At a town hall meeting in Columbus, Indiana, on Friday, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked again about NASA. Specifically, a “young man” asked him, “What do you plan to do with the space agency?” Obama’s answer was pretty much the same as what he has said recently: that it was time to revisit what NASA should be doing and how. “I think it needs to be redefined, though,” he said. “We’ve kind of lost a sense of mission in terms of what it is that NASA should be trying to achieve and I think that we’ve gotta make some big decisions about whether or not, are we going to try to send manned, you know, space launches, or are we better off in terms of what we’re learning sending unmanned probes which oftentimes are cheaper and less dangerous, but yield more information.”
If there was one relatively new thing in his comments, it was that it appears that he would defer any decisions on exactly how NASA’s mission should be redefined until after he becomes president (assuming, of course, he’s elected.) “[T]hat’s a major debate I’m going to want to convene when I’m president of the United States,” he said. “What direction do we take the space program in? Once we have a sense of what’s going to be most valuable for us in terms of gaining knowledge, then I think we’ll able to adjust the budget so that we’re going all out on what it is that we’ve decided to do.”
Such language is unlikely to mollify space advocates concerned about the potential changes a President Obama might make to NASA. Then again, there hasn’t been nearly the outcry against Obama’s proposals, including a proposed five-year delay for Constellation, as some might expect. In an article last week in The Space Review, Greg Zsidisin describes Obama’s proposed changes and the response he got from Obama when he asked the candidate a question during a Wyoming town hall meeting last month. Zsidisin followed that article up this week with a review of the positions, or the lack thereof, space industry organizations and advocacy groups have taken in response to Obama’s proposals, or those of the other candidates, for that matter.
Zsidisin blames a lot of the relative silence on the issue on the fact that many of these groups are 501(c)(3)’s, organizations with tax-exempt status from the IRS that strictly limits what they can do in terms of political lobbying. (A contributing factor, he adds, is the degree of conservatism—in the sense of cautiousness, not as a region of the political spectrum—in space advocacy, which Zsidisin blames on the fact that so many members of advocacy groups are also employed in the space industry.) What’s needed, he argues, are more 501(c)(4) lobbying groups like ProSpace, which do not have the same restrictions on lobbying as their 501(c)(3) cousins.
And, as it turns out, one such lobbying group is now forming. In another essay in today’s issue of The Space Review, Jeff Brooks describes the formation of such a group, called the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration. Brooks describes the group as “the country’s only fully-empowered Political Action Committee (PAC) designed to support pro-space candidates in federal elections.” In the essay, he argues, “Politicians must be made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual.”
I dunno… the vulnerability of NASA’s human space flight program is arguably due more to its lack of performance over the past 30-odd years — and its current technical/schedule/budget problems — than a lack of political hardball.
PACs are suppossed to collect contributions to support/target specific candidates for election/defeat. What congressional candidates would a civil space PAC support/target? Candidates in districts and states with NASA field centers are all going to be pro-NASA. Spending money to support them would be a waste of contributions. And candidates outside those districts and states who are not supportive of certain civil space activities (such as Barney Frank’s anti-Mars language) are not going to be defeated on the basis of space issues, because their constituents are driven by other issues. So spending money to defeat them would also be a waste of contributions.
What else would a PAC do? Have the same volunteer advocates and industry lobbyists give the same presentations to the same congressional staffers? What’s new here?
Maybe I’m especially dimwitted this Monday morning, but after reading Zsidisin’s article and visiting the website for the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration, I fail to see the value-added or unique contribution that a PAC will make in the civil space arena. It’s an interesting development — and maybe something good will come of it — but I don’t see what or how.
If we want a federal human space flight program that is not vulnerable to the kinds of questions that Obama is asking, then NASA has to pursue a human space flight program that does not raise those kinds of questions. Even a PAC can’t protect a government human space flight program that has spent hundreds of billions dollars over the past 30-odd years without making any accomplishments in actual space exploration, and in the face of much cheaper, competing robotic programs that have lapped the solar system and more. Even the best PAC can’t protect a government human space flight program that, when given a golden opportunity to pursue actual space exploration, wastes it pursuing Earth-to-orbit vehicles that are chronically riddled with technical issues — witness continued Ares/Orion performance/mass problems (add http://www):
.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5401
It’s no wonder Obama is asking these kinds of questions. NASA’s management of its human space flight programs have left them wide open to these critiques. It’s a wonder the other candidates don’t also see NASA’s human space flight programs as a bank.
To first order, the problem is not political, it’s managerial. NASA’s management of its human space flight programs has to improve greatly before these programs will be worth more than the scant amounts of political capital that are currently spent on them.
My 2 cents… FWIW.
ESAS has been underfunded over the last several years.
In that context here is John McCain’s space policy:
Ares 1 will fly in 2014 or 2015, maybe, and John McCain supports funding consistent with that vision. This is a route to KILL America’s space program while offering smiling pandering platitudes seemingly in support of space exploration.
Obama at least tells the truth and explains that we need to do a better job of articulating what it is the taxpayers will get for their money.
McCain and Clinton propose to keep on underfunding NASA but with a smile and kind words that close the door to any discussion as to whether ESAS is affordable or sustainable.
“ESAS has been underfunded over the last several years.
“In that context here is John McCain’s space policy:
‘…He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President’s vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars…’
“Ares 1 will fly in 2014 or 2015, maybe, and John McCain supports funding consistent with that vision.”
In McCain’s defense, as chair of the Senate Commerce Committee, McCain did vote to _authorize_ adequate funding for the VSE. However, congressional _appropriations_, which McCain does not serve on, have not kept up.
However, that assessment, like McCain’s statement, is backwards looking. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results. Unlike the Clinton and Obama campaigns, we have yet to see any forward-looking details beyond “strong support” out of the McCain campaign on where McCain intends to steer NASA in the future.
FWIW…
Has Congress ever funded NASA at lower level than George W. Bush requested? As I recall, no.
Therefore, for John McCain to say he supports funding consistent with the President’s vision, rather plainly indicates (IMHO) an intention to stay the course with NASA budgets extrapolated from what Bush 43 submitted in recent years. John McCain’s statement also appears to offer solid support of ESAS and Ares 1.
But!
No matter what is said today, budgetary issues and the twin gaps (Soyuz to ISS and worker layoffs during NASA’s stand-down from human spaceflight) will disrupt whatever plans our next POTUS may think they have.
Has Congress ever funded NASA at lower level than George W. Bush requested? As I recall, no.
As I recall, yes. At least one fiscal year, maybe two, Congress has failed to pass a NASA budget with a presidentially-requested increase, and instead funded NASA via a continuing resolution that froze funding levels at the previous year’s level.
With Sen. McCain Ares I/CEV will be at least be funded and built. By contrast Obama has already stated his intent to use the Ares I/CEV money for his educational welfare scheme.
True the past is no guarantee of the future, but the sun raising today is a good indication it will raise tomorrow. Why would McCain do a radical switch from supporting NASA for the last 3 decades to opposing it all of a sudden? Just to “save†a few dollars when there is so much to cut elsewhere?
By contrast has Obama ever even voted in support of NASA? Or spoke of it before calling for a cut in its budget during this campaign?
As for the study Obama is calling for. I am sure he will commission a study, with Dr. Parks as the Chair. Then add the usual cross-section of “space experts” all planetary scientists, from the NAS to make it look legitimate.
And the “shocking” results of the “Parks†Commission? Human spaceflight is not worth the cost, instead we need have more robotic missions for science. .
So Obama will have the cover he needs to cut NASA funding while funding the Russians to fly Soyuz to support ISS. He will then reward the “Parks†Commission by continuing or perhaps slightly expanding NASA robotics missions. Throw the planetary scientists a billion or so of the billion saved by cutting Ares I/CEV and they will be dancing in the streets. He will then announce that he will no longer waste money on a Shuttle replacement and will use it instead to fund his educational program.
Asked why he will just answer critics by just pointing to the study, saying its not My decision, I am just following the recommendations of the “Parks†Commission. And if any member of Congress argues against destruction of NASA’s core mission they will be branded as advocating wasteful spending and preferring “bread and circuses†over kids education. After all they are just representing those bitter small town voters.
Sure Bill, you will fight it then. But that is like waiting until Hitler reached London before fighting him.
If space advocates support human spaceflight they need to be active now against Obama. Otherwise they will deserve what they get.
Throw the planetary scientists a billion or so of the billion saved by cutting Ares I/CEV and they will be dancing in the streets.
That should be billions saved…
Anon: “With Sen. McCain Ares I/CEV will be at least be funded and built. By contrast Obama has already stated his intent to use the Ares I/CEV money for his educational welfare scheme.”
Actually, according to Spaceref, Obama has specifically called for building Ares 1/Orion:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647
In contrast, he’s said he’ll delay the lunar part of Constellation 5 years to partly fund the educational program.
