The American Spectator : Big Government's Final Frontier

Text Size

Special Report

Big Government’s Final Frontier

By Iain Murray & Rand Simberg on 11.10.10 @ 6:08AM

It is time for conservatives to recognize that Apollo is over.

There’s something about space policy that makes conservatives forget their principles. Just one mention of NASA, and conservatives are quite happy to check their small-government instincts at the door and vote in favor of massive government programs and harsh regulations that stifle private enterprise. It’s time to abort that mission.

Loren Thompson, writing in the Forbes Business in the Beltway blog, recently suggested that President Obama’s space policy represents the “end of the road” for U.S. manned space flight. Yet Thompson is simply repeating a defense of pork barrel politics that would play well in Huntsville or Houston. Moreover, his claim that President Bush had a plan that “might have one day carried astronauts to Mars,” while Obama’s version is “a science fair that literally goes nowhere,” misrepresents both plans.

The canceled Constellation program, former NASA administrator Mike Griffin’s flawed implementation of Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration, focused on the moon, and was an unaffordable redo of Apollo, with no capability or plans to go to Mars, and poor prospects for returning to the moon for that matter. What Mr. Thompson derides as a “science fair” is the development of new technologies that will enable affordable visits not just to the moon, but to asteroids, the moons of Mars, the Martian surface, and points beyond — at much lower cost.

On its cost and schedule trajectory, Constellation would have created a gap of at least seven years — until 2017 at the earliest — during which we would have had to continue to purchase Soyuz launches and capsules from Russia, to use for crew changeouts and as lifeboats for the International Space Station. This is particularly ironic, because under the Bush plans, the ISS itself would be abandoned two years earlier, in 2015!

On the other hand, with the new plans, U.S. involvement with the ISS will continue until at least 2020 (and probably beyond). New commercial capabilities to deliver astronauts both to the station and to low-Earth orbit for exploration beyond would become available no later than 2015 (and probably earlier), at a small fraction of the cost of the planned Constellation rocket: the Ares I launcher and Orion crew capsule.

The new NASA plan would make those capabilities available not just to a few NASA civil servants, but to all comers, including private space researchers and sovereign clients (foreign governments) that have signed memoranda of understanding with Bigelow Aerospace to lease its planned orbital facilities, independent of the ISS.

The U.S. will thereby become a seller of human space transportation services, instead of a supplicant to and purchaser of them from Russia. Call us crazy, but the former plan looks a lot more like the “end of U.S. human spaceflight” than does the latter.

When Thompson writes that “those U.S. ‘entrepreneurs’ needed billions of dollars from the federal government to develop rockets based on old technology before they could take over from the Russians,” we can only shake our heads sadly.

First, there is no reason for the scare quotes around “entrepreneurs.” Space Exploration Technologies has invested hundreds of millions of its own money to develop its Falcon launcher and Dragon capsule, scheduled to fly next month, for a tiny fraction of the projected cost of Ares/Orion. SpaceX has a huge backlog of orders. In fact, to meet its ISS obligations as soon and cost effectively as possible, NASA needs SpaceX and other commercial crew providers more than SpaceX needs NASA.

Thompson also suggests that NASA’s scrapped plans did not involve “old technology,” when in fact the program was premised on reusing Shuttle components — and thus maintaining their associated jobs, which is why the Shuttle program has remained so expensive and was so popular with politicians.

Finally, when Thompson complains about the long development time for the planned heavy lifter, he implies that such a vehicle is necessary for human exploration beyond Earth orbit. That misconception has been a major stumbling block for such missions ever since humans last walked on the Moon almost 40 years ago.

In fact, the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, has developed and described viable mission scenarios in which lunar missions can be accomplished with existing launch systems. All that is needed is a little innovation, and to break out of the mindset of the Apollo Cargo Cult, in which anything that doesn’t resemble Apollo — a specific destination, a date, and a really big rocket — isn’t a real human exploration program.

It is time for conservatives to recognize that Apollo is over. We must recognize that Apollo was a centrally planned monopolistic government program for a few government employees, in the service of Cold War propaganda and was therefore itself an affront to American values. If we want to seriously explore, and potentially exploit space, we need to harness private enterprise, and push the technologies really needed to do so.

About the Author

Iain Murray heads the Center for Economic Freedom at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and is the author of Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You.

About the Author

Rand Simberg has over three decades of experience in space technology and policy, and blogs at Transterrestrial Musings.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (87) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Petrarch| 11.10.10 @ 7:11AM

The Moon will be mined by private companies. Rio Tinto Lunar has a nice ring to it.

Alan Brooks| 11.11.10 @ 1:12AM

Gingrich said "honeymoons in space will become common."

He did not say WHEN, though.

GreginOkinawa| 11.10.10 @ 7:41AM

A Prvately owned business that is allowed to do something without being nationalized? Somebody pinch me!

