Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Conservative Space Policy
Transterrestrial Musings blog ^ | 29 Jan 2010 | Rand Simberg

Posted on 01/30/2010 6:07:08 AM PST by Notary Sojac

Short version, human spaceflight policy is one of the few things that Obama seems to be getting right, at least from a conservative standpoint.

Longer version:

The Bush Vision for Space Exploration, announced a year after the loss of the Columbia, in January 2004, was a good goal, and it got off to a decent start. Unfortunately, once he replaced Sean O’Keefe, the NASA administrator, with Mike Griffin in 2005, the wheels started to come off. As the Augustine Panel pointed out this past fall, there was little prospect with the current plans of getting back to the moon on the stipulated schedule, and in anything resembling an affordable way. Unfortunately, once they’d hired the rocket scientist as the new administrator, the White House had simply put it on autopilot, because they had understandably higher priorities. For those interested, I wrote a long essay on the history of the human spaceflight program last summer at The New Atlantis, right up to present day minus five months or so, that explains why NASA in its current form isn’t an institution that a conservative should support at all, but many do as a result of the historical contingencies of Apollo. I know that it’s become popular of late for conservatives to laud JFK (who admittedly wouldn’t recognize, or probably even be allowed in today’s Democrat Party), but it’s important to understand what Apollo was, and wasn’t. It was a victory in the Cold War over the Soviets, but because we were at war, we waged it with a state socialist enterprise. What it was not was the first step of opening up the frontier to humanity, and was in fact a false start that has created a template for NASA and a groove in which we’ve been stuck for over four decades now, with many billions spent and little useful progress.

Part of the mindset that grew out of that era was that Space = NASA, and that “Progress in Space” = “Funding NASA” and that not funding NASA, or adequately funding NASA, or changing NASA’s goals, is a step backwards. But as I noted at Popular Mechanics yesterday on the 24th anniversary of the Challenger loss, that event had a good outcome, in that it allowed private industry to start to become more involved, a trend that continues (and that the Bush/Griffin administration did support, albeit with paltry funding, in the form of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to pick up slack in delivering cargo to the space station after Shuttle is retired this year or next). We have been in fact developing, though far too slowly, the sort of private-enterprise (and more intrinsically American than Soviet in nature) space program that might have evolved more naturally had we not been side tracked by Apollo in the sixties.

What the administration is doing is to finally end the model that the government will have a state socialist design bureau to build a monopoly transportation system for its own use, at tremendous cost, but politically supportable because of all the pork it provides to Alabama, Florida and Texas. It proposes to expand the COTS program to provision of crew changeout in addition to cargo delivery, encouraging competition, and providing a robust capability that won’t put us out of business when the government rocket fails (as has happened twice with the Shuttle in the past quarter century, for almost three years each time). Instead of a program projected to cost many tens of billions over the next decade for a NASA-owned-and-operated new rocket (Ares I) that will cost billions per flight of four astronauts, it is going to invest six billion dollars in developing private capability, with multiple competitors, and do it on a fixed-price, pay-for-performance basis, rather than the wasteful cost-plus model that inevitably results in overruns due to the perverse incentives.

At the same time, it is going to divert the funds being wasted by NASA on that redundant and unnecessary new rocket, and put at least some of them back into R&D for the kind of hardware necessary to actually get beyond low earth orbit (such as earth-departure stages, landers, propellant storage facilities, lunar resource utilization, etc.), R&D that had been starved by Mike Griffin in his desperation to find funds for his out-of-control Ares program. Yes, the administration has said that the moon is no longer an explicit, scheduled goal, but that doesn’t mean that we won’t go there, and in fact we’ll be in much better shape to do so with the new plans than we ever would have with the current ones, should we decide to do so in the future. And in addition to the moon, we’ll have the capability to visit, or divert asteroids, missions to the moons of Mars, and perhaps even Mars’ surface, because instead of wasting money on a new launch vehicle, we will have developed the affordable in-space infrastructure that allows us to do other things once private industry delivers us to orbit.

Yes, NASA spending creates jobs. The issue is (as Bastiat famously asked about the window repairers) does it create wealth? And how many jobs in the private sector aren’t created because NASA is discouraging private activities by competing with them with government dollars?

