As I’ve been pointing out for months, space policy is one of the few areas in which the Obama administration isn’t socialist by inclination.
46 thoughts on “Bizarro World”
Comments are closed.
As I’ve been pointing out for months, space policy is one of the few areas in which the Obama administration isn’t socialist by inclination.
Comments are closed.
Benign neglect at its finest.
A stopped clock can be correct twice a day.
Yes it is. You’ve overlooked the possibility that they don’t like space exploration. (And I don’t believe they do; the Obamites I know think we should abandon space.)
What would a socialist do if he wanted to let space stuff die? Turn it over to the free market, of course. It frees up government money for the important stuff, and if it suffocates and dies, so much the better.
After all, what would you do if you wanted to kill off all alt-space activity? Turn it over to government, right? They just think the other way around.
Carl,
You are probably close to the truth on this one. They couldn’t kill HSF outright like they wanted so they did what they felt was the next best thing, commercialize it. The big question is what will they do if commercial crew looks like it will succeed. What type of road blocks will they throw in its way so it stumbles and fails?
Carl, you talk about “they”, but Obama himself is a SF fan. How many SF fans don’t like space exploration? Carl, did you even listen to his NASA speech in Florida? And why would NASA’s budget go up if Obama’s proposal accepted? Musk and Aldrin both seem to think Obama wants to promote space settlement. Bah, nevermind, this kind of argument doesn’t matter, because I’m not going to pursuade you, Obama will do what he can, the voters, for the most part, don’t care about space anyway, and space enthusiasts who don’t like Obama won’t vote for him anyway despite him sending us in the right direction on space. Over and out.
Since Obama didn’t support a public option for health care, health insurance reform would be another anti-socialist policy.
Of course the largest Federal socialist programs in the US are those related to US defense which accounts for more than a trillion dollars in annual spending.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States
Just because Obama says he is a SciFi fan, doesn’t mean he is.
Brock and Carl are on the right track.
Wodun, just because you say he isn’t doesn’t mean he is.. speculation is inherently pointless.
When it comes to space it seems everyone is a socialist. Where’s the bounties for radar tracking? Or the free market for telescope time? Why does NASA fund expeditions to collect meteorites instead of just posting an offer to buy them at a sufficient price to encourage commercial procurement?
COTS, as great as that program is, should have been the last thing tried after just posting the price for delivery of payload to the ISS and seeing if there was any takers.. of course, there wouldn’t have been because NASA is notorious for failing to follow through on promises. I remember many people were honestly surprised that the Centennial Challenges actually paid out.. and there’s still a few people around complaining about the mid-year rule changes in some of the competitions.
Of course the largest Federal socialist programs in the US are those related to US defense which accounts for more than a trillion dollars in annual spending.
What a moron. Defense spending is socialist? You’re daft. Defense is a Constitutionally ordained responsibility of the Federal Government, you idiot.
We could always privatize more defense work out to firms like xE(Blackwater) and Triple Canopy Marcel.
What Cecil said.
I hope Marcel doesn’t claim to be a Libertarian, though he sounds typical of the bunkertarian and chomskyist wings (the wings that give us the loonytarian reputation).
I have to agree with Carl though, the only reason we are getting what we want on space is due to neglect and disinterest. The only reason for government to be in space is for defense reasons anyways. Historically all the exploration and science has been done by naval and land forces anyways. IMHO Eisenhowers decision to have NASA take lead on space to justify his open skies proposals was the first and worst decision on space policy.
the largest Federal socialist programs in the US are those related to US defense
Socialism doesn’t mean what you think it means. Def: advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution.
National defense is a necessary evil. It has nothing to do with ownership of production. It is the only thing specifically identified as a required American expense in the constitution.
Cecil, you beat me to it and said it better. Good job.
In the US, our three main space policy choices are those proposed by Obama’s executive branch, the Senate and the House.
I can live with the Senate’s plan, but it’s worse than Obama’s.
Of course, you can say that that Obama is right, but only for the wrong reasons.
But does anyone seriously think that ihe Senate or House might have a better plan because their hearts are purer?
Oy, Bob, liking space travel in your fictiion and in your real-world budgets are two very different things. For all I know Obama loves a good western or World War II battle story, like many a red-blooded American male — but that sure doesn’t imply he wants to bring back the Wild West or start a global war.
Anyway, I believe Obama might well applaud if an American enterprise put men on Mars. He just isn’t interested in it as a national goal, in the same sense as he’d be delighted if Petraeus subdued Afghanistan, but he doesn’t actually think that’s an important national goal.
