Capitalism In Space

National Review ^ | August 10th, 2012 | Rand Simberg

[NonZeroSum]

Ever since the Obama administration’s rollout of its space policy two and a half years ago, conventional ideological wisdom has been turned on its head. An administration that had seemed eager to increase government involvement in everything from auto companies to health care proposed a more competitive, privatized approach to spaceflight, and people claiming to be conservatives blasted it, demanding that the traditional (and failing) NASA monopoly continue. Jim Muncy, a former aide on space policy to California congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R.), put it cleverly: “Democrats don’t think that capitalism works within the atmosphere, and Republicans apparently don’t think it works above it.”

How did this happen? The resistance suggests three primary motives: visceral distaste for anything that emanates from this White House; nostalgia for the “good old days,” when America had big goals and really big rockets and unlimited budgets; and, in the case of many politicians, pure rent-seeking for their states and districts.

[NonZeroSum]

It will be interesting to see what happens to space policy in a Romney/Ryan administration.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Isn’t this an opinion piece?

It should be under “editorial” not “extended news.”

Perhaps you can get the FR moderator to fix that mistake.

[NonZeroSum]

There is nothing non-factual in it.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It’s an OpEd.

It’s filled with opinion!

LoL!

Why so defensive?

[NonZeroSum]

It’s filled with facts. I’m sorry you find them inconvenient.

[Names Ash Housewares]

NASA should pioneer, blazing the trails, taking the big risks
Commercial should follow with business models

One answers to the quarterly report, shareholders and profit

The other answers to long term goals, scientific knowledge, exploration and inspiration which is also a very valuable profit to the nation.

It’s not either or.
It’s both!

[NonZeroSum]

Did you actually read the article? It didn’t say it is “either or.”

[DoughtyOne]

An administration that had seemed eager to increase government involvement in everything from auto companies to health care proposed a more competitive, privatized approach to spaceflight, and people claiming to be conservatives blasted it, demanding that the traditional (and failing) NASA monopoly continue.

I think there is an inherent dig in there at people such as myself, and I'm willing to own up to it to a certain extent.

What the writer needs to keep in mind though, is that we have foes out there in the globalist Obamadom, and they aren't going to stand around and wait while we get our proverbial 'sh-t' together.  If the private sector can get up to speed in short order, nobody will be more for it than myself.  If it can't, I don't want to leave the window of vulnerability open long enough for others to seize the high ground.

I don't know about anyone else, but I never in my life thought we would come to the place where we would have to rely on former and ever-present enemies to get our astronauts into space.  I'm not going to apologize to a single soul for not be very happy about that.

What's going on with private sector involvement in opening up space, should have taken place decades before it did.  That it didn't, is a blemish on our leaders, and truly exposes how little foresight and rational thinking they possessed.  We needed a replacement strategy for the follow on to the space shuttle, and essentially only after it was taken out of service, did work on that begin.

To the writer's credit, he does address the fact that Obama probably did shoot himself in the foot here.  Sadly, some of our own most notable people didn't.

Eventually, the space ship construction service should be contracted to build ships for the U. S. Space Command.  And in effect, that's what the Shuttle was.  We need to do better than that.

Hundreds of pounds?  Nice, but let's get real.

Hopefully the private sector expansion of access to space, will keep the concerns financially solvent and progressing until then.

As a people, there is nothing more productive and important than seeking that new frontier, where ever it may be.  It really is the best hope for humanity.  It really is the best hope for our continued role of being a world class player.


BTW: A little surprise if you click that graphic on the right...

You-tube song heralding the brand.

[Brookhaven]

Capitalist Pigs in Spaaaaace!

[Names Ash Housewares]

Yeah it did. Slamming SLS at the end.
We barely spend anything on NASA, half a penny of federal descretionary spending. One of the few places we should be spending double!

Sorry, but I am not willing to bet the entire nation’s space future and exploration on SpaceX’s future.

[NonZeroSum]

Yeah it did. Slamming SLS at the end.

Yes, deservedly.

We barely spend anything on NASA, half a penny of federal descretionary spending. One of the few places we should be spending double!

NASA's problem is not with how much it has to spend, but how much Congress forces it to waste on unnecessary vehicles to maintain jobs.

Sorry, but I am not willing to bet the entire nation’s space future and exploration on SpaceX’s future.

No one is proposing that you do. You are making the same mistake as those criticized in the article, and ignoring the existence of Boeing, Orbital Sciences, Sierra Nevada, United Launch Alliance, etc. SpaceX has been in the news because it's been doing spectacular things, but it is not the only game in town.

[Names Ash Housewares]

I know all those names. I follow space news closely.
I hope every single one of them is successful.
But again, as I said before.

They seek a different kind of profit and answer to the quarterly report adn the dollar.

They serve a different master. It’s good, but it’s not what NASA has to do.

