Five years later, what does it think about SLS?

The country, with NASA’s budget, simply can’t afford to build a large rocket that will fly infrequently and cost as much as $2-$3 billion a year to maintain, Greason said.

“It’s hard for me, I personally haven’t been able to find a scenario in which a government funded and operated launch system, for which the government is the only customer, is a rational approach given the current budgets.

“Is that because I’m against big rockets? Of course not. But maintaining rocket production lines is a very expensive proposition. Trying to open another production line for a rocket that has almost no customers is a difficult thing for me to explain. The one argument I have heard that, if it were true, I would buy, is that there are no other ways to explore. I would buy that, but I don’t think it’s true.”

It’s not true.

Citing my Reason piece, the Washington Times comes out against the rocket to nowhere.

[Update a while later]

Dick Shelby is a uniter, not a divider:

It’s rare to get the Obama Administration and the conservative editorial page of the Washington Times in agreement on something. Yet, both have spoken out in opposition to report language in the Senate’s Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) appropriations bill—due to be considered by the full Senate this week—regarding cost and pricing data for commercial crew and cargo providers.

Well, it’s not like he has any political principles other than what will get him reelected.

Dale Skran has a review, that mirrors a lot of my own concerns with it:

There is no discussion at all that the prospect for increased traffic to LEO for all purposes, including tourism, might lead to significantly lower costs; or that it may lead to reusable spacecraft with superior operational characteristics relative to existing vehicles or the SLS. This glaring absence seems remarkable given the stated goal of SpaceX to develop just such lower-cost, reusable craft, as well as their considerable progress in this direction. Of course, the efforts of SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, Blue Origin, XCOR Aerospace, and others to greatly reduce launch costs may all fail. However, the NRC report is based on the unstated assumption that over the entire period considered, all the way out to 2054, there will be essentially no progress in rocketry other than that funded by NASA exploration programs, and that for the entire period the SLS as currently envisioned will remain the preferred method for Americans to reach space. It is difficult to imagine a more unlikely foundation for the planning of future space efforts than this.

It is extremely myopic, and therefore of little value, but it was probably doomed to be so by its charter.

I have a description of the current policy mess over at Reason.

Striking back against Elon Musk.

it’s not obvious, but it’s potentially great news for space policy.

[Update a while later]

I elaborate at Ricochet.

[Wednesday-morning update]

OK, for those who aren’t Ricochet members, here’s what I posted there, under the title “What Does Cantor’s Loss Mean For Space Policy?”:

OK, I know that post title will excite almost no one, because no one (to first order) cares about space policy. It’s a prevailing theme of my (non-best-selling) book.

But for those few who care, Eric Cantor didn’t give a damn about it. Neither did/does John Boehner

But Cantor just got involuntarily retired, and Boehner has long displayed indifference to continuing as Speaker of the House.

So tonight’s electoral loss will set off a huge and unpredictable fight for House leadership. While I don’t want to predict the outcome, the most obvious beneficiary of tonight’s event is Kevin McCarthy, the Majority Whip (usually considered to be second in line behind Majority Leader, which Cantor was). If McCarthy takes over as leader as a result of Cantor’s not only loss, but humiliation, he will be next in line to take over as Speaker if (as seems likely) Boehner steps down next year.

Which means that the congressman from Kern County, California, will be in a position to select members and chairs of the committees that oversee the NASA, DoD and FAA budgets. Which means that he will be in a position to select Congresspeople who could decide to stop making insane decisions about human spaceflight based on their own parochial interests, and instead congresspeople who actually care whether or not we actually open up space. Because he will have a local constituency in Mojave that has a strong interest in commercial spaceflight, he may exercise his power to make the committee more friendly to it than it has been in the past.

Will this happen? Who knows?

There will be a potentially chaotic fight for leadership in the sudden vacuum, and McCarthy may not come out on top. But if he does, things may suddenly become very interesting for the future of productive human spaceflight, because he will be potentially a Speaker of the House whose willing ear commercial space advocates will have.

[Wednesday-morning update]

CNN (I know) is reporting that with Cantor’s defeat, Boehner’s interest in stepping down is somewhat, if not a lot diminished. Apparently Cantor was the heir apparent, and Boehner may not step aside for anyone else. Of course, there is no iron-clad law that he continue to be Speaker. Like Cantor, he himself may be susceptible to a challenge from one of the young turks.

One other point. The next shoe to fall will be Cantor’s replacement as Majority Leader, which will likely happen soon, because he’s lost a lot of clout as a lame duck. If it’s McCarthy, he will become the new heir apparent (since he had previously been favored by Boehner). And even as Majority Leader, he’ll have a lot more influence over the committee structure.

[Update a while later]

OK, according to this National Journal article, McCarthy may be a victim of a general revolt. We’ll see how he maneuvers. But actually, Ryan wouldn’t necessarily be bad for space policy either.

[Afternoon update]

OK, one thing I hadn’t factored in. McCarthy may have to buy votes with committee chairmanships, which complicates any efforts to clean up the policy mess.