WIth NASA Budget, Time for Republicans To Be … Republicans
The new Congress is going to face some very ugly budget choices, and be looking for savings wherever it can. There is little doubt that NASA will face serious scrutiny, even after the turmoil of the past nine months, since the Obama administration ineptly rolled out its budget request in February. While it’s a small slice of the pie (about half a percent in the current bloated federal budget, though many mistakenly imagine it much larger), it has very high visibility. Also, a great deal of mythology swirls around it, which is one of the reasons that good space policy has historically been hard to come by.
A best-case scenario may be a roll-back to 2008 levels ($17.3B, or a 9% reduction from the FY2011 request of $19B), as the Republican leadership has suggested as at least a first step in getting the overall budget under control. A worse one is a cut back to $15B (as rumors indicate will be the recommendation of the Deficit Commission), a 21% reduction. The worst, at least for those who favor manned spaceflight, is program cancellation entirely, though this is unlikely given international obligations for the International Space Station.
But in any event, something is going to have to give, and the current Congress, particularly the House, was unwilling to make the difficult choices necessary for NASA to have budgetarily sustainable plans, with demands for the “Space Launch System” — an unneeded heavy-lift vehicle — and business-as-usual at the agency, in which it continues to attempt to develop and operate its own unique systems to get its astronauts into orbit despite the many decades of failure to do so, at very high cost.
While the dominant cause of this is pork in the districts and states of authorizers and appropriators, it’s not the only one. Part of the mythology of the agency is that it is somehow important to national security for NASA to have its own unique means of getting astronauts into space. Some (and even some who should know better, on the Hill) imagine that it’s literally true, in the sense that there are secret military missions performed by NASA astronauts (there aren’t). Others see it as symbolic, harkening back to Apollo when it was a matter of international prestige in an existential Cold War with the Soviets. Either way, they cannot countenance the thought of NASA astronauts as passengers in commercial vehicles, though they do it with airlines every day, as do troops heading to fronts of wars.
But in the nation’s current fiscal straits, such indulgences are no longer affordable, and they hold us back from real progress. A year ago, the Augustine panel pointed out the disconnect between such NASA plans and the available budget, and the problem has only grown worse in the interim, despite the willingness of the Congress to ignore it with the NASA authorization bill it passed in late September.
Now that they are taking over the House, it is time, with respect to human spaceflight, for Republicans to grow up and start acting like the conservatives, fiscal and otherwise, they profess to be.
Hey Dude, we need NASA to promote Islam. Barry said so.
Every time I see a Manned Space Flight article I just have to read it and comment. Mainly because I’m involved with NASA, though on the Unmanned flight side.
Now correct me if I’m wrong (and I might be) but isn’t one of the biggest problems with actually going out into space and making money is no one is allowed to “own” space. I seem to recall many international treaties concerning things like claiming parts of the moon and possibly asteroids?
I mean I’m all for going out into to space, exploiting it and making it a place we want to go. As you say if we’re not going out there for the ultimate goal of taking advantage of it why go in the first place? (Beyond pure science of course)
Another international treaty I see getting in the way is the one concerning large rail guns. I.e. the “Mega guns” I recall talk about this treating during Saddams era. A cheap and efficent way of getting things into orbit shouldn’t be delayed due to politics. If we can literally shoot unmanned (and maybe manned I’m not sure) things into Orbit we can save fuel/weight for when you’re actually up there.
Though again I think there are some major diplomatic barriers that make private space flight not as profitable as it should/needs to be to get us really going up there.
There are multiple sources of information on the Web;
I recommend the Space Access Society for a start:
http://www.space-access.org/
Long story short, the US government has had a policy
of monopoly control of access to space ever since WWII,
and created NASA as prime enforcer of the monopoly,
adding international treaties instead of (unpassable)
US laws in recent years.
This used to be a mere annoyance, because of the Rocket Equation,
a law of nature, not man, which says that chemical rockets can barely
reach Low Earth Orbit (LEO), and take far too long to reach farther out.