Also, no, I didn’t listen to his speech in Florida. I find you can better understand the true values and goals of politicians if you don’t listen to their speeches, and instead keep an eye on their actions. I think politicians give speeches for the same reason praying mantises look and act like bits of green twig: protective coloration. To distract you from what they’re doing.
If NASA’s budget goes up under Team Obama, I suspect it’s because of (1) Congressional pork and (2) new missions for NASA (Muslim outreach!) that tailor with Team Obama’s goals, at least, those that don’t involve merely shoveling money to Democratic constituencies. Besides, so far as I can tell, Obama doesn’t object to any government agency getting more money, since it just adds to the perceived inverse-Norquist “necessity” of massive tax increases that put a much larger share of the economy under the control of government bureaucrats, i.e. Democrats.
Your conclusions are remarkably sensible, though. Even the giddiest space enthusiast is probably not as dim as to fail to realize that if Team Obama succeeds in driving the American economy thoroughly into the ditch, there won’t be any space stuff at all. So no matter how great Obama is on space, his massive failures on the rest of domestic policy mean he should not be re-elected.
Which is proof positive he doesn’t care about space policy. Pretty much everything he things is important, he wants the government to control. (Including health care; despite the lack of a “public option” in the final bill, the government is still firmly in control.)
As Instapundit likes to say, the rubes are starting to self-identify. When will Rand realize this?
As Instapundit likes to say, the rubes are starting to self-identify. When will Rand realize this?
I never had to realize this:
Why weren’t you paying attention? Who was the rube?
I find you can better understand the true values and goals of politicians if you don’t listen to their speeches, and instead keep an eye on their actions.
Amen! Like I told everyone who would listen before the 08 election, I don’t care what Obama says or how he says it. What matters is what he has done, who he has associated with and how he has voted in the past. If more people would have paid attention to those things, instead of getting tingles up their leg over the O’s oratory skill, he never would have been elected in the first place.
On the Obama space policy issue, I still maintain that if he were serious about space and commercialization of space exploration he would have maintained all or some of the specific goals of “Moon, Mars and Beyond” while promoting commercial means of achieving those goals. Instead there is only this vague notion of possibly visiting an asteroid, maybe, sometime in the indeterminate future. How anyone can look at that and claim he is seriously interested in space exploration is beyond me.
Cecil, I’m serious about space and commercialization of space exploration and I can’t think of anything worse than a government led return to the Moon for doing that.
Repeating Apollo is pointless. This is obvious. Apollo was pointless, why would repeating it not be. Putting an ISS on the Moon is also pointless. This is also obvious. The ISS was pointless, why would one on the Moon be any less so?
I know lots of people who are “serious” about space exploration, and the vast majority of them have never even though about “why”.. it’s just something they’re interested in. With that kind of philosophy is it any doubt that “sure, do that” to anything space related is an acceptable policy position?
Under Obama’s initial proposal after the Augustine Committee’s work was completed, while most Govt departments and agencies were getting cut or staying the same, NASA was getting more money — and yet the space entrepeneurship was getting a huge boost.
Cecil:
From: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/factsheet_department_nasa/
Focusing soley on crewed space exploration, this is what excited me (and should have excited you) about Obama’s original budget proposal:
“A vigorous new technology development and test program that aims to increase the capabilities and reduce the cost of future exploration activities. NASA, working with industry, will build, fly, and test in orbit key technologies such as automated, autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life support systems, in-orbit propellant transfer, and advanced in-space propulsion so that our future human and robotic exploration missions are both highly capable and affordable.”
…
“$1.2 billion for transformative research in exploration technology that will involve NASA, private industry, and academia, sparking spin-off technologies and potentially entire new industries.”
=========
The above is how I can look at that and claim he is seriously interested in human space exploration.
Since when has president have time to form well educated and thoroughly researched positions on his own ? On space, there is obviously a certain deputy administrator who has been able to pull off quite a sea change, and the policy put forth apparently happens to coincide with the presidents world view on things. But its not coming from the president, is it ?
Unless i’m thoroughly naive and there is yet someone else pulling the strings, behind the curtains ..
reader has a good point. Because WE are interested in space policy, we look for meaning where there may be none. ANY president is going to say something about space policy and have some budget adjustments to go with that policy… and it all may have nothing at all to do with space policy as such at all.
The fact that his statements about space policy are different from the eevil Bush policy is just to be expected.
while most Govt departments and agencies were getting cut or staying the same
Everything besides NASA had its budget cut?
