soon there’s no difference.
Commercial has a chance to change the game because of competition. Take that away and there truly is no point.
there truly is no point.. this is NASA.
Commercial has a chance to change the game because of competition.
Bingo! We have a winner.
Correct me if wrong but it isn’t just competition but changes in contracting and procurement regulations that make new space more efficient than NASA. One could make the argument that the gap would be closed quicker funneling all the money to SpaceX as long as the regulatory environment remains as hospitable as it is now.
But throwing more money at SpaceX wont necessarily speed up their development, things take time regardless of the amount of money spent.
Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a company is give it money.
Competition without govt. favoritism (which they do in two ways, regulation and money) works best. Anything else should be seen as corrupting.
One could make the argument…
Yes, they could… It takes no genius to pick the horse in the front. It’s not a bad strategy either. They do that in war, giving the best to the best. However, business leaders are in some ways more important than military leaders. It’s not just the knowledge problem.
We will never know how much stronger our economy would be today if they’d let the auto industry take it’s natural course. Instead we have Obama crowing about how he saved that industry. Another is the 1934 telecom act probably retarded us for decades.
SpaceX is what it is because of its founders vision. We don’t want to substitute some govt. officials vision. It’s not about the money.
There are a few vociferous naysayers in the comments for Bob Zimmerman’s post which Rand linked, arguing that a single government design is always going to be more efficient than wasteful multiple private programs.
Wade forth with your cluebats.
How’d I do coach?
Kelly seems impervious to cluebats. Shall I use my illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator?
This is the classic argument in favor of socialism by socialists. Capitalism and competition are inherently “inefficient” in the socialist’s opinion. Go to any grocery store and see how many different types and sizes of each product category (e.g. breakfast ceral) exist. To the socialist, that’s wasteful. Instead, the government should select “the best” and only allow that one to exist. The reality is that “the best” ends up being pretty poor and often in short quantity because there is no incentive to make larger quantities or to improve quality.
Yes it’s wasteful to have more than one breakfast cereal. Ah, but one cereal is wasteful with regard to other breakfast foods. Yesbut, Breakfast isn’t the only meal… Welcome to the world of the fully, nothing else required, kibbel. All your nutritional needs in a gumball. Flavor removed to make it an enjoyable meal for everyone.
Bolden actually made the argument that because the Mars program was so successful, they decided it deserved to be cut.
What if this wasn’t just ignorance. What if Bolden let slip the actual intent of this administration to cut America down to size?
One thing the left knows and has down pat is the purge. It’s something the right could learn. Space socialism is as good a litmus test as any.
What’s even more nutty on the part of the (retiring) senator is that the heavy lifter doesn’t even deliver jobs to Texas. The states that benefit most are Utah, Alabama, and Florida.
I can believe she’s dumb, but that dumb? I wonder what drives her actions. What’s in it for her?
As I noted over a year ago, the most likely reason we haven’t been visited is because there are Congresses on other planets.
Heheh, good one.
Why do people act surprised when these politicians demonstrate their ignorance? It is a proud fact of this administration that they don’t consult with Congress. Bolden has never had a private conversation with Chairman Wolf or Sen. KBH. They regularly ignore requests for documentation, or are so late in delivering them that they are unavailable for the hearings. Not that it matters, because those documents often say stuff that contradicts OMB.
Simply, this administration is so ignorant of how politics works that it makes you long for the days of Mike Griffin.
I’m longing for the days of Genghis Khan (played by John Wayne of course.)
uTube
Could we focus on getting one US commercial provider [SpaceX] as highest priority and once that is established work towards others getting involved.
If NASA can demonstrate it can work well with US provider, doesn’t make better for the other potential providers?
I think that’s a seductive trap.
“I think that’s a seductive trap.”
If SpaceX was a Microsoft would there be a question?
And are we worried about Boeing and Lockmart somehow being shut out?
SpaceX is leading, and any real market would reward a company that gives you the product in the shortest time frame.
What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
It’s isn’t NASA’s job to equalize the market, nor is it NASA job to thin the herd or pick winners. It’s NASA job to buy the best product for the tax payer’s dollars.
NASA delaying the use of SpaceX is sending a bad signal to the market. It’s saying NASA prefers to buy rockets from the russia [for no reason other some misguide political reasons].
All I am saying is NASA should get to the finish line as fast as is safe as it can in terms of cargo and crew to ISS using any US launch company. And I think other companies will have an easier time, if NASA has already bought cargo and looks like it will be buy passenger seats to ISS from US private sector.