Today, advanced chemical rockets can make a little money in LEO, but
tomorrow more efficient launch methods, and better deep-space drives,
will make space a place to make a fortune, to create the new wealth
the US will desperately need to pay off its debts.
Space will also be the new military ‘High Ground’ for whoever gets
there first, and uses their advantage to deny access to others.
The US or the Chinese; Take your choice.
Hint: The Chinese have already shown that they do not care about
Treaties, Intellectual Property, or any other stinking pieces
of Paper Tiger debris which might get in their way to 1st world
status.
“Time for Republicans To Be … Republicans”
Do you mean that they should lower taxes and massively increase the size of the government?
Now that they are taking over the House, it is time, with respect to human spaceflight, for Republicans to grow up and start acting like the conservatives, fiscal and otherwise, they profess to be.
Indeed. They need to dismantle the TSA and hand over the money to NASA. This gets rid of a useless agency that provides jobs to imbeciles, gives money to a useful agency that provides jobs for smart people, and then they can pay attention to other more pressing things.
All things equal I don’t care if the imbeciles working for TSA are employed or not. The country is doomed only when the smart people are out of work. You can’t swing a dead cat and not hit an imbecile. Smart folks, not so much.
As such I don’t care if the propeller heads are ginning up that which is immediately useful or not. All of it in time has use. What sort of ROI does the average TSA employee offer? Nothing. Better to spend the same money on that which at least has a chance of usefulness than that which is a guaranteed loss.
Except . . .
The U.S. spaceflight program, while done for prestige, also produced massive economic benefits from the technologies created to enable it.
That following the Ming retreat from naval activity they suffered increasing pirate activity, culminating in the failed invasions of Korea by the Japanese.
It should also be noted that the Ming Emperors faced Mongol invasions, which they responded to by focusing on defenses rather than offensive capability, and that Zhong He’s fleets represented a different political faction (the eunuchs) in the government.
Yes, there are lessons to be taken from Zheng He. Unfortunately it seems you are completely missing them.
Rand, I think you ment to say “there a three alternative areas to cut”. Keeping the national Space Launch System means tossing out commercial crew and technology devlopment, both of which we should want to keep. As for the problem of ownership in space, yes, that needs to be worked on but there are already international regimes in place to recognize the ‘right of use’ of particular orbital slots, and, even though space law does not currently recognize salvage rights for an abandoned space craft, the issue needs to be addressed for space junk that becomes a ‘hazzard to navigation’. When someone gets to the moon (or an astroid), if there is no legal framework to recognize their claim, it will probably get enforced in the same way every new frontier has delt with this issue; I am here, if you want to dispute my claim, come get me off it.
Please Mr. Putin, can we visit the Space Station we mostly paid for?
NASA has its tentacles in nearly every state. This, of course, was done in order to guarantee perpetual funding from a captive Congress. So I put the chances of the new GOP House trimming NASA’s bloat at about the same as the Bills winning the next Super Bowl.
Between NASA and the military, Brevard County, Florida (where Cape Canaveral is located) is a virtual ward of the federal government. When the Clinton-instigated federal shutdown of 1995 happened, the wailing and teeth-gnashing in Brevard were audible in Jacksonville and Tampa. Unfortunately, that means every area Congresscritter, no matter how nominally conservative, is going to vote to flush more taxpayer money down the NASA toilet.
I just hope Congress doesn’t fall for the same type of nonsense that it did the last time NASA’s budget was in jeopardy: I’m talking about the “discovery” of the Arctic meteorite that supposedly contained proof that life existed beyond earth. Mind you that the meteorite in question was found years earlier and the announcement came right before NASA’s budget was about be severely cut. Congress reacted to the announcement by sustaining NASA’s budget. Then the scientists announced that they were mistaken; the meteorite didn’t contain proof of life.
I find it suspect that just a month or so ago we heard that astronomers had found an earth-like planet capable of sustaining life. This new “discovery” is even more suspect than the meteorite scam because there’s no way to disprove it. Don’t be taken in by all the hype!