JimH| 11.10.10 @ 8:37AM

I am all for encouraging private development on the moon. However, despite my libertarian leanings I think there is a place for a government presence on the Moon. It is the ultimate strategic high ground and we ought to be there even if we can’t prevent others from doing so. It is a great place from which to throw stuff at people we don’t like. I do think we should be honest and take the mission from NASA and give it to the military, where much of the space program should have been all along.

megapotamus| 11.10.10 @ 8:17PM

Word. I probably make the average Joe here look like Walter Mondale and I recognize that the "something" that makes libertarian concerns fall to the rear is that space exploration and technology is the most important thing the human race is engaged in concerning the long term survival of the human race. Sure, Heinlein colonized the moon with cowboys but all he needed for that was a typerwriter. We don't necessarily have to get off this rock but if we DO need to get off this rock we need to hav the ability to do so in advance. For the more pragmatic and bloody minded (also, includes me) "conquest" of space is at least as impactful on national defense as air power was in the '30s.

Noocyte | 11.10.10 @ 8:36PM

In point of fact, the moon is a pretty lousy place from which to throw things at the Earth. You have a sizeable gravity well for your stuff to escape, and a long way for it to go before it arrives at its target (during which travel time it would be relatively easy to spot and intercept).

Better strategic location would be a nice high polar orbit; global coverage and strike capability with undetectable kinetic ordnance (no boost phase), which can be dropped on target with devastating impact and virtually no lead time.

JimH| 11.11.10 @ 1:12PM

I don't think it is an either/or. Both types have their place. How much KE could you have from a orbital platform though. For the Moon, while there is a gravity well there is so much stuff available to throw, and everything for your base and launcher. Of course once there that is not all that you are doing.

Alan Brooks| 11.12.10 @ 1:27AM

"It is a great place from which to throw stuff at people we don’t like."

Now there's an honest man!

Mr. Bernard| 11.10.10 @ 8:58AM

It is time for conservatives to recognize that Apollo is over.

Indeed. More importantly, it's time for conservatives to acknowledge that the military is a Big Government program. It's Big Government's armed wing. Conservatives need to chose a well-defended Republic over a world-dominating military Empire.

Anommynous| 11.10.10 @ 11:39AM

Yeah, that's right; the military is just Big Government's armed wing! The military should follow NASA's lead and start farming out all its responsibilities to private enterprises. The military is just a Big Government, monopolistic pork barrel. Conservatives need to get over their hypocrisy on the military and agree that we should hand over our defense to the private sector, who can do it more efficiently.

Edward Wright| 11.10.10 @ 3:14PM

"Yeah, that's right; the military is just Big Government's armed wing! The military should follow NASA's lead and start farming out all its responsibilities to private enterprises."

Sir, the military has already done that -- for decades. Over 80% of all military logistical transportation is purchased commercially. Military transports are used only for special situations that arise from the military's unique mission of killing people and breaking stuff. NASA does not kill people or break stuff (at least on purpose). It is not a military agency and has no military requirements (by definition), so 100% of its transportation requirements can be met by civilian vehicles.

If relying on commercial transport is good enough for the military, why not for NASA?

Booger| 11.10.10 @ 9:01AM

Apollo was "an affront to American values."? Seriously? Excuse me for asking it in this context, but what planet are you from?
The mistake that the feds have made with NASA is in trying to keep it separate from D.O.D. with the misguided notion that the Soviets, Red Chinese, etc. would do the same with their programs. Missions to the moon or beyond fall into the same arena as building an aircraft carrier. Is the USS Enterprise (the carrier, not the fictional starship) an "affront to American values."?
Furthermore, to reduce the accomplishments of the Apollo astronauts who WALKED ON THE MOON, for crying out loud, to "propaganda" is the worst sort of petty churlishness. This is the sort of whiny utopianism that makes perfectionist Libertarians as annoying as socialists. The socialist wants government to do everything, the cult of Rand wants no government whatsoever. And neither the socialist nor the Randulans ever put anybody on the moon.

Cordially,

Booger

Mystie| 11.10.10 @ 9:22AM

Exactly, Booger!! Nothing irritates me more than conservatives who berate space exploration. Taking a leading role in space is what great nations do--and a matter of national security.

"No, Mr. Columbus. Their Majesties, Ferdinand and Isabella, will not see you."

Mr. Bernard| 11.10.10 @ 9:35AM

Columbus was not sent for exploration purposes per se, but for financial ones. The Space Program is an absolute bust financially, and is quite literally another unnecessary Big Government program, and one nationalists (as opposed to patriots) support, because their love for their country is based on it being #1, not based on it being theirs. As a wise conservative once wrote, too many Americans "admire America for being strong, not for being American. For them America has to be "the greatest country on earth" in order to be worthy of their devotion. If it were only the 2nd-greatest, or the 19th-greatest, or, heaven forbid, "a 3rd-rate power," it would be virtually worthless.

This is nationalism, not patriotism. Patriotism is like family love. You love your family just for being your family, not for being "the greatest family on earth" (whatever that might mean) or for being "better" than other families. You don't feel threatened when other people love their families the same way. On the contrary, you respect their love, and you take comfort in knowing they respect yours. You don't feel your family is enhanced by feuding with other families.

While patriotism is a form of affection, nationalism, it has often been said, is grounded in resentment and rivalry; it's often defined by its enemies and traitors, real or supposed. It is militant by nature, and its typical style is belligerent. Patriotism, by contrast, is peaceful until forced to fight.

