Maybe Pence (like most people) has never deeply considered the ramifications of various NASA projects and his endorsement is merely an endorsement of NASA manned space exploration in general.
“Overall, the speech was a big endorsement for government space, in every way, with the private sector designed not to lead as free Americans following their personal dreams but to follow, servants of the desires of the government and its wishes.”
Maybe? Or…
Maybe NASA refusing to take advantage of private space developments only hurts NASA. NASA sticking with boondoggle projects actually means that NASA gets left hopelessly behind not by the Chinese (who have even worse problems than NASA), but left behind by the private sector of Blue Origin and SpaceX. Our space billionaires are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of NASA.
And as for LOP-G, is it fair to lump it in with the SLS and Orion boondoggles? I think that is very debatable.
Sure NASA could still turn Gateway into a boondoggle, but in isolation of the SLS and Orion, I think there is a lot of merit to Gateway for manned travel to the lunar surface and the creation and sustainment of a Lunar Base.
And speaking of a Lunar Base, I think the big news isn’t the speech by Pence, but the news of confirmed Lunar surface ice!
I think there is a lot of merit to Gateway for manned travel to the lunar surface and the creation and sustainment of a Lunar Base.
I’ve seen a lot of complaints that the orbit of the LOP-G makes this impossible. They never quite say specifically why. I’ve also seen people say that the orbit is OK and approaches the Moon once a week.
The orbit was chosen to service SLS/Orion and could be changed once SLS/Orion are cancelled. If SLS/Orion were going to fly a limited number of times no matter how much people complain, what would be a good use of those launches? I suspect it wont even matter as commercial space will outpace SLS/Orion/LOP-G.
The Gateway orbit is just a sophisticated variant of the L-2 orbit.
This paper, “Options for Staging Orbits in Cis-Lunar Space”, gives a good look at the tradeoffs of various lunar orbits.
Mr Zimmerman always overlooks that NASA has a dual track approach. SLS/Orion and by extension LOP-G are a waste of money but they are not the only things NASA is doing. Ignoring what is going on with commercial crew and cargo and how those programs are influencing lunar prospecting is a little stubborn. But then again, NASA hasn’t laid out what the robotic prospecting missions will look like yet.
The only thing I have seen is the claim there will be many landings and that the capabilities developed by commercial partners to achieve them will be the foundations for follow up missions. These missions wont rely on LOP-G, SLS, or Orion and will take place on a track separate from their development.
Now in its 3rd administration, I am not sure why anyone realistically believes that SLS/Orion/LOP-G will be cancelled. What would it take to get them cancelled? It might be the only way to get cancelled is to run out of engines after a small number of launches.
“Now in its 3rd administration, I am not sure why anyone realistically believes that SLS/Orion/LOP-G will be cancelled. What would it take to get them cancelled? It might be the only way to get cancelled is to run out of engines after a small number of launches.”
Cancelling SLS/Orion means shutting down NASA for lack of a budget. It is not complex. Vassals of those who control NASA’s budget must not only be fed, but be fed while knowing they are dependent on some member of the SLS/Orion coalition for that. What Bridenstine and the rest at NASA can do is to try to keep allowing commercial spaceflight to grow to the point that once SLS/Orion cannot be sustained, the growth into the Solar System can be sustained without NASA.
If the Republican majorities in Congress were large enough that the Republican leaders in Congress could do without the votes of the delegations from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Utah, then the LBJian power would drop significantly. Those majorities are at least 15% of total seats short of what would be needed to do without them. That may be beyond current possibility.
“If the Republican majorities in Congress were large enough that the Republican leaders in Congress could do without the votes of the delegations from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Utah, then the LBJian power would drop significantly.”
Or, since those delegations are mostly Republican, if the Democrats take control of Congress.
No, space pork is bipartisan. Bill Nelson represents Florida (though hopefully not for much longer), and he is the father of SLS (Kay Bailey Hutchison was the mother). The delegations from those states will support these atrocities regardless of political party.
I would agree that space-state Democrats are intrinsically just as porkotropic as space-state Republicans. My point is that, since space-state delegations tend to be dominated by Republicans, if Tom Billings is hoping that a party might be able to resist its own space-state porkonauts, the Democrats are probably a better bet.
