The Biggest Federal Earmark Plods On
This vaunted “exploration” program is going to absorb all available funding in a constrained fiscal environment (not to mention the pressure of other out-of-control NASA programs), leaving nothing over for actual space exploration, let alone space development and settlement, which is the only reason ultimately to send humans into space. And for the supposed conservatives and Republicans who continue to support it, it is a continuation of the betrayal of their otherwise-stated principles, and a failure to recognize that the Apollo era is long over.
Fortunately, there are a few voices of sanity. Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California (whose district contains some Boeing facilities) is willing to call an earmark an earmark:
“Nostalgic rocketry is not how great nations invent their future,” proclaimed Rohrabacher.
“There’s nothing new or innovative in this approach, especially its astronomical price tag, and that’s the real tragedy. Unfortunately, after a number of years, perhaps during development or after just a few flights like Saturn, budget pressures will bring this program to an end. Jobs that some politicians are bragging today about saving will be gone, while the new jobs based on new technologies and new enterprises will remain uncreated, because we chose repeating the past over inventing the future.”
The Tea Party in Space, an organization formed to apply common-sense fiscal principles to space policy along the lines of general Tea Party beliefs, isn’t happy:
This project with the BMR [big monster rocket] will consume the HEO budget much like JWST consumes the astrophysics budget. There will be no exploration. If you look carefully in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 you will see NO funding for exploration hardware. So when the SLS launches it will cost you and me, $18 billion dollars. This is a rocket without a mission.
The Space Frontier Foundation, an organization devoted to opening up space to settlement, is outraged:
The Space Frontier Foundation called Wednesday’s announcement by NASA that it will attempt to build Congress’s giant monster rocket a disaster that will devour our dreams for moving humanity into space. Rather than breathing life into a dying space program, it may well kill new initiatives to greatly expand US space exploration and settlement efforts.
“It is a sad day for our space program,” said Rick Tumlinson, cofounder of the Foundation. “The amazing possibilities offered by engaging commercial space to lower costs and develop a sustainable long term infrastructure to support NASA space exploration, settlement and a new space industry have been trumped by the greed, parochialism, and lack of vision of a few congressional pork barrelers intent once again on building a government super rocket. We’ve been to this party before, it was a bust then, and it will be this time as well.”
The Space Access Society is similarly unimpressed:
We thoroughly expect that SLS project cost will grow and schedule stretch, just as Constellation program costs and schedule did.
We predict that at some point, it will be as obvious that SLS will never fly usefully as it was obvious that Constellation was going nowhere, and SLS too will be expensively cancelled. We hope that SLS will go away before it’s wasted even more scarce dollars (and impacted even more actual useful NASA projects) than Constellation – but we wouldn’t bet on it at this point.
Norman Augustine, who led the panel that uncovered the problems with Constellation two years ago, is neither pleased nor optimistic:
“I haven’t had the chance to do any detailed engineering, so I don’t know if their timeline is possible or not,” he said. “It seems like it should be, if given adequate funds. The particular design they’ve come up with sounds to me, on the surface, to be reasonable. It’s not terribly different than some of the options we looked at on the committee. The real issue is going to be whether there is adequate money in the budget to do all of this, and whether we will have the staying power to continue to put adequate money in the budget.”
“…I would emphasize that I don’t know the background of what has happened. With that caveat, I would observe that even as powerful as the United States Congress is, it can’t legislate engineering. Engineering deals with Mother Nature. And Mother Nature is a very fair, but unforgiving judge. You just cannot legislate engineering.”
Sadly, this seems to remain a Congress, on both sides of the aisle, that believes there is nothing that cannot be legislated. But there’s a collision on the horizon with fiscal reality, and almost certainly a new Senate (definitely minus the retiring Senator Hutchison, and perhaps absent Senator Nelson as well) coming next year. Perhaps the best headline for yesterday’s story was from a wag who tweeted: “NASA Announces Next Rocket To Be Canceled In A Few Years.”
Take the money out of these stupid space exploration projects and give it to military projects. We need ships, a lot more ships. Especially if troubles with North Korea or China (over Taiwan) start heating up. We also need a lot more modern aircraft if we are to continue projecting power against rogue regimes, like the one in Libya. We need ships and planes and not more NASA projects that can be shoved aside for when we actually have money to throw away on projects like this.