The patriot differs from the nationalist in this respect too: he can laugh at his country, the way members of a family can laugh at each other's foibles. Affection takes for granted the imperfection of those it loves; the patriotic Irishman thinks Ireland is hilarious, whereas the Irish nationalist sees nothing to laugh about.

The nationalist has to prove his country is always right. He reduces his country to an idea, a perfect abstraction, rather than a mere home. He may even find the patriot's irreverent humor annoying.

Patriotism is relaxed. Nationalism is rigid. The patriot may loyally defend his country even when he knows it's wrong; the nationalist has to insist that he defends his country not because it's his, but because it's right. As if he would have defended it even if he hadn't been born to it! The nationalist talks as if he just "happens," by sheer accident, to have been a native of the greatest country on earth — in contrast to, say, the pitiful Belgian or Brazilian.

Because the patriot and the nationalist often use the same words, they may not realize that they use those words in very different senses. The American patriot assumes that the nationalist loves this country with an affection like his own, failing to perceive that what the nationalist really loves is an abstraction — "national greatness," or something like that. The American nationalist, on the other hand, is apt to be suspicious of the patriot, accusing him of insufficient zeal, or even "anti-Americanism."

When it comes to war, the patriot realizes that the rest of the world can't be turned into America, because his America is something specific and particular — the memories and traditions that can no more be transplanted than the mountains and the prairies. He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself.

But the nationalist, who identifies America with abstractions like freedom and democracy, may think it's precisely America's mission to spread those abstractions around the world — to impose them by force, if necessary. In his mind, those abstractions are universal ideals, and they can never be truly "safe" until they exist, unchallenged, everywhere; the world must be made "safe for democracy" by "a war to end all wars." We still hear versions of these Wilsonian themes. Any country that refuses to Americanize is "anti-American" — or a "rogue nation." For the nationalist, war is a welcome opportunity to change the world. This is a recipe for endless war.

In a time of war hysteria, the outraged patriot, feeling his country under attack, may succumb to the seductions of nationalism. This is the danger we face now."

Richard| 11.10.10 @ 9:45AM

Nice letter from Mars. How's the weather up there?

Senor Mick| 11.10.10 @ 1:01PM

I think he's right. There is a difference between patriotism and nationalism, otherwise there would not exist the need for two separate words. This is why the National Socialists did not call themselves the Partriotic Socialists (with the resulting party being known as the "Pazis").

It doesn't sound like The One's drivel, either. Because it makes actual sense.

John| 11.10.10 @ 6:55PM

145degrees C in the shade

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.10.10 @ 10:40AM

Mr Bernard posted about a patriot:

"He seeks only contentment at home, and he is quick to compromise with an enemy. He wants his country to be just strong enough to defend itself."

Mr. Bernard is stupid, and we just can't fix stupid here, sorry.
Did youall notice how similar his words are to those of King Obama?

Well, I for one want it to be universally known that our military can... and will... kick the crap out of any would-be aggressor conventionally OR unconventionally.
It is called "deterrence" folks.

Second, I want the crap-kicking someplace other than our coastal cities.

Now about "compromise": I shall never compromise with communists, (pardon the shorthand), or pedophile murderers who mutilate little girls and enslave them for life and call it "marriage".

I will fight them to the death, and most probably shall have to, since publishing..... www.texassaidno.com

Every one of you needs to buy the darned book and read it, and get the scales off your eyes.

Now I will paraphrase the New Testament: "there will be wars and rumors of wars...until Jesus returns..."

Fascinating| 11.10.10 @ 1:20PM

I will fight them to the death, and most probably shall have to

You "will", eh? Let's try an exercise to see how seriously we should take this claim. In your long life, you have had ample opportunity to enlist in the military and "fight" America's enemies "to the death".

Did you?

Fascinating| 11.10.10 @ 3:38PM

Anybody see where Ken "The Warrior" Texican went?

Seems to have vanished for some reason.

John Navratil| 11.10.10 @ 5:11PM

Fascinating,

Nice rhetorical flourish. The U.S. lost 500,000 military in WWII. The population at that time was in the 130 millions. Fighting to the death was, most fortunately, a less than one-half percent toll.

Did you wish it to be 100%? If only to make your point?

My personal experience was through R.O.T.C., but this was as the Vietnam war was ending, staffing was larger than needed for peace time, and there was little call for officers. I left the program, but would have been proud to serve.

What's your story? How will you deal with the current militant threat?

Senor Mick| 11.10.10 @ 12:56PM

Amen, sir!

Margie| 11.10.10 @ 5:29PM

Mr. Bernard:

I betcha you're for Ron Paul for President?

Alert1201| 11.10.10 @ 9:39AM

Yes, the new world would still be undiscovered and populated by ignorant primitive indian tribes if it were not for government run/assisted enterprises.

JimH| 11.10.10 @ 9:55AM

Of course his expedition was paid for with money taken from the Jews who they kiked out of Spain.

JimH| 11.10.10 @ 9:58AM

Correction: kicked.

Anommynous| 11.10.10 @ 11:40AM

Very well-said, Booger.

Edward Wright| 11.10.10 @ 3:32PM

"Missions to the moon or beyond fall into the same arena as building an aircraft carrier."

