Media Casualties Mount
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan
Pot, Kettle On Line Two...
Allies Seize Paris
Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics
Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit
Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff
A New Beginning
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
James Lileks Bleats
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Space Flight
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Nanobot (Howard Lovy)
Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)
Geek Press (Paul Hsieh)
Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge)
Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)
Cowlix (Wes Cowley)
Quark Soup (Dave Appell)
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al)
Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)
Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling)
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum
Day By Day
Happy Fun Pundit
Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon)
Scrapple Face (Scott Ott)
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs)
England's Sword (Iain Murray)
Daily Pundit (Bill Quick)
Daimnation! (Damian Penny)
Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli)
The Kolkata Libertarian
Midwest Conservative Journal
Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al)
Dean's World (Dean Esmay)
Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee)
Spleenville (Andrea Harris)
Random Jottings (John Weidner)
On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman)
Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen)
Inadvertent Comic Relief
Warblogger Watcher (Cowardly Anonymous Idiotarians)
Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse)
A libertarian reads the papers
Anna Franco Review
Ben Kepple's Daily Rant
Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)
End the War on Freedom
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan
James Reuben Haney
Mind over what matters
Page Fault Interrupt
Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief)
The Blogs of War
The Fly Bottle
The Illuminated Donkey
What she really thinks
Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet
Zem : blog
Space Policy Links
The Space Review
The Space Show
Space Frontier Foundation
Space Policy Digest BBS
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)
World View (Brink Lindsay)
The Last Page
More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer)
Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd)
Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons)
The New Space Age (Rob Wilson)
Rocketman (Mark Oakley)
Site designed by
The New NASA Moon Hoax
Some people are claiming that the president's new space policy is a hoax.
Of course, what they mean is that the president isn't serious--that this is just a reelection ploy in a reelection year.
This is a preposterous claim, to anyone familiar with space policy and its history. With the possible exception of Jack Kennedy's moon program (and even that is highly doubtful), no space policy has ever been one on which public votes were cast, other than possibly in districts that directly benefited from it, such as Houston, TX, Huntsville, AL, and the area around Cape Canaveral in Florida. Even in the latter cases, it's not clear that it's ever been a dominant issue in any election.
Some might argue that, while Texas and Alabama are in the bag for the president this year, Florida is a swing state on which the election notoriously hinged the last time, and a new space initiative could bring it firmly into the president's column. But it's not necessary to announce a visionary space policy to do so. It would have been sufficient to give lip service to continuing the space shuttle and space station programs, because those constituencies' primary interest is in jobs, not planets.
Well, actually, there is another exception to the rule of space having no impact on elections, and a clear (and negative) one. Former Apollo astronaut Harrison "Jack" Schmitt was, for a time, a US Senator from New Mexico, his home state. That time didn't last long, because he was perceived by his constituents as being too interested in Mars, and not sufficiently interested in the Land of Enchantment. His winning opponent's campaign slogan was "What on earth has Jack Schmitt done for us"?
No one has ever won an election in similar circumstances. To the degree that we have empirical data on the matter, support of visionary space programs is not a vote getter, but a vote loser.
Consider the International Space Station. President Reagan announced it twenty years ago this year. It was originally supposed to fly in the early nineteen nineties. Now, the goal is to complete it by the end of this decade, over a quarter of a century after it was first announced.
Has there been any great hue and cry amongst the populace over our lack of a space station? Has anyone at NASA been fired because we don't yet really have one?
No, because no politician has ever been fired because we don't have one. It's simply not important, politically.
Oh, yes, polls show support for space activities, but it's a mile wide and an inch deep. People like it well enough, but when asked to make a choice between spending on space, and spending on, well, almost anything else, space rarely even shows, let alone places.
But wait, there's more!
As I already said, the only practical way that a positive space policy ever translates into votes is in terms of its impact on local jobs at traditional NASA centers. But one of the new (and subtle) things about the president's new policy is that it throws uncertainty into the potential effects at specific locations. One of the barriers to effective management of NASA programs has long been the undue influence of major NASA space centers, which leverage their local congressmen and Senators to support them on the Hill, often to the detriment of the program itself. There's an old saying inside the Capital Beltway, that "NASA headquarters doesn't have any congressmen."