I also think that any company that puts fuel depot in orbit, NASA should select that company to use as priority- use it as soon as it’s available to use. And Bigelow put spacestation up, NASA should look for somehow to be customer.
Because rewarding companies who provide NASA with product which would cost NASA billions to develop, is something NASA needs more of- if NASA wants to open the space frontier.
What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
In a nutshell, because it’s the govt. Should they prefer American to foreign companies? Sure. Should they be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. No. That doesn’t mean SpaceX shouldn’t be able to competitively bid against others (but even that opens the chance for govt. to rig the results.)
Govt. is a corrupting influence and should be as limited as possible. Limiting govt. is not something they do to themselves. The voters have to do it.
“What’s is wrong with NASA acting like a market?
In a nutshell, because it’s the govt. Should they prefer American to foreign companies? Sure. Should they be picking and choosing winners and losers in the marketplace. No. That doesn’t mean SpaceX shouldn’t be able to competitively bid against others (but even that opens the chance for govt. to rig the results.)”
If you had to get crew or cargo to ISS, within a month- what American launcher provider do you use?
NASA needs that capability. Right now all they got would some shoestring ability. NASA needs for this ability at the point where where routine [safe].
I am disappointed in the slowness in which NASA has proceeded on this matter- anything which would slow down more, should be lessened. That is what mean by having it a priority.
How many launch providers does the US need- 20 or 100. It’s similar to saying how many airlines do the US need. In terms of free market there shouldn’t be a govt deciding this.
I think govt should buy water test payloads- this means provider delivers, govt pays. It’s not complicated. Little red tape. Launch when you can launch.
Granted the cargo and crew to ISS is more complicated.
“Govt. is a corrupting influence and should be as limited as possible. Limiting govt. is not something they do to themselves. The voters have to do it.”
Delaying the commercial delivery of cargo and crew is the corruption. It’s going on for over a decade. Plans to go to some unknown space rock by 2025 is corruption.
It would be nice if the govt. spent our money better. Have you noticed they don’t?
So the answer isn’t to make govt. smarter, it’s to make them less relevant.
I’m willing to bet that if the govt. just gave you a billion dollars it would be better spent.
“ken anthony
March 26, 2012 at 10:11 pm
It would be nice if the govt. spent our money better. Have you noticed they don’t?”
I believe the federal govt should do certain tasks.
For example I think the US military could spend our money better- but I am not Ron Paul fan.
I believe that exploration is a task belonging to federal govt. And I think we need a space agency. I believe that ISS should be continued to be operated. I don’t think we should be dependent upon Russia to send crew and cargo to ISS. I do think it would better if some other entity would run the US aspect of ISS, but until such point I don’t favor abandoning ISS or continuing indefinitely dependent upon the Russians.
In summary I would favor a better political solution regarding US military in regards to global security and would favor some means of handing off ISS by NASA, and obviously more focus of space exploration by NASA rather than building and operating space stations and/or rockets.
So both the US military and NASA could be improved significantly, but both these functions are done a lot better than compared other areas in the federal government. So I am not “against” either of them.
“So the answer isn’t to make govt. smarter, it’s to make them less relevant.”
I would say the idea of trying to make govt smarter is fairly hopeless. Centuries of “effort” in that direction, has been more or less futile. And I would say that one doesn’t need to make them less relevant- they tend to go in that direction without any assistance.
But what I see as relevant in regards to NASA is there duty to explore space- and I believe NASA could explore space, and don’t see any other prospects of some other entity doing this task.
I still have patience that NASA could explore the Moon and Mars and other bodies in the solar system.
Even if Bill Gates wanted to explore the Moon, I would prefer that NASA explore the Moon. I think NASA could do a better job- of course having Gates involved in some way would certainly be good. A billionaire or group of private investor, could politically affect NASA direction [make the current no direction, so heading in right direction]. National leaders don’t need to be elected. I think it’s too bad that Musk is focusing on Mars [though certainly better not having such interests] but if he focused instead on the Moon, I think he would get to Mars quicker. The Moon is simply easier to get to and has more near term commercial potential. The important thing about non-elected interests such as Musk and Bigelow would be there affect upon Congress.
“I’m willing to bet that if the govt. just gave you a billion dollars it would be better spent.”
I would use prizes.
But having billion to spend on space, would also have political power regarding any space activity, and so probably try to leverage that power. Get more billionaires involved, get more congress attention on space, and work with NASA.
