Slashdot Mirror
Partisan Food Fight Erupts Over NASA, Commercial Space
RocketAcademy writes "Until recently, space policy has been a non-partisan issue. Even when politicians disagreed on space-policy issues, that disagreement rarely aligned with party lines. That has changed in the last few years. Now, one organization is throwing fuel on the political fire. The Space Frontier Foundation has called Republicans the Party of Big Government Space. SFF is upset about the GOP platform, which lacks specifics about space policy. According to the SFF, the GOP 'has nothing but hackneyed praise for NASA, and doesn't even mention the increasing role of the private sector.' The Obama campaign quickly echoed the statement. But NASA Watch points out that the Democratic platform is even less specific than the GOP's. Others express concerns that partisanship harms space policy."
Every new administration we get to keep things fresh by having an entirely new space policy. The incoming administration gets to label the prior efforts a billion-dollar boondoggle and ashcan it, putting their unique stamp on a whole new paradigm that can achieve new heights of replicating prior work until it, too, is ashcanned by the next administration before too much progress is made.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
That's how it sounds: They are complaining that the GOP relies too much on NASA, and doesn't provide enough incentives for private space companies. (I wonder if they think the DNC is any better?)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/
You don't need to read it all, the first reason says it all. The entire point of congressional sessions is ot discuss and the whole point of discussion is to change minds. There is none of that from this congress and thus, they don't do their jobs but they get paid anyway.
I was expecting to see pictures of a huge food fight that broke out on the ISS.
Now I'm disappointed. Assholes.
Dang. I was looking forward to flying Tang and freeze-dried ice cream.
Can't the idiotologues leave ANYTHING in peace?
But NASA Watch points out that the Democratic platform is even less specific than the GOP's.
Yeah, that blogger appears to be right about the DNC. But Obama's got specifics with a track record. What scares me is that Romney says he'll privatize as much as possible. He's quoted as saying:
“I think fundamentally there are some people—and most of them are Democrats, but not all—who really believe that the government knows how to do things better than the private sector And they happen to be wrong.”
He promises to cut non-defense spending and NASA is a non-defense expense that politicians are pushing hard to privatize.
I had been under the impression that for some time a large portion of the political bickering regarding NASA was over whose state got what pork as opposed to toeing the party line.
If NASA is funding development then it's not private.
If private companies want to develop their own space vehicles and offer their service for hire that's fine, but it's in addition to what NASA does (that's the Republican platform). Democrat platform seems to depend on what state the day's speech is delivered in.
Seriously, the headline had me thinking it was about a fight over food supplies in space with issues regarding commercial vendors to supply NASA or something.
Greatly disappointed :(
Partisanship harms ALL policy. It is inevitable in our system, but for the past few cycles it has been an increasingly more violent atmosphere (blatant space lingo there) that is harming a lot more than just space policy.
The solution? Smarter and more involved voters. Politicians will not change unless we make them. We let this happen.
And while I'm a Republican, space exploration is what government does better, so far, than private industry. We should be doing a LOT more. But I would happily exchange that initiative for an Apollo-style alternative energy program to render fossil fuels largely obsolete in 10 years. A manned mission to mars would ahve impact on our science, engineering, etc, so either project is a drvier for me. But making NASA a political football makes no sense, unless you're just a partisan that needs something to argue over.
ps - Side note, blame the Republicans all you want, remembering that the other parties are not innocent of the same problem - arguing anything for the sake of it.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
until someone both
(a) invents a new and *highly* efficient engine that's both high-thrust and high specific impulse and
(b) and small, high-wattage, long-lasting energy source that doesn't need tons of shielding.
Until then, humans are going no further than the Moon, and even then just for short term National Pride visits.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
...come out and endorse doubling NASA's budget.
Then the Republicans will do an about-face and claim that Obama isn't supporting private space initiatives and they will claim to double their support for Space-X and whatnot.
Republicanism is party before country and "whatever it is, I'm against it."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtMV44yoXZ0
--
BMO
It's trans-partisan. Obama, supposedly the most liberal human being since the big bang, has reformed The space race to rely more on the private sector. This isn't mentioned in the Democratic platform because the hard core lefties don't like it. It isn't mentioned in the Republican platform because it made the hard core righties' heads assplode.
