Skip to main content

The Orlando Sentinel reported yesterday that discussions were occurring in Washington over the future of current NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden, who has reputedly had a complicated relationship with the post-Shuttle policy realignments taking place in the Agency.  I have no way of knowing to what extent these discussions are occurring seriously, or if stories like this are just a political maneuver by people who would prefer to see someone else in his position, but I would like to briefly explore some of the issues confronting the Agency and what tasks and challenges will be put before whoever is running it over the next four years.

First, a bit of deep background is in order that most people may not know.  NASA was established in 1958 with no specific mandate to expand human civilization into space, colonize other worlds, or in fact go anywhere at all, but was rather designed with the nebulous mission of discovering peaceful uses for space in general.  Cold War politics filled in the blanks, so without any real long-term objectives in mind, the United States was committed to achieving a series of "stunts" for the sake of prestige, and the science and technical advances that came as a result would be tangential benefits.  

Both the US and Soviet Union were doing pretty much the same thing - the USSR launched the first satellite because Russian rocket designer Sergei Korolev convinced the Kremlin that as long as they were testing missiles, they might as well do a stunt launch of a peaceful payload to demonstrate Soviet technical prowess.  The Kremlin didn't think much of it, but went along with it as kind of an afterthought - a neat little PR event showing how far ahead of the West they were getting under the Communist system.  When it succeeded and Sputnik I was launched, they were shocked and delighted by the profound inferiority complex that suddenly appeared in American media, and thus both countries were put on a path toward serious pursuit of space.

Unfortunately, the spirit of Sputnik I would define the entire Space Race - a series of increasingly difficult stunts achieved through the arbitrary mobilization of national resources, with little or no self-sustaining economic foundation able to grow around it.  The machines that first took Man into space, into orbit, and then to the Moon did so because they were forced to via the brute-force application of 100,000-strong engineering teams, bleeding-edge technologies piled one top of the other, and ridden into the wild black yonder by people who didn't blink at a 1-in-5 chance of blowing up.  In other words, it was a house of cards that could stand only because an army of the most brilliant people on Earth stared unblinkingly for ten years with unlimited funding and unyielding national commitment.  

But once the task was done, it was all practically useless: Infrastructure built out of wholecloth through a decade of seat-of-the-pants engineering, death-defying stunts, and compensating for technological shortcomings through torrents of money is not soil out of which anything of value can immediately grow on its own.  The Russians, no longer trying to actually go anywhere anymore, just started putting up stations in orbit for the sake of research, and we did likewise, with the Space Shuttle being large enough that it could essentially serve the same purpose.  But it was all still completely aimless, only without even the benefit of a specific stunt-based objective.

Rather than trying to achieve anything, the entire basis of both space programs became simply to exist - to keep the infrastructure running, to keep the engineers employed, to maintain the pretense that governments who had long ago deteriorated into helpless agents of conservative economic forces were still looking ahead to something more optimistic and imaginative than oil fields and SUVs.  But the Original Sin of NASA was still unfolding - there was no recognition of any deeper or overaching mission than to simply continue existing.  We launched the Space Shuttle to replace Apollo, even though it was never designed to go anywhere, and because it never went anywhere, we decided to build a space station so it would have somewhere to go even though the station was never designed to enable going anywhere further.  Do you see the essential madness of the space program as it's been for generations?

Because we didn't want to keep spending the money needed to go to the Moon with the Apollo infrastructure, rather than investing in getting to the Moon more efficiently, instead we built a spacecraft that couldn't go anywhere just to keep the industrial base humming.  And when we ran out of things for that spacecraft to do by itself, we had it build a space station for it to go to.  And what was this station designed to do?  Build deep space craft for launch to the Moon or points more distant?  No.  Test artificial spin gravity for long-duration missions?  Nope.  Expand the in-space population and become a general center of human activity in Earth orbit?  Of course not.  Its one and only function was a place for these spacecraft to go to and then leave, and if science happens to occur there, well that's good too.

But when Columbia was destroyed, the house of cards started to fall.  What was obvious to engineers in the '80s started becoming clear to ordinary people only in the '00s: The Space Shuttle was a peacock - a flashy, impractical thing created only to look cool while being ten times more expensive than a normal rocket and considerably more dangerous.  They started wondering what the hell it had all been about, given that its finest hour and most glorious accomplishment over two decades of service had been to repair a broken telescope.  What followed under the Bush White House was an epic farce that had almost no confidence in the space community - a cargo cult program called Constellation, where NASA was supposedly going to just copy Apollo with Shuttle infrastructure at several times the cost and with zero likelihood of Congress providing the necessary additional funding.

