Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space, Technology and Society

Presidential Politics And Space

43 Comments

This piece seems sort of clueless about how space policy works:

While 65,000 people have signed a petition asking NASA to send the Republican front-runner into space and leave him there, it looks far more likely that Trump will be in the position to decide how much money the agency will receive.

No, as they note earlier, it is Congress who decides how much money the agency receives. All the president can do is make a request.

It rather looks like Trump plans to continue Obama’s alleged gutting of the agency, and if that happens, the Mars mission would be in serious jeopardy.

Pro tip: With regard to this, and their later comment about Sanders, there is no “Mars mission,” and NASA’s inability to get to Mars has little to nothing to do with how much money it receives.

And they act as though Hillary maintaining the status quo would be a good thing.

Feh.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here‘s a smarter (not hard! But it is worth a read) from Stephen Smith on Elon’s Mars threats to maintaining SLS pork, with bonus commentary on the schizophrenia of planetary protection.

43 thoughts on “Presidential Politics And Space”

  1. We can ridicule how clueless some are, but I don’t see much intelligence anywhere. Mars has the potential of being a truly free land but most (almost universally) want to deliver it into government control.

    1. How about both? Lets say there is a colony or settlement of some kind either controlled by an Earth government or a Mars government, would they stop you from leaving and setting up your own place beyond their control?

  2. The first-quoted post isn’t so much clueless about space policy as clueless about the entire budget process.

    I don’t know how the hell people manage to reach adulthood without someone, even as an aside, mentioning that Congress controls the budget to them.

    It’s not like it’s a secret, despite how mass media seems to usually treat the President as a Sun-King, from which flows all good and all evil.

    1. Sun-King? “L’etat c’est mois” and “Apres mois, le deluge” and all that?

      You got the wrong century and the wrong part of the world. Try “Kim Jong-un.”

  3. Lady in audience: “Sir, when will we land a man on the Moon?”
    President Kennedy” “When, uh, Senator Goldwater wants to go…”
    __The First Family__

  5. Humanity could use some breathing room beyond the easy reach of existing governments. We’re not going to get there with a government exploration and development program.

  6. Congress sets NASA’s budget, but the executive branch has some influence on the process. It seems unlikely that the ISS commercial cargo and commercial crew programs would have gotten as much funding without the role played by the Bush and Obama administrations. Those programs, in turn, have been a major source of revenue and experience for SpaceX.

    It would be great to see Lori Garver (who pushed for commercial cargo and crew as Bolden’s deputy) as the next NASA administrator.

    2. If one could order ala carte, I’d like to see Lori G. as NASA Admin. as well. Problem is, the only person in either party running for president who’s likely to appoint her to the job is HRC.

      Way too high a price to pay.

    1. I really can’t get behind an Antarctic base on the moon. It would become a model for how not to colonize. The thing is, it’s very clear that we do not need the moons resources to colonize mars. All it would do is delay and add to the cost.

      That’s because we can send something like MCT directly to mars without stopping anywhere to fill the tanks (or pay the extra Delta-V penalty.) Dragon, while more expensive per colonist than MCT, will be available and affordable for initializing a martian colony.

      That’s not to say a moon base, which is certainly within the budget limits of NASA (and without taking anything away from mars either) is not a good idea. Let’s do both.

      1. Agree that Antarctic research is pretty much the polar opposite (pun intended) of a sustainable, expandable model for extraterrestrial human presence.

        More thoughts here on why doing both Moon and Mars in the same old way isn’t going to happen either.

  8. Elon’s Mars threats to maintaining SLS pork

    For about the millionth time — Elon is not threatening SLS. On the contrary. He wants NASA to increase its budget to find both SLS *and* Falcon Very Heavy.

    The myth of Elon Musk as a libertarian superhero serves no useful purpose except to allow for the construction of narratives which Elon himself does not believe in. I know people want to think Elon is the real-life Tony Stark, but remember, Tony Stark was a government contractor — just like Elon. You never saw Tony threatening funding for SHIELD helicarriers, did you?

      1. If NASA feels threatened, they will simply cut off funding the COTS/CCDev.

        Elon knows that. That’s why he refused to sell a Dragon capsule to Dennis Tito for Inspiration Mars. And why he will only do Red Dragon in cooperation with NASA.

