The president has rebranded the Iraq war. As Jonah says, making it sound like a new dish detergent sounds better than “Operation Defend Biden’s Gaffe.” Besides, you don’t want to establish a precedent like that, otherwise you’d be renaming things a couple times a day.
Category Archives: War Commentary
A Tipping Point?
Massachusetts Republicans come out of the closet.
This is an excellent demonstration of how much politics is psychological, and band-wagon effect. Just as Obama’s election was. But the spell has been broken on that one. No doubt to the chagrin of the Koolaid drinkers.
Well, actually, they’re still in the tank (as demonstrated by die-hard commenters here), but the rest of the rubes have caught on. It’s going to be a bloody cycle or two for the Donkeys. Along with hope for the salvation of the Republic.
And You Thought Waterboarding Was Bad?
Terrorist aren’t going to be allowed to use iTunes.
Space Policy Thoughts
…from the head of the Space Policy Institute (who I should disclose is a good and long-time friend and former colleague):
Scott Pace: I am disappointed that they chose not to fund the Constellation program or add the additional funds that the Augustine committee said would be necessary for a robust human spaceflight program. I think the NASA [budget] increase is good, and there is some good science and technology spending in the program, but it really did not restore a lot of the reductions that had been made in the fiscal year 2010 budget, so it continues a pattern of reductions to exploration, even though the NASA top line did go up somewhat.
TR: Are these reductions going to have a significant effect on the U.S. space program?
SP: The real issue is the future of human spaceflight and the question is, what [is NASA] doing after the space station? Because that is not very clear. [The administration] has made a commitment to the space station through 2020, which really gives us an opportunity to use it as a research facility, but it’s not clear what, if anything, is to come after the space station. Right now, with the canceling [sic — rs] of the Constellation program, there are no announced plans for going beyond low Earth orbit. The deeper question is what NASA will be doing. What is it going to do when we rely on commercial rockets, and how is it going to maintain its skills as a good customer and overseer?
The new effort does not have an overall architecture yet; it may get one, but right now [the plan] has a heavy technology development effort, and there is a lot of new technology that one could do, but without an architecture, how efficient is that technology development going to be?
The question of how it’s going to maintain its skills as a good customer and overseer presupposes that it has now, or ever had such skills. NASA is a terrible customer, always has been, and is likely doomed to always be, but one step toward improving it is forcing it to buy services instead of labor by the yard.
As for the lack of architecture, it’s too early to expect that. They didn’t even know what their proposed budget was until a couple of weeks ago. I imagine that there will be studies over the next few months to come up with one, but the agency could do a lot worse than to dust off the CE&R results that Steidle commissioned, and Mike Griffin ignored, at least as a starting point. And there are some technologies that are fundamental, and independent of architecture (e.g., on-orbit propellant storage and transfer). I don’t see how the “efficiency” of their development will be impaired by a lack of one. As Charles Miller reportedly said today at the FAA event, NASA is going to do something that it’s needed to do since it absorbed NACA and became an operational agency half a century ago — get back to basics of supporting technology development that industry needs to thrive.
[Update a few minutes later]
I’m afraid that Scott has fallen into the trap of thinking only of SpaceX when he talks about the “risk” of commercial not being able to step up to the plate. Regretting the loss of Orion is one thing, but there was no risk reduction with Ares, at least none worth the cost. There would be much less risk in modifying an existing vehicle (e.g., Atlas) to carry the NASA capsule, and it’s not like ULA knows nothing about rockets. And of course, there is always a tradeoff of risk versus cost. The cost ratio between commercial and NASA-centric (at least an order of magnitude) justifies the “risk,” at least in my mind. Of course, I don’t think it’s very high.
[Update early evening]
I think that it’s a mischaracterization to say that there are no plans to go beyond LEO. The administrator has been quite vociferous in saying that the goal is Mars. I don’t necessarily agree with that, and he hasn’t laid out a timetable and goals to achieve it, but to say that there are no plans is to imply that we will be in LEO ad infinitum, which I’m quite sure is not what the administration intends. At least not the NASA administration.
But Don’t Call Him Anti-Semitic
Some questions for Andrew Sulllivan, from Pejman Yousefzadeh. I like the last one the best.
Oh, and don’t call this guy anti-semitic, either:
…don’t worry. I’m sure it’s only “anti-Zionist”.
Of course.
Dennis Prager
So do I.
[Friday morning update]
Here is Charles’ reply, FWIW. It seems to consists mostly of accusations of straw men on Prager’s part.
First Look
Jeff Foust (who also has a summary of the current political state of play over at The Space Review today) has some initial budget numbers:
That building block approach includes heavy-lift launch vehicle R&D, “vigorous” technology development work in areas like automated rendezvous and docking and propellant transfer, and a “steady stream of precursor robotic exploration missions”.
For those who foolishly think that this new direction is the “end of human spaceflight” or even “the end of human spaceflight beyond LEO,” what do they think that those precursors are for? Not to mention the tech development work?
I guess, to them, that if you’re not repeating the folly of Apollo, you’re not doing “real” human spaceflight.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the OMB document (doesn’t look like a permalink, though):
NASA’s Constellation program – based largely on existing technologies – was based on a vision of returning astronauts back to the Moon by 2020. However, the program was over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation due to a failure to invest in critical new technologies. Using a broad range of criteria an independent review panel determined that even if fully funded, NASA’s program to repeat many of the achievements of the Apollo era, 50 years later, was the least attractive approach to space exploration as compared to potential alternatives. Furthermore, NASA’s attempts to pursue its moon goals, while inadequate to that task, had drawn funding away from other NASA programs, including robotic space exploration, science, and Earth observations. The President’s Budget cancels Constellation and replaces it with a bold new approach that invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration.