Constellation basically consisted of George W. Bush hamming his way through a speech reading a bunch of words he likely didn't understand, promising billions of dollars to keep the Shuttle infrastructure humming the same way Shuttle itself had been articulated to avoid completely losing the Apollo infrastructure.  The terms "cynical" and "status quo" don't even begin to cover it, because as far as I can see there was no evidence the principal political actors behind Constellation had any remote intention of ever actually achieving it, and instead were just interested in stringing along the Shuttle budgets for as long as possible.  Once again, NASA was being told to exist just to exist, and do nothing so the money could keep flowing to the right politically-connected districts.

Something different appeared on the horizon in the form of a little-known program called COTS (Commercial Orbital Transportation Services), which was a relatively small piece of funding offered as an afterthought so the Bush White House could claim they were in favor of private enterprise - basically, entrepreneurial launch companies would get contracts to develop systems for delivering cargo to the International Space Station on a fixed-price basis.  In truth, they only offered this money because they never thought they would have to pay it - cargo would continue to be sent up by major aerospace contractors forever, at whatever prices the revolving door of lobbyist-bureaucrats agreed to, and in the meantime there would be some photo ops with some lame little companies that would never amount to anything.  They didn't count on Elon Musk and his revolutionary company SpaceX.

So when Musk started successfully launching rockets to orbit at a fraction the cost  of his competitors, the usual suspects started getting nervous - Republican Congressmen went on the record belittling them as basically garage tinkerers who it would be ludicrous to trust with precious NASA cargo, and started angling to exclude them from contracts in favor of big prime contractors like Boeing who had offered nothing but paper studies and computer illustrations.  SpaceX, unlike NASA, had and continues to have an infinite-horizon program: Their objective is what NASA's should be, but hasn't been due to politics - the general expansion of humankind into space via the radical reduction of orbital launch costs and pursuit of solar system colonization.

Most of the public falsely believes the above sentence is the mission of NASA, but it isn't - Congress would never permit that to be the official purpose of the Agency, and many even of starry-eyed folks who have been with it for decades have only recently come to see that objective as something more credible than an adolescent fantasy.  As of today, in NASA there is no concrete plan to put humans back on the Moon, land on Mars, or colonize anything, anywhere.  None, zero, zilch.  Nor has there ever been.  It has always just been a "maybe, someday" thing while they hunker down and focus on the details of the funded missions scheduled right now.  

But in the vacuum of leadership that's existed for generations, an entire community grew around dedication to human expansion into space, and that community has shaped the attitudes of the commercial space sector being led by SpaceX.  Those people, who have no compunction about saying that this is their goal, have been waging a philosophical insurgency into NASA for the past few years, and their power has only grown with every new milestone SpaceX meets.  These people don't think the purpose of NASA is just to exist, either performing stunts for public amusement or just going around in circles to justify pork - its purpose is to create the fertile ground for a general explosion of humanity on to a wider stage than has ever existed in our species' history; to make impossible endeavors possible; impractical ones practical; expensive endeavors economical, and dangerous ones more approachable.  Its purpose is to be the first, delicate tendrils of human civilization into the far darkness that will be followed by mighty thrusts outward.

However, the young turks have not yet won, and are still waging something of an insurgent campaign in NASA despite the strength of SpaceX.  The prime contractors are still very powerful, as is much of the bureaucracy, and the old ways still have their own program going on - they're trying to build a super-heavy lift pork-barrel rocket called the Space Launch System and a space capsule called Orion.  These are repackaged vestiges of Constellation that avoided being cancelled, and yet still require a considerable influx of new funding there is no reason to believe will be provided by Congress.  And yet it continues, like so much else, on its own political inertia since it has the backing of key Senators.

In theory, it sounds similar to what they should be doing: Low Earth Orbit (LEO) will be contracted out to companies like SpaceX who will do it at lower cost and greater safety while NASA uses SLS and Orion to explore the Moon, Mars, and Near-Earth Asteroids.  But in practice, the reality is that SpaceX is delivering a factor of 10 bang-for-the-buck in its development of the Dragon spacecraft and Falcon 9 / Falcon Heavy rockets while the SLS doesn't even exist yet and Orion is having major manufacturing problems.  Falcon 9 has flown successfully four times, Elon Musk has said Falcon Heavy may be test launched in 2013, and Dragon has been into orbit and rendezvoused with the ISS twice - and been successfully recovered from the ocean twice.  Now, Dragon isn't a deep space craft - it would have to be upgraded for that - but it seems pretty damn clear that SpaceX is far closer to providing a deep space exploration capability for NASA than NASA is to providing one for itself.

