In this week’s issue of The Space Review, Taylor Dinerman takes The American Spectator to task for lumping NASA’s exploration vision in the same category as large federal programs like farm subsidies and Medicare prescription drug plans. (The article that Dinerman refers, which apparently only refers to NASA in passing, to doesn’t appear to be on the magazine’s web site.) Dinerman sees NASA as a changed agency since the VSE was introduced over two years ago, noting it is now “far friendlier to entrepreneurs than ever before”. Dinerman makes the case that, rather than being more evidence of “Big Government”, NASA is actually a key element of conservative aims to support private enterprise and maintain American preeminence, something that makes some a little uncomfortable: “The case for NASA is a nationalistic one, and while our friends on the left would have us believe that this is a dirty word, some on the right dislike it, too.”
“rather than being more evidence of “Big Government”, NASA is actually a key element of conservative aims to support private enterprise and maintain American preeminence”
I’d say it’s both right now. NASA is pointed in the right direction as far as private enterprise is concerned, but much effort’s required on both sides to make it work.
I object to the idea that NASA’s new interest in supporting private enterprise is strictly a “Right” issue. While I am very much on the “Left” in social issues and certain large government projects (e.g., Medicare, the national park system, Amtrack, and indeed NASA), I also support free enterprise and NASA’s role in encouraging this. I don’t believe that it is strictly an either-or choice. Moreover, nor do most Americans, whatever they say (e.g., I don’t see many Republicans giving up their cars in ideological revulsion to the Freeway and Highway systems).
I believe the best model (meaning the most likely to succeed) for opening the space frontier is something on the order of the British East India Company, the Hanseatic League of trading cities, or Arianespace, albeit with a greater degree of entreprenurial input.
If so, the United States’ current “far Right” ideology against such organizations does not help our cause.
— Donald
When the feds attempt to intervene to boost technologies on Earth, it’s called ‘industrial policy’ and ‘picking winners’, and the conservatives have (rightly, IMO) criticized it.
Why is doing it in space supposed to be better? Surely the bureaucrats don’t suddenly become far wiser just because it’s space we’re talking about.
So, the Internet, the Airline industry, high-speed national automobile travel, and indeed our only commercial space industry, the comsat industry and its supporting industries, are all “picking winners” and automatically bad? All of these were clear examples of (generally bipartisan) industrial policy. Even SpaceX is receiving substantial government help, both right now and in the general technological background in which they operate.
With respect, in common with many on both the right and the left, your view of the technological world is overly symplistic.
— Donald
One other thought, isn’t our push to enter space itself “picking a winner” and an “industrial policy?” Why do we care whether humanity enters the Solar System? Why do we want any government work or help in this endeavor? Why do we try to give private space tourism operators tax incentives, streamlined regulation, and other benefits that other technologies don’t get?
Look under the hood, and just about all of us want at least some degree of technological guidance — the question is not “whether,” but “how much.”
— Donald
Back in November, the Space Review published an article of mine which made the case for Democratic and/or “liberal” support of space exploration. In it, I pointed out that there are elements of both liberal and conservative ideologies which, in my view, support the general cause of space exploration. I therefore read this article with a great deal of pleasure.
I am an unabashed Democrat and my day job is to help Democrats get elected. But I believe so strongly in space exploration that I would be more than happy to join hands with even the most conservative and reactionary Republican in support of it.
On this issue, there are no liberals or conservatives. We should come together in a Grand Alliance against the short-sighted and small-minded people (of both parties) who would have us forever trapped on Earth.
We should come together in a Grand Alliance against the short-sighted and small-minded people (of both parties) who would have us forever trapped on Earth.
How about a crusade against the silly-minded people who use strawman arguments?
Count me out!
Not all government is bad, and not all private enterprise is good. Now reverse, Not all government is good, not all private enterprise is bad. If the idealogues on both sides could be made to recite this every morning, maybe the world would be a better place.
Chance, well put and I fully agree.
Jeff: But I believe so strongly in space exploration that I would be more than happy to join hands with even the most conservative and reactionary Republican in support of it. On this issue, there are no liberals or conservatives.
Jeff, I fully agree. On this issue (though on this issue alone) I support even Messrs. Bush and Delay. There are even people on the “other side” who agree: c.f., last week’s editorial in Space News about Boehlert.
Unfortunately, it is not us who set the tone of the debate. There are plenty on this list who would far rather be ideologically pure and correct than make it into the Solar System.
— Donald
There are plenty on this list who would far rather be ideologically pure and correct than make it into the Solar System.
Frankly, I consider this sort of argument to be disappointing (if expected). It assumes that the policy being pursued will actually ‘make it into the solar system’, and that the critics are opposed to this goal. The contrary position is that the critics do not believe NASA will achieve its goals, the hopes of the ever-wishfully thinking space fans notwithstanding, and that given this lack of confidence in NASA’s honesty and competence, a withholding of support is called for.
