Obama Budget Cuts Space Exploration
I know the fact Obama want’s to cut the Constellation project came out a few days ago, however the spin is now in full swing. According to Fox News, some pundits thinks its OK:
“The race to the Moon is one the United States has already won,” says John M. Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute, professor at George Washington University, and a key NASA advisor. “The stated target for Russia to send people to the Moon is 2025 and for China there is no formal target, but 2030 is a reasonable estimate. The United States can, and probably will, be back to the moon before then. Much more likely is a global cooperative effort to explore space beyond low-Earth orbit.”
Another pundit, author Jeffery Manber is all over the map:
Manber disagrees, saying China will likely land on the moon before any other country, for exploration reasons and as a symbolic act. That country, he says, has 200,000 engineers in its space program and long-term goals for space. America, meanwhile, runs what Manber calls “sprints” that are more reactionary and tend to be more about proving our international prowess. Russian plans lie somewhere in between.
“The Russians are the leaders in low-Earth-orbit space today,” says Manber, explaining that the former Soviet Union continued to provide crew and cargo to the space station after the Challenger disaster. According to Manber, the Russians also have the best transportation infrastructure.
However, Manber applauds the Obama’s lack of a clear plan. Because, you know, we should privatize spaceflight:
It’s unclear from recent statements whether President Obama is entirely in favor of privatizing space exploration — a capitalistic approach that would not match up with other policies. However, he has stated that a visit to an asteroid could provide better scientific findings.
“I applaud the Obama administration’s policy,” says Manber, saying the proper next steps might be to go to an asteroid or beyond our own orbit. “We’ve been to the moon six times. If we go back, we should do it as Americans — meaning, in a private-sector way. South Korea’s space port and capsules are being designed by the Russians. This is a different time and a different era.” (emphasis added)
It will be a long time before the private sector develops heavy lift rockets able to reach beyond LEO (low earth orbit). With Obama’s active assault on the private sector economy, this effort might even take even longer.
It’s also interesting the article doesn’t mention Europe’s space program and their established heavy lift rocket, the Ariane 5
The Mojave Spaceport
The Mojave Spaceport is the hotbed for private space flight R&D in the United States.
They have the right attitude and spirit. Make sure you watch from the 2:30 min mark through 3:15.
So what exactly will the private sector space organizations focus on?
It should be fully possible for the “real” private sector to build safe and price competitive rockets to LEO. At around $30 million in production cost, the Soyuz is not a complicated rocket and has proved safer than the Shuttle for that reason. Boeing’s Atlas V launch vehicle is already there and 6 billion should cover the needed crew capsules more than well.
The trouble is that the private space companies simply want to make money on low orbit tourism. The idea is basically to let NASA focus on “game changing technologies” (heavy lift, propulsion) while, said Alexander, “we focus on LEO.”
The private space entrepreneurs hoped though that their efforts somehow would ignite a “new” space. “New privates will lower cost and drive new tech,” they agreed, comparing to computers and Google. “We need more exploration/dollar – right now the only access to space is by the government and only if you are the government,” they said. Adding, “we have no choice – it’s a matter of urgency – the rest of the world will not be standing still.”
I don’t think there is enough profit in space tourism to cover the costs. And imagine the press if there was accident on a tourist flight.
Launching satellites is where the money is.
Matt and I talked about this at Conservative Hideout the other day … I’m in favor of scraping NASA all together! How much wealth has been stolen for NASA over the years? What amazing things may have been invented with all that capital? We’ll never know, because those ideas were aborted in favor of the collective – NASA.
Space is mind-boggling … It’s interesting beyond what words can say … I just find it immoral to explore via the State.
http://conservativehideout.com/wordpress/2010/02/01/obamas-new-nasa-policy-yet-more-broken-promises-and-lies/
From what I have read, the Ares system is OK, and was in testing. Like any system, bugs will heave to be worked out. If that might be privatized, they may get somewhere.
I had a knee jerk reaction to the budget cut, however, all of the systems used by NASA were built by the private sector anyway. The sticking point will be funding.
@theCL: TheCL: NASA should perform space flight research i.e. new propulsion, technologies, heavy lift rocketry and science (not global warming nonsense). NASA really doesn’t belong in project development and delivery of commercial satellites into LEO. This is why they are having trouble and lacking focus.
I’ve been fascinated by space flight since I was a little kid.
@Matt: Matt, I’ve read the same thing about the Ares rocket. And you have a great point that the Aerospace contractors that are building the equipment are private sector companies anyway. The problem is I think that Obama doesn’t want to fund the mission to the moon or flight to LEO where the ISS.
For such a great communicator, Obama isn’t really clear.
The government has no resources of its own. For it to do anything, it must first take the resources of productive people via the barrel of a gun. So if space exploration isn’t viable outside of this “forced” funding, then it’s a waste of money period.