Scientific American weighs in. I wish they wouldn’t call it the “Obama plan.”
Category Archives: Space
LAWDKI
I have some thoughts on today’s NASA announcement over at The Corner.
[Update a few minutes later]
Alan Boyle has a lot more on the story.
New Course On Space
A new course has been added to the LaunchSpace catalog. Doesn’t look like it’s worth attending, though — the course instructor probably doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Pork In The Beehive
My thoughts on the Utah delegation’s selective fiscal conservatism, when it comes to NASA, over at PJM.
[Update a few minutes later]
Bobby Block and Mark Matthews have a story on the latest twist in space policy, about Lockmart’s proposal to test fly Orion on a Delta IV. The Utah porkers are still at it:
“I hate to see different entities try to cannibalize the process,” said U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R- Utah, a staunch supporter of his state’s solid-rocket industry. “There is money to move forward on [a heavy-lift rocket using solid-rocket motors], as well as the capsule, as long as NASA budgets its money wisely and doesn’t waste it on wild goose chases.”
…In meetings last week, Bishop told NASA chief Charlie Bolden he was concerned that NASA was dragging its feet transitioning from Constellation to the new heavy-lift program that ensured a role for Utah’s solid-rocket motor industry. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch said he called the meeting “to explain in no uncertain terms the Utah congressional delegation’s interest in ensuring that Utah’s solid-rocket motor industry is protected.”
You know what’s a “wild goose chase”? Expecting to get an affordable or sustainable program with an expensive, monopolistic NASA-developed vehicle from legacy hardware. You have to give Orrin Hatch points for honesty, though.
The Latest Lurio Report
…is out. Clark Lindsey has the T of C. If you’re interested in what’s going on with commercial human spaceflight, and you don’t subscribe, you should.
Future Filters
Thoughts from Robin Hanson. Ignoring space settlement, one of the reasons I want us to become spacefaring is to make it more affordable to answer questions like this. With low-cost access both to orbit and beyond, we could do some pretty spectacular exploration of, say, Europa.
Another Mole To Whack
Here’s yet another fact-free and logic-free “conservative” critique of the new space policy, this time over at Human Events. It’s got it all.
Claims that NASA funding is going to be diverted from space exploration to climate change? Check.
Claims that NASA funding is going to be diverted from space exploration to Muslim self esteem? Check.
Assertion that we cannot get back to the moon without a heavy-lift vehicle? Check.
Nonsensical allusions to the Columbus/Isabella metaphor? Check.
Nonsensical claims about spin-off, including Tang? You got it.
I suppose I should see if I can rebut over there.
Dennis Wingo
…has started a blog.
I Want To Do Apollo Again
A typical conversation in the space blogosphere.
[Update late evening]
OK, I ended up just redoing it. Try it now.
[Late evening update]
I’ve uploaded a Youtube version.
Good Policy, Bad President
Two of the most infuriating things I’ve been rhetorically battling ever since the new NASA plan was rolled out at the beginning of the year are the bizarre (to me) argument that I should oppose the plan because it came from the Obama administration and the related complex question “Why do I trust Obama on space?”
It came up again in comments at the previous post.
Back in April, I wrote:
Many don’t trust President Obama to execute this policy along these lines. Neither do I, necessarily. But I’d rather have good policy poorly executed than poor policy well executed. The execution can always be improved later. Do I believe that Obama really cares as much about human spaceflight as he said in his speech at the Cape? No, and I think that’s a good thing. I think he sees NASA as a problem he inherited from George W. Bush, and in that, he is right for once. He assigned to the problem people who do care about getting humans into space and, like Bush, he now wants to move on to other matters. Really, we should fear the day he gets interested in spaceflight; that will be the day that private enterprise is no longer trusted to conduct it. Let’s hope that day never comes. In the meantime, remember that when government does the right thing, it doesn’t matter whether it’s done for the wrong reason. Whatever the motivations behind it, this is a much more visionary space policy than we’ve ever had before.
Did I say I trust Obama? No.
Did I say I think he has good motivations? No.
Yet I am perpetually asked why I place so much trust in Obama and his motivations when it comes to space.
Back in 2004, many science bloggers said something to the effect that the Vision for Space Exploration would be a good policy. If only it hadn’t come from that anti-science idiot, George Bush. It was just a reelection ploy (you know, because a new big expensive human spaceflight project is always so politically popular). There just had to be something evil about it.
Well, this doesn’t make any more sense with Barack Obama than it does with George Bush. Policy and president are really completely orthogonal issues. And this is true even if Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.
Let me put it simply.
We have four theoretical options in a two-by-two matrix: good policy, good president; good policy, bad president; bad policy, good president; bad policy, bad president. Realistically, absent the simultaneous removal from office of both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, sometime after next January, when John Boehner is Speaker, we don’t have the option of having a good president until January, 2013. And from the standpoint of space, it’s not clear that John Boehner would be very good. So our only options until then are good policy, bad president, and bad policy, bad president. I prefer the former. I don’t understand why people think I should prefer the latter.