As far as I’m concerned, that’s the *worst* plan – going through all the cost and missed opportunities of developing Ares 1/Orion, but then presumably just using them for ISS support (i.e. politically crushing commercial ISS support).
That might be bearable if the Obama educational plan were targetted, at least to the extent that it uses former NASA funds, to math/science/space education and commercial space (e.g. university space research involving students, space-related scholarships, student access to commercial suborbital services and smallsats, student-oriented space prizes, Teachers in Space, purchasing commercial Earth observation/space data for grad students to analyze, etc).
However, Obama hasn’t come out with any space policy statement to that effect, and so far I don’t see any reason to expect such statements or other commercial-space friendly policies from the Obama campaign.
Anyway, I think Rand is right about now – during the election process – being a great time for the space policy debate. Let’s assume the worst from any candidate that can’t be bothered to engage in the debate now – being ready to listen if they come up with something, of course. Clinton and McCain at least have space policy statements on their campaign sites that we can evaluate.
“With Sen. McCain Ares I/CEV will be at least be funded and built.”
Evidence?
McCain has one past vote in general support of the VSE. But he has taken no specific actions in the past, or made any specific references to his future plans, for Ares I or Orion. (Clinton and Obama have provided such specific references and plans.)
“By contrast Obama has already stated his intent to use the Ares I/CEV money for his educational welfare scheme.”
Incorrect. Obama has stated his intent to defer a human lunar return — i.e., funding for Ares V/EDS/Altair — but not Ares I/Orion.
(As an aside, why are we also using misleading and pejorative language like “educational welfare” and “scheme”? It’s Obama’s education plan. It may be good. It may be bad. But it’s not “welfare” and it’s not a “scheme”.)
“True the past is no guarantee of the future, but the sun raising today is a good indication it will raise tomorrow.”
The sun rises. It does not “raise”.
“Why would McCain do a radical switch from supporting NASA for the last 3 decades to opposing it all of a sudden?”
Evidence?
McCain has publicly supported taking the budget knife to NASA multiple times in the past. Here’s one example from just a few years ago (2003):
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, suggested creating a base-closing commission for NASA akin to those that helped shut down military installations… McCain charges that much of the spending Congress funnels each year to individual NASA centers amounts to “disgraceful” waste, unrelated to national priorities.”
See (add http://www.):
globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030323-nasa01.htm
“I am sure he will commission a study, with Dr. Parks as the Chair.”
Not realistic in the least. Parks is too outspoken, biased, and nutty to participate in, nevertheless be the chair of, a Presidential commission.
“Then add the usual cross-section of “space experts†all planetary scientists, from the NAS to make it look legitimate.”
Several points:
1) The National Academy of Science (NAS) does not run Presidential commissions. That’s done by the White House.
2) The NAS does not provide advice of any kind. It’s a membership organization. Advice is provided by the National Research Council (NRC).
3) This is the same NRC that puts out reports like:
“Protecting Astronauts from Radiation in Space”
“Review of NASA’s Exploration Technology Development Program”
“Review of the Space Communications Program of NASA’s Space Operations Mission Directorate”
“Systems Integration for Project Constellation”
“Stepping Stones to the Future of Space Exploration”
Etc., etc.
Yes, the NRC is clearly and overwhelmingly biased in favor of robotic science missions. [rolls eyes…]
Please, let’s do our homework before we insert our feet so deeply into our mouths.
“Human spaceflight is not worth the cost”
If we’re so sure that NASA’s human space flight programs are worth the cost, then we should be able to produce evidence supporting such. We’ve spent hundreds of billions of dollars on human space flight programs since Apollo. What have they produced that is so valuable that it is worth that amount of taxpayer dollars?
“And if any member of Congress argues against destruction of NASA’s core mission they will be branded as advocating wasteful spending and preferring ‘bread and circuses'”
Beyond flights that inspire the national spirit (arguably “bread and circuses”), what concrete products or national benefits have NASA’s human space flight programs created since the Apollo era?
“After all they are just representing those bitter small town voters.”
Huh? What does this have to do with the subject at hand?
“But that is like waiting until Hitler reached London before fighting him.”
Why are we comparing a U.S. Presidential candidate to one of the worst genocidal dictators and warmongering despots of 20th century? Are we this out of touch with reality? Is that really necessary?
“If space advocates support human spaceflight they need to be active now against Obama.”
No, if space advocates support human space flight, then they need to ask the same hard questions about NASA’s human space flight programs that Obama is asking (and that McCain has asked in the past).
FWIW…
anonymous.space
Congratulations! You have just answered the question that Greg Zsidisin asked. Why hasn’t the space advocate community cried out against Obama’s call to kill Ares I/CEV? Because many in the space advocate community simply don’t believe in the value of human spaceflight as you demonstrated.
And it is always amazing how you twist the arguments of others. Case in point.
Why are we comparing a U.S. Presidential candidate to one of the worst genocidal dictators and warmongering despots of 20th century? Are we this out of touch with reality? Is that really necessary?
And what I actually said
Sure Bill, you will fight it then. But that is like waiting until Hitler reached London before fighting him.
The message, which you seem to choose to not understand and mis-state in your usual fashion, is that you don’t wait until your opposition is holding all the advanatges to fight them. You join the battle early while they are still gaining strength and you have the best chance of winning. For Bill White to say he will fight Obama in Congress over the issue of saving America’s space program AFTER he’s elected President and has all the power of that office to kill it is the same as Churchill letting Hitler invade England first before fighting him. And yes it is necessary to make that point to Bill who thinks it will be a simple matter to keep Obama from doing away with human spaceflight once in office. You are the one twisitng the story as you have with most of my post.
Senator McCain has been a strong supporter of space for three decades. WHY do you think that will suddenly change tomorrow? What evidence do YOU have he will do a flip-flop on it? Yes, he called for a BRAC for NASA Centers. NASA has too many Centers and could stand to close some to save money. That is not against the VSE or ESAS any more then closing some military bases is againist the War of Terror. Its is just saying that there is deadwood to get rid of. That is not evidence he will kill the VSE once in office as you seem to argument. Only Obama is likely to do that.
As for Obama supporting Ares I/CEV and delaying the lunar portion. Two points. First he only stated that after he got some flak for his original statement. Second, the funding for the lunar portion is not coming up in his first term and most of his second if he has one. Aers 1/CEV is and that is what he will cut to fund his program, or be to more accurate, delay its development. And its proper to call it a welfare program because that is what it is. Preschool for those not able to afford it. Or do you use a different less common definition of welfare?
And Parks is an example of a generic gorup of scientists who constantly snipe at human spaceflight, a point which you choose to miss. The point, which I will spell out for you, is it will be very easy for Obama to pick a commision to study NASA that will produce a predetermined outcome. There are more then enough scientists who see human spaceflight as the reason their pet science project was not funded to stack a commission easily. And its makes a great cover for Obama to use to abandon human spaceflight at NASA.
However, the fact that space, and NASA, might be something just a bit then science seems to escape you.
Anonymous, I agree with most of your comments immediately above, but here you go too far:
what concrete products or national benefits have NASA’s human space flight programs created since the Apollo era
The ISS has created a huge database of practical experience in doing construction in orbit. We will need that in the future if we do any large scale projects, from returning to the moon (which will undoubtedly require unanticipated repair of spacecraft in flight), to go to Mars (the same, only far more so), to industrial applications like solar power for military or civilian use, to science involving really large telescopes and interferometers.
The ISS (along with Mir, et al) has created another database of practical experience living in, and maintaining equipment in, space, none of which really existed beyond the most rudimentary form during Apollo. This information will be critical to going to Mars or an asteroid, and likely important during extended lunar missions.
The ISS, even before completion, has generated substantial non-astronomical science, especially in biology, including learning to grow plants through multiple generations (likely to be essential to, e.g., Mars missions), and material sciences for use in space (e.g., detailed behavior of fluids to refine tankage and plumbing design).
None of this is to say this information could not have been obtained at less, and in most cases far less, cost, but stating that is not at all the same as saying human spaceflight has returned no substantive results since Apollo. Arguably, some of this information is likely to be more valuable to any future humanity has in space than the information being returned by the rest of the government space program.
— Donald
Donald,
You also forget the accomplishments of the Shuttle before ISS. These include Zero-G manufacturing, on-orbit manufacturing of trusses, recovery of comsats. repair of the Solar Max and Hubble and flight testing the MMU are all key milestones towards the opening of space. It should be noted that the CEV will not be capable of ANY of these missions. Its merely a space taxi like the Soyuz.
You could also add to the Shuttle’s list flying the first “non-professional” astronaut in space, Senator Jake Garn. Although he does not qualifyas a tourist since he didn’t have to pay, he was also not a “professional” astronaut in that the training he received was limited, about the same the Russia space tourists have to do today. You could also add the Saudi prince on one of the flights in the 1980’s. Both proved you didn’t need years of training to fly in space, opening the way for today’s space tourism.