Meanwhile a middle of the road solution was found that is working fine. Mission accomplished.
The republicans have continued to gut over and over the private space. In addition, they were the ones that gutted NASA back in the late 90's and stopping them from doing the original COTS program that was suggested in 1994. Worse, they have continued to fight against funding for private space while pushing multiple (3-5 Billion PER YEAR) to their key programs such as Constellation and now the god foresaken SLS.
yes, some dems have joined these dark creatures of the night, but the neo-cons that control the republican party are far more interested in helping themselves and their friends rather than the nation. Even now, I am fully aware that MY representative, Mark Coffman, takes money from a company that he KNOWS is owned by the Chinese gov. The fuck who screams patriotism would rather take money from China than help America. GD pricks.
Sadly, other than O, the dems are absolutely USELESS. They have no sense of loyalty to either nation or party. Instead, they are bunch of fuck-ups. The only reason why they do not sux worse then the neo-cons is that the neo-cons are pretty much committing treason against the nation and have been actively working to destroy unions, etc. IOW, they consider it a higher priority to destroy unions (which they could have self-destructed on their own) then to help the nation.
We need 2 answers: a third party of social moderate/fiscal conservative (nixon was the last time that a republican was a fiscal conservative), and RootStrikers to get amendments on the constitution. We need to kill off all of the dark creatures of the night within the republicans party (or simply stake them all), and re-bury the zombies in the dem party, while creating a new party.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
16 Trillion reasons not to spend more than keeping life support on for NASA. When there are less than 50% of US citizens are dependent on some type of federal aid to keep above bankruptcy it might be time to go to the moon. And when college students can afford to pay tuition from the earnings of part time job and not finance the basic education until there retirement perhaps mars would be in reach of American Astronauts. We will need to go backwards for a bit to rebuild ourselves.
How come we never heard from the so-called "Space Frontier Foundation" when Obama wanted to turn NASA into a zoo ?
Because he didn't. The idea of using NASA as form of interntaional outreach has been there for decades - NASA is a "halo" program for th US and is thus one of our best forms of PR. Reagan even made a speech where he said:
"We can find there's yet undiscovered avenues where American and Soviet citizens can cooperate fruitfully for the benefit of mankind. In science and technology we can launch new joint space ventures."
And BTW, that shit worked too. NASA's outreach programs have paid handsome dividends for America. We would never have had the Ansari X-Prize if Anousheh Ansari hadn't been inspired by NASA as a child in Iran.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Bush 2 inherited what could be concievably be called a 'space program'. He looted it for pork, then shut the Shuttle down because it was getting unsafe. Then he got ambitious to provide yet more pork by coming up with the Aries systems. Congress was right to kill them, but wrong to replace them with SLS.
When NASA does hard science, they can't be beat. It's when they get stuck fighting over the scraps that Congress hands them after passing out the pork that they have trouble. And it doesn't help that the bosses they keep assigning are beancounters, either.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Seriously, none of this will matter in a few years. At the rate we're LOSING space capability we won't even be able to use a telescope by the end of the decade. 40+ years ago we could land on the moon, now we're paying the russians to send people into space for us. It's embarassing. What the hell is left to have partisan fights over?!? Where we're going to spend the money they yank from what used to be the space program budget?
Or are you saying that NASA Administrator Charles Bolden is a liar ?
I'm saying that in the context of the interview it was clear Bolden was only talking about outreach programs. Listen to what he says in the link YOU provided.
1) Re-inspire children to get into science and math
2) He wanted to expand our international relationships
3) Third and perhaps foremost he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the muslim world.
None of those items are about going to space, they are all directions for outreach programs.
That's all he's talking about -- none of this bullshit about "turning NASA into a zoo." Just direction for outreach programs, the kind of thing NASA has been doing practically from day one.
What is it with this fauxbama shit? There's tons of real policy issues to critize the guy on, why do so many people like you insist on going after fairy tales?
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
The GOP is all about the big business. Boeing, Lockheed, et al would have folded if not for government cost-plus contracts that pay even when nothing is delivered, and have all those nifty cost overruns built right into them. It's The Way It's Done in the aerospace industry. If they manage to get control of both Congress and the White House, expect the 'traditional' aerospace companies to be deregulated and piled in pork while outfits like SpaceX get buried under red tape. Can't have these young upstarts changing The Way It's Done, especially with the next round of elections only a bit over 2 years away...
