Here’s an interesting commentary by Scott Pace and…Eric Anderson. I would have thought that an unlikely combination. Note the lack of specifics, including a monster rocket. Which is a good thing, I guess. It’s basically just “Obama’s space policy sux, and Romney’s will be great.” I’m thinking it’s not likely to move anyone’s vote.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the counterpoint lauding Obama’s policy. I have to say that I agree with the criticism of Romney. If I were a single-issue voter on space, I’d vote for Obama, except for the fact that his general economic policies are harmful for small business and startups, which would make it harder to develop a privatized industry.
In politics anything specific is subject to attack. It sounds like wishful thinking. I’m reading “No Apologies” now to see if anything in it enlightens.
One bit of good news is the acknowledgement that “…an individual … could lawfully appropriate any part of outer space” as far as the OST is concerned.
I can see the headline, “Rand endorses Obama.” Jim, Chris and Bob are already spreading the word. 😉
an orbital Mars mission in the mid-2030s
By which time I hope they look down at a private colony already established for almost a decade.
Knowledge, experience, technology, and vision already exists. We just need a few lightbulbs to go off to get some private funding. I hope I live to see it.
If you want a strong national space program (actually, two programs: one for the military and the other for everything else), you need a strong economy. We are unlikely to get a strong economy under Obama’s policies of expensive energy, higher taxation, greater government regulatary burden and greatly expanded welfare transfer payments (already over $1 trillion a year and increasing fast).
Grow the economy and you can afford to do things like have a strong space program. Keep putting obstacles in the path of economic growth and you won’t be able to afford much of anything.
A strong economy is necessary pre-condition, but even a strong economy wouldn’t resurrect Apollo. Wasteful spending on (e.g., SLS) will quickly sour even affluent taxpayers on NASA. It’s important to spend the money wisely too.
It’s important to spend the money wisely too.
Without a doubt, but you can have the wisest plan ever conceived and it won’t amount to anything if the economy is too weak to support it. Spending money stupidly is a government specialty.
If you want a strong national space program (actually, two programs: one for the military and the other for everything else), you need a strong economy.
Is it possible to have two strong (government) space programs, even with a strong economy? I’ve been working on an article about that.
In 2002, Lt. Gen. Buck Bedard said, “The Nation can likely only afford one such large, ambitious transformational and/or manned space program at a given time.” It appears he was right. The program he advocated (SUSTAIN) essentially died in utero, after the Bush Vision of Space Exploration was announced. The recent cancellation of the Air Force Reusable Booster System is another data point.
A similar thing happened to the X-15, DynaSoar, MOL, etc. during the Apollo era.
The reason, I believe, is not simply affordability (although that’s a big part of it). Since the 1960’s, there has been an unofficial, unwritten policy that manned space programs are to be done by NASA, not the military.
Manned space activities were originally transferred from the military to NASA for Cold War propaganda reasons, which no longer apply, and also to please the arms-control community. The former no longer applies, but the latter is as powerful as ever. I think it might make sense to transfer the manned space program back to the Air Force, but I can’t really see that happening without some dramatic event (e.g., a major accident aboard the International Space Station or a major Chinese military space breakthrough).
I do see a possible game changer, though, when commercial vehicles are operational and the military can buy one essentially off the shelf.
On the military side, the interest is space exploitation. Other than R&D systems, military space consists of 3 spectrums of communications satellites, PNT services from GPS, weather satellites and launch detection. The big ISR systems are owned by the NRO and the intel goes to both the military and civilian agencies. Without being able to speak about the NRO birds, all of the military satellite categories have very expensive upgrade programs in place.
1. UHF satcom includes legacy Fleetsat (I’m told two are still functioning), UFO and the new MUOS. MOUS is backwards compatible with the older satellites but also offers 3G service over wide areas. UHF is good for mobile tactical users who need narrowband connectivity. UHF also does a better job of penetrating jungles and is less susceptable to rain attenuation.