FWIW…
“The ISS has created a huge database of practical experience in doing construction in orbit. We will need that in the future if we do any large scale projects, from returning to the moon (which will undoubtedly require unanticipated repair of spacecraft in flight), to go to Mars (the same, only far more so), to industrial applications like solar power for military or civilian use, to science involving really large telescopes and interferometers.”
I agree with your statement. But learning how to perform assembly in orbit is an interim step to all these other, actual, end results. In-space assembly doesn’t provide scientific, economic, or political value in and of itself. From the perspective of a future decisionmaker (whether that’s Obama or someone else), it’s rather disappointing to realize that NASA’s human space flight program has spent the past three decades and untold hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars learning, and not actually doing.
And worse, it’s even more discomforting to find out that much of that learning is not being leveraged in NASA’s human lunar return effort.
And worse than that, it’s very disheartening to realize the current technical/schedule/budgetary state of NASA’s efforts just to create a human LEO transport capability after Shuttle retirement. For example, from the latest GAO report:
“…there are considerable unknowns as to whether NASA’s plans for these vehicles [Ares I/Orion] can be executed within schedule goals and what these efforts will ultimately cost. This is primarily because NASA is still in the process of defining many performance requirements. Such uncertainties could affect the mass, loads, and weight requirements for the vehicles. NASA is aiming to complete this process in 2008, but it will be challenged to do so given the level of knowledge that still needs to be attained. The challenges NASA is facing pose risks to the successful outcome of the projects. For example:
“-Both vehicles have a history of weight issues;
“-Excessive vibration during launch threatens system design;
“-Uncertainty about how flight characteristics will be impacted by a fifth segment added to the Ares I launch vehicle;
“-Ares I upper stage essentially requires development of a new engine;
“- No industry capability currently exists for producing the kind of heat shields that the Orion will need for protecting the crew exploration vehicle when it reenters Earth’s atmosphere; and
“- Existing test facilities are insufficient for testing Ares I’s new engine, for replicating the engine’s vibration and acoustic environment, and for testing the thermal protection system for the Orion vehicle.
“All these unknowns, as well as others, leave NASA in the position of being unable to provide firm cost estimates for the projects at this point. Meanwhile, tight deadlines are putting additional pressure on both the Ares I and Orion projects. Future requirements changes raise risks that both projects could experience cost and schedule problems.”
Based on all of the above, again, it’s not surprising that someone like Obama is asking the questions that he’s asking. Although I’d hate to see NASA’s human space flight budget get whacked as much as any space cadet, I would have a hard time blaming future decisionmakers for taking that path.
FWIW…
Unfortunately, I agree, Anonymous: If we’d used the EELVs (or something else already in existance) we could now be spending our time and money utilizing the experience we have gained building the Space Station to assemble lunar spacecraft and land a small base. Instead, we are re-inventing a wheel that has already been invented way too many times and achieving nothing of any practical use. I continue to hope to be proven wrong in this, but I have yet to see a shred of evidence that Dr. Griffin’s strategy is, or will, get us anywhere.
— Donald
Donald, I agree with Anon.
You cherry-picked his anons words, leaving out his original point.
It is not that NASA’s **hundreds-of-billions” for human spaceflight have not produced anything of value.
Anon says it well with “What have they produced that is so valuable that it is worth that amount of taxpayer dollars?”
ROBERTSON: The ISS has created a huge database of practical experience in doing construction in orbit
Actually, I will agree that they have learned a lot … but much of what NASA has done is to teach us how *not* to do on-orbit construction.
If I was a **practical** commercial space construction company, and I really wanted to learn about on-orbit construction techniques, I would go talk to the Russians and would hire Russians (excepting one little issue — the ITAR headache this would create).
While NASA was in the middle of their umpteenth paper redesign in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Russians were learning by actually constructing real space station like the Mir, which followed several previous generations of real space stations. Even today, the U.S. segment of the ISS would fall out of the sky without the Russian modules (a.k.a. Mir 2).
Russian station modules, in general, are designed to be re-arranged like tinker-toys, within some limitations. The U.S. modules in general cannot. (A poster in another thread recently pointed this out to you.) You had incorrectly believed that the U.S. modules at ISS could be re-arranged — which common sense suggests should be a design principle — but NASA had decided years ago that it was “better” to eliminate this feature.
I have good friends who worked in the Space Station “Freedom” program who have many horror stories about how things that you and I would consider to be critical — like “operability” and “maintainability” — were constantly ignored in decisions by the NASA management. (NOTE: Again, the Russians have a different attitude.)
Did you notice yesterday’s news out of Russia, in which the Russian Space Agency declared they will go to the Moon/Mars by using on-orbit assembly?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=51539§ionid=351020602
Russia’s Federal Space Agency (Roskosmos) chief, Anatoly Perminov, said on Sunday that … a manned assembly complex in orbit will build spacecraft to fly to the Moon and Mars.
While Russians continue to use on-orbit assembly in their plans, Mike Griffin has decided that NASA does not know how to do on-orbit assembly. Maybe he knows something — that **NASA** does not know how to do on-orbit assembly effectively.
For all the reasons above, I recommend that you not too many more assertions about how valuable NASA’s experience has been in designing and building the ISS. The facts seem to contradict you (I wish it were otherwise.)
– Al
As I’ve pointed out before, the only thing that NASA seems to have “learned” from assembling station is that they shouldn’t do in-space assembly. That’s not only not a valuable lesson–it’s one of tremendous negative value.
Rand: they shouldn’t do in-space assembly
If that’s the lesson they learned, it is the wrong lesson. Any significant future in space will involve assembly in microgravity, and any tinker-toy construction will eventually involve the need to change out wiring and plumbing.
Al: I still remain very dubious that the ISS modules cannot be changed out, even if they were not designed for that and even if it is difficult. Nobody has pointed me toward a design document showing that. In fact, NASA has regularly moved at least some of the modules from one point to another during the construction. Likewise, as you imply, the Russian modules if nothing else should be capable of re-configuration, and the Russians have real experience at keeping their hardware function far past their due dates.
Even if you and GM are entirely correct, there has been a great deal of practical experience learning in assembling the ISS. Read Neville Kidger’s blow-by-blow accounts in Spaceflight. If nothing else, I do know what the astronauts are doing on a day-to-day basis; I see little evidence that many others here are really paying attention, or taking lessons from that experience.
— Donald
Rand: they shouldn’t do in-space assembly.
If that’s the lesson they learned, it is the wrong lesson.
I agree, but it clearly is the lesson they learned (and the only one, as far as I can tell). Otherwise, how do you explain ESAS?
Donald,
I completely agree with both you and Rand that “in-space assembly” is an absolutely critical capability for space industrialization, or as Dr. Marburger says “for incorporating the Solar System into our economic sphere of influence”.
Where we disagree is in the VALUE of what NASA has learned about “in space assembly” versus the COST of those lessons. Remember — the full cost of the ISS is over $100 Billion.
You may disagree with me on the “Value vs Cost”, but the issue is not what we think. This website is about “politics”, which fundamentally about what our elected representatives and our candidates think and will “buy”, and they tend to reflect what the public thinks.
Thus, my assertion is empirically testable.
I challenge anybody who disagrees with my position on “Value vs Cost of the ISS” to talk to any average American voter, or average Member of Congress, and **with a straight face** argue that it was worth $100 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to “learn some lessons on how to build something in space”, and “to create a market for commercial transportation providers”.
Next a thought experiment, in an area it is harder to test. Does anybody here think that this “argument” will be persuasive with Clinton, Obama, or McCain?
IMPORTANT — NASA Watch has a link to a story this morning — John McCain has stated his intention to start putting the squeeze on ALL discretionary spending, which includes NASA. With credit to Mr. Cowing where I first saw this …
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/15/893281.aspx
“The plan is centered around a one-year freeze in discretionary spending — with the exception of military and veterans programs — to allow for a “top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.” “‘Discretionary spending’ is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised,” McCain said. “Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.”
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Al: the COST of those lessons. Remember — the full cost of the ISS is over $100 Billion
But, this is already sunk cost. The lessons are learned no matter what has been wasted on them. As I stated above, I fully agree that this could, and should, have been done for much less money. But there is a big difference between saying the ISS was not done in a cost effective way, and saying that it has achieved nothing and will achieve nothing, which is what all too many people who are frankly ignorant of what is going on in the ISS are saying without noticeable thought.
In addition, the ISS is up there whether we like it or not, and there is no political will to abandon it now. Therefore, we might as well get as much science as we can out of it.
In addition again, it is the only large market for cargo in orbit that exists now and is likely to exist in the next few years. Now, we can debate about how long a “few years” is, as I think Rand and I are doing in effect, but if you want a reason that exists right now for private development of launch vehicles, and a reason that is potentially large enough to make it worth while, that reason is orbiting over our heads right now. Dumping it into the ocean does nobody any good, and only makes sure that the entire $100 billion gets wasted.