In general the most important direction seems suborbital, fuel depots, and Lunar exploration for minable lunar water.
Well, actually I have to spend couple million developing a pipelauncher- mainly because I would obviously regret not doing it:)
And if I get that to work, it worth it just in terms PR.
Oh, and related to that is look into some way getting a spaceport at equator. Ideal would be international spaceport which allows American as well as other nationality to use it as launch site. I imagine that would be a legal and political nightmare. ITAR would the problem. Or it’s opportunity fight ITAR- and I regard ITAR as serious obstacle to opening space frontier.
Next thing I regard as important is having satellite that can make rocket fuel from water in zero gee environment.
One way is design contest.
Winner get dollar amount that could enough to build a prototype, and in addition if or when prototype built, this prize winner gets free rocket launch of the built prototype.
Maybe nanosat, and maybe students. If involves high school and/or college it have good PR value. Maybe different sizes, such small prototype, and if win that and launch and it works, then grand prize would small commercial “gas station”.
Well said, Gbaikie with good ideas. Here’s where I think you’ve identified a problem…
don’t see any other prospects of some other entity doing this task
While some companies have exploited partnership with NASA to expedite development that doesn’t mean it’s required.
Space is commercially viable. It just hasn’t been realized as such because people focus on the wrong things. It just needs to reach a critical mass. Part of which is to recognize assets that are being ignored for now. Eventually these will not be and people will wonder what took us so long. I have hopes we have finally reached that tipping point and what govt. does ultimately will make little difference in future achievements.
I’m a huge fan of the commercial approach — but commercial companies don’t produce the results they have because they’re “good” and traditional approaches are “bad”. Start treating the new entrants like the old entrants and you will quickly reach the same results.
I respect SpaceX and I think they have done and will do great things. But you make them a monopoly provider and pretty soon they’ll have the same cost structure and schedule as Orion (or at least Soyuz). They’re the only game in town then, so “failure is not an option” and they can’t fight back against requirements creep, and besides, why should they try, they can just past the costs along to the customer, and …. and pretty soon there’s no difference.
Commercial has a chance to change the game because of competition. Take that away and there truly is no point.
there truly is no point.. this is NASA.
Commercial has a chance to change the game because of competition.
Bingo! We have a winner.
Correct me if wrong but it isn’t just competition but changes in contracting and procurement regulations that make new space more efficient than NASA. One could make the argument that the gap would be closed quicker funneling all the money to SpaceX as long as the regulatory environment remains as hospitable as it is now.
But throwing more money at SpaceX wont necessarily speed up their development, things take time regardless of the amount of money spent.
Sometimes the worst thing you can do to a company is give it money.
Competition without govt. favoritism (which they do in two ways, regulation and money) works best. Anything else should be seen as corrupting.
One could make the argument…
Yes, they could… It takes no genius to pick the horse in the front. It’s not a bad strategy either. They do that in war, giving the best to the best. However, business leaders are in some ways more important than military leaders. It’s not just the knowledge problem.
We will never know how much stronger our economy would be today if they’d let the auto industry take it’s natural course. Instead we have Obama crowing about how he saved that industry. Another is the 1934 telecom act probably retarded us for decades.
SpaceX is what it is because of its founders vision. We don’t want to substitute some govt. officials vision. It’s not about the money.
There are a few vociferous naysayers in the comments for Bob Zimmerman’s post which Rand linked, arguing that a single government design is always going to be more efficient than wasteful multiple private programs.
Wade forth with your cluebats.
How’d I do coach?
Kelly seems impervious to cluebats. Shall I use my illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator?
This is the classic argument in favor of socialism by socialists. Capitalism and competition are inherently “inefficient” in the socialist’s opinion. Go to any grocery store and see how many different types and sizes of each product category (e.g. breakfast ceral) exist. To the socialist, that’s wasteful. Instead, the government should select “the best” and only allow that one to exist. The reality is that “the best” ends up being pretty poor and often in short quantity because there is no incentive to make larger quantities or to improve quality.
Yes it’s wasteful to have more than one breakfast cereal. Ah, but one cereal is wasteful with regard to other breakfast foods. Yesbut, Breakfast isn’t the only meal… Welcome to the world of the fully, nothing else required, kibbel. All your nutritional needs in a gumball. Flavor removed to make it an enjoyable meal for everyone.
Bolden actually made the argument that because the Mars program was so successful, they decided it deserved to be cut.
What if this wasn’t just ignorance. What if Bolden let slip the actual intent of this administration to cut America down to size?