Paul Spudis isn’t very happy with the NASA authorization bill. I don’t think it’s great, myself, but it’s much less disastrous than the House version would have been. I agree with Clark Lindsey’s critique of Paul’s post (and not just because he quoted me).
Category Archives: Space
Space Policy Foolishness
This is a sample of the kind of thing we’ll be working against next year: a Weekly Reader version of space policy, presumably from Representative Olson:
President George W. Bush inaugurated an ambitious and important plan to establish a base on the Moon by building much larger and safer rockets to take our astronauts beyond low Earth orbit. These rockets, called Ares I & Ares V, were part of a system called Constellation and they would be the backbone of a new system of vehicles capable of landing and supporting astronauts on the Moon or elsewhere in the solar system.
Mr. Obama, the candidate, announced he would cut the program and put the production of a heavy lift rocket for five years. But as the election approached, Obama changed his story to get elected and said not only had he always supported NASA & space flight but that he could and should do it better than the Republicans. Once elected Obama quickly returned to his original position and KILLED the program saying it would wait FIVE years.
Pete Olson has been working in Congress to save the space program and the jobs that go with it. Those jobs, filled by engineers, technicians, scientists and managers, are essential to the space program and if lost could never be recovered. This loss of personnel would be only a small part of the tremendous loss the entire nation would suffer as America would lose its lead in space flight. Pete Olson understands all this and working with the entire Houston delegation struggled to preserve what could be, but that was not enough.
I was, myself, dismayed to learn the program was greatly reduced in scope, but Olson explained as in a month when he expects Republicans to take the lead in the House again, that he and the others will be able to put more funding back into NASA to restore the mission. This is not the end. This is just the beginning Olson reported. I believe him.
What Pete Olson doesn’t understand about space space policy and technology would fill a middling-big library. No mention of the budget problems and schedule delays. No mention of the new technologies that will finally be funded. Nope, it’s the standard kindergarten treatment — George Bush had a wonderful plan for exploring the galaxy, bold and ambitious, and going along just swimmingly, and then that mean commie Barack Obama came along and Ended Our Space Program. It just makes you want to cry.
Is Bolden Off The Reservation?
I cannot imagine what he thinks he’s doing. He seems to be defying no only the likely chairman next year of the appropriations committee, but the White House as well. He may be a short timer in that job, and it’s hard for me to feel bad about that. The question is, who will they find to replace him that they can get confirmed in the new congress?
Bigelow Business Prospects
Clark Lindsey says that he’s going to announce six customers (countries) for his orbital facilities. Right now it appears that SpaceX and Boeing/ULA are the most likely providers for transportation, but it’s unclear whether it’s enough business to close the business case for either of them, let alone both. Commercial Crew will help a lot, of Congress doesn’t screw it up. Unfortunately, screwing it up would be the way to bet.
Who Cares What He Thinks?
You know, if you have questions about vehicle development costs, or propulsion issues, I guess it would be useful to have a discussion with Dave King, but I see nothing in his experience that would render him in any way knowledgable about markets for commercial spaceflight. But a lot of clueless people will read this and think that he knows what he’s talking about, and make policy and investment decisions on the basis of it. This is even worse than having Congress call Tom Young as a witness, just because he was head of Lockheed and worked at JPL, when he has no experience with human spaceflight.
Via Clark Lindsey, who has more thoughts:
I would hope that in the future, NASA’s top administrators hire human spaceflight program managers who actually believe that human spaceflight is worth buying and are devoted to lowering its cost so that more and more people can afford to buy it.
Dream on. Not part of the job description. Which is why space remains unaffordable fifty-three years after its dawn.
No Rockets?
No problem. My survey of nonconventional launch technologies is up at Popular Mechanics.
Rare Earth
…on the moon.
It doesn’t make much sense to even speculate on the economic potential until we solve the launch-cost problem, though, and there is little in current space policy that even attempts it.
How Big Is The Coming Political Tsunami?
It must be pretty big, if Jim Oberstar is in trouble.
This is great news for advocates of commercial spaceflight. When the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act was passed a few years ago, Oberstar (then in the minority) fought to have the FAA regulate passenger safety for space vehicles with nonsensical talk of a “tombstone mentality,” despite the consensus among experts that it didn’t know how to do it, and that it would do nothing except strangle the infant industry in the cradle. The compromise was that it would be hands off until 2012, unless there was an accident to cause a revisit of the policy.
Well, the industry hasn’t moved along as fast as was hoped at the time, and we’re still in a situation in which the FAA doesn’t really have a handle about affordable safety requirements, though it will have to start regulating it in two years, absent further congressional action. Industry proponents have feared to raise the issue, because with the Democrat takeover in 2006, Oberstar had taken over the chair of the relevant committee.
There has been hope (looking almost certain now to all other than Dems whistling past the graveyard) that the Republicans would take back at least the House this fall, which would mean that his power to block an extension would be reduced significantly. If he ends up not even being in the Congress at all, let alone on the committee, that would be great news for progress and sensible commercial space policy.
Fifty-Three Years Of Space
Today is the Sputnik anniversary. Here are my thoughts from the fiftieth, written three years ago, in Orlando, not far from Disneyworld’s Tomorrowland (the California version was built a couple years before Sputnik) with some tomorrows that remain tomorrows over half a century later.
Over at The Space Review, Jeff Foust has his own anniversary thoughts, in the context of last week’s historic House vote. Also, He alsoFrank Stratford discusses the role of Mars in future human exploration.
[Update a while later]
I didn’t read that Mars piece before I linked to it — I just assumed that because the home page said it was by Jeff Foust, that it was worth reading. Actually, it’s by someone down under named Frank Stratford, and it’s got some nonsense in it, with no very clear point.
No Lost Moon
It’s probably pointless to point it out, but Mark Whittington once again demonstrates his profound inability to comprehend English:
…last April, President Barack Obama was quite specific that the Moon would be excluded from any program of space exploration.
“Now, I understand that some believe that we should attempt a return to the surface of the Moon first, as previously planned. But I just have to say pretty bluntly here: We’ve been there before. Buzz has been there. There’s a lot more of space to explore, and a lot more to learn when we do”
Lori Garver herself pointedly excluded the Moon in a speech before a meeting of the American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics about her vision for the next fifty years in space.
In Whittingtonworld, not going someplace first is an “exclusion” of it. No one familiar with logic would draw such a conclusion. No one in the administration has said that we are not going back to the moon. All that the new policy does is remove it as the first target (as the Augustine panel suggested last year, for good reason). In fact, that is the only significant difference between the new policy and the original VSE, which was distorted beyond recognition by Mike Griffin’s determination to redo Apollo. As for Lori neglecting to specifically mention the moon in her speech in Anaheim (for which I was present), that was also not a “pointed exclusion.” A “pointed exclusion” would have been something like, “We are going beyond earth orbit, to asteroids and Mars, but not the moon.”
And of course, Mark continues to delude himself that what any president (particularly a likely one termer) states as a goal in space is going to matter a decade later, and doesn’t realize that Americans are no better at ten-year plans than Lenin was.
But as I said, it’s fruitless to expect Mark to get simple things like this right.