So those are the bastards responsible for the $1.4 trillion deficit! Figures. But what did they do with all that dough?
FYI, for anyone paying actual attention, Wikipedia has a little list of changes to the budget proposed by Team Obama. Of the 25 Federal departments and agencies listed under “discretionary spending”, 19 had increases ranging from 1.2% (Homeland Security) through 8.8% (Agriculture), 12.8% (Education) and 18.5% (HUD) to 34.6% (EPA) and 48.4% (Commerce). NASA at 5.1% is about in the middle of the pack.
First, I have still never gotten a straight answer to the following question: How is giving billions of dollars in direct subsidies to Space and Boeing “commercial” and not “socialistic?” The corrupting influence of too much government money in commercial space was on full display recently when Elon Musk showed up on Capitol Hill with his hand out, snarling when some members of Congress expressed reluctance to fill it full of money for his space ship.
Second, in what sense is Obama’s “exploration program” not a fraud and a bait and switch? A brief jaunt to an asteroid by 2025 is a bit of a ho hum, but the HEFT study is already shifting that date far to the right, to 2031.
And to those who suggest that going back to the Moon is “just repeating Apollo”, I have to say you’re very wide of the mark. The Moon is the closest and easiest place for people to go and live. Access to lunar water would make further deep space exploration more sustainable.
Indeed, if anything, brief jaunts to asteroids is more “Apollo Redux” than returning to the Moon, if “Apollo” is understood to be brief voyages of exploration that do not build anything permanent.
Obamaspace has to be seen as a disaster that won’t be fixed until the next President is sworn into office.
Thank you. I’m trying to figure out why I thought that.
Trent-
Not exactly what you’re talking about in your first post, I know, but here’s commercial telescope time:
http://www.slooh.com/
Put me in the ‘disinterest/neglect’ camp since The President sees ‘less government’ as the answer in space compared to everything else. Even if human pay-to-fly plans work for a while, the first ‘oops’ will lead to blaming evil corporations and their profit motive. They’ll either need to be taken over or shut down. I have a theory as to which one John Holdren will recommend.
Benign neglect at its finest.
If it was neglect Obama wouldn’t have spent a day traveling to Florida and giving a speech on the policy to a skeptical audience.
A stopped clock can be correct twice a day.
So Obama always favors privatization, and in this rare case it just happens to be the right call? You might want to try a different cliche.
What would a socialist do if he wanted to let space stuff die? Turn it over to the free market, of course.
For this bank-shot argument to make sense you have to believe that Obama cares enough about killing space exploration to devote significant political capital to pretending that he strongly believes the opposite, and you have to believe that he’s appointed top aides with views that are 180 degrees contrary to his own in order to pull off this deception. Occam’s razor, please.
ANY president is going to say something about space policy and have some budget adjustments to go with that policy… and it all may have nothing at all to do with space policy as such at all.
Bush and Clinton went years in office before devoting a news cycle to NASA, their hands were forced by events (e.g. Columbia), and when they addressed the subject they were careful to not antagonize any of the established stakeholders. Obama did not just “say something” — he ticked off Congressmen and precious Florida voters, and opened himself up to being (dishonestly) attacked by American heroes as the president who “ended US manned spaceflight”. He did not have to do that.
It’s been said that the best way to get Obama to do what you want is to convince him that it’s the politically unpopular, but right thing to do. Someone — presumably Lori Garver, with the Augustine Commission report in hand — must have made that case about killing Constellation and subsidizing commercial spaceflight.
If it was neglect Obama wouldn’t have spent a day traveling to Florida and giving a speech on the policy to a skeptical audience.
I think they found room on the plane for TOTUS. And I hear there are some nice golf courses in Florida.
Obama cares enough about killing space exploration to devote significant political capital to pretending that he strongly believes the opposite
Oh lord, “significant political capital”? Please.
and you have to believe that he’s appointed top aides with views that are 180 degrees contrary to his own in order to pull off this deception.
Like Bolden?? You really want to stick with that?
Occam’s razor, please.
Beats your ball-peen hammer. Which you should stop using on your head.
It’s been said that the best way to get Obama to do what you want is to convince him that it’s the politically unpopular, but right thing to do.
On what planet are they saying that? (I haven’t seen Avatar yet).
It’s been said that the best way to get Obama to do what you want is to convince him that it’s the politically unpopular, but right thing to do.
…and that His Christ-like visage heals the sores of lepers.
Mark, saying the same things over and over again doesn’t make them true.