I have to add, also being an old navy guy, ships with cutting edge weapons and tracking technology. We need to be able to eliminate threats from space…ballistic air craft carrier killers, among others.
We need to be able to defend out own space interests as well…which if tampered with, could greatly reduce our military effectiveness in all branches of our armed services.
Sigh…I so tire of short sighted, uninformed politicians.
The DoD gets just over 20% of the budget. NASA gets .05%.
Slashing NASA wont do anything for the DoD.
But getting the politicians who’s job it is to prioritize spending to pull their heads out of their collective rectums would have a huge impact…on both NASA and the DOD (not to mention all the other agencies who take part in R&D.
Why does everyone (mostly Democrats) go after both NASA and the military every time we have a budget problem in this country? It’s nothing but a DISTRACTION! We’ve got politicians essentially saying, “Look, we’re too stupid or immoral to regulate our spending habits and vices in other parts of the federal government – not to mention having the will to do so – so, let’s go after the bright, shiny ‘pigs’ that everyone’s eyes can be focused on!”
I’m sick of it.
Bush asked NASA to design and come up with the next stage in the space program after the shuttles – and NASA did it. It’s called Constellation. It merges Apollo, Space Shuttle, and modern engineering/technical advances into a system of boosters and spacecraft that will take us back to the Moon, get us on our way to Mars … and, oh, by the way, help continue and protect our present assets in low-orbit and space.
All of this is a noble goal, because it extends and builds on technologies that have advanced human civilization since the last World War. Does anyone think they live today without something developed because of space technology?
Constellation is over budget. Well, guess what? The WHOLE frakkin’ federal government is OVER budget!!! New advances and lofty goals typically end up costing more than they originally intended. Would FDR have been impeached because he was almost bankrupting us paying to win WWII? NASA has, in its’ history, never been more than a minuscule part of federal spending – and yet, we get so much out of and because of it. Rockets that send our cell phone satellites into orbit. New construction techniques learned assembling a 100 billion space station with friends that teach us how to build things better on Earth. GPS satellite technology that both helps our troops find our enemies and shows us the best way to save gas on a family vacation. Computers that have so ingrained themselves into our daily lives that we hardly think about it anymore.
I have a suggestion: LEAVE NASA ALONE! GET OUT OF THEIR WAY! You want to oversee their budget, to make sure they’re using good fiscal policies? Fine! Good idea. We should, by the way, do the same thing for the rest of our federal spending. Otherwise, when they do what we ask them to do, and they do it in a manner that has resulted in continuing everything else we’ve gotten in life through them for the past 60 years, then our best response is to tell them: “Thank you, sir – can I please have more?!?”
People want to defund NASA, but they don’t want to find and use more natural energy resources in the US. Well, guess what? How do you think the oil companies find those resources? You think all they do is drill, baby, drill? They use space satellites to help them find oil and other resources – resources that, if we had the will, would help us balance the budget! Doesn’t that sound like something it’d be worth paying 20-25 billion dollars a year for? And, if we gave NASA more money – say 30, or 40 billion a year, who’s to say what else we’d get as a result?
Maybe the cure of Alzheimers will be found in a weightless lab on ISS, or at a Moon base.
We can reimagine, restart, and reshape our space program with a new system that has already been mostly designed, tested, and is in the process of being built. I know we are going through a bad economy and a bad budget – but is the answer to mistakes made down here on Earth found in losing our gazes up and beyond Earth?
Saturn V was cancelled because it cost too much.
Constellation was cancelled because it cost too much.
The SLS is likely to go the same way. This article gives the opinions of some people who know what they’re talking about and this is what they’re saying. SLS costs too much and is unlikely to be built. Just cancelled like the programs before it.
However all is not quite lost. There are architectures out there that NASA could adopt that would get us to Mars on existing LV’s at an affordable cost in a fraction of the time.
For example a bunch of NASA engineers gave a talk on an affordable way to get to Mars in less then 40t pieces on a slightly enlarged Delta IV Heavy.
The link to the talk is here
http://spirit.as.utexas.edu/~fiso/telecon/Woodcock_9-14-11/
The great irony is that they released this architecture on the same day the SLS was being announced.
Interesting presentation … I’m in the process of studying it.
35 billion to spend on Constellation, when we spend (and waste) 60 billion on the Department of Education seems like a pretty fair trade-off to me, if a President is serious about reducing the budget and the size of government.