Mr. Brooks’ original strawman statement about having humanity ‘forever trapped on earth’ is a great example of NASA-fan hubristic claptrap. No, it is not the case that not funding a manned space program now will forever doom mankind to be trapped on Earth. We are not at the apex of civilization, where our godlike decisions dictate what all future generations will dare to accomplish.
Paul, the term “straw man argument,” especially when substituted for reasoned debate, always makes me suspicious. In this rare case, however, you do respond logically, so I will too.
No one can know how much time we have. My rather extensive knowledge of ecological theory leads me to believe that Earth’s biosphere will absorb industrial impacts up to a certain point, and then collapse very suddenly with little warning. Do I think we are close to that point? No. Do I, or you, know? No. Do I think we will ever reach that point? That depends on a lot of factors that may change — not least whether we move any of our industrial activities off-planet — but the Earth is a finite ecological system and we are expanding our impacts on that system at an ever greater rate. So yes, I do think at some point Earth will reach its carrying capacity and we will be out of time. Even if that is far in the future, it is probably prudent to at least consider the possibility that it might not be.
As to your first paragraph, I do not object when people disagree with me on the best way into the Solar System. Where I object is when someone disagrees because my idea is insufficiently conservative, or involves some meaningless complaint like its involving “big government” when, with a few exceptions, almost all of the ideas discussed on this blog involve big government. I object to the double standard that, say, the Highway network is okay, but using a government project to establish space transportation is not okay.
— Donald
I am in the process of writing a book about these matters–how much should be private, how much should be public–and the matter is not easily resolved. If things went my way, for instance, a bunch of government employees would have to find work elsewhere because I would divest NASA of a lot of its operational duties and hardware, starting with the shuttle and ISS. However, there are practical matters to be dealt with, like our contracts with other nations.
Additionally, while I would like to see NASA focusing on EXPLORATION (and by that, I mean space travel beyond the Earth-Moon system), there are also national security matters to consider. The State Department treats all satellites and related materials/hardware as “munitions” under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). There are also concerns about “space control.” NORAD did not go away just because the Cold War ended. There could also be problems for the private sector (i.e. space tourism) with a “hypersonic 9/11.” That will require security of some kind–private/professional or government.
I’m partial to Jerry Pournelle’s take on things: let NASA go back to performing aeronautical and space-related research and designing “X-planes” to test new technologies as they become available. Once the technologies are proven, NASA turns those technologies/materials over to the private sector to make a buck off of them. It’s a proven model, and a lot less expensive than our current program. NASA could also continue to take the lead in deep space exploration (the planets and beyond).
Any time anyone proposes to “shake up” NASA, they just have to remember that they’re messing with people’s livelihoods, power bases, money, votes, and other things that are precious to them. Change in this environment is not easy.
/b
Bart: The State Department treats all satellites and related materials/hardware as “munitions” under International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR).
I hope you research this a little more carefully before you finish the book. Ask yourself why it is that civilian comsats are treated as weapons, while we happily sell real weapons to almost all comers and remain the world’s largest exporter of arms. That decision had little to do with security, and everything to do with finding an excuse to make a (failed) attempt to take down one of the Democratic Party’s largest single doners.
It’s a proven model, and a lot less expensive than our current program.
It’s a proven model for developing an airline industry to fly from point to already-existing point. It is not a proven model for opening a new frontier with no established destinations.
If you haven’t already, check out this rather old article of mine,
http://www.speakeasy.org/~donaldfr/sfmodel.pdf
— Donald
That decision had little to do with security, and everything to do with finding an excuse to make a (failed) attempt to take down one of the Democratic Party’s largest single doners.
The point of my book is not to discuss the motives behind particular policies (and this was the first I’ve heard about the attempt to “take down” a Democratic donor). I was merely pointing out that the policy exists and that it has implications for how the government is likely to react to a “privatized” space economy.
It’s a proven model for developing an airline industry to fly from point to already-existing point. It is not a proven model for opening a new frontier with no established destinations.
I beg to differ. We learned a lot about how to develop supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and spacecraft through the X-planes (X-15 stands out as the finest example). And prior to that, the old NACA developed propellor and jet engine designs that eventually found their way into the private sector. The point of these vehicles is to test the best we have right now, and push it to its limit until it cracks up. We learn something from the crack-up, and then we build a new one based on what we learned before. If it can work for aircraft, it can work for spacecraft.
If you haven’t already, check out this rather old article of mine,
I will have a look, thanks.
/b
The X-plane experience, and the rest, is probably relevant for getting to LEO; it is completely irrelivant for exploring or settling the rest of the Solar System. That will have much more in common with this history of deep-sea shipping than with aircraft development.
— Donald
Or, as your article suggested, the transcontinental railroad. A worthwhile read, thank you. Oh, and here’s one I found re: large-scale projects. It’s a bitter pill for the free-marketeer in me, but worth reading:
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume4/space.htm
Cheers,
/b
“The X-plane experience, and the rest, is probably relevant for getting to LEO; it is completely irrelivant for exploring or settling the rest of the Solar System. That will have much more in common with this history of deep-sea shipping than with aircraft development.”