Nonetheless, there are forces in NASA who really don't like the growing power and influence of SpaceX, and see it as some kind of Leviathan arising out of the ocean to devour the Agency.  That view is as silly and wrongheaded as the resistance that arose to its participation in the LEO cargo and crew contracting process - SpaceX is nothing more than an enabler, and what I think the fear is is that NASA will lose stature even if its capabilities are vastly increased by the services being offered.  The real, human purpose of NASA from the beginning has been finding what's out there, not just finding out how to get there, but so much of its infrastructure is built around getting there that it's perceived of as a threat that someone potentially better at the "how" has shown up.  Many in NASA recognize the profound opportunity this presents to finally get down to the business the Agency was intended to be about - the science, the discovery, the intrepid pushing back of human boundaries, and not about dictating how to do it through overpaid, technologically conservative prime contractors.

Now, getting back to Charlie Bolden, there has been some perception that he is not as big a cheerleader of the New Way than a lot of space activists, and may be clinging to SLS/Orion and the constituencies behind it a bit more than is justified.  I don't really know anything about that, but it has contributed to the speculation about his future in the second Obama term, since the administration has been strongly pushing the New Way from the beginning.  It was this administration that ended Constellation and has advocated the "Flexible Path" exploration concept whereby we develop the ability to go anywhere, and then once we have it, go everywhere rather than trying to tailor technologies to destinations when we don't really know what we're doing before we're out there.  NASA is subject to political winds and budgets, so no statement about it is ever entirely concrete, but I've been a lot more encouraged by the Flexible Path than any of the hollow rhetoric that attended Constellation, and I know evolved SpaceX technology is a lot more likely to get us there than SLS/Orion.

That said, this does not mean that Bolden will be leaving, even if his priorities do skew toward the establishmentarian viewpoint.  Replacing him would depend on having someone better for the job in mind who has a stronger emphasis on the new way, and there is no guarantee any such person is available or that the administration sees it as justified to pursue new leadership.  However, it will be very fascinating in coming years to watch as SpaceX and NASA evolve side-by-side, intertwining, and the complicated relationships and synergies that will occur because of it.  

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't share your interest in (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, radarlady

    colonizing the solar system, but I think that the highly successful transition to private development of rocket technologies has been one of the great successes of the Obama first term.

    Much credit for this success goes to Elon Musk and his team at SpaceX. I would hope that the largely unproductive bureaucracy of NASA, will stop focusing on putting people into space and only do what it does best - deploying unmanned sparcraft in order to better investigate the universe around us. Let SpaceX and its competitors create the lift capacity to man and supply the space station until it reaches the end of its useful lifespan.

    Here's my take on it - the revolution will not be blogged, it has to be slogged. - Deoliver47

    by OIL GUY on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 12:39:56 PM PST

  •  NASA unfortunatley is at the mercy of Congress. (5+ / 0-)

    If it had been possible to launch space craft from Texas Johnson would have made sure in happened in Texas. Nixon gave up on space exploration and cancelled half of Apollo, the half that was about the science alone. The Shuttle was assembled by committee to make sure everyone got some pork. I live in Orlando and this stuff is important to us because of the number of jobs at stake. Entire communities on the Atlantic coast have been decimated as the shuttle shut down. NASA facilities are open to whoever wants them along with trained engineers. But the demise started during the Nixon adminstration. the original mission of NASA was avaition research. Looking for ways to make better airplanes for military and commerical purposes. But then we started abandoning programs. Like the supersonic program.

    NASA needs a top to bottom cleaning and reorganizing effort. But that will not happen as long as Congress treats NASA the way she is treated. As a provider of pork projects. How much of these projects are built in far flung states and then shipped over long distances to Florida? Why is it that only Boeing and Lockheed are contracted to do this business?

    Elon Musk wants to go to space and has proven that his organization can get the job done. So why is not NASA working more closely with him and his company? Who says that Dragon could not replace Orion?

    We need a national goal. One that is not being the policeman of the world. We have so much talent wasting their time in the useless field of financial engineering. If these folks had some imagination and public spirit think of the things they and we could accomplish. But the death of the space program wiped out a lot of dreams. And cynicism wiped out idealism. What little kid dreams of being a stock broker? But every little kid dreams of being an astronaut. And so it should be.

    •  Heard around Orion in the early days (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, xgy2, radarlady

      "Our motto is, no center left behind". EVERY NASA center got a taste of Orion development money.

