Jeff Foust writes that that’s the question the media should be asking of the presidential campaigns. I agree; until we know why we’re doing it, it’s not possible to come up with sensible way of how to do it.
And this is an interesting parenthetical:
…perhaps, the answer would be not to spend the money at all: in the mid-2000s, the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative members of the House of Representatives, proposed cutting funding for President George W. Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration as part of a broader set of spending cuts. The chairman of the committee at the time? Then-Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, now Trump’s running mate.
Though there’s no requirement that it be the case, historically, the vice president has generally been responsible for space policy (going back to Johnson), though that has been much less the case in the second Bush and Obama administrations (thankfully, in the case of the latter).
Asking NASA “why should you exist” would also help a NASA. Risk aversion becomes more balanced when the ultimate organizational risk is a possibility. This also goes for fighting pork. The president has a stronger hand if he can hold out a veto/zero option
NASA’s ineptitude is a good thing. Less govt. is better govt. Of course, $18b/yr is way too much. The argument that it’s only pennies per person doesn’t justify it either. Even if I got a penny from every resident in America I’d still say NASA is squandering about $15b/yr (damned principles!)
Good thing for NASA that I’m not in charge. We’d get a lot more done with much fewer people.
It seems there will great change in NASA in next 4 years.
Or odds are low it go along as it has been for last 10 years.
We will likely get a change in NASA administer, simply because
the new president wants to use power. It’s Christmas and the toys must
be played with. This by itself does not mean change, other there probably needs to be a reason for new administer so some plan would involved of
why need new administer.
One part of why going to have a change, is SLS is proving it’s a failure.
Or is pretty hard [or requires much dullness in President] to sell idea, it’s been successfully and worth the billions spent of it, and billion more to be spent on it- before it is launched. The billions wasted on it, also makes SLS precious and it’s the Senate which is keeping it alive.
Without any thought involved [probably most likely] changes in SLS will
need to be done and various compromises made- which will in total shape the NASA manned program.
The rules of politics, indicate Clinton will spend her remaining campaign
supporting the Obama’s term in office- things are wonderful and Clinton going to make them even more wonderful. Which means nothing in terms of how she will govern- probably thrash Obama, if elected. Trump other hand will say how much a ruin Obama terms have been.
Trump will continue what he has been doing- addressing issues people care about, and NASA is not one of those issues.
So it seems neither want to talk about space policy, but there people who want it to be debated, and there are space related events which will become part of the News.
Before elections, there will be about 8 SpaceX launches and more specific announcement about Falcon Heavy. This allows for mishaps and/or routine first stage landings of Falon-9. China going to launch a space station. New Shepard going to go up and down with new things done. These and others things have potential to get into the News, without even considering an effort to get space related stuff in the news-
Chinese [and other countries] probably want to insert themselves into
campaign season. And business interests of Musk and Bezos [who quite politically involved] want to shape US space policy.
Though the Olympics coming next, it could be a dud of news story, or could begin and never end in terms of the campaign season- the pollution, government corruption, terrorism and sports drama. Terrorism in general is having bumper crop year which probably be much more fruitful in coming months. So quite possible there going to be a lot of noise and space related news “lost” in it. But even if it is, by time the next president is swore in, the events which occurred [Chinese space station and Falcon Heavy launch probably will have happened].
Which brings us to the first 100 days.
It seems either Trump or Clinton will want to use NASA. So PR stuff.
And seems NASA has bare larder of stuff for the new President. Huge spending on NASA is not a plus. If Musk and/or Bezos have done something recently, having NASA forming stronger alliance with them
could the best one can get from NASA.
Meanwhile I don’t see Congress getting along very well with Clinton and Clinton will go to war against them. She would lose that war.
and biggest thing about Trump re space policy, is Newt.
“It seems there will great change in NASA in next 4 years.
Or odds are low it go along as it has been for last 10 years.
…
One part of why going to have a change, is SLS is proving it’s a failure.”
I thought that was going to happen ever since I heard the Ares program had been approved to implement the VSE. It has since morphed into the SLS.
It still uses the same multiple segment solids. It still has no working main engines (they are in a museum). The rocket is doomed to fail even if it wasn’t economically unsound. I wonder if we’ll also get a Potemkin rocket launch of this before it gets cancelled too.
Then there’s Orion. I can’t fathom how a capsule can be so expensive. Is it the toilet? There seems to be a problem with space toilets for some reason.
So those dreams of detailed space policy white papers will probably remain the stuff of space nerd fantasies.
There is a bit of a conundrum here. NASA is a government agency, so you expect them to “do something”. This creates a perverse incentive where doing something means NASA doing something rather than NASA enabling others to do somethings.
This situation also leads people to think of NASA, and other world governments, being the only groups that can, or should, be engaging in space based activities. It creates the situation where these groups act as gatekeepers to all space based activities, meaning everything is limited by what activities NASA deems appropriate or that NASA can fund.
This creates a managed, or dictated, economy. It doesn’t work on Earth, it wont work in space.
Economic examples are too numerous to mention, but Venezuela springs to mind. There are examples from NASA though, like Bigelow’s products or the Dream Chaser. Good ideas can fall through the cracks regardless of their merit.
Thinking of the question of, “why NASA human spaceflight?” as requiring a government program of doing something rather than enabling Americans, or even other Earthlings, to pursue their own interests is a trap. Maybe that is just an answer to that question but the way the topic is covered in the link, it isn’t even on the list of possible answers.
^^^read it all^^^
Must get copy of Safe Is Not An Option into Mike Pence’s hands. Or someone on his staff, such as Marc Short or Bill Kristol.
+Ending Apolloism
Unless the Russians resurrect Polyus, or something, there isn’t going to be a government mission profile that requires manned spaceflight that I can think of.