Lori Garver Takes Issue With Current Space Policies
Former NASA official: NASA must shed “socialist” approach to space exploration, Ars Technica
“NASA was a very symbol of capitalist ideals when we went to the Moon and beat the Russians,” [Lori Garver] said. “Now what we’re working with is more of a socialist plan for space exploration, which is just anathema to what this country should be doing. Don’t try to compete with the private sector. Incentivize them by driving technologies that will be necessary for us as we explore further.”
Keith’s note: I have to admit I continue to be perplexed as to how Democrats (I am one BTW) – starting with the White House, you know, the party that does not really have problems with large government programs, is the prime mover behind commercial space efforts at NASA these days whereas the Republicans, the party that has always supported smaller government and more private sector activities, has been the prime force opposing NASA space commerce efforts and supporting – indeed mandating – a large, government-built rocket. Just sayin’.
I agree 100%. They are Stalinist big government programs supporters. Socialists above the Karman line!
NASA can buy everything they need from the Nation’s pool of aerospace companies and entrepreneurial spirit of America. I say this a lot for a reason.
Space is a PLACE not a PROGRAM.
Lori Garver is a general manager of Airline Pilots Association. Maybe she should have expressed her opinions more clearly, and acted on them, while still holding a NASA job ?
Maybe if you had a senior government job – one given you directly by the President – so as to implement the President’s policy – you’d understand what the job entails. Just sayin’
By that I read that few people have the guts to tell their boss that their current policy is flawed for fear of losing their job.
This has nothing to do with “guts”. Only people who have no experience with how the government works – especially when it comes to political employees – say things like this. These jobs are policy-oriented at the onset. Everyone taking these jobs knows exactly what is expected of them and what is not. If they do not like these conditions then they do not take the job in the first place. If they disagree with them as time goes on, they resign.
And resign is precisely what Lori did, more power to her.
‘ Republicans, the party that has always supported smaller government and more private sector activities, has been the prime force opposing NASA space commerce efforts and supporting – indeed mandating – a large, government-built rocket. Just sayin’.’
As an Independent who has mostly voted Republican for exactly those reasons, I have found over the years that many of them (and Dems also) are lying, two-faced weasels. Money talks and power corrupts.
It involves a lot of politics and very little else, similar to high level corporate jobs. Garver may or may not have the necessary political skills, but her short stint in the position speaks against it.
Actually it is the other way around. But I have known her for 20 years so I guess I am biased.
Do some research. Ms. Garver is incredibly qualified. We were fortunate she served NASA.
Please elaborate on why you think so. There are many people who hold a different opinion. I would like to hear your side of the story.
It isn’t clear to me that senior government official’s jobs are to implement the President’s policies. That’s part of the job, but shouldn’t it also include.providing advice to help formulate good policies?
It is, indeed. But you don’t see that part of the job at press conferences and public speaking engagements. It happens behind closed doors. Once a policy is decided, the official’s job is to promote and support it in public.
Fine, but what is the most effective way to publicly promote these policies? I don’t think it involves the all-smiles, chearleader-style behavior you seem to expect. No one is going to believe everyone behind those closed doors was in total agreement. So the public statements tend to be ignored. Even when believed, it raises more doubts, since it implies alternatives where not seriously considered.
Honestly saying that all sorts of.options were considered and debated, that there wasn’t a universal consensus, and that the boss had to make the final call, would (in my opinion) work better. It would.be more.credible and would set the stage for saying, “So, even if it isn’t the choice I would have made, it isn’t a bad one. Now it’s time to stop arguing, get to work and get things done.” That’s an effective and important message to get across.
In the case of NASA at least I would agree with you. Given that NASA is basically N.A.C.A. renamed and expanded, it is instructive to consider what the second ‘A’ originally stood for – namely, ‘Advisory’. It is a fundamental job of NASA to advise the government on aerospace policy. Presumably this is also true for other government agencies, but certainly as regards NASA you are exactly correct – NASA officials have the prerogative and the responsibility for using their technical expertise to advise the elected authorities about the policies within their purview, as opposed to being merely implementers.
hrm, not to sound “too cynical”, but how well does your boss take advice? Bosses in general? Didn’t Ms. Garver resign? Is it “too cynical” to infer something from her resignation?
–Keith’s note: I have to admit I continue to be perplexed as to how Democrats (I am one BTW) ..–
I think it’s mostly because you are a Dem, that’s causing the confusion.
Whether one is Dem or Rep, one will have biases regarding Dem or Reps. It the same as being a Steelers fan or Cubs fan.