2. X-band wideband still has several working DSCS-IIIs but they’re being replaced by the wonderful WGS satellites. Each WGS has the bandwidth of all the DSCS satellites put together. Four WGS satellites are on orbit and WGS-5 is scheduled to fly soon. X-band and Ka-band provide the bulk of military wideband communications capabilities.
3. EHF satcom has the legacy Milstar satellites. The first AEHF is on orbit and the second will be launched soon. EHF is primarily used for high priority communications even in a nuclear environment.
4. Launch detection has been provided by DSP satellites. The first GEO SBIRS is finally on orbit and doing fine with more launches to follow.
5. GPS IIF satellites are being launched and GPS III is in development.
6. They’re still using DMSP for weather. After the abortive NPOESS program, they’re hoping to try again to develop a replacement weather system.
Scientific, manned and environmental satellites are the domain of civilian agencies like NASA and NOAA. The military really has little interest in manned spaceflight.
The two space programs serve different needs. It would be unrealistic to expect NASA to be in charge of the military satellites and would be equally unrealistic to put the military in charge of the civilian systems. That’s why there are effectively two space programs in the US government, and why that will likely remain the case for some time to come.
The military really has little interest in manned spaceflight.
We’ve been through this before, Larry.
Gen. Wallace Green, Lt. Gen. Buck Bedard, Lt. Gen. Richard Zilmer, Maj. Gen. Kevin Kuklok, etc. have stated the military requirement for manned spaceflight.
The idea that you speak for the entire military, and general officers do not is interesting, is hardly persuasive.
All the items on your list have one thing in common — they’re support systems, not combat systems. The blunt end of the spear. There’s nothing inherently military about communication satellites, weather satellites, etc. The military could just as easily lease transponders on commercial satellites (and has, in fact, done so on occasion).
The military’s purpose is not to operate computer centers. It’s to kill people and break their stuff. A military force that is not equipped to do that is not “strong.”
What you call a “strong” space program is akin to saying you have a strong Navy which is limited to communication stations, weather bouys, and research drones.
(And of course, Obama is funding all the support systems you listed, and shares your opposition to putting combat systems in space. So, you seem to have contradicted yourself here.)
I’ve only been working on military space systems since the 1980s, so of course I can’t possibly know as much as you, Edward. You really come across as a pompus ass, you know that? I never claimed to speak for all of the military, you twit.
The fact of the matter is that the military was asked to merge their requirements with NASA’s back in the 1990s to develop a successor to the Shuttle. The military said it had no need for such a vehicle. Sure, they’d like a reusable vehicle that cost less than existing systems but it didn’t need to carry people. The military is concerned with operational utility and manned systems just don’t offer a lot of that.
Please expound on this military requirement for manned space flight. Currently, we have gone 40-50 years without a manned military program and have done well enough.
What would the military do with people in orbit? How would they do better than satellites? How many more satellites can I put in orbit for the cost of one person?
As an aside, I always chuckle when people say things like “the moon is the military high ground”. That’s like saying Mount Everest was the high ground in the American Revolution. Sure, it’s technically higher elevation. But, it’s too far away to make any military sense.
the military was asked to merge their requirements with NASA’s back in the 1990s to develop a successor to the Shuttle. The military said it had no need for such a vehicle.
I never said the military needed a successor to the Space Shuttle. If you don’t understand the difference between an operational military spaceplane and Shuttle II, I can see why you’re confused.
The military is concerned with operational utility and manned systems just don’t offer a lot of that.
That is your opinion. It is not shared by those parts of the military that kill people and break things. Despite the increased use of robots and UAVs, the US Army, Air Force, and Marines still rely heavily on manned systems for combat, and there is no sign that will change in the near future.
The Marine Corps wants the ability to deliver riflemen, not just emails.
The official opinion of the USMC Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations, as stated in the Universal Needs Statement — Small Unit Space Transport And Insertion Capability is as follows:
The Marine Corps needs a capability to transport small mission-tailored units thru space from any point on the globe to a contingency at any other point on the globe within minutes of a National Command Authority (NCA) decision to introduce such forces….