Do you think aircraft carriers exist only to collect a few rock specimens and deliver plaques saying, "We come in peace, for all mankind"?

That, sir, is an insult to the US Navy. Everyone who wants the government to fund is social program claims that it is somehow equivalent to national defense, but *no* social program is equivalent to national defense. The military is the only part of the government that keeps the wolf from your door. Moon landings, prescription-drug benefits, etc. don't do that.

The only space program that's truly analogous to an aircraft carrier would be Military Space Plane -- which languishes unfunded while the US spends tens of billions on Apollo Redux.

"neither the socialist nor the Randulans ever put anybody on the moon."

That would be news to Dr. Wernher von Braun, member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party and Major of the SS. Who, exactly, do you think landed men on the Moon?

Cincy| 11.10.10 @ 9:22AM

You guys have fetishized your anti-big government ideology. The real issue conservatives have with "Big Government" is social engineering (that does not work), not real technical engineering (that accomplishes something). Big Government science and technology gave us the atomic bomb (the winning weapon of WW II) and the Moon landing and SDI (the winning weapons of the Cold War.) Ronald Reagan did come to Washington and begin massive cuts in the huge, bloated "Big Government" Defense Department -- he knew that we needed a large defense establishment to protect this nation from the Soviet Union.

Now Obama comes along with a completely fraudulent space program, cons some dim-witted libertarians and conservatives into believing that he supports "private sector space" (i.e., corporate welfare for New Space), and you guys fall for it like a ton of bricks. Brilliant.

Cincy| 11.10.10 @ 9:25AM

Correction to the above:

"Ronald Reagan did NOT come to Washington.."

Edward Wright| 11.10.10 @ 5:27PM

"Ronald Reagan did come to Washington and begin massive cuts in the huge, bloated "Big Government" Defense Department -- he knew that we needed a large defense establishment to protect this nation from the Soviet Union."

Ronald Reagan did not confuse the part of the government that carries guns (the military) with the parts that don't. Just because he thought government should do one thing didn't mean he thought government should do everything. He knew that, "Government is not the solution to every problem."

Reagan was a strong supporter of the nascent commercial space industries that existed in his day. If he were around today, he would be proud to support the new commercial space companies -- as are Reagan Republicans like Newt Gingrich, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, and Sen. Sam Brownback.

Trying to paint Reagan as a fan of big government just won't wash.

"corporate welfare for New Space"

Purchasing commercial services from the private sector is not "corporate welfare" by any known definition of the term. But even if it is, it's a far cheaper than the corporate welfare for Lockheed and ATK that you're supporting -- welfare that would set the American space program back 50 years, increase the cost of access to space, and allow China to leapfrog past us with the development of reusable systems like Divine Dragon. That's why Republicans who understand space issues, like Gingrich, disagree with those who think Obama isn't socialist enough.

When Apollo was developed, the United States was still flying F-104s . We aren't going back to flying F-104s. Why do you think we should go back to flying Apollo capsules?

You say that conservatives like Newt Gingrich (probably the brightest man ever to be speaker of the House) are "dimwitted" because they want to keep America moving forward and developing new vehicles rather than turning back to the past. What, exactly, is dimwitted about that?

Edward Wright| 11.10.10 @ 5:42PM

"Big Government science and technology gave us the atomic bomb (the winning weapon of WW II) and the Moon landing and SDI (the winning weapons of the Cold War.) "

Ahem. The man responsible for much of that SDI technology was Brig. Gen. Pete Worden -- now director of NASA Ames and one of the people you're calling "dimwits."

Was Pete Worden a dimwit when he was managing SDI programs like DC-X (built and flown for $40 million, about 2% of what NASA thought it would cost)? When, in your opinion, did he become a dimwit?

Cincy| 11.11.10 @ 9:01AM

"Ahem. The man responsible for much of that SDI technology was Brig. Gen. Pete Worden -- now director of NASA Ames and one of the people you're calling "dimwits.""

Ahem. So Pete Worden developed "much of the SDI technology", eh? ROFL!! You guys kill me!

I assume that you already know that when Pete was at SDIO, he worked for somebody. Guess who?

Give up? Mike Griffin.

Edward Wright| 11.11.10 @ 10:47AM

Gosh, Cincy, do you think you could try to be a bit more snotty?

I know who Griffin is. I also know his reputation for stealing credit from subordinates, and I'm not really surprised that big-government Country Club Republicans fall for it. You guys are always impressed by resumes and fancy titles, rather than accomplishments. Isn't that why you elected Bush?

The "dimwits" have built hardware that actually works. The "dimwits" have logical arguments and real numbers. All you do is insult people.

Edward Wright| 11.11.10 @ 10:59AM

An example of Griffin's record: When he was Chief Technology Officer at Orbital Sciences, he managed to get over $100 million in NASA funding to build a suborbital reusable launch vehicle. He failed to even get it off the ground. Later on, Burt Rutan got $25 million from Paul Allen to build a suborbital reusable launch vehicle. He succeeded. So, when Mike Griffin says that NASA proved reusable launch vehicles are impossible and the United States needs to go back to capsules forever, people who are in the know don't believe him.

