Jack Kennedy has a good op-ed in the Roanoke Times about the space-policy mess on the Hill.
13 thoughts on “Grounded In Congress”
Comments are closed.
Jack Kennedy has a good op-ed in the Roanoke Times about the space-policy mess on the Hill.
Comments are closed.
Second link is broken.
Should work now, thanks.
Jack Kennedy
I wonder if there’s a Lloyd Bentsen joke in there.
Jack Kennedy is either being confused or dishonest with this passage:
“Some argue that the Obama administration has abandoned the American space program by opting to make human treks to near-Earth asteroids a new target instead of a government-sponsored human return to the moon redux. In reality, the president’s space policy brings closer the prospect of Americans returning to the moon by commercial means while pushing the government civil space program to focus on the new frontier: asteroid exploration and impact defense.”
Returning to the Moon by commercial means? Obama ridiculed the idea of returning to the Moon by any means “because Buzz has already been there.” There is nothing in the Obama space policy that suggests returning astronauts to the Moon, enabling commercial astronauts to the Moon, or anything of the like. There are no commercial space firms that have plans to do that anyway.
I fail to see how this is a “good oped.”
There are no commercial space firms that have plans to do that anyway.
Bigelow does.
Bigelow’s business plan for the inflatable moon base depends on NASA funding it and providing most if not all of the astronauts. Since the President’s space policy does not envision a return to the Moon, the Bigelow moon base isn’t really a viable plan at all.
“President’s space policy does not envision a return to the Moon”
The President’s space policy is about lowering costs and developing spaceflight capabilities regardless of what deep space destinations are chose by future administrations. If Obama had said the Moon was absolutely the most important target for the US space program instead of saying “been there, done that”, the program for the next several years would still be essentially the same.
That is, focus on getting a competitive commercial launch services program up and running to lower costs to LEO significantly. In parallel, develop various in-space technologies including fuel depots, space tugs, in situ resource utilization, etc. The resulting capabilities are crucial for affordable trips to any deep space destination.
Clark, that doesn’t make any sense.
Obama has tacked on this mission to an asteroid nonsense, which suggests that we’re still focused on a specific destination, just a different one. (Mind, I have doubts about the seriousness of that goal, but be that as it may.)
No one has given me a sound explanation as to how pouring massive subsidies into commercial space, including Boeing, is going to lead to anything at all besides “government rockets.” Nor how an unfocused, directionless “technology development” program will be anything but a hobby house of tech geeks that will likely, in any case, be canceled by Congress.
With its deposits of water, with its potential for energy resources (3He, platinum, etc), and its physical position, the Moon is the logical place to go to not only open up the rest of the Solar System but directly benefit Earth. That Obama wants to bypass the Moon is understandable, given the character of the man. That self described space advocates agree with this is beyond comprehension.
Clark makes a good point, I would take it a little further and say, there isn’t really that much difference between Obama’s plan and Bush’s. COTS was a Bush program and it is being continued by Obama.
The big difference is cutting Ares I and the lack of any goal or overarching strategy for going beyond LEO. There is a big ? next to a NEO mission right now.
Constellation was a framework that provided support and justification for the development of technologies that could not only be used for a trip to the Moon but also to Mars or anywhere else.
Obama doesn’t have a conceptual framework that links the parts of his plan together as part of a greater purpose. He doesn’t even have a catchy name for his plan.
A lot of confusion came about by the inept way Obama’s plan was rolled out to the public and the number of times it has changed since. Obama could of kept the name Constellation, cut Ares I, tweaked the technology demonstrations, and kept the uniting goal of the Moon (or replaced it with Mars).
Instead there is discord and animosity due to Obama’s and NASA’s handling of the situation.
Obama’s vision was put bluntly, develop technologies and industries that innovate BEFORE you build that great-big-rocket (which of course we don’t need as we’re still not using the Atlas and Delta Heavy lifts to capacity). Second goal was to wean big corporations from the pork in NASA contracts.
He’s never cited a specific destination except under the duress of Congress, the theory is that space development is a series of small steps, accomplishments, and capabilities, hopefully with jumps in innovation periodically. The goal is an evolutionary process of achievement bulding upon achievement not to plant one flag in some far-off place.
Keeping the Constellation name woud have been an interesting cover to get the $$$ and innovations desired while keeping Congress at a safer distance.
Instead there is discord and animosity due to Obama’s and NASA’s handling of the situation.
No, there is discord and animosity because he tried to shut down the Shuttle political industrial complex.
“Obama has tacked on this mission to an asteroid nonsense, which suggests that we’re still focused on a specific destination, just a different one. (Mind, I have doubts about the seriousness of that goal, but be that as it may.)”
It doesn’t make sense to you because you insist that setting a goal has some huge impact on what will actually happen in terms of hardware development in the next several years. It does not. As I said above, the best way to return to the Moon would be to carry out exactly the Administration’s plans for the next several years.
In the Obama budget, the emphasis is on funding of systems and tech projects that will allow for much lower cost regardless of what destination is chosen by a subsequent administration.
There is nothing nonsensical about an asteroid mission. As the Augustine panel emphasized, there is not going to be sufficient funding to build systems in parallel as was done with Apollo. Landing and surface operating systems will be the last to be developed. Griffin himself had killed Altair for that very reason. This meant there would be no landing under Constellation till late in the 2020s because Ares I/Orion, Ares V and then the Altair systems would be built sequentially in that order. Going to an asteroid or a Martian moon are simply things you can do in the meantime.
“how pouring massive subsidies into commercial space, including Boeing, is going to lead to anything at all besides “government rockets.”
Six billion for two to three operational crew launch systems hardly qualifies as “massive”. It is a gigantic bargain as these things go. It saves huge amount of money from what would have been spent on Ares I/Orion.
“unfocused, directionless “technology development” program”
That’s why it is focused on lowering the cost of in-space operations. It is ridiculous for people to claim NASA is developing new technologies when in fact it has avoided technology development like a plague. NASA has long ceased to be a major contributor to US technology infrastructure for this very reason.
“That self described space advocates agree with this is beyond comprehension.”
So no true space advocate would support lower launch costs, a selection of competitive launch services, lower in-space launch costs? You stubbornly refuse to comprehend very basic points.
Human spaceflight cannot continue beyond stunt making if it stays at it’s current cost levels. If costs are not attacked with competitive commercial launch services and in-space techniques like fuel depots, it is dead. Rejecting this plan just because it comes from the wrong President and/or because it temporarily discombobulates the NASA workforce is something I cannot understand.
MPM, I knew Senator Lloyd Bentsen; he was a friend of mine. I supported him for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976, years before I served in the Virginia State Senate.