I would challenge the very premise of your first question. Can you demonstrate exactly what “direct subsidies” SpaceX has received or asked for? They don’t get paid unless they deliver, whether it be technical and private investment milestones under COTS or cargo delivery under CRS.
As for Boeing, Eric Anderson already pointed out that viable markets have been developed in the past from initial government support and/or purchases. Charles Lurio gave a few examples in his most recent report, such as early computer systems, NACA support for the commercial aviation industry, the Airmail Act, and, more recently, most of the basic biomedical research that leads to marketed pharmaceuticals.
I also think you’re reading what you want to into Musk’s remarks. I honestly don’t blame him for coming away from this process feeling a little disillusioned. He didn’t ask for anything to be handed to him, just the opportunity to compete on a level playing field. SpaceX doesn’t have Senators in its back pocket to insert language mandating the use of its systems, after all.
As to your second question, I’ve always liked Dave Masten’s answer to someone who asked him where in the solar system we were going to go with Flexible Path. “All of it!” The whole point behind the space technology program and the FY2011 proposal was to develop the capabilities such that we could make destination decisions relatively independently of the vehicles themselves.
You mention HEFT, but that study has already come under some criticism for seemingly applying to the asteroid destination the same methodology and practices that gave us Constellation.
Besides, while the Vision for Space Exploration itself was arguably sound, the chosen architecture for the Constellation Program will not enable the kind of sustainable exploration that you say you advocate. Ares I and V are sucking all of the air out of the room, as my friends who were working on the lunar requirements for Orion would attest.
The disaster was in how this administration handled the politics of their proposal. The proposal itself was endorsed even by Newt Gingrich and Bob Walker as being consistent with the recommendations of the Aldridge report and conservative principles. It was an honest attempt to break NASA out of its malaise and put exploration and R&D back on the front burner with a balanced “push-pull” architecture.
The fact that the Senate bill implicitly accepts many, if not all, of these premises means we’re going to be headed in a better direction because of the President’s FY2011 proposal.
Curt, what Jim is saying is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends that work on policy issues. The President thinks space exploration is important to the country, but he was only willing to give NASA a plus-up if it invested in developing new technologies and new ways of doing exploration.
I also met Lori Garver myself at the FAA Commercial Space Transportation Conference in February and her remarks after the luncheon indicated as much.
Curt, what Jim is saying is consistent with what I’ve heard from my friends that work on policy issues.
Would that include the gem Titus (and I) quoted above?
Jim is an Obama shill:
Bush and Clinton went years in office before devoting a news cycle to NASA, their hands were forced by events (e.g. Columbia), and when they addressed the subject they were careful to not antagonize any of the established stakeholders.
Bush and Clinton did not have the Constellation train wreck to deal with. If they had, they would have been stuck with antagonizing established stakeholders themselves. Painting Obama as a devotee of the free market as a result of his proposed NASA changes is idiotic.
Actually, it does, Curt. From what I’ve heard, that’s a reasonably accurate description of how the President was convinced to make a change in NASA policy. The reason it was rushed out in February was because OSTP and HQS went back and forth over the budget. Bolden and Garver wanted something more directly in line with the Augustine options and OSTP said it was too expensive.
I don’t think Jim is trying to paint Obama as a “devotee of the free market.” I think he’s just trying to counter this notion that the President doesn’t really care about NASA or is involved in some conspiracy to ultimately destroy it.
Justin, I would point back to Gene Cernan’s revelation that Charlie Bolden suggested that should commercial space fall short, he would not rule out a bail out. When asked about it, Bolden said that he would “do what it takes” to make sure that commercial space succeeded. That suggests that there are no consequences for failure if companies like SpaceX or Boeing can’t meet milestones. NASA will just shovel money at them until they succeed.
Or until Congress gets tired of it and pulls the plug.
This business of “flexible path” taking us “everywhere” is more than a little bit of a joke. That is simply the equivalent of saying we don’t know where we’re going and therefore we’re going nowhere. In any case, HEFT proves that like Constellation, Obama’s phony space exploration program is not going to get funded properly.
Mark, the Space Act “requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.”
Given that NASA had no qualms about cutting off Kistler when they failed to meet their milestones, I’ll take what the agency has actually done with regards to commercial enterprises over what you and Cernan speculate.
Bolden saying that he would do what it takes to see commercial space succeed is not a guarantee of success to any one company.
The HEFT study proves that we can’t keep doing the same things over and over again and expect different results, not that the FY2011 proposal was a “phony” space exploration program.