I challenge anybody who disagrees with my position on “Value vs Cost of the ISS†to talk to any average American voter, or average Member of Congress, and **with a straight face** argue that it was worth $100 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to “learn some lessons on how to build something in
I don’t disagree with this at all. However, “most people” will never support going into a new frontier, and these are the things you must do — learn to function there and create a market — that you must do to get into a new frontier. As I said above, the money we have spent is already sunk and, for better or worse, that money has given us at least a significant part of each of the two major items you need to get into a new frontier — practical knowledge about survival and a large market — and we would be fools to throw that away now because it “was not cost effective.”
If and when Mr. Biglow gets his modules into space, I may modify my tune. But probably not a whole lot. At least at first, the market Mr. Biglow is creating is smaller. More importantly, two markets is always better than one!
Next a thought experiment, in an area it is harder to test. Does anybody here think that this “argument†will be persuasive with Clinton, Obama, or McCain?
Probably not. But do you really think that any of these people will abandon the ISS — an already existing facility that has more than $100 billion sunk into it and which would seriously piss off a lot of important allys? If they did, would Congress let them? Not a chance, I think.
As for Mr. McCain, he is far more likely to cut (or even more possible, gut) the VSE than the existing ISS, for the reasons stated immediately above. Important as I think the VSE is for future expansion, it is the ISS that drives the demand for commercial launch vehicles and so, pending a major success by Mr. Biglow, it should be our highest priority.
Finally, every Republican President since I have been politically aware has stated something like this on campaign, and every one without fail has ended up expanding government, often (as in the current one) far more than their Democratic opposition. While Mr. McCain is probably more likely to keep some part of this promise than most, I’ll believe it when I see it.
— Donald
Donald,
How did we get on the subject of “cancelling the existing ISS asset in orbit”? I agree with you on the issue of “sunk costs”, but that is not what we were talking about. You basically changed the subject (naughty, naughty).
Let me try to steer it back.
There are many “lessons learned” from ISS.
Including “lessons learned” about NASA by national leaders, including both McCain and Obama, and maybe even Clinton (but she would never say this during a campaign).
My assessment — based on those lessons learned — is that neither McCain or Obama think that NASA is on the right track — although they both would like to do something that was truly “inspiring”, if they were provided with that choice. The problem is that neither one of them has probably thought much about the “alternative”, and they will not. Unless somebody presents them with a radical alternative, that addresses THEIR desires (not NASA’s desires), NASA’s budget may be in for a very bad day … real soon.
Senator Clinton may actually have an idea for a different approach — since there is some evidence that she is a closet space buff (she contacted NASA decades ago about becoming an astronaut). Clinton also might listen to somebody like Lori Garver. But it appears to be unlikely that she will become President.
Right now it looks like a choice between McCain and Obama, and — within the limits of certainty about what they will actually do — their predictable “space policies” do not look that much different to me.
IMO, they both have similar “lessons learned” about NASA.
FWIW,
– Al
“Why hasn’t the space advocate community cried out against Obama’s call to kill Ares I/CEV? Because many in the space advocate community simply don’t believe in the value of human spaceflight as you demonstrated.”
Three points:
1) This discussion has nothing to do with “belief”. It’s a discussion of policy, not religion. It’s about the facts of NASA’s human space flight programs, not our human space flight beliefs (whatever that is).
2) As far as I know, it’s a matter of fact that since Apollo, NASA’s human space flight programs have not produced scientific, economic, or political value that is worth the hundreds of billions of dollar spent on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. If you have facts to the contrary, please present them.
3) Personally, I do actually believe that future human space exploration and development activities can deliver value commensurate with their cost. But that doesn’t mean that I have any faith that NASA’s human space flight activities — which have done no exploration and very little development over the past 30 years — will do so in the future. Absent a major change in management and a wholesale restructuring, the evidence (multiple GAO reports, articles by credible members of the industry press, and leaked presentations on Ares I, Orion, Ares V, and Altair) indicates that NASA’s human space flight programs are going to continue down the same path of enormously expensive, needlessly duplicative, and wastefully complex, NASA-unique vehicles that are technically compromised, less safe than they could be, and incapable of executing their mission.
“For Bill White to say he will fight Obama in Congress over the issue of saving America’s space program AFTER he’s elected President and has all the power of that office to kill it is the same as Churchill letting Hitler invade England first before fighting him.”
With all due respect to Mr. White and his multiple good comments in this forum, the 2008 Presidential election is not WWII, the Republican White House is not England, the Democrats are not Nazis, Mr. White is not Churchill, and Obama is not Hitler.
There is no need to invoke such inflammatory, over-the-top, and just plan weird rhetoric to make the point that it’s usually advisable to engage one’s opponents earlier, rather than later.
Yuck…
“Senator McCain has been a strong supporter of space for three decades. WHY do you think that will suddenly change tomorrow? What evidence do YOU have he will do a flip-flop on it?… That is not evidence he will kill the VSE once in office as you seem to argument. Only Obama is likely to do that.”
This statement is still patently false. There are several lines of evidence showing that McCain has been a critic of NASA generally, and the VSE and human space flight in particular, in the past and today.
McCain was highly critical of the VSE when the Bush Administration rolled it out in early 2004. In fact, McCain even gave his friend Sean O’Keefe, who was NASA Administrator at the time, a hard time about the VSE in congressional hearings:
“‘I think the American public is justifiably apprehensive about starting another major space initiative for fear that they will learn later that it will require far more sacrifice, or taxpayer dollars, than originally discussed or estimated,’ Sen. John McCain told NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe.”
See (add http://www.):
dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-1-2004_pg7_41
Beyond human space flight and the VSE, McCain has been broadly critical of NASA, calling for field center closures in the past:
“Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, suggested creating a base-closing commission for NASA akin to those that helped shut down military installations… McCain charges that much of the spending Congress funnels each year to individual NASA centers amounts to “disgraceful†waste, unrelated to national priorities.â€
See (add http://www.):
globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/030323-nasa01.htm
And looking to the future, McCain is also planning to flatline all discretionary spending in FY 2010 if elected President. As NASAWatch pointed out just today, that will inflict at least another year of delays on Ares I/Orion and the human lunar return effort:
“Revisiting a topic that has been a source of criticism for him throughout this campaign, McCain spoke at Carnegie Mellon University here this morning and laid out his plan for the future of the economy.
“The plan is centered around a one-year freeze in discretionary spending — with the exception of military and veterans programs — to allow for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.
“‘Discretionary spending is a term people throw around a lot in Washington, while actual discretion is seldom exercised,’ McCain said. ‘Instead, every program comes with a built-in assumption that it should go on forever, and its budget increase forever. My administration will change that way of thinking.’
See (add http://):
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/15/893281.aspx
With McCain, the only positive hook that we can hang our hats on is one backwards-looking statement released on the internet during the Florida campaign that McCain supported the VSE during NASA’s 2005 authorizations. But the historical record shows that NASA generally, and its human space flight programs and the VSE in particular, have been in McCain’s crosshairs as examples of government waste and mismanagement much more than they’ve been supported by McCain. And the only forward-looking statement that we have from the McCain campaign is that he would flatline NASA with the rest of the discretionary budget in FY 2010 and undertake reviews that may lead to the termination or restructuring of various NASA programs.
In the end, that’s little different from Obama saying that he would undertake a review of NASA’s human space flight programs and goals if he became President.
It appears that regardless of who wins the White House, one way or another, NASA’s human space flight programs are going to come under scrutiny in the next Administration. And based on the STS/ISS record and the current state of Ares I/Orion, that does not bode well for the human space flight budget.
“As for Obama supporting Ares I/CEV and delaying the lunar portion… the funding for the lunar portion is not coming up in his first term and most of his second if he has one”
Another patently false statement. Funding to develop the lunar-specific elements of Constellation (Ares V/EDS/Altair) ramps up in FY 2011, three years into next President’s first term and the second budget that the next White House has responsibility for developing. So Clinton, McCain, or Obama is going to have to make a decision one way or the other in their first term about whether go forward with, defer, or terminate the human lunar return effort.
And if that President has a second term and they do fund the human lunar return effort, taxpayers would continue to pay for the development of those lunar-specific Constellation elements all through the end of that Presidency. Assuming Constellation stays on schedule (a big “if”), the earliest human lunar mission won’t occur until 2019-20, so there will be multibillion dollar annual spending to develop Ares V/EDS/Altair to prepare for that launch from 2011-2018, at least.
“And its proper to call it a welfare program because that is what it is. Preschool for those not able to afford it.”
