NASA, Other

Conservative conundrum

One of the most documented ironies of the new plan for NASA unveiled by the White House in February is the clash of ideologies: a president widely regarded as a liberal (or even by some as a socialist) is supporting a plan to turn over to the private sector one aspect of NASA—transport of astronauts to low Earth orbit—that has previously always been done by the government. In turn, many conservatives who would seem, from an ideological standpoint, to be predisposed to support the plan find themselves opposing it because it also cancels most of Constellation. What’s a right-minded conservative to do?

According to an op-ed in the Orange County Register by UC Irvine business professor Peter Navarro, with contributions by grad student Greg Autry and Mojave Air and Space Port general manager Stu Witt, the answer is to support both. They’re not fans of “our socialist space model”, but worry about the ability of companies to follow through on schedule with plans for commercial crew transportation. Also, they believe that “pressing matters of national security also call for a continued U.S. government presence in space”; in particular, they’re concerned about efforts by other nations, in particular China, “to weaponize space and seize a strategic position on the moon.” Continuing Constellation would somehow deter this, although they’re a bit vague on the connection besides providing “a credible deterrent with ongoing robust and responsive manned and unmanned space programs.”

So, faced with a choice of commercial versus Constellation, they choose both. They justify a decision that seems at odds with conservative fiscal philosophy by noting the benefits that come from space, including the claim that combined civil and military government space budgets “come in at less than the annual fuel savings generated by use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) in interstate trucking.” (They don’t source that claim, although a 2008 report finds that the potential fuel savings for interstate trucking fleets “could reach $53 billion” if all took maximum advantage of GPS-enabled technologies.) But would conservatives agree that savings by the private sector justify additional spending by the public sector?

163 comments to Conservative conundrum

  • Andy Clark

    It all adds up to one thing:
    “If you want it all you have to fund it all”. Commercial is good, national security is good. So let’s see; we have the USAF and Airlines, the US Navy and commercial ships. Not so bad really is it? So let’s just add some funding to NASA – say enough to take it to about 1% of total government spending. At the same time let’s open the skies to commercial space, won’t take much money maybe a small increase to the FAA’s budget.

    Increasing NASA’s budget to 1% of government spending will almost double the budget. Take that approx $18Bn from the DoD or some other bloated program and in the words of Larry the Cable Guy; ‘Git ‘er done”. Nasa would at once be embarrassed by largesse. Let’s hope they put it to the use that their charter requires.

    Hey, we can all dream – right!

  • amightywind

    Not so surprising. Conservatism means attaching value to what you have and endeavoring to preserve it. The US is the undisputed leader is spaceflight and technology. Our achievements over the last 50 years dwarfs that of all other nations combined. Obamaspace is wreckless, like most of his policies. It risks US space leadership unnecessarily on unproven companies like SpaceX. That is why conservatives oppose it. Early in the 2000’s the GOP gave commercial companies their chance to service ISS. Let commercial space perform on these contracts and we can talk.

  • Andy Clark

    amightywind, just what do you think SpaceX is doing? Their first missions for the US Government are cargo missions. They are entitled to plan for the future too.

    Obamaspace is not reckless, it’s actually pretty conservative in approach and does away with CxP which is a great and monstrous moondoggle. Sorry, couldn’t resist the pun!

    As for American leadership in space. Well, there is still some truth to that but not much. Americans would still lead in space if they had not tried to stop other countries from launching satellites they considered competition. That all happened in the 60’s and 70’s. ITAR is another American thorn in the side of american aerospace and other technology companies. If you restrict technology on the basis of dual use or just to be anti-competitive then it will be developed elsewhere. So, today we have Ariane, as well as the Russians, Chinese, Indians and Japanese to contend with. America shot itself in the foot there guys, not very bright but then that’s politics for you.

  • mike shupp

    Oh Lord… Let’s not take newspaper op-eds out of Orange County as serious blueprints for national policy, eh?

    That said, I do wonder if Obama and his people are feeling perplexed by the animosities their attempts to re-engineer a space program are generating. Protests by people unhappy about losing jobs on the shuttle program could have been anticipated, and I think Obama’s April 15 presentation was aimed at those. But continuing protests from people who simply don’t like the new policy, and the fond fervent embrace of that policy by libertarian New Space advocates who ordinarily despise Obama’s objectives, must be causing some head shaking in the Oval Office.

    Well. It’s not our duty as citizens to be obedient on all issues, and after 40 years of placidly accepting the space programs our beloved Presidents have seen fit to grant us, I think space buffs are entitled to kick up some dust. Even if won’t lift all us into orbit, the US space program is still capable of providing a gawdy spectacle…

  • Robert G. Oler

    This is currently the “conservative” line on all spending that they “like”…it consist of “cut spending” we dont like, then increase the spending on things we like even if it isnt working all that well.

    Kudo’s to Rand Paul who just noted on MSNBC that “all spending” has to be cut including “the military”.

    more political predictions later Robert G. Oler

  • “Well. It’s not our duty as citizens to be obedient on all issues, and after 40 years of placidly accepting the space programs our beloved Presidents have seen fit to grant us,”

    And this is why I’m confused at the opposition to the commercialization. Aside from the, at best, untested assumption that commercial space isn’t ready to do it, it would seem the absolute best way to get out of the cycle of a new space program every time we have a presidential election would be to hand over at least the routine pieces to commercial so we have vehicles on the slate no matter who is in the Oval Office. That way this or any future POTUS can announce any new spacecraft they like, and when said spacecraft goes overbudget or falls on it’s face from an engineering perspective, we still can get to space. I’m tired of complete access blackouts everytime a vehicle has a problem or we change vehicles. To me, no matter what the destination we aim for, the number one thing our space program needs is some basic redundancy, whether government or commercial. And frankly, we aren’t going to get it from the government rocket programs by any plan I’ve seen. If you think going out guns blazing in support of Cx is going to change the cycle of presidential decrees on space, you’re more a part of the process than a solution.

    “Conservatism means attaching value to what you have and endeavoring to preserve it.”

    If by value you mean money, then yes, Cx is an excellent project. We’ve spent loads of money on it. If by value you mean output per dollars spent it’s a pretty poor example.

    And it begs the question of why conservatives in general (though I don’t pretend to know your own opinions) would so vehemently defend a program that has some serious flaws on the auspices of ‘preserving value’ but at the same time so happily sink the ISS, a program that actually is in orbit, into the Pacific. How is an arguably ineffective space station any different than an arguably ineffective rocket program? And how is an actual space program with real hardware and active projects less worthy of ‘endeavoring to preserve’ than a rocket system that thus far has been delayed indefinitely and has flown one half-baked potemkin model?

    And given Cx’s performance thus far, how does it make sense to continue that project but can other arguably ineffective programs we have like Social Security and MediCare? It can’t be because they’re Socialist, because that’s what Cx is by the conveniently loose definition used these days. It can’t be because it’s a program that works because even if they meet the deadline of 2015 they currently estimate (and have been estimating since before Obama), they’ll be two years behind initial projections and way over budget. It can’t be because of better outcomes because they’ve already reduced the mission to 2-week sorties instead of bases and all but killed the Mars plans.

    So what is it? What makes Cx ‘something of value’ that’s worth ‘endeavoring to preserve’? Cx doesn’t make sense for conservatives to defend no matter what stripe of conservative they happen to be. Whether you’re a ground-pounding protester or a philosopher, a neo-con or a libertarian, Cx is just not the picture of a conservative plan. And the only way it can be made to be one is by using the sort of fuzzy logic and wiggle words that call into question nearly every other position conservatives hold including most of the core principles. THe problem is not that you can’t come up with an explanation. The problem is that any explanation you arrive at necessarily results in heavy duty cognitive dissonance.

  • amightywind

    Robert G Oler wrote:

    “Kudo’s to Rand Paul who just noted on MSNBC that “all spending” has to be cut including “the military”.”

    Puzzling. Schizophrenic? On the one hand you continue support Obama who has increased government spending over 25% from Bush levels and on the other you applaud a guy who would tear it apart and ratchet spending back to 2005 levels and below? Which is it? In the coming age of fiscal conservatism and restructuring of obsolete entitlement pacts, Americans will often be presented with false choice arguments by the left: “you can afford 2 wars but you can’t feed the children!” Pay no attention to them. Reagan didn’t. We can afford Apollo on Steroids and an emaciated Social Security.

  • Robert G. Oler

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/aeronautics/features/future_airplanes.html

    this is the sort of stuff that NASA should be doing in human spaceflight, not goofy things like Constellation

    for all the Constellation huggers…there is no DC-3, B-17, or Boeing 707 without NACA (nor is there my Ercoupe!)

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    These ‘green’ designs are several years old. These smart MIT students are being duped into wasting their time for the nefarious ends their radical environmental masters. We need a better fighter! The airline industry does not want to devolve to dangerous, noisy unducted fans or 300 mph airspeeds.

  • […] take a little time today to post on what is perhaps my least-linked post in some time, if not ever. This post at Space Politics about the interestingly backwards position of most Republicans to the new space […]

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 11:08 am

    Robert G Oler wrote:

    “Kudo’s to Rand Paul who just noted on MSNBC that “all spending” has to be cut including “the military”.”

    you replied

    Puzzling. Schizophrenic? On the one hand you continue support Obama who has increased government spending over 25% from Bush leve

    nope

    in fact it is a complete misstatement of my position as to make it seems as if you did it on purpose.

    NO ONE supported the TARP LESS then I did. Indeed I was actively opposed to it. I had/have no problem with the various banking institutions that got us into this mess with ridiculous speculation and financial BS going completely under. The FDIC is there to protect individual bank deposits, the double edge sword of free enterprise is the ability to succeed and fail. The banks who screwed the middle class can fail easily in my mind.

    I was very against the wars in Afland and Iraq. These are trillion dollar expenditures that if we were going to fight we should have at least been taxed to pay for, since they were completely “wars of choice”. We might as a nation twenty years from now reap some benefits from a stablized iraq, which I think is possible, but that doesnt justify to this America the loss of lives or treasure (much less to this Iraq). As for Afland, it is a hole which we are simply pouring stuff down. Meanwhile OBL lives (and must be laughing his buns off).

    The stimulus. I had no problem with some type of stimulus. I look at the investments that FDR made in the Depression to create the foundation of The Republic that won WW2 and could see how duplicating that would be useful. Sadly in my viewpoint OBama’s plan is far from being that inspired. FDR electrified the south and the west…Obama’s plan has kept state workers employed (and let the states deficit spend)

    As for general defense spending. 3/4 trillion dollars is just to much. I could easily cut it 200 billion and not weaken The Republic but then again one has to do things like cancel the C17 or the alternative engine for the F-35 or get rid of bases in Japan (Why do we have those in an era of air transport?).

    The hypocrites on this forum are the right wing thunderheads both in and out of NASA who are all for cutting social programs and other things while preserving the pork that is Constellation. There is no justification for that program …none

    that includes sadly you

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    All of this hand wringing over why conservatives oppose that wonderful “commercial” space initiative by Barack Obama should have ended the moment Charlie Bolden opened his mouth and started talking about “bailouts” of the commercial space sector. At that point the thing ceased to be commercial in any but the strange way the Obamanauts understand it. A truly commercial venture has the possibility of failure to guide its activities. But if the folks running SpaceX et al now know that the government will bail them out no matter what, what does does that make commercial space but partners in a crony capitalism scan being run by the White House? By contrast, the former administration was not shy of cutting RP-K loose when it could not perform. The current administration would have just given it more cash. But then, unlike the current administration, the previous one was filled with people who had actually run businesses.

  • Pliny

    The underlying assumption in this piece–that conservatives believe in privatizing everything–is incorrect. Conservatives generally view government as a necessary evil, but still a necessary one. Government serves a limited number of core functions; our space program easily falls inside that rubric.

    I know of no conservatives who oppose private space initiative, but there are plenty of arguments against punting on LEO, Constellation, the moon et al as the Obama administration has done.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 11:50 am

    All of this hand wringing over why conservatives oppose that wonderful “commercial” space initiative by Barack Obama should have ended the moment Charlie Bolden opened his mouth and started talking about “bailouts” of the commercial space sector.

    the problem with that statement Mark is that it is a statement with no real justification. It is something that you have latched onto, kind of like that general who claimed that the WMD went to Syria, because it supports your viewpoints, and yet it really has no grounding in fact.

    The reality is that your viewpoints as to how to oppose the new plan Obama has come up with have morphed from one non reality to another trying desperately to find something that 1) sticks and 2) justifies the goofy stand you are taking.

    Bolden denies the statement and Cernan has nothing to back his up…and Cernan made some goofy ones of his own on the record.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Pliny wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 11:59 am

    but there are plenty of arguments against punting on LEO, Constellation, the moon et al as the Obama administration has done.

    really? Give one Robert G. Oler

  • http://www.rv-103.com/?p=457

    For a KSC worker’s view on this whole mess.

  • And it begs the question of why conservatives in general (though I don’t pretend to know your own opinions) would so vehemently defend a program that has some serious flaws on the auspices of ‘preserving value’ but at the same time so happily sink the ISS, a program that actually is in orbit, into the Pacific.

    Most of them are too clueless to know that was the plan, just as they were surprised that Shuttle was retired this year, though it was announced six years ago. They wouldn’t have started complaining about it until 2015. Most of the conservative complaints against the new policy are driven by emotion, not knowledge or logic. And many of them would no doubt dissipate if it had been proposed by a conservative, rather than a leftist president.

