That’s the title of a detailed article about the Vision for Space Exploration by Joel Achenbach in Sunday’s Washington Post magazine. The article doesn’t go into the nuts-and-bolts of space policy per se, but offers a broad look at space exploration for a non-professional audience. (I will note that a couple of months back Achenbach emailed me, wanting to talk about some space policy topics, but after an exchange of voice mails and emails we never managed to connect. Despite, or perhaps because of, that, it’s still a good article.) The Post is hosting an online chat with Achenbach Monday at 1 pm EDT so you have an opportunity to question or criticize him about this article.
It is very clear from this article that the Vision for Space Exploration is really a Delusion of Space Exploration.
It has been widely noted that the actual plans jump from the politically difficult (retiring the space shuttle) to the technically difficult (returning to the Moon). Then, according to the article, Bush “sensed” that it was ultimately a plan to go to Mars. So that is the plan: Show an oil painting of astronauts on Mars, then fund a “Crew Exploration Vehicle” destined for LEO.
Meanwhile one of the self-described authors of the VSE, Bretton Alexander, now lobbies for a VSE contractor. Small world.
I thought James Camerons comments were interesting in that article.
James Cameron has the right idea
And Greg, so? As long as he doesn’t have and ties specificly with the contract aquicition department as NASA, who cares. Good for him. Everyone needs to make a buck.
Greg K. has absolutely ZERO objectivity with respect to anything related to the Bush administration or any other Republican for that matter. Keep that in mind when reading any of his comments.
Actually, I think that Vern Ehlers (R-MI) is very reasonable on many of these issues. And John Stennis, the patronage hero of Stennis Space Center, was a Democrat.
I’m not sure why Cecil Trotter feels wants to speak for me on these matters.
“I’m not sure why Cecil Trotter feels wants to speak for me on these matters.”
I neither “feels” nor “wants” to speak FOR you, I’m simply stating my opinion of the majority of your posts.
Like Mark Whittington stated sometime earlier, if Bush/DeLay came out in favor of showers you’d at least consider stop taking them.
First, there is a difference between agreeing with Republicans generally and agreeing with Bush and DeLay specifically. If the Republican Party really were a Bush-DeLay personality cult, then no reasonable person could support it.
Second, the Republican Party is very powerful in Washington at the moment, so much so that their good ideas usually sail through with very little discussion. Only their bad ideas ever get much attention, and not even all of those. For example, nominating Michael Griffin was at least a pretty good idea. In response, both the Republicans and the Democrats on the Senate committee slobbered all over him.
So it’s just trite to point out that Griffin is one of Bush’s good ideas. The same goes for many of Bush’s other good ideas, for example his work visa proposal and his recent Israel policy.
Joel Achenbach took questions about his article here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/05/09/DI2005050900612.html
There seemed to be a number of questions from a few alt-spacers.
I’ve found Mr. Achenbach to be very perceptive on many science and technology related issues. He’s a smart guy.
His article seems on the money to me. I have been willing to cut VSE some slack, but I am increasingly concerned that the vagueness is concealing an empty core, that, policy-wise, there really isn’t any ‘there’ there. I don’t see a process in place for NASA (and the government as a whole) to reach any kind of good decision about its means or ends.
No kidding, Paul. The VSE is deeply unrealistic and, consequently, deeply insincere. The evidence for this is unmistakeable in Achenbach’s article. It is all the more striking that Achenbach himself doesn’t get it; in the Q&A he says that the Vision is a good idea, despite “some flaws”.
The piece struck me as superficial and condescending, adopting the tone a local TV news show might apply to a story about “quirky” people and their hobbies. I.e., not something that normal people need to take seriously.
Achenbach rehashed the tired cliches about ray guns, science fiction and Star Trek, mixed in with the typical, but pointless, rhetoric about visions looking for a purpose. (Seems to me that going because we want to is purpose enough. That’s the motivation for everything we do.)
Fifty years ago, reporters were doing stories quoting famous scientists telling us it was impossible to send people to the Moon. This article is just one more from the same pile.
It’s a reasonable policy to replace an aging vehicle, the space shuttle, with a safer one.
It’s a reasonable policy to build the shuttle replacement with as much existing technology as possible, to reduce the risks of untried new technologies (which was the mistake that earlier shuttle replacement programs had).
It’s a reasonable policy to return to the moon to practice living on another world and learning to use in-situ resources.
billg: I think you sell the article short. Achenbach points out that the ‘purpose’ is nebulous, and your dismissal that ‘we want to’ is enough is disingenuous. If that is all the purpose is, then anything VSE does will, by definition, satisfy the purpose. Are you willing to accept any way that they decide to spend that money as acceptable? I didn’t think so.
I think VSE is getting support right now, in a broad if shallow way, because it is so vague. Proponents of differing approaches can imagine that it will gel into something consonant with their preferences. It’s the politics of psychological projection. I think this bodes poorly for VSE’s future, since much of that support will drop off as decisions get made.