Trent said,
“Wodun, just because you say he isn’t doesn’t mean he is.. speculation is inherently pointless.
When it comes to space it seems everyone is a socialist. Where’s the bounties for radar tracking? Or the free market for telescope time? Why does NASA fund expeditions to collect meteorites instead of just posting an offer to buy them at a sufficient price to encourage commercial procurement? ”
Sorry but I do doubt Obama’s fanship status. He probably thinks it’s the Aluminum Falcon and the Spock is from Star Wars. Regardless of whether or not that is true, I like to make fun of Obama. I am sure you have never made fun of a politician before =p
And everyone engages in some speculation, even yourself.
The problem with space exploration is that there is no business case to be made that can justify the large risks and capital investments. Government usually plays a large role in situations like that. Columbus received money from the Spanish monarchy for instance.
Would a COTS type system be better? Let’s speculate. If government is the only customer, then it could still be considered “socialistic”.
Would it lead to more commercial spin offs than the way NASA has been traditionally run? Well, it is not like private industry isn’t already making everything for NASA. Bigelow uses licensed NASA technology. But would a COTS system be better? Maybe, it’s all speculation.
Speculation isn’t inherently worthless. Without speculation we would never ask questions or try and answer those what if’s. It was speculation that led you to play around with asteroid orbits.
I’m not sure if you are trolling when you say that Apollo and the ISS were pointless while in a different post you want NASA to do a COTS type program for pointless expeditions.
Space exploration is all about speculation because we don’t know what will be found. It is frustrating that we can’t come up with concrete answers that are important with all people as to why space exploration is important.
In the end, at least for us Americans, there is the pioneering spirit or the old Mt Everest standby, they climb it because it is there.
Regarding Obama’s fan status, I must sadly admit that I did not correctly remember John Hodgman’s roast of Obama at the 2009 Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner. I recalled correctly that Hodgman grilled Obama on the details of Frank Herbert’s novel Dune, but I mistakenly thought that I remembered Obama answering the questions on Dune. In fact, he did not answer. This doesn’t mean that Obama is not a fan, but I have to admit that I don’t have the key evidence I thought I had. Nevertheless, Nimoy reports that Obama gave the “live long and prosper” hand sign when they bumped into each other, and you can see Obama doing the same thing on the video. And regardless of your politics, you might enjoy Hodgman’s performance if you haven’t already seen it – it starts off a bit slow, but it gets quite funny and I think anyone who is nerdy enough to read this blog would enjoy it.
The video is at the bottom of this article:
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/06/john-hodgman-brings-the-geek-to-president-obama/
The quiz of Obama starts around eight minutes in.
Sorry, if there’s no business case to serving a government assured market then there must be something REALLY wrong and not even government should be wasting money doing it.
Telescopes are the means of production of astronomy.. for some reason the heavy kind are owned by the government, what gives? If that’s not socialism, what is?
Mark, the last time I heard someone from NASA talk about using lunar water they spent 3 slides talking about the “ethics” involved. A Moon base would be a political tool and free enterprise would be allowed only in strictly controlled ISS-style arrangements. They’re talking about the Moon treaty, which the US never signed, as the guiding principle of those ethics.
I think you *almost* have a vision for the Moon but you’ve consistently failed to articulate it or check it with reality.
Bob, don’t confuse Star Trek with science fiction.
It’s speculative fiction now Rand, science proved too huge a restriction. Fantasy is so much easier to write, no real rules.
Bush and Clinton did not have the Constellation train wreck to deal with. If they had, they would have been stuck with antagonizing established stakeholders themselves.
Hardly. Obama could have quietly proposed something like the House bill: Constellation-lite, a slower-motion train wreck, with nothing for commercial space. That’s what a president who didn’t care about NASA, and just wanted to collect political chits — or at least avoid spending them — would have done.
Painting Obama as a devotee of the free market as a result of his proposed NASA changes is idiotic.
Obama’s NASA policy is a data point. And that data point is inconsistent with the view that Obama is committed to government-run solutions for every problem.
Rand, if Obama had demonstrated in-depth knowledge of Dune, I wonder if you would have pointed out that Dune, like Star Trek, is just a fantasy with science trappings. But it doesn’t matter — fans aren’t slans, not even Robert Forward fans.
@Mark Whittington: “First, I have still never gotten a straight answer to the following question: How is giving billions of dollars in direct subsidies to Space and Boeing “commercial” and not “socialistic?” “
You’re right, Mark. NASA shouldn’t spend any taxpayer dollars at all. The obvious solution is to end the agency.