  • Mark R. Whittington

    Just a few notes, Oler.

    First, I was initially supportive of the commercial aspects of Obamaspace. It was only when it became clear that it was not commercial at all that I became skeptical.

    Second, Bolden’s “denial” is a Washington style non denial denial.

    Third, while I understand your psychological need to slime Apollo astronauts, a practice that you are an old hand it, this won’t work this time. Cernan was quoting from contemporaneous notes. Bolden has let out the dirty little secret about Obamaspace. It’s all about crony capitalism and a retreat from space exploration.

  • amightywind

    Rocketman

    Thanks for the link. Great refutation of Obamaspace by someone who has to live with the decisions of these adventurers. Keen insight into the sleaze of the elites.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Rocketman – what the KSC worker doesn’t address is exactly what we should do if no more money is coming for NASA, and we are forced to wait decades for new vehicles.

    And this is the problem with everyone who doesn’t like the new program. They act like it wont’ be difficult to get new money – guess what, it hasn’t really been forth coming for the last few years, and so why should we get more money now?

    And thats even before we address the inadequacies of the Constellation program

  • Robert G. Oler

    Mark R. Whittington wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 1:36 pm

    Just a few notes, Oler.

    First, I was initially supportive of the commercial aspects of Obamaspace.

    lets not rewrite history. It is like the efforts by the last administration to rewrite the invasion of iraq. sorry no soap.

    What you have done in your efforts to preserve a big government program that is not working all that well is to morph both the definition of commercial and what it takes for you to support it.

    When you signed up for the Standard Piece, which I have still, there is a discussion in it about how commercial space starts up and why it is a “one horse pony” (my phrase) as the legacy of decades of zero commercialism in human spaceflight. Because of your blind opposition to the current administration and blind allegiance to everything Bush the last you have since the policy came out tried everything from “The Chinese are coming” to now “its not really commercial space”.

    Sorry that boat wont float.


    Second, Bolden’s “denial” is a Washington style non denial denial.

    nope. it is a denial against accusations which are imprecise and unfounded. The standard method of operation of “opposition’ forces learned from Rove is to make accusations that are so broad as to be meaningless and essentially no rebuttable and then to claim a “non denial” when the accusations are called out for what they are…along with the claim that you make next

    “Third, while I understand your psychological need to slime Apollo astronauts,

    it is not a slime to say that Cernan is making a charge without any proof…if he has the notes push them out. It is not a slime to say Cernan is nuts when he talks about a “1 cent check off” which at best might net “pocket” change to an agency that spends 200 million a month just to keep the big government program going (and would under Constellation)

    another trick of the “Rove right” and you folks have tried this since those halcyon days pre the Iraq invasion is to try and say that pointing out factual flaws is sliming.

    Again that dog is no longer hunting.

    You are shilling for a big government program that has spent 10 billion dollars, more then Falcon 9/1, Atlas and Delta development…and that is a fact.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    thats a fair statement. right wing ideologues

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rocketman wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    all those are are the words of someone who wants the pork train to continue.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    The Constellation Program reminds me a quote on Materialism:

    <i."Materialism: buying things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people that don't matter."

  • Gary Church

    Goofy is not the word for you people arguing; pathetic is more accurate.

  • Eric Sterner

    There are a lot of disconcerting definitions of what constitutes “conservative” in this debate. I won’t attempt to sort them out since there is no gatekeeper who gets to determine what is, or isn’t, conservative, the ACU voting scorecard notwithstanding. Despite what the media believe, the tent is too big to assume agreement on issues across the board. That said, this notion that everyone traditionally associated with conservatism opposes the admin’s space plan is wrong, as Bob Walker, Newt Gingrich, and Dana Rohrabacher continually remind us.

    Space issues don’t normally break along party, or even ideological lines. We always found big-spending liberals allied with tight-fisted budget hawks in opposing space spending, the former because they wanted to spend the money elsewhere and the latter because they wanted to balance the budget. The middle tended to find common ground in support of space spending, with strong allies towards both ideological ends of their parties for any variety of reasons.

    One major problem with Obama’s plan for so-called “commercialization of human spaceflight” is that it isn’t commecialization at all. There is no economically viable market for commercial human spaceflight to LEO. (If you want a more detailed argument, try this: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf). I fervently wish there was and hope there will be. But, wishes and hopes are not a solid foundation for making public policy. That’s why you’ll find a good number of conservatives (myself included) opposed to Obama’s policy. It’s a shot in the dark based on no analysis more substantive than the hope that outsourcing to private companies will magically create enough private financing and private demand to start an industry. If/when its plans finally fail, either it will have to bail out the industry (as Bolden may have, or may not have, confessed), start over (which means we’ve wasted another few years and tens of billions), rely on foreigners (which opens up a whole new debate about space and soft power), or walk away from the human spaceflight program. There are other reasons, clearly, such as major concerns about a program that lacks a focused goal. (Does anyone remember the CAIB report?) But, that’s a different discussion.

    Now, in Obama’s defense, he may mean to do no more than outsource human spaceflight to LEO in the belief that industry can do it cheaper without a traditional cost+ procurement contract. It may or may not be more risky technically or programmatically, but it’s a resonable government experiment. (See COTS.) To the degree that this approach depends on assumptions about private market growth and private financing being available, it faces added risk that private demand and/or capital don’t show up. See X-33 (which Lock-Mart wasn’t going to come up with private capital to finish and for good reason), and EELV (which was based on assumptions about the commercial demand for space launch that didn’t prove out.) In that event, without Constellation, the U.S. is left with no capability at all.

    In any event, it’s extraordinarily unfortunate that this debate has moved in the direction of framing choices as a conflict between commecialization and Constellation. True, the Bush admin woefully underfunded its ambitious civil space goals. But at least there was a bipartisan consensus between the two branches of gov’t about the ends and the means. Now, thanks to Obama, there’s no consensus about anything. Instead, state delegations are divided against state delegations, centers are struggling to “get theirs” or keep what they have at one another’s expense, the pro-commercialization groups are fighting with the USG-capability advocates, and the science folks keep their heads down, count their lucky stars, and hope that the mess doesn’t affect them too much.

  • Vladislaw

    From the link from Rocketman on the KSC worker:

    “while providing our nation with a new ship that was designed to transport our astronauts for the next 30-40 years.”

    40 years? Gosh, we wouldn’t have to spend another dime on research on new ship designs then until 2050. We wouldn’t need to look for any new technologies or breakthroughs because we would have a capsule.

    President Obama is looking at NASA having reusable, space based, gas & go, spacecraft for the 21st century. This guy wants NASA, the Nation’s “point of the spear” for space exploration dragging their four person return capsule with them to “the moon mars and beyond”. Now THAT’S progress.

  • amightywind

    “President Obama is looking at NASA having reusable, space based, gas & go, spacecraft for the 21st century.”

    The gas Obama’s got, the go not so much. Obama will do anything but build a rocket.

  • Gary Church

    @238 Eric
    Nice post, thank you.

  • That said, this notion that everyone traditionally associated with conservatism opposes the admin’s space plan is wrong, as Bob Walker, Newt Gingrich, and Dana Rohrabacher continually remind us.

    Yup. Sam Brownback seems supportive as well.

  • thats a fair statement. right wing ideologues

    If you agree with it, I should probably rethink it.

  • Gary Church

    “while providing our nation with a new ship that was designed to transport our astronauts for the next 30-40 years.”

    I have to agree with this; we need something like what soyuz has been for a long time to come. Something man-rated that does nothing but take astronauts up and bring them down safely. Separate vehicles for cargo. It only makes sense. What about Obama’s heavy lift? Is it going to carry astronauts and cargo? Is that a bad idea or the lesser of two evils- the greater evil being having nothing at all? If the right and left keep fighting each other over it then it looks like it is going to be nothing at all.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 8:14 am

    Not so surprising. Conservatism means attaching value to what you have and endeavoring to preserve it.

    well that is what it means today.

    And why the people who were the “Founding Fathers” were not conservatives by the definition you offered.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    thats a fair statement. right wing ideologues

    If you agree with it, I should probably rethink it….

    thats about what I would expect from a “winger”…

    man hug

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg-“Most of the conservative complaints against the new policy are driven by emotion, not knowledge or logic.”

    Whether you like it or not, the very birth of the American space program was fueled by emotion (in 1957-58, panic) not logic. And continued funding of same is rationalized to the general public today, the ‘American Idol’ watchers who pay the freight, based on another emotion-pride- wrapped in a blanket of flag waving patriotism, not something as esoteric as ‘engineering rationale.’

    Revisit key decisions in the nation’s manned or unmanned space program- or other costly, government run enterprises proposed and/or administrated by the Federal government and you’ll find conservatism in lockstep with obstructionism. By its very nature, conservatism resists progress– or progressism. Conservatives have never been a friend to something as R&D risk-filled as space exploration- unless it can be transformed into space exploitation and turned into a profit center, preferably ASAP and on a quarterly basis.

    Gingrich’s endorsement of the Obama plan should be a red flag. Bear in mind there was a time in the early 90’s when he wanted to disband NASA, noting its mission had ended with Apollo. Space advocates on all sides beware. If the shift to privatization of manned spaceflight operations to low earth orbit is completed, it clears the way to break what remains of NASA up in out years and fold its remaining R&D elements and facilities into other agencies, like DoD, NOAA, FAA, etc. There is nothing in the out years. Zip. It’s all a paper plan and easy for future politicians to tear up, especially as other, more pressing entitlements compete in a distressed economy.

    To the public, NASA’s chief job is to put Americans in space. Take that away and it will be easy for politicians searching for increasingly scarce funds to support voting NASA out of existence…’by the end of the decade.’

  • Pliny

    RGO: We outsource the building of tanks and jets, but we don’t subcontract our entire military to private armies. So I am concerned about punting on core capabilities like LEO, just as I would be concerned if we decided we didn’t need the US Government to directly oversee the maintenance and operation of, say, aircraft carriers or B-2 bombers.

    I agree with the notion that this plan would have less conservative flak if it had been proposed by a Republican–or more moderate Democrat–president.

    It comes down to who you trust.

    I’ll freely confess that worry about the leftist tendency to be ambivalent, if not hostile, toward our space program. How many people have explained to me that the whole thing is a useless waste of money, that we need to wait until we’ve at least cured every disease and eradicated poverty and hunger. (I.e., never.)

    It’s a cynical view on my part but the administration’s plan, insofar it even is a plan, does smell like a first step toward abdication.

    I feels like throwing space nerds a bone (Mars!) then waiting a few years before shelving those plans, too.

    Saying we’ll go to Mars in 15 or 20 years but not establishing any intermediate goals: that’s troubling. Saying we’ll go to Mars but we don’t need to go back to the moon first: that’s questionable. Saying Mars, Ho but then spending a few years just thinking about maybe kinda-sorta eventually building a heavy-lift rocket: that’s kinda-sorta BS.

  • thats about what I would expect from a “winger”…

    That’s why “winger” is such a stupid and useless word. Especially in conjunction with the word “right.” If I were Jeff, I’d sanitize this forum by filtering out the meaningless phrase.

  • By its very nature, conservatism resists progress– or progressism.

    Nonsense. It does resist “progressivism,” but not true progress.

  • amightywind

    Olerbama wrote:

    “And why the people who were the “Founding Fathers” were not conservatives by the definition you offered.”

    Perhaps, but there is no 18th century analog to the modern bleeding heart liberal either, so I hope you don’t feel any kinship.

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    “Bob Walker, Newt Gingrich, and Dana Rohrabacher continually remind us.”

    Recite all of the names your want. Opposition to Obamaspace has a bipartisan majority. You must understand this. If you are influenced by names there is no topping Neil Armstrong.

  • Ferris Valyn

    I’ll freely confess that worry about the leftist tendency to be ambivalent, if not hostile, toward our space program. How many people have explained to me that the whole thing is a useless waste of money, that we need to wait until we’ve at least cured every disease and eradicated poverty and hunger. (I.e., never.)

    Except that there is no leftist tendency to be ambivalent or hostile towards our space program. There is a hostility towards spaceflight that doesn’t actually produce an ROI (like Constellation), but its not hostility towards the space program blank slate.

  • Pliny

    If the shift to privatization of manned spaceflight operations to low earth orbit is completed, it clears the way to break what remains of NASA up in out years and fold its remaining R&D elements and facilities into other agencies, like DoD, NOAA, FAA, etc. There is nothing in the out years. Zip. It’s all a paper plan and easy for future politicians to tear up, especially as other, more pressing entitlements compete in a distressed economy.

    DCSCA said it much better than I.

    Not saying it’s true. But let’s hear Obama put some real money where his mouth is. Going to Mars 15 years from now means there’s work to be done _today_.

  • DCSCA

    @Pliny– “Conservatives generally view government as a necessary evil, but still a necessary one. Government serves a limited number of core functions; our space program easily falls inside that rubric.”

    That may be valid if the ‘space program’ was strictly a militiary enterprise, but conservatives generally have opposed the civilian space program since the 1960’s. and today’s ideologues are much more rabid about privatizing as much of government operations as possible. Just look at how Halliburtion has been contracted to support basic military services.

