Over at National Review, Jeffrey Anderson (of whom I’d never before heard) is bewailing the new space policy, saying that Barack Obama is “no JFK.”
It’s been ten more years of going nowhere since Krauthammer wrote these words. Obama now proposes another ten to come.
As Krauthammer has rightly noted elsewhere, the most dangerous part of space exploration is leaving and entering the Earth’s atmosphere. The most interesting and exciting part is getting as far away as possible. So, what does President Obama propose? That we stay close to home.
That is simply untrue, at least if we are to believe rumors about Monday’s announcement. Saying that we don’t have a specific policy to go back to the moon on a specific date is not equivalent to “staying close to home.”
Sadly, many people continue to equate whatever NASA’s plans are with progress in space, and if they’re changed, or not fully funded, the assumption is that we are abandoning human spaceflight. But in fact, we’ve made little progress over the past few decades with NASA’s plans, and were going nowhere fast with the Program of Record that is mercifully, for both taxpayers and space (as opposed to NASA center) enthusiasts, about to be euthanized. Space policy is one of the few areas in which the administration seems to be getting it right, and it’s both ironic and sad that people who fancy themselves defenders of small government are also defenders of a bloated, expensive, and ineffective government program, for no other reasons than nostalgia for a Cold-War victory and a dead Democrat president.
[Update a few minutes later]
Another myth:
Furthermore, at a time when the president claims his focus is on jobs, scrapping these programs — on which we’ve already spent nearly $10 billion — would cut public spending in one area that actually creates jobs.
Of course it creates “jobs” when the government pours money into a make-work project. The question is, does it create or destroy wealth? Again, he’s making an argument that I’ll bet he’d deride as economically bogus if it were about hiking trails, or high-speed rail. And how many jobs are destroyed because the money being spent on NASA isn’t being applied to something more productive and desirable (particularly on productive and desirable things in space)?
[Late afternoon update]
For Instapundit readers, I have a follow-up post on this subject, which I hope will be cross posted at NRO soon, or at least this weekend.
[Monday morning update]
For those who came over here from NRO, I’ve extended and expanded on that Corner post here.
Rand,
Well put! Another comment on Jeffrey’s piece worth making:
“As Krauthammer has rightly noted elsewhere, the most dangerous part of space exploration is leaving and entering the Earth’s atmosphere.”
This is flat out incorrect. The vast majority of the danger for any beyond earth orbit mission is going to happen while you’re out there in the wilds. Even NASA agreed that an astronaut is about 30x more likely to die from something other than launch than they are to die during the ascent phase of the mission. If you only include the atmospheric reentry part in that number, it might drop to something only ~15-20x more likely to die from the actual BEO portion of a mission than from the ascent/descent phases. Even if you go with the really pessimistic ESAS LOC numbers for stock EELVs, you’re still talking about over 90% of the mission risks being from portions of the mission outside of earth orbit.
~Jon
Every justification for spending government (taxpayer’s) money, other than defense, is based on the same false premises (an argument for the greater good which is just plain false.) Every dollar spent always returns less than a dollar in value. The idea that there are things only a government can do, is just false (with acknowledgment that getting a group to work together outside of government arm twisting can be difficult.)
Did art exist before national endowments? Roads? Industry? Etc?
Of course it creates “jobs” when the government pours money into a make-work project.
Superficially this is true, but is this really true with respect to the greater picture in this particular case? NASA employees tend to be smarter than your average bear, and the opportunity cost of their lost talent being spent on dead end projects, would seem very high.
If released to the commercial sector these NASA employees may achieve far more, enabling more start up technological companies that help solve the worlds problems, increase the wealth of the US and significantly increase long term job creation.
The greatest tragedy of the NASA personed space program was not the money lost, but the talent and expertise locked up and wasted – the wasted intellectual capital of the best and the brightest that could have profoundly advanced the US if employed elsewhere.
With the end of the shuttle and Ares, commercial space, and many other technical fields besides, are going to have a great influx of talented people wanting to do new and interesting things.
Aye, Pete, there’s the rub.
But there are a significant number of people out there who still believe that, if the Government doesn’t employ certain people in certain industries, nobody will.