Another example of Griffin's record: He tried to stop NASA from sponsoring Alan Binder's Lunar Prospector mission. Then, later on, he tried to take credit for it. Ask Alan Binder about it, or read his book.

Griffin headed the back-to-the-Moon effort under both Bush I and Bush II. He failed, twice. That doesn't make him the great leader you think.

Vladislaw| 11.10.10 @ 5:15PM

Reagan did massive cuts to the military? What planet are you from?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/.....litary.htm

"Reagan's Defense Buildup Bridged Military Eras
Huge Budgets Brought Life Back to Industry

The Reagan defense buildup was a hallmark of his presidency, a free-spending crusade that lifted the nation's military industry out of the doldrums after the Vietnam War. He created a war-machine economy in a time of uneasy peace, with defense spending in amounts not seen since the heights of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts and sustained for longer than either of those wars. "

Reagan cut taxes and put them on the United States credit card and never paid a dime on them or the defense build up. He doubled the national dept and Cheney the cheer leader said deficits don't matter.

It was Reagan's idea of cutting taxes without paying for them that led to the mess we are in. Both Bush Sr and Jr. ran the same scam, I will cut your taxes but not cut any government, in fact they increased the government while cutting taxes. The day President Obama walked into the whitehouse he was handed over a trillion dollar deficit. MAYBE you should try something new .... READ HISTORY.

Cincy| 11.11.10 @ 9:02AM

"Reagan did massive cuts to the military? What planet are you from?"

A planet where I am able to read through a thread and see a correction for a dropped word before I go post and make a fool of myself.

"MAYBE you should try something new .... READ HISTORY."

Why do that when I have you here to "instruct me" on it? ROFL!!

Dai Alanye | 11.10.10 @ 9:41AM

Private enterprise did well in developing heavier than air flight but we've yet to see anything approaching the Wright brothers in space. Putting NASA out of its misery is a wonderful goal but I'd like to see a bit more in the way of accomplishments before turning everything over to entrepreneurs, especially those favored by the Obama-ites.

As for the Space Station, I've yet to discern any significant worth in that program beyond training in emergency management in a vacuum, and would rather see a grand flaming meteorite than continue to support it.

Coastal Ron| 11.10.10 @ 3:40PM

No one is talking about "turning everything over to entrepreneurs". Right now, the only funded demand is for transporting crew to the ISS.

There is not a lot of mystery here folks - NASA has a need to get crew to/from the ISS through 2020. The current Soyuz contract runs out in 2015, so as of 2016 they could buy those services from domestic companies, or they could continue to send money to Russia.

By law, NASA is only a backup to the commercial industry, and in reality NASA has no way to meet the 2016 date using the SLS/MPCV. Even if they did get the SLS/MPCV ready for launch, it would be an extremely expensive way to do crew rotation.

Where Ares I and Orion consumed $9B and never finished anything, commercial crew could probably get three man-rated launchers (DIV-H, Atlas V & Falcon 9) and two man-rated capsules (Dragon & CST-100) in place for $3B, and charge far less per person than the Russians (and carry more per launch). And in that $3B figure, I'm assuming $1B for Boeing's CST-100, so rest (3 launchers + 1 capsule) can be done with $2B.

The choices are pretty clear, as are the solutions - get commercial crew going!

Doctor Right| 11.10.10 @ 9:52AM

I remember hearing several years ago that space-shuttle astronauts were conducting an experiment, recommended by school-children, to see if bees could make honey in zero-gravity. Since bees don't live in zero-gravity, I was puzzled by the implications of such an "experiment". In other words, even if bees CAN make honey in zero gravity, who cares?!?!?

It was at that moment that I realized that NASA had run it's course.

NASA has been an agency adrift without a genuine purpose for years; perhaps it's high-time that it was disbanded in favor of a newer, more streamlined space-agency that had a genuine mission with multiple purposes:

1. Manned space exploration (first, to Mars, then elsewhere).
2. Colonization and exploitation of natural resources (minerals, etc).
3. Development of space-based defense and weapons capabilities.

To the 1st point, it's an obvious extrapolation of what we learned from Apollo, and more importantly, it's a goal! President Kennedy well-understood the importance of putting a man on the moon was more symbolic than strategic, but it was a mission to rally the populace, and it succeeded.

To the second point, the environmentalists will scream ("Mars First!"), but it needs to be done. These large, empty rocks floating in the solar systems are begging to be mined, and if we don't do it, someone else will. (Of course, Obama will say it's unfair that with only 5% of the population we're still getting 50% of the Martian respurces, but too bad).

To the 3rd point, despite all the bleating about keeping space "free from weapons", let's not kid ourselves about what the Ruskies and Chi-coms are up to, OK??

Cpm| 11.10.10 @ 9:34PM

And let us not forget the periodic discovery by NASA of holes in the ozone layer which would magically disappear shortly after the agency received its funding.