One could say that the beginning of COTS was related to end of the Shuttle program or probably would not have COTS we got today were the Shuttle to be continuing to fly beyond 2020. And it would a good guess that COTS could have began earlier, if not for the existence of the Shuttle Program.
One could say the decision of ending the Shuttle program rather waiting longer to make such decision, allowed COTS to develop- though one could also say the COTS program should begun earlier so there wasn’t such a large gap with US capability of sending crew to ISS.
One could say the President Bush delayed too long in decision to end the Shuttle Program- or one might say this if you were a supporter of Dems, but if you were not a fan of the Dems one could also see that it was possible for President Bush to delay committing to ending the Shuttle Program.
Trust me – I am not the only person here in Washington D, R – or I – that sees this strange political configuration. It was not always aligned this way.
I am not saying you are the only person. In fact it seems possible to me that it’s the view of the majority- which in terms of what can loosely considered to said to be true, and it were it indeed a view of the majority, it could be said to be transformed into some kind of “practical political truth”.
Instead what I was commenting on, was in regards to what you said about being perplexed.
Lots of us are perplexed because the axis of the usual D Vs R political spectrum has been rotated in a strange way that is atypical of how it used to be – a rotation that puts people at odds with their party’s avowed basic principles.
Simple: hometown pork barrel politics trumps principles.
When the South was dominated by Democrats the pattern made sense. The realignment that happened over time meant that Republicans instead of Democrats represented Alabama — but whether you are a D/R you still gotta look out for Huntsville.
Move MSC to Vermont and Stennis to Oregon and you’d see a massive flip-flop overnight.
Yeah, in terms of NASA there is not much difference between Dems and Reps, and even though Obama said he going take budget money from NASA to give something very lame, he didn’t. One could say that Obama said what he said, because he was a newbie.
And in term of Dem and Rep presidential choices, the biggest different is the Dem don’t really have a choice. They going to get Clinton unless for some reason she is physically incapable of being elected [dies, very, very, ill, or is imprisoned]
What are the important difference between Dem and Rep avowed principles?
A while on subject can you explain why Bernie Sanders who member of socialist party- which is pretty clear about it’s avowed principles, is Dem primary candidate?
To quote the socialist party:
THE SOCIALIST PARTY
strives to establish a radical democracy that places people’s lives under their own control — a non-racist, classless, feminist, socialist
society in which people cooperate at work, at home, and in the community.
Socialism is not mere government ownership, a welfare state, or a repressive
bureaucracy. Socialism is a new social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production and community residents control
their neighborhoods, homes, and schools. The production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a
few. Socialism produces a constantly renewed future by not plundering the resources of the earth.”
http://www.socialistparty-u…
What seems to have shifted is Dem have become more hard Lefties.
And Rep have always had guys like
Rand Paul, and even Trump who ahead at the moment, isn’t really that odd for Rep [hard to tell much difference of Trump’s “principles” and Dems- other than Trump says what he thinks, rather just repeating the Dem talking points.
But in terms being like a Dem [Trump wanting Universal Health Care and etc] and being a loose cannon, Trump is not much different than say Teddy Roosevelt .
If you think that the Democratic Party has shifted leftwards, I respectfully suggest you do more reading.
The entire country has been pushed to the right- very far, in some instances- so far that wing nuts like Mr. Trump can suggest registering muslims with no ensuing outrage. Is that who we are? Really?
I would also point out that during this rightward shift corporate interests have continually pushed wages down. Those of us old enough recall good jobs- dad worked, mom stayed home, there’s a car in the garage, and a good retirement. Young people have no idea what has happened. The country is teetering because millions of families are suffering with both parents working and still not paying bills.
The right has also co-opted working people, preaching the Church of Free Enterprise, telling them that price and money are the chief decision makers and can alone create an equitable society. It’s not true and has been proven not true.
Income inequality is severe. Unions- the only way that working people have a chance against Walmart and similar companies making huge profits while employees suffer and are eligible in some instances for food stamps- unions have been disparaged for excesses whole ignoring the huge positive contributions they made to working people.
So don’t start pissing around with filtered history. I’ve lived long enough to see it play out. And I will leave it wit this: the primary function of government in the economic arena is the creation and maintenance of a level playing field.
–If you think that the Democratic Party has shifted leftwards, I respectfully suggest you do more reading.–
It’s well known. Ask a Dem politician- a conservative one, if you can still find one.