“I think VSE is getting support right now, in a broad if shallow way, because it is so vague.”
In what way is it “so vague”? VSE: Return Shuttle to Flight, complete ISS, return to Moon, plan for manned mission to Mars… sounds like a plan, something we’ve lacked for 30 years.
What other details do we need? Crew names 20 years in advance?
The shuttle/ISS parts aren’t vague, they’re just pointless. They’re sops to the politicians representing the interests currently feeding at these troughs.
The return to the moon part is vague. Where? How many? Why? How? None of these questions are yet answered in a satisfactory way. Apollo and STS had better specified goals. Only ISS had a level of vagueness that approaches VSE, and look at the distaster that turned into.
“The shuttle/ISS parts aren’t vague, they’re just pointless. They’re sops to the politicians representing the interests currently feeding at these troughs.”
I agree, in part. But we have made promises to partner countries with regard to ISS, we need to meet those promises as best we can.
“The return to the moon part is vague. Where? How many? Why? How? None of these questions are yet answered in a satisfactory way. Apollo and STS had better specified goals”
Mmmmm, so JFK said go to the Moon in 1961, and one year after that annoucment “Where? How many? Why? How?” had been answered? No, and its only been one year since Bush annoused the VSE.
“Where? How many? Why? How?” may change a dozen times between now and 2015-2020, it is foolish to expect “Where? How many? Why? How?” to be answered in detail now.
And I would be willing to bet that if NASA had answered “Where? How many? Why? How?” in detail already you would be one of those questioning (rightly so) how they could be so sure this early in the game, and declaring that they were rushing headlong into things.
Cecil: “Crew names 20 years in advance?”
Moon Mission 1 Crew:
Commander: Dan Schrimpsher
I can dream can’t I
>>”Are you willing to accept any way that they decide to spend that money as acceptable? I didn’t think so.”
Yes I am, so long as it actually gets people out of LEO.
I don’t understand the line of reasoning that would seek to see the effort thwarted if it didn’t proceed with one particular approach.
billg: Apollo got people out of LEO. It was also a dead end. You are saying that this would be acceptable again.
Why was Apollo a dead end? It wasn’t anything inherent in the hardware, it could have become more than a dead end. It was a dead end because of politicians, not engineers.
No,Paul, I am not saying a “dead end” is acceptable.
The only reason Apollo was a “dead end” is because we decided to stop. It isn’t hardware that determines if we continue to go forward, it is political will.
Frankly, I don’t understand this kind of objection to the Exploration strategy. Is it an argument for a single all-purpose spacecraft that can do all things? Or is it an argument that all missions for the forseeable future, to all destinations, should be mapped out and budgeted before the first mission flies?
Cecil: Apollo was a dead end because it it achieved its stated goal and was too expensive to justify its continuation. Whining about nasty politicians who don’t want to keep giving you money is just that, whining.
But perhaps it’s an inappropriate comparison because the politicians these days are so much more noble and forward looking than in those days.
(pause) (laughter)
billg: I am objecting to a program that appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately. Choice of goals is very important, since the program will optimize to achieve the stated goals, not the unstated goals you wished it had.
Thus the analogy to Apollo. The program was optimized to reach the moon before 1970, not to create anything economical or sustainable. As a result, it didn’t do the latter, and the house of cards collapsed when the stated goal was achieved.
If you support a big government space program, this should worry you. VSE is NASA’s last best hope. If they screw this up like they screwed up shuttle and ISS, I don’t see them continuing to exist.
Paul, I gather from the tone of your post that you’re trying to be wry and cute, but here goes:
1. A political decision killed Apollo. That decision had little to do with cost and little to do with whether it had or had not achieved its purpose. It was killed to meet the political needs of the Nixon administration. Another administration, with different political needs, might have made a different decision. Here’s the fundamental point: All U.S. government funded space activity exists because it meets a political need. That’s a small truism that’s subsumed by the larger truism that all U.S. government funded activity exists to meet a political need. That’s the way democratic politics work.
2. “…not the unstated goals you wished it had.” Telepathy, eh? How can you pretend to know what I might think? But, to be clear, here they are: I’m interested in returning to the Moon, establishing a permanent presence there, going to Mars for the first time and then repeating it and establishing a permanent presence there, as well as spinning out those capabilities to include exploration and potential exploitation of selected asteroids. Obviously, that’s pretty much in line with NASA’s Vision, but, also obviously, any plan for moving out into the inner Solar System would include those destinations.