In any event, I don’t think it’s a viable hope. My impression is that non-space-state politicians tend to be vaguely favorably inclined toward NASA spending. Space-state porkonauts need only whisper a few sweet nothings about the moon and the stars, and few non-space-state members will ask any hard questions.
“Bill Nelson represents Florida (though hopefully not for much longer)….”
Scott wouldn’t have Nelson’s seniority, which would tend to make him less effective initially at bringing home the bacon. But is there any reason to believe that Scott would be less porkotropic than Nelson?
He wouldn’t have the emotional investment in the Big Monster Rocket that Nelson does.
The swamp will start seriously drying out when Space X begins testing BFR components next year or the year after, and the evaporation of the swamp will accelerate when Bezos gets the New Glenn of the ground in 2020 or 2021. Dragon and CST-100 launches next year will begin the process by hitting the swamp with light but very warm breeze.
I think it will die the moment Dragon carries it first crew. That’s when more Americans will start to realize how far commercial space has come. However, you are probably right about BFR. NASA will try to hide SpaceX’s success by having it crewed by NASA Astronauts, and I’m sure run out of the JSC mission control rather than SpaceX’s. Still, the Dragon success will show SpaceX’s open for manned spaceflight business. How much longer before they provide 3 day rides to Orbit to other paying passengers?
I can’t find the article right now, but I recently read a good comparison between the SpaceX and Boeing Commercial Crew programs which said that the Starliner will use JSC’s mission control, but Dragon 2 will use Hawthorne. Hawthorne mission control does not need to be active while the Dragon 2 is docked to ISS, but it must be available within a 2 hour notice.
“These big boondoggles, which will trap us in lunar orbit while the Chinese set up lunar bases and take possession of the surface and its resources, are going forward, with both the president’s support as well as Congress’s.”
I don’t think NASA could mine lunar water, and don’t think Chinese can either.
Mining in terms of being worth the activity you may call mining- of course NASA or Chinese could waste a lot time and money “mining lunar water”
I think it will require capitalism to mine lunar water.
My problem with boondoggles is they simply don’t fly- such as things like SLS and James Telescope. They also cost a lot money and time- and thereby delay any possibility of actual and needed exploration.
Anyhow if choice is Chinese having lunar bases and NASA having lunar bases- I would pick Chinese having lunar bases- but a problem is it could be like the Chinese space station, which not an actual space station and so likewise the choice would not really any lunar bases.
It simple, socialism can’t open space frontier- Chinese nor American socialism. Or soviet {Russia] socialism.
By the way, Pence gripes about the cancellation of Constellation, but he himself voted for the NASA 2010 Authorization! Keith Cowing points out that he also was leader of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when it proposed axing Constellation.
That was then, this is now.
The conclusion I draw Pence’s flip-flopping is that it is consistent with Zimmerman’s claim that he is a swamp creature. In 2005, he was probably just trying to show everybody what a good small-government conservative he was: that was the Republican flavor of the day. And while I think cancelling CxP in 2005 would have been a good idea, even if nothing replaced it, if he’d had any interest in space then he could have proposed a more commercially based approach. But he didn’t.
In 2010, he reversed his view on the spending and went along with the porkonauts’ program. I’ll betcha he never really wanted to cancel CxP in 2005: it just looked good to propose it. And, again, the vote for the 2010 bill belies a lack of interest in NASA actually doing something with the taxpayers’ billions.
Now, after clearly having been exposed to commercial alternatives during the Trump transition (remember all of the talk and the hope about, for example, a race between NASA and commercial providers for a circum-lunar mission?), he is all-in for the porkonauts.
There is probably another angle to this too: talking about space (actually, talking about jobs programs, but most people don’t realize that) gives Pence a way of raising his profile in a way that dissociates him from Trump, which is probably something he wants to do just about now.
With Pence tying himself to Orion/SLS so publicly, that program is likely to become even more entrenched should Pence replace Trump, which now seems not a remote possibility.
Bottom line, I think Pence’s record shows that the swamp is winning even more comprehensively that Zimmerman says.
“The swamp wins!”