The programs you mention are “too expensive” because we are dealing with a government that has never, and doesn’t know how to, live within its’ means. The size of government has increased 30% since Obama entered the White House – 30 PERCENT! You think maybe the space program costs would be a lot more palatable if that hadn’t happened?
Here’s a thought, Fred – let’s give this proposal you linked to (thanks for that, by the way), to both NASA and SpaceX – and propose they jointly handle it. SpaceX is developing some great boosters – including heavy boosters that could kick-start this proposal into reality. NASA would assist, while focusing on its’ own programs for low/near Earth and Moon projects using Constellation (once we get an administration in place after the election that knows how to count pennies). Then you’d have an active public/private partnership for exploration that isn’t such a drain on taxpayers.
SpaceX and some other commercial space exploration companies need to be given every assistance, because they could end up having a very significant part of the future of space.
If the US wanted to “save or create” lots of high-paying jobs, it could of course have continued the Shuttle program a few more years, rather than outsourcing launch responsibilities to the Russians and laying off thousands. It could reopen the F-22 manufacturing lines and sell the planes to Japan and Israel, or sell new F-16s to Taiwan (rather than upgrade kits). Or, heck, it could replenish military stores depleted by ten years of war.
Can we build a space elevator now?
The $10 Billion development cost of a space elevator looks like a real bargain compared to SLS, particularly when considering the operational costs (per kilogram to orbit) would be two or three orders of magnitude lower than SLS.
Unfortunately, you need some flexible heavy lift capability to build it. You know, like a few space shuttles.
Space is the next battle field and we are not only unprepared but are now defenseless. What is missing from most discussions is that Space has Military and Civilian applications. The civilian applications rightly belong in the private sector and that sector no longer needs any government assistance but we have abandoned the Military Applications of Manned Space flight in favor of remote capability.
This error in thinking was made decades ago when NASA was first formed. NASA is supposed to be a Civilian Space Agency but it is really the Government Space Agency and sucked most of the funding foe all things Space related. By now we should have at least three active Military Space Ports with at least Three diffrent launch vehicles and orbiters of different types and capabilities. Today we have one Military Space port of limited capability and no known manned capability.
When you want to know if you are putting resources in the right area always look at what your advesaries are spending thier money on. That will tell you where they see your percieved weakness. China, Japan and others are spending huge amounts of cash on Manned Space Flight. They see this as our weakness.
China is spending peanuts on manned spaceflight and have only launched 3 times in 8 years. Get back to me the first time china launches humans twice in a single year.
Japan is allied with us and is not spending peanuts on manned spaceflight.
Why don’t you offer some proof and numbers for what they are spending.
rich313 wrote:
“NASA is supposed to be a Civilian Space Agency but it is really the Government Space Agency and sucked most of the funding foe all things Space related.”
In the real world, the military Space Budget is about twice NASA’s entire budget. For instance, while NASA did their last shuttle launches, at least 6 new recon sats were placed in orbit in 7 months. NASA has only been able to restrict Military Space funding when its desires for monopoly fit together with an administration’s desire to stop a particular program, such as the fiasco over transforming the Delta Clipper program of the SDIO into the X-33 program of NASA.
I agree with you that Military Space is where the government’s main emphasis should be. That should start with Ballistic Missile Defense, and proceed on to other capabilities as well. That was dead after 1961, however, because Congress was afraid of a 4th military Service that would have the same relationship to others as the Air Force did after 1947. The existence of a USAF vastly expanded its government military spending over what the Army and Navy had made available before then. People openly worried back then that any US Space Force (or even a Space Guard as is proposed today) would add another increment of that process.
But saying that NASA grabs all the money will just get the idea of Military Spaceflight laughed at by association.
Now if you want a useful policy change, that costs little at the start. talk up removing the ban on the military’s own manned spaceflight programs, initiated during the Clinton years, by assigning unmanned expendable boosters to the USAF, and crewed reusable vehicles to NASA.
If the US government had been in charge of aviation, the industry would resemble Ben Turpin wearing goggles, flapping his arms as he jumped off a cliff.
Unleash the free market. Give incentives for everyone from Rutan to Grumman to whomever to do their thing tax free and then see what happens. With this administration, that would be science fiction.