3. Elimination of the “one-off” factor that seems to draw your criticism derives not from any particular hardware choice, but from the political decision to continue to fund and repeat missions, and, importantly, our permanent presence there. We will acquire the infrastructure necessary to support human activity in the inner Solar System by engaging. repeatedly, in human activity in the inner Solar System. The infrastructure will be built to support the activity, whether that activity is funded by tax dollars or the private sector. The infrastructures that support aviation, truck and automobile travel, and the railroads were built for the same reason: to support activities that were already in progress. Because of the promise of greater returns, a mixed bag of capital, political and (private) financial, was spent to fund and create those infrastructures. The same thing will occur in regard to human space activity. And it is likely to be as haphazard and as inefficient as those earlier efforts.
4. I support human space activity. I really don’t care who pays for it. I believe the private sector will do things it thinks are profitable. I don’t believe that’s enough to support the objectives I seek. For the forseeable future, I don’t believe there’s profit to be made in going to the Moon or Mars or the asteroids. Some decades down the line, that may change, if the appropriate technology and the infrastrucure exists. The private sector will not create that technology and infrastructure. So, someone else will need to do it.
5. Finally, I still don’t understand comments like “… appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately.” or “… not to create anything economical or sustainable.” The former seems to mean that you think the Exploration strategy targets the wrong destinations. The latter seems to indicate you want the government to create hardware and strategy that will, somehow, morph into whatever it is that you prefer.
> A political decision killed Apollo. That decision had little to do with cost
Fatuous nonsense. The cost of the Apollo program had everything to do with whether it would continue. The more costly a program, the more political return it must produce to survive against all the other interests vying for that government money. Thinking that cost and politics are separable is just incredibly naive.
> “…not the unstated goals you wished it had.” Telepathy, eh? How can you pretend to know what I might think?
[…]
> We will acquire the infrastructure necessary to support human activity in the inner Solar System by engaging. repeatedly, in human activity in the inner Solar System. The infrastructure will be built to support the activity, whether that activity is funded by tax dollars or the private sector.
I think it is becoming increasingly clear that it is questionable whether VSE will provide this infrastructure, any more than Apollo did. Even with VSE costs will remain outrageously high.
> Finally, I still don’t understand comments like “… appears to be at risk of choosing its goals inappropriately.” or “… not to create anything economical or sustainable.”
Inappropriate goals are goals that do not lead to the results we desire. For example, construction of shuttle and ISS were inappropriate goals. They led nowhere useful. As for economical and sustainable: are you saying that it’s ok if government programs are uneconomical and unsustainable? This is the same tired economically illiterate naivete that has allowed the space program to meander for decades.
I think you need to think through your support for VSE in more detail, with a more self-critical eye.
>> “Thinking that cost and politics are separable is just incredibly naive.”
Don’t believe I said cost and politics are separable. I said the Nixon administration killed Apollo because it didn’t serve their political needs.
>>”I think it is becoming increasingly clear that it is questionable whether VSE will provide this infrastructure, any more than Apollo did. Even with VSE costs will remain outrageously high.”
Maybe to you, but not to me, and, I suspect, everyone else lacking your apparent ability to see into the future. As for costs, were told that VSE can be funded while maintaining NASA’s budget at approximately current levels. Maybe that’s right, maybe that’s wrong.
If, like, Apollo, some future administration cancels VSE after a few minimal Lunar expeditions, then you’re right, it won’t create any infrastructure. But, if we continue to fly the missions, if we establish and support permanent presences on the Moon and Mars, then the effort and activity needed to support those missions and those presences will, in fact, create the infrastructure. The point is that you don’t build infrastructure and only then decide to do something with it. You do what you choose to do, build the tools and the capacity to do it, and that becomes infrastructure. Columbus would have died of old age if he’d had to wait for a TransAtlantic Maritime Infrastructure to be built. He didn’t wait. He sailed, he sailed again and then again, others sailed a few times, and then many others sailed many more times. Whatever, and everything, that was created to support those expeditions was, in fact, infrastructure.
>>”Inappropriate goals are goals that do not lead to the results we desire.”
I expressed my goals. I’d hope many people consider them appropriate. NASA’s strategy appears very conservative and quite likely to lead to the results I desire. I certainly have much more confidence that NASA will succeed than will any potential private sector effort. (As I said, I don’t think the private sector will do the Moon or Mars because there’s no money in it for the forseeable future. They’ll be busy building suborbital thrill rides and trying to break into the LEO market.)
>>”…are you saying that it’s ok if government programs are uneconomical and unsustainable?”
Well, at least you asked this time, rather than putting words in my mouth and, then, busying yourself countering statements I haven’t made.
In fact, it is not only OK with me, but I think it is also inevitable and natural. The private sector does what it thinks is profitable. To repeat, I don’t believe the goals of NASA’s Vision can be profitably achieved. That means, if those goals are to be reached, government must do it. Does that mean the government should proceed in an “uneconomical” manner? (Whatever you mean by that; it is unclear.) No, of course not. As for “unsustainable”, again, I’m not sure what you mean, except that the enterprise should generate enough profit that it becomes self-sustaining. Again, that’s not in the cards. Government programs are sustained, as I said at the top, by politial will.