Here’s an interesting discussion. I’ll doubtless have a lot more to say about this (I’m pitching Popular Mechanics to do a piece) but for now I’ll just note this:
Focusing NASA
A strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities. I will ensure that NASA has practical and sustainable missions. There will be a balance of pragmatic and top-priority science with inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs.
If I were an SLS supporter, I’d read those words and mess my pants. There are actually a lot of other interesting, and encouraging tea leaves in it. I think that our educational effort may be starting to pay off.
[Early evening update]
For whatever reason, the link to the “debate” is FUBAR. I hope they’ll fix it, but I have it on another machine, and I’ll repost if I can. But the above is a cut’n’paste from it.
Dare to dream of lies or the truth,
Dream of never losing your youth.
I’d feel better if there were explicit references to manned commercial space…
Yes. Like a rorschach test you may read anything in them you want. Don’t forget Constellation had a clear goal. As for sustainability, that is just Washington double speak for dragging the program out under a budget cap.
It would be nice if there was a clear statement, No SLS, No return of Constellation, More funding for Commercial Crew. Oh wait, that would be endorsing President Obama’s space policy….
Ya can’t transition away from fascism. NASA needs to be cut off at the knees and then we can go figure out how the DoD can be downsized.
No, Constellation had a destination. That is not the same as a goal.
You can drive to Fargo, but if you don’t know why you’re going there, it’s pointless.
Edward,
The VSE had destinations. Constellation was built around specific hardware goals. Once more you are confusing the two…
No, a piece of hardware is not a goal.
If someone buys a pickup, his goal is not to own a truck. It is to do something with it.
Yes, I know I’m talking to a rock.
Edward,
Yes, you are talking to yourself 🙂
and yes, folks do save money with the goal of buying a car 🙂
Never wise to link the VSE with the ESAS … they were opposing philosophies.
Edward, I am from Fargo, you do not need a reason to come here. Low taxes, low unemployment and 800 years of coal .. what more could you ask for ….. smiles
TMI about you and your pants.
However, I really liked the ideal of a Climate Prize. The first one should go to anyone who can conclusively prove that the climate is changing at all, and the second to anyone who can conclusively link it to human activity.
My guess is that both will go unclaimed, so it’s safe to make them on the order of $1 BILLion dollars…
It wasn’t about my pants. It was about a theoretical SLS supporter’s pants.
[pant, pant…]
The first one should go to anyone who can conclusively prove that the climate is changing at all, and the second to anyone who can conclusively link it to human activity.
Not sure I agree on that. Actually, the burden of proof would be on anyone who thinks that the climate isn’t changing. It’s never been static in the history of the world. The real issue is why it is currentily changing, why we should want to freeze it, and what the “right” state is…
The big question would be who gets to judge and what are the rules. You wouldn’t want someone to be able to game it like the X-Prize…
Woah, careful there Rand, you’re almost exiting the conservative groupthink.
Next thing you know you’ll be openly admitting that of course the climate is affected by human activities, the only question is how much and to what extent is it unintentional or undesirable.
Now you’re on the road. Soon you will hit a fork.
Go left, and you become a warmer with infeasible predictions of doom and gloom. Although you openly admit that humans can and do affect the climate, you refuse to accept that maybe we could improve the environment so it’s not so horrible for human life – like it has been for all of human history. Only negative consequences can result from “playing God”, and we all need to go live in trees and otherwise commune with nature.
Go right, and you start noticing that human history is a story of making our lives independent of nature, weather and, yes, climate. You start thinking, ya know, climate doesn’t matter because humans are beyond passively receiving whatever horrible tricks that nature throws at us. When it rains in the city you start wondering what use that is, and if there was any way to stop it, would we want to? When you hear about low crop yields due to drought, you wonder when we lost the science of irrigation.
When those on the left look to space, if they ever do, they see Mars as a hope for solving the riddle of climate change and wonder how to terraform it into another Earth.
When those of us on the right look to space, we think about living without a climate at all. Some, though, still cling to the hope of a tame biosphere, where climate control is an engineering problem.
Even if both are successful, it’s not going to be the planet dwellers who go to the stars.
Trent,
I agree 100%. The entire thrust of human progress has been to liberate us from being at the mercy of climate. Indeed some archeologists date the beginning of civilization and cities to the development of irrigation systems to counter unpredictable rainfall, arguing that is why all the first great civilizations were “hydraulic ones”.