That’s a gross mischaracterization of the Obama plan, which also ends standardized tests in favor of more complicated assessments, gives teachers bonuses for working in high-needs schools, focuses on dropout prevention, funds schools that experiment with longer school days or school years, and provides tax credits for higher education, among other things. Of the 16 bullets on Obama’s education issues website, only three even deal with preschool education and only one proposes anything that smacks of welfare (expansion of Head Start). See (add http://www.)
barackobama.com/issues/education/
Again, Obama’s plan may be a bad one (I have no expertise in this area), but the vast majority of the plan doesn’t fit any reasonable definition of welfare.
“And Parks is an example of a generic gorup of scientists who constantly snipe at human spaceflight… The point, which I will spell out for you, is it will be very easy for Obama to pick a commision to study NASA that will produce a predetermined outcome. There are more then enough scientists who see human spaceflight as the reason their pet science project was not funded to stack a commission easily. And its makes a great cover for Obama to use to abandon human spaceflight at NASA.”
And the evidence that Obama (or McCain) plans to execute your hypothetical plan is… ?
“as you demonstrated… The message, which you seem to choose to not understand and mis-state in your usual fashion.. You are the one twisitng the story as you have with most of my post… a point which you choose to miss”
Please stop with the personal attacks. I made none against you. Argue the facts and logic, not the poster.
Ugh…
Al, I don’t see that I changed the subject, but let that go.
Don’t right Ms. Clinton off just yet. There was an article in last week’s Economist about why she should continue — Mr. Obama’s success is more apparent than real, and by several measures (not least, total number of votes) Ms. Clinton is not behind, according to the Economist.
they both have similar “lessons learned†about NASA
And both of them, as has too much of the space community itself, have drawn the wrong lesson. Even assuming that “everyone” is correct that the human space program is a total loss, the does not mean the automated space program is a total success, or that concentrating our resources on the latter will achieve our goals. Assuming our goal is to move the human economic sphere into the Solar System, it cannot. Assuming our goal is limited to scientific understanding of the Solar System, there are severe limits to what can be achieved, especially in finite time, through that strategy.
— Donald
Anonymous.space
Some notes.
2) As far as I know, it’s a matter of fact that since Apollo, NASA’s human space flight programs have not produced scientific, economic, or political value that is worth the hundreds of billions of dollar spent on the Space Shuttle and International Space Station. If you have facts to the contrary, please present them.
1. This is not fact as you try to represent it, its only YOUR opinion unless you wish to provide a commonly accepted metric to measure it (i.e $/published paper). My counter opinion could be that any money spent on sending robots to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn was not worth the cost since they have not produced anything of economic value to offset the billions those missions cost. By contrast ISS serves various foreign policy goals as well the usual engineering and economic not served by MRO or Phoenix. How much is it worth to have a good relationship with Russia and Europe?
2 You seem to assume a link between McCain’s desire to minimize mismanagement at NASA and his future support for VSE. Why do you assume that questions about the quality of management at NASA equal a desire to dump the VSE? They are separate issues.
By contrast Obama has no such record on space. Like so many issues he is just a bunch of vague promises and empty rhetoric. He tells one group he is against trade deals, then another that individuals that oppose them are just “bitterâ€.
Also you clearly got my point about the need to fight for human spaceflight now, not after the election so the language worked. That you choose to try to twist it into something sinister is not my fault.
Most of the new money (10 billion) is needed for the zero-five preschool part. Then another chunk for paying teachers to teach in economically disadvantaged areas. The rest is reshuffling No Student Left Behind and will likely use the existing funds. .
FYI here is a standard definition of Welfare.
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/bmc/berkeley_municipal_code/Title_3/78/060.html
wel·fare:
1. a. Health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being.
b. Prosperity.
2. Welfare work.
3. a. Financial or other aid provided, especially by the government, to people in need.
b. Corporate welfare.
Idiom:on welfare
Receiving regular assistance from the government or private agencies because of need.
Obama’s Preschool plan the economically disadvantage that will start at Birth clearly falls under that definition as paying salaries of teachers in disadvantaged school districts.
A HREF=â€http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdfâ€> http://obama.3cdn.net/a8dfc36246b3dcc3cb_iem6bxpgh.pdf
Also in this position document from his website he clearly states we will take it out of Constellation. Interesting he also will raise it by not allowing CEO pay to be deductible by corporations as another source.
BTW What is YOUR definition of Welfare?
“This is not fact as you try to represent it, its only YOUR opinion unless you wish to provide a commonly accepted metric to measure it (i.e $/published paper).”
It’s not me that has to produce the data. It’s you. You’re the one claiming that NASA’s human space flight programs produce scientific, economic, or political benefits commensurate with their costs. I know of no evidence that supports that argument. Until you (or someone else) produces such evidence, your argument will continue to be factually wrong.
“My counter opinion could be that any money spent on sending robots to Mars, Jupiter or Saturn was not worth the cost since they have not produced anything of economic value to offset the billions those missions cost. By contrast ISS serves various foreign policy goals as well the usual engineering and economic not served by MRO or Phoenix. How much is it worth to have a good relationship with Russia and Europe?”
A couple points:
1) About 60% of NASA’s science missions — over 50 missions in development or operation — have foreign contributions. The robotic side of the NASA house arguably contributes just as much to international cooperation, if not more than, the ISS.
2) Although ISS is no doubt an international partnership, we still have no evidence of foreign policy benefits from that partnership. The total U.S. contribution to the ISS is around $100 billion. The ESA contribution, by contrast, is only $8 billion. JAXA’s contribution is probably less than that but on that order, say $7 billion, and CSA’s contribution is miniscule on this scale. So our allies put in something like $15 billion, while we put in $100 billion, an amount $85 billion and almost seven times larger. What foreign policy benefits did we get from that net $85 billion investment? Are those benefits commensurate with that $85 billion investment of U.S. taxpayer funds?
“You seem to assume a link between McCain’s desire to minimize mismanagement at NASA and his future support for VSE. Why do you assume that questions about the quality of management at NASA equal a desire to dump the VSE? They are separate issues.”
We don’t have to assume a link between McCain’s tough stance on wasteful government spending and its impact on Constellation’s budget and schedule — the link already exists. Again, just yesterday, the McCain campaign announced that he will impose a one-year freeze in discretionary spending in FY 2010 if he becomes President, when the Constellation budget will still be ramping up. At a minimum, such a freeze will delay Ares I/Orion IOC by at least a year, from 2015 to 2016. We don’t have to assume a link — it’s already happening. See (add http://):
firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/15/893281.aspx
And even if McCain wasn’t tough on wasteful government spending, he has a mixed history of support for NASA, at best, and was actually negative on the VSE when it was first introduced. McCain has changed his mind about the VSE in the past and could do so again. Again, see (add http://www.):
dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-1-2004_pg7_41
And just to be clear, I don’t think most of this is automatically bad or a reason not to vote for McCain. I would applaud “President” McCain for taking a hard look at NASA’s human space flight programs just as I would applaud “President” Obama for questioning their goals, benefits, and costs.
But if we’re in McCain’s camp because we think McCain has a long, clear history of support for NASA, human space flight, and the VSE (he clearly does not) or because we think McCain won’t take actions that harm the Constellation budget and schedule (he’s already proposing to do so), then we’re laboring under false assumptions.
“Also you clearly got my point about the need to fight for human spaceflight now, not after the election so the language worked. That you choose to try to twist it into something sinister is not my fault.”
I didn’t twist anything. You’re the one who compared U.S. Presidential candidates to WWII dictators, not me.
“FYI here is a standard definition of Welfare… BTW What is YOUR definition of Welfare?
Why are you so obsessed about defining welfare in a discussion of an education plan, for which only one component out of 16 even smacks of welfare, and on a space policy blog to boot?
Weirdly off-topic…
DataPoint: I have to say that it’s nice to find someone else on my side of the wider debate.
However, in this I strongly disagree with you: Obama’s Preschool plan the economically disadvantage that will start at Birth clearly falls under that definition as paying salaries of teachers in disadvantaged school districts.
That is not welfare even under your definition. That is paying people to do a job that the elected government has defined as necessary. It is no more welfare than building utilities that happen to be in poor cities.
Anonymous: we still have no evidence of foreign policy benefits from that [ISS] partnership
While I think your analysis is usually thoughtful and careful, even when I disagree with you, this is rediculous nonesense. The international advantages to keeping Russian aerospace engineers, tied to the degree possible into Western economies is, or should be, obvious. While no one can know the answer to this question, I would ask you to consider what the world would be like today had the ISS not kept a lot of Russian engineers employed, and provided the Russian Republic with money, at a critical point after the collapse of their empire. As we learned after WWI, keeping a defeated enemy poor and isolated is very, very bad policy, and that lesson resulted in a lot of very good policy after WWII — and immediately after the Cold War.
The advantages of the ISS and automated spaceflight to international cooperation seem to me to be broadly similar — except that the former, by its nature as infrastructure, employees primarily engineers, the very people we want to keep employed in constructive endeavors. Foreign policy is the reason the ISS survived politically, and probably its greatest benefit so far.
