NASA Budget Reaction

1. 44th Anniversary of the Moon Landing…..

2. The GOP insists that if any money is added to the budget, half will go to SLS/Orion, one third to ISS, and only one sixth to commercial programs. Despite being starved for funds, NASA is forced to spend most of it on a program with old technology and no affordable mission.

3. SLS/ Orion takes a lot of trash talk here and elsewhere, and I’d tend to agree with the sense of the criticism. But then I tend to read news and sites that conform to my own prejudices (like many, I suppose).

   There are always two sides to the story. I’d sure like to hear the rationale for the SLS from proponents in clear talk. surely there is a sense that it is doing something other than creating jobs? How are the arguments that it is way too expensive countered, for example? What is said about the point that it really has no mission?

   1. SLS is the equivalent of paying for a ride in a limo to the cinema only to realize you have spend all your money on that dam limo and can’t get in to the cinema!
      No seriously if you spend all your money on a rocket and capsule what can you do whit it?= pointless flyby’s

   2. I’d sure love to hear answers to those questions myself, because the justification totally eludes me. All I hear is “we must return Americans to space” and “we must get back into space exploration” (Apparently “space exploration” can only be conducted by manned missions?)

      But it shouldn’t be surprising that we’re in this situation. SLS isn’t something that NASA said it needed, or that the President said he wanted, or that the science community called for, it’s the result of a very messy compromise between the people who brought us the Constellation program and the Obama administration. Instead of choosing to either truly pursue BEO HSF exploration missions or not, we ended up halfway in between. Building the same basic vehicles that Constellation called for, but not building any of the mission hardware required to go anywhere.

      By the time the current administration came in, there was already too much investment, too many people involved, too many Congressmen with political capital riding on it to allow it to simply stop. So it morphed into a program that keeps the jobs intact and the money flowing to the right NASA centers in the right districts (AL, TX, FL, etc)

      If SLS supporters actually think SLS is being built to be used, then they should be able to identify a destination and the mission plans (which should already be underway) for getting there. Is it the moon? Orion can’t get you to the moon, all it can do is fly you around it. Where’s the lander? Is it Mars? Same problem.

      Interestingly, when a mission proposal did come up that could work with Orion (Asteroid intercept) the House rejected it so aggressively as to write into an authorization bill “You can use this money for space, as long as you don’t use it to do an asteroid mission.” So apparently there’s both no interest in Congress for finding an SLS/Orion mission, and active opposition to a mission that wasn’t their idea, or one that wouldn’t give jobs to the right districts.

   3. IMHO, the strongest argument for SLS is that is preserves options if the US suddenly gets serious about settling Mars.

      For example, suppose come 2025 a new China-US space race heats up for Mars, and the President and Congress are suddenly willing to open the wallet for HSF. An already developed Super Heavy Launch Vehicle would make a Mars Direct (or Semi-Direct) plan much more feasible in a much shorter period of time.

      I think Zubrin’s book “The Case for Mars” provides a strong argument. (Note: I see it was revised in 2011; I haven’t read the new one)

      1. So your saying that SLS/Orion makes sense like the way someone will go buy a way huger house and cars and stuff than they can afford, because maybe that rich uncle will leave them a humongous inheritance sometime in the future? This is our national strategy for bringing space more and more into our economic sphere huh?

         1. SLS/Orion isn’t about bringing space into our economic sphere, or drawing in non-government money, or anything like that. And Zubrin’s model is pretty much a government-only endeavor, and I suspect it would be cancelled, like Apollo, after just a few missions (I’d guess no more than four). SLS/Orion is a very government-centric affair.

            I’m just saying a Mars Direct (or Semi-Direct) program is the strongest argument for SLS/Orion. (At least outside the argument about buying elections through government-furnished jobs).

            It is 1960s-1970s era thinking.

   4. I find myself asking that question of people inside SLS / Orion, or some way charging to it. Putting aside the one’s who see the program as unlikely to succeed (it will be canceled, or not fly often, then be replaced, etc.) most of the defenses I get on the program fall into two flavors.

      Flavor one is to say that other approaches will not succeed (commercial strategies, depots, SpaceX gets mentioned, what a handout, etc.) That even if SLS/Orion fails, properly funded, it would be the only serious chance to do space exploration anyway, and if it does fail, it will be because the country or national leadership in general was not serious about space, or did not understand the difficulty. Tyson and inspirational music chime in here. A little bit of Gregory Peck and a speech about how they’ll be ready when this country gets serious about rebuilding it’s cable infrastructure also comes to my mind as I listen to this angle.