In 1898, the US War Department gave Samuel Langley $50000 to develop a piloted heavier-than-air flying machine. Engineer and pilot Charles Manley was catapulted into the Potomac twice, the first time the wing clipped the catapult and the second time the aerodrome disintegrated in the catapult; Manley was unhurt each time. The second accident took place on December 8, 1903, a mere 9 days before the Wright brothers’ successful flight.
Put the money into militarized space programs and do both.
That’s what China’s doing.
And yes, do it with the space elevator, and Tesla’s tapping of the Van Allen belt with nano-built begavolt wires.
And cancel 98% of all govt grants to universities.
I’d probably feel more optimistic about this project if I didn’t know that it’s basically a warmed-over replay of one of the “Nova” proposals of the 1960s, which was basically a Saturn V with four SRBs attached. Personally, I think having even two of those potential Bangalore Torpedoes strapped onto a stack full of volatile liquid propellants is entirely too much like playing Russian Roulette with two chambers loaded in a six-shooter.
But I also suspect it’s never going to actually fly. From all indications, NASA is still devoted to its two “Prime Directives”- James Hansen’s determination to “prove” Anthropogenic Global Warming (or at least browbeat the rest of us into believing the official statements on same), and making the Islamic world “feel good” about its contributions to science. (I.E., stealing everything possible from China, India, etc.)
The NASA shill was on the mark when he said this was a jobs program. It’s just another of The One’s “shovel ready” stimulus brainstorms (or maybe drizzles), with the side benefit of giving the appearance that He and his cronies have something like an interest in “real science”, as opposed to the politicized pseudo-sciences that they are actually fascinated by.
Which means that once He is past the next election, look for this bird to be cancelled faster than an ABC sitcom. Or even within 24 hours after the election, if He ends up losing same.
clear ether
eon
Silly me…I thought the whole point of NASA was outreach to the Muslims!
/////
…yawn…
If we don’t build these rockets there will never again be American astronauts in low-Earth orbit – busily watching spiders play volleyball.
Sure there will. SPACEX will put them there for way less money than Congress will let NASA do it for.
They probably wouldn’t spend their time watching spiders play zero gee volleyball either.
I am still trying to figure out how any patriot can be against big science, R&D, NASA. Just can’t quite grasp it. With all the imperfections, are you folks for real that you would not have supported Apollo, Gemini or the X-15 because somehow someone on the govt payroll gets paid?
Look, this is not a jobs program for crack heads or giving housing to people who refuse to move where it’s cheaper. This is what has made America great and strong and if we let NASA and big science die, the Chinese will colonize the Moon, Mars and mine all the asteroids.
Big science built the A-bomb, H-bomb and first working submarines.
If private industry wants in, there should be no restrictions but for real, this is insuring the general welfare.
Comment?
You don’t need a big rocket to do big science and there is the very real possibility that the funding required to maintain the big rocket wont leave any money left over for science.
Agree with the rest of your statement though.
“I am still trying to figure out how any patriot can be against big science, R&D, NASA.”
It’s “big science”, through federal grants to universities and government science agencies such as NOAA, that gave us AGW. Arguably, NASA contributed to the scare through Jim Hansen, a NASA employee. And R&D – no one is against it, as long as Federal dollars go to practical science and engineering programs, not pie in the sky, wishful thinking programs such as wind and solar power, which have been soaking up government funds for the last 30 years without significant breakthroughs. Too many in government believe that invention and creativity can be bought, if only we give it enough time and money. Solindra anyone? GE anyone? GE receives almost $200 million a year in subsidies to support their losing wind and solar power divisions. Wherever huge sums of money are involved there will always be graft, corruption, crony capitalism and politics.
The thing is, rockets to earth orbit aren’t big science. Back in the 60′s, sure. But today there are Delta and Atlas rockets, plus several smaller companies looking to compete. A NASA designed rocket is like the FAA building it’s own jetliner.
NASA should be about pushing the envelope of engineering for the next generation of entrepreneurs to compete with, not competing with today’s entrepreneurs using yesterday’s advancements.
It’s all very amusing, especially given the political physics of the problem–political physics is rather like political science and political economy. First Constellation is canceled by Obama due to lack of funding–the fiscal crisis of the state– in favor of private enterprise taking over the R and D (by a president ostensibly not all that fond of private enterprise when it comes to nationalizing expensive health care reform) so private enterprise can get to the stars and develop the science and technology cheaper than NASA, and what happens? Bush’s shovel ready rocket is canceled and Obama’s new and improved booty booster is back! Yes, the candy man can when he recycles George Bush. I guess there’s no two ways about, given the current science and technology, going to the stars, much less the moon, is expensive, no matter if you’re George or Barack.