Administrator O'Keefe, presumably with the support of the administration, seems determined to change this. He's pulled back management of the new exploration program to a new office at NASA headquarters in Washington, and he's made no promises to any of the centers about which aspects, if any, they'll be responsible for. Again, as Henry Vanderbilt of the Space Access Society points out, this is not a sign that the administration is attempting to curry favor with the voters in an election year--if anything, it's the opposite.
So the notion that the president's speech last month announcing a new direction for NASA was simply election-year politics, upon a serious examination, is ludicrous on its face.
So how do supposedly competent commentators get it so wrong?
Well, in the case of Joshua Micah Marshall, the author of the drive-by hit job on the president's policy, it can be attributed to a combination of ignorance about space policy (a subject that he rarely comments on), and a well-established animus to President Bush, as exhibited on an almost daily basis in his weblog. The ignorance is demonstrated by the fact that he never even mentions in his comment the loss of Columbia a year ago, let alone suggests that it might have something to do with new space policy a few months after the release of the investigation of the report on that event.
Neither knowledgable or even casual observers of space policy would make such an omission, because it is clear that the formulation of the new space policy was accelerated, if not initiated, by it. The status quo was clearly no longer acceptable after it, because it was equally clear that the long-term continuation of a manned space program was not possible with a fragile fleet of three shuttle orbiters.
Former NASA historian Alex Roland has less excuse, because he's supposed to be knowledgable about such things. Blogger Thomas James has dissected his unprofessional screed, and space historian (and policy analyst to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board) Dwayne Day has completed the job.
Given his supposed knowledge, Professor Roland's piece can only be attributed to undiluted Bush hatred (as evidenced by the use of the tell-tale word "Halliburton" in his little rant).
I warned about this a couple weeks ago. Space policy is largely being discussed in a knowledge vacuum, and not on the basis of its intrinsic features, but rather, on who supports it.
Perhaps the real hoax being perpetrated here is by those who argue against policies and politics of which they apparently know nothing, as a surrogate for what's sure to be a brutal upcoming political campaign.Posted by Rand Simberg at February 11, 2004 11:18 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.
Friday Blog Roundup (2/13/04)- 'Git along Little Bloggie!
Excerpt: It's time for the roundup again, and this should be a very special Friday the 13th edition! O.K., it's not all that special, but here are some cool pieces from this week that I thought deserved another look. If you like this, don't miss next week's Car...
Weblog: Tasty Manatees
Tracked: February 13, 2004 08:08 AM
I'll have to agree with you on this one.
It was becoming painfully obvious to quite a few people years ago that NASA was not functioning all that well. What we got was an adminstrator (Goldin) who, in the judgment of many of us, managed to make things even worse. But, so long as NASA's problems were off the front page, little attention was paid.
On Bush's watch problems have become too noticeable to ignore. The ISS fiasco forced out Goldin. And people think the ISS is useless... :-)
Now we've had Columbia -- and a report that hits NASA and aerospace hard where it matters.
Bush could still have swept things under the rug. The average American just doesn't care that much. A few cosmetic changes might have sufficed to push the space issue, such as it is, completely off the front page.
Instead, we're getting a bit of a shake up -- that will, hopefully disturb some rice bowls. Pork in a few places wins votes in a few places. Shaking up the pork could wind up losing votes. Given the closeness of the last Presidential election, that counts for something.Posted by Chuck Divine at February 11, 2004 02:09 PM
"Hoax" -- another example of how some people have gone from saying that they disagree with someone to saying that that person is dishonest. Because if your opponent is dishonest, you don't have to put any effort into showing how he is wrong, or your position is superior, but that person can be dismissed out of hand.
Bush ~lies~ about Iraq, so we don't have to explain what we'd have done better, or will do now to fix it.
Bush ~lies~ about his military record, so he and his supporters can't say anything about our guys. (I can't wait to see what sort of record JF***Kerry's VP choice has.)
Bush ~lies~ about the economy, so we don't have to explain how we will fix it, or consider the consequences of our proposals.