Maybe? Or…
Maybe Pence (like most people) has never deeply considered the ramifications of various NASA projects and his endorsement is merely an endorsement of NASA manned space exploration in general.
“Overall, the speech was a big endorsement for government space, in every way, with the private sector designed not to lead as free Americans following their personal dreams but to follow, servants of the desires of the government and its wishes.”
Maybe? Or…
Maybe NASA refusing to take advantage of private space developments only hurts NASA. NASA sticking with boondoggle projects actually means that NASA gets left hopelessly behind not by the Chinese (who have even worse problems than NASA), but left behind by the private sector of Blue Origin and SpaceX. Our space billionaires are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of NASA.
And as for LOP-G, is it fair to lump it in with the SLS and Orion boondoggles? I think that is very debatable.
Sure NASA could still turn Gateway into a boondoggle, but in isolation of the SLS and Orion, I think there is a lot of merit to Gateway for manned travel to the lunar surface and the creation and sustainment of a Lunar Base.
And speaking of a Lunar Base, I think the big news isn’t the speech by Pence, but the news of confirmed Lunar surface ice!
I think there is a lot of merit to Gateway for manned travel to the lunar surface and the creation and sustainment of a Lunar Base.
I’ve seen a lot of complaints that the orbit of the LOP-G makes this impossible. They never quite say specifically why. I’ve also seen people say that the orbit is OK and approaches the Moon once a week.
The orbit was chosen to service SLS/Orion and could be changed once SLS/Orion are cancelled. If SLS/Orion were going to fly a limited number of times no matter how much people complain, what would be a good use of those launches? I suspect it wont even matter as commercial space will outpace SLS/Orion/LOP-G.
The Gateway orbit is just a sophisticated variant of the L-2 orbit.
This paper, “Options for Staging Orbits in Cis-Lunar Space”, gives a good look at the tradeoffs of various lunar orbits.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20150013825
Mr Zimmerman always overlooks that NASA has a dual track approach. SLS/Orion and by extension LOP-G are a waste of money but they are not the only things NASA is doing. Ignoring what is going on with commercial crew and cargo and how those programs are influencing lunar prospecting is a little stubborn. But then again, NASA hasn’t laid out what the robotic prospecting missions will look like yet.
The only thing I have seen is the claim there will be many landings and that the capabilities developed by commercial partners to achieve them will be the foundations for follow up missions. These missions wont rely on LOP-G, SLS, or Orion and will take place on a track separate from their development.
Now in its 3rd administration, I am not sure why anyone realistically believes that SLS/Orion/LOP-G will be cancelled. What would it take to get them cancelled? It might be the only way to get cancelled is to run out of engines after a small number of launches.
“Now in its 3rd administration, I am not sure why anyone realistically believes that SLS/Orion/LOP-G will be cancelled. What would it take to get them cancelled? It might be the only way to get cancelled is to run out of engines after a small number of launches.”
Cancelling SLS/Orion means shutting down NASA for lack of a budget. It is not complex. Vassals of those who control NASA’s budget must not only be fed, but be fed while knowing they are dependent on some member of the SLS/Orion coalition for that. What Bridenstine and the rest at NASA can do is to try to keep allowing commercial spaceflight to grow to the point that once SLS/Orion cannot be sustained, the growth into the Solar System can be sustained without NASA.
If the Republican majorities in Congress were large enough that the Republican leaders in Congress could do without the votes of the delegations from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Utah, then the LBJian power would drop significantly. Those majorities are at least 15% of total seats short of what would be needed to do without them. That may be beyond current possibility.
“If the Republican majorities in Congress were large enough that the Republican leaders in Congress could do without the votes of the delegations from Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas and Utah, then the LBJian power would drop significantly.”
Or, since those delegations are mostly Republican, if the Democrats take control of Congress.
No, space pork is bipartisan. Bill Nelson represents Florida (though hopefully not for much longer), and he is the father of SLS (Kay Bailey Hutchison was the mother). The delegations from those states will support these atrocities regardless of political party.
I would agree that space-state Democrats are intrinsically just as porkotropic as space-state Republicans. My point is that, since space-state delegations tend to be dominated by Republicans, if Tom Billings is hoping that a party might be able to resist its own space-state porkonauts, the Democrats are probably a better bet.
