Well said. One nit: COTS stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, not Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services, but that was probably a mistake by the editor.
I do wonder what sort of treatment SpaceX would get from a Romney administration. Romney himself labeled Tesla a “loser”. The right wing press is primed to trash anything associated with Obama’s space policy. Wouldn’t Romney rather send federal dollars to ATK in Utah than to an Obama donor in California?
Oooh, Concern Troll is very concerned…
Rand, you nailed it on every point. Jim, sure your media friends (this article a case in point) could try to smear SpaceX and many will buy it. But I note the commenters on Rand’s article are not so clueless.
Ken,
You do know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative paper don’t you?
Thomas, you of all people should know that cluelessness is not the private reserve of the left.
Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that, Jim. Both Romney and Ryan are good at math.
I have to grudgingly agree with Jim: the right is primed to trash the Obama space policy – it’s on display in the fisked article, we see it discussed here all the time, and I’ve actually seen it in action myself.
When Constellation was cancelled a couple years back, the Congressman who then represented the district in which the Orion office in Denver was located came to give us a pep talk. The guy (Mike Coffman) is the Republican successor to Tom Tancredo in that seat, so you can imagine his political leanings are pretty conservative.
He was openly dismissive of the commercial providers as boondoggles, in favor of the space-based “jobs programs” traditionally pursued by NASA and the civil-servant “right stuff” mystique associated with the latter. This from a guy who proclaims support for small government and free market economics.
Very disappointing. And being active in Republican politics in Colorado, I see similar sentiments from my own side all the time. It wasn’t simply blind partisanship (Obama cancelling Constellation and presiding over Shuttle retirement provoking a knee-jerk defense of NASA and it’s traditional approach to manned spaceflight and equally knee-jerk assault on the commercial guys), although there was that, but more often a failure of imagination that we are now at the point where we can do things differently. “Conservatism” on this subject appears to mean conserving what we have, seriously flawed though it is, in preference to a new but unproven opportunity better aligned with one’s core principles.
But with any luck (or with the right prodding), a potential Romney administration might be persuaded to see commercial space as viable, and different from the “loser pick” green cronyism boondoggles Romney was actually referring to. The guy *is* supposed to be an expert at recognizing economically worthwhile enterprises, after all.
That’s the beauty of private space. No admin can totally trash it.
Romney acknowledged commercial space in a recent white paper from the campaign.
Not a problem since “The Stick” has been commercialized as the “Liberty” launch system. And with a name like that how could a Republican like Governor Romney resist 🙂
Now you’re being simplistic. We may just have to wait and see. Like it or not, Mitt has a different priority: Jobs.
We know that can result in bad policy for space. Let’s hope Mitt is smarter than some other RINOs.
Exactly and switching to ATK’s Liberty will give those good Republicans in Alabama and Utah who donated to the Romney Campaign jobs while taking them from those folks in California who supported President Obama.
Its call political payback 🙂
So what? We both agree that SpaceX will be fine either way.
Not a word in that white paper about the moon or BEO.
I [Romney] will … set a clear roadmap for space exploration. NASA will retain the intellectual capital to conduct research and to develop new generations of spacecraft for government missions that are not commercially viable, but it will promptly transition out of routine space operations in low Earth orbit as private sector capabilities mature.
Why should NASA develop ANY space vehicles? Why not instead, make the vehicles commercially viable by putting out requests for bid?
In the meantime we wait to see what Romney’s idea of a clear roadmap is.
Wouldn’t Romney rather send federal dollars to ATK in Utah
You bet. The people from ATK even know the secret handshake. Hopefully SpaceX will manage to get enough $ out of this program to get the manned Dragon working. Then we just need someone to put a space station up and tourists can get into orbit. Hopefully this would be Bigelow but I think even SpaceX could make something up with their existing tools and components. If the Chinese can orbit Tiangong then SpaceX can make a station too. Perhaps Musk should talk with Space Adventures to see if they can get half a dozen people to pony up the money to launch a station in exchange for a seat. He could even launch all of them in a single F9/Dragon.
I think this one will be a “King is dead/Long live the king” type of program cancellation if it does happen. Kind of like how Bush’s Constellation became Obama’s SLS. Especially considering that Kevin McCarthy & Dana Rohrabacher both stand to be in powerful positions in pertinent committees, NASA support for commercial space is not going away.