At the end of the day I fail to see what is wrong with building a large rocket to travel to space in. If this is eating up a lot of budgetary money which can also be used for other things, then I suggest we increase NASA funding, which isn’t very large to begin with.
The country is BROKE, Mark. We can’t afford this kind of crap anymore. The flag-waving blather about Americans in space is just the cover story. This is yet another corrupt pork-barrel project designed to let politicians funnel tax money to their home districts to buy votes and get themselves reelected. They know damn well that this rocket will never be useful, and will probably not fly at all. That doesn’t matter to them, as long as it lets them loot the public coffers for their own benefit.
If you actually believe this is about manned space travel, then you’re exactly the kind of gullible rube that the politicians are counting on to keep them in office.
NASA is out of ideas. That’s what this project says. Make a really, really big rocket. That’ll impress em.
NASA didn’t want the big rocket, they wanted fuel depots and the technology we need to push out farther into the solar system. Congressional space pork members wanted the SENATE V heavy lift launch vehicle.
Nautilus X is where NASA should be going. Space based, reusable, gas n’ go, vehicles and commercial fuel stations.
Yup, that amazingly wastefull NASA. From 1958 until present it has spent a grand total of less than half a trillion doallrs. In the last decade it has spent a total of $163B. God, I wonder if the taxes from the private sector capitalization of NASA creativity has been much less than a full trillion dollars. All in all, NASA tax base creation probably far exceeds its cost on the nation. What a bunch of blow hards you people are.
-
-
-
-
Breaking News!!! Secret construction material and real propellant of the $L$ leaked from NASA!!!
-
ghostnasa.com/posts2/075endofnasa.html
-
just as a curiosity … I’ve called the $L$ a “monster” in all my comments on AvWeek and on several other forums and blogs and now MANY people, space experts, bloggers, etc. (regularly) call it a “monster rocket” that means that MANY of them read this site (of course) but also my comments and my space blog (and agree with me) and (as always) copy my opinions and ideas … any acknowledgment or copyright fee for me? … maybe, also for the acronym “$L$” that should become very popular soon …
-
-
-
-
> Will the Senate’s “big monster rocket” eat the space program?
No, MSFC is in charge of it (again), so the program will collapse on its own in 2-3 years.
OK, after about 35 years we get another BDB. Big Dumb Booster. Fine, just build the d@mn thing and go somewhere with it. Stop the incessant redesigning of hardware and missions. Pick a mission, freeze the design and GO. If you can’t justify a mission with this BDB, don’t build it. And the mission better be heavy lifting out of earth orbit. LEO missions can be handled with Titans or Atlas. Or the ROSCOSMOS taxi service.
Change the NASA from National AEROnautics to National ASTROnautics and Space Administration. Slim down NASA, focus it on exo-atmospheric science and work.
Tell the climate change people to go work for NOAA and the aeronautics people to go work for private companies like Boeing. Tell the ‘exo-biologist’ they can be greeters for wally world or flip burgers. Let the new NASA explore near earth space and space at lunar or farther solar system distances.
Or, shut NASA down. This nation can no longer afford to spend a few tens-of-billions of dollars here and a few tens-of-billions of dollars there and then just shrug and say ‘Never mind… we will try something different now.’ And while shrugging… they have their hands out waiting for a few more tens-of-billions of dollars. Nuts to that.
In the 40 years and over $500 billion since Apollo, NASA has not gotten a single American more than 300 miles from earth…
NASA promised the Space Shuttle at $7 million per launch, delivered a $1.5 per launch billion white elephant which sucked funding from dozens more worthy projects.
Then NASA promised a $8 billion Space Station which ended up costing nearly $200 billion, and has yet to deliver ANY science/technology…
Then NASA blows $20 billion and 10 years trying and failing to recreate the Saturn/Apollo it THREW AWAY.
Now NASA leaves us without ANY manned space capability..
Eliminate NASA, fund JPL directly for space probes, fund SpaceX for manned space.
The American space program is TOO IMPORTANT to be further entrusted to another bloated, incompetent, self-interested, self-propagating Federal Agency greedy for only more money and power.