If the choice is between having no space program at all, and the current one, perhaps the latter is preferable. But if the choice is spending the taxpayers’ money to create wealth and new industries while actually accomplishing things in space and perhaps finally opening it up for the rest of us, versus a wasteful jobs program for Marshall Spaceflight Center, I know which I’d prefer. The new administration plans will take us much more in that direction, and on the rare occasion that it gets something right, true conservatives should be applauding it, rather than recycling hoary tropes about “staying close to home,” and “going nowhere.” Sadly, it was the misbegotten policy of the previous administration that was doing that. At least in this area, it’s change I can believe in.


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: lping; nasa; obama; space
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 01/30/2010 6:07:09 AM PST by Notary Sojac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac; bamahead

NASA should be privatized.


2 posted on 01/30/2010 6:09:52 AM PST by Perdogg ("Is that a bomb in your pants, or are you excited to come to America?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

I sure hope this does mean more money for COTS.


3 posted on 01/30/2010 6:47:24 AM PST by OCC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

But Obama isn’t trying to do the right thing. Obama is a communist who hates anything that represents American pride. He isn’t trying to find the best way to explore space,,, he is trying to divert money into welfare programs and change NASA into a global warming agency. But his biggest goal is to kill anything that makes people think “America”.

Obama isnt a conservative,,he’s a marxist. If i take a shot at my neighbor, and miss, but accidently kill a deer standing far in the background, it doesn’t make me a great deer hunter.


4 posted on 01/30/2010 6:51:03 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs earn the title of "man's best friend", Muslims hate dogs,,add that up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
I disagree with the author concerning PFL BO’s goals. He intends to destroy NASA and with it our high tech, large scale space capability. Nothing less. There will not be a replacement. One of the few agencies worth supporting in our monstrous bloated government.
5 posted on 01/30/2010 7:02:41 AM PST by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuc1

This NASA isn’t your father’s NASA. It’s bloated, inefficient and wasteful. Private business (which I thought this site supported) is in position to pick up the slack. This is a good decision, probably the only thing the Obama administration has gotten right. The only fear I have is that turning NASA into an Earth watch agency will kill long range robotic missions.


6 posted on 01/30/2010 7:11:28 AM PST by saganite (What happens to taglines? Is there a termination date?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

Obama wants to give all OUR scientific expertise to Muzlem countries so that they can bury it in the sand.

Obama is jealous of everything that makes America great because his Mama trained him to think that America’s Best was beyond his ability.

Obama has the worst case of “American-Envy” ever!


7 posted on 01/30/2010 7:23:41 AM PST by HighlyOpinionated (The left have become lawless. Every strangling edict they issue carries an exemption for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
Idiotic article. This is the end of space flight, not a new age. His new "policy" is just a front for cutting the NASA budget in the future. Did you know the whole budget is only 17 billion?! Compared to what, 30 billion to prop up student loans?To how much to bail out GM ?

Obambi has no use for Utah, Alabama, Texas and all those places the current NASA contractors have work being done at. If this guy can't see we are going to fall so much behind the Chinese (!) in space travel, he has blinders on.

Commiebama doesent want to go to the Moon or Mars, he just wants to study globull warming. What a dupe author.

8 posted on 01/30/2010 7:46:17 AM PST by Nonstatist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac
He is no JFK!!!
9 posted on 01/30/2010 11:08:15 AM PST by cruise_missile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kronos77; DesScorp; Tuketu; BattleHymn; Squawk 8888; Dimez_Recon; The SISU kid; ...


For other space news go to: http://www.spacetoday.net
For a list of Private Space Companies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies


10 posted on 01/30/2010 2:15:26 PM PST by KevinDavis (Ad Astra Per Aspera!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

That is not how I would phrase it.


11 posted on 01/30/2010 2:20:19 PM PST by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; All

I may post my thoughts about this later on..


12 posted on 01/30/2010 2:27:09 PM PST by KevinDavis (Ad Astra Per Aspera!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis

Gotta calm down first? lol


13 posted on 01/30/2010 2:37:15 PM PST by GeronL (http://tyrannysentinel.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

HAHAHAHA and you actually believe the Lier in Chief?

LOLLOLOLOLOL.


14 posted on 01/30/2010 4:46:13 PM PST by PIF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis; Perdogg

Privatize the Universe.