    There are no conservatives who truly support a long term government funded space program. They’ve been relentlessly underfunding NASA since the Reagan days, because an R&D organization such as that simply is not structured to be a profit center. There simply are elements of government operations that are not supposed to be profit centers. Like the military– or the post office. It is the cost of living in a modern society. But given the opportunity, today’s idealogue conservatives would privatize every element of government operations they could.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Darn it, that first paragraph was suppose to be a quote.

    Wish this had a preview capability

  • If you are influenced by names there is no topping Neil Armstrong.

    I’m not influenced by “names.” I am influenced by people who actually understand modern space policy, like those three politicians who have remained engaged in it, and not been teaching engineering in Ohio for forty years.

  • Gary Church

    No reason to go to Mars- it is gravity well with nothing at the bottom except rocks and radiation. The Asteroid belt is where the easy resources are; rocks and radiation but not at the bottom of a well.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- Conservatism has always resisted progress, the root of progressivism. Look at history. Only a fool would believe American conservatism in its current, rabid incarnation, is a ‘friend’ to a loss-leader, unprofitable civilian government agency, NASA. Fold it into the DoD, and they’d love it.

  • Going to Mars 15 years from now means there’s work to be done _today_.

    Going anywhere beyond LEO fifteen years from now means there’s work to be done today. That work, however, does not include NASA developing new and unnecessary launch systems.

    There simply are elements of government operations that are not supposed to be profit centers.

    This is a stupid straw man. No one is proposing that NASA be a profit center. What is proposed is that it accomplish its objectives in a more cost-effective manner.

  • Pliny

    Ferris – I know plenty of leftish folks who express this very notion. Space is a colossal waste of time, a cold war holdover, all that money should be spent on health care instead, etc. Maybe it’s just all of the dirt-worshipping hippies that I know.

    But it is heartening, of course, that there are folks like yourself who don’t see it that way.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg “I am influenced by people who actually understand modern space policy, like those three politicians who have remained engaged in it, and not been teaching engineering in Ohio for forty years.”

    You are a constituency of one. Most Americans, who pay the freight, will most likely favor the analysis of Armstrong, the astronaut who took their flag to the moon, over three politician, especially these days. If you review Armstrong’s stated positions on ‘space policy’ over the past quarter century, particularly regarding privatized operations versus government funded and administered projects, his perspective have been remarkably consistent.

  • Gary Church

    “Going anywhere beyond LEO fifteen years from now means there’s work to be done today. That work, however, does not include NASA developing new and unnecessary launch systems.”

    If we want to go out there we need heavy lift; way heavy lift three or four times that of Saturn V. That is “necessary.”

  • Robert G. Oler

    Pliny wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    RGO: We outsource the building of tanks and jets, but we don’t subcontract our entire military to private armies. So I am concerned about punting on core capabilities like LEO, just as I would be concerned if we decided we didn’t need the US Government to directly oversee the maintenance and operation of, say, aircraft carriers or B-2 bombers.

    the trick in a democracy with free enterprise as its economic engine is to find the appropriate level of participation or intermix of government operation of “things” with free enterprise participation in the development of the tools to make those “things” work.

    It is fairly clear that the right mix is important.

    We won World War 2 in large measure because private companies, even during a time of maximium government intervention in the economic system were still free to advance notions and concepts in the use of technology. The B-29/B-32 build is an excellent example of this. Government spent a lot of money on both planes TO MAKE SURE we had a Tokyo bomber; both companies were free to design the product along the lines of a very narrow set of performance guidelines (three major ones actually) and both companies came up with a completely different mix of technology and hence vehicles. The B-32 was a spin off of the B-24. The B-29 had some technology in common with the B-17 but it was a fresh design.

    That sort of interaction worked even into the design of the F-14 and 15…where both were built in a reasonable time frame (the F-14 went from contract to IOC in under two years) but has faltered in later years because the “intermix” of government intervention and private industry innovation has become skewed.

    That is one issue.

    The next is “what government should do” and “what can private enterprise do”. In WW2 almost all the troops were transported overseas on US military vessels. Today almost all our troops ride to their staging points on commercial airplanes. why? In WW2 the threat of combat during the transport was very high, today it is non existant.

    On the other hand had “REd Storm rising” occurred the troops that rode on commercial airlines, would have ridden on ones drafted instanteously into federal service.

    It is clear to me at least, that in both venues I have discussed we dont have the proper mix…either of the government/industry mix in terms of vehicle procurement…and what government services should be in the proper area of private enterprise.

    In fact I would argue what we have is the worst of both worlds. That is why cost are spiraling out of control. That has affected NASA badly. They dont have a clue of how to operate “operational” vehicles nor anymore how to do R&D.

    They are like Bristol Palin giving speeches on abstinence.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
    If you are influenced by names there is no topping Neil Armstrong….

    maybe in your world. But it is hard for me to get excited about a person whose real triumphs were almost half a century ago, who has been out of the space policy areana for 4 decades…and whose future looks a lot like the past.

    In my world 70 year olds commenting on the future seems a little weak.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Ferris Valyn

    Pliny – maybe then you need to go out and meet more left people. Space posts at places like Dailykos frequently get a lot of good response about them (and this includes discussions about human spaceflight). And I know at least one Dirty F***ing Hippie who is very pro-space

    And Space had a bit of a presence at a previous Netroots Nation, a few years ago, which is hardly a conservative event. And people like George Whitesides, Lori Garver, Chris Bowers, all showed up and were a part of that.

    In short, the view that the left is hostile to the space program has been untrue for quite a while.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    If we want to go out there we need heavy lift; way heavy lift three or four times that of Saturn V. That is “necessary.”…

    not really.

    Robert G. Oler

  • amightywind

    Rand Simberg wrote:

    “I’m not influenced by “names.” I am influenced by people who actually understand modern space policy, like those three politicians who have remained engaged in it, and not been teaching engineering in Ohio for forty years.”

    Yeah, you’re right. That Neil Armstrong never came of anything after that moon walk. He is not high minded enough to direct the space program. Let’s leave it up to real experts like Obomber and his lawyers, gadflies like Gingrich, toadies like Bolden, and drunks like Aldrin. Now they have vision.

  • Most Americans, who pay the freight

    Most Americans aren’t paying much attention. They’re worried about their jobs, the spending, the health-care fiasco, illegal immigration, etc.

    If you review Armstrong’s stated positions on ’space policy’ over the past quarter century, particularly regarding privatized operations versus government funded and administered projects, his perspective have been remarkably consistent.

    Yes. So? What’s your point?

    When you’re “consistent,” and your answer never changes, even in the face of changing circumstances, there may be a problem with your analysis. Neil Armstrong doesn’t understand anything about affordable or sustainable human spaceflight programs, because he’s never participated in one.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Pliny – something for you to read, to see that liberals and leftists don’t hate human spaceflight (or rather, that its an old myth, no longer true – http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1332/1

  • Let’s leave it up to real experts like Obomber and his lawyers, gadflies like Gingrich, toadies like Bolden, and drunks like Aldrin. Now they have vision.

    Man, what a mightybreakingwind scumbag you are. Buzz has been on the wagon for decades, and you slander him like that?

  • Gary Church

    Gary Church wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:11 pm

    If we want to go out there we need heavy lift; way heavy lift three or four times that of Saturn V. That is “necessary.”…

    not really.

    Robert G. Oler

    No…….really.

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Yeah, you’re right. That Neil Armstrong never came of anything after that moon walk.

    not in terms of space policy. After the Moon Walk until well recently Armstrong and even Mike Collins have been as quiet as a tomb in terms of which direction HSF should go. When Collins was the NASM Director I was privileged to have a lunch (with him and 4 other people…part of a seminar I was at) and what comments he was willing to make were strictly off the record.

    Until Armstrong has surfaced on this…I dont think he has written or spoken a word about space policy.

    Buzz, no matter his issues, has commented a lot and in some depth on space policy over the decades. The first in depth speech I attended of his was in the 80’s (late probably) and it was about his Cycler system for Mars exploration.

    If Buzz had his run in with Booze…then Armstrong was for a great time a recluse. Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Gary Church wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:32 pm

    I dont think so. Indeed I think the entire Saturn class effort is counterproductive.

    We do need to increase the “size” of Lift to get the pieces up that are larger then on ISS…but I bet just doubling the lift would be about correct. The notion of “one big build” then throw it into orbit is nuts.

    Assembling a deep space vehicle allows us to solve crib death issues AND to have a certain flexibility toward failure…as well as to have standard (or more) off the shelf equipment.

    Robert G. Oler

  • No…….really.

    No, not at all. As long as we cling to the heavy-lift myth (part of the Apollo Cargo Cult) we will remain trapped in low earth orbit.

  • amightywind

    Rand:

    One good sliming deserves another, I’ve always said.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Gary,

    No, we don’t need the Nexus or Sea Dragon if we want to do large scale BEO flight – what we need is regular, reliable launch capability to space, that can get us a lot of stuff up there, and do it in a cost effective manner. Whether that means 1 Sea Dragon, or a lot of Atlas Vs, is an open debate.

  • One good sliming deserves another, I’ve always said.

    When did Buzz “slime” you? Not that you don’t deserve it, and not that it’s possible to “slime” slime.

  • Ferris,

    Read the entire post and you will find recommendations at the end.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- With all due respect to Buzz Aldrin, apparently you missed him embarrassing himself Monday night ‘hosting’ a WWF wrestling farce in Toronto on the USA Network. Wresting. Several steps down from his ‘Dancing with the Stars’ appearences. Truly a sad spectacle seeing the aging Aldrin do a stunted. Michael Jackson-styled ‘moonwalk’ with a couple of wrestlers on each side. These kind of appearences do little to add weight to his credibility in the current climate as a serious, knowledgeable, space advocate. It just makes him look old… and laughable, easy to dismiss in old age. It is truly a discouraging thing to see.

  • First of all, I want to thank everyone, even the ones who disagree with me, who visited my little site. We had over 6,000 visitors come to the site.

    The site went “viral” once it was featured on http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/one-ksc-workers.html#comments. The comments on that site were far more frequent and vigorous. That is good. I think finally there is a true discussion going on about our future in space instead of photo sessions and PowerPoints that were held by Obama.

    I do want to clear some things up. First of all, I do not currently work for any aerospace company nor speak in their name. I am a laid off Shuttle worker and I only speak for myself.

    Second, some comments at NASAWatch suggest that I “hate” SpaceX. I don’t. I actually would like to see them succeed, but I must point out that they are at the point in their launches that NASA was at over 50 years ago. They still have a long way to go. That’s not “hating” them, but being realistic about where they are right now with their launch experiences.

    Third, I don’t “hate” Charlie Bolden, but I do pity him. As I said in the blog post, I cannot imagine being hated by so many of my peers as this man is. That is a heavy burden to carry and I do pity him.

    Fourth and last, I do appreciate any and all comments on my site, even if they disagree with me. All I ask is that you read the entire post before commenting and passing judgement.

    Speaking of comments, this is still a family site and I will not tolerate cursing, or other such rude behavior. Those comments will be deleted and if need be, the commenter will be banned from this site. On other forums I behave in a proper manner while forcefully arguing my position, and I expect the same from others on my site.

    Be safe and well.

  • Eric Sterner

    @DSCSA

    You wrote: “…conservatives generally have opposed the civilian space program since the 1960’s. and today’s ideologues are much more rabid about privatizing as much of government operations as possible. Just look at how Halliburtion has been contracted to support basic military services.”

    “There are no conservatives who truly support a long term government funded space program. They’ve been relentlessly underfunding NASA since the Reagan days, because an R&D organization such as that simply is not structured to be a profit center. There simply are elements of government operations that are not supposed to be profit centers. Like the military– or the post office. It is the cost of living in a modern society. But given the opportunity, today’s idealogue conservatives would privatize every element of government operations they could.”

    Your assertion bears little relation to reality. No conservative I know (and I know plenty…we all get together at the vast right wing conspiracy meetings on Tuesday evenings) believes government is a business, although it often works like a racket. The whole “reinventing government” and outsourcing fad hit full throttle under Clinton after David Osborne and Ted Gaebler published their book in ’93. IIRC, Al Gore was the go-to guy for it in the administration. And, yes, he had a lot of bipartisan support on that issue from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats in Congress.

    Go back and look at NASA’s budget over the last 40 years. It usually increases when Republicans are President and declines when Democrats are President. It also happens that Democrats have often controlled Congress when Republicans were Presidents and Republicans controlled Congress when Democrats were President, so it can hardly be said that either party is strictly pro-space or anti-space. (Predictably, I often argue that the GOP has been more supportive of a healthy space program since the 70s than the Democrats.) In any event, it’s not relevant to the issue at hand. Obama has proposed increases in the NASA budget for a variety of things and outsourcing human spaceflight. He’s opposed in the latter by a lot of conservatives, for a variety of reasons. That simply doesn’t square with your assertion.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- “Most Americans aren’t paying much attention. They’re worried about their jobs, the spending, the health-care fiasco, illegal immigration, etc.”

    Those are conservative talking points. Regardless, they’re still paying the freight for the nation’s space program.

    “When you’re “consistent,” and your answer never changes, even in the face of changing circumstances, there may be a problem with your analysis. Neil Armstrong doesn’t understand anything about affordable or sustainable human spaceflight programs, because he’s never participated in one.”