Wes in MT| 11.10.10 @ 9:58AM

I would disagree with the statement that "We must recognize that Apollo was a centrally planned monopolistic government program for a few government employees, in the service of Cold War propaganda and was therefore itself an affront to American values."
As the descendents of ukrainian immigrants, I would argue that the cold war threat was real. The spin-off technologies that came as a result of the goal of a moon landing are simply astounding,
pretty much in line with the advances in aviation that happened during WWII. Pretty much all of the technologically advanced conveniences we take for granted today began because of research done to overcome the obstacles presented by space exploration. We were the leaders of the world in every respect back then and we need to reclaim that position as a nation. One could make a good arguement that the monies spent on the Apollo missions gave a better return to the taxpayer than the equivilant monies spent on LBJ'S failed " Great Society" welfare scheme.
As in every case, the finished product is far better if our elected leaders actually lead by setting a goal and policy that promotes advancement and then allow private contractors to compete for the work.

Thomas| 11.10.10 @ 10:02AM

NASA's current problems, alluded to by the writer, stem not from lack of forsight within the aerospace community, but from a conscious decision on the part of the United States government and others to keep the money here on Earth and spend it on expensive social welfare programs.

Space is like the New World in the 15th century. No one really knew what was over the horizon. Brave men, or foolhardy depending upon your viewpoint, entirely funded by governments made the first voyages of discovery. When they returned, they brought back evidence of riches that spurred private, or at least semi-private, ventures to exploit those riches. In those days a voyage to the New World was dangerous, exploration of the lands there was dangerous. And a good many men found only death, rather than the riches that they sought. But they persevered because there were riches there. Including the greatest treasure of all, freedom.

That should have been the future of space exploration. This country had the resources to build a real working space station in the 1970's. One that would have served as a true way station for further exploration of the Moon and the near planets. One that would have allowed real industrial applications and, thereby, encouraged private investment and development of orbital platforms and the Moon.

This country had the resources to establish a base, or bases, on the Moon for exploration, scientific study and future expansion in the 1980's.

Manned expeditions to Mars and possibly even to the Asteroid Belt were possible in the same time period.

In the 1990's, scientific bases could have been operating on the surface of Mars.

Instead, we are stuck with a shuttle fleet that is 30 tear old technology as are the lift rickets used for satellites. Much of our aeronautical fleet in the world is also based on 30 -50 year old technology. And the jewel of mankind's space accomplishments, the ISS, is a slapped together tinkertoy whose toilets don't work half the time and whose wiring would pass inspection for a house in the U.S. or Europe.

The Apollo missions were great, but most of our political leaders viewed them as expensive propaganda. They saw no short term gain for themselves from putting money into the exploration of space rather than buying votes by funding expensive social welfare programs at home. And, exploring space without any idea of what kind of return of their investment might be forthcoming, private enterprise was not about to invest in space exploration. The private sector did greedily leap upon the private commercial applications of publicly funded technological advancements. Now, the decades of neglect of this exploratory agency have come home to roost.

Any forward step in man space exploration is going to take years to generate the hardware necessary for its implementation. The answer? Forward to the past. The plan is to shoot small personnel capsules into orbit on small lifting rockets. Hello again, 1965.

Mankind missed an opportunity in the 20th century that it grasped in the 15th. Perhaps our elected officials should crack open a history book occasionally. The results might be startling.

Now the time may have passed. Or it may not have. Historically, exploration is the single type of economic stimulus that truly works, in the long run. Ask the Phoenicians, the Mongols, the Spanish, French and British and, especially the Americans who would not exist in their present form without European exploration. Perhaps we should give it a try.

Vladislaw| 11.10.10 @ 5:30PM

"When they returned, they brought back evidence of riches that spurred private, or at least semi-private, ventures to exploit those riches. In those days a voyage to the New World was dangerous, exploration of the lands there was dangerous. And a good many men found only death, rather than the riches that they sought. But they persevered because there were riches there. Including the greatest treasure of all, freedom."

Columbus was not about discovery or exploration, it was about conquest and exploitation. One of the first things Columbus did was start killing and enslaving natives and stealing their gold.

So your idea is .. find a country, with people already living there, then kill and enslave them and steal their land and gold.

You must be all for mexicans coming here, ignoring our laws and borders and stealing everything they can get their hands on, just like columbus did.

Thomas| 11.10.10 @ 11:46PM

What got your knickers in a twist? That was then. Now, I don't remember any natives, friendly or otherwise, running up to trade with our astronauts on the Moon. Do you. Hardly any one up there to enslave, is there? In the 15th century, there would not have been any slaves in the new world if it was as lifeless as the Moon.

Now you might want to refresh your memory of history a trifle. Columbus was seeking a sea route to Cathay to open up another trade route not controlled by the Mongolsand Arab tribes. He stumbled upon the New World by accident. Unfortunately for the indigenous peoples, the only things they had of value were raw materials, such as gold. They were enslaved by later Spanish explorers to provide a ready workforce and to provide security for Spain's peculiar brand economic brigandage. In the 15th century, slavery was still practiced throughout most of the world. It wasn't until the enlightened late 18th and 19th centuries that slavery was being phased out by civilized nations. In Columbus' day, slaves were a commodity, just as gold, silver, grain, tobacco, alcoholic beverages, cloth and just about everything else was. And though the Spanish, and to a lesser degree the Portuguese, routinely enslaved the indigenous people of the New World, the French and the English did not. Their slaves were imported from Africa. In our enlightened era, there is no reason to think that we would embark upon a course of conquest, enslavement and theft. But that has nothing to do with my post.