— Donald
While no one can know the answer to this question, I would ask you to consider what the world would be like today had the ISS not kept a lot of Russian engineers employed, and provided the Russian Republic with money, at a critical point after the collapse of their empire.
We already know that they were selling guidance systems to the Iranians, while a lot of the money that we sent to Russia that was supposed to go to those engineers ended up in Mercedes Benzes, dachas, yachts, and Cayman accounts of the Russian mafia. The “midnight basketball for the Russians” was an utter failure. And it continues to fail, as the Russians now say they need another five billion to finish. That money should have come out of the State Department’s budget, not NASA’s, as it had very little to do with space.
Rand: That money should have come out of the State Department’s budget, not NASA’s, as it had very little to do with space.
Most of your arguement, while technically true, misses the point. However, the statement I’ve quoted above is one I fully agree with.
— Donald
anonymous.space
it’s not me that has to produce the data. It’s you. You’re the one claiming that NASA’s human space flight programs produce scientific, economic, or political benefits commensurate with their costs. I know of no evidence that supports that argument. Until you (or someone else) produces such evidence, your argument will continue to be factually wrong.
Nope, you are the one that first made the statement, misrepresentingit as fact, that the $100 billion for ISS was not worth the cost. Since you introduced it burden is on YOU to support it by providing evidence WHY it was not worth the $100 billion NASA spent on it. Metrics please, NOT more opinion.
When individuals introduce unsupported claims like you have into a debate, the burden is on them to support their claims with proof.
I didn’t twist anything. You’re the one who compared U.S. Presidential candidates to WWII dictators, not me.
Nope, I merely made an analogy, based on Churchill’s classic example in 1940, that the longer you wait to fight the more difficult it is to gain a victory. If you study history you will find he made a great speech about never giving up. But while he made the speech he didn’t wait for the invasion to start, he also had the RAF bomb Hitler’s invasion barges in France. A GREAT leadership example of the need to deal with a threat as soon as possible.
That YOU choose to link it to Obama is just a normal example of belt-way political thinking and a classic example of how belt-way politicos twist statements into sound bits to confuse the issue. I am not responsible for the connections YOU choose to make about it or the tactics you choose to use to score points and change the topic
The key point still stands. If you want to save America’s space program you need to campaign against Obama now, not wait until he is president and then have to fight annual battles in Congress to save it.
And if you think an attack on the tactics you use is an attack on you, I am sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it to, twisting what people say and then twisting their defense of it into being a personal attack on you. That is another belt-way politico tactic you seem to enjoy using on people.
And welfare is perhaps the kindest term for a government funded birth to work education plan. As for its link to space policy, the fact that Obama specifically names taking money from Constellation IN the policy document I provided from his website makes it a space issue. Neither of the other candidates are proposing a raid on the NASA budget for grand social welfare schemes.
RAND: The “midnight basketball for the Russians†was an utter failure. And it continues to fail, as the Russians now say they need another five billion to finish. That money should have come out of the State Department’s budget, not NASA’s, as it had very little to do with space.
Rand,
I believe you have misread the statement from the new head of RSC Energia.
Lopota is obviously asking the Russian government to cough up the $5 Billion. Since the Russian government is flush with oil money — from the Russian equivalent of those “oil platforms” that gush cash — the Russians can now afford to pay for this … if they choose.
Kind of funny how oil money — which produces energy that billions of people value — makes it possible to pay for ISS construction.
Donald, you should put that in the article you are thinking about writing.
I am not saying it is “economically rational decision”, or that the Russians will do it, but this is clearly what Vitaly Lopota of Energia has in mind.
NEXT:
I do agree that the ISS has produced some “international affairs” benefits. However, this is extremely difficult to measure. Good people on both sides of the argument (e.g., the Rands and the Donalds of the world) can not muster any hard empirical data to convincingly prove their stated positions. (Actually, one of the fundamental flaws of the legislation is that you can only prove a negative — that it had not worked — by finding a rocket engineer who had transferred nuclear technology to Iran. Meanwhile. the legislation requires the White House to certify that nobody from Russian has transferred certain technologies to Iran. How do you prove that “it has not happened?” The problem is … you can’t.)
But back to an old favorite.
Note that Griffin has ignored the ISS lesson learned — ISS was saved by bringing the Russians in. By the international relations benefits. But Griffin fought against it while he was at NASA as a bad engineering choice. Although Griffin is absolutely correct from “an engineer’s perspective”, it illustrates the classic weakness of the engineer as the “NASA salesman in chief”. It has been proven that Congress will buy “international relations” benefits, but Griffin does not care about those benefits.
Typically, the Engineer-in-Chieef has ignored this lesson learned. ESAS eliminates any dependencies on other countries — and thus also minimizes the international affairs opportunities that saved ISS.
and he really really wants to sell Congress on ESAS.
FWIW,
– Al
“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”
Like ISS benefits in general, I would never claim that benefits from internationalizing the ISS are zero–just that they aren’t worth the cost.
Al, I didn’t know that about Dr. Griffin, but it certainly plays in with his inability to successfully execute the politics needed to get through the VSE. The words “hopelessly bad” come to mind.
— Donald
If BA turns out to be successful (i.e. fully operational) with their NASA-originated ISS-intended technology it should be enough to consider the ISS spending justified even if the ISS lives until the thirties without any other new significant contribution.
“‘Anonymous: we still have no evidence of foreign policy benefits from that [ISS] partnership’
While I think your analysis is usually thoughtful and careful, even when I disagree with you, this is rediculous nonesense. The international advantages to keeping Russian aerospace engineers, tied to the degree possible into Western economies is, or should be, obvious.”
You’re right, I should have qualified that sentence as follows:
“we still have no evidence of foreign policy benefits from that [ISS] partnership _that are commensurate with its costs to the U.S._”
I think you’re right that Russian participation in the ISS partnership has had some arms control benefits. I would argue, though, that those benefits are not commensurate with our gross $100 billion, or net $85 billion, investment in the ISS, for a couple reasons:
1) As Mr. Simberg points out, Russian technical know-how and equipment is still leaking out to “rogue” states. Although I would guess that the situation would be worse without Russian participation in the ISS partnership, the goals of this foreign policy venture were arguably only partially achieved, at best.
2) We didn’t have to build a $100 billion space station to keep Russian aerospace engineers peacefully employed. Heck, we could have just sponsored a bunch of U.S. microgravity experiments and flown them on Progress free-flyers — probably for a few billion dollars in total cost — to keep Russian industry usefully occupied. (And we would have actually gotten substantial microgravity science results out of such an arrangement by now.) ISS has long been a very expensive hammer in search of a nail. There were more efficient and better hammers that the Clinton Administration could have used on the nail of Russian arms industry in the immediate post-Cold War period.
Also, as Mr. Fansome points out, no doubt the Russians saved the ISS and NASA from certain disaster after Columbia, to a degree that far outweighed the costs of bringing the Russians into the partnership. And Russian involvement arguably also saved the ISS from legislative cancellation in the U.S. Congress. But those are means to an end, they are not ends in and of themselves. The ISS itself still needs to produce scientific, economic, or political value that is at least vaguely commensurate with our gross $100 billion (or net $85 billion) investment in it. I’m open to evidence that it has or will, but I havn’t seen such.
NASA’s post-Apollo human space flight program has got to get out of the self-licking ice cream cone mode of flying astronauts largely and primarily for the sake of flying astronauts (and on incredibly expensive, fragile, and incapable platforms at that). The human space flight program has got to be more closely and more efficiently tied, structured, and designed to producing concrete results — making scientific discoveries, proving out technological advances, developing new sources of economic potential, and/or serving specific and realizable foreign policy goals — or potential White House leaders like Obama (and very likely McCain the way things are going) are going to ask tougher and tougher questions.
My 2 cents… FWIW…
Anonymous: The ISS itself still needs to produce scientific, economic, or political value that is at least vaguely commensurate with our gross $100 billion (or net $85 billion) investment in it.
As I responded Rand, it is way too early to expect this out of the ISS. You (and he) may well be correct, but we won’t know for at least a decade.
Sure, you could have flown microgravity experiments on Progress vehicles, but that would have been in no way comparable to the kind of comprehensive laboratory facilities soon to be available on the ISS. While I fully agree with everyone here that the ISS could have, and should have, been built for far less than $100 billion, I will be far more surprised if unexpected revolutionary discoveries do not come out of the first full-equiped set of laboratories in the environment that dominates the Universe, than I will be if it all amounts to nothing.
The point is, I think, that both sides of this debate are correct. Yes, the ISS was built with gross inefficiency, but that is not the same as stating that it is useless — which it manifestly is not. Allow me to point you toward Alain Dupas and John Logsdon’s Op Ed in last week’s Space News. Theirs is the rational approach going forward.
Finally, a question. How many small uses “that are [individually not] commensurate with [their] costs to the U.S.” does it take to make a collectively useful facility? We’re getting a pretty substantial list. . . .