Orbital Space Settlements will indeed be the ultimate expression of this trend as they will free humans completely from the climate whims of Planet Earth. Which is why I expect the folks living in them would never think of living on a planetary surface again. Visiting, yes, but living there, How Horrible!
BTW Robert Heinlein had a great story on those lines.
“It’s Great to Be Back!”
Its about a scientist couple who find they are not able to stand living in primitive New England with its weather, boring locals, germs, etc. after enjoying the luxuries of Luna City.
When those on the left look to space, if they ever do, they see Mars as a hope for solving the riddle of climate change and wonder how to terraform it into another Earth.
Evidence?
For the last 30 years, I’ve heard people in the space movement say, “The environmental movement is our natural ally.” I first heard it in the L-5 Society. Dennis Wingo said it when he was promoting his Moon Rush in 2004. But the promised support never seems to materialize.
Yes, there are a few environmentalists who’ve taken a serious interest in space, but they seem to be outliers, like the environmentalists who have endorsed nuclear power.
Edward,
That is because most modern “environmentalists” aren’t really interested in the saving the environment, that is just propaganda for the masses.
The traditional conservation movement, which used to be driven by wealthy Republicans who actually were interested in preserving nature was taken over by the anti-war crowd in the early 1970’s as their new cause. Now the force that really drives the radical core of the movement is an irrational fear of technology and a hatred of modern economic society. So any solution for a environmental problem based on advancing technology is a non-starter.
Its easy to see the change if you compare “environmental” magazines and newsletters from the 1960’s from the Audubon Society and Sierra Club that actually promoted Nuclear Power Plants to those from the 1970’s that attacked them as the ultimate evil.
So, it was “wealthy Republicans with no irrational fear of technology” who lobbied to ban DDT — resulting in millions of deaths from malaria? Who protested the Bodega Bay nuclear power plant? And the American SST? All in the 1960’s?
Sure, Tom. Next, you’re going to tell us Ronald Reagan organized Woodstock. 🙂
Edward,
You need to research your history a bit more.
Let’s see. DDT was banned by the Nixon Administration in 1972.
http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/ddt/
The American SST was also scrapper under the Nixon Administration in 1971.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944291,00.html
The Bodega Bay power plant, like the Malibu one, was opposed by the local land owners in the early 1960’s who did want any industrial development in their community. It was the location, not the idea of nuclear power they opposed.
Sigh. As usual, you’re the one who needs to do research.
DDT was banned in 1972 based on a book written by Rachael Carson in 1962. Environmental concerns about the SST appeared in a poll by Opinion Research Corporation in 1965. The Sierra Club didn’t oppose the SST because their friend, Sen. Henry Jackson, was from Washington State and a friend of Boeing. (And no, he was not a “wealthy Republican.”) In 1969, the Sierra Club spun off Friends of the Earth to fight the SST.
These things don’t happen over night, no matter what you think.
Edward,
Again, you need to do your research. Why wasn’t DDT banned when Democrats were in power? And the split in 1969 was when the anti-war protesters, inspired by the famous Apollo 8 photo, starting entering the environmental movement and taking organizations like the Sierra Club to the left.
Having blogged on space on DKOS, I would say the interest in space runs basically the same for the left and right. 4% – 8% depending on how inflamatory you make the title of the article. When reading space articles on right leaning sites… you see relatively the same uninformed comments, so both are relatively the same. I had right and left wingers rant it was a waste of money, I had right and left wingers rant should get more funding ..
It’s unrealistic (and perhaps counterproductive) to expect detailed space policy statements during the campaign. Anything a candidate throws together in his spare time, between now and November, is almost guaranteed to be bad.
Despite the SFF’s partisan whining about the lack of space policy in the GOP platform, it turns out that the Democratic platform actually says less.
http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/09/partisanship-harms-space-policy/
Edward,
They don’t have to as their budget says it all. And there is no reason to expect any change if President Obama were re-elected. The burden is always on the opposition to show they will do it better if elected.
They don’t have to as their budget says it all.
Was this supposed to make sense?
Rand,
Yes, as budgets say a lot more about policy than political statements, especially in election years when every politician and their followers are selling Motherhood and Apple Pie.
I would much rather see Governor Romney’s first proposed budget for NASA then a thousand page white paper on policy.