        People want to believe Elon is Ironman, but he’s more like a monkey on a string. A successful government contractor does not threaten his customer’s interests.

        1. If NASA feels threatened, they will simply cut off funding the COTS/CCDev.

          Are you so clueless and conspiratorial as to imagine that “NASA” is an entity with an individual brain and will? There are numerous NASAs.

          1. Sorry. “NASA will…” Is common shorthand for “NASA management will…”

            I forget you like to pretend not to understand such things.

        2. COTS is over. I think you mean cut off CRS and CCDev money. But NASA, as a whole, won’t do that. NASA is not a unified entity as Rand correctly notes below. ISS is NASA’s only big operational program and it has more friends and supporters inside NASA than SLS and Orion do. Trying to cut out SpaceX would make ISS unsustainable and would never hold up in court anyway – SpaceX has contracts for CRS and CCDev after all. In the case of CRS, it has two of them, actually.

          MSFC and Sen. Shelby did their best to shoot down COTS and CCDev when they were both much easier targets than they are now. They didn’t manage to do it. Inflicted a couple nasty flesh wounds, but nothing fatal. Both programs have grown and strengthened since then to the point that any potshots essayed against them now would simply result in the bullets bouncing off.

          SpaceX is going to do what it’s going to do. NASA – all parts of NASA – will simply have to deal with it as best they can. Right now, the ISS people at NASA are SpaceX’s biggest fans. The recent public announcement of Red Dragon provides ample motive for the SMD folks to climb on-board too. That leaves pretty much just MSFC looking to scupper SpaceX. They haven’t got the sway it would take to do that.

          1. Trying to cut out SpaceX would make ISS unsustainable and would never hold up in court anyway – SpaceX has contracts for CRS and CCDev after all

            You don’t think contracts have escape clauses?

            If you want to see how easy it is to sue NASA, look at SNC’s lawsuit. NASA blatantly ignored its own stated selection criteria because one senior official wanted to give the CCDev contract to Boeing instead.

            Even if SpaceX sued NASA and won, it would lose revenue while the lawsuit was going on. And NASA would retaliate the next time contracts were up for bid.

            I realize it’s Politically Incorrect to suggest that that COTS/CCDev has any flaws. The space advocacy community has found its true love and is unable to acknowledge anything but absolute imperfection in its beloved. Apart from occasional whining about the size of the dowry, that is. 🙂

            And, please, let’s not quibble over what the program is called this week is lame. When a manufacturer changes the cereal box but the contents remain the same, it’s not really a new cereal, no matter what the ads state.

          2. Face it Edward, SpaceX will continue and unless NASA changes it is going to fade.

            People go gaga over how much money can be extracted from NASA (not always appreciating how they add to costs.) It’s much more sustainable to have lots of smaller income streams than one big one from govt, which as you say can be cut off (for fickled reasons.)

        3. Oh yeah, about that “monkey on a string” thing. You’re confusing SpaceX with outfits like Northrop-Grumman, LockMart and ULA which get essentially all their money from the U.S.government. SpaceX already does more launches for private sector entities than it does for Uncle Sugar. Even throwing the upcoming national security launch business into the pot, the purely commercial fraction of SpaceX’s business will continue to grow faster than its government contracts. There’s no “string” and Elon is no “monkey.”

          1. So, you think Elon agreed to sell a Dragon capsule to Dennis Tito, then?

            Ideology is one thing. Evidence is another.

          2. Dennis Tito turned out to be a flake begging for an SLS/Orion flight. Elon has always reserved the right to say no… Even to NASA that had to backpedal on heavy handedness (I forget the incident, but I’m sure others here will remember it.)

      2. Also, your own argument cuts both ways. Just turn it around: If NASA needs Big Falcon Rockets, doesn’t it need a backup such as SLS in case BFR is unavailable? I’m sure that’s an argument NASA and Elon will use if and when the time comes.

        1. Also, your own argument cuts both ways. Just turn it around: If NASA needs Big Falcon Rockets, doesn’t it need a backup such as SLS in case BFR is unavailable?

          I know you may find this shocking, but I have never argued that NASA needs Big Falcon Rockets.

          1. BFR is Elon’s vision, not NASAs. NASA is planning Apollo to mars (Dick’s next ghost town… I love that analogy.) Elon is planning to establish a million person city on mars… two entirely different goals.