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Hundreds of billions going to what? People's salaries, government contractors, and some natural resources. The money isn't being burnt
Yes it is.
That is a MASSIVE opportunity cost from what private industry could have done with the same funds.
For every NASA worker private industry could probably hire two or more people. For every billion spent private industry could have created 10 billion in return for every billion spent, if it had not been taken from them.
I love NASA, NASA did thigns no-one else could have done and has a massive amount of experience on tap. But the age of large government is nearing a close, and we must move to a world where private industry takes on the role NASA once did. Only then will we start seeing real innovation in space travel again, including more actual space TRAVEL.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Partisan Food Fight
What does this mean? Is "food fight" a well-known metaphor for something? This situation doesn't sound like good-natured, if creamy, horseplay.
Now, one organization is throwing fuel on the political fire.
Okay, which idiot brought fuel to a food fight?
It's about time everyone put their battleaxes back in the scabbard. They've made their cake, and now they have to lie in it.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
For example, his “Utility MACT” rule is purportedly aimed at reducing mercury pollution, yet the EPA estimates that the rule will cost $10 billion to reduce mercury pollution by only $6 million (with an “m”).
How do you reduce mercury pollution by "$6 million"? Does this guy have any idea what mercury is?
A multi-billion dollar agency is "low budget"? I think that speaks volumes about the size of the federal government and how it is out of control than necessarily the priority given to the federal government.
Still, look at where all of these projects within NASA are being planned? It is in a central design bureau either at Huntsville Alabama or at NASA HQ in Washington DC. Everything is being done in a top down approach. Sure, an ordinary citizen could have some suggestions in terms of what should happen (and will almost always be ignored with perhaps a polite letter in response) but it is the central planners who are making the decisions. In fact it is seen as "the space program".
Keep in mind that until very recently only government employees ever went into space. There were a couple of employees of space contractors that ended up going through the NASA astronaut training course, but until Dennis Tito (who ended up having to use a Russian Soyuz space capsule because NASA wouldn't let private passengers fly on the Space Shuttle.... oh the irony) there wasn't any way a private individual could go into space on their own. In fact until now the only way to get into space on your own dime has been to pay the Russians as somehow America forgot that free enterprise was even possible.
This is also one of the things that has been holding back the development of space, as government efforts in space have all but shut out private efforts to go into space. Even now, you need special permission from people who are very reluctant to give that permission to even try and get into space in the form of launching Earth observation satellites or doing anything else in space. Very reluctant to the point they laugh in your face if you even suggest you are going to put something into space without government money. That is changing, but too damn slow in my opinion and it is precisely because of this Soviet style central planning bureau which has been running "the space program" in America which is expected to do everything for everybody.
In the 1970's there was a group led by former original Mercury astronaut Deke Slayton (who also was the chief astronaut for NASA for a great many years) that ended up developing a rocket system called the Conestoga rocket. Pretty much they did almost exactly what SpaceX is doing today, but this was the 1970's and not the 2010's. They even sent a few spacecraft into the sky and even passed through the Kármán line more than a couple time.
What ended up killing this rocket system and this company was not the technical capabilities of those involved, but rather because bureaucrats at NASA wanted so bad to prove that the Space Shuttle was a viable concept that they ended up killing the emerging private commercial spaceflight industry before it got going. The Space Shuttle (keep in mind this was designed and operated by government employees at the time.... United Launch Alliance didn't form until the Reagan administration) was seen as the vehicle which would do everything for everybody including the U.S. Air Force and for that matter any other federal agency or even private group. As a part of that effort to prove that the Shuttle was viable, when inquiries were made about how much it would cost to put cargo on the Space Shuttle (or to even ride on the Shuttle as a passenger.... yes that did indeed happen and was promised in the 1970's) some incredibly unrealistically low prices were announced. The price was unrealistic because they were proposing that the Space Shuttle would be having weekly flights to meet this "commercial" demand and that NASA was planning on running the STS system like an airline... just owned by the government (and designed and operated by the government too I might add).
As a practical matter, all of the promises made by NASA (the big central design bureau I should note here as well) simply didn't work out. Not only were the prices unrealistically low (there wasn't r