I have some thoughts over at AOL News today on the political uncertainty of the human spaceflight program.
17 thoughts on “NASA’s Murky Future”
Comments are closed.
I have some thoughts over at AOL News today on the political uncertainty of the human spaceflight program.
Comments are closed.
Reading your opinion piece, the debate over the continuing role of NASA reminds me more of a rancorous custody dispute case rather than rational discourse on the best way to proceed with making the U.S. a truly space faring nation. It is truly sad to see so much time and resources being wasted.
Interesting column. I have long said that Obama really doesn’t even care about NASA and spaceflight in general. Oh, he loves the photo-ops, and he can’t completely ignore setting some sort of space policy, but it just isn’t a front-burner issue at all. Heck, even calling it a back-burner issue is perhaps overstating things a bit too much.
This election cycle is going to get very interesting, and I think that external events (terrorist acts, financial market meltdowns, other countries going to war, etc.) are going to be as significant as activists like the Tea Party folks. With the lack of urgency to get anything done, NASA is going to drift all that more on auto pilot…. just as has been said in this piece. I don’t know how this can be helped either.
I can’t help but thinking that smaller government could help reduce this kind of waste.
If things keep going the way they’ve been going, by 2020 we’re not going to have a space program at all, not even so much as a model hobby rocket. We’ll be flat busted broke, all of us, and the whole Apollo vs newSpace debate will be moot.
Which sucks, because I really want to see America plant a flag on Mars in my lifetime. 🙁
When they really have to shrink government, the “well, we were going to spend the money anyway” justifications will be gone. I cannot see NASA HSF (or much of the rest of NASA) surviving.
If you are in NewSpace, you should be focusing on export markets. Getting ITAR fixed up should be a top priority. The likely collapse of the dollar will help with sales.
The problems in Greece are the same as we’re heading for here, they just arrived at the station sooner. When that happens, “Nice to have” agencies like NASA will fall by the wayside. We’re either going to have to enact strong measures for entitlement reform (and risk the riots) or the whole unsustainable mess will collapse under its own weight.
NASA is not the only one with an uncertain future due to the space policy mess. The USAF is also trying to determine how to address the impact the new policy will have on its systems, IF the new policy is approved by Congress.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/awst/2010/05/10/AW_05_10_2010_p42-224630.xml&headline=Many%20Launches%20Expected%20But%20Uncertainty%20Looms
Many Launches Expected But Uncertainty Looms
[[[But uncertainties are clouding the outlook of the liquid- and solid-fueled booster industrial base following a White House decision to terminate NASA’s Constellation program.]]]
The Air Force is being short-sighted. All they’re looking at is the impact on the Delta IV and Atlas V as if those were the only boosters available to launch US military payloads. If companies like SpaceX are successful, there will soon be other systems that potentially cost far less than the ULA rockets. Lower costs and more options should be a good thing unless your future is tied to the cost-plus business model.
One of the reasons why the cost of the EELVs is rising is due to price increases from the suppliers. This points to the wisdom of SpaceX’s approach of producing just about everything they need in-house. The one thing that’s holding up approval to launch (flight termination system) is one of the few things they outsourced.
Let’s put aside the politics of space and NASA for a minute and ask a much more fundamental question.
Where is the pioneering spirit that built this nation? Where is it written that risk taking is wrong? Are we all fat, dumb and happy with the current state of affairs or do we relish the bliss that seems to accompany the general ignorance of any of these points?
Space exploration ain’t easy and it ain’t cheap; but then neither were the Railroads, the Shipping, Oil, Motor Vehicle or the Airline industries.
The pioneers took huge risks moving west – they did it because they believed in a better future than they had before moving. Space is no different, there will be accidents, there will be failures but the progress will be inevitable – if we just wake up and see what might be.
Of course for that to happen we are going to have to stop bickering and stop re-inventing the past. Time for new ideas to percolate to the surface.
If things keep going the way they’ve been going, by 2020 we’re not going to have a space program at all, not even so much as a model hobby rocket.
I don’t have quite so glum an outlook. If Obama is re-elected, by 2020 we will still be paying the Russians to give us rides up to the (aging) ISS. If a Republican makes it into office, we may still be paying the Russians to give us rides to the ISS unless said Republican actually gives a damn about manned space.
@Andy – Sure, but we weren’t a socialist entitlement state when we built the railroads.
@Starless — A bit of overstatement, I admit, but not much, and still — like others have said, NASA is a “nice to have”, a luxury. We will have to pare to the bone to get through the coming crash.
The aerospace establishment in DC has been dug in for a long time. Quite a few of them don’t even want to hear anything but the establishment line. They also don’t want to hear why young people aren’t pursuing careers in technology. The notion that they could get everything they want from Congress and fail because people won’t take the jobs they are offering goes nowhere. My attempts to even get them outside of their very narrow boxes have gone nowhere.
I can see a number of reasons why they didn’t bother to build a flight termination system in house as well. Historically, these things blow themselves up quite well all by themselves, TYVM. Sentimentally, it’s a nice rocket, we don’t wanna blow it up. Cost analysis, not all launches may require it, like very remote sites over the ocean.
Of course, none of my musings may have anything to do with reality (ok… quiet in the peanut gallery.)
Andy,
In terms of public policy I would say the pioneer spirit was lost in the late 1960’s with the emergence of the ecology movement when folks like John Holdern, Paul Erlich and the Meadows argued in numerous articles and books we had reached the limits to growth and it was time to start downsizing. Instead of conquering nature we needed to protect it and stop population growth. And no, technology was not going to save us, it was delusional to think technology would expand the resource limits the world was reaching.
I can see a number of reasons why they didn’t bother to build a flight termination system in house as well. Historically, these things blow themselves up quite well all by themselves, TYVM. Sentimentally, it’s a nice rocket, we don’t wanna blow it up. Cost analysis, not all launches may require it, like very remote sites over the ocean.
I think SpaceX outsourced the FTS to a company with a proven track record building such systems in the hopes it would speed the range safety approval process. Apparently not, or maybe it would’ve taken even longer for SpaceX to develop such a capability on their own.
A bit of overstatement, I admit, but not much, and still — like others have said, NASA is a “nice to have”, a luxury. We will have to pare to the bone to get through the coming crash.
I’ve always viewed some of NASA’s role (or, at least a role it should fulfill) as part of the nation’s R&D infrastructure. So, to use an admittedly imperfect analogy, that’s like saying the R&D department at a major corporation is a “nice to have”. Accounting may not be able to trace it’s path directly to the revenue portion of the bottom line but it’s there and cutting it too much will have negative consequences eventually.
I think SpaceX outsourced the FTS to a company with a proven track record building such systems in the hopes it would speed the range safety approval process.
Not being a rocket scientist I wonder, “How hard is it to blow one of them things up.” Isn’t that a bit like trying to get a rock to roll down hill?