Slashdot Mirror
Reported Obama Plan Would Privatize Manned Launches
couchslug writes with this excerpt from the not-yet-paywalled New York Times: "President Obama will end NASA's return mission to the moon and turn to private companies to launch astronauts into space when he unveils his budget request to Congress next week, an administration official said Thursday. The shift would 'put NASA on a more sustainable and ambitious path to the future' said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. But the changes have angered some members of Congress, particularly from Texas, the location of the Johnson Space Center, and Florida, the location of the Kennedy Space Center. 'My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation's human space flight program,' Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement." If true, this won't please the federal panel that recommended against just such privatization.
Before anyone jumps up and shouts make sure that you're not being taken in by lobbyists who are trying to either support specific companies or jobs in specific states. They are apt to shout out about the sky falling before the real information is known.
Sit back, relax and wait until the report is actually published, read it and make up your own mind. Don't believe what has been filtered through potentially biased news media companies.
Agrajag: "Oh no, not again!"
Plan : increase the budget to NASA, and ask for them to purchase rides to space from newly formed private companies.
The article says that NASA has "50 years of institutional experience" in doing spaceflight, and that this would be a bad idea.
The "institutional" part of that statement is the problem. NASA stinks for spaceflight. The problem isn't in their engineering, it's in the fact that they have many, many masters all trying to stir the pot. Their budget depends upon the whim of Congressmen, not performing to a contract.
Privatization has many failures. There's a lot of goods and services that it doesn't make sense to privatize. But I think the high tech industry of space travel is one that will benefit enormously from privatization.
The only downside? Private firms can probably get a LOT more manned launches done per year for the same cost, but they'll be a little riskier. More astronauts will be killed. I don't see this as a problem : there's 6 billion people on the planet, and I for one if faced between possibly dying during a trip to space or dying from old age would choose the former.
I'm used to it by now. The Obama administration has, thus far, (when one counts actual policy actions, rather than words) been pretty much a long sequence of Obama doing something that is centrist-democrat at best, "Bush III, but literate" at worst then being howled at by republicans(many of whom supported virtually identical policies in the recent past) because anything a communist-fascist-muslim-sleeper-terrorist from kenya does simply must be evil.
Who gives a flying fuck about privatized LEO launches of some tycoon (apart of the tycoons themselves)? Private companies will not undertake the large-scale, visionary projects like sending people to Mars, building permanent bases on Mars and Moon, reaching Europa and exploring her oceans. Private companies only produce as little science as they possibly can get away with, putting much more emphasis on patenting the crap out of the little they do produce, and then keep it for themselves.
In other words: FAIL!
When Obama said he'll cancel Constellation, he crushed the dreams and hopes of MY generation. Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s in the US and Europe had the ride of their lives, if they had even the slightest affinity for science. That was science that inspired millions, and from the sci-fi movies of the 70's, I'd say people were probably less dumb on average than they are today ("Andromeda Strain", for one example. Compare that to the blockbuster space-operas some call "Sci-fi"). Nowadays scientists are only prodded to make cheaper electronic components and larger plasma screens.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Every damn article posted on Slashdot about privatization of space has been packed with complaints that this is the end of the world. It's really not. God willing, it may be the start of a new one.
NASA was pursuing a completely impossible architecture. Ares was underfunded and unable to be effectively used until 2017 at the latest. By forcing NASA to buy services from private corporations we can develop our domestic launch infrastructure as opposed to keeping it under government control.
And yes, I said BUY! This is not cost-plus contracting, which defense contractors famously use to rip us off every chance they get. This is a straight purchase of services, cash for deliveries and milestones met. In other words, actual free-market capitalism.
As for those claiming that we should have blown our cash on another Apollo-like shot: what cash? Obama is not a dictator, he's a President. His budget requests have to be approved by Congress which would have balked at any substantial increase in spending on space exploration. Not to mention that we tried Apollo and it was nowhere near substainable. Development of regular deliveries to orbital space by private companies - that's sustainable. That's what will provide us with the groundwork to move beyond earth orbit and lower the cost to orbit to the point where we can actually do something.
I value politeness. If you extend it to me, I'll extend it to you.
Income Redistribution
Man! You went there!
Bend over!
Do mean all that money (bank bailouts) that was taken from the middle class in the form of taxes to bail out the filthy rich bankers so that they can get their BILLIONS of dollars in bonuses paid for by the US taxpayer?! THAT INCOME REDISTRIBUTION?!? ($$ Poor => Rich and well connected)
Yep, that's REAL leftist alright.