Ironic that a novel from nearly 10 years ago describes the same thing.
I agree with G.L Alston. Even at $19B, the space agency has returned more to the economy than it has cost. If anyone did a serious cost/benefit ratio they would see that most of our current technology has roots that started within NASA’s hallways.
$19B out of a $1.4T budget doesn’t begin to balance anything. Tackle the things that are a total drain, eliminate worthless agencies like Education, Energy, Labor, EPA and many others.
If the republicans really want to prove their worth, refund the Space Shuttle program and let it fly until we have a provable replacement. Want to reduce cost – then freeze federal pay and hiring, outlaw unions for Federal employees and pay every member of Congress $1 a year and eliminate their retirements.
Elected office is public service – not a career choice.
.
.
.
Why the suborbital space tourism is TOO DANGEROUS >>>
.
http://www.ghostnasa.com/posts2/073spacetourism.html
.
Read my article before buy a $200,000 suborbital ticket
.
.
.
Earmarks. Earmarks. Earmarks. Let’s see those vaunted Tea Party principles in action.
There is no private market in space in the absence of federal tax subsidies. There may be a private stand alone market in space some day. Perhaps there would have been such a market today, if all the federal tax subsidies–amtrak, TVA, corn ethanol, the Green job’s scams–had been invested in space exploration, technologies, and development, instead of on rapid transit systems to nowhere and state department Muslim out reach programs for Mr. Arafat and progeny.
Everyone should read the short story by Robert A. Heinlein “The Man Who Sold The Moon.” Everything about it is obsolete except for the human side of the equation, which is the all important one.
Certainly close down Jimmy Hanson’s GISS- a unit which does nothing useful whatsoever, but simply churns out AGW propaganda based on jiggered statistics.
Mr. Simberg:
Have you considered working for ABCNNBCBS or their dead-tree fellow travelers lately? This article is about as well-informed as MANY of theirs, and I understand there should be an opening at MSNBC. You’d fit in quite well, based on the accuracy of what you have written here!
Don’t be a bitter NASA-clinger. It’s your beloved NASA that has only managed to build one new rocket in the last 40 years. The Ares I-X was only a technology demonstrator that cost a whopping 40 million dollars. That is about as much money that Elon Musk has invested so far to create a whole new space launch company, development center, construction/testing center, several engine designs, 2 new rockets, and a nearly completed manned capsule. Face it, government space flight is a dead end. Time for people who are really serious about leveraging new technologies, manufacturing practices, and business acumen to take the lead.
Keep on brewin’ that fresh hot tea there, Josh! NONE of the fine private industry is anywhere NEAR even where NASA was back in the 60s. And it ain’t NASA that has screwed up the development of new spacecraft. It’s your fine buddies in Congress and the White House.
And let’s make this VERY clear: NOT ONE OF YOUR PRIVATE INDUSTRY DEVELOPERS IS WILLING TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR LIABILITY WHEN THEIR PRODUCT CREATES A BIG SMOKING HOLE IN THE GROUND. They expect a waiver of that liability. Even if that big smoking hole is in the middle of New York City. Or Miami. Or London.
Our Chinese friends have ALREADY done it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoU1GgkrKg
But then THEIR media are very good a covering things up. THAT is what you get when you try to do things on the cheap. But then I wouldn’t mind all that much if New York were to disappear, I guess. The country might even be better off!
“refund the Space Shuttle program” That statement indicates you have no idea whereof you speak. Zilch. The shuttle is old, unreliable and will kill astronauts if used any longer. Oh, and it will keep a lot of contractors on the gravy train – that’s about all. And I say that as someone who worked on the program in the early days.
The idea that private contractors will step in and provide lower cost market driven access to space is silly. The investments are too large, the chances of success too low, and potential profits are too small and too far into the future to attract the type of capital needed. This has been bandied about by free market dreamers since back when Reagan was President, and so far nothing has come of it. All it will accomplish is to leave us with no space program.