Obama’s SLS
Oh sure. Can you explain that to us unenlightened individuals? Thanks.
Rand,
Good article. Its a pity that SpaceX is being pulled into the election nonsense. Imagine how the right would have roasted him if the rocket had actually failed.
SpaceX needs to hurry up and get their non-government revenue stream flowing. Hopefully this Orbcomm business hasn’t jeopardized that.
Trent,
Yes, that is there best hope. I don’t think the failure with Orbcomm will jeopardized that. Its understood it was only a failure because of the need for SpaceX to fulfill their prime mission for NASA, a risk a commercial secondary payload always takes riding on a NASA mission.
Orbcomm isn’t treating it as a failure. They got valuable data and are very supportive of SpaceX still. Being insured didn’t hurt either.
Ken
Shhh, they don’t want their insurance firm to know it wasn’t a failure, a big awful costly failure 🙂
No need to whisper. The insurance contract was a contract with specific terms. That is all.
“Conservatism” on this subject appears to mean conserving what we have, seriously flawed though it is, in preference to a new but unproven opportunity better aligned with one’s core principles.
Amen. For the last couple of years, I’ve constantly heard conservatives lamenting “Obama killed the space program” and “He turned NASA into a Muslim outreach effort”. Those memes are firmly entrenched on the right. There is also the national pride angle. Many conservatives regard the Shuttle’s retirement as being of a piece with Obama’s endless apologies for American achievements and his bowing to foreign leaders.
I’d try to describe some of the private space efforts, but it didn’t register much, since there was little mention in the MSM and they don’t read the same blogs I do.
I’ve heard less of that since SpaceX’s May mission. It’s hard to argue with success, and now that SpaceX is racking up real-world accomplishments, it’s starting to seep into the public consciousness. I point out to them that even the engine mishap on the current flight validated the overall design of the Falcon 9.
Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to T.L. James.
I’ve heard less of it the past half-year, too.
What you call the “national pride” angle is clearly tied up in the “conserving” attitude. It’s not just the practical (if sunk-cost-based) desire to preserve something we’ve spent a lot of time and money to build, but maintaining ties to one of the country’s great achievements. And if for a given individual the “national greatness” aspects of conservatism outrank free-market principles among their political priorities, that might explain the apparent paradox of conservatives supporting a statist space program over commercial alternatives.
The media can’t get politics right which is a lower bar than getting science or economics right.
But you’ve got to believe that truth eventually wins (ok, now perhaps I’m being too much of an optimist.) I just wouldn’t bet with the naysayers against the future of SpaceX.
Ken,
The future of SpaceX is fine and will be even better when they detach themselves from the NASA Tar Baby. Actually Governor Romney would be doing them a favor if he casts them out of “Commercial” Crew. It would eliminate their big distraction from commercial markets.
Example one being Red Dragon. When I was at Earth and Space 2012 SpaceX showed movies of the drill they plan to use on it to search for underground water and life being tested in Antarctica. Basically the researchers pronounced the drill and science payload ready to go at the conference when sorted through their presentation. And we know the Falcon 9 and Dragon are good to go. In short SpaceX could probably send a Red Dragon to Mars when the next launch window opens, which I believe is in 2014.
Yet it probably won’t fly 2018 because that is when the next round of missions NASA is looking to fund for Mars will fly. So Red Dragon is basically on hold for four years due to wanting NASA money to pay for it and so its being limited by NASA’s schedule.
I have not heard of any plans for a 2014 flight. They are trying to get NASA to pay for a Red Dragon flight.
Elon isn’t waiting a second on NASA. He’s moving forward on his own plan (which includes personally retiring on mars.)
Ken,
You haven’t heard about a 2014 flight because its being proposed to NASA as a Mars mission. The only way it would fly in 2014 is if Elon Musk paid for it himself which he is not going to, not if he’s able to get Uncle Sugar to fund it 🙂
Which in no way delays SpaceX plans either way. They have a lot to do in the coming decade. A Red Lander now or two years later isn’t going to impact their plans one way or another.
Of course he’s going to try to get others to fund it. He’s not stupid.
The byline says “Pollock is part of the special reporting team”. “Special” meaning those who rode the short bus in school
Well said. One nit: COTS stands for Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, not Commercial Orbiter Transportation Services, but that was probably a mistake by the editor.