    Unless, of course, circumstances have not change. And allowing for nuiances over 25 years from Armstrong’s analysis, for all intents and purposes, circumstances have not changed. There is simply no way in today’s economic climate, private industry can capitalize, construct and operate at a profit for stockholders/shareholders a viable, dependable manned spaceflight program. What is actually near operation today is not a practical replacement for a government funded and managed space program.

    When asked for his perspective, Armstrong has encouraged and applauded the recent inroads made on this front, but for all practical purposes in the foreseable future, private enterprise cannot absorb or support the developmental and operational costs of a pragmatic manned space program. That is why governments do it. Or raise armies, build navies and air forces and inspect meat and so on.

  • Ferris Valyn

    Rocketman – I did read your entire post. The problem is, what I said remains true. Your proposal was
    1. Increase NASA’s budget
    2. Give NASA a 10-year budget

    (I know you had more, but they aren’t relevent for the discussion)

    Ok, those 2 – they aren’t going to happen. Wishing, and praying, and hoping, isn’t going to change it. NASA is going to get roughly 8-9 Billion a year for human spaceflight, and it will be done yearly, for the foreseeable future. You may not like it, I may not like it, but thats the reality. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in for severe disappointment.

    So again, if your budget is going to be 8-9 Billion, appropriated yearly (and not on a 10-year cycle), what do you propose to do? So, no, you haven’t offered any recommendations about where the money is going to come from. You’ve offered a hope and dream to get more money, which isn’t going to happen.

  • Pliny

    Ferris – thanks for the link. I’ll comment back when I’ve had time to read it thoroughly (not at work).

  • With all due respect to Buzz Aldrin, apparently you missed him embarrassing himself Monday night ‘hosting’ a WWF wrestling farce in Toronto on the USA Network.

    I didn’t cite Buzz Aldrin, so I’m not sure what your point is.

  • Pliny

    Rand – re: ‘winger’, perhaps a filter that converts all instances of the term into this link?

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rocketman

    you wrote “. I actually would like to see them succeed, but I must point out that they are at the point in their launches that NASA was at over 50 years ago.”

    actually SpaceX is not there, nor really is anyone.

    50 years ago we had a lot less knowledge of how things worked in human spaceflight. Today that knowledge is pretty institutional.

    What is lacking in NASA and has not yet been demonstrated at SpaceX (but they are closing on it) is to demonstrate that the technology can be put into some functional form.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:58 pm

    the problem with your analysis…is that the only time NASA has had a clear very focused message…is under Democratic Administrations.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Second, some comments at NASAWatch suggest that I “hate” SpaceX. I don’t. I actually would like to see them succeed, but I must point out that they are at the point in their launches that NASA was at over 50 years ago.

    What’s wrong with that? Do you mean within three years, they’ll be safely delivering multiple crew to orbit? And in fact, they’re way ahead of where NASA was fifty years ago, because they are standing on the shoulders of giants. With any luck, they’ll be doing an orbital rendezvous this year.

    Unless, of course, circumstances have not change.

    Unfortunately for your thesis, they have. We don’t have the national imperative to redo Apollo, we don’t have the budget to redo Apollo, and we have a lot of technology now that we didn’t have then that makes redoing Apollo (i.e., Constellation) unnecessary. But all Neil understands is the Apollo model.

  • the problem with your analysis…is that the only time NASA has had a clear very focused message…is under Democratic Administrations.

    If you’re going to make historically ignorant comments like that, you should at least attempt to defend the thesis.

  • Eric Sterner

    @Robert

    Like under Carter? Build the shuttle, maybe?
    Clinton? Re-read the CAIB report’s commentary on a space program trying to do too much with too little because it had no focus.
    Obama? Which focus would that be? Seems to me that the whole point of the restructuring of exploration is that it’s not focused and could lead to any number of scenarios….including none at all.

    Reagan: Build the station as an international project among democratic nations.
    Bush I: Go to Mars. (Pretty much killed by a Democratic congress before Clinton finally buried it.)
    Bush II: Go to the moon and Mars. (Pretty much underfunded by both Bush and a Republican Congress, but more so after the Democrats took over in 06.)

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “Until Armstrong has surfaced on this…I dont think he has written or spoken a word about space policy.”

    This is innaccrute. He has on several occasions voiced his perspective on space policy. His participation as vice-chairman of the Challenger Accident board in itself significantly affected national space policy. All you have to do is look for it. In May, 1989, during a public appearence for the Apollo 11 anniversary activities he spoke on it with the press. In fact, if you peruse his comments at apaearences over the years, or even his autobiography, since he has spoken on it. But unlike Gene Cernan, Armstrong has never been comfortable bantering with the press. And, of course, the late Wally Schirra like to say that Buzz Aldrin would show up at the opening of an envelope. But manned spaceflight advocates have been disappointed over the decades that Armstrong was more vocal in public forums. But when he was, he spoke in forums that mattered.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 5:18 pm

    casting pearls before…

    Assuming the Apollo era ended under Ford and started with Carter then it is hard to argue that Republican administrations, while big on talk have been able to focus NASA toward accomplishment of that talk.

    I could draw other contrast but lets look at both the station and Bush’s VSE.

    The station, which started under Reagan (who is a Saint with me) in roughly the mid 80’s…and by the time Clinton came into power in 92 was no where near any effort of deploying. Clinton faced the choice of either maintaining the program and getting it into orbit or canning it, much the same choice Obama has faced).

    Clinton, with some missteps and largely because of Goldin (in my view) was able to tightly focus the effort, give it a purpose and push, on a pretty solid schedule deployment…we are near the end of that today.

    It is hard to argue that Bush the last did anything but follow the course that Clinton had set with the station (except to be fair Bush limited the station build)…or that had Bush the first got a second term, that the station would have in those four years made any significant progress toward deployment.

    Now we move to Bush the last and VSE. Bush gave a grand speech which had a pretty good notion of where the effort would be different…but soon the effort floundered in the NASA machinery, without any real notion of accomplishment. Despite reasonable funding and time…Ares and the entire notion of a return to the Moon is following the same path the station walked under both Reagan and Bush the first…ie floundering, costing funds and its deployment time receding into the future.

    What Psycho Dan and The Clinton administration were able to do with the station that Bush the first and Reagan were never able to do…was to focus the effort on something that was reasonable.

    It is fairly clear that Mike Griffin under Bush the last simply pushed the speech Bush gave aside and went his own way.

    History lesson is over, no test. just knowledge

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    We just disagree here.

    I have followed Armstrong, particularly during his time on the Challenger commission…while he did and has said somethings, they are the “mom and apple pie” stuff of policy…ie we should be strong, we should explore space etc…

    Unlike Aldrin who has both in the press and in speeches to space groups come up with both concepts and a rationale for human spaceflight…Armstrong has never really moved into that arena.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    see my comments to Rand. I wont revisit those here other then to say this.

    Reagan and bush the first attempt to build the space station was a lot of money spent and nothing really to show for it. Clinton got it on track.

    You might not like the station, but at one point Ronaldus the Great viewed it as the centerpiece of American commercial progress into space…and I concurred and still do with that notion. We came no where near to deploying the first element in 92 as Reagan hoped.

    As for the CAIB. Columbia would have died even if NASA had been given a goal and timetable if it had flown. That was a decision making process gone awry and that decision making process has nothing to do with a goal or focus or anything..and the CAIB was clear about that.

    Bush spent 10 billion dollars on “Constellation” and thats all we have to show for it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • History lesson is over, no test. just knowledge

    None of that has to do with a “policy focus.”

  • DCSCA

    @EricSteiner “No conservative I know (and I know plenty…we all get together at the vast right wing conspiracy meetings on Tuesday evenings) believes government is a business, although it often works like a racket.”

    Quaint and distractive talking point. If you and your conservatives friends honestly review the history of your own movement then you should see conservatives have opposed, slowed or sought to inhibit the civilian space program from the beginning. Go to the Congressional record, read the speeches and look up the voting records for conservatives in Congress in the early 1960s when Apollo was trying to get off the ground– and the battle to keep funding going as late as 1967. Nixon clipped NASA’s wings as fast as he could and the shuttle barely survived, no thanks to him. In the Reagan era, conservatives poisoned NASA’s charter by peppering ‘privatization’ throughout the charter, pressing the R&D space agency to be a profit center, something its engineering/management teams were not experienced or adept at doing, as Challenger proved. No, history is littered with the efforts of conservatives opposed to government funded civilian manned space programs. Gingrich, etc. Privatize the civilian manned space program and in the public’s eyes, there is no reason for NASA, a government agency, to exist – a goal to make conservatives today salivate and eliminate it. If this goes through. NASA will cease to be within a decade as competing interests in a distressed economy battle for funding.

  • DCSCA

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    ‘One good sliming deserves another, I’ve always said.’
    When did Buzz “slime” you? Not that you don’t deserve it, and not that it’s possible to “slime” slime.

    Perhaps you were referencing Buzz Lightyear instead.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 5:43 pm

    None of that has to do with a “policy focus.”

    maybe in your world, but in the one where policy is more then a book or position paper, and is defined as actual results…it is a record of Democratic Presidents completing or setting on a path to completion space projects that GOP ones start but let flounder.

    I recall people like you, Whittington, even KC your buddy all jumping on the VSE bandwagon here and any opposition to it was well “Bush hatred” even opposition that predicted exactly what was going to happen.

    there is more to policy Rand, then writing papers. If papers could have accomplished things Rumsfeld would be a genius.

    end of the next history lesson.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I recall people like you, Whittington, even KC your buddy all jumping on the VSE bandwagon here and any opposition to it was well “Bush hatred” even opposition that predicted exactly what was going to happen.

    Who is “KC my buddy”? Yes, I was behind the VSE. I still am, and much opposition to it was Bush derangement (many even admitted it). But only for a couple years, until Griffin fscked it up. Though I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the topic at hand.

    there is more to policy Rand, then writing papers.

    Who said otherwise? Why don’t you argue with things that people actually write, or at least imply, instead of the voices in your head?

  • No, history is littered with the efforts of conservatives opposed to government funded civilian manned space programs.

    You mean “conservatives” like Bill Proxmire and Walter Mondale?

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- Well, we can agree to disagree on NA. Armstrong’s comments to academia or aerospace gathering are hardly venues where he presented ‘mom and pop’ talks. Never really heard him speak of aeronautics in those terms ever. But we can agree that the public attention to them have been very low keyed which is why they are hard to find. Aldrin is due credit for efforts in the past but his credibility is evaporating fast as he sinks deeper into exploitive elements of showbiz– something his ego at least enjoys. Every WWF or entertainment based TV appearence cheapens any serious proposal he may have. It is understandable why he’s doing it– that’s the way he knows best to promote space, and himself, but it has a sorry, seedy side to it– a kin to Joe Lewis greeting guests at a casino. Case in point, about a decade ago this writer met Aldrin again at the premiere of the HBO series, ‘From The Earth To The Moon’ in Los Angeles. In a quiet moment we were together by ourselves and he tried to discuss the space program in serious terms, but clearly saw that the entertainment/celebrity venue was an easier outlet to reach a fresh generation. It has been a slow spiral down ever since.

  • Gary Church

    “No, we don’t need the Nexus or Sea Dragon if we want to do large scale BEO flight – what we need is regular, reliable launch capability to space, that can get us a lot of stuff up there, and do it in a cost effective manner. Whether that means 1 Sea Dragon, or a lot of Atlas Vs, is an open debate.”

    There is no debate of certain facts; without nuclear propulsion flights “BEO” and beyond the moon will take years. Without nuclear propulsion to push massive radiation shielding your astronauts will come back irradiated. Without artificial gravity they will come back debilitated. And after living in that environment for a couple years they will come back with mental problems. Atlas Vs are not going to do the job.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- re Proxmire/Mondale- Don’t kid yourself- if they’d have been senators from states that had significant pieces of the Apollo era funding invested with their constituents, they’d have been fully behind it.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    Yes, I was behind the VSE. I still am, and much opposition to it was Bush derangement (many even admitted it).

    “much opposition” is an unquantifiable number. It is like saying “most of the people who were against going to Iraq had Bush derangement syndrome”…that may be your viewpoint but it is not a valid one…particularly when those speaking on the national stage against it are people like Owens, Zinni and a lot of other retired flags.

    By the time Bush pushed his VSE, his administration had a track record, particularly in the “wars” it had started, of speaking really good policy but being unable to deliver on it…or keep the effort on track…or really level with the American people.

    To paraphrase the Scriptures, those who cant handle big programs cannot handle small ones…and unless one was blind, one could see that Bush’s space policy was like your views on policy.

    It isnt so much the execution as it is the thought.

    In the real world it is not that way.

    Robert G. Oler

  • There is no debate of certain facts; without nuclear propulsion flights “BEO” and beyond the moon will take years. Without nuclear propulsion to push massive radiation shielding your astronauts will come back irradiated. Without artificial gravity they will come back debilitated. And after living in that environment for a couple years they will come back with mental problems. Atlas Vs are not going to do the job.

    Your last sentence doesn’t follow from the ones preceding it. You need to work on your logic.

    Don’t kid yourself- if they’d have been senators from states that had significant pieces of the Apollo era funding invested with their constituents, they’d have been fully behind it.

    In other words, it has nothing to do with “liberals” and “conservatives.” It’s all about the pork (see Shelby, Richard).

  • Dang, didn’t close the tag. The last sentence in the previous comment was mine.