Bush ~lies~ about NASA, so we don't have to come up with a way to fix it, we can keep doing the same things we've always done.(And for some people, keep offering our thirty year old solution-- spend that money on social programs instead)Posted by Raoul Ortega at February 11, 2004 07:22 PM
Conspiracy theory is the solace of the impotent.
I see, from his latest essay, that John Carter McKnight is also indulging in the plan-as-hoax notion.Posted by T.L. James at February 11, 2004 08:46 PM
Sell the plan to Congress, including John McCain and to those leading Republican Senate candidates from Illinois who oppose the plan and that will prove it is not a hoax.
Unless the vision comes to be "owned" by the people who will have political power come 2009 it will merely float away.
"Vision without strategy is illusion" sayeth John McCain and thus far I have not seen a strategy for building a 20 year consensus for following the Bush plan.Posted by Bill White at February 12, 2004 09:54 AM
You can't build sustainability on a political foundation. See this for my views on that. But I disagree a little with the assertion that John Carter McKnight's latest indulges in the hoax idea. I think what John is saying is that the plan, if left simply with the government, has no hope of actually achieving its goals. The simile of the "Emperor having no clothes" has at its core an assumption that the Emperor is also unaware that he/she is naked (or at least in their Scooby-Doo boxers).Posted by Michael Mealling at February 12, 2004 11:08 AM
In addition to no strategy, the Bush space plan lacks a clear budget. Also, Bush's plan is a reaction to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's (CAIB) recommendation. Perhaps not a political ploy, I wonder why Bush chose to address only manned space flight. What of near earth and deep space? Is that to be forfeit in lieu of this new direction in manned space flight? Personally, I'd like to see both unmanned and manned, and near earth and deep space benefit by a new space plan. That brings us back to the budget.Posted by Eric Chomko at February 12, 2004 03:40 PM
Near earth should be completely given over to private concerns. Hand deep space off to the NSF.Posted by Michael Mealling at February 12, 2004 03:47 PM
There's no budget because it would be foolish to try to present one when we don't even know how we're going to accomplish it. Budgets will be defined over the years as the path becomes more clear, and technologies evolved. The president didn't provide a plan (and it would be hubristic to think that it's possible to do so at this time). He simply described national goals.
Just, in fact, as Kennedy did in 1961, for a project with a much shorter time-scale.Posted by Rand Simberg at February 12, 2004 06:05 PM
In response to the comment by Michael Mealling.
Hand off ALL near earth space exploration to the private sector? Even NOAA's work regarding hurricanes? Hand Earth Science to the private sector to do exactly what with it? How do you propose the private sector pay for doing the scientific work of near earth space exploration?
Based upon your 'logic' our military should be made up of a group of paid mercenaries.
Please think your answers through this time before posting!Posted by Eric Chomko at February 13, 2004 07:54 PM
The Moon song
Well it?s one small step for man
That grainy footage shown on TV
No man has ever walked on the moon
You see it all started back in 62
He was a great speaker we all know
Now NASA had to get their ass in gear
Their funding stood at about a couple BILL
So they said?
If we can?t make it, then we?ll fake it
We?ll bring jeeps, but bring no telescopes?
We?ll hit some golf balls all around,
That should be enough for the boob tube watching dopes
Unless you shield yourself with 8 feet of lead
Kennedy thought this was plausible
NASA knew it was impossible
But they still wanted to get paid
So they said to themselves?
If we can?t make it, then we?ll fake it
We?ll bring extra lighting just for fun
But we need them for the photos were going to take
No photos of stars or other stuff,
It never can come out it all was fake
3 dead astroNOTS would not boost moral
Full body photos of Neil on the moon, there are only two
They couldn?t make it, so they faked it
Sent a satellite feed of their con
Then beamed it out to the all the excited folks
They were never 250, 000 miles away
But the first time around it was a hoax
They slowed the film, and hid the wires
The first time around it was a hoax
That's a pretty ignorant poem, Mr. Hook.Posted by Rand Simberg at February 28, 2004 07:41 AM
I would have to agree with Mr.Simberg.Posted by Dave Hook at April 15, 2006 07:56 PM
Post a comment