Killing off a dead end and reinvesting in something that actually has a hope of achieving the goals. Gosh, what a concept.
One thing that’s not clear yet, absent more perusal. When they say cancel Constellation, does that include Orion? Not that I’d cry, but I’m curious. Orion’s requirements, after all, are integral with the Constellation architecture, which is clearly dead now, so the program will need some rethinking regardless.
And is this just the opening position in a budget battle with Congress, with it and perhaps some kind of heavy lifter as bargaining chips?
[Update a few minutes later]
Bobby Block has more analysis over at The Write Stuff:
The flagship enterprise will be developing on-orbit refueling and automated approaches and docking technologies.
…Lots of parallels are being drawn with how the federal government used mail contracts to develop the aviation industry.
So far, I’m liking pretty much everything I’m seeing.
[Update mid morning PST]
Clark Lindsey has some notes from the announcement. This is a huge breath of fresh air, at least so far. Which is not to say it’s perfect, but it can be a long way from that and still a huge improvement over the previous plans.
[Update a couple minutes later]
A summary from George Herbert, over at the Arocket list:
Well, it’s out. As predicted, wth some additional benefits.
Constellation outright cancelled, message from the top on down.
$2.5 B of the new $6 B funding over 5 years (beyond flat) is in Earth Observation science missions. Major (claimed) focus on technologies for affordable long term human exploration of the solar system, including orbital demonstrations of propellant tank farm and orbital propellant transfers, automated rendezvous and docking (presumably, of human-sized vehicles, and vehicles far from earth), closed loop ECLSS, a new first stage booster engine (presumably big enough for a HLV), I think I saw mention of deep space propulsion. [all of the things that Mike Griffin starved to feed Apollo on Steroids — rs]
They’re explicitly stepping away from a roadmap, and onto the technology base that most of us long term experienced enthusiasts have been pushing for.
If I had to summarize my first impressions, especially of Bolden’s statement –
“We were doing Flags and Footprints. The President and I don’t want to do that. We want to colonize space for real. We’re going to do the foundations for that now.”
I assume that last is a summary of Bolden’s statement, not a quote.
Whether or not they follow through, this is (IMNSHO) the most visionary space policy that the nation has ever had. Now to see how badly Congress screws it up.
[Another update]
The thing that amazes me is that when I read comments from those defending Ares, and Constellation, and NASA, at places like Space Politics and The Write Stuff, is that they are entirely devoid of facts and logic. These people live in some bizarre alternate reality in which NASA didn’t kill fourteen astronauts at the cost of hundred of billions of dollars, Lockheed Martin has ever sent someone into space, SpaceX has achieved nothing, etc. In Senator Shelby’s case, I can understand that he is completely motivated to lie or delude himself about such things by what he perceives to be his political interest, but I can’t figure out what drives the irrationality of others with no dog in the fight except apparent blind NASA worship.
[Update a few minutes later]
I have some more thoughts on Ares, astronauts and safety.
And if you missed my post on Obama’s conservative (even if inadvertent) space policy, it’s here.
[Update a few minutes later]
If your only template for a “successful” human spaceflight program is Apollo (big rocket, firm deadline, big bucks, a few NASA astronauts walking on some planet), then I can see why you’d be disappointed when instead the program is for enabling lots of destinations, by lots of people, with no specific deadline or destination. These are the same people who would apparently say that Lewis and Clark was “real exploration of the west,” and all those miners and trappers wandering around were just hobbyists. And that the government should have built its own heavy-lift railroad instead of giving land grants.
[Afternoon update]
Buzz likes it. No one would know the folly of repeating Apollo better than him.
[Update a while later]
More thoughts from Michael Mealing.
[Update a few minutes later]
With regard to the knee-jerk irrational complaints from many, this reminds me very much of six years ago, when the Vision for Space Exploration was announced. Many “progressive” and pro-space bloggers opposed it, even though they admitted to liking the idea. Why? Because it was proposed by the BusHitler, so there was obviously a catch, and he was up to no good. I’m seeing a lot of the same kind of partisan nonsense in opposition to this. This is the most truly visionary space policy ever (and that includes the Apollo speech), yet a lot of people are cavilling about it because it was proposed by Barack Obama. This is stupid.
Why Mirandize The Panty Bomber?
More questions. Like the foolish decision to try KSM in New York, it’s not too late to undo this mistake. But it would require a rethink of our approach to Islamic terrorism overall, which is unlikely coming from the current crew.
[Update late morning]
The Abdulmutallab travesty.
This is brazen self-sabotage. We are in a war of intelligence. People risk their lives every day to get the information to understand the terror networks arrayed against us and identify specific threats. Why would we pre-emptively silence a priceless source of timely intelligence?
It literally didn’t even occur to the administration to do otherwise. Top terrorism officials weren’t consulted. The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the director of National Intelligence, the FBI director, and the secretary of Homeland Security were all out of the loop. Some as-yet-unidentified top Justice Department official, who probably is known around the office as “general,” made the call.
According to an Associated Press account, after Abdulmutallab chatted with customs officials about his plot, FBI agents showed up and talked to him for about 50 minutes. He told them he’d worked with al-Qaeda. The agents didn’t Mirandize him, relying on an exception in cases involving an imminent threat to public safety. Then, a new FBI team arrived with instructions from Washington to read Abdulmutallab his rights. It’s the last we’ve heard from him.
It’s almost like they want us to lose.
Neocons
There’s a long piece over at Newsweek that, advertently or not, demonstrates the meaninglessness and flexibility of the word. As I’ve often noted, like “fascist,” most people who use it have no idea what it means.
Losing The WaPo
Even the editorial board is appalled at the fecklessness of the administration on terrorism:
The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court.
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous.
Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration’s decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model.
And they’re shocked, shocked.