  • Ferris Valyn

    There is no debate of certain facts; without nuclear propulsion flights “BEO” and beyond the moon will take years. Without nuclear propulsion to push massive radiation shielding your astronauts will come back irradiated. Without artificial gravity they will come back debilitated. And after living in that environment for a couple years they will come back with mental problems. Atlas Vs are not going to do the job.

    Actually, there is debate, about all of that. There are other options beyond nuclear propulsion. And we don’t know what level of radiation shielding will really be required – Bob Zubrin argues you don’t really need any for cosmic rays, however, others do. We also don’t know if there are things we can do to counteract bone-loss as it relates to gravity. And there is certainly disagreement about whether they’ll have mental problems or not.

    And none of this has any relevance on the issue of on-orbit assembly, which you can do with Atlas Vs

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 6:04 p

    Well we can respectfully disagree on Aldrin’s show biz activities as well.

    Astronauts appeared on Tool Time and in my view didnt do as well as Aldrin did at least in the commercials for the wrestling. (I dont know about the actual show I didnt watch it…)

    Nixon at one point appeared on Laugh in…Lori Garver wanted to be “Astro Mom”.

    I dont see the two as either mutually supportive or dismissive.

    We live in a culture now (and actually I like it) where there is a connection between “stars” and “personalities” and “heroes” who can interface and be mere mortals with the rest of society. And do it in a tasteful way.

    Sarah Palin is going to crank up a reality show…and she probably wants to be POTUS

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ferris Valyn wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 6:26 pm

    I suspect that there are other smarter ways around Cosmic Rays then massive shielding…we just need R&D to find them…and probably big power sources to make them work

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- RE- Aldrin on WWF. I watched it. It was… sad. It is completely understandable what he was trying to do, along with pitching his phone app, but it does not connect. Pun intended. Seeing the aging Buzz literally MJ moonwalk across a wrestling arena w/two wrestlers by his side was… well… pathetic. Having worked in Hollywood for a time, this writer is all to well aware of the motivations and activities surrounding the cult of celebrity. As previously stated, the late Wally Schirra liked to say Aldrin would appear at the opening of an envelope. The connection you like has been around for 100 years. See the marketing of Amelia Earhart by her publisher husband, Putnam, for details. As to Palin… well, to quote Keith Olbermann, “That woman is an idiot.”

  • Gary Church

    We have everything that works right now. The things that might work are all “ways around” what will work. It’s just trying to do it on the cheap. The shuttle was a good example of that. There is no cheap.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg Of course it’s about pork. And about conservatism. But mostly politics. Shelby, who has a history of changing party alliegence anyway, can come out full throated supporting NASA funding for his state as you’d expect and still broadcast his conservative credentials knowing full well other conservative senators can kill it in a vote and he can still shout he tried. It’s called politics. His colleagues know it.

  • Vladislaw

    “Without nuclear propulsion to push massive radiation shielding your astronauts will come back irradiated. “

    That is why a lot of greybeards think they should be the early explorers to mars. They are willing to accept that risk.

    The more advanced the propulsion the faster the travel time and lowers the need for the same amount of shielding required for longer duration flights. We are also still in the early phases of meds that can help offset parts of that.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Aldrin would appear at the opening of an envelope. The connection you like has been around for 100 years. See the marketing of Amelia Earhart by her publisher husband, Putnam, for details. As to Palin… well, to quote Keith Olbermann, “That woman is an idiot.”

    we can easily agree that Palin is “an idiot” although one should be careful with using that to underassess her.

    I was talking with my wife last night about this, after K Olbermann’s story on her and Beck (we both had a hoot…see my facebook page)…but the GOP could depending on how things go be taken over by the nuts in the party who would nominate her. That would in my view ensure Obama’s reelection. She is “an idiot”.

    Buzz…yeah. The joke about “BeBe” Natanyhu (spell…the PM of Israel) is that he is “Red Light Bebe”.

    nice discussion

    Robert G. Oler

  • well, to quote Keith Olbermann, “That woman is an idiot.”

    That’s not as as valid a comment as “anyone who quotes Keith Olbermann is an idiot.”

  • Ferris Valyn

    We have everything that works right now. The things that might work are all “ways around” what will work. It’s just trying to do it on the cheap. The shuttle was a good example of that. There is no cheap

    If there is no cheap, then there is no chance at ever settling space, and no point to explore it. The fact that we no longer can do Apollo right now is proof of that.

    Its time to find cheaper technology, and money from alternative sources. We can’t keep hoping for more money from the government

  • Eric Sterner

    @DCSCA

    Really? You want to assign me homework to track down the facts you say exist, but have to date not offered? (No doubt, there are examples of conservatives who don’t like the space program, just as there are examples of liberals who don’t like it–thus my earlier point about odd pairings of the right and left to limit the space budget) Why don’t you back up your assertions and tell us which “conservatives” you’re talking about in the “early 60s” and then tell us who the big opponents were in the late 60s and 70s: Proxmire. Mondale. Fulbright. Muskie. McGovern. (All leading liberals, all opposed developing the shuttle due to cost.) Rep Ed Boland (D-MA) approps subcommittee chair who opposed and slowed down a range of robotic science missions?

    As for Nixon, by the time he took office in 1969, NASA’s budget had already started to decline from $5.25 b in ’65 to $3.99 b.

    Next, why don’t you address my last point, which pretty much throws your whole assertion into a cocked hat. Obama is the one “privatizing” the human spaceflight program. Some conservatives oppose him. Surely, you’re not about to tell us Obama is a closet conservative. It just strikes me as odd that you seem to oppose the President’s plans, but want to blame conservatives for it.

  • vulture4

    Gary Church wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 6:39 pm. The shuttle was a good example of that. There is no cheap.

    LOX is cheap. Sixty cents a gallon on site at LC-39. LH2 is cheap. Propellant grade, 98 cents a gallon. The energy that puts the Shuttle in orbit is almost free. The cost of building a new vehicle for each flight is by itself prohibitive, except for political stunts. So only a fully reusable system can ever make human spaceflight practical.

    Far too many people, including NASA managers like Mike Griffin, make the claim that RLVs are “expensive” but don’t make any effort to understand the details, which are complex, because they believe that the solution is something simple that they can sketch on an envelope but that the people who have actually worked on spacecraft for decades are too dumb to see.

    I have dug into and crawled along every part of the Shuttle processing operation for 23 years, and I have degrees in both mechanical and industrial engineering. Shuttle was intended to be the first practical form of human spaceflight. The fundamental reason Shuttle is expensive is that it was our first-ever attempt to build a reusable spacecraft, and it was built without any prototypes that could test the critical new reusable technologies in actual spaceflight before the design was finalized. Consequently there were numerous unanticipated operating costs and failure modes, and a number of design decisions were made that, in retrospect, were wrong, but can’t be corrected without a new “clean sheet” design.

    The cost is in building new parts, in completely rebuilding the SRBs, in Orbiter systems that had much higher maintenance requirements than anticipated, in overhead on huge 40-year-old facilities like the VAB, MLPs and crawlers, in the total cost accounting system that forced NASA institutional functions to be charged to Shuttle. But with all that, the shuttle is cheaper to launch than Constellation and carries almost twice as many people and ten times as much cargo.

    Ask almost anyone who actually maintains the Shuttle what could be done better, and how, and they will know hundreds of ways. These are the people who could apply the hard lessons of thirty years and build a new shuttle that would be practical in cost and safe in operation. Logically we would keep the Shuttle operating while a new reusable system is developed in parallel, so that personnel and knowledge could be shared between the programs.

    But there are no NASA employees (except the crew) who actually put their hands on the shuttle. And within a year the only workforce with hands-on experience in maintaining reusable spacecraft will be dispersed forever.

  • Robert G. Oler

    vulture4 wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    on experience in maintaining reusable spacecraft will be dispersed forever.

    and while sad, it doesnt matter. they know nothing about reusability. The mechanic who maintains C-150’s knows more about resuability then the folks who maintain the shuttle…

    Robert G. Oler

  • voiceofreason

    re: “and while sad, it doesnt matter. they know nothing about reusability. The mechanic who maintains C-150’s knows more about resuability then the folks who maintain the shuttle…”

    could we not have a rational discourse here? It seems all that many on this blog do is pontificate and bloviate; why not some well-referenced source material or attempts to prove assertions; the only source that some seem capable of citing is Keith Olberman – of course there is a lot of Empty Space in that quarter, but not the kind we are talking about exploring

  • DCSCA

    @EricSterner- yes, do some research on the early ’60’s voting records and speeches of conservatives and their opposition to Apollo. It’s all in the Congressional Record. This writer did years ago. Then lay a map over the states McGovern, Proxmire, Mondale, Fulbright and Muskie reprsented and tally up the aerospace facilities getting NASA/Apollo funding in their respective states in that era. Not shuttle. Shuttle’s history is a separate issue from the get-go, from design through its first flight. We all know the strengths and weaknesses of STS.

    RE privatization- what’s to address? It’s wrong for the HSF and will lead to the eventual end of the civilian space program, compliments of Lori Garver and her like, who is little more than an aerospace lobbyist. She is not an advocate for manned spaceflight run by a civilian space agency.

  • DCSCA

    @vor??? Have you seen Fox News? Static.

  • As for Nixon, by the time he took office in 1969, NASA’s budget had already started to decline from $5.25 b in ‘65 to $3.99 b.

    Maybe because Johnson and the congress had cancelled it two years earlier…?

    Have you seen Fox News? Static.

    Gee, and here I was thinking that it actually cut through the noise. Which is why a majority of people prefer it to other cable channels.

  • Oler… you really have far too much time on your hands. What’re ya’ posting from prison or something? Who has the time to hang out in places like this and post this much? You really need to get a life or at least take up something more constructive… perhaps standing on a corner shouting at traffic. You’d be great at that. I keep thinking that after 2012, when Obama is out of office, you’ll have even more time on your hands! Gads… that’s a nightmare.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 9:00 pm


    RE privatization- what’s to address? It’s wrong for the HSF and will lead to the eventual end of the civilian space program, compliments of Lori Garver and her like, who is little more than an aerospace lobbyist. She is not an advocate for manned spaceflight run by a civilian space agency.

    I really “dont know” Garver although we have met on a few times…and talked some. And I dont know what her thoughts were on space policy from the 05-her appointment time…

    but …when I wrote a piece in The Weekly STandard and Ad Astra (and a Hou Chronicle op ed) that advocated a policy much like todays…Garver was not supportive. Rich Kolker was in the conversation so he can more or less substantiate a synoposis of it, but I recall her musing as to how the Senators from Texas (not to mention DeLay) would react to privatizing lift to the station.

    And almost laughing at the thought of turning ISS over to some group consisting of “space grant” colleges/universaties to run.

    Garver (until the 05 period) was never a big fan of privatization. Pleased for the conversion…

    but

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Max Peck wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 9:30 pm

    Oler… you really have far too much time on your hands…

    lol today is “mommies day out” and I am doing some computer work and watching Lorelei. Thank goodness for motorized swings which after feeding/burping and changing diaper just puts them to sleep like there is no tomorrow. No chance of the batteries running out…remember enough of EE to build a power supply! (switching no less from scratch!)

    Robert G. Oler

  • red

    Mark R. Whittington: “All of this hand wringing over why conservatives oppose that wonderful “commercial” space initiative by Barack Obama should have ended the moment Charlie Bolden opened his mouth and started talking about “bailouts” of the commercial space sector.”

    I wasn’t there, so I don’t know what was said. I haven’t seen any statement by Bolden saying he plans to bail out the commercial space sector. It wouldn’t make much sense to use a charged word like that about his own program, so it’s hard to believe he actually said it.

    Notice this from NASA Watch about Griffin:

    http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/mike-griffin-ma.html

    “According to these eye witnesses, Armstrong and Cernan were accompanied by Mike Griffin. This synchs with the widely-held suspicon that not only did Griffin help write Neil Armstrong’s prepared comments, but also that Griffin has been spearheading much of the behind the scenes lobbying against the Obama Space policy on Capitol Hill. Gee, I hope he is registered … Stay tuned.”

    Also, a few days earlier, supposedly from a Steve Cook AIAA talk written with Griffin (it looks like a typical Griffin talk):

    http://nasaengineer.com/board/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3

    “Do we really want to bail out another set of failed initiatives in another few years? In fact, we are bailing out the COTS contenders now, with an additional $300M for “additional incentives” – to finish the job upon which we taxpayers have already spent $500 million.”

    (The COTS funding isn’t a bailout, it’s for new work that NASA wants, so Griffin is incorrect, but that’s another story).

    So Griffin is (according to the link above) saying “bailout, bailout!”. A few days later he’s talking to Cernan, and shortly after that Cernan claims Bolden said “bailout, bailout!”

    Mark: “A truly commercial venture has the possibility of failure to guide its activities.”

    Don’t worry, the commercial ventures will have that possibility. That’s what the Constellation supporters are so upset about (as if Ares was a sure thing). The 2011 budget describes the crew approach, and it’s very similar to COTS. They expect up to 4 competitors to be funded. They expect some failures.

    In the end, if one of the finalists fails, NASA can use one of the other finalists. If they all fail, we are back to where we are with Constellation – namely Soyuz – so we lose nothing, really. Actually even if they all fail we’d still be much better off than with Constellation, since we’d have the commercial crew work to draw on (eg: in cost-plus “bailout” contracts like Constellation uses), the Orion CRV to draw on, and we would have be able to fund an incredible amount of other activity like robotic precursors, Aeronauts, Earth observations, general space technology, exploration technology demonstrations, support/use/expansion of the ISS, human research, HLV research, etc etc etc.