My point was that every exploratory expansion in history has been followed by economic gain for the explorers and their people. Commerce followed initial exploration, which was usually underwritten by governments. The sme should have happened with space exploration. But it didn't. The reason was that the politicians in the United States and the other industrialized nations saw no reason to squander money on something that was not going to gain them votes and cement their power on this planet.

Radioman777| 11.10.10 @ 10:03AM

"Cold War propaganda"? What a crock! Mr. Murray is full of BS here, and in most of his ill-conceived "analysis". Here's a hint: Anytime you see the words "Cold War propaganda" and it's attributed to the USA, the quote comes from a committed leftist.

Dan Hirsch| 11.10.10 @ 10:07AM

Excuse me. It's not about cool rockets, it's about the "high ground." The space race is the race to gain the advantage of the highest ground there is. If we as a country can dominate the air to say 70,000 feet, we can master any battlefield. But if the Chinese take from 70,000 ft to 120 miles, our airplanes would be completely vulnerable and we would lose any battlefield we enter.

Here's the simple truth:

Today:

STRONG SPACE PRESENCE =
STRONG DEFENSE

Wake up people!!!!

Nolite me conculcare!

Edward Wright| 11.10.10 @ 3:43PM

"But if the Chinese take from 70,000 ft to 120 miles, our airplanes would be completely vulnerable and we would lose any battlefield we enter."

Do you really think NASA spacecraft carry weapons or are capable of carrying out military missions?

Communist China is developing a military space plane ("Divine Dragon"). The USAF Military Space Plane is virtually unfunded -- and you argue for ignoring commercial and military space in favor of bread and circuses?

I weep for my country.

Al Adab| 11.10.10 @ 10:08AM

The question is simple. Having shown mankind the way, do we intend that humanity's future spacefaring citizens speak Chinese?

Yosemeti Sam| 11.10.10 @ 10:13AM

Party poopers.

The BHO 750BILLION+ Porkulus bill sky-rocked to - NOWHERE.

The latest NASA budget of some 20Billion is still deemed too 'extravagant' to venture - SOMEWHERE out there.

No better allegorical juxtapose of pound-foolish penny-wise!

Alpha Centauri - or Bust!

Vladislaw| 11.10.10 @ 5:53PM

"The BHO 750BILLION+ Porkulus bill sky-rocked to - NOWHERE."

About 270 billion of that was tax cuts, were the taxcuts porkulus also?

homeland security got 1 billion was that pork?

vetrans got 7 billion to pay for health problems from serving in iraq, was that pork also?

the military got almost 5 billion for research for how to provide energy to troops in a war theater .. more pork?

From your stupid answer it would be my bet you never actually even read the stimulus bill and do not have a freakin clue where even one single dime actually went.

Yosemeti Sam| 11.11.10 @ 6:44AM

1. Google "Porkulus Bill" - just for kicks.

2. Old Webster understands "Pork" as slang for - "Pork Barrel"

3. "Pork Barrel" - colloguially meaning government 'appropriations' for political patronage to favored constituents. Legislation 'dressed up' with some 'specks' of meat - but,
predominantly VOTE-buying blubber.

4. Given the above - was this a SUCCESSFUL 'economic recovery plan' component as it was legislatively rolled out and trumpeted by the Democrat Party?

5. Truly WORTH the 750BILLION+ ??????????

6. Speak to the 9.6% unemployment - tip of the iceberg; speak to the crushing foreclosures; speak to lost savings; speak to ....

Cabermon| 11.10.10 @ 10:38AM

Time and technology march on: This from the movie "Patton":
Reporter: We're told of "wonder weapons" the Germans were working on:
Long-range rockets, push-button bombing; weapons that don't need soldiers.

Patton: My God, I don't see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics. Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed. No heroes, no cowards, no troops. No generals. Only those that are left alive and those that are left dead. I'm glad I won't live to see it.

Once we smelled the last breath of our enemy during combat; now we command Hellfire missiles from a building in Nevada and kill Afghan terrorists. More effective? Yes. But should we be nostalgic about the bravery and grit of those who did it the old way? Of course.

I grew up in the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo era and I still cry when during the Apollo 1 fire sequence in "Apollo 13." But technology has made that approach to long-range space exploration obsolete. We should rejoice in the increased knowledge we acquire with less money and human risk by using new technologies and private enterprise. But we should never forget the sacrifices of the heroes of the romanic age of space explortation.

Louis Jenkins| 11.10.10 @ 11:01AM

Space exploration should continue-minus the Muslims. Whether the exploration is via un-manned or manned vehicles it should still continue. I have to agree, we did get caught up in the shuttle experience and have spent the last 30 years tied to them. But, I don't see the current or future Federal government making the expenditures to make it possible.

Anommynous| 11.10.10 @ 11:56AM

And I don't agree at all with the contention that Apollo and/or NASA are monopolistic. Nobody is preventing the private sector from putting a man on the moon. However, if we left it entirely to the private sector, we would still be waiting for our first moon landing (although perhaps the Soviets would have beaten us to it by now). Private contractors still made important contributions to the Apollo program, so even the program itself wasn't exactly what I would call a government monopoly.

