Slashdot Mirror
US Space Policy Update Urges International Cooperation
eldavojohn writes "The recent shift in NASA's spaceflight goals has caused great stress in the space community and those related to efforts in space. A White House update to the policy is said to emphasize cooperation with the international community and looks to be a move away from individual nations competing in space. Instead, the document urges intense competition (PDF) in the commercial sector and reasons that 'The United States considers the sustainability, stability, and free access to, and use of, space vital to its national interests. It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in ways that emphasize openness and transparency, and help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust.' Space.com also notes that you can submit your comments and thoughts to the task force Obama appointed to determine new directions. No doubt this avoidance or departure from another Space Race will have a lot of people concerned that the US is out of the game."
Hate to break it to you, but NASA hasn't been "in the game" in almost 40 years now. You want a perfect illustration of the last time they were fielding a real team? Just look at their historical budget. Notice a pattern after 1970? Yeah, that's when they stopped being the Yankees and started becoming the Mets.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Cooperation is good. Races are bad and cause accidents. The plans I've seen for long duration vehicles using ion drive engines and inflatable habitats are a great step in the right direction.
Two missing items from the Policy:
crazy dynamite monkey
This article is basically saying, "space is expensive, let's spread the costs around".
...do
Those that can't...watch the liftoff on TV.
A White House update to the policy is said to emphasize cooperation with the international community and looks to be a move away from individual nations competing in space
In other words, the US has realized it is broke and now wants the rest of the world to foot the bill for space exploration.
Man I miss that game.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
It really boils down to one question. Do you want the UN in charge of space and the space program?
Not only no but FUCK NO.
With a few exceptions I'm not sure what else the rest of the world has to offer other than plublicity pieces. Europe has got some tech, but no money. Russia is still farting around with the surplus they had from the cold war, so not much interesting there. China steals 5 pieces of tech for every 1 they build, and all the hand wringing over how much the US debt they "own" really doesn't amount to much in the way of cash. Japan has tech and money and make cool cartoons and robots, but other than them the rest of the world doesn't have much to bring to the table.
If the US government is more concerned with making sure that every fat piece of shit in America can have health care to support the redicuous life style they maintian I don't see how they are ever going to get back into space.
The sooner a US company get's their ass into space the better.
Competition is a sin.
- John D. Rockefeller
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johndrock164132.html
Good Ol' Johny agrees with you.
And Obongo can be the first (and only) colonist.
and give pioneers someplace to go which means they will slip the leash. Right now there is no new frontier. If a substantial population moves off the planet how will they ever round them back up? The meek will inherit the Earth, everyone else will be making a life out there somewhere.
"It is the shared interest of all nations to act responsibly in ways that emphasize openness and transparency, and help prevent mishaps, misperceptions, and mistrust."
Not if you are the only nation that has this policy.
This document is not a " This is what NASA is going to do" sort of thing; It is a top-level, national guideline towards spacerelated ( and by related, I mean everything even vaguely connected ) business. Even school teaching programs. And if the USA can get data from satellites for climate change. This is a set of soft guidelines, without any realistic impact. For that impact, we need way, way more technical and financial reports.
For such a thing we will have to wait till congress looks at budget proposals, and some real life testing. constellation is still doing some tests, but everyone knows that the Ares 1 will never launch a single human to orbit. Officially - and even this document changes nothing about that - it is still going on.
And please, dont attach too much meaning to rumors of a new "space race". The chinese have a launch rate of one mission every 2 years. They are currrently way below 1965 level of experience from the USA. Instead, look at the slow but significant progress:
ESA getting Soyuz acces: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Home/SEMXN619Y8G_0.html
Russia upgrading its production facilities to build a 5th soyuz ( notably the upgrading of its thermal room so that 2 soyuz heatshields at the same time can be fitted to the spacecrafts: http://www.federalspace.ru/main.php?id=2&nid=9719&lang=en
While its nothing flashy and I think there should be more money into spaceflight, spaceX and orbital and the likes are really going for it. Talk in the article about "losing the space race" is overly simplistic, certainly with an ISS that'll be around till atleast 2020, and very possibly 2030. It is international, dont forget that.
also, a rumor; ATK ( they manufacture the shuttle srbms) have finally caved in it seems, and are willing to build the old 4 segment boosters instead of continueing to lobby for a 5 segment version. Great news; they finally might get something moving now...
we should MOVE cape canaveral to the moon and stockpile fuel there for eventual missions to all of the other interesting bodies of the solar system. We should not spend money GOING anywhere unless we plan on creating a colony there. A joy ride simply isn't worth the money.