  • Constellation needs to be cancelled simply because it is not meeting its objectives of providing the US with a useful space system. 2017 to get to the ISS? Well into the 2030s to get to the moon? Its not the budget, it is the program. So far every year Ares 1 adds 10 billion and another 2 years to completion. All this money for a system expected to be several times more costly to operate. At some point you have to accept it is not worth building. Better to cancel it now than to continue dumping money in they hole.

    Many people act as if we are entrusting our entire space program to SpaceX. That is just not true at all. The truth is Lockheed and Boeing are both investing in new commercial spacecraft. I am sure they know Constellation will get cancelled eventually. They are obviously not screaming for it to be cancelled because it is a major gravy train for them. These guys will develop systems far more cost effective than Ares 1/Orion.

  • Bennett

    Great comment Red, thanks!

    Oh my. Tell me again, who exactly does Cook work for,?

  • […] Space Politics » Conservative conundrum […]

  • DCSCA

    @RGOler- This writer has traded words with Garver albeit some years ago when the ISS was up against a bolder, return to the moon plan which had some chance of getting off the ground. The ISS was then and is now little more than an aerospace works project with little to show. She knew it would be that but preferred it over a bolder lunar program. Her NSS gig was nothing more than a lobbiest position which she skillfully used to advantage. It was disappointing. And there’s the politics at play between Garver and Griffin that go back some years. Frankly she is not the best person to be influencing major decisions for the long term future of the space agency. Nor is a right wing conservative newsletter published by a Fox News contributor a wise place to turn for viable government space policy.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- “Gee, and here I was thinking that it actually cut through the noise. Which is why a majority of people prefer it to other cable channels.” You mean the same people who, “….aren’t paying much attention. They’re worried about their jobs, the spending, the health-care fiasco, illegal immigration, etc.?– RandSimberg.” By your own words, they don’t matter.

  • DCSCA

    @red- ““According to these eye witnesses, Armstrong and Cernan were accompanied by Mike Griffin. This synchs with the widely-held suspicon that not only did Griffin help write Neil Armstrong’s prepared comments, but also that Griffin has been spearheading much of the behind the scenes lobbying against the Obama Space policy on Capitol Hill. Gee, I hope he is registered … Stay tuned.”” Hard to believe Armstrong would let someone else put words in his mouth. He didn’t in 1969 and from all accounts, he has always taken responsibility for his own comments, to the point of suing Hallmark when they tried to use them w/o his permission. It just doesn’t fit with his character.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    I get published in various places…TWS was I thought a good venue for the Apollo anniversary moment…it got me a phone call from Newt! (I was in Hungary when he called!)

    I really dont have anything to disagree with on your comments about Garver. I to was for cancelling the space station and moving to a lunar return (at the time) using available vehicles (and bid vehicles at the time Beal was knocking around).

    And I agree that her time at NSS was a waste…at one meeting I called for her resignation…!

    But I guess my point was that I am pleasantly surprised that she is a part of this kind of program.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RyanCole-“Many people act as if we are entrusting our entire space program to SpaceX. That is just not true at all. The truth is Lockheed and Boeing are both investing in new commercial spacecraft.”

    Uh-huh. Remember the SST program from the 1960’s? Got as far as a plywood mock-up. Based on this current proposal, we ARE entrusting the future of low earth human spaceflight to the likes of SpaceX and its brethern because there is nothing else in the pipeline for the real space program bought by the U.S. government. And in five years… seven years… when developmental costs rise, schedules slow and no manned vehicle is perfected by the private sector and the problems for raising capital in the private sector for such a risky venture skyrocket, what does the U.S. do? Well, the rationale for funding anything for NASA in an increasingly dour economic climate without a manned space program will seem a waste. And the appeal to fold NASA’s existing assets into the DoD, FAA, NOAA, etc., will have great appeal. Especially to conservatives, who relish eliminating any government agency, including the civilian space program.

  • DCSCA

    @RGOler- Ha! Great to get anything published on it. I guess what is important is that we all here really want the space program to survive and thrive but it is seen as a luxury that is less and less affordable. I told Garver to her face that the ISS was a waste of money and that we already had a space station in orbit– we call it the Moon– and that the ISS should not be floating 300 miles above Earth but firmly anchored to the floor of the Ocean of Storms 240,000 miles away.

  • @RandSimberg- “Gee, and here I was thinking that it actually cut through the noise. Which is why a majority of people prefer it to other cable channels.” You mean the same people who, “….aren’t paying much attention. They’re worried about their jobs, the spending, the health-care fiasco, illegal immigration, etc.?– RandSimberg.” By your own words, they don’t matter.

    Is there some way in which these two statements are inconsistent? Employ logic much?

    Guess not.

    Frankly she is not the best person to be influencing major decisions for the long term future of the space agency. Nor is a right wing conservative newsletter published by a Fox News contributor a wise place to turn for viable government space policy.

    Are informed and intelligent people supposed to know what the heck this means, or is it simply pseudonymous moronic babbling? Which “right wing conservative newsletter”? What “Fox News contributor”? What is this latest leftist Obamaphile derangement about?

  • red

    Eric Sterner: “One major problem with Obama’s plan for so-called “commercialization of human spaceflight” is that it isn’t commecialization at all. There is no economically viable market for commercial human spaceflight to LEO.”

    Let’s run the competition and see what the industry thinks through its proposals (regardless of what happens with the rest of the budget). It seems to me that there are lots of potential markets of varying likely viability and speculativeness. Here are some examples:

    – NASA crew transport to ISS (now to 2020+)
    – NASA crew transport to perform technology demonstrations (eg: NASA plans an EVA technology demonstration)
    – NASA cargo transport to ISS (crew systems should be able to deliver some amount of cargo to the ISS)
    – “lab” modules like Dragonlab for government of private customers
    – space tourism to ISS
    – space tourism simply to orbit
    – transport to Bigelow or other similar commercial stations (for private or government customers or all sorts)
    – transport of private or government crew to various jobs (government or commercial station assembly, satellite servicing, etc)
    – tug or other miscellaneous services (depending on vehicle capabilities)

    It might be true that commercial human spaceflight is not economically viable now, with the Shuttle still here and Ares I/Orion looming in the distant but still relevant future. That doesn’t make it necessarily true if

    – the Shuttle and Ares I/Orion threats are removed
    – NASA funds $5.8B in development money to encourage the services it needs to begin
    – NASA funds $50M in initial investigation money
    – NASA commits to buying crew services for ISS and other purposes
    – NASA eliminates the difficulty of providing long-term crew rescue services at the ISS by developing the Orion CRV government vehicle
    – NASA performs technology demonstrations like an inflatable module demonstrator that lowers the barriers for commercial stations
    – commercial stations are encouraged by the apparent shift towards commercial crew services, without which there is no point in moving forward with commercial stations (i.e. a chicken-and-egg problem is eliminated)
    – Given its greater ISS cargo needs (with Constellation no longer requiring ISS to be deorbited in 2015 for its funding, ISS getting new capabilities, ISS actually being used for research and engineering, and several major technology demonstrations assigned to the ISS), NASA decides to plan for more commercial cargo services for ISS, including potential new crew transport vendors
    – NASA funds $1.9B in KSC/Cape upgrades that may be useful to commercial vendors

    Some or all of these could actually happen. These changes could lower barriers enough to make the services viable.

    “If/when its plans finally fail, either it will have to bail out the industry (as Bolden may have, or may not have, confessed)”

    What does that mean? The services aren’t making enough money, so they have to charge higher prices? That’s not a bailout. How is this worse than the same thing happening in a cost-plus contract? With Ares I/Orion, we are guaranteed to have absurdly high development and operational costs.

    “start over (which means we’ve wasted another few years and tens of billions),”

    No, that situation would mean that we avoided wasting many tens of billions of dollars on Constellation, and got to spend it on useful things instead like technology development, ISS, robotic precursors, technology demonstrations, aeronautics, Earth observations, and all the other things that were underfunded under Constellation. We would only have spent at most $5.8B if the failure is during development, and since the budget shows the intent is for fixed-price payments based on milestones achieved (i.e. COTS-like), it’s really unlikely that we would have spent anything close to the $5.8B. We would not be starting over from scratch, since we’d have lots of potential advances to draw upon: the commercial crew effort, the commercial cargo effort, more-advanced-than-now suborbital commercial contenders that by then might be pushing for LEO, Orion CRV, etc. Even if we had to fall back to a government vehcle, we’d be in pretty good shape compared to Constellation.

    “rely on foreigners (which opens up a whole new debate about space and soft power),”

    We already rely on Soyuz in the Constellation plan – and would until 2019, probably. We even rely on Soyuz now since Shuttle doesn’t give much CRV ability. So again this doom scenario is just the Constellation status quo. However, we should be able to do the government Orion CRV a lot faster than Ares I/Orion crew transport, so we’d be in better shape than with Constellation. Of course with Constellation we wouldn’t be able to afford the ISS in the first place, so I suppose Constellation handily takes care of the CRV issue that way.

    “or walk away from the human spaceflight program.”

    That’s essentially the Constellation plan. It requires us to lose the ISS in 2015 or Constellation can’t be funded, setting aside dreams of absurdly huge budget increases or wholesale elimination of the remainder of NASA science/aeronautics. It gets Ares I/Orion to service ISS after the ISS is gone in about 9 years. Ares I/Orion then have nothing to do and no reason to launch. Constellation then gets Ares V working in 2028, but NASA wouldn’t be able to afford payloads for it. Lunar payloads would be many years after that. Constellation is walking away from the human spaceflight program, but not walking away from paying for it.

    “In any event, it’s extraordinarily unfortunate that this debate has moved in the direction of framing choices as a conflict between commecialization and Constellation.”

    Constellation supporters usually frame the debate like this:

    It’s Constellation vs. commercial crew, new commercial cargo enhancements, and associated government work (KSC upgrades, etc).

    or

    It’s Constellation vs. ISS support, new ISS capabilities, actual ISS use, and ensuring Shuttle finishes ISS.

    or

    It’s Constellatoin vs. robotic programs like the main robotic precursors, the robotic precursor scouts, main new Earth observation missions, venture-class Earth observation missions, and new Planetary Science efforts.

    or

    It’s Constellation vs. general space technology development and demonstrations.

    or

    It’s Constellation vs. exploration technology demonstrations.

    They like to pick one small piece of the things the new budget replaces Constellation with and try to compare Constellation with that small piece in an attempt to make Constellation seem better in comparison. The reality is that it’s Constellation vs. all of these things and more. You have to look at the whole package.

    The attacks on commercial space didn’t start with the 2011 budget. Shelby was attacking commercial space long before that, when the truth was that commercial space was the only chance Ares had since if it ws funded and succeeded it would relieve budget and schedule pressure from Ares I/Orion for servicing the ISS.

  • Gary Church

    “If there is no cheap, then there is no chance at ever settling space, and no point to explore it. The fact that we no longer can do Apollo right now is proof of that.

    Its time to find cheaper technology, and money from alternative sources. We can’t keep hoping for more money from the government”

    There is no cheaper technology; no cheap way to go out there. They tried to do the shuttle on the cheap and we ended up with 35 years of nothing and nowhere. So you are right I guess; with your attitude there will be 35 more years of screwing around with the same result. These basic problems of propulsion and radiation can only be resolved with super heavy lift vehicles and very powerful forms of nuclear propulsion. And it is going to cost alot of money.

  • Vladislaw

    “They tried to do the shuttle on the cheap”

    That’s like me asking for a go-cart and you build me an 18 wheeler semi truck and then say .. hey thats is cheap as it gets.

    Trying it on the cheap would have been something like the Blackhorse or the HL-20 and then upscaling it. But before you start you fire all the Apollo legacy employees and contractors and all that standing army overhead. Not “well we have 20,000 workers, whatever you design has to keep them all employed, especially the ones in my district so whatever it is … make it big!”

  • Gary Church

    The shuttle was always about less and less money and cheaper and cheaper missions until the only thing left was LEO and 25 lousy tons of payload that never should have been on the same vehicle with astronauts. The whole spaceplane idea never made any sense except politically. The Space transportation system should have been the next step up from the Saturn V; something reusable and with a wet workshop second stage and with double or triple the payload. They had the components ready for production but the company that had the keys to the kingdom- Aerojet with their monolithic 260 inch SRB and 2 million pound thrust hydrogen engine- lost the political contest to a certain company in Utah with close connections to somebody in NASA. And the other favored aerospace companies trying to make a killing. Throw in the military and their requirements take it a spyplane and that was the disaster for man in space that was the shuttle.

  • Vladislaw

    It was more like the redesigns that keep adding to it. Like the increase in cross range, payload, etc.

    The DC-3 had a 12000 pound payload and no cross range that design died. Good link about early shuttle design.

  • Gary, there’s nothing wrong with the spaceplane concept… you’ve just gotta use the wings on the way up as well as on the way down. Writing off an entire design option just because of one failed attempt is stupid.. even if the attempt is so incredibly failed as the shuttle has been.

  • Practically all economies are mixed economies. And practically everyone who says that they hate government loves their favorite government programs. Conservatives love the largest socialist organization in the world, the US military industrial complex ($1 trillion a year). Many Southern conservatives actually love the TVA– the largest government utility in America. Senior citizens of course love social security and medicare.