            BFR will not require the army of people that SLS is designed to support. SLS provides zero backup for SLS.

            Will the American govt. stand in the way of BFR/MCT going to mars? Elon may need his own private launch island (under some friendly govt. jurisdiction?)

          3. More shocking, from your point of view, is that Elon may occasional decide to do things you haven’t argued for.

          5. You’re not shocked that Elon hasn’t always done what you want in the past?

            But you know he will do what you want and threaten SLS in the future? Even though he says he has no interest in doing so?

          6. But you know he will do what you want and threaten SLS in the future? Even though he says he has no interest in doing so?

            It doesn’t matter what I want him to do, and it doesn’t matter what he wants to do. He cannot fly Falcon Heavy without threatening SLS. I suppose it’s possible that he’s been deliberately slow rolling the program so as not to do so, but at some point he has to satisfy his backlog of customers for it.

            I wish that your continuing failed attempts to read my mind annoyed you as much as it does me, but you seem to perversely enjoy failure, so I guess you’ll continue.

        2. To the extent BFR has any backup it will be Falcon Heavy, especially after that Raptorized upper stage comes into service. But SpaceX is not building BFR to launch government payloads so the whole “backup” idea is pretty much a non sequitur anyway.

          1. But SpaceX is not building BFR to launch government payloads

            Well, Elon says it will be built with government money, so I expect he will dispute that statement *quite* strongly.

            Again, there’s an enormous gap between what SpaceX believes and what SpaceX fans believe SpaceX believes.

            (I deliberately said “SpaceX believes” instead of explicitly naming the senior management of SpaceX just to give Rand something more to scream about.)

          3. Elon says [BFR] will be built with government money

            What has that got to do with anything? Elon has always taken money when available. It doesn’t change his goals or obligate him beyond contractual requirements.

          4. Okay, I guess I have to explain this in baby steps, too.

            NASA doesn’t normally fund rockets unless they can carry government payloads. So, if Elon wants NASA to fund BFR, it will have to be designed to carry NASA payloads. If NASA agrees to fly payloads on BFR, it will argue For SLS as a backup in case BFR is unavailable. Any more dots I need to connect for you?

          5. if Elon wants NASA to fund BFR

            It’s not a want. It’s a why not? That’s not a casual question. He often decides not.

            BFR has a purpose that’s bigger than anything NASA might offer. So if it doesn’t interfere with that purpose why not take the money? I don’t however see NASA providing any funds for BFR.

    2. Agreed that Elon is no “libertarian superhero.” He’s also not an Obama crony as long as we’re on the subject of fictional portrayals with significant fan bases.

      It is also quite true that, when prodded, Elon always sticks up for NASA in general and SLS in particular. He’s always magnanimous and diplomatic when he can easily afford to be.

      But you’re quite wrong about the actual, as opposed to rhetorical, threat posed to SLS-Orion by what SpaceX is doing. Even in initial trim, Falcon Heavy, used expendably, can orbit 3/4 the mass SLS Block 1 can for ca. 5% of the price. Moreover, it will be launching, right from the start, at a rate exceeding the maximum launch tempo possible for SLS (2 per year) and vastly exceeding the launch tempo actually planned for it (1 every 2 years… or 3… or 4). By the time the Block 1B SLS debuts, with the Exploration Upper Stage (90 – 100 tonnes to LEO), FH will likely have a Raptor-based upper stage that could keep its expendable LEO single-launch tonnage at 3/4 or more of SLS’s. The new FH upper stage, though, might well be reusable. Combined with FH’s vastly higher sustainable launch cadence, a fully reusable FH could support large missions with multiple launches of less-than-ultimate payloads. Then there’s the whole BFR-MCT thing. In less than five months we could all be finding out that SpaceX’s Mars lifter will render even the unbudgeted SLS BLock 2 a distant second in the powerlifting event of the Space Olympics.

      These will be facts on the ground. Facts have consequences. People – even Congresspeople – are going to notice that SLS and Orion no longer have any defensible rationale for existence.

      So no, what SpaceX says is no threat to SLS-Orion. What SpaceX does over the next few years, though, is an existential threat to SLS-Orion.

Comments are closed.