Remember it’s Congress that creates the budgets, and the President can only suggest, approve or veto them.
With the Republicans likely to hold onto at least the House, I don’t see any increases to NASA’s budget, and depending on what happens with the budget as a whole, it could take a significant hit. And that’s regardless who is President.
Coastal Ron,
Yea, that is how its suppose to work. But the process actually starts with the Executive branch submitting its “Presidential Budget Request” to the House of Representatives.
And IF President Obama is re-elected and IF the House of Representatives remains Republican then you probably won’t see anything but a Continuing Resolution budget passed for the next four years, and given that the SLS originated in Congress than a Republican House will likely keep funding it.
Which is why I really don’t see any impact from this election on space policy despite all of Rand’s arm waving. NASA will keeping spending on what its spending now, with some minor cuts to “Commercial” Crew and Science as needed to keep SLS going as per the wishes of Congress.
And since SLS originated in Congress I don’t expect Governor Romney will have any more success in killing it than President Obama had since it won’t be worth the political capital to do so. In fact, in Governor Romney’s case there would be even less reason given its importance to the state of Utah and ATK.
So the lack of space policy from the two parties is really more of an indication that its basically set for the next several years rather than anything else. And the only thing that will change that is some major event like the lost of the ISS, or a Soyuz, or something of similar magnitude. Than, as with the case of Challenger and Columbia, space policy will have forced itself to be reviewed and revised.
Once again, this is why Space Advocates need to stop wasting their time on NASA.
Doesn’t each incoming President present the Nation’s official space policy? President Obama has already established a track record and his 2010 budget, in my mind, spelled out where he wanted to take American space efforts. So President’s seeking relection have an established track record, where none exists for Governor Romney. I would think the onus is on Romney to give his thoughts on what American space policy would be under his Administration.
Romney also seems to be alluding about lifting ITAR in that text.
Indeed. That is another point I’ll make in an extended commentary…
Godzilla,
Where do you see that? Especially given they’re views on China which is why we have the current draconian ITAR rules.
“Revitalizing Industry. A strong aerospace industry must be able to compete for and win business in foreign markets. I will work to ease trade limitations, as appropriate, on foreign sales of U.S. space goods and will work to expand access to new markets.“
Godzilla,
If that refers to ITAR that would be good.
Another section that looked interesting was:
“Space is crucial to America’s international standing. Independent access to space, the launch of satellites, and the travel of citizens to and from space continue to be seen as major technical achievements that convey not only America’s military and economic power, but also the power of American values. The success of private sector enterprises in achieving these objectives opens a new chapter in American leadership.”
That sounds like a Romney administration would keep COTS/CRS and CCiCap going.
I certainly hope you’re right. Progressing space commercialization was one of the few bright spots of this administration. I’d hate to see it get rolled back.
What would be the first budget for Governor Romney, 2014? Shouldn’t most of CCiCap be already in the pipeline before a Romney budget goes through?
The problem with politics is if you say exactly what you mean you’ve given your opponent a target. Which really is an indictment of the general population.
“it needs clearer priorities”
I think we can take heart from that statement even considering political realities (which in the bizarre world of politics is not actual reality.) Romney’s whole shtick is he would bring business acumen to his decisions.
Ken,
[[[Romney’s whole shtick is he would bring business acumen to his decisions.]]]
Which, if he follows his Bain experience means completely outsourcing NASA HSF to Russia 🙂 Oh, wait, the Republicans already did that when President Bush decided to phase out the Shuttle…
“If I were an SLS supporter, I’d read those words and mess my pants. There are actually a lot of other interesting, and encouraging tea leaves in it. I think that our educational effort may be starting to pay off.”
You’re nuts, Rand. The SLS folks’ main fault with Flexible Path is that it lacks “clearer priorities”, “practical and sustainable missions” and “inspirational and groundbreaking exploration programs”. The last administration gave NASA all of these items, at least in its own estimation. Discontinue aviation and science and focus on the inspirational and groundbreaking Constellation program!
SLS supporters look at Romney’s comments and weep with happiness at finding just exactly what *they’re* hoping to find. I personally don’t find it safe to read anything from Romney’s saying other than what’s in the GOP platform. If Griffin publicly separates from the Romney campaign as advisor, or if the Romney campaign suddenly takes on Jeff Greason, then, and only then, will I sit up and start being hopeful about Romney.