Advanced engineering industries, as you pointed out, are an obvious example of how damaging this philosophy can be to the long-term innovative possibilities of a country.
Rand,
If you get a chance take a look at The Write Stuff article titled, “And now Sen. Bill Nelson blasts space plan”. Jim Hillhouse is launching a major propaganda war against commercial spaceflight, listing a long list of “points” that he claims prove Ares I is the way to go. I countered every bit of B.S he flung except for the following statement for which I have no detailed info:
“And as a former orbits guy who has followed SpaceX through their long slough towards building what was essentially an Atlas I, who could not solve their own Falcon I’s inclination to explode until NASA engineers stepped-in and fixed it, upon what is this confidence of yours based that commercial can do what NASA cannot?”
I’ve no idea what he’s talking about, and neither does he. AFAIK, Falcon I never had an “inclination to explode.” If he’s going to throw around slander like that, he has to substantiate it.
I could support the cancellation if I believed that the government bureaucrats would get out of the way of private industry.
We have the ability to exploit space privately, and there will always be those willing to take the risks, both personal and financial, to do so.
We need a moden day Isabella (perhaps you Mr. Gates?) to team up with the Rutans and get the next age of exploration going.
“And as a former orbits guy who has followed SpaceX through their long slough towards building what was essentially an Atlas I, who could not solve their own Falcon I’s inclination to explode until NASA engineers stepped-in and fixed it, upon what is this confidence of yours based that commercial can do what NASA cannot?”
Since not a single Falcon booster exploded, you know he’s lying right off the bat.
The first flight attempt failed within 60 seconds of launch due to a corrosion issue.
The second flight attempt flew the first stage perfectly. The second stage fired and was going well until it started oscillating (or more accurately, coning) which caused fuel starvation.
The third flight attempt had a new engine in the first stage. It flew perfectly, but at staging, residual thrust caused the first stage to bump into the second stage.
The fourth and fifth flights went perfectly. None of them exploded. If NASA did anything to help SpaceX solve their problems, I’d like to see some documentation. AFAIK, SpaceX solved their problems on their own.
I agree that Obama actually made a good decision here. Also a good point that we haven’t really been getting anywhere with NASA. So, anyways it is not like we will be missing much.
I think this is gonna turn into a pretty brutal slug fest because NASA isn’t going to go down without a fight on this one. I could possibly see a sheepishly grinning NASA suddenly say they could do ARES I for a little more than half the original estimates. Then, turn around and instantly cut all the groups of people that sit around and think of crazy non-existent ways of launching make believe rockets. Do like most any other company and just instantly slash the work force. Still though, you have to wonder about Obama taking this course seeing that it is only going to add to the groups of Congress critters he has to have a teaching moment with.
AFAIK, SpaceX solved their problems on their own.
Actually, they got a lot of help and oversight from Aerospace, due to their military payloads. ARES Corporation also provided some support on safety and mission assurance. I’m unaware of anything NASA did, other than track their COTS milestones.
Ceteris paribus, I’d sooner destroy wealth via NASA than through HUD or Head Start.
Rand, I am seriously disapppointed to see you stooging for Obama on this issue. Do you not see that the point here is not merely a rearrangement of funding, but a basic, fundemental retreat for American exceptionalism? Do you really think that, in the current economy, private investors are going to pony up billions for a Moon mission with no short-term profit potential? OK, I’ll agree with you that LEO access should go commercial and that Ares 1 was a bad idea for any of several reasons. But seriously… private investors fighting the whole economic, tax, and regulatory structure of the current government to send someone to the moon?
J’accuse, Rand: You are so hung up on your “NASA is the enemy” jag that you are willing to make excuses for the real enemy. Do you really think that NASA is going to be the major obstacle? Not the IRS, the SEC, the Justice Department, the State Department, and a gazillion activist lawyers of every stripe who will be lined up to stop something that might actually make America look good to the world? With the current crop of trans-nationalists in Washington? You’re worried about the guys with pop guns and totally ignoring the army with AK-47s approaching from your six.