–The entire country has been pushed to the right- very far, in some
instances- so far that wing nuts like Mr. Trump can suggest registering
muslims with no ensuing outrage. Is that who we are? Really?–
Many rep conservative have questioned whether Trump is actually a Republican, and are puzzled why he appears to have large amount of conservative base who are supporting him. Some think it’s due to frustration with republican establishment leadership who appear to not passing laws [Rep control Congress] that they were elected into office to get passed. That reason outsiders like Trump and Carson are popular- while Governors are dropping out of the race and Jeb Bush is going nowhere.
And other think, they are tired of the “political correct” republican politicians who cowered by enormous amount MSM idiocy.
But anyhow, I am not a republican, but it seems to me that Trump is actually Republican- despite him favoring things like universal health care and other socialist ideas.
Or if Trump is not republican, then nor is Jeb Bush or George Bush- but obviously Trump is an outsider.
I have long considered that if randomly picked someone from a phone book, he/she would do as well as most US presidents have done. Though Obama is sort of like randomly picking from a Lefty phone book- or phone book of community organizers. But most American are not so idiotic and incompetent, so I still believe a random American has fair chance doing better job as President- certainly better than Obama.
At least their speeches should be better.
But Republicans tend to elect people who have had experience in government and particular experience as a State governor rather someone from Congress. And it’s quite possible as race becomes more serious, the republicans will choose someone with experience and knowledge of governing.
— I would also point out that during this rightward shift corporate interests have continually pushed wages down. Those of us old enough recall good jobs- dad worked, mom stayed home, there’s a car in the garage, and a good retirement. Young people have no idea what has happened. The country is teetering because millions of families are suffering with both parents working and still not paying bills.–
Well we still have not recovered from the “Great Recession”- not that anyone of MSM would tell you that. Americans elect a guy who said he would stop rising sea level and the Fed has yet to raise interest rates- and world is going to Hell. When you President who says and believes the US should not lead the world, this is the stuff you get.
Another thing, you might think shifting leftwards,
is the same as social improvement. [Huuge mistake:)]
And I would agree that not only have Dem politicians demonstrate any social improvement,
[and regressive is more apt] the entire world has not had any significant advancement in terms of social improvement.
Rather the vast improvement which is obvious over the decades or century is technological and economical- which the US and world as made a lot progress. Which the result of free people and free markets.
Well, given that Mr. Trump changes partisan and ideological allegiances more often than he change toupees, I’m not sure what consequence he serves as an example of political alignments.
–So don’t start [DELETED] around with filtered history. I’ve lived long
enough to see it play out. And I will leave it wit this: the primary
function of government in the economic arena is the creation and
maintenance of a level playing field.–
The primary function of government is to govern.
No government has ever created, never mind, maintained a level playing field. Or there was not a more level playing field a few decades ago, as compared to now, nor will there be a more level playing field in the future.
One can have various bias to what you mean in regard to level playing field. One could say there has been growing wealth, globally and one could say billions of more people in the world have more opportunity- the governments [other than maintaining governance] have not been drivers which brought about this kind of a more level playing field.
Now, the citizen of the US may have desired that US government cause a more level playing field, thereby causing the role of governing to be this effort, but this has never worked nor could a government actually do this [and never has done this].
What has created a level playing field has been technological advancement- but again, it matters what you mean by playing field. For instance the internet could be said to cause a more level playing field. And one could say the policy of commercial institutions which are too big to fail has NOT be something which causes a level playing field [though such views are not new].
I think some of your perplexity might be explained by the fact that both Democrats and establishment Republicans strongly favor Big Government programs, and for similar reasons. Such programs funnel money to big donors.
Ask yourself how happy Big Boosters, Inc is when companies run by people like Musk, or even Musk himself, seek or get launch contracts.
Big Space is Big Business, and rhetoric apart, both sides of the Washington establishment are hell-bent on keeping it that way.
No. Read what I wrote. The biggest supporters of NASA commercial space are democrats. The biggest opponents are Republicans.
Well, this depends on just which “Republicans” you mean. If you mean those elected in 2012 on a shrink-Washington agenda and the growing majority of the country, then not so. If you mean the likes of what I have come to think of as the Permanent Governing Class-Left and “Right” Wing, then yes, they do like Big Space because they can “take care of their friends” in the aerospace industry.
I’m not opposed to government having a strong role in developing space because, frankly, I want people to go beyond low Earth orbit, and I don’t think that’s going to happen within my lifetime without Big Government making it happen.
What I don’t like — viscerally don’t like, tar and feathers don’t like — is anything that smacks of cronies in government taking care of their cronies in business. That calls for torches and pitchforks.
Sen. Shelby R-AL for one – he’s been there much longer than 2012.
He was also a Dem before 1994.
A Boll weevil democrat, a name given to conservative southern democrats that were always voting against democrats legislation.