Nowadays everything is about branding, even politics. In order to differentiate their brand from brand of the Democrat Party (as they like to call it), the Republic Party (as I like to call them) has to avoid showing any support for anything Obama does. Their marketing division (or, to use an old-fashioned term, their political strategists) understand that any show of bipartisanship confuse the consumers (I guess most people still call them "voters") and dilute the brand. So the party has to maintain a uniform anti-Democrat (not to be confused with anti-Democratic) message, even when the Democrats propose a product (officially a "policy") that the Republics invented in the first place.
Obama's attempts to achieve a consensus show his utter contempt for the way business (isn't government a business? if not it should be) is done in the 21st century. If that doesn't convince you he's a communist, nothing will!
On one side I know that (in this economy) there are many more ways to spend money than space.
But few things united the US as much as the space program.
When the political climate was different, the reasons for going to space were different.
Now that the Cold War is over, space has become a primarily scientific endeavor. I'm happy that science (instead of politics) is the motivator, but now it seems that politics is choking one of the greatest achievements of our species.
The idea behind this "private taxi service" to space could go either way. We all know how recent new aircraft have suffered delay after delay. But what if a more competitive environment brings innovation that otherwise would have been unattainable? After-all it was a competitive environment that pushed us to be the first on the moon.
What I am really sad about though is the lack of interest in the moon. I believe that a permanent, self sufficient (however difficult that might be) settlement on the moon should be a priority. And if we don't start soon, India or China might beat us to it.
While I believe that any mission to the moon is an international event, other countries/cultures might not share that view. I would prefer for us to set the bar in both - returning to the moon, and sharing that experience with the rest of the world.
(when one counts actual policy actions, rather than words)...
A "universal healthcare" process that has been deferential to the point of obsequious to existing insurance and pharmaceutical players, and isn't shaping up to be universal at this point. "Income redistribution", the same-old grab bag of welfare programs that have been in play for years, across multiple administrations, along with massive subsidy of dysfunctional Wall Street entities. Yup, a real socialist firebrand. We'll be "re-educating" the bourgeois elements and living on communal farms any day now.
Our little adventures in the middle east are grinding on pretty much exactly as they ever are, the NSA and CIA are as far above the law as ever.
As for "cap and trade", I'm not sure when it became an article of faith that businesses have the right to impose unlimited externalities on everybody else. "Cap and trade" is by far the most market-oriented mechanism for internalizing externalities. If you think that that is a sinister lefty scheme, your head would probably pop on exposure to an actual Green Party...
Privatization may seem like a good idea, and I hope it will turn out to be. But I doubt it. Right now, the US has one - count them - one man-rated orbital vehicle. That's the shuttle, and it will be ending soon. Without a replacement, the US will be forced to hitch rides in the short term with Russia, maybe even China. In fact, since we've outsourced much of our manufacturing base to China anyway, why not our space program? Well here's why: other countries, maybe even private companies in the future will fly in space. Maybe they'll let the US hitch rides. Maybe not. Either way they won't be building their launchers and space vehicles with US program goals in mind. They'll be building whatever makes sense for them. It may or may not be what makes sense for US goals. So in the end, we'll have an ISS that we continue to pay for - funding for that is in the budget, and no way to get there from the US. Excellent. The Mercury astronauts had it right... No Bucks, No Buck Rogers. We'll continue to send neat probes to other planets. And we'll continue to get amazing pictures. But in the end, people will tire of that too. That'll leave us with No Bucks. When you look back 200 years from now, this will be the moment that people say the US "jumped the shark"...
Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
You are confusing what he is settling for with what he wants. He has consistently spoken out in favor of much more *ambitious* policies than the process is forcing him to accept. He is undeniably a leftist, but with a healthy dose of pragmatism.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
most nations recognize the value of capitalism, but they yoke it with socially-conscious goals, to effective and ineffective results
but the usa is a cult of capitalism. they think it answers every question (it doesn't). they invoke market principles where market principles make no sense, such as in healthcare. they remove financial regulations and then act surprised when the markets bubble and burst (and then some of them, in their denial, even blame the government, magically somehow, for the market's failure, confusing cause and effect)
that space exploration should be privatized is yet another absurdity of the monomaniacal american obsession with elevating market principles as the driving force behind everything in the world. americans: of course capitalism is important. of course capitalism works. but capitalism is a beast of burden, it needs to be tamed and controlled. it needs to be fenced and given limits, or it will run roughshod and destroy your society with its extremes and stampedes of panic or greed. you need social safety nets, and you need to tame the excesses. understand this or understand nothing and be just a market fundamentalist, as foolish and blind to reality as any religious fundamentalist
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I see this as a way to siphon off funds to be redirected to more social programs
TFA: "Mr. Obama’s request, which will be announced on Monday, would add $6 billion over five years to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget."
How is increasing NASA's budget and enabling it to buy space launches from private companies "siphoning off funds to be redirected to more social programs"? Your political bias is leading to illogical reasoning.
Finally the Administration is doing something to end corporate welfare and make the US aerospace industry competitive once again. If it forces Republican congressmen to stand up and trumpet there support for pork barrel projects while crying for fiscal conservatism I'm sure the Irony will not be lost on the general population.
Give such corporations as Space Exploration Technologies a chance, there founder, Elon Musk, his comparison of other aerospace companies to "Dilbert in real life" is spot on.
I say this as an aerospace employee.
It's the same percentage of the Afrian-Americans that voted for Clinton.
I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
While I think the future of space travel will be in the hands of the private sector, NASA are currently the only ones really equipped to do this stuff.
fair warning: this may get a little "everybody just get along"-like, so I apologize in advance for any hippy attitude you take from this
It's hard nowadays to sell a space program to the public, but it can be a unifying thing. Countries are still working seperately (except for the ISS, which is quite an achievement). What really needs to happen is the space programs of the world need to come together and work together. If all the nations with major or developing space programs pooled their knowledge and resources, we could have a moonbase going in the next 10 years and be on Mars shortly thereafter. The problem is that each country has a few super brilliant people. Space travel requires a LOT of brilliant people.
Living With a Nerd
Pollution isn't really a "private affair" any more than wandering around and punching people in the face is a "private exercise routine".
That is perhaps the aspect of real-world libertarianism that I find most disappointing in comparison to its theoretical counterpart(of which I am actually rather fond, in many respects).
In theory, libertarians want the state to protect people's lives and property from aggression, internal and external, and(depending on which ones you talk to) possibly operate some of the unavoidable natural monopolies of modern life. Great, sounds good.
If you have the temerity to suggest that the state should protect your person and property from other people's emissions of assorting poisons, though, and the support of ostensible libertarians just melts away...
When pollution affects health, it is essentially assault. When pollution impinges upon property, it is some mixture of trespass and theft. Any form of pollution whose effect extends beyond the person and property of the polluter(and anybody with whom he has a valid, informed, uncoerced contract covering the matter) is trivially a valid area of action for even the most minimal of libertarian states.
Like high energy physics, or astronomy, or nuclear engineering.
Aside from repairing the Hubble, what has putting people in space ever accomplished other than stealing resources from legitimate science?
I clearly don't understand this well enough, as I'm sure will be self-evident in a moment...
How would the private sector end up being 'space tourism' if Nasa contracts private companies to get it's people to the ISS, and to put satellites into LEO?
I'm not saying privatisation is the Best Thing to do, but won't it foster a handful of LEO-capable mini-Nasas? The real Nasa could then concentrate on wider orbit deployment work, moon/mars missions and science (maybe not right now, but in the next 5-10 years). Apart from wider-orbit stuff, all the non-LEO stuff isn't all that interesting to private companies right now, and only the very rich/established can do it, so why not specialise?
The other angle here is obviously money. Knowing the deficit is a bit big, slimming Nasa down a bit makes a bit of sense (I know other things dwarf what it costs, but maybe they're not as easy to cut). If what comes out of Nasa is truly unique and beyond the reach of any other space-going organisation in the world, wouldn't that be better than a sort of "do it all" Nasa that does what others could (in theory at least) do?
What am I missing?
Works is a matter of degree - it's not binary. My employer is "rich", they give me a job, and compared to many parts of the world, or even other parts of the US, I'm "rich". On the other hand, my employer is moving practically every possible job out of the US. I feel that the only reason my job hasn't been moved is that it isn't growing. There's a cost (both in time and money, and time IS money.) to move jobs, and the job is small enough and not growing, there's not a lot of reason not to leave it here.
So yeah, the "rich" spend money and they employ people - and globalization takes people less lucky than me and turns them from "rich" to "poor", generally making "rich" people even "richer". If you want to say that that's the way of the world and the way of the Free Market, go ahead. But realize that as a side-effect, its moving the US downscale from a first-world nation, and/or preventing parts of it from climbing up to first-world nation status. Take a look at any recent statistics, and the US is at the bottom of the first-world, even below the top emerging and third-world nations, in some respects.
So yeas, you can say the system works in PRACTICE, but remember that extremely imbalanced wealth distribution tends to be a defining characteristic of third-world nations. Then call yourself a CHRISTIAN and a PATRIOT.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
No.
#1: Obama had bad things to say about the *manned* space program -- he always liked the robotic parts.
#2: Presidents have cut manned programs before. We've been trying to build a replacement for the shuttle since it was built, but they keep being overdesigned, underfunded boondoggles that have to be cut. Its only making a bigger splash now because we can't keep using the shuttle.
#3: The politicization of NASA, a necessary evil for any government program, is a good argument FOR putting basic LEO launch infrastructure in the hands of a more robust commercial ecosystem. If bad leadership ruins one of multiple companies that are contracted to for launch, then the results are much less drastic.
#4: A space program that exists to employ people is great example of the broken window fallacy. We do it because its important, and if we can do more with less, as this plan hopes, that seems like a good thing. It may cause temporary pain as business model changes, but its good for the industry and the country in the long term.
#5: Regarding contributions to society, how is this going to change. NASA is great at doing *NEW* things -- getting people to LEO isn't new. If the basic foundation of LEO-access is made more sustainable and reliable by fixed-price competitive contracts, then they'll be able to do those truly new and valuable things -- exploration of NEOs, solar-power, self-sustaining systems -- better since thats all they have to worry about.
#6: We're not not going into space, we're just changing how we pay for it - cutting the corporate welfare of cost-plus contracts and proceeding to the more efficient fixed-price contracts of a mature market.
#7: Keeping going on a flawed design is another economic fallacy. If its cheaper to start over than it is to keep going, or if there are fundamentally better ways to go about things, you don't consider sunk costs, you only consider costs to proceed. Ares wasn't just flawed because of technical challenges, it was flawed because in many ways it was designed by congress, keeping the various contractors happy.
#8: Ares is not the space program! I've yet to see anything about Orion being cut (Augustine talked about putting it on top of an EELV), and I've yet to see anything that says that the amount we're spending will go down. NASA will continue to explore, this will just make it easier for them to do that instead of fretting about the space-taxi part. This is *good* for our space industry and could put us leaps and bounds ahead of everyone else, as multiple contractors going in multiple directions refine and improve our capabilities far better than a monolithic program could.
The sky is not falling, we're not giving up our leadership. It could be painful for some workers at NASA centers (and I sincerely apologize and thank you for your work if you're one of them), but this is probably the best, most sustainable path forward for manned spaceflight.
From reading a few of the posts, it already proves what Im about to say.
Does anyone find it funny that the Republicans want to privatize _everything_, and the Democrats want to government-ize everything.. and yet, here's a Democrat wanting to privatize a govt sector, and the Republicans are screaming the end of the world?
It also continues to strengthen my belief that the Democrats and Republicans are brothers who fight over everything because they're too immature to talk about things rationally, and are taking us all down with them.
Need more Libertarians, damnit. Stop thinking you're throwing your vote away if you dont vote for a Republicrat.
GWB to President of Brazil - "You have blacks, too?"
Exceptional individuals do emerge despite their disadvantageous environment, but the majority will fail, and ignoring them won't work. Money will either be spent on assistance or on prison, and the latter is a lot more expensive. I don't think we need to choose between welfare programs and space though. The "huge amounts" given to the black poor are negligible compared to the trillions spent on coddling the wealthy and wasted on war and other insane endeavors.
That's why we have thugs in L.A. who bitch and moan about living in the ghetto, but then they never even try to get an education or even any sort of remedial training that will allow them to get a legitimate job.
I have no idea why slashdot would choose to mark this as interesting. It is a gross over-simplification of the socio-economic problems in inner cities.
Google "inner city gang cycle poverty cycle" and start reading. There are literally hundreds of factors at play, and simply saying "if they don't take advantage of (the tiny) aid we give, then F'em" is at best ignorant and at worse sociopathic.