— Donald
Yes, the ISS was built with gross inefficiency, but that is not the same as stating that it is useless — which it manifestly is not.
Why do you keep putting forth this annoying straw man? Who here has said it is useless?
“While I fully agree with everyone here that the ISS could have, and should have, been built for far less than $100 billion, I will be far more surprised if unexpected revolutionary discoveries do not come out of the first full-equiped set of laboratories in the environment that dominates the Universe, than I will be if it all amounts to nothing.”
The problem is that the costs of ISS (and STS and Ares I/Orion) have effectively bankrupted the U.S. research program to use ISS. There’s only two remaining ISS research lines in NASA’s budget — one in the Human Research Program ($19.9 million in FY 2009) and one in the Exploration Systems Technology Development Program ($24.8 million in FY 2009). Combined, that’s a whopping $44.7 million in ISS research in FY 2009. By FY 2013, five years later, that budget is projected to grow to only $47.5 million. Call it something less than $50 million per year. At that rate, NASA will spend less than $500 million on ISS research every ten years, which may be all that is spent if the ISS is retired towards the end of the next decade. That’s less than one-half of one percent of total ISS costs — a terrible research-to-infrastructure ratio.
It’s possible that this paltry amount of research spending will result in a major breakthrough, but it’s highly unlikely. The unfortunate reality is that the microgravity research community has withered away to almost nothing since Griffin’s cuts (which, in his defense, were only the last in a long string of cuts to microgravity research after repeated ISS overruns, STS problems, etc.) and ISS facilities, at least on the U.S. side, are currently greatly underutilized and will be even moreso after assembly is complete. No matter how great a research facility is, it’s very difficult to create discoveries in the absence of substantial data generation and/or a critical mass of smart minds to analyze that data.
“How many small uses “that are [individually not] commensurate with [their] costs to the U.S.†does it take to make a collectively useful facility? We’re getting a pretty substantial list. . . .”
I dunno about that. Here’s the bidding:
1) Less than $50 million in actual U.S. ISS research per year, call it something less than $500 million over ten years. Even if that research paid off ten-fold — again, highly unlikely given what’s happened to the community — we’re only looking at $5 billion worth of benefit.
2) $15 billion in offsetting ISS contributions from allies (ESA, JAXA, CSA).
3) A COTS market that will be equivalent to only a few EELVs — call it a billion dollars — stretched over five years and that is still threatened by Ares I/Orion. See today’s announcement at (add http://www.):
aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/progress041708.xml&headline=NASA%20Wants%20All-commercial%20ISS%20Resupply&channel=space
4) A Russian arms control activity that is arguably of little value since Russian aerospace expertise and equipment still wound up in the hands of “rogue” nations.
That’s a pretty sad list, IMO. We’d be lucky if it broke $20-25 billion. We’re still off by a factor of 4-5 from breakeven on the $100 billion U.S. ISS investment.
“Allow me to point you toward Alain Dupas and John Logsdon’s Op Ed in last week’s Space News. Theirs is the rational approach going forward.”
I have great respect for both Dupas and Logsdon when it comes to thinking about space policy in the abstract or from the historical and political perspective. They’re both very original and incisive thinkers with a great storehouse of historical and political knowledge. But they’re not budgeteers or technicians and that editorial ignored a lot of harsh realities about NASA and European space agency budgets, the overall national budgets involved, competing space agency goals, the lifetime of ISS components, and the costs associated with extending ISS lifetime. Although admirably hopeful, I would argue that the bulk of that editorial is not even optimistically realizable.
A bottomline is that if we can’t come up with a better alignment between NASA’s human space flight activities and their benefits, then the infrastructure of NASA’s human space flight will eventually be scaled down to match its benefits. That will result in a substantial reduction from the multi-hundred-billion-dollar-class Apollo/STS/ISS/Constellation efforts that have characterized U.S. human space flight to date.
FWIW…
“anonymous.space…
Nope, you are the one that first made the statement”
I was not the first one to raise the issue of whether human space flight is worth the cost. You’re the one who first wrote:
“And the ‘shocking’ results of the “Parks†Commission? Human spaceflight is not worth the cost,”
Meaning that you believe the opposite — that human space flight _is_ worth its costs. And I subsequently asked you to produce evidence that supports your belief. You have repeatedly failed to offer any such evidence.
“Nope, I merely made an analogy”
Here are your exact words:
“So Obama will have the cover he needs to cut NASA funding while funding the Russians to fly Soyuz to support ISS… He will then announce that he will no longer waste money on a Shuttle replacement and will use it instead to fund his educational program… Asked why he will just answer critics by just pointing to the study, saying its not My decision, I am just following the recommendations of the “Parks†Commission… Sure Bill, you will fight it then. But that is like waiting until Hitler reached London before fighting him.”
You tell Bill that if he waits to fight “it”, referring to Obama and your hypothetical “Parks” commission for him, it will be like fighting Hitler and his military after they’re allowed to reach London. How does that analogy not compare Obama to Hitler?
“That YOU choose to link it to Obama is just a normal example of belt-way political thinking and a classic example of how belt-way politicos twist statements into sound bits to confuse the issue.”
Why are you making a personal attack and comparing me to a “belt-way [sic] politico” when I’ve made no personal attacks on you?
Moreover, do you know where I live and work? Or are you working off assumptions?
“I am not responsible for the connections YOU choose to make about it or the tactics you choose to use to score points and change the topic”
You’re the one who compared a hypothetical Obama space commission to Hitler’s plans to invade England, not me.
If you’re now uncomfortable with what you wrote, then just admit that you were wrong to use such overblown hyperbole. Everyone makes mistakes.
But don’t blame me for just pointing out what you already wrote. Beyond just repeating your own words, there’s no “tactics” involved here. And I’m certainly not changing the topic — again, I’m just repeating your words.
“And if you think an attack on the tactics you use is an attack on you, I am sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it to,”
You have not made an attack on my “tactics” (whatever that is). You’ve called me names, like “belt-way [sic] politico”, repeatedly, even after I’ve asked you not to. That’s a personal attack, any way you cut it.
“And welfare is perhaps the kindest term for a government funded birth to work education plan.”
Ugh… can you please stop with the welfare definitions and get back on topic? This is a space policy blog, not a social and economic policy blog. If you want to discuss abstract definitions of welfare, go post someplace else where people are interested in discussing those things.
Look, I think I’m done with this particular conversation. I’ve repeatedly asked you to produce evidence to back up your belief that human space flight is worth its costs, and you’ve produced none. I’ve asked you to stop with the personal attacks, and you’re still calling me names like “belt-way [sic] politico”. I’ve asked you to stick to space policy topics and you still insist on trying to claim that you did not compare a U.S. Presidential candidate to Hitler, despite what you actually wrote, and proposing ever-changing and new definitions for the word “welfare”.
If you are willing and able to engage in an on-topic discussion of the value of human space flight, using relevant logic and evidence to back up your arguments, and can avoid ad hominem attacks and incendiary and weird off-topic subjects, I’m all ears. But so far, you’ve demonstrated no such inclination or ability. Based on that, there’s not much point in continuing, at least for me.
Bleah…
Anonymous: I disagree with much of your post, but rather than address all of it (I don’t have time right now), I will address the research. Just because we have declined to finance much research on the ISS does not mean that humanity has — it is, after all, an international facility — and, for better or worse, the Europeans and Japanese do plan to use it. If so, and if there are discoveries to be made, they will make them. That outcome would be a rediculous outcome for the United States, but it would not necessarily be a loss for humanity. Moreover, just because the United States does not plan to use the ISS today for non-exporation related work, does not mean we never will. Some people are trying to change this decision (which, actually, I do not supprt) and I would be surprised, if someone else does discover something important, we didn’t try to muscle in at that point. . . .
They’re both very original and incisive thinkers with a great storehouse of historical and political knowledge. But they’re not budgeteers or technicians
I would suspect that is probably true of most of the people in this venue; I know it is true of myself. Nobody does space exploration — human or automated — because it is “cost effective.” Ultimately, if we succeed in exploring and settling parts of the Solar System, it will be. We do it because it is important in a bigger picture. For example, no one here (certainly not me) thinks COTS alone can be an industry that will justify the ISS. However, as I responded to Rand earlier, I think most of us hope that COTS is the beginning of something much bigger. And I think and hope that the existance of the ISS, by justifying and initiating COTS, could ultimately lead to an industry far larger than the entire ISS itself. Likewise, we are not wasting all of this money trying to find water on Mars because it benefits, say, health care or transportation or energy development; we’re doing it because we want to know if we are alone and because someday we want to go there — neither reason has any possible economic justification in the near term. Yet, somehow, we don’t require an economic justification of determining whether liquid water existed on Mars, but we do for learning how to build something in microgravity. Go figure. . . .
— Donald
Yet, somehow, we don’t require an economic justification of determining whether liquid water existed on Mars, but we do for learning how to build something in microgravity. Go figure. . . .