And he switched parties when the Clinton White House punished Alabama for a stance Shelby took by moving some shuttle work from MSFC to Michoud.
It’s a bit complicated – at least as far as reps. Perhaps you refer to stakeholders in general?
I’d think of it this way – who would take money from cost-plus/FAR-driven pork-ish SLS/Orion, seeing that as ultimately unproductive and wasteful, to fulfill a similar purpose (launch, spacecraft, etc.) using a commercial partnerships model like ISS cargo? (Usually this is with the idea that money is left over to boot, for still more spacecraft, or to have exploration achievements sooner, within the same budget total.) Here you’d find the democratic white house. But you’d find a republican like Rohrabacher (CA) too.
Alternately, a republican senator, Shelby, assures Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters and Motors (UT), Shuttle’s Michoud Assembly Facility (LA), and Shuttle’s engines (CA) continue and get funds – as SLS – but only since these funds run through Huntsville first, with Marshall, in firm control. Another republican senator, Cruz, (but Cornyn too, before) seem to favor the same Shuttle model, with Orion preserving intact the old Shuttle Orbiter jobs in Houston.
Albeit, SpaceX setting up shop in Brownsville TX may complicate the black and white view there over time. A feedback loop to JSC constituents would probably have meants reps defending Orion under any politics, much as a Democrat (Nelson) defends SLS because of KSC (FL).
Read what I wrote. The democrat supported programs you are referring to are not supporting commercial space flight. The perceived irony here is merely that – a matter of perception, nothing more.
““The NASA people would say, ‘Come on Lori, you’ve got to talk to Elon because we got out of low-Earth orbit. We’re giving him that, but you’ve got to get him out of… long-term, deep space, because that’s ours,’” Garver recalled. “I thought, fundamentally, you just don’t understand. We’re not in a race in a swimming pool where everyone is racing against one another. We’re in a cycling race where the government is riding point and the others are drafting behind us, and if someone comes alongside us and can pass us because they’ve found a better way, we don’t get out our tire pump and stick it between their spokes.””
http://arstechnica.com/scie…
That stuck out for me too. If true, that’s a rather troubling reaction from NASA.
oh dear! The lady can think!
Unless NASA actually builds everything by itself instead of giving sweetheart contracts to the usual suspects aka the military-industrial complex, I wouldn’t call the approach socialist. China is moving fast in its space program with no private participation, and that’s socialist. I think people should stop pointing fingers at each other and throwing tags.
“This has placed NASA in an uncomfortable position. Should it compete
with the private sector? Can it compete with the private sector? For
Lori Garver, who spent four years as NASA’s deputy administrator from
2009 to 2013, there’s an easy answer: No.”
Obviously, the answer is no. In fact a government can never compete with the private sector. One does not even have consider that the people do not want the US government competing against the private sector. A KIng doesn’t compete in the private sector- ever. Though a King can pretend to be doing this.
A referee in a ball game also is not on a team and can win the game.
A referee is not a player, and no one want the ref to be a player or take one side or the other.
So when a women says, no. One should give that answer the degree of consideration it should have. And not rape her.
NASA should do as it did in the NACA days and focus its prime mission on making the private sector space more competitive in global markets. But then the focus of the NACA since it was created was to build a strong private aerospace industry for both the nation’s military and economic security. It wasn’t distracted or handicapped by any science goals in those days.
I think that is basically what the problem is at NASA, the hostility many scientists have to free market capitalism in space where they don’t want to see any Celestial Body “desecrated” by it.
Am I alone in that I was scratching my head wondering what she was even talking about? Maybe working under SMD I’m less inclined to even think about space in those terms.
You answered your own question 😉
Calling NASA “a symbol of capitalism” is wrong by principle. This is not how attribution by association works.
Besides that, what Garver described is not socialism, but crony capitalism. The problems are legit, but attributing it to the former is bringing a false generalization to socialism (and by the extend the principle NASA is founded on) and not really helping beside appealing to jingoism.
In it’s Apollo days the phrase -“a symbol of capitalism” would have been right. Not that NASA employed such a financial structure, or private capital, or the type of competition the word brings to mind, but rather that the success of landing a man on the Moon ahead of the Soviets showed the superior system-one of capitalism. Geo-politically, the primary purpose of NASA was to show what a capitalist system could do.
Bringing the wording of “capitalism” to today, with the realization spreading that money will never come around again from the government on a scale to permit space exploration of any significance, she’s referring to the need for partnerships and a commercial model in NASA’s exploration strategy.
And she makes her statements using her own name and you do not. I give her the benefit of the doubt.