First off, a full link to the document (instead of the short fact sheet linked in the original post) is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/national_space_policy_6-28-10.pdf
It's useful to compare this to the 2006 National Space Policy document issued by the Bush administration:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/national-space-policy-2006.pdf
Space Politics has a pretty good comparison of the two:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2010/06/28/the-new-national-space-policy-is-out/
I think the revised section on commercial space is quite promising:
Commercial Space Guidelines .S . commercial or, as appropriate, foreign commercial service or system .S . commercial space activities, unless required by national security or public .S . industry;
The term "commercial," for the purposes of this policy, refers to space goods, services, or activities provided by private sector enterprises that bear a reasonable portion of the investment risk and responsibility for the activity, operate in accordance with typical market-based incentives for controlling cost
and optimizing return on investment, and have the legal capacity to offer these goods or services to
existing or potential nongovernmental customers . To promote a robust domestic commercial space
industry, departments and agencies shall:
Purchase and use commercial space capabilities and services to the maximum practical extent
when such capabilities and services are available in the marketplace and meet United States
Government requirements;
Modify commercial space capabilities and services to meet government requirements when
existing commercial capabilities and services do not fully meet these requirements and the
potential modification represents a more cost-effective and timely acquisition approach for
the government;
Actively explore the use of inventive, nontraditional arrangements for acquiring commercial
space goods and services to meet United States Government requirements, including measures
such as public-private partnerships, hosting government capabilities on commercial spacecraft,
and purchasing scientific or operational data products from commercial satellite operators in
support of government missions;
Develop governmental space systems only when it is in the national interest and there is no
suitable, cost-effective U
that is or will be available;
Refrain from conducting United States Government space activities that preclude, discourage,
or compete with U
safety;
Pursue potential opportunities for transferring routine, operational space functions to the
commercial space sector where beneficial and cost-effective, except where the government
has legal, security, or safety needs that would preclude commercialization;
Cultivate increased technological innovation and entrepreneurship in the commercial space
sector through the use of incentives such as prizes and competitions;
Ensure that United States Government space technology and infrastructure are made available
for commercial use on a reimbursable, noninterference, and equitable basis to the maximum
practical extent;
Minimize, as much as possible, the regulatory burden for commercial space activities and ensure
that the regulatory environment for licensing space activities is timely and responsive;
Foster fair and open global trade and commerce through the promotion of suitable standards
and regulations that have been developed with input from U
Encourage the purchase and us
I was going to add another post to the NASA poll pointing out that if we're going to get anywhere beyond the moon, we should do it with an international project, to spread the risks and improve technological and sociological cooperation generally.
Frankly, there's no more "space race". The job is too big for one country to pay for, and too important to humanity for one country to claim credit for.
Whilst usually not very critical of the US, it seems to me that invitations for international cooperation on commercial/engineering projects are usually accompanied by the expectation that other foreign nations will pay money to US companies as a result of a "fully neutral" bidding process, rather than vica versa.
Other nations, having the same expectation but being quite used by now to disappointment, are probably quite unlikely to put money on the table without bulletproof commitments that the US will find it politically intolerable to give. All in all, attempt #32 at getting other nations to pay for US industry, hence with limited success.
So, Obama, you want to encourage US participation, both commercial and government, in the international market in the space industry? I have the first, most important step for you right here:
1. Mandate, by law, that we switch our outdated asses over to the standard metric unit system. Trying to explain to a Russian, what slugs and ft-lbf's are is about as much fun as you had trying to explain the U.S. healthcare bill to Sarah Palin.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
listen nasa is worse than goverment over keeping secrets how many pictures have they touched up what is nasa really doing look up how many satellites they have secrectly sent in space and check where at and listening for talk the other side of jupiter . dont believe me its all in the records. check it out!
It's a mistake to depend too heavily on international ventures. Countries have different political and economic cycles - you tend to find yourself halfway through something ambitious when your partners decide they don't want to fund it any more. The ISS was a classic case of this kind of thing - we ended up bailing out the Russians as they went through problems after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Europeans were slow with their supply ships. The US stayed in the project when it would have made sense to cancel it, then we kept the shuttle fleet flying longer than we should have to service the ISS.
You may save money up front by penciling in partners, but you pay a big price in flexibility.
Note that, if you replace the word "Space" with "Internet", it makes for an even more insightful article.
If it rhymes it must be true.