Donald,
I don’t disagree with your analogy of the deep sea (in fact, Mark Gittleman, VP of Oceaneering Space Systems has a thoughtful letter to editor in Space News this week on the subject of humans or robots), but your statement “completely irrelevant” is a pretty definitive statement. You are usually more careful than that.
Instead of “x-planes”, I suggest use of the word x-vehicles. The distinction here is a spacecraft/vehicle whose primary (if not sole) purpose is to test and demonstrate new technologies by actual flight test. The operational purpose is secondary at best (some suggest that any operational objectives can be dangerous.)
In fact, this already happens for in-space technology beyond LEO. Examples: Orbital Express, Deep Space 1, Clementine, XSS-11, XSS-12, Space Technology 5, 6, 7 and 8, Mercury and Gemini (they were x-vehicles that demonstrated techologies and operations leading to the Apollo capsule/systems), Discoverer II (SBR demo cancelled by Congress), Midcourse Space Experiment, Mighty Sat 1/2, etc. There are many others.
I suggest that x-vehicles (broadly defined), to prove & demonstrate new technologies beyond LEO, will play an important role in exploring (and settling) the rest of the Solar System.
Assuming a broad definition, you can even think of some of NASA’s recently announced prizes as meeting this definition.
– Al
PS – On the subject of Mercury and Gemini as x-vehicles, leading to Apollo, it is interesting to note that Apollo was a “spiral development” program. But that is a dirty word this days on the 9th floor of NASA HQ.
You are usually more careful than that.
Granted, Al. I wrote that late at night as I was racing out of the office and I accept that it may be a little too absolute. However, I stand by its basic theme. Deep space travel, especially the initial expeditions, will be very, very different from getting into LEO, and there are few if any comparable analogues in recent human history. The crew of a Navy ship will have a far greater understanding of the challenges involved in getting to Mars than will any airman. Likewise, I suspect, the supporting engineers.
— Donald
Donald,
I agree with that point. In that manner, NASA has already had to make significant adjustments in its thinking betweeen 1-2 week space shuttle trips and 3-6 month space station visits. They are much different operationally, in many ways.
Deep space expeditions will take it another step along that path.
– Al
Which is why I think the ultimate importance of the Space Station project is vastly underestimated today. Learning to build and live in space for extended periods is much more difficult — and probably of more moment — than quick dashes to Earth’s moon.
A permanent presence on the moon, and the attendent experience surviving on the type of body that dominates the inner Solar System, will be another step down this path.
— Donald
I don’t think the thoughtful pro-space critics of the space station would disagree with you about the value of a space station.
I think their primary point is “Did it really have to cost $100B and take over 30 years to complete this project”?
The answer, of course, is “No, it did not.”
– Al
Al:
I must confess to being one of those pro-space ISS critics; I also must confess that Donald’s article(s) on the space station are starting mellow my take on the thing. I like the idea that NASA is strolling toward the idea of allowing the private sector to resupply the station, thus providing at least one immediate market for all of the aspiring private launch service companies out there.
Reagan was originally sold on the station (remember Space Station “Freedom?”) as a place for developing commerce and manufacturing in orbit. It would be built in ten years–by 1994–and cost $8 billion. That didn’t happen. However, if the station was doing that, other things could follow.
Are any of the current private launchers on the drawing board big enough to handle heavy-lift work like bringing up ISS parts? I know X-33 was designed to (theoretically) do that; the full-size Delta Clipper might have done so as well. In any case, the first step is to get the private sector to start handling resupply missions, and then–God and the Congress willing–take over launching and completing the remaining pieces of the station. That would allow NASA to decommission the Shuttle and focus on completing ISS components, developing CEV, and maintaining its science programs.
What the heck, dream big!
/b
Bart: Are any of the current private launchers on the drawing board big enough to handle heavy-lift work like bringing up ISS parts?
I’m not sure this is necessary. First, the Station is clearly capable of surviving and being a market in its current configuration. Any additional construction is a bonus — albeit an important one since it increases the size of the potential launch market.
Second, if and when the Station is complete, any further evolution can easily use newly-designed components launched on the vehicles of the day. The only absolutely critical heavy elements that I am aware of are the gyroscopes, but I can also think of some workarounds (which would be expensive, but also create a bigger launch market). Maybe second generation gyroscopes could be lighter?
In any case, I don’t think pure maintenance of the Space Station requires the Shuttle or anything like it.
— Donald
I think it’s irresponsible to say things like, “I believe so strongly in space that I’ll support Bush and DeLay.” It’s like saying, “I believe so strongly in my left toe that I’ll shoot myself in the head.” Also, how can we blast off for the planets if our launch pad is a wreck? Never mind that Bush & DeLay aren’t doing for space what they say they are (the Bush VSE isn’t about getting into the Solar System, it’s about replacing the Shuttle).