NASA seeks a different kind of long term profit just as important to our nation, and none of those companies would exist without the blood and treasure NASA spent decades ago trailblazing and pioneering and taking risks, and yes, people dying. They stand on those shoulders because this great nation once dared great things.

We DO starve NASA for what we expect it to do and then people kick it because we starved it.

One percent for NASA! No more self fullfilling prophecies of oh, well I guess we will always spend chump change.
Screw that!

Unions fight for wasteful gabillion dollar bailouts and NASA eternally gets the shaft when it is literally our toehold for an optimisic future for this nation.

A future that will allow private companys to follow with business models.

Imagine if we had given NASA Solyendra’s money instead!!!!

[NonZeroSum]

I know all those names. I follow space news closely. I hope every single one of them is successful.

Then why the straw-man nonsense about betting our future in space on SpaceX?

Imagine if we had given NASA Solyendra’s money instead!!!!

It would have sunk into the useless maw of SLS and disappeared in about three months.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Look, what was holding back commercial the last 30 years?

Where is the commercial space station? Where is the commercial Mars rover? commercial Titan entry probe, Cassini? Galileo? Hubble? Where is the first commercial astronaut to orbit even one orbit?

Let’s be realistic in our expectations.

NASA has delivered those things.

Commerical needs to make a buck.

And am I the only one that finds it ironic that the success of so many commerical endeavors depends on NASA contracts?????

SLS is going to take us beyond low earth orbit, and God willing, Obama gone maybe we can find the leadership to set us back on course for the moon and beyond.

Orion is going to go farther then any of them on it’s first test flight in a few years.

NASA can be what it once was, now is the time to support it!

SLS is NOT a “useless maw”. Shame on you!

http://youtu.be/RQhNZENMG1o

[NonZeroSum]

Look, what was holding back commercial the last 30 years?

I see that now you're changing the subject.

Many things have held it up, but it was primarily held up by a) regulatory uncertainty and b) a false sense that it wasn't capable of doing the job, created by the high costs of the way NASA does things, which was an inhibitor to investment. That changed with a) the entry of wealthy investors such as Bob Bigelow, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Paul Allen and others and b) the passage of the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004.

And am I the only one that finds it ironic that the success of so many commerical endeavors depends on NASA contracts?????

I find it ironic that you don't know the degree to which this is not true. SpaceX has a large commercial payload backlog, Bigelow has no NASA contracts, Blue Origin has no NASA contracts, Virgin Galactic and XCOR have none except the purchase of a few flights (out of the hundreds that they've pre-sold) for research.

SLS is going to take us beyond low earth orbit...

That's a fantasy. SLS doesn't have sufficient funding to ever fly, and if it did, it would needlessly cost billions per flight. That's according to NASA's own plans. There are no missions defined, and no funding for payloads for it, other than Orion, and Orion is capable of doing no more than going around the moon. We could be going beyond earth orbit, and soon, if we'd take the money being wasted on SLS and instead invest it in the hardware actually needed to get beyond earth orbit (e.g., landers, injection stages, fueling depots, tugs, large deep-space facilities, etc.). Note that the Tyson video that you think is so wonderful doesn't mention SLS. That's because he's smart enough to know it's irrelevant.

The only purpose of SLS is to maintain the Shuttle work force and keep certain congresspeople happy. It won't survive the coming budget cuts if Romney and Ryan are smart. I think they are.

[Names Ash Housewares]

Well then, why do you care at all what NASA does?

Commercial will deliver for you everything you want.

Who cares then?

NASA spending even if doubled or cancelled would matter not to the nation as far as fiscal concerns.

Why do you care what NASA does or does not do? Commmercial will be the great era for you.

[NonZeroSum]

Well then, why do you care at all what NASA does?

Because I'm both a taxpayer, and a space enthusiast.

I guess I don't understand this question.

Is your only concern how much money NASA gets, regardless of how it's spent? Do you really think that's a sensible or conservative position?

[Names Ash Housewares]

No, there is something else going on here.
You shouldn’t care at all what NASA does if commercial is the grand solution to all space woes. If SLS falls on it’s face all the better for you, that will end NASA HSF and commmercial will be the king.

Libertarian?

[NonZeroSum]

No, there is something else going on here.

You shouldn’t care at all what NASA does if commercial is the grand solution to all space woes. If SLS falls on it’s face all the better for you, that will end NASA HSF and commmercial will be the king.

Libertarian?

Was this intended to be an intelligent comment?

Sorry, but if so, it failed completely.

[NonZeroSum]

No, there is something else going on here.

You shouldn’t care at all what NASA does if commercial is the grand solution to all space woes. If SLS falls on it’s face all the better for you, that will end NASA HSF and commmercial will be the king.

Libertarian?

Was this intended to be an intelligent comment?

Sorry, but if so, it failed completely.