That’s a red herring argument. You and Ms. Garver are in positions in which you are free to make statements on this subject which can be publicly affiliated with your names. Many people are not in such a position, yet still have interesting things to say, so must either remain silent or post anonymously.
But then, that is exactly the entire reason NASAWatch ever gained a significant following in the first place and it’s pretty obvious that you deliberately cultivated it to be so. We all know that the main reason this site became popular was its reputation as a source of insider information that was not deemed politically acceptable for association with official channels. Anonymity is the defining feature of such a game. It’s more than a tad ironic for you to infer a negative connotation of anonymous posting here. Of course, being your site, you are free to disallow anonymous posting if you wish, but it’s pretty obvious NASAWatch would then wither & die.
My name is very unique too. I use it all the time.
You use it all the time on your own blog. There are huge differences between online commenters (which a person cannot actually be if they’re the site moderator) and public figures and site owners. Particularly when said site owners and public figures rely on making a name for themselves.
Huh? Your first sentence makes no sense whatsoever. I am the moderator and I am commenting using my real name. Why don’t you use your real name? I have been doing so online for more than 20 years.
So what if your opinions disagree with your employer’s? Didn’t someone recently post that was a good way to get fired?
I was listening to the John Batchelor show the other day. He is supposedly a Republican talk show host. He had a segment on how the recent space commerce bill would allow asteroid mining. He made it a running gag to refer to those wanting to mine resources in space as “space pirates”. It makes you wonder…
Really, how could any Republican be against making money from private ventures in space?
You’ve obviously spent so much time in the micro-humor environment that is the groves of academe that you’ve acquired a near total case of osteoporosis of the funny bone. Batchelor is not “against making money from private ventures in space,” he is simply being ironic and mocking a leftist trope.
Why the strange pattern? Because in an old-fashioned way, Congressional preferences on space policy are driven by geography not ideology.
AL, MS, TX are strongly GOP dominated, FL (and OH) slightly less so but still mostly Republican.
“new space” doesn’t have geographic roots that are quite so deep yet, but to the extent it does it’s particularly strong in CA and WA, strongly Democratic states now.
And I too have to admit I continue to be perplexed as to how Republicans (I am one BTW) – are the prime movers behind BIG government space efforts at NASA. I guess where you stand depends on where you sit. And Shelby sits in Huntsville, AL.
It’s a new day for sure. witness the drug deal Republicans did a few years ago, including a provision that the government couldn’t ask for cheaper prices. And ObamaCare, too, could have been hugely less costly, but the Republicans insisted paying private insurance companies.
It’s very simple. Today’s Republicans believe in laissez-faire capitalism for individuals and socialism for corporations.
I’m not too surprised, but then I never put much stock in either parties dedication to their supposed ideological principles. I think that pure electoral pragmatism comes first, and the purported ideology is an afterthought in order to explain their actions in less cynical terms. If interests dictate that they violate a principal, they can usually slip it under the radar, or redefine the meaning of that principal or, as a last resort, change their position (this usually occurs over a longer time frame).
Not to say that the parties are indistinguishable, or that politics isn’t worth engaging in, just that we shouldn’t give much credence to how they characterize themselves and should pay more attention to what they actually do.
/rant
You say it like it’s a bad thing. Read Jonathan’s excellent discussion of the benefits of pork politics above. (I would add that even in worst years pork costs never amounted to a hill of beans- all the while providing the country with bridges, libraries, etc. and at the same time fostering agreement, as J pointed out).
many of the comments are about Commercial vs. Government run space systems. Don’t be fooled, the fact is that the “commercial” Human space flight being touted is just another GOVERNMENT program. Commercial is where the Commercial entity puts up there own money, All these companies are on the Government dole. The only difference is the method by which money is transferred from Gov to Company.
oh dear. Seriously? You really think SpaceX is on the ‘dole’? Many have taken on this assertion and done a better job than I can do, notably Yale.
Yep, SpaceX is ‘on the dole’ just exactly the same as every other government contractor. Only the naive can’t see that.
Look up what “commercial” is then, versus “cost-plus and FAR”. SpaceX is not on the “dole” in any reasonable definition sense of the term. For a good definition of what is more vs. less commercial, see the figure at:
http://www.nasa.gov/offices…
SpaceX = Boeing = Lockeed ≠ Blue Origin. If you can’t discern the difference you never will.
For those of you that are easily confused and unable to discern the difference between Commercial vs. Gov contractor (by any definition), checkout the headlines on Blue Origin’s recent “commercial” accomplishments.
You may want to quibble with the naming but the two paths for the government program have discernible differences and we are debating whether one path should be taken over the other.