    But I’ve seen very few politicians who are against private commercial manned spaceflight.I also think that there’s probably a majority in the Senate and in the House that supports giving government money to support this emerging industry.

    But their objections come when people starting talking about these private companies– replacing NASA’s manned spaceflight capability– especially when they don’t currently have the capability to take people into orbit. Besides, NASA doesn’t need an unnecessary middle man to give them access to orbit.

    Manned spaceflight is expensive because the demand for manned missions is extremely low. NASA had only 5 manned space missions last year. You’re not going to significantly lower the cost of manned space travel with just 5 missions per year. And that’s why something as simple as a rocket engine cost tens of millions of dollars each.

    Obviously, government contracts are not going to be able to support more than one manned spaceflight company. So we need to help create a real market for private manned spaceflight companies– not a false market. And the real market is space tourism.

    The Federal government can help start the space tourism industry in America by establishing a government run national and international lotto system so that hundreds of millions of people in the US and billions around the world would only have to spend a few dollars to possibly win a chance to fly into space aboard a private space rocket. I’d also give the winners some monetary compensation, (one or two hundred thousand dollars), so that they can take a few months off from their jobs for astronaut training.

    Why should only an elite astronaut corp and the filthy rich be the only ones to get a chance to fly into space! Why shouldn’t the rest of us also have a chance to fly into space and maybe even to the Moon!

  • “One major problem with Obama’s plan for so-called “commercialization of human spaceflight” is that it isn’t commecialization at all. There is no economically viable market for commercial human spaceflight to LEO. (If you want a more detailed argument, try this: http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/798.pdf). ”

    I find the article’s conclusions on commercialization of space to be fundamentally flawed. First of all, they assume that because only a handful of space tourists have visited the ISS, that no further demand exists, when the problem is supply of Soyuz seats moreso than demand for them. Their source, a foxnews.com article from 2007 states explicitly that at least a dozen more potential space tourists were in the process of booking flights at that time. That number, plus the two the foxnews article stated were already on tap to go, suggests a more than threefold greater demand for that specific space tourism operation alone than stated in the overview. And considering that Space Adventures requires 20% down ($4-8 million in dollars), those are not phantom reservations.

    Furthermore, Bigelow has been talking to governments and industry alike and found a good deal of interest in their services at the prices they are suggesting. They haven’t begun to explore the opportunities of space tourism yet, however, as that has never been their primary market.

    Additionally, SpaceX has a business model that covers more than just manned space flight. Indeed several science organizations have stated their excitement at the availability of Falcon9 and Taurus II for launch of experiments due to the ever-increasing price tag, and ever decreasing availability, of launches through ULA and others. (http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100518/full/465276a.html). For that reason, even if commercial HSF is a complete dud, SpaceX still would have enough bread-and-butter customers to keep it afloat.

    It’s akin to a case study on department stores I did in my undergrad. I can’t recall the brand (perhaps JCPenny), but they found that their men’s shoe department was losing money, so they got rid of it. Their overall corporate sales slumped big time shortly thereafter. The resulting conclusion was that if they gave one member of a family a reason to go there, their sales would increase in other areas as well. So when they brought back the men’s shoes, the margins in other departments more than covered the difference. The same goes here. Previous commercial attempts have often been manned-only or stopped at basic cargo services like OSC did. But with a mixed model their cargo services can benefit from the visibility of their manned services and their manned services can remain afloat for as long as it takes for a robust market to materialize, even if it never does. That strategy, for one reason or another, hasn’t been tried in commercial space before.

    I also find their conclusions on costs of commercial flights to be suspicious. Yes, costs will go up. But the suggestion that a boost in demand will drive up the cost so high as to destroy the market poses an argument against the microeconomic model at its very core. I hardly imagine SpaceX, OSC, or Sierra Nevada saying “wow! Look at that demand, let’s raise our prices so high no one will want to buy our services any more.” Wal-Mart’s status as the largest global retailer (and largest entity) has not significantly driven up their prices as low prices are their business model. SpaceX has hinged it’s whole approach on low-cost to this point. I expect there will be a price increase, but to say they’ll up costs so high as to violate their corporate strategy seems horribly faulty.

    Given that even the papers’ sources contradict it’s basic arguments against commercial, I’m not inclined to give it much weight.

  • Welcome to the most one sided debate in NASA history. It would be funny if it were something more than a front for the unmanned and Mars people to kill yet another effort to do something worthwhile with manned spaceflight.

    One of the most documented ironies of the new plan for NASA unveiled by the White House in February is the clash of ideologies: a president widely regarded as a liberal (or even by some as a socialist) is supporting a plan to turn over to the private sector one aspect of NASA—transport of astronauts to low Earth orbit—that has previously always been done by the government. In turn, many conservatives who would seem, from an ideological standpoint, to be predisposed to support the plan find themselves opposing it because it also cancels most of Constellation. What’s a right-minded conservative to do?

    A right minded conservative would never concede the parameters of debate as outlined here. For one simple reason. We were already making market for commercial entry into crew rotation and cargo transport before Obama took office.

    This so-called clash of ideologies over commercial space is a red herring. Where were the raving conservative Constellation supporters railing over COTS in 2008? Are we seriously expected to believe Falcon 9 and Taurus II, Dragon and Cygnus, just magically appeared after 15 April 2010? Did we imagine SpaceX signed a $3 billion Space Act Agreement for cargo?

    As for Obama’s sudden come to Jesus moment when it comes to commercial space, is it just me or did anyone else notice that his principle tool for achieving it is sinking more money into the biggest public sector space-based sinkhole he could find–a five year extension of ISS operations. Conservatives wouldn’t even object if everyone just admitted that NASA is now acting as market maker, and that with no access to TLI other than Constellation, Obama has now committed us to only supporting commercial access to the wasteland that is LEO.

    This is and has been always about the most obvious, first priority of VSE–extending human presence in space. That can’t happen without going to the moon. The only architecture anyone, public or private, has for getting to the moon is Constellation. The only vehicle programs that have produced testable components for any such architecture are Ares I and Orion. These are facts, and last I checked being a conservative didn’t require us to sacrifice the facts.

    So here’s the question, if you’re serious about NASA acting as market maker in space, tell me why any of you would support a policy that makes market for only one destination–and the most useless one at that? If you can’t, then just admit it. You’ve decided that NASA should forego a core government mission–the opening of frontiers for development–and instead hope private interests assume the enormous risks on their own. Two centuries ago, Norm Augustine would’ve advised Thomas Jefferson to cancel Lewis and Clark and instead focus on building better canoes.

  • Eric Sterner

    @red

    We disagree on the definition of “commercial.” To my mind, if your only customer is government, you’re not a going commercial enterprise that responds to a free market. You’re simply a government contractor. I tend to follow this definition:

    NSPD-3, U.S. Commercial Space Policy Guidelines (1990)

    “Commercial space sector activities are characterized by the provision of products and services such that:
    • Private capital is at risk;
    • There are existing, or potential, non-governmental customers for the activity;
    • The commercial market ultimately determines the viability of the activity; and,
    • Primary responsibility and management initiative for the activity resides with the private sector.”

    Commercial human spaceflight to LEO doesn’t exist under that definition and I don’t see any hard evidence that the Obama plan will lead to those conditions, just a lot of hope. I’m also not a fan of tourism to ISS. It’s a national laboratory with extremely limited capability to support researchers, not a facility for millionaire sightseers. Using those resources to support tourists must result in an opportunity cost in the lost research that the American taxpayers built the thing to conduct.

    I hope that Bigelow is successful and the SpaceX et. al. are able to take people at a price low enough to sustain a truly commercial activity, but I have my doubts. With that in mind, anchor tenancy is a decent role for the USG if it has needs that can be met.

    As for the other point by point, I do have rejoinders, but good grief at the length of the posts we’d be exchanging! To the degree that we both check out this blog, I imagine we’ll come back to them and exchange notes on them in the future. As time permits, I look forward to that. Clearly, nobody here is going to change any minds, but I often find the discussion useful in working through issues.

    @Robert Oler
    Fair enough point about Clinton. NASA’s failure to put something in orbit in a reasonable time frame after Reagan initiated the program is a national disgrace. NASA isn’t solely responsible for that, but something is fundamentally wrong with a government that cannot move more quickly. In fairness, Challenger threw a major hurdle in front of the program and Clinton ended up using a fair amount of the design and engineering work done on Freedom after ’93.

    @DSCSA
    Well….I think we’ve beat this to death. The way I see it, you’ve argued that conservatives, who you have lumped into one giant homogenous group, don’t support a government human spaceflight program and want to privatize it. Your evidence seems largely built around your reading of the Congressional Record from 50 years ago, but you decline to offer actual facts or acknowledge contrary evidence over the last 50 years, up to, and including the fact that the current effort to “privatize” human spaceflight is being led by the most liberal President in decades and opposed by a fair number of conservatives. My position is that you find people of both ideological persuasions on both sides of space issues because people come at the space program from a variety of perspectives. I think I’ve offered specific examples of liberals opposing the human spaceflight program in general and liberals and conservatives working together to support it. I could offer more examples of liberals supporting a government-run human spaceflight program and conservatives opposing it, which would tend to support your argument, but I’ve acknowledged that to be the case, so it doesn’t seem to add much to the discussion.

  • vulture4

    All launch service providers that are actually in business have substantial government contracts, including both Orbital and SpaceX. The main difference between “commercial” and “government” as they are used in the current debate. seems to be the degree of NASA involvement in design and operations, though the money comes from the government and the actual work is done by contractors in almost all cases.

    Both the EELV operators, Lockheed and Delta, had visions of a large commercial market. However they were caught in a common bind: government contracting and commercial marketing are completely different ways of doing business. Commercial buisiness requires a marketing department; cost savings help win sales. Government business requires a contracting department; elaborate proposals win contracts and cost increases can be passed along and actually increase profits. The market was smaller than anticipated and the profit margin was higher on government operations, so they ended up almost 100% government contracts, and are not really cost competitive with commercial launch services. Consequently ULA has had only about three real commercial satellite launches in the past five years, and those were primarily from customers that couldn’t get the rides they wanted originally. SpaceX is unique in that they have about a dozen commercial launches on their order books, so I would class them as the closest thing the US has to a commercial launch provider right now.

  • The only architecture anyone, public or private, has for getting to the moon is Constellation.

    Constellation does not exist. None of it has been built except a test rocket that would only go to LEO (and not even get all the way to LEO — it apparently needed help from the Orion to circularize).

    It is a paper architecture. If we want a paper architecture to get to the moon, there are much better, more scalable, and cost effective ones than Constellation.

  • Two centuries ago, Norm Augustine would’ve advised Thomas Jefferson to cancel Lewis and Clark and instead focus on building better canoes.

    No, he would have advised Jefferson to have them go on existing canoes (as they did) and not waste years and billions building an overpriced and unnecessary new canoe that only government explorers would use.

  • BrianM

    “After the Moon Walk until well recently Armstrong and even Mike Collins have been as quiet as a tomb in terms of which direction HSF should go. When Collins was the NASM Director I was privileged to have a lunch (with him and 4 other people…part of a seminar I was at) and what comments he was willing to make were strictly off the record.”

    Actually Collins was a proponents of SEI and Mars Missions and wrote a book and a nicely done National Geographic article on the subject back about 1990. The mission was to take place in 2004. At that time Collins was a NG Trustee.

    One of the reasons NG was reluctant to put too much credence in the more recent Bush Vision was that some there remembered their interest in the SEI time frame and how well that turned out. They have refused so far even to do a feature story on ISS.

  • Vladislaw

    Presley Cannady wrote:

    “The only architecture anyone, public or private, has for getting to the moon is Constellation.”

    http://exploration.nasa.gov/documents/reports/cer_final/Lockheed_Martin.pdf

    There is a ton of different proposals for both how to get there, not only with new launchers but with existing ones and what to do once you are there. To write there isn’t any other systems designs means you do not know how to google a subject.
    ===========

    aremisasling wrote:

    “Bigelow has been talking to governments and industry alike and found a good deal of interest in their services at the prices they are suggesting. They haven’t begun to explore the opportunities of space tourism yet,”

    From interviews with Robert Bigelow I have listened to he is not going to do space tourism. He would lease a module to a company and then that company would rent out space for tourists. Bigelow just wants to build and lease facilities and let other companies decide what they want to do with the space they rent.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Eric Sterner wrote @ May 19th, 2010 at 12:02 pm

    There is a trick to managing programs.

    The thing that made AEGIS a workable system was not just making the radar/combat system work…it was bringing the NAVY down to reality. What they originally wanted to do was to design a ship around AEGIS (OK so far) but their notion of how to do that institutionally was a 18000 ton knockoff of the Virginia class (which was nuclear powered)…which would have been a great ship…but would have made the system unaffordable and taken forever to get the system deployed.

    That got axed and the DDG47 was uped to be CG47 (a knock off) and AEGIS got deployed in our lifetime.

    When Ronaldus the Great started the station, about a year after the announcement one just knew that the folks who were “planning it” had gone crazy. “Dual Keel” tens of hours of spacewalks, beam builders…all chasing not a viable Microgee environment but the holy grail of it ….and that was sold for 8 billion when any one with half a brain knew it was going to cost more…

    and then the death march started. And finally we have ISS.

