I have some thoughts on today’s space anniversary at Pajamas Media (and no, neither the headline or subhed are mine — such are the woes of writers subject to copy editors, which is why we have blogs…).
Category Archives: Political Commentary
A “Coast Guard” For Space
As previously discussed, on the eve of the half-century anniversary of the Kennedy speech that set us off on such a wrong course, Jim Bennett has a piece at The New Atlantis on a proposal for a much-needed restructuring of federal space policy and players.
[Update a few minutes later]
A sample, highly relevant to tomorrow’s anniversary:
Space activity in the United States was almost entirely military in origin: During the early years, most space launches were military — initially reconnaissance satellites, and later weather and communications support systems — and until the early 1980s, even non-military payloads were mostly sent into space on rockets based on military missiles. The civilian space agency, NASA (initially standing for National Aeronautics and Space Agency), was created in 1958 by vastly expanding the existing National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), a small research organization that supported the aviation industry. When NASA was started by the Eisenhower administration, it was envisioned primarily as an overtly civilian shell that would take selected spinoffs of military programs and operate them as a visible civilian program for prestige and demonstration purposes. Meanwhile, the real space program, run by the United States military, would continue to operate in secret as it had since its 1954 authorization. Since NASA’s expected role was minimal, the old administrative structure left over from NACA was deemed adequate — even though the organization had almost no significant experience with large systems management.
In 1961-62, NASA (renamed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to reflect its upgrade) was repurposed by the Kennedy administration to take on a massive development task: creating the Apollo system for manned lunar exploration. The agency also began conducting unmanned planetary exploration, prototyping satellite communications and other commercial activities, launching privately-funded commercial satellites on legacy military-derived launch vehicles, and a variety of ancillary aeronautical and space functions. More or less by default, NASA became a space transportation utility, a de facto regulator, and the de facto American interlocutor in any international space activity.
Apollo-era NASA was effectively an emergency governmental mass-mobilization effort, comparable to Germany’s wartime V-2 program and the Cold War “missile race.” (Indeed, veterans of those undertakings played prominent roles in the Apollo program.) In the case of Apollo, as in the other instances, the head of state was committed to the project, time was more of a constraint than was cost, and the effects of success or failure were quickly felt. However, as NASA moved from the era of Apollo to the era of the space shuttle, the agency’s mode of operation changed dramatically. The primary driver for NASA’s work became institutional self-preservation. Political pressure from Congress and the White House made job preservation a priority. Resource constraints consistently trumped schedule and performance. Shifting goals and pressures made clear accountability difficult to attain.
The cumulative legacy of these transformations — from NACA to NASA, followed by the turn to Apollo, followed by the switch to the space shuttle — is an agency that dominates its sphere in a manner unlike any other in the executive branch. The agency also has unusual lacunae in its management capabilities, with a span of responsibilities always outmatching its span of attention and control; ultimately, these lacunae have harmed the agency’s technical capabilities as well. The agency’s bureaucracy is characterized by very powerful entrenched internal fiefdoms with their own external political patrons giving them effective vetoes over administrative decisions, and a strong sense of privileged authority over large areas of national space activity.
Read the whole thing, though it’s appropriately long.
Two Can Play At That Game
Harry Reid, who thinks that it would be “foolish” to fulfill his constitutional responsibility and pass a budget (after who knows how many months now), wants to have a show vote to politically embarrass Republican Senators. Well, the House has decided it can do the same thing to the Democrats:
Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said he had introduced the necessary legislation on Tuesday.”The legislation I filed today will allow the House to reject a clean increase in the debt limit, proving to the American people, the financial markets and the administration that we are serious about tackling our debt and deficit problems,” he said in a statement.
Turnabout is fair play.
About The Yale Frat Boys
What the president of Yale should have said.
Note, as is often the case, that opposition to freedom of expression comes from the left.
You Don’t Say
Obama administration policies are responsible for high gas prices.
If they really wanted to wreck the economy, what would they be doing differently?
Barack Obama’s Excellent Idea
He’s just applying it to the wrong country: leave Israel alone and roll the US government back to its 1967 size. Though, as he notes, 1965 would be better.
A Tell-All Book
…..with nothing to tell:
Wow, you can really see how that pushed Bailey over the brink, coming on top of Palin’s being filmed walking into a hotel. In reality, it is a testament to Governor Palin’s rectitude that a former aide who wants to get rich by writing an expose can’t come up with anything better than this.
Desperation is as desperation does.
Compare And Contrast
These pictures pretty much say it all, don’t they?
Legacy Space Companies
…getting desperate.
I have a response to Loren Thompson’s latest load of bilge, over at the Washington Examiner.
Cantor Versus Obama
Ron Radosh reports on another speech at AIPAC:
To great applause, Cantor said:
It is not okay to vilify Israel. It is not okay to demonize Jews. And it’s time to stop scapegoating Israel.
And to those who equate Palestinian refusal to negotiate with Israel’s necessary measures it takes to defend itself, the majority leader added:
In order for us to win this great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel.
Undoubtedly, his most well-received moment was when he addressed the president’s own illusions. Cantor first noted that Palestinian culture — which Obama omitted criticizing — is laced with “resentment and hatred.” Cantor then shrewdly rebuked Obama:
[Palestinian culture is] the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the ’67 lines. And until Israel’s enemies come to terms with this reality, a true peace will be impossible … If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state.
I predict that the president is not going to raise as much Jewish money this cycle as he did in 2008, and he’s going to get a lot fewer votes.