I do wonder what sort of treatment SpaceX would get from a Romney administration. Romney himself labeled Tesla a “loser”. The right wing press is primed to trash anything associated with Obama’s space policy. Wouldn’t Romney rather send federal dollars to ATK in Utah than to an Obama donor in California?
Oooh, Concern Troll is very concerned…
Rand, you nailed it on every point. Jim, sure your media friends (this article a case in point) could try to smear SpaceX and many will buy it. But I note the commenters on Rand’s article are not so clueless.
Ken,
You do know that the Washington Examiner is a conservative paper don’t you?
Thomas, you of all people should know that cluelessness is not the private reserve of the left.
Oh, I wouldn’t worry about that, Jim. Both Romney and Ryan are good at math.
I have to grudgingly agree with Jim: the right is primed to trash the Obama space policy – it’s on display in the fisked article, we see it discussed here all the time, and I’ve actually seen it in action myself.
When Constellation was cancelled a couple years back, the Congressman who then represented the district in which the Orion office in Denver was located came to give us a pep talk. The guy (Mike Coffman) is the Republican successor to Tom Tancredo in that seat, so you can imagine his political leanings are pretty conservative.
He was openly dismissive of the commercial providers as boondoggles, in favor of the space-based “jobs programs” traditionally pursued by NASA and the civil-servant “right stuff” mystique associated with the latter. This from a guy who proclaims support for small government and free market economics.
Very disappointing. And being active in Republican politics in Colorado, I see similar sentiments from my own side all the time. It wasn’t simply blind partisanship (Obama cancelling Constellation and presiding over Shuttle retirement provoking a knee-jerk defense of NASA and it’s traditional approach to manned spaceflight and equally knee-jerk assault on the commercial guys), although there was that, but more often a failure of imagination that we are now at the point where we can do things differently. “Conservatism” on this subject appears to mean conserving what we have, seriously flawed though it is, in preference to a new but unproven opportunity better aligned with one’s core principles.
But with any luck (or with the right prodding), a potential Romney administration might be persuaded to see commercial space as viable, and different from the “loser pick” green cronyism boondoggles Romney was actually referring to. The guy *is* supposed to be an expert at recognizing economically worthwhile enterprises, after all.
That’s the beauty of private space. No admin can totally trash it.
Romney acknowledged commercial space in a recent white paper from the campaign.
Not a problem since “The Stick” has been commercialized as the “Liberty” launch system. And with a name like that how could a Republican like Governor Romney resist 🙂
Now you’re being simplistic. We may just have to wait and see. Like it or not, Mitt has a different priority: Jobs.
We know that can result in bad policy for space. Let’s hope Mitt is smarter than some other RINOs.
Exactly and switching to ATK’s Liberty will give those good Republicans in Alabama and Utah who donated to the Romney Campaign jobs while taking them from those folks in California who supported President Obama.
Its call political payback 🙂
So what? We both agree that SpaceX will be fine either way.
Not a word in that white paper about the moon or BEO.
I [Romney] will … set a clear roadmap for space exploration. NASA will retain the intellectual capital to conduct research and to develop new generations of spacecraft for government missions that are not commercially viable, but it will promptly transition out of routine space operations in low Earth orbit as private sector capabilities mature.
Why should NASA develop ANY space vehicles? Why not instead, make the vehicles commercially viable by putting out requests for bid?
In the meantime we wait to see what Romney’s idea of a clear roadmap is.
Wouldn’t Romney rather send federal dollars to ATK in Utah
You bet. The people from ATK even know the secret handshake. Hopefully SpaceX will manage to get enough $ out of this program to get the manned Dragon working. Then we just need someone to put a space station up and tourists can get into orbit. Hopefully this would be Bigelow but I think even SpaceX could make something up with their existing tools and components. If the Chinese can orbit Tiangong then SpaceX can make a station too. Perhaps Musk should talk with Space Adventures to see if they can get half a dozen people to pony up the money to launch a station in exchange for a seat. He could even launch all of them in a single F9/Dragon.
I think this one will be a “King is dead/Long live the king” type of program cancellation if it does happen. Kind of like how Bush’s Constellation became Obama’s SLS. Especially considering that Kevin McCarthy & Dana Rohrabacher both stand to be in powerful positions in pertinent committees, NASA support for commercial space is not going away.