Once again, we are almost ready to have a new manned vehicle and the program gets canned when it is finally time to build hardware and fly missions. I am sure the next design will be much better when it finally flies in 2025 or later. Until then we will be getting rides to our space station from the Russians, unless the Indians or Chinese build their own manned space flight systems and have spare rides to sell.
Could NASA have done it differently and better? Yes, but they built the space transportation system Congress ordered, and it actually works most of the time, and it works a lot better than having no system or a study that will design the perfect low cost totally safe system of the future.
I can’t believe that among all the pork in the federal budget the place to start is manned space flight. This is symbolism over substance at its finest.
Does anyone remember when we let the free market handle developing HiDef TV, a technology that was supposed to revitalize the US TV industry? How did that work out? Developing advanced technology before it is profitable is something only government can do.
The right thing for Congress to do is to restore funding for the LEO portion of new manned flight system and order a project review of the lunar landing plans. We do need our own system to get men into space and to get to the “International” Space Station, we may not not need a Moon base.
Missing the lessons from Zheng He? Should you be more concerned about lessons involving a chosen few (the eunuchs) that control technologies created to enable the U.S. spaceflight program for their own personal wealth with absolutely no commitment to repay the loan from taxpayers that financed their sport? Those that took the physical risks deserve due recognition. The rest are mere parasites on the host. The most obvious are those in the house supporting funding to buy voting propaganda for their reelection under the guise of “the good of the many”. Let Burt Rutan show you how to do it with private investment as it should be.
Its a shame that Simberg’s arguments seem to be falling on mostly deaf ears. Without even having the Republicans on board, there is no hope of having a functional space program. The really funny part is the people that think that support for competition and profits is somehow… liberal MSNBC talk. Just like in every other industry, the private sector, if given half a chance, will do it cheaper, faster, and safer.
The thing with Zheng He is that in Ming China, the government ruled the entire Chinese civilization. When the Ming dynasty canceled his programs, there were no private investors to take their place, nor even other nations that daring would-be explorers could approach for funding. Competition in Europe between nations and investors eager to claim vast new resources made all the difference.
There is nothing special about space exploration that means that only government, not the market, can do it. We’ve been building rockets in this country for over 50 years, and yet people still think that rockets are too new and complicated to be done by private companies? Contractors proved this wrong decades ago with countless successful launches on Delta and Atlas rockets and a safety record that is superior to NASAs. There is absolutely no reason, I repeat, NO REASON AT ALL for NASA to build and operate its own vehicles. Other than pork, that is. Contract it out to the lowest bidder, just like the military does with its supplies, the quality of which is no less vital to saving human life. This is the 21st century people, not the 1960s. If those nincompoops running Russia can do it, safely and on the cheap, I’m sure SpaceX and others can do it even better. The private sector can take this one, and we’ll all be much better off for it.
Hopefully, when NASA’s commercial space program gets canceled, Bigelow and others will be able to get the job done without government help. At the rate that NASA, and even the Chinese program, is going, my guess is a private astronaut is the next man to land on the moon.
Though I love the space program and trained under NASA rocket Scientisr I have to be in completer agreement with closing down NASA’s active space launch programs. They are not going to be useful and simply divert money from necessary military programs.
Though I love the space program and trained under NASA rocket Scientisr I have to be in complete agreement with closing down NASA’s active space launch programs. They are not going to be useful and simply divert money from necessary military programs. Hire The private sector to do the delivery work to the International Space station. Two contractors low bidder per ton get 60% of the tonage next bidder gets 40%. Defayktung bidder gets bankrupsy
This idea that private industry can solve all technological ventures is as simplistic and starry-eyed as the belief that government can solve all societal problems. Government has a function and a job. The free market has its limits. If US private industry is so efficient, why do we buy most of our cars from Japan? Why is everything in Walmart made in China Inc.? America has air superiority in every battle because of Government investment in aerodynamics (supported by NASA labs) and investment in stealth technology. America owns the high ground in space because of accomplishments by NASA. Further, NASA does not build its own spacecraft! NASA is a SCIENCE EXPLORATION agency. NASA defines the goals, objective, overall design concepts, and releases contracts to private industry. Boeing, “LockMart,” NG, Orbital, etc. all bid on these contracts to build the platforms for NASA. Not all things good come from commercial profit. There is no commercial incentive for these companies to go to the moon! If US private industry can revolutionize the space industry and spur the new science, all in the name of profit, let’s see US private industry (e.g. General Motors, aka. Government Motors) start making cars people will buy. I for one do not want to risk our lead in space to the geniuses on Wall Street, who for the second time in my lifetime, need yet another tax payer bail out.