Quibbling about naming ignores the root of the matter of which of the two paths should be pursued. I only reply because in the past others have also quibbled with the name but their intention was to obfuscate and detract from the very discussion and paper over the discernible advantages one path has over the legacy contractor graft program they favour. Saying that what we call the commercial path should be named differently doesn’t negate that it is a different means than the current plan and an alternative to it with its own positive qualities and it is for its legitimate differences and advantages that it has its proponents.
Finally, a ‘new’space fan who can at least understand that there is no difference of political ideology here, merely a matter of debate on the most efficient forms of government contracting.
So, let’s have that debate. I’d like to hear your arguments for why the COTS / CCDev style of government contracting is superior.
In the interests of giving you a contrary position to argue against, I’ll start off with this point in defense of the more traditional styles of government contracting – SpaceX’s stuff blows up; ULA’s does not. What value do you place on reliability?
In the context of what to do for NASA’s exploration program, ULA and SpaceX are the same thing: domestic commercial launch firms available to compete for NASA’s launch services. Going with SLS was also locking out and rejecting the experience and reliability of ULA, so it wasn’t a risky vs not risky move. Given the timeframes involved SpaceX would have well opportunity to prove and improve their own experience and reliability in their other endeavours before substantive usage so that was an overblown rational with them too.
Space launch has a high bar for success so SpaceX has every incentive to work to get it right else their business will fail versus their competitors, and the industry as a whole offers greater depth than just one firm. If one doesn’t measure up another steps in and takes the mantle.
As to favouring cost vs dependability it is a fair but subjective trade. I like to use the space science side of NASA’s relationship with launch as a model for which the exploration side could be doing, and they have a gradated scale that demands proven reliability for extra valuable payloads as an example. Incidentally, these are the type of standards that have been bypassed for SLS preferential treatment as it is also a new unproven system. So you could have some launch procurement where you favour one over the other, and the commercial launch paradigm for exploration inherently offered you that selective choice.
The COTS/Commercial Crew programs were at bit different in that it was a spacecraft deal where the providers picked the LV with their submission. It also offered some choice in its submissions with respect to cost and experience and at least the competitors got to pitch on a more level and more open playing field. I am less an interested party in the nature of COTS type procurement than I am a critic of SLS and Orion as the basis for exploration versus the commercial launch alternatives and programs based around them.
Contracting on the space science and ISS and military side is already like what I would favour for the exploration program. SLS and Orion are exceptional abominations unto themselves and I’m only talking in reference to them.
SpaceX had a rocket blow up, but my bar isn’t perfection and there can be roadbumps along the way. It doesn’t invalidate the ongoing programs they’re involved in or their possible inclusion in more than that. What to do is to pick up and move on, learn from the experience and try to improve, which is what is happening.
Personally I could stand greater risk, although that is nebulous whatever it would be, but what I am arguing for has a level of reliability great on its own above that and the selective option of catering to that more. In the SLS and Orion discussion, hiding behind risk is just a canard du jour for the other side.
That’s rather depressing if she’s telling the truth about NASA’s reaction to Musk announcing the Falcon Heavy. Reminds me of how NASA kept trying to pour cold water on Dennis Tito’s attempt to buy a set into space years ago.
Oh well, they don’t seem to be trying to sabotage it now, so that’s good.
Hmm. Look a bit closer at the military: you will find huge sections privatized and at alarming costs.
“…when a Democrat is in the White House.”
When a Republican is in the White House, such demands for fiscal constraint seem to vanish like smoke. This goes back to at least Nixon.
“…at the tax payer’s expense.”
Republicans seem to love “privatising” government spending. Same or greater cost to the tax payers, but channelled to private companies. Whether PMCs taking over military functions, defending NASA’s primary contractors against competition, or making “privatising social security” an election Shibboleth.
For a few decades, there’s been nothing inconsistent between the Republican actions on space policy and the Republican actions (not words) on government spending. The only oddity is why people still actually believe the words.
It’s a more geographic issue than political. It just so happens that the areas involved in SLS at this point, namely Alabama, are red states. If Alabama was blue, the democratic version of Shelby could very well big a big lover of DC Pork too.
Nelson, a Democrat, played a primary role in the birth of SLS.
To be fair to Ms. Garver, Keith is right that as a Presidential appointee she had to toe the line and not state her true feelings. No one should blame her for that.
I do, however, think that a number of Ms. Garver’s statements since she left that job and her overall view of the space program are flawed and misleading.