Get out of that stupid socialist treaty that no one can claim space and start staking private and national claim and see just how fast competition and progress at all levels catches fire! Bring back something from the moon and you get a 50-year exclusive prospecting lease to one square degree of it. Anything you bring back and sell is totally tax-free at least to the end of the century. Same thing for asteroids except the small ones, you claim the whole thing.

And wherever a private or public claim is thus staked, the country of origin gets sovereignty so long as it keeps the claim active within 50 years. That gives us 9 more years to get back to the lunar landing sites before someone else could claim them. This regime could be implmented unilaterally by the United States which could use its advantages in space to gain or impose international recognition of a privatizing system of governance.

You tell me, Kevin, if I’m right that that damned treaty is the greatest impediment to space exploration and exploitation (a GOOD word, by the way!)


15 posted on 01/30/2010 7:19:54 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg; All

Nah,

No more so then our military should be privatized.

NASA is just as important, it’s a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

I am all for private industry, I am happy to champion it too, but NASA trailblazes in ways that they cannot.

The nations that pull back from the frontiers, will wane and wither in influence determining human history.

There is a place for “Yankee Clippers”, but the nation must also accomplish great things through yes, our government sometimes, the military and NASA are TWO jobs I have no problem with the government backing robustly.

Obama is just trying to gain some political traction by handing out money rather then sticking to long term national strategic space goals that will not manifest during his term.

“Our progress in space, taking giant steps for all mankind, is a tribute to American teamwork and excellence. Our finest minds in government, industry and academia have all pulled together. And we can be proud to say: We are first; we are the best; and we are so because we’re free. America has always been greatest when we dared to be great. We can reach for greatness again. We can follow our dreams to distant stars, living and working in space for peaceful, economic, and scientific gain.” -Ronald Wilson Reagan


16 posted on 01/30/2010 7:53:02 PM PST by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
"NASA should be privatized."

To some extent. But at the very least, NASA should be broken up into smaller agencies.
17 posted on 01/30/2010 8:15:46 PM PST by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Notary Sojac

I’m one of those contractors ripping the government off in Huntsville at Marshall Space Flight Center. (Lot’s of sarcasm)

What did Columbus, Magellan, Lewis and Clark, Chuck Yeager, Alan Shepard and Neil Armstrong all have in common?

Their exploration of the unknown was funded by government.

You won’t find private companies footing the bill for exploration of the UNKNOWN, because they are trying to make a profit.

Government does something that individual companies cannot - It pays for finding out what doesn’t work, what isn’t there and what doesn’t need to happen again.

“Privatize NASA” is a stupid statement.

What company can afford to send astronauts to the moon to find new resources? None.

Here’s another question: Why haven’t any private companies sent astronauts to the moon or Mars? No one is stopping them.

Research into space application is EXTREMELY challenging. It is also extremely expensive. Why?

Do you have a vacuum chamber in your lab? Uh, one big enough to place large automobile sized equipment?

How about Cryogenic holding tanks for the rocket engine test you need to run to validate your design? None of those either, huh?

NASA does the research that private companies cannot afford to do. And, NASA shares that research with the private sector so that they don’t go down the same dead end OR so that they can head in the RIGHT direction with the private investment moneys.

NASA isn’t perfect, and like any government agency, has its share of bloat and mismanagement. But, the technological spearhead that NASA provides is VITAL to the technological national security of this country.

Lastly, man is an explorer. People who quite exploring and quit wondering what is over the next horizon, well they are just dying in place.

As a country, if we quit taking the lead on exploring our universe, we become another European model - A country beginning to die.


18 posted on 01/30/2010 9:03:20 PM PST by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

“NASA should be privatized.”

To some extent. But at the very least, NASA should be broken up into smaller agencies.

Indeed and we need some incentive for private industry like solid property rights in space, otherwise there is no use if you go there and no one is supposed to own anything....


19 posted on 01/30/2010 9:06:07 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: saganite

Certainly, as a “civilian” I am not aware of the managerial problems that NASA faces. However, whatever they are they can be corrected. What I fear is a government mandated retreat from achievement and space exploration so that the money can be used to buy votes for a rotten corrupt government. And this is what will happen as I am sure you know. It seems to me that this is kinda like trying to fix the pubbies from the inside out.


20 posted on 01/31/2010 6:46:33 AM PST by Nuc1 (NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson