The administration says that the new space initiative won’t cost that much. They at least seem to have the talking points down:

Treasury Secretary John Snow told an ABC News program Sunday said that any new space initiative would be undertaken “within a framework of fiscal responsibility.” In a separate interview Sunday on CNN, Commerce Secretary Don Evans said that any program would be “within a responsible fiscal budget.”

Gee, that would make it unique among all federal programs with this administration.

Stanley Kurtz has been thinking about space recently, as evidenced by a Corner post he put up last week mentioning the sadly misinformed Anne Applebaum column in the WaPo. There, he wrote:

In any case, Applebaum?s attack on manned space exploration is worth reading. I?d like to see a serious rebuttal. In the end, though, these questions have more to do with what inspires you. That?s not a matter easily settled by argument.

After that post, I emailed him with a link to my critique of her piece, in response to his wish. He didn’t respond directly, but he did cite me and my post in this column that ran yesterday.

He is right, in that it depends on what inspires you, but that’s clearly not all that it depends on, because even many people who are inspired by space (e.g., yours truly) are not inspired by the government’s approach to it. Similarly, people who aren’t inspired support the government space program for reasons pragmatic and prosaic.

One of my pet peeves shows up in both his and Applebaum’s piece’s titles–the word “mission.” The use of such a word betrays a narrow mindset of space as science, space as exploration, space as a government program.

While his essay is thoughtful, it misses the point, because space policy discussion can’t be simply divided into “space lovers” and “space haters,” any more than general policy discussion can be usefully dichotomized as an argument between “right” and “left.” Though many simpletons in the media (though I’m not including Mr. Kurtz in that category) would like to make it so, policy is simply not that simple.

A “space lover” can love space and love NASA, or love space and be very skeptical of NASA and its ability to achieve the space lover’s goals. A “space hater” can be opposed to NASA because it’s a perceived waste of money, or because it’s perceived to be part of the evil military-industrial complex, or they can be opposed to space, period, regardless of whether or not it’s NASA, because the very notion of people leaving the earth and polluting the rest of the universe is heresy. There are going to be different arguments, and different policy solutions to deal with each of these viewpoints, and it’s not particularly useful, or even insightful, to divide them between lovers and haters.

Here is what I think is the nut of his concern:

Space lovers rest an awful lot on visionary inspiration. What the space program lacks, say the lovers, is vision. The shuttle is a useless link in a nonexistent chain of vehicles and settlements that is supposed to point us to the moon and Mars. Like the shuttle, the space station lacks any real purpose, and is consequently plagued by cost overruns, delays, and technological promises that don’t pan out. Set a bold goal for the space program, we’re assured, and the purpose and efficiency of the original NASA will return.

The administration has bought this argument. And up to a point, I think it’s correct. The shuttle and the space station have no clear purpose. A difficult, inspiring goal will attract new blood and reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies. Still, I wonder if “the vision thing” fully explains NASA’s post-Apollo blues.

It doesn’t. I do in fact think that we are lacking vision, and that coming up with one with broad appeal is a necessary and sufficient condition to coming up with sensible policy to carry it out. But, as I’ve written before, and will again (probably tomorrow, depending on what the president says) a destination is not a vision.

I don’t expect people to be inspired by the thought of government employees going off to the moon and Mars. I would expect them to be inspired by a vision of a new frontier in which they can participate, first as tourists, and then, if they wish, as settlers. The New World analogy may not be appropriate, but we won’t find out until we seriously attempt it, and the arguments put up against it are weak, and often disingenuous.

Clean energy from space, moving mining and industry off planet where it won’t pollute, herding errant asteroids that may have our number, providing a new venue for the further development of the vital experiments of freedom and self government–all of these are aspects of a vision that could appeal to a broad swath of humanity. Yes, it may turn out that these don’t pan out, but no one can say with any credibility now that they cannot. As Rick Tumlinson writes, the “why” is critical to any new space policy, particularly in determining the “how” (including “who”–NASA or some other government agency or agencies, or private industry or some optimum blend of these), and I’ve heard lots of “where” and “how” discussed, but no “why.”