Going on MSNBC claiming that it would cost $500 Billion to land a human on Mars with NASA’s current program was at best misleading and at worst a lie. Current cost estimates are around $280 Billion for three Mars missions (2 surface, one to Phobos) (and that is assuming 0% private involvement).
Ms. Garver’s vision for NASA will result in it being a LEO bound space agency that focuses on space tourism with humans rather than exploring space. If Ms. Garver’s vision is implemented we will lose a BEO capability that has taken 40 years to get to and will replace it with a “hope and pray” strategy. I don’t think that is the right call.
-Joe Denison
Please tell me where the official NASA cost for sending humans to Mars is posted – by NASA.
I believe I got that specific number from discussions about NASA’s Evolvable Mars Campaign and how they estimating the cost over at NSF.
The JPL mission architecture released earlier this year would cost even less according to their estimates.
Lori just pulled the number from SEI out of her hat and let it fly without regard for any cost analysis.
“Ms. Garver’s vision for NASA will result in it being a LEO bound space agency that focuses on space tourism with humans rather than exploring space.”
Slander. This same argument tack was used to try and condemn the switch from the Ares 1 program to the Commercial Crew program. It is flatly false and disingenuous.
NASA competing development funds to create commercial vehicles and buying rides to ISS had nothing to do with tourism. It was about enabling and servicing NASA’s transport needs for its own astronauts to its research station. The people boarding ISS will be astronauts, not tourists. Incidentally helping the space tourism business case is only a positive byproduct. More significantly helping the expansion of commercial space industry is a laudable goal to include alongside the achievement of NASA program aims considering that NASA is a civil agency responsible for helping the development of that sector, but it was not the primary objective being pursued.
If NASA was engaging with commercial firms in a similar manner for a BEO program it would be about putting NASA astronauts BEO and realizing exploration program aims. The people stepping foot on other worlds would be astronauts not tourists because NASA would have commissioned the program to meet its exploration objectives. If this path better enables other people to join them as well as a positive byproduct then so the better. If it helps the expansion of commercial space in other arenas then that is an additional positive result that doesn’t detract from achieving the intended result.
You blatantly refuse to acknowledge that a commercial program can be used to achieve exploration program aims for NASA and have that as its primary objective.
“If Ms. Garver’s vision is implemented we will lose a BEO capability that has taken 40 years to get to and will replace it with a “hope and pray” strategy.”
Switching from one program spending plan to a different program spending plan is not “Hoping and Praying.” It is an actionable and viable plan to produce results like it did in the creation of commercial vehicles to send astronauts to ISS in the later half of this decade.
NASA not building Ares 1 didn’t mean that its mission role of delivering astronauts to ISS would go unfilled. You can replace programs that serve the same mission outcomes, and better serve them. You can replace SLS and Orion with a different exploration program that achieves better results.
SLS and Orion are a bloated graft program that have restricted the extent of BEO activity and will continue to restrict that extent in the future. The marginal outcome they can produce are not sufficient reason to cling to them when we have a more prodigious path available to us and readily apparent. They are fit to be replaced by a better BEO program.
You are completely disingenuous in implying that SLS and Orion are the only route through which BEO outcomes can occur. A replacement commercial oriented program can also target the exploration of space and that program’s development initiatives can meet that objective.
If you think what I said about Ms. Garver’s vision was slander I suggest you read the Election 2004 archives on this very site.
NASA’s job is to explore space, not be the subsidizer of the commercial sector (be that SpaceX or ULA). I am a proponent of Commercial Crew and when the commercial sector becomes mature enough NASA should contract with them for BEO as well. That is not the case yet.
Everybody seems to believe that commercial BEO in the near future is somehow guaranteed. I recall the same kind of fervent belief around space tourism being imminent after SpaceShipOne. 11 years have passed and we still have years to go.
Lets be careful. SLS/Orion can be phased out if a better commercial alternative appears.