Until then, for space, the status quo’s among the best we’ve ever had it.
Again, Paul Ryan isn’t stupid. He knows that Constellation wasn’t sustainable, and the SLS isn’t, either. He knows what a sustainable program looks like, and what an unsustainable one does as well.
Romney’s not going to publicly jettison Griffin before the election. There is no benefit to him doing so. He will simply continue to ignore him.
Rand,
Nope, he isn’t stupid, he is very smart politically. But he doesn’t care about space, which is why it won’t bother him to trade off SLS to the highest bidder. If he needs to let Alabama and Utah have it to get their support in other ways he will, without batting an eye.
Here are the key takeaway words from Romney’s recent response:
“Rebuilding NASA, restoring U.S. leadership, and creating new opportunities for space commerce will be hard work, but I will strive to rebuild an institution worthy of our aspirations and capable once again leading the world toward new frontiers. ”
That sentence, to me, has “Griffin” written all over it. It says Mitt thinks NASA is broken, and the U.S. is no longer in a leadership position in space. He wants bigger programs and grander goals.
As a sidenote, I happen to think that the U.S. space industry is now progressing at several times the pace of the nearest competitor, and no other country’s industry has the tools yet to even compete. I’m pretty psyched right now on what’s happening in the U.S. space industry, and I’m happy with what’s happening with NASA, in general. Sure, I’d love to see SLS go away, with the money put toward a new orbital industrial center along with hotels at EML1 and an outpost at EML2. But until Congresscritters can be convinced my options are better options, I’m happy with what we’ve got.
I have yet to see anyone proffer a sample NASA budget that shows how the SLS will be used, and how often.
I mean, WHO will use it, and WHEN will Congress fund them?
What SLS-sized missions are waiting in the wings to get funding?
Considering that SLS-sized payloads require SLS-sized funding, I estimate that each payload would take at least $10B and ten years to build. How many of those can NASA afford to fly per year, especially if NASA’s budget stays the same?
If my numbers are anywhere close to being right, NASA won’t be able to afford to build a SLS-sized payload AND afford an SLS launch but once or twice a decade. I say that because after you launch such a big payload, NASA has to spend part of it’s budget to sustain the program – unless all SLS payloads will be disposable after one year.
Anyone want to offer up a suggestion for how NASA can afford to use the SLS?
I sure don’t see it, which is why the sooner will kill the SLS, the sooner we can start exploring beyond LEO with our current 20mt rocket fleet (Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, Proton, H-IIB, and Falcon Heavy too). If they were good enough to build the 450mt ISS, they are good enough to build anything we have on the drawing board.
This funding issue will become pretty apparent soon, since if NASA plans to use the SLS the missions have to start being identified and funded. Once the costs for using the SLS exceed the projected NASA budget, the choice will be clear for whoever is President.
Coastal Ron,
You are making the mistake assuming logic drives decisions like the SLS not politics. That is the key problem with NASA and programs linked to it, its spending is driven by politics not logic.
Oh I am quite aware of what drives the politicians.
What I’m trying to figure out is whether SLS supporters just have blind-faith (i.e. gigantic rockets must be good), or maybe they have some idea who will actually need & use the SLS, and how the money part will play out – that’s the part I don’t see, so I’m trying to understand what, if any, logic they may have.
I’m still waiting for a response of any kind, so I’m feeling that SLS supporters are more faith-based than fact-based.
Coastal,
I guess you will have to find someone who supports it. But then I am still waiting for someone to explain how keeping the ISS up past its expiration date will contribute to opening the Solar System up to economic development.
Interesting news article on Rep. Ryan.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/54834445-90/ryan-utah-campaign-romney.html.csp
[[[Provo » Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan arrived in Utah Wednesday afternoon to raise money in a state that has been a cash cow for his running mate, Mitt Romney.]]]
Yes, if Governor Romney wins he will owe some favors to Utah. Funding SLS or Liberty would be one way to pay off those debts…
Did you read the comments? There was about 3 or 4 that seemed to be pro romney… the rest were just piling on .. was surprised, thought he had more support there.
Valdislaw,
Yes, interesting. From what the article stated it seems Romney-Ryan are ignoring Utah except for raising funds. Looks like they will owe the folks there is they are election. More reasons to suspect SLS will be funded if Governor Romney is elected.