But my sense is that the “vision” offered by the president tomorrow won’t include any of these things, because there’s probably a perception that they’ll sound too pie in the sky. That’s too bad, because absent that, I see little different in what I’ve read so far from the policy announced by the president’s father fourteen years ago, and we know what happened to that.

Wretchard over at Belmont Club thinks that propulsion is the problem. Simply put, it’s not, for reasons that I’ve stated repeatedly. It’s a problem of scale, not technology, but as long as people maintain false consciousness like this, we’ll have a great deal of difficulty getting people to think about space in a different way.

While I’ve been focusing on space policy, much of the talk in The Corner has been about immigration. Jonathan Adler has a post with which I’m sympathetic.

While I generally favor substantial relaxation of restrictions on those immigrating to the U.S. to work or study, I do not favor relaxing citizenship requirements. To the contrary, I would probably favor increasing the requirements for citizenship, as well as for receiving whatever forms of public assistance are provided by the government.

I would go even further. I think that someone willing to walk barefoot through the desert and risk death by hyperthermia and dehydration is likelier to appreciate this country, and is a better candidate for citizenship than someone who was fortunate enough to happen to be born here, or have parents who are citizens, and thereby thinks that the world, or at least nation, owes him a living.

I in fact think that citizenship should be much harder to get, but we have to separate the concept of citizenship from a right to work. Citizenship should be about voting, and having a say in the running of the country, and I’d cheerfully disenfranchise those of able body and mind who are drains on the public wealth, rather than contributors.

Glenn thinks that it has a lot to recommend it.

Could our “cowboy” President get behind a Wild West approach to space settlement? He’d be accused of unilateralism, disrespect for other nations, and, of course, of taking a “cowboy approach” to outer space that’s sure to infuriate other nations who want to be players but who can’t compete along those lines — like, say, the French. Hmm. When you look at it that way, there doesn’t seem to be much doubt about what he’ll do. Does there?

Sadly, there does.

I wish that George W. Bush were half the unilateralist cowboy that many of his lunatic detractors think he is, but I certainly see no signs of it in the space policy as stated so far. In fact, the administration is keeping the program international for now, and using feel-good kumbaya tranzi-talk to describe it.

As the UPI article explains, this is, of course, simply a cover to continue using Russian hardware to keep the ISS alive for now, while not explicitly violating the Iran Non-Proliferation Act, but it may get a few of the goo goos (like the late Carl Sagan) on board who would otherwise oppose a new manned exploration program.

But this brings up an issue that has troubled me, but not surprised me, as I read through the blogs on the subject. Much of the discussion in the blogosphere has been filtered through the prism of various commenters’ general opinion of the Bush administration. Many people seem to be opposing it purely because it’s being proposed by the smirking chimp. For example, see the comments section at this dumb post by Kevin Drum. Or from Matthew Yglesias. Or Chad Orzel (scroll up for a couple more related posts on the same subject). The sense one gets from much of the commentary is that they’d favor the proposal if it were coming from a President Gore, or President Dean, but if Bush is proposing it, there’s obviously something evil and cynical about it.

Orzel, in fact, is quite explicit about this:

I should note right up front that, like most people who have commented on this, I doubt that the Bush plan will turn out to be a Good Thing in the end. Not so much because I think it’s inherently a bad idea as because it’s being put forth by the Bush team.

There may be some people who are in favor of it for the same reason, but I suspect that they are far fewer.

It would be nice if the policy could be discussed on its merits or lack thereof, but I suspect that that’s a forlorn hope in a Red/Blue America.

[Update]

Sorry, you’re probably asking, why was Calpundit’s post dumb?

Quote:

We’ve been to the moon and there’s nothing there.

Point one. We’ve been to the moon? Maybe Kevin’s been to the moon, but last time I saw him, he wasn’t wearing a tee shirt. I know I haven’t.

Point two. The couple dozen people who did go to the moon (over three decades ago now) explored, over the course of a few days, an area of a few square kilometers on a planetary surface with the area of a major earth continent. Saying that we went to the moon and found nothing there, is like saying that Leif Ericson went to America and found nothing there.

