Jeff Foust wonders if new government energy initiatives will crowd out space budgets.
Maybe. His piece reminds me of an idea I've had for an essay on why energy independence isn't like landing a man on the moon.
In fact, I had a related comment over at Space Politics this morning, in response to a comment from someone named...Someone...that cost-plus contracts are a proven means of success in space:
I know alt.spacers see cost-plus as some sort of ultimate evil. But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus. And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used. If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
To which I responded:
But recognize its been successful in the past, from the Saturn V to the Pegasus.
Only if by "successful," you mean it eventually results in very expensive working hardware. Not to mention that Pegasus was not developed on a cost-plus contract.
And the X-33 would likely have been finished and test flown if NASA had used its traditional cost-plus approach instead of the fixed price model they used.
Perhaps. At a cost to the taxpayer of billions. And probably a radically different vehicle than the one originally proposed.
If NASA had funded the X-33/VentureStar under the same procurement model as the Shuttle it would be flying today.
Perhaps. And likely just as big an economic disaster (and perhaps safety one as well) as the Shuttle.
We don't like that form of procurement because historically, in terms of affordable access to space, it has repeatedly been proven not to work.
Anyway, I do need to write that essay. We're not going to get energy independence from government crash programs (though prizes may be useful).
There's an implicit assumption by the majority that gross unaffordability (in a single government gigaprogram) is acceptable, even inevitable when it comes to space stuff.
The way things are does not directly tell us how they should be or however the quote goes.
We're not going to get "energy independence" anyway. Energy is one of the biggest segments of the economy, and economic activity is increasingly globalized.
What we need is energy stability, and weaning the world -- not just the US -- off dependence on limited and politically troublesome sources of fossil fuels. Getting (say) Brazil to make ethanol for use in China is just as important, and as useful, as getting Iowa to make ethanol for use in New York. This means making the alternatives actually economically competitive, not just achieving the appearance of such via subsidy.