NASA, nothing but a middle class welfare system. I get email from Pete Olson talking about all the latest in the Republican ideology. How he voted against all the worst of the liberal agenda. Oh, but look how proud he is of his NASA support. He’s lobbying for an increase in Nasa’s budget. He’s lobbying against cutbacks to Nasa’s favorite programs. What a hypocrite, but who’s surprised? Half of his gerry-mandered middle-class district is living off the NASA welfare roles at JSC.
Oh boy. Here we go again.
Umm…Private companies build the rockets. Many private companies large and small profit from doing work for and with NASA. Much of the work comes from bidding. Private companies with a proven track record in the space industry often win the contracts because they have a proven track record. The new kids on the block like Space X will have to prove themselves just as Boing and Lockheed Martin did and do, so that they can be another “private” company that contracts with NASA and gets government funds for their space ambitions.
Even the ‘private’ airlines have to operate under the regulations of the FAA. Ask a soldier or astronaut if that is reassuring to them that the plane they board won’t be held together with spit and chewing gum because a private company has to follow the rules and regulations of a goverment agency.
The prime contractor for the Space Shuttle program was North American Aviation (later Rockwell International, now Boeing), the same company responsible for building the Apollo Command/Service Module. The contractor for the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters was Morton Thiokol (now part of Alliant Techsystems), for the external tank, Martin Marietta (now Lockheed Martin), and for the Space shuttle main engines, Rocketdyne (now Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, part of United Technologies.
This is a partial list of the “private” companies that built the shuttle. From every nut and bolt to every tile the Space Shuttle was built by private companies both large and small. This is the same for ALL United States Rockets although in order to build relationships with other countries foreign countries also are involved in the United States Space Programs providing parts and joint cooperation. There are space flight monitoring systems all over the world employing people from all over the world not just
spoiled middle class Americans living off the NASA welfare roles.
Ya know we don’t have to give it all away, and if we do we don’t have do so using misleading information.
NASA spends $18 billion per year flying around in circles (literally) with no end product. How many billion-dollar probes must we send to Mars to dig in the dirt before deciding that it’s just sterile, lifeless dirt?
This is not a rhetorical question: What part of the Constitution authorizes the exploration of other planets?
While NASA looks around for something to do, the agency has turned into a general catch-all for politically correct busy work, like making the Muslims feel good about themselves, or celebrating gay pride month.
http://www.akdart.com/nasa2.html
NASA should be scrapped, but there’s not one politician in Congress who will say so.
“This is not a rhetorical question: What part of the Constitution authorizes the exploration of other planets?”
The immediate impetus for the Space Act was widespread fear that the United States was losing its Cold War with the Soviet Union. On October 4, 1957, the Soviet Union launched the artificial satellite Sputnik. This technological achievement and the launch of Sputnik II the following month evoked considerable anxiety among policymakers and the American public that the Soviets had gained technological superiority in aeronautics that, coupled with evidence of military superiority (the Soviets had recently tested intercontinental ballistic missiles), portended a Cold War imbalance in the Soviets’ favor. Passed as it was in the midst of the Cold War, the Space Act was seen as crucial to the preservation of the United States and its competitiveness with the Soviet Union. Indeed, the constitutional basis cited in the act was Congress’s power and obligation, under Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” of the United States.
Feel free to replace Soviet Union with China for updated rational.