      Flavor two says SLS/Orion just needs more money, is again the only serious program for space exploration, and the problem is specifically the White House leadership. This will be resolved once new leadership arrives (usually meaning a republican).

      There was a 3rd flavor iI listened to once as well, sort of a variant on one and two. That no matter the costs, or even the time, the outcome will be worthwhile. That all this budget crap, well, “this too will pass”. This person was a true believer. I listened respectfully…

      I am reminded of certain phenom like cognitive dissonance, grieving (denial, negotiation, etc.) and that numbers and logic will not apply here.

   5. Lots of thoughtful attempts to answer the questions that I posed. Attempts by thoughtful and informed people No actual answer, though, likely because there is no rational answer [or, one supposes, those with the answers aren’t here because they don’t like Keith 🙂 !]

      More broadly, though: the denizens at NASAWatch follow space flight fairly closely. I know I do. So, by and large the criticism I read here is fact-based. So I wonder: what about the rest of the work the government is supposed to do? The tasks that I’m not qualified to judge? Is the monumental lack of direction in space exploration and in science emblematic of every damn federal program? Is the NASA screw-up what is happening everywhere?

      Here’s something terrifying: We live in a time when obstructionism is actually seen as a positive thing– just watch Bob Scheifer’s interview with the Speaker of the House on Sunday. No matter where you sit with respect to President Obama, does it serve the country to simply oppose anything because the Administration proposed it, or supports it? No. I didn’t like President Bush. I loved his Africa Aids program.

      Yet obstructionism is the policy of the House, and of the Senate, where the Minority Leader famously and publicly advised the country in 2008 that his chief goal was assuring a one term presidency. The recent scuffle over approving second-tier appointments in the administration was elevated to ‘nuclear war’? Really?

      It’s lunacy. I served as President of my synagogue for a few terms. When I was ready to turn over the reins, the new guy came in, immediately changed all of the software I’d installed, fired people, and made a mess. He never made an attempt to sit with me for transition. Why? Because there are folks in the world who simply feel they can do a better job, no matter what. It’s stunningly partisan. And what does it get us?

      Nothing, nothing in a democracy where no single person is ever a dictator. No matter the leadership, at some point we rally around, don’t we, shouldn’t we, for the good of the country? Shouldn’t we find a way to respect each other and hammer out solutions?

      Sorry. Maybe the wrong place for this harangue. I’m just so pissed off and demoralized. We are a stunningly, exceptionally rich country. And you know why we can’t have nice things? Things like modern airports, a rail system, health care, college or other training? We could afford all of it and lower taxes at the same time. But just look at the fucking budget. We can’t stay out of other people’s business. We think we need to send rockets and drones to blow people up when building a road or a well or a school would buy undying love for the US anywhere in the world. And god forbid the government should make a risky investment in some alternative energy source that might fail, trying to move the country off oil. Because free enterprise!

      And people are still without jobs. The wealth of the country is draining into the hands of the very few. Worship at the Altar of the Church of Corporate Citizenship is at an all time high. Folks continue voting against their own self-interest.

      Nothing will happen while the House is loaded with very safe, very, very conservative seats. What you see now will likely prevail for at least a decade.

      Ugh. I wish I were smarter.

      [Sorry, everyone. And, why yes, I do feel better…]

      1. The obstructionism in Congress is probably one of the most irritating things. What was it McConnell said? The top priority of Senate Republicans was to make Obama a one-term president? Really? Not improving infrastructure, education, better regulations on the financial industry to keep it from imploding again, more sensible defense spending, better natural resource management, etc, etc, etc…

         Until this acute “if the other side supports it, we oppose it” attitude is addressed, it’s just a fantasy to expect meaningful change in NASA or anywhere else in the federal government.

4. Of course the SLS is primarily, or almost exclusively, a make-work jobs program. But what’s the alternative? Orange jumpsuits picking up garbage on the interstate? Even if the sum product of their work gets dumped into the sea, at least its not mindlessly dumping billions overseas to countries that hate us. It will keep the “big rocket with no where to go people” busy until the next election — and don’t forget all that matters in Washington is re-election.

   1. The alternative to SLS is a system that’s actually sustainable, a system specified by engineers and scientists, not congresspeople

5. It’s not like they’re going to pass a budget anyways. It’s the Soviet Space Program from the mid 60’s all over again, grandiose and conflicting proclamations but no money to actually do anything

Comments are closed.