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:16:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I believe space is America's purpose. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, eyesoars

      Elon Musk is helping us rediscover that fact, and the sheer size of the industries that will be created from the backbone he's building is awesome to imagine.  

      NASA is doing a good enough job collaborating with SpaceX, IMHO, but they're wasting a lot of money on SLS that should be going into SpaceX.  But as you say, Congress calls the shots on that, which means the people with financial interests in a given slice of pork call the shots.

      I'm okay for now with seeing Dragon/Falcon evolve beside Orion/SLS, so long as the latter stays reasonably on schedule.  If they can build Orion/SLS by 2017 and launch their planned mission to 3000+ km, way beyond LEO, and get some Apollo-like shots of the mid-sized Earth globe, that would be inspiring and new.  But there will undoubtedly be lots of delays, so it may be that the next generation Dragon and Falcon Heavy will be finished way before that.  Dragon may be flying people around the Moon before Orion is even putting people in orbit.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:20:06 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If SpaceX ever needs a volunteer to go (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, radarlady

    to the Moon or Mars... I'll be first in line to go.  Even if it is a one-way colony setup, and I might never return to this planet, I would go to pave the path for others to follow.

    "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

    by doingbusinessas on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:09:27 PM PST

    •  I wouldn't be the *first* in line. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, doingbusinessas

      A hell of a lot of people are going to die in the early years.  This won't be like Apollo where failure is not an option - failure is very much an option.  That's the whole point of making space more accessible to lots of people.  It's just most of the deaths will be on the surface of another world and not on the launch pad.  

      I'd go once there are a few thousand people somewhere, so that I'm not one of the ones whose corpse announces the existence of an unsuspected problem.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:23:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am older and still active. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        radarlady, Troubadour

        Yes I agree there will be those who won't make it, I accept that.  May be not a lot of folks will die early in the program, but we all do eventually pass away.  

        If what I can do is help setting up the base of the first colony so others can enjoy the fruits of my labor, so be it.  

        "Death is the winner in any war." - Nightwish/Imaginareum/Song of myself.

        by doingbusinessas on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 04:39:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Dragon is not designed for deep space (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, radarlady

    Orion is.

    That does matter. It matters when you design the shape and size of the craft, it matters when you choose materials to make things from, it matters when you decide how much redundancy you need, it matters in the design of the flight software.

    So, gratz to Musk on what he's done, but what he has NOT done is designed and built a moon / asteroid / Mars capable craft. Not yet.

    And as for his cost advantages, let's just see what his costs are long term. It is so very, very easy to sell the first one, or two, at a considerable loss and claim that will be the long term cost. See "Boeing EELV strategy".

    Full disclosure: Orion pays my bills.

    Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

    by blue aardvark on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:14:49 PM PST

    •  Musk has said the next version of Dragon (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, radarlady

      will be substantially different than the original, and that he built the current version conservatively because they didn't have experience.

      It's not a knock at the expertise of the people making Orion, but at the funding and political process behind its design and manufacturing.  If you work on Orion, you know what I'm talking about, and know that SpaceX doesn't have to deal with even a tenth of that kind of shit - if they need to change something, they just change it, and don't have to go through some insane process chasing down dozens of subcontractors and answering to endless levels of bureaucracy and Congress.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:26:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, radarlady

        And I also know that NASA will have kittens if anyone tries to put one of their astronauts on a vehicle where the paper trail doesn't match what they expect from a man-rated vehicle.

        Having worked with NASA, I can tell you they have some very smart, very experienced people. Not all of the hoops they make us jump through are baloney. Sometimes they contribute quite a bit.

        The goal of going somewhere worthwhile is something we need to re-ignite interest in.

        Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

        by blue aardvark on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:31:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It will largely be to NASA's detriment (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          rather than SpaceX's, if NASA is overly conservative in its crew program.  SpaceX's manifest would be piled a mile deep with commercial human spaceflight customers.

          It isn't the requirement for safety that's baloney, but the ways in which NASA sometimes dictates how those safety requirements are met instead of defining an objective requirement.  I.e., saying "There must be less than a 0.00001% chance of this happening with a system" is good.  Saying "Because we want this level of probability, we require that your system have this, this, and this features, and no other approach to meeting that probability is acceptable."  That's bullshit.

          In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:48:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I should also note that SpaceX's (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          vertically integrated manufacturing structure is superior to Boeing and Lockheed's vast, far-flung web of subcontractors for innovation, cost-effectiveness, and quality control.  Even if a big prime didn't have to worry about bureaucracy, they'd have to feed changes through their huge network of subcontractors and the feedback would be slow and often adversarial.  Elon Musk wants something changed, he says so and everyone gets the memo simultaneously and collaborates in the same factory in Hawthorne.  