Today marks the end of America as a space power. Pretty soon, China and Russia will have the means to deny us access to space if they so choose. And the rest of the world will know it, and proceed accordingly.
I am seriously disapppointed to see you stooging for Obama on this issue.
“…stooging for Obama…?
…seriously… private investors fighting the whole economic, tax, and regulatory structure of the current government to send someone to the moon?
Well, I have to say that that’s at least a novel straw man…
Pretty soon, China and Russia will have the means to deny us access to space if they so choose.
And that will happen…how, exactly? And it has what to do with cancelling the Constellation monstrosity? Or not stating a specific date by which we will send civil servants to the moon?
> Pretty soon, China and Russia will have the means to deny us access to space if they so choose.
And that will happen…how, exactly?
Possibly through China completing development of its Divine Dragon military spaceplane. Of course, building Constellation would do *nothing* to counter that. If you’re really worried about that, the proper response is to support development of the US military spaceplane, not Ares.
Arguing that we should fund NASA to stop foreign militaries from gaining control of outer space is like arguing that we should fund the Peace Corps to stop Communism. It’s strange how many people who consider themselves Republicans, even conservative Republicans, will immediately abandon their principles when it comes to space.
Well, Mr. Simberg, it seems a great day for private spaceflight. You have been a frequent and vocal opponent of the Shuttle program, and pretty much any human-spaceflight effort by NASA. I look forward to the blossoming of the private spaceflight industry, any day now! My own hope for 2010 is a modest four-fold increase over 2009 ( 4 X 0 = 0 ).
I will only be satisfied when rich tourists can shell out $200,000 to fly up to the bottom of outer space for 15 minutes, and not actually accomplish any science, or anything useful.
Why spend billions of tax dollars on space to build a space station, when we can let the private sector spend millions, and not build anything?
Sorry, “Mitchell,” but your pathetic comment is not worthy of a response.
There is only one talk radio station here in Elko so I was listening to Rush Limbaugh and he was really going at President Obama for killing America’s return to the Moon and turning America’s space agency into an Earth agency focused on global warming.
And NPR later on also had a piece on end of the Ares I and NASA’s Moon program that seemed critical of it as well. Its just possible the President’s new space policy may wake up the masses who have taken NASA launching astronauts into space as a given.
It may well be a very interesting election season.
Tom Matula
Rand, to be sure there will apparently be vague promises to develop an HLV and do some other technology studies related to travel beyond LEO. Barring any contradictory evidence, it appears that the administration to pulling a classic political ploy to kill an idea by studying it to death.
I could support the cancellation if I believed that the government bureaucrats would get out of the way of private industry.
I share gahrie’s concern. When are leftists ever in favor of privatization/commercialization?
Ah yes, China. Oh noes, they’re going to race us for the Moon! At the rate they’re going currently (3 manned flights in 6 years, the next flight planned for 2011) they’ll be on the Moon sometime around … 2040. The Chinese manned spaceflight program is extremely cautious, it is not racing any other space program in any reasonable definition of the term.
Rand wrote:
…..it’s both ironic and sad that people who fancy themselves defenders of small government are also defenders of a bloated, expensive, and ineffective government program, for no other reasons than nostalgia for a Cold-War victory and a dead Democrat president.
It’s true that defending government-run, taxpayer-funded space exploration is inconsistent with advocating limited government and free enterprise. Having said that, however, I think you are wrong about what’s motivating the opposition to Obama’s cancellation of the moon mission.
What’s infuriating about the cancellation — at least to THIS advocate of limited government — is that Obama’s motivation in doing this has nothing to do with shrinking government or privatizing enterprises government has no business being involved with. If he were motivated by such concerns, he wouldn’t be so busy nationalizing the domestic automobile industry, taking control of banking and finance, and seeking to seize control of both the entire healthcare industry as well as the energy production and distribution industry.
So it is a reasonable guess that Obama’s motivation in cancelling the moon missions has much, much more to do with promoting his statist dream of vastly expanding government power at the expense of individual liberty than anything at all to do with a move toward “limited government”. Even if it has the short-term benefit of eliminating one improper government program, it’s a VERY safe bet — in my opinion anyway — that it is only part of a longer term plan to have NASA focus on some OTHER freedom-threatening, government-expanding project, such as dredging up more evidence of “global warming”.