Mr. Cowing, you are perplexed only because you are missing the point. Nothing in the current administration’s space policies constitutes support of commercial space activities. I’ve said it here before and I will say it again – the COTS and CCDev programs (this administration’s apparently favored NASA programs) are NOT commercial space flight programs and are NOT effectively promoting the incubation of a commercial space flight industry. They are nothing more than government contracts of a different form. While they may or may not yet prove effective at providing specific services to the government for government purposes, they have so far failed to achieve sufficient reductions in the cost of space flight to enable a commercially self-sustaining industry, nor have they demonstrated a clear path to doing so. In this regard, Ms. Garver’s statement is factually correct – these programs (COTS & CCDev) are essentially socialist in nature, for whatever political labeling is worth. Labels aside, they are nothing more than the use of public funds to support a commercially unsustainable industry with the expectation of a negative rate of financial return when viewed from the perspective of anything other than servicing a government contract. That is precisely why the second part of Ms. Garver’s statement is correct and crucially important. As I have also said here many times, the correct role for NASA is to serve not as a source of funding, but as a source of technology to industry. Given that the established technologies of the present are incapable of reducing space flight costs to a commercially sustainable level, if incubating a commercial industry is the goal, then focusing NASA’s efforts of the advancement of enabling technologies is the means. History has shown that the necessary technology leaps are still at a risk to cost ratio that is unpalatable to the commercial market place. But that is the entire reason NASA (and its predecessor, the N.A.C.A.) were founded by Congress in the first place – to break out of this chicken & egg problem of the early phase technology leaps required to enable commercial flight industries coming at too high of a cost to attract commercial investment. Also given that the best way to achieve a commercially sustainable industry is via open market competition, having the government simply pick winners a priori by directly funding specific, individual contractors to proprietarily develop their technologies is anathema to NASA’s intended function and structure. Rather, the method by which public funding (NASA investments) can effectively interdict the which-comes-first problem and thus truly accelerate the development of an actual commercial industry is to publicly develop critical enabling technologies and infrastructure, and provide access to them uniformly to any and all interested parties on a non-proprietary basis. Again, this is how NASA (& the N.A.C.A.) were structured to function (hence the reason NASA is a collection of research labs and not an industry welfare office) and analogous to how freely and equally providing access to the fruits of NASA’s research played a key role in establishing the commercial aviation industry. However, the current administration’s favored COTS & CCDev efforts are being run exactly contrary to such an open market policy. Sadly, I have seen nothing to indicate awareness of the correct understanding of NASA’s purpose on the part of either political party, or even any individual elected officials within recent memory.
On the other hand, there is no evidence to support Ms. Garver’s contention that NASA is “competing with the private sector” in space flight. The last NASA mission to launch a commercial payload of any consequence was the Satcom K1 deployment for RCA on the STS-61-C flight in 1986, during the Reagan years. NASA has not competed with any commercial space flight efforts since then and has no apparent plans to do so in the future. (Note that commercial space launches since that time have been dominated by socialist type industries backed by various foreign governments. We can have the discussion about RCA being a quasi government funded entity itself another day.) I assume your commentary on Ms. Garver’s statement implies that you consider the SLS program to somehow constitute “competing with the private sector”. It does not. I am aware of absolutely no efforts or intentions of using SLS to launch commercial space flights. It is very clearly intended strictly for use on government missions. While there is obviously a school of thought that various proposals for extensions of Falcon Heavy (for example) might represent an alternative to SLS for some of these said government missions, there is nothing “private sector” about such an alternative. It is nothing more nor less than the selection of one contractor versus another to provide a service to the government. It is true that SLS and proposed Falcon Heavy derived alternatives are structured such that the specific forms of the contracts would likely differ, but neither one is more or less a “government” versus a “private sector” program than the other. Which one would provide a better value for the expenditure of the public’s money is merely a matter of government contractor selection. The debate of which would actually be the better value for the government is a different conversation (and one which I am confident that none of us here are sufficiently informed to appropriately decide), but the important point to this conversation is that there is nothing about any of these programs (COTS, CCDev, SLS) to warrant the economic distinctions that this article attempts to assign. The only political distinctions in operation here are the old lobbyist-vs-lobbyist jockeying for position at the public feeding trough. It is true that there is likely some partisan posturing over balance and competition between these various government contracts driven by underlying battles over electoral college and congressional districting demographics as related to contractor facility locations on the part of all sides. There is no idealogical differentiation.
Interesting that this post comes on the same day as big news about Blue Origin. Now there is an actual commercial space flight effort. Much kudos to Mr. Bezos for his determination and note that he is facing exactly zero government or political impediment. Of course, it appears that he is yet a long way from turning it into a money making operation, nor is it clear yet how it will ever achieve a net profit. But he has at least proven the point that if you have a lot of money and are willing to loose it, NASA won’t stand in your way.
I think you are engaging in cheap character assassination because you don’t want the valid comments made by her to gain any traction. You vilify her so that you and others can quickly and baselessly dismiss whatever she is saying.
Cessna Driver has been warned.
You need to start using your real name if you are going to attack people like this. In fact, making such personal attacks really goes beyond commenter policy here. Seriously. Consider that a warning.
Hmmm…maybe she didn’t notice when NASA started COTS and Commercial Crew only to have Congress RAM SLS down their throats.
BTW, did anyone else notice that the advanced Interplanetary propulsion proposals will be Space Act Agreement projects?