          In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:54:45 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's a pretty poor vehicle for deep space. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark

      And in any case, it won't be doing anything of the sort for twenty years.  By that time, you could build a genuine, reusable deep space craft.

  •  Where to begin ? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, radarlady

    Might as well make it easy, I agree with your analysis with the exception of a few nits here and there.  One big one: NASA was created because Eisenhower wanted a civilian space agency..  That's an important point because at the time each service had their own private space program.  He quickly ended all the fun and games and prevented the (overt) militarization of space.  Webb was smart enough to throw out goodies to the military-industrial-congressional complex, but the control remained in civilian hands.  That is important.

    I do agree that before Apollo they were an agency without a clear mission., but I do not think that we can dismiss what was achieved when specific goals were set before them.  

    NASA today is a complete mess.  Without JPL it would probably be a total loss.  It might be time to blow it all up and start over.  

    •  A good start would be letting it be optimistic. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      xgy2, radarlady

      Congress has turned it into a cynical pork trough that's not allowed to have a real mission or do anything.  Fortunately, it seems that a lot of the forward thinking behind SpaceX has been bleeding into NASA as the former moves farther along and their relationship deepens.  Maybe, just maybe, some of it might even bleed into Congress by osmosis.  The more money SpaceX makes, the more powerful its voice will be Washington, and sooner or later Musk might be in a position to dictate the US space program - and I'd be all for it.  Crown him the God-King of NASA and give him half the budget.  He's done more for humanity's efforts in space than decades of pork-barrel bullshit.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

      by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:30:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't get all this "commercial" space stuff (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JeffW, radarlady

        Was North American Aviation a government agency. ? What about Boeing?  So we buy his rockets. Who cares?  It's not exactly precedent setting.  NASA likes to pretend that they are an engineering organization, but most of what they do is project and contract management.  

        •  It's a matter of emphasis and structure. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          xgy2, radarlady

          Prime contractor companies work like this:

          NASA details exactly what they want - not just the outcome, but the means toward that outcome - and they carefully monitor as the prime contractor designs a system to achieve it.  At every step, they impose changes on the system dictated either by technical or political requirements (e.g., they need a certain subcontractor to be given business to please a Congressman).  The contractor gets paid "cost plus" - i.e., however much it ends up costing them to build the thing, they end up getting that plus a guaranteed profit percentage.  In other words, there's no reason whatsoever for them to cut costs.

          That contracting model works when you're on the bleeding edge creating entirely new capabilities out of thin air that have no remote possibility of being developed privately.  But once you've proven you can do something, you have to move on and start finding ways to cut costs and increase volume.  

          That's commercial space: Companies that invest their own money, and contract on a fixed-price basis, so NASA agrees to a specific amount of money in advance for an outcome, not a product, and doesn't have much to say about how it's accomplished beyond basic safety requirements.  If the company goes over budget, that's their problem - they'll still only get paid what they were promised.  That's the incentive to cut costs, and it apparently works when it's in the hands of an innovative company.  

          Companies like Boeing and Lockheed don't know what to do with commercial spaceflight, they're so accustomed to being coddled and getting paid handsomely to do everything the same they've always done it.  That's why SpaceX is leaping ahead of them so fast.  Those other companies haven't invested their own money in advancing the technology in decades.  They've just passively sat around suckling at the public teat and never caring whether anything happens because of it.

          In Roviet Union, money spends YOU!

          by Troubadour on Thu Nov 29, 2012 at 01:44:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Very nice summary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, radarlady

    Thanks for an excellent diary. I watched the debate on development of STS (official name for shuttle) from the inside as a NASA employee from 1978 to 1991 and you have it right. I was on the science side of the house and we always saw the shuttle as being there just because they had to keep manned spaceflight going until someone figured out what to do next. Nobody at NASA ever did. One thing can be said for the shuttle program, though: it did keep driving the technology development. In the end that may be NASA's greatest value.

  •  Can't really blame conservatism alone. (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives didn't kill the Space Exploration Initiative; a Democratic majority in Congress did.  The Clinton space policy consisted mainly of shepherding through the space station (simply because it was doable on the constrained budget) and EELV development.  VSE, for better or worse, was the first policy that articulated permanent settlement of something in space.  That is no longer policy under the current Administration; but the effort to build a real, competitive spacelift industry is probably even more important towards achieving the dream.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site