Posted on 07/21/2018 6:52:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
It’s not often you hear Ted Cruz support keeping a government research program alive when the administration wants to defund it and turn it over to the private sector, but that is what is happening with the International Space Station. And Cruz has a solid case.
The administration announced earlier this year it wants to end direct funding to the space station by 2025 – three years ahead of schedule. Jim Bridenstine, the former congressman from Oklahoma who is now NASA administrator, said he is talking to companies about forming a consortium to operate the space station after the government funding runs out.
NASA spends $3 billion to $4 billion a year to operate the space station in an international partnership that includes Russia, Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency. The International Space Station, the largest object humans have ever put into space, flies 250 miles above the Earth’s surface and has been inhabited by astronauts continuously since 2000.
Astronauts study health and technology aboard the station with a focus now on how time in space affects humans with an eye toward deep-space exploration and long-term space occupation. It studies long-term changes to the body from being in space, such as why many of those who spend time there saying their eyesight is altered permanently.
Technology research was key to espresso machines and 3D printers, among other products.
Current plans call for the space station to be funded at least through 2024 with a proposal to extend it to 2028. After that, it could be de-orbited or recycled for future use.
Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, blamed the decision on “numskulls” in the Office of Management and Budget. He and others traced a variety of challenges that would come with the decision.
First, Cruz is concerned no one will step up to partner with the government because of limited commercial opportunities and the complicated nature of joining a project that involves multiple national governments.
Paul Martin, NASA’s Inspector General, shared Cruz’s concern about the commercial potential.
“We question whether a sufficient business case exists under which private companies can create a self-sustaining and profit-making business using the International Space Station independent of significant government funding,” Martin said. “The scant commercial interest shown in the station over its nearly 20 years of operation gives us pause about the agency’s current plans.
Bridenstine admits companies might find it “hard to close the business case.”
Even if sufficient commercial interest existed, Martin said, NASA still would have to pay to use the station to complete research projects, including studies of how to transport humans into deep space. Martin said at least six of the 20 health risk research projects now going on and four of 40 technology research projects would not be completed before the government turned over control in 2024, as the proposal calls for.
Frank Slazer, vice president of space systems for the Aerospace Industries Association, backed up the other point.
“It will be very hard to turn ISS into a truly commercial outpost because of the international agreements that the United States is involved in,” Slazer told the Washington Post. “It’s inherently always going to be an international construct that requires U.S. government involvement and multinational cooperation.
Cruz has suggested something beyond science, commercial interests or even the perpetual conservative itch to privatize government may be afoot and that it is not worth courting a possible gap in US research capability to save what might amount to as little as $1 billion.
He also said at a recent hearing on the topic that he opposes the administration initiative and intends to keep working for funding for the program.
“Nowhere in federal statute is there a request from Congress seeking a hard deadline to end federal support for ISS,” said Cruz. “Permanently canceling a program for political reasons costs job and wastes billions of dollars. We cannot afford to continue to pursue policies that have consequences in creating gaps in capability, that send $3 ½ billion in taxpayer money to the Russian government, or that create a leadership vacuum in low-earth orbit that provides a window of opportunity for the Chinese to capitalize on it.”
China, he noted, will have its own manned space station by 2022.
Lawmakers are right to look for places where commercial interests can perform government functions and deliver government services. But they also are right to – as Cruz has in this case – carefully examine each idea to make sure it is appropriate.
In this case, the administration doesn’t have a viable alternative to propose. It’s not even a given sufficient commercial opportunities exist. There is time to sort this out. And there is no reason to end funding now.
When the Bamster cut the ‘Next Generation’ of space vehicles that we could use to get to OUR Space Station, his plan was for Russia to take control and use it against us. We need to, at the very least, ramp up our space program to the point that we can get to OUR Space Station on our own!
I used to be for government paying for all sorts of things that might create technology which could filter back to civilian use.
Then I became a stronger conservative and said these things would happen, anyway, without the government putting fingers into the mix.
Didn’t Putin say he plans to sell it ,LOL
Cruz represents Texas. Texas gets a lot of the ISS boondoggle dollars.
Cruz is defending the government money spent in Houston.
Per usual, “conservative” pols are conservative about spending money—unless it goes into their home state.
This is nasa work relief. It is huge!! I was recently there.. hundreds of acres. Thousands and thousands bureaucrats. We have a 21 trillion dollar debt . We should not be blowing money on pipe dreams.
This is nasa work relief. It is huge!! I was recently there.. hundreds of acres. Thousands and thousands bureaucrats. We have a 21 trillion dollar debt . We should not be blowing money on pipe dreams.
This is nasa work relief. It is huge!! I was recently there.. hundreds of acres. Thousands and thousands bureaucrats. We have a 21 trillion dollar debt . We should not be blowing money on pipe dreams.
If NASA backs off providing executive management more and more as they provide open ended funding, the risk of something going wrong increases.
Who holds the responsibility and liability of a disaster, the government or the private sector? Who picks up the pieces?
Or is the entire concept of space exploration terminated?
Elon Musk, paging Mr. Elon Musk. Please pick up the white courtesy phone.
We need to drop this ISS crap as any kind of priority and build our own. We must be the leader on earth and in space.
There's no money in it. Space exploration must be done by NASA but the problem is leftists have saturated our government at every level. It's really hard to envision a long term fix for our nation. The loss of NASA as we knew it is just more evidence liberals have damaged our country beyond repair.
It may matter on when we can get our own locally-launched crews back to the station. If we’re putting money into a station for other nations to play with when we can’t get our own crews and equipment up there using our own equipment, then we should withdraw funding.
For now, it looks like a lot is riding on whether Musk can successfully get his capsule rated for human occupancy.
That is part of my problem too.I dont do international; I do NATIONAL. When we saw Armstrong dedicate our mission to the moon to “man kind? I hit my dog with my beer can. I yelled. “ Mankind didn’t pay for this, This is for AMERICA” . Gawd what a bunch of old women.
NASA is, I believe, planning to construct a new space station called Gateway that will orbit the moon. Assuming we need a space station, do we need two of them?
If the Station were performing real needed-in-the-future-to-move-out-into-the-solar-system technologies, I’d support it more.
That means artificial gravity, shielding from cosmic rays, advanced propulsion and power techniques, and rendezvous/refueling practices.
Except for the last, this Station does NONE of those.
It was built to justify the Shuttle program, modified to accommodate out-of-work ex-Soviet engineers, and is maintained to keep the American taxpayer think we’re a “space-faring” nation.
We haven’t been that since 1972.
Then I became a stronger conservative and said these things would happen, anyway, without the government putting fingers into the mix.
—
Yes, you are correct, just not in your life time or your grand kids lifetime, but the would happen. And as a bonus, if you are willing to wait, aliens will land on Earth ... just not for the next few billion years ...
Life is a risk. exploration of the frontier was a risk. driving is a risk. Risk is inherent in everything we do. Why should manned space exploration be different?
That is part of my problem too.I dont do international; I do NATIONAL. When we saw Armstrong dedicate our mission to the moon to “man kind? I hit my dog with my beer can. I yelled. “ Mankind didn’t pay for this, This is for AMERICA” . Gawd what a bunch of old women.
—
Christopher Columbus’ wife’s reaction was much the same.
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.