The New York Post is probably one of the last pages you’d turn for commentary on space policy topics, yet on Sunday no fewer than three op-ed pieces on the future of space policy appeared in that newspaper. However, in general you’re not missing too much.
In one piece, former astronaut Tom Jones makes the case for essentially the status quo, continuing Ares 1 and Orion, although with adequate (read: increased) funding. “A review of NASA’s management and program execution is prudent, but also invites further delay in getting Orion flying,” he writes, referring to the pending Augustine review. “Building our first new manned spaceship in thirty-five years will be difficult, but NASA’s people are up to the challenge, just as they are proving with Hubble. If given the resources, I know they will launch Orion, and make it both safer and cheaper to operate than the shuttle.”
In another essay, Buzz Aldrin argues for a renewed emphasis on the ISS, saying it should be “an international global commons for the space faring community of nations — led by, not dominated by, America.” In particular, he calls on bringing China, India, and Brazil into the ISS. He doesn’t note that, for the time being, China appears more interested in continuing work on its own, more modest space station plans (not the mention the geopolitical and other complications associated with incorporating China into the ISS), and that Brazil was once supposed to provide its own small contribution to the ISS under an agreement with the US but bailed out because of financial problems.
Finally, Phil “Bad Astronomer” Plait claims “NASA needs a modern Apollo”. And what exactly would that be? Plait is vague, other than it would involve exploration and science and taking “the next giant leap”. (How it would be different from, say, the Vision for Space Exploration isn’t clear.) “I want NASA to push against the frontiers again,” he concludes. “We should give NASA more money, not starve it of what little it gets now.” Given how difficult it is to give NASA more money in even the best of times, it’s going to be really tough to do it now, especially with a vision as vague as this.
I put up a critique of Tom and Phil’s NASA boosterism on Sunday.
How it would be different from, say, the Vision for Space Exploration isn’t clear.
Presumably, given Phil’s unfortunate BDS, it would be different because it wouldn’t be Bush’s plan.
It is always tough to add anything to Rand’s analyses, he usually is on target.
I would add that Tom Jones does not add much original thought to the conversation – it is like he is reading from a teleprompter. For instance, we have gotten close to building several manned spaceships – counting the X-38 for an example – and didn’t get there. Was it partly the fault of NASA’s people – not being able to stay within available resources? How is it that they are suddenly able to develop a new spaceship when they have not been able to for the last 35 years? In spite of often generous funding? Rand of course discusses this when he points out that it has taken 5 years to get to any sort of a PDR for Orion.
And Buzz Aldrin has some interesting points but introducing an international partner causes us to “train” them (and ourselves) – we need additional translators, negotiations, travel, research into Quality Control capability, etc etc etc. It was a big task to qualify the ATV to dock with the ISS, and they have been our partners for years. Bringing the Chinese into the mix would greatly complicate a process that needs to be simpler. One way that would work is if they could supply simple experiments – that use standard interfaces. But would the Chinese or government of India want to be seen as Junior Partners, only qualified to send up a battery powered experiment? Certainly the Russians insist on being seen as equal partners.
All three of these people have written a commentary in support of human spaceflight. A fact that should be applauded and appreciated even when some of us might disagree with a particular detail. Anytime a column is publish in major publications supporting manned space exploration and advocating for increased funding is a win for NASA and the space community. So let’s keep that in mind instead of seeing how we can pick them apart lowering everyone down to the lowest common denominator.
@Rand Simberg
Presumably, given Phil’s unfortunate BDS, it would be different because it wouldn’t be Bush’s plan.
This comment by you is exactly what I mean when I say that you engage in partisan politics. Phil Plait said nothing about the previous administration. His article was apolitical and yet somehow you manage to find some fault regarding some supposed bias against Bush. SJ!
Anytime a column is publish in major publications supporting manned space exploration and advocating for increased funding is a win for NASA and the space community.
A “win” for NASA (getting more money to do whatever it wants, regardless of its value in opening up space) is not necessarily a “win” for the “space community” (assuming that such a thing even exists). It’s certainly no win for me.
Phil Plait said nothing about the previous administration.
Not in that piece, no. But it’s not like he’s never criticized the Bush administration.
His article was apolitical and yet somehow you manage to find some fault regarding some supposed bias against Bush.
I was just putting forth a hypothesis based on his history. What do you think the difference is between Phil’s proposal and the VSE?
Yes, Rand, there is a space community. I did not say family though perhaps that is not necessarily a bad analogy. In either case, that does not mean that we all have to agree on the same thing in order to be defined as a community. However, we all share the same interest of space development no matter how divergent our views on how that can be accomplished and whether it be manned or unmanned or some derivation of both. Space science and unmanned missions generally benefit whenever NASA gets a budget increase either by not having their own funding axed or getting some extra funds without slashing funding elsewhere. So increased funding can be a win for the space community.