    What I like about the Obama plan is about everything, but not the least of which is that it has some grounding in reality.

    Ares/Constellation the whole lunar thing is yet another “pie in the sky” program which is well on its death march to just the bare little piece that can finally after tens of billions deploy.

    If Bush had really cared about his “vision” at some place as Griffin was just mangaling it someone in the administration should have gone to Bush and said “NASA is fracking up your thing” and then gone and with the seal of the POTUS behind them…had a talk with Mike.

    But they didnt.

    and so we are left with a program that has technical AIDS.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Rand Simberg wrote @ May 19th, 2010 at 12:20 pm

    yes well said

    Robert G. Oler

  • Vladislaw

    Rand wrote:

    “No, he would have advised Jefferson to have them go on existing canoes (as they did) and not waste years and billions building an overpriced and unnecessary new canoe that only government explorers would use.”

    Actually, at the time, the exploration costs were like 2% of the budget at the time, close to Apollo. They were give a letter of unlimited credit and even the military would have to pony up if L&C needed something.

    The 55′ barge that was built was a custom model and they used two 41′ pirogues. The dugout canoes they used were only aquired later on in the mission. It is fastinating reading about getting the barge built:

    “The person who contracted to build my boat . . . pleads his having been disappointed in procuring timber, but says he has now supplyed himself with the necessary materials, and that she shall be completed by the last of this month; however in this I am by no means sanguine, nor do I believe from the progress he makes that she will be ready before the 5th of August.; I visit him every day, and endeavour by every means in my power to hasten the completion of the work: I have prevailed on him to engage more hands, and he tells me that two others will join him in the morning, if so, he may probably finish the boat by the time he mentioned”

    and this one:

    “However, a few days after, according to his usual custom he got drunk, quarrelled with his workmen, and several of them left him, nor could they be prevailed on to return: I threatened him with the penalty of his contract, and exacted a promise of greater sobriety in future which, he took care to perform with as little good faith, as he had his previous promises with regard to the boat, continuing to be constantly either drunk or sick. I spent most of my time with the workmen, alternately presuading and threatening, but neither threats, presuasion or any other means which I could devise were sufficient to procure the completion of the work sooner than the 31st of August; by which time the water was so low that those who pretended to be acquainted with the navigation of the river declared it impracticable to descend it”

  • So, was it a cost-plus or fixed-price contract?

  • Vladislaw

    It was fixed price. Lewis got into several arguements over that issue and wouldn’t budge.

    http://www.lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=496

    Good site on the boats.

  • DCSCA

    @RandSimberg- Lewis and Clark were government funded explorers. They were paid by Jefferson from the U.S. Treasury and did not raise capital from the private sector to fund their expedition.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 19th, 2010 at 3:19 pm


    @RandSimberg- Lewis and Clark were government funded explorers. They were paid by Jefferson from the U.S. Treasury and did not raise capital from the private sector to fund their expedition………

    which wouldnt bother me at all, in fact I would view it as a function of national sovereignty. The trick is that the exploration has to have some valid connection to the rest of The Republic, Lewis and Clark more then met that criteria.

    I am not oppossed to exploration that is affordable and has that connection, I just dont see anything in human spaceflight that meets that notion now

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @EricSteiner- Conservatives have done a stellar job of lumping themselves into a homogenous group on their own. The Congressional Record is evidence enough and a lengthy enterprise to research and post on a blog. If you are interested, research it, but it takes weeks. This writer did look much of it up, by hand, many years ago in the pre-internet days. It’s all there to assess — or ignore. The Obama effort is not being ‘led’ but proposed– and after 18 months in office, given more pressing priorities on his plate, toying with the fate of the luxury of a manned space program with a looming depression seems far down the list. He presented a proposal sent to him by bureaucrats infected by decades of effort to privatize the manned space program and eliminate it as a government funded and managed enterprise.

    This writer strongly supports private space initiatives as long as a viable government funded manned space program is continued in tandem with private enterprised efforts for LOE space activities. But SpaceX and other tinker toys with non-existent space taxis perched a top them simply are not viable replacements for space shuttle– or Orion — or a realistic return to the moon then on to Mars program. This writer agrees strongly with the outline behind Constellation, believes it should be properly funded and supports a return to the moon– but not the LV designs. Ares is the wrong way to go.

    Private industry has yet to demonstrate it can raise capital from the private sector, design man-rated spacecraft and LVs, construct a launch site and support facilities, train crews, etc., on a scale to replace a government funded and managed manned space program without using existing government assets. This writer is only half kidding when statinf we’ve only seen this in the movies — Destination:Moon and Drax Industries appear to be the viable ‘business’ plans.

    As stated earlier by this writer, if the shift to privatization of manned spaceflight operations to low earth orbit is completed, it clears the way to break what remains of NASA up in out years and fold its remaining R&D elements and facilities into other agencies, like DoD, NOAA, FAA, etc. There is nothing in the out years. Zip. It’s all a paper plan and easy for future politicians to tear up, especially as other, more pressing entitlements compete in a distressed economy.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- “I am not oppossed to exploration that is affordable and has that connection, I just dont see anything in human spaceflight that meets that notion now.” That rationale arguement was completely valid in 1961 as well. Send up a probe, scoop up some rock and bring them back. Who needs a flag stuck in the moon. (It’s ironic to this writer that the first sample of moon dust I saw was on display in Moscow in 1971 returned by one of the Soviet’s Luna sam-le return probes. ) Unfortunately, emotions like pride or panic drive the nation’s space program as well as engineering and logic.

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler-

    Six short visits to the moon don’t seem to constitute much of an exploration effort to declare ‘we’ve been there, let’s move on.’ Picture an assult on the moon a kin to assulting Normandy; throwing assets at it and establishing a beachhead. Makes a helluva space program and would put some fine aerospace engineers to work building space vehicles, not repairing electric organs. Still the irony of all discussion on this and other threads always comes back to funding. NASA would be in great shape of .4%, .5%, or even .6% of the money wasted in the DoD went to the civilian space effort. 1% of current DoD budgeting would be magnificent.

  • DCSCA

    @RoberGOler re- Lewis & Clark- yes, but you may be looking at it with the knowledge of already knowing what the return on the investment was. No one was certain then. Nor can they be now.

  • Robert G. Oler

    DCSCA wrote @ May 19th, 2010 at 4:09 pm ..

    to cover a few points.

    Lewis and Clark. the connection to the rest of The Republic of their exploation was clear…we as a nation had just bought the land…and had sovereignty over it. Parts of the LA purchase were “known” a lot was unknown and in the area that LC went through there were no evidences of US Sovereignty.

    If we had “bought the Moon” then well I would have a different song…however there is little that LC did in terms of gaining knowledge that our uncrewed vehicles could not do.

    having said that..I was uncomfortable with The Presidents dismissal of a lunar return as “done that”. I dont put much concern in it however; in my view we are well 5-7 years away from any position to make some decisions about any future “fun to do” human exploration.

    And I dont see Obama’s one or two terms being the venue for that.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @RobertGOler- re, L&C- The connection may appear clear’ in hindsight but the value of the return on the investment not so clear. Recall ‘Seward’s Folly’ and the investment in Alaska. In hindsight, a wise move. Comparing L&C returns from venturing West to the value of information returned by uncrewed probes to other worlds seems a bit harsh although as the old story goes, the human mind is still the cheapest computer available. I do recall Mike Collins stating years ago that people have always gone where they have been able to go (although he’s a Mars man.) So it is inevitable that humans will go to the Moon to stay. It’s just a logical thing to do. Armstrong has always said ‘someone will go.’ Americans should be the ones to do it. As it is trending now it most likely will be another nation.

  • So it is inevitable that humans will go to the Moon to stay.

    Perhaps, but not with Constellation.

  • common sense

    @ Eric Sterner wrote @ May 18th, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    “True, the Bush admin woefully underfunded its ambitious civil space goals. But at least there was a bipartisan consensus between the two branches of gov’t about the ends and the means. ”

    Trying to catch up the conversation… Anyway, when some one like you makes statements like this it really is really sad. Then again my interpretation of what you’re saying. BUT: The Bush’s VSE had a private commercial component to it. So when I read you I understand you do not agree with this new plan which is nothing but the VSE with a slightly different approach which is btw very similar to that of O’Keefe’s.

    Now, I realize your expertise is NOT technical but rather political (http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/sterner_bio.html) but please. Constellation is a failure and I will not even read your comments otherwise. This “new” approach is trying, note trying, to put things back together. At least you should understand that, right? The market/no-market argument is a non issue! What is the market for Ares? Please show me.

    Don’t you think it might be a lot more helpful if you were to try and provide something constructive for once?

    And if the new plan is a “shot in the dark” how would you call the ESAS-Constellation plan?

  • […] reading here: Space Politics » Conservative conundrum Share and […]

  • @ Rand Simberg…. He writes: “Perhaps, but not with Constellation” , in response to a Pro-Constellation person, on what program gets us bases & development. Look: Flexible Path will NOT get us any Lunar resource prospecting, whatsoever! FP doesn’t even want to deal with the building of landing craft adequate for strong-gravity-well planets/ planetoids. FP gets us one big circus show of firsts, but it gets us NO bases NOR development. Look, Project Constellation will merely resemble Apollo at the begining, but will proceed on, way past the point of just reaching the Moon’s surface again. (After a four or five decade long rift of no nation doing so, by the way.) We all should be supporting the Constellation effort, because without it, no one will get to the Moon for the next twenty to thirty years! For all its perceived imperfections, Project Constellation GETS US OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT & ONTO DEEP SPACE. This attitude by some people of, dismissing Constellation to die this year, and then wait patiently for some other different future lunar initiative to take shape, is asking the virtual impossible from fate. The U.S. needs to get started on resource assessment & prospecting BEFORE we might indeed construct facilities to expoit them, a few years later. Apollo began with a less-than-one-day surface stay, and evolved to a three-day sojourn, complete with a lunar buggy, with extended science done, over the course of the program. LET’S GIVE CONSTELLATION ITS CHANCE & HOUR IN THE SUN, TO SHOW US JUST WHAT MAJESTIC THINGS WE CAN DO IN DEEP SPACE. Enough of the LEO merry-go-round!!! We want to see our astronauts break the bonds of Earth once more!

  • “FP gets us one big circus show of firsts, but it gets us NO bases NOR development. ”

    Cx’s current plan of doing two week sorties starting in 2025 (providing it isn’t delayed yet further), also get’s us no bases or development. And it doesn’t get us those firsts either. In fact Cx is, at this point, a carbon copy of Apollo with a more wasteful budget and longer timelines. The new plan may nto do the ‘bases on the moon’ thing, but it does explore deep space, something we’ve yet to do with a manned craft in any way. We’ve at least had small, short-term bases on the Moon. We’ve never had humans beyond Earth’s gravity well. It’s far more than a ‘circus show.’

    “GETS US OUT OF LOW EARTH ORBIT & ONTO DEEP SPACE.”

    SO DOES OBAMA’S PLAN (apologies for the caps)

    “LET’S GIVE CONSTELLATION ITS CHANCE & HOUR IN THE SUN, TO SHOW US JUST WHAT MAJESTIC THINGS WE CAN DO IN DEEP SPACE. ”

    Cx wasn’t slated to go into deep space until a decade later than the new plan at the earliest and it was set to go to the same place at that point, Mars.

    “We want to see our astronauts break the bonds of Earth once more!”

    We never really have. There was a point when our astronauts were more in the Moon’s gravitational area than Earth’s, but the Moon is still in our gravity well. And both plans call for a departure from that. But the Cx plan calls for a momentery hiatus to look over our space yearbooks on the same ‘ol 2 week vacations before trying anything new. Don’t get me wrong, we’d do a lot of good science on the Moon and it’s a destination worth considering. I wish we could do both, frankly. But if you want new and pioneering explorations of space leading to an eventual Mars trip and you can only pick one route, doing a mirror-image repeat of what we did 40 years ago is not the way to go.

  • common sense

    @ Chris Castro wrote @ May 23rd, 2010 at 5:41 pm

    “LET’S GIVE CONSTELLATION ITS CHANCE & HOUR IN THE SUN, TO SHOW US JUST WHAT MAJESTIC THINGS WE CAN DO IN DEEP SPACE. ”

    They have had a chance, and actually a lot more than a chance for 5 years. They blew it. Tough luck.

  • Flexible Path will NOT get us any Lunar resource prospecting, whatsoever! FP doesn’t even want to deal with the building of landing craft adequate for strong-gravity-well planets/ planetoids.

    Yes, it does. It just doesn’t do it first. Go read the Augustine Report. Or if you have, try it again, this time for comprehension. And please stop with the CAPS LOCK. When you capitalize nonsense, it just makes you look all the more hysterical and foolish.

  • […] Conservative conundrum – Space Politics […]

  • And all you negative responders:…..REPEATING THE SAME LEO SPACE STATION STUFF, MIRROR IMAGE OF SKYLAB, SALYUT, MIR, IS ALL SO MUCH MORE WORTH DOING???!!! THE SAME, EXACT SIX-MONTH VACATIONS FOR OUR ASTRONAUT CORP, OVER & OVER AGAIN??! Is this what all you zombies would have NASA do in space for the next 15 or 20 years??! Sorry boys!! I’d rather see U.S. astronauts scaling Cone Crater or Copernicus Crater way much better, come 2030!!

Leave a Reply to BrianM Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>