Mojo Risin| 11.10.10 @ 11:57AM

If Barack Obonehead's vision for America's place in human space exploration goes the way of his enlightened view of our economy, it's over. He's a social redistributionist who feels human space travel is unnecessary and those dollars would be better spent on arugula and date nights in NYC. No wonder Michelle is so proud of her country, now that she's reaping the benefits of her personal exceptionalism on the tax payer dime...

Patrick| 11.10.10 @ 11:58AM

Just finished Failure Is Not an Option by Gene Kranz. Kranz himself, one of the most heroic figures of Apollo, wrote in 2000 that NASA had become just another government bureaucracy.

Reading Krantz' book and many others about the early space program, it is clear that those guys were working in a completely different environment than today--it was more like a well-funded maverick startup than a government agency. Things have changed.

Are you happy with the last 40 years of American spaceflight? Happy that after Apollo 17 in 1972, not a single human has gone beyond Earth orbit, though we have spent unimaginable sums on NASA human spaceflight and killed 14 astronauts doing it? Are you happy with the long list of post-Shuttle booster and manned spacecraft development projects (X-33, X-38, NLS, etc.) that have consumed billions of dollars and have, without exception, been cancelled prior to first flight? Happy with the long list of innovative contractor-developed plans for lunar exploration that were laughed out of the NASA house? Happy that in 2010, the number of humans to have flown in space still numbers in the hundreds, with 99% of them government employees? Happy that it's nearly 2011 and, because of the government lock on human spaceflight, Americans are facing the prospect of paying for rides on Soviet ICBMs to reach low Earth orbit?

If you're happy, I seriously don't understand why.

Mark R. Whittington | 11.10.10 @ 12:14PM

Iain Murray and Rand Simberg attempt another full throated defense of Obamaspace and, as with all the other full throated defenses, fail badly. There is nothing new with this one. Apollo bad. Constellation worse. Commercial great (though what is so Commercial about massive government subsidies in Obamaspace is not explained), Republicans all hypocrites for wanting to explore space.

The article has the unappetizing air of desperation that comes of trying to defend the indefensible. It makes one wonder what is it about space policy that makes alleged libertarians check their principles at the door and come out in favor of state capitalism and corporate welfare and, in effect, ceding the High Frontier to foreign powers.

Bennett| 11.10.10 @ 2:15PM

Mark, your ravings have been addressed numerous times on so many other sites. Your love of "massive government subsidies" for ATK and the Constellation Program are laughable. Anyone with a shred of intelligence has figured out that Constellation was a money pit that wouldn't have gotten us to the moon before 3020 (if then), and that what you call "Obamaspace" is the most rational approach to space exploration put forward in 40 years. The priorities set by the unanimous Senate Bill is likely to have us BEO by 2025 WITH an infrastructure to actually explore the moon.

Obamaspace - 1 , Constellation Pork - 0

Keep on telling your lies if it makes you feel better, but don't count on convincing anyone that you know what you're talking about.

Mark R. Whittington| 11.10.10 @ 3:20PM

Oddly enough I seem to have support from peopel other that internet ranters:

http://www.fiscalcommission.go.....0.2010.pdf

"Eliminate funding for commercial spaceflight. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to spend $6 billion over the next five years to spur the development of American commercial spaceflight. This subsidy to the private sector is costly, and while commercial spaceflight is a worthy goal, it is unclear why the federal government should be subsidizing the training of the potential crews of such flights. Eliminating this program would save $1.2 billion in 2015."

Coastal Ron| 11.10.10 @ 3:51PM

"Oddly enough I seem to have support from peopel other that internet ranters"

Who said internet ranters were the only ones that couldn't balance a checkbook?

As usual, you use rhetoric but not facts. It's quite clear that NASA can buy transportation to LEO for a much lower cost than doing it themselves, and they don't give up their exploration ability in the process.

NASA is not a transportation company, and they don't do anything at a low cost. With Constellation being cancelled because it was over-budget and over-schedule, expecting the SLS/MPCV to be any different is just plain crazy.

If the goal is to spend money, then by all means give NASA a massive program to work on. But if you want to spend less money on routine transportation to LEO, then turn it over to the commercial sector.

Patrick| 11.10.10 @ 6:46PM

"You disagree with me; therefore, you are a ___."
a) racist
b) fascist
c)redneck
d) Internet ranter?

chris haynes| 11.10.10 @ 12:29PM

Our military spending makes sense?

Well, what do we get?
That's worth $700 billion.

One side, Canada; another Mexico. And two oceans. So who's the enemy? What's he going to do that the military will stop?

What are we up to the mideast? Europe? Korea? Japan? What are these aircraft carriers for? Why do we need air bases in Italy?

It takes $6000 per family per year for the military. The government's broke. It needs to balance the books. And you say raise taxes so we dont cut the miliary.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.10.10 @ 12:43PM

Caution...copy/paste, Chris.

Ken (Old Texican)| 11.10.10 @ 10:40AM
Mr Bernard posted about a patriot: