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!"
Does anyone else see the irony in two Republican congressmen complaining about the privatization of space flight?
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.
Allow me to strongly disagree with you for a second. While I think private space flight will be a good thing in the future, it's not now. The technology is there, but funding, logistics and safety guidelines probably are not up to par with NASA's
I abhor your suggestion that we could sacrifice people to get private space flight off the ground. Reminds me of the Star Trek Enterprise episode where the Klingons kidnap Dr. Phlox in order for him to help cure or restore the genetically altered Klingons who were dying. He didn't have time and the Klingon general wanted to sacrifice some of his people as test subjects. Phlox refused because it was unethical, but relented when given the option of millions of lives verses a few, and pressure from the Klingons.
The point is it was unethical, but did it, for what was at the time, the only winning option
Sacrificing even a few lives for private space flight at this point in time would be irresponsible (and might turn off many people to privitization) and it stinks of the old Robber Baron's lives for profit attitude (sounds Ferengi, no?).
So instead, if you want to go the private route, let me suggest a better short-medium term plan, which could be our winning option: Streamline NASA. Keep it's budget big, but dedicate it to ONLY spaceflight (and maybe atmospheric research) so as to try and have it waste less by setting goals for only that. And have private companies haul cargo, like satellites and rovers into space. That is something they are already capable of doing, and are doing it safely. Now, it won't save as much money as privatizing manned-missions so soon, but it will save money and definitely save lives.
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.
As someone who has personal (and close) contacts and friendships with people in the various X-Prize contests (including the latest winner), I'm a bit biased here.
However, what Obama is talking about is really changing the ways that NASA procures it's systems. Right now, they get practically everything from one of about 3 or 4 big contractors, and essentially run like a massive Defense Contractor, complete with problems around innovation and cost-inflation.
The proposals are to quit funneling every significant contract just to these Big Space corps. Rather, the "hobbyist" rocket industry is now sufficiently mature to begin competing for real space equipment. What it needs to continue to grow and innovate are a steady, reliable supply of work. NASA is the only place this can happen right now (though, likely once the market is more mature, private space use/trips will fund more and more of industry). Breaking the grip of Big Space means that NASA can continue to use it's hard-won knowledge of manned missions as a information resource for these "space entrepreneurs", and at the same time, open up the infrastructure for better efficiencies.
Of course, Big Space sees the end of the NASA-funded (and guarantied) gravy train, so they squeal about safety and other issues that Little Space couldn't possibly (no, never!) do, forgetting (conveniently) that they themselves were once Little, and only became Big by sucking on NASA's teat. What we're talking about here is NASA enabling a new, vibrant market for space systems from a wide variety of suppliers.
To use the tired car analogy: NASA current designs the car, but farms out the manufacturing and design of the parts to SuperMegaCorp1 and GiganticConglomerate2, all of which use the notorious "cost-plus" method of development. Instead, Obama wants NASA to be deciding the PURPOSE of the car, and the desired CAPABILITIES of it, but then put out for bid all the different parts to anyone capable of making that part to the desired specs. So, perhaps we get a Volt, an Accord, and a Caravan all offered from various suppliers, rather than a Greyhound bus with all but 5 seats removed, as we would under the old system.
I hate to break it to everyone, but LEO Rocket Science is no longer, well, Rocket Science. Masten won the latest X-prize with a staff of 10, working out of a small machine shop, using only about $2 million. Putting people into orbit is not that difficult anymore (though, it's still dangerous), and it's entirely reasonable to start moving away from the single-entity agency and into a more competitive, cost-effective marketplace.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
I disagree vehemently with your approach.
1. We're not "sacrificing" people, we're allowing people who are willing to tolerate a small risk (under 5%) of death in order for the glory of going to space. *I* would take that risk, even if 1/20 launches ended up blowing up or otherwise failing. You can go sit at home watching TV if you want, until old age puts you in a nursing home where you have to wear a diaper and someday something fails and you're dead. LIFE is ultimately going to result in death...you might as well get what you can out of it. If someone volunteers for a risky anything, we should generally allow them to take that risk.
2. Your reasoning is why medical science advances as such a glacial pace. In the old days, scientists could take experimental drugs right out of the lab and test them. Yes, there were some mishaps, but most of the drugs we use today were discovered this way. Institutionalized CYA and mountains of paperwork often cost more lives than it saves.
3. If a corporation has a big disaster, they'll go under...leaving the surviving private firms in the industry, who will scarf up the facilities and people left behind by the failed company. That's the very purpose of a corporation : to insulate the people owning it from the risk.