Point three. We didn’t find “nothing” there. Ask someone who’s actually technically conversant with the subject, like John Lewis, what we found there.

There are vast resources to be exploited, in terms of silicon, aluminum, sunlight, oxygen, and maybe even fusion fuel if we ever figure out the cycle. It’s reasonable to argue that these may not ever become economically viable (though I think that would be a pretty risky statement, given the history of technology development), but to say that there’s nothing there is thoughtlessness on the same scale as those who mocked and derided “Seward’s Folly.”

Oh, and while there aren’t any comments here, I’ll also also respond briefly to Mark Kleiman, amidst a post full of false suppositions and misapprehensions.

Don’t you find it astonishing how people who say they’re concerned about government spending don’t object to wars, occupations, and huge engineering boondoggles? Some time I’d like to hear one of the libertarian space-hounds explain to me slowly why space exploration should be funded by coercive taxation rather than private enterprise plus voluntary contributions. It’s not that I don’t know the answer to that question, but I don’t see how that answer is consistent with hostility to government in general.

I don’t know if I’m a “libertarian spacehound” (whatever that is), but I suspect that this is aimed at people like me.

Reality check: Few libertarians will support this initiative. Most agree that it should be done voluntarily. I wouldn’t weep if NASA was totally defunded.

But the other reality is that the space program, as is the case with most other programs, has powerful constituencies and rent seekers, and it’s going to continue to be funded, so all I can do is try to influence policy in a way as to maximize my desired goals from that expenditure. It’s a continual uphill battle, and I don’t actually expend that much energy toward it, because I consider it relatively futile. I’d rather focus on non-governmental approaches, and I do.

[Update at 9:38 AM PST]

Heyyyy, it’s no longer anecdotal from blogs. Public opinion shows the same trend.

It made a difference who was said to be behind the plan. When half the poll sample was asked about a “Bush administration” plan to expand space exploration instead of the “United States” plan, opposition increased.

Just over half of Democrats’ opposed the plan by “the United States.” Once it was identified as a “Bush administration” plan, Democrats opposed it by a 2-to-1 margin.

And if it had been a “Clinton or Gore administration plan,” there’d have likely been a lot more kvetching from conservatives. For something as non-partisan as the space program, this is very frustrating.

There’s a lot more of interest in this article, but I’ll save it for another post.

Here’s an article at Aviation Week with more detail on what the administration plans for a NASA program restructuring (though I’ve heard via some of my own beltway sources that the architecture actually isn’t that well defined yet, and won’t be immediately–Wednesday’s speech will be more broad-brush).

One bit that I found of interest (and one which some people, who fantasize that this has anything to do with concerns about Chinese competition, should note):

“You have the accident to thank for this,” said one source of the new presidential policy, which Bush signed last month after an interagency review of space policy triggered by the report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The review and Bush’s decision have been closely held, and those who described it spoke only on condition of anonymity.

However, if this is all correct, then I’m a little less concerned.

OSP dead? RIP, and good riddance.

If it takes them ten years to develop the CEV, that’s plenty of time to get private activities going in LEO, making it ultimately pointless, or perhaps useable as a space-only vehicle, if the design isn’t too insane. The main thing is that it will keep NASA busy with something new that won’t be competing with the private sector.

I’ve pretty much given up any hope of getting sensible policy out of the administration (or for that matter, any administration), at least with respect to NASA, but that’s all right. I’m more concerned that they do no harm, and this policy shows some promise of not doing too much damage to our prospects for opening up space. It will only be hard on the taxpayers, but that’s nothing new, and in the context of the total federal budget hurricane, it’s spitting in the wind.

Any presidential vision ought, then, to include a way of eventually wrestling space activities out of the agency?s clutches and into the hands of the private sector.

From The Economist.

It’s not always a good plan or one with serious intent, mind you, but there’s always a plan. Good ol’ evolutionary psychology.

[via Andrew Lloyd]

It’s not always a good plan or one with serious intent, mind you, but there’s always a plan. Good ol’ evolutionary psychology.

[via Andrew Lloyd]