In any event, I don’t think it’s a viable hope. My impression is that non-space-state politicians tend to be vaguely favorably inclined toward NASA spending. Space-state porkonauts need only whisper a few sweet nothings about the moon and the stars, and few non-space-state members will ask any hard questions.
“Bill Nelson represents Florida (though hopefully not for much longer)….”
Scott wouldn’t have Nelson’s seniority, which would tend to make him less effective initially at bringing home the bacon. But is there any reason to believe that Scott would be less porkotropic than Nelson?
He wouldn’t have the emotional investment in the Big Monster Rocket that Nelson does.
The swamp will start seriously drying out when Space X begins testing BFR components next year or the year after, and the evaporation of the swamp will accelerate when Bezos gets the New Glenn of the ground in 2020 or 2021. Dragon and CST-100 launches next year will begin the process by hitting the swamp with light but very warm breeze.
I think it will die the moment Dragon carries it first crew. That’s when more Americans will start to realize how far commercial space has come. However, you are probably right about BFR. NASA will try to hide SpaceX’s success by having it crewed by NASA Astronauts, and I’m sure run out of the JSC mission control rather than SpaceX’s. Still, the Dragon success will show SpaceX’s open for manned spaceflight business. How much longer before they provide 3 day rides to Orbit to other paying passengers?
I can’t find the article right now, but I recently read a good comparison between the SpaceX and Boeing Commercial Crew programs which said that the Starliner will use JSC’s mission control, but Dragon 2 will use Hawthorne. Hawthorne mission control does not need to be active while the Dragon 2 is docked to ISS, but it must be available within a 2 hour notice.
“These big boondoggles, which will trap us in lunar orbit while the Chinese set up lunar bases and take possession of the surface and its resources, are going forward, with both the president’s support as well as Congress’s.”
I don’t think NASA could mine lunar water, and don’t think Chinese can either.
Mining in terms of being worth the activity you may call mining- of course NASA or Chinese could waste a lot time and money “mining lunar water”
I think it will require capitalism to mine lunar water.
My problem with boondoggles is they simply don’t fly- such as things like SLS and James Telescope. They also cost a lot money and time- and thereby delay any possibility of actual and needed exploration.
Anyhow if choice is Chinese having lunar bases and NASA having lunar bases- I would pick Chinese having lunar bases- but a problem is it could be like the Chinese space station, which not an actual space station and so likewise the choice would not really any lunar bases.
It simple, socialism can’t open space frontier- Chinese nor American socialism. Or soviet {Russia] socialism.
By the way, Pence gripes about the cancellation of Constellation, but he himself voted for the NASA 2010 Authorization! Keith Cowing points out that he also was leader of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when it proposed axing Constellation.
That was then, this is now.
The conclusion I draw Pence’s flip-flopping is that it is consistent with Zimmerman’s claim that he is a swamp creature. In 2005, he was probably just trying to show everybody what a good small-government conservative he was: that was the Republican flavor of the day. And while I think cancelling CxP in 2005 would have been a good idea, even if nothing replaced it, if he’d had any interest in space then he could have proposed a more commercially based approach. But he didn’t.
In 2010, he reversed his view on the spending and went along with the porkonauts’ program. I’ll betcha he never really wanted to cancel CxP in 2005: it just looked good to propose it. And, again, the vote for the 2010 bill belies a lack of interest in NASA actually doing something with the taxpayers’ billions.
Now, after clearly having been exposed to commercial alternatives during the Trump transition (remember all of the talk and the hope about, for example, a race between NASA and commercial providers for a circum-lunar mission?), he is all-in for the porkonauts.
There is probably another angle to this too: talking about space (actually, talking about jobs programs, but most people don’t realize that) gives Pence a way of raising his profile in a way that dissociates him from Trump, which is probably something he wants to do just about now.
With Pence tying himself to Orion/SLS so publicly, that program is likely to become even more entrenched should Pence replace Trump, which now seems not a remote possibility.
Bottom line, I think Pence’s record shows that the swamp is winning even more comprehensively that Zimmerman says.