Obama’s agenda — every single aspect of it he’s revealed prior to this move — shows that he is a committed statist intent on the endless expansion of government power and the endless diminution of individual liberty. Given that, everything the man does must be considered a threat to our rights until proven otherwise.
Actually, I can see China reaching the moon well before 2040, despite their low number of flights. The techniques for living and working in space are already well understood. Since they’re not pioneers, they don’t have to retrace the same series of steps that we used. All they really need to do is prove their hardware.
As a conservative, I have to agree with Mr. Simberg. The government does not create jobs.
However, I really have a hard time seeing the private sector doing much beyond launching comsats at this point. There needs to be something to overcome the massive startup costs of an initial outpost – somewhere to go, somewhere that private industry can service. Without a destination, there is no market.
Space travel was descrived as “our national hobby”. There is no constitutional mandate for it, no real justification for expending public funds. However, I would not be opposed at all to one or more national space programs supported by voluntary contributions. Something like an option on a tax return, or highly visible public charity.
If we had a national space outpost administration (as distinct from a space science administration – they are really two different things, and it seems a perpetual source of confusion in NASA as to it’s mission), I would happily donate $1000/yr. If we get avg $100/yr/adult donations to something like that, we could afford to apply NASA’s current budget without any congressional hand-wringing, to the task of breaking through the startup costs of colonization. But there would have to be a clear and useful mission.
Put an outpost that supplies support for xxx personnel and xxx facilities on the moon, supplies utilities to other modules, using private launch, ect. Put a starter colony on Mars.
It would depend critically on public enthusiasm, but if the public isn’t enthusiastic, then, as much as I would hate it as a rocket scientist, I have no right to their money.
However, I really have a hard time seeing the private sector doing much beyond launching comsats at this point. There needs to be something to overcome the massive startup costs of an initial outpost – somewhere to go, somewhere that private industry can service. Without a destination, there is no market.
Bob Bigelow is working on that.
So it is a reasonable guess that Obama’s motivation in cancelling the moon missions has much, much more to do with promoting his statist dream of vastly expanding government power at the expense of individual liberty than anything at all to do with a move toward “limited government”.
I’d go with Rand’s guess: that the subject is way down on Obama’s list of priorities, and so he’s happy to go along with the recommendations of the most recent blue-ribbon commission. I’m happy that he’s accidentally landing on possibly the best strategy one could imagine him proposing.
Obama’s agenda — every single aspect of it he’s revealed prior to this move — shows that he is a committed statist intent on the endless expansion of government power and the endless diminution of individual liberty.
One counter-example off the top of my head: he suspended the enforcement of federal drug laws against users of medical marijuana.
> .. That is simply untrue, at least if we are to believe rumors about
> Monday’s announcement. Saying that we don’t have a specific policy
> to go back to the moon on a specific date is not equivalent to
> “staying close to home.” ..
Don’t know what rumors you heard, but the news clip I saw said NASA would be defocused on studying climate change from orbit?
One shouldn’t forget that Obama was elected during the Panic of 2008 and has had to contend with the current great recession. This anti-ebullient time plus Obama’s growing political difficulties make it difficult for him to support visionary space programs.
Around The Sphere link mentions that it has been 38 years since NASA had a man looking at the Earthe from Lunar orbit.
Don’t you think it’s time to try something different? I’m not bashing NASA, just saying that the NASA/congress/president group isn’t getting it done, and it doesn’t matter which combination of them you choose to blame. There have been many initiatives from that direction over the last few decades and look at the results. Move on.
A truly conservative space policy must certainly center upon developing rockets that launch and land upright, supported by fins, with the goal of reaching the canals of Mars and the swamps of Venus!
> Kelly Starks Says:
> January 30th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
>
>== Don’t know what rumors you heard, but the news clip I saw
> said NASA would be defocused on studying climate change from orbit?
The OMB said:
“The President’s Budget will also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work — constrained for years due to the budget demands of Constellation — on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.”