A clear deficiency remains with respect to any US ability to physically deliver relevantly tailored forces to any terrestrial point globally in order to act on current intelligence relevantly. Instead, small unit insertion options are limited by the speed, range, signature, and vulnerability of tactical terrestrial insertion technologies, as well as the proximity of host platforms.
…
The capability that results from the fulfillment of the Small Unit Space Transport and Insertion Need must include the following characteristics:
…
Transport of up to 13 combat-equipped personnel, not including the transport crew. Needs to have the passenger cube capacity and on-board life support for a 13-person Marine infantry squad or task organized team.
Your examples are both old and absurd. I remember seeing an artist’s conception of a troop deployment rocket system from a book in the early 1960s. The absurdities of such an system include 1) cost, 2) too noisy for clandestine operations, 3) it takes weeks to months to launch anything short of an ICBM.
Name any viable military missions that require manned spacecraft that can’t be done faster, better and cheaper with satellites.
“NASA will look whenever possible to the private sector to provide repeatable space-based services like human and cargo transport to and from low Earth orbit. It will provide clear and timely guidance as to expected needs so the private sector can plan and invest accordingly. … NASA will license technology as soon as is practicable, and aim to facilitate the growth of space commerce.”
If space were important enough to swing my vote, I think this quote alone is good enough to make space a non-issue for me when voting. This is at least as good as anything Obama has offered.
Yes, I was just as surprised as you to see that team of Scott & Eric, together…
The first sentence of “Brock’s” quote is good. The second, not so much. Where’s the investments in key long-term technologies _from NASA_ (such as fuel depots) that needs to be paired with transport? Here, we seem to have an attempt to avoid that and thus impose the mistaken Solyndra analogy.
NASA has bee supposed to facilitate space commerce for decades, so that sentence in itself doesn’t mean much, if anything.
The establishment of the Technologist’s office was supposed to fund experiments and demonstrations of items with too long-term payback to be justifiable in a private company’s research portfolio. Here the Romney team seems to be throwing that out by omission.
With great admiration for Planetary Resources, not everyone can get together enough billionaires to move the long term tech research outside of the government. XCOR has managed it by selecting individually limited targets with side payoffs that build to their ultimate goal incrementally. But what about those fuel depots, etc.?
Where’s the investments in key long-term technologies _from NASA_ (such as fuel depots)
Be careful what you ask for, Charles. NASA has invested a lot of money in Orion. How’s that working out for you?
The Centennial Challenges program proposed a Fuel Depot Demonstration Challenge back in 2006. Unfortunately, your friends at SFF threw Centennial Challenges under the bus.
A balanced commercial space policy would include a portfolio of actions — launch service purchases (both orbital *and* suborbital), data purchases, prizes, tax incentives, property rights, regulatory reform, etc.
I said that for years. Every time, I was told to shut up and go away. “COTS Uber Alles” was the only politically correct policy to support.
Restore funding for Centennial Challenges at the full $30 million level, and you’ll get your fuel depot, and a lot more.
COTS Uber Alles was like cutting off nine of your fingers to ensure adequate blood flow for your one remaining thumb. Now you’re complaining that you can’t pick up a pencil.
Charles,
Why? They are part of Governor Romney’s space policy group. I wouldn’t be surprised if Scott Pace is put forward to replace Gen. Bolden if Governor Romney wins, assuming Dr. Griffin doesn’t want the job.
I would.
Rand,
Why? He has the credentials for it having been an Associate Administrator. Who do you think Governor Romney will name if elected?
Being an associate administrator is not sufficient credentials to be an administrator. I don’t know who he will nominate, but (despite the fact that he’s a decades-long friend) it will not be Scott Pace. The nominee has to be confirmed by the Senate. And there are many who will oppose his nomination.
Rand,
[[[general economic policies are harmful for small business and startups, which would make it harder to develop a privatized industry]]]
Evidence please. Numbers and facts preferred, not just parroting talking points.
Thomas, if you don’t see it by now, you never will. Are you not aware of the impact of Obamacare on business?
Ken,
Data please, not just opinions about it.
Ok.