It’s not that hard to figure. If it cost a hundred billion dollars to determine whether or not liquid water existed on Mars, and we knew that, we’d almost certainly not be doing it. There are some levels of funding where economic justification is not required for scientific activities, but a deciterrabuck is way above them.
DONALD: Likewise, we are not wasting all of this money trying to find water on Mars because it benefits, say, health care or transportation or energy development; we’re doing it because we want to know if we are alone and because someday we want to go there — neither reason has any possible economic justification in the near term. Yet, somehow, we don’t require an economic justification of determining whether liquid water existed on Mars, but we do for learning how to build something in microgravity. Go figure. . . .
Donald,
So, you don’t like the economic justification argument?
Let me say it for a second time then.
It was somebody (specifically DataPoint) who wanted to defend the ISS program investment who originally made the economic justification argument (specifically, comparing it to the cost of an off-shore oil platform, which is purely justified on economic return).
You then jumped on that, suggesting you might use this economic comparison in an article you were thinking about writing.
FWIW,
– Al
Al,
I think you a confusing a cost comparison with an economic justification.
The firgures I gave was as a bench mark for similar large and complex construction projects. Not as economic justification.
The CERN Large Hardon Collider costs 4.5 billion dollars, but I think believe any one was going to argument building it on the ground of economic return.
Similar how do you argue near-term economic return for learning how to live and work in space?
Correction:
The CERN Large Hardon Collider costs 4.5 billion dollars, but I don’t believe any one was going to argue for building it on the ground of economic returns.
Al: You are comparing n-generation oil platorms — a mature technology — with the first experiments in orbital construction. Obviously, the former will be “more economic” by any measure than the latter.
— Donald
Unfortunately, the person whose analysis you admired made the same (flawed) comparison…
Aren’t those of you who argue against the ISS severely underestimating the consequences of the ISS’ existence?
I’m not aware of any nation that was willing to create any sort of station in LEO on their own (and yes that includes the US). So basically you’re arguing for an almost non-existent presence of humans in LEO (so you’ll have a few Shuttle crew and perhaps a few capsule rides and then what?), and considering it’s the only place outside Earth surface with any humans at all human spaceflight would basically be on the shelf indefinitely.
What’s so good about that? Sure it’s cheap but “nothing” is always cheap. Any other reasons?
“I’m not aware of any nation that was willing to create any sort of station in LEO on their own (and yes that includes the US).”
Huh?
The Soviet Union did so, multiple times.
And China claims that they’re interested in doing so, especially if they can’t join the ISS partnership.
FWIW…
And Bigelow is doing so now, privately.
anonymous.space I thought it would be clear that I was talking of national alternatives to a non-existent ISS. The Soviet Union? Umm they were gone by then ^_^
I don’t know of any plans or even indications of plans to be executed as alternatives in case the ISS agreement fell through. Feel free to correct me if you know of any.
China might be doing some tiny thing within the next decade or two (2010-2030 timeframe) and once again it’s completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
Rand as I understand it Bigelow Aerospace wouldn’t even exist if it hadn’t been for the fight between NASA and Congress over Transhab with Congress eventually putting it on ice in 99 (same year BA was founded) and then banning NASA from any further work on it in 2000. I’m fairly sure Bigelow himself have indicated pretty much the same (possibly in the Wired interview).
Rand as I understand it Bigelow Aerospace wouldn’t even exist if it hadn’t been for the fight between NASA and Congress over Transhab with Congress eventually putting it on ice in 99 (same year BA was founded) and then banning NASA from any further work on it in 2000.
Bigelow’s particular design might not exist, but AFAIK Bigelow Aerospace would. Bob Bigelow had been thinking about these things for a while.
Rand,
There is a huge difference between thinking about something and opening your wallet for a couple of hundred megabucks when an opportunity appears.
People have been thinking about private spaceflight for decades. Now they are investing because of opportunities created by the government.
People have been thinking about private spaceflight for decades. Now they are investing because of opportunities created by the government.
That is not the only reason they are investing, and it doesn’t logically follow that if those “opportunities” hadn’t been “created by the federal government” that they wouldn’t have existed otherwise, or that they were necessary for investment to occur.
Investors don’t need to see an opportunity before investing? Really?
And the government isn’t the major revenue source for the current generation of New Space firms? And just where is the money that firms like Xcor and SpaceX and even RpK receiving coming from?
“anonymous.space I thought it would be clear that I was talking of national alternatives to a non-existent ISS. The Soviet Union? Umm they were gone by then ^_^”
I’m not trying to nitpick, but your sentence was written in the past, not present, tense:
“I’m not aware of any nation that was willing to create any sort of station in LEO on their own (and yes that includes the US).”
Specifically, you used “was”, not “is”.
“I don’t know of any plans or even indications of plans to be executed as alternatives in case the ISS agreement fell through. Feel free to correct me if you know of any.”
Aside from Bigelow and China, there are no other entities pursuing permanent space stations that I’m aware of.
Due to the difficulty of getting access to the ISS, the remaining U.S. microgravity research community is already starting to use Bigelow — witness the Genebox demo on one of Bigelow’s subscale Genesis modules. If the ISS disappeared tomorrow — or if NASA did not railroad its remaining microgravity research onto ISS — it’s a fairly safe guess that use of Bigelow’s capabilities by NASA, U.S., and other microgravity researchers would accelerate.
Although U.S. and Japanese use of Chinese capabilities appears unlikely, there’s little keeping ESA, other European space agencies, and other nations from flying payloads on a future Chinese space station. There are examples of Chinese cooperation/coordination with Europe, Brazil, etc. in other civil space areas today. An extension to microgravity research and human space flight would probably be likely if ISS disappeared tomorrow.
Finally, temporary “space stations” can provide very useful multi-day/week/month access to the microgravity environment. Again, due to limited ISS access, U.S. and European microgravity researchers have flown payloads on Russian Soyuz and Foton vehicles. The same could done on Progress, ATV, HTV, and COTS upper stages, and will likely happen as long as ISS access remains so difficult.
“China might be doing some tiny thing within the next decade or two (2010-2030 timeframe) and once again it’s completely irrelevant to the point I was making.”
Correct me if I’m wrong, but your point was that, other than the members of the ISS partnership, no other nation or entity is interested in pursuing a space station in Earth orbit. Even if we set aside the historical Soviet stations and current Bigelow achievements and plans, why would Chinese planning be irrelevant to this point?
FWIW…
anonymous.space wrote:
No problem, it was on purpose since the ISS and the plans for it has been around for a while now. I’m talking about the period of time from when the idea of an ISS partnership was established and up to the present. This reaches all the way back into the early, mid, or late eighties depending on how and from which perspective one looks at it even though the international agreement wasn’t signed before 98 with on-orbit construction starting the same year.
Much as the US had the SS Freedom plans before the ISS the Russians had Mir-2 plans in various incarnations all the way from 1976 onwards including a plan as recent as one year before being partly incorporated into the ISS layout in 1993. However just like SSF Mir-2 was highly unlikely to become an actual station on its own due to a lack of funding/support (its variations had after all existed as a make-work project for about 17 years). If the Soviet Union hadn’t collapsed it would have stumbled on without any launches just as it had and did for at least a year in Russia before they joined the preparations for the ISS partnership.
So my point was and continues to be that without the ISS it would be over two decades (and possibly still counting) of relatively rare ventures of humans into LEO, perhaps even none after a while (including the possibility that there might not have been anything in working order for the Russians to sell to the Chinese for them to modify and call their own).
Practically no human space flight to LEO (and there’s no reason to think it would be replaced by a drive to go elsewhere).
I’ll ask again:
And sorry about the various mistakes and bad grammar; I’m joining in on the calls for a preview button ^_^ (although I did proofread…)
Also I probably should have written “Practically no human space activity in LEO…” instead of “space flight” although I think a lack of human space flight would be a likely outcome in such a scenario.
And just where is the money that firms like Xcor and SpaceX and even RpK receiving coming from?
XCOR received a lot of its funding from the Rocket Racing League. It does have some government research contracts (always fixed price), and uses them to advance its own goals, taking the profit from them and plowing it back into R&D. Unlike most aerospace contractors, XCOR views R&D as a cost of doing business, rather than a profit center, but if they can get the government to pay the to develop something they need for themselves, they’re not stupid enough to turn down the money.
RpK is not receiving any money from anyone, as far as I know. The entity doesn’t even exist any longer. Rocketplane Global is raising funds privately, and not taking any government money that I’m aware of.
RpK DID however receive about $32.8 million or so from COTS before it lost the contract.
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/18/418340.aspx
And as you note, RpK no longer exists now that the government money has stopped flowing.
Government money is government money. And without it New Space would fade out..Except of course for the billionaire hobby firms.
The question is what will happen to the flow of money fromt he government to New Space if Obama wins?
Will it increase, or decrease with space spending in general?