Obama’s SLS
Oh sure. Can you explain that to us unenlightened individuals? Thanks.
Rand,
Good article. Its a pity that SpaceX is being pulled into the election nonsense. Imagine how the right would have roasted him if the rocket had actually failed.
SpaceX needs to hurry up and get their non-government revenue stream flowing. Hopefully this Orbcomm business hasn’t jeopardized that.
Trent,
Yes, that is there best hope. I don’t think the failure with Orbcomm will jeopardized that. Its understood it was only a failure because of the need for SpaceX to fulfill their prime mission for NASA, a risk a commercial secondary payload always takes riding on a NASA mission.
Orbcomm isn’t treating it as a failure. They got valuable data and are very supportive of SpaceX still. Being insured didn’t hurt either.
Ken
Shhh, they don’t want their insurance firm to know it wasn’t a failure, a big awful costly failure 🙂
No need to whisper. The insurance contract was a contract with specific terms. That is all.
“Conservatism” on this subject appears to mean conserving what we have, seriously flawed though it is, in preference to a new but unproven opportunity better aligned with one’s core principles.
Amen. For the last couple of years, I’ve constantly heard conservatives lamenting “Obama killed the space program” and “He turned NASA into a Muslim outreach effort”. Those memes are firmly entrenched on the right. There is also the national pride angle. Many conservatives regard the Shuttle’s retirement as being of a piece with Obama’s endless apologies for American achievements and his bowing to foreign leaders.
I’d try to describe some of the private space efforts, but it didn’t register much, since there was little mention in the MSM and they don’t read the same blogs I do.
I’ve heard less of that since SpaceX’s May mission. It’s hard to argue with success, and now that SpaceX is racking up real-world accomplishments, it’s starting to seep into the public consciousness. I point out to them that even the engine mishap on the current flight validated the overall design of the Falcon 9.
Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to T.L. James.
I’ve heard less of it the past half-year, too.
What you call the “national pride” angle is clearly tied up in the “conserving” attitude. It’s not just the practical (if sunk-cost-based) desire to preserve something we’ve spent a lot of time and money to build, but maintaining ties to one of the country’s great achievements. And if for a given individual the “national greatness” aspects of conservatism outrank free-market principles among their political priorities, that might explain the apparent paradox of conservatives supporting a statist space program over commercial alternatives.
The media can’t get politics right which is a lower bar than getting science or economics right.
But you’ve got to believe that truth eventually wins (ok, now perhaps I’m being too much of an optimist.) I just wouldn’t bet with the naysayers against the future of SpaceX.
Ken,
The future of SpaceX is fine and will be even better when they detach themselves from the NASA Tar Baby. Actually Governor Romney would be doing them a favor if he casts them out of “Commercial” Crew. It would eliminate their big distraction from commercial markets.
Example one being Red Dragon. When I was at Earth and Space 2012 SpaceX showed movies of the drill they plan to use on it to search for underground water and life being tested in Antarctica. Basically the researchers pronounced the drill and science payload ready to go at the conference when sorted through their presentation. And we know the Falcon 9 and Dragon are good to go. In short SpaceX could probably send a Red Dragon to Mars when the next launch window opens, which I believe is in 2014.
Yet it probably won’t fly 2018 because that is when the next round of missions NASA is looking to fund for Mars will fly. So Red Dragon is basically on hold for four years due to wanting NASA money to pay for it and so its being limited by NASA’s schedule.
I have not heard of any plans for a 2014 flight. They are trying to get NASA to pay for a Red Dragon flight.
Elon isn’t waiting a second on NASA. He’s moving forward on his own plan (which includes personally retiring on mars.)
Ken,
You haven’t heard about a 2014 flight because its being proposed to NASA as a Mars mission. The only way it would fly in 2014 is if Elon Musk paid for it himself which he is not going to, not if he’s able to get Uncle Sugar to fund it 🙂
Which in no way delays SpaceX plans either way. They have a lot to do in the coming decade. A Red Lander now or two years later isn’t going to impact their plans one way or another.
Of course he’s going to try to get others to fund it. He’s not stupid.
The byline says “Pollock is part of the special reporting team”. “Special” meaning those who rode the short bus in school