Tom Jones point of view seems to be that the Ares/Orion is a worthwhile investment and is on the right track. So naturally he supports increasing funds to accelerate the program. Your point of view is that the Ares is not feasible and a waste of money. You compared it to the space shuttle and how inferior it is in some ways. And in one respect you are right that the Ares I will not have the same capabilities as the space shuttle. But you ignore the simple fact that the mission profile for Ares I is altogether different than that of the space shuttle. Ares I was designed to take humans beyond Earth’s orbit to the Moon and eventually to Mars. Two different mission profiles. The space shuttle was designed to be and LEO transportation system to which end it failed miserably never reaching the goals set by NASA and kept us stuck in LEO stifling human space exploration. A large part of that failure is due to our government slashing NASA funding from 1969 to 1972 until all that it had left was enough for the space shuttle system when they could have done so much more.
Dr. Griffin was explicit in his opinion that the Ares/Orion main focus was Mars and the Moon and the system could be adapted to support ISS if necessary. He had iterated a number of times that the COTS program was dedicated to to developing regular commercial cargo and human transport to the ISS but in the case that wasn’t forthcoming then the Ares I/Orion could step in and seervice the ISS. He hoped that would not be necessary.
Having read Phil’s column twice, I don’t see anything there to suggest that he favors dropping VSE for some new vision. You bring up what Phil has said in the past but ignore the fact that much of Phil’s criticisms of Bush was due to cuts in science funding by Bush’s administration. But, this is besides the point which you seem to miss. What is most relevant to you seems to be what Phil said about President Bush than the merits of what he says in the current article. So Phil’s politics is really the issue in your view.
However, we all share the same interest of space development no matter how divergent our views on how that can be accomplished and whether it be manned or unmanned or some derivation of both. Space science and unmanned missions generally benefit whenever NASA gets a budget increase either by not having their own funding axed or getting some extra funds without slashing funding elsewhere. So increased funding can be a win for the space community.
I disagree. Did you read Jeff’s piece at The Space Review this week?
I don’t believe that the board of (for example) Boeing shares the same interest in space development that I do. Nor should they be expected to. Are they part of the “space community”? How about the Planetary Society? Some of them are actively opposed to space development, preferring to keep space pristine and unsullied by humanity. Are they part of the “space community”?
If you disagree with my critique of Tom’s piece, that’s certainly your right, but I’m not going to stop trying to make sure that NASA’s money gets spent more wisely in the future. And you haven’t really addressed my criticism.
So Phil’s politics is really the issue in your view.
No, that was really just as an aside, as a possible explanation for Phil’s vague piece. I was just trying to answer Jeff’s question.
Your definition of a space community is based on what criteria you establish. If you posit a large number of criterion that must be met then you define the term too narrowly and risk excluding those interests that might complement or serve your own like that of Boeing. The Planetary Society supports robotic missions so they do support unmanned space development. What the Planetary Society ignores is that they would not have any funding for robotic missions without funding for human spaceflight. This has frequently pointed out to them. The commonality is that all of you have an interest in space outside of the atmosphere of Earth even though you have may different views about how space should be developed and they can be adversial elements. Just because Jeff Foust thinks that the term is debatable does not mean there is no community. My brothers and I don’t have the same jobs or interest does that mean we are not family? Depends on how you define it doesn’t it? My next door neighbor and I rarely talk and have different schedules. Does that mean that we don’t live in the same community? So what parameters are you using? My parameters are just a few general ones so there is a broad definition of what constitutes a space community. Are only the people agree with you and organizations to which you belong part of your space community?
As far as Phil Plait goes, Phil did not say that Obama needed to dump the VSE and adopt a new vision. It was Jeff Foust who brought up the VSE issue, not Phil. Phil could simply have been proposing an Apollo like mission as a way of fulfilling the ideals set forth in VSE. Your response to Jeff was that well it is probably political since Phil Plait didn’t like Bush. You threw this out there even though you very well knew that Phil Plait was talking in general terms and not specifics.
Frankly, I couldn’t tell what in the world Phil was talking about.
I agree with Rand Simberg, and with Buzz Aldrin. Apollo served a geopolitical purpose in its day, but times have changed.
>>”Bringing the Chinese into the mix would greatly complicate a process that needs to be simpler.”
I agree with Aldrin on this. ISS is running out of cash and transportation. It needs a new partner with man-rated rockets and deep pockets, and there aren’t a lot of choices. China wants to join ISS, but was rebuffed rather insultingly by Griffin.
ISS was finally funded by Congress when the Russians were invited, not as an instrument of Cold War rivalry but as a catalyst for international trust and cooperation. It can continue to serve that purpose. It is because we do not fully trust China that we should invite them to join.