A new White House and Congressional study on the future of the U.S. aerospace industry has released a set of recommendations to the White House for future U.S. space policy. They believe the White House is receptive to their ideas.
The report calls for:
So, what do you think? Do we have a winner here? Could it be possible that the Bush administration is going to turn out to be a space enthusiast’s best friend? Or am I missing something?
Well I hope so, with Chinas’ awakening space program, I say it’s imperitive.
Are they actually putting more money into space or is this just talk? Do you have some kind of independent analysis of the Bush policy proposals as opposed to PR statements? I don’t much about space policy in general but I would be interested in what the big issues are and where the Bush administration stands on them.
Bush is Bush.
If he’s interested in space, it’s because he wants to put laser death rays in orbit, or because something valuable has been discovered there.
Based on what I’ve been hearing about the old “Star Wars” missile defense plan, I suspect the former… unless SETI has been in contact with some alien race of little blue men who eat garbage and pee crude oil…
I’m with CyberPundit here. That statement, in itself, basically seems to say “Faster engines! Safer travel! Partly paid for by private investment!” couched in a PR puff-piece.
Fancy the Chinese thinking of the solar system as their backyard, the Milky Way galaxy as their neighborhood, and the universe as their hometown.
Eeeek!!
That should be: “I don’t know much about space policy in general…”
BTW I am reading Red Mars a sci-fi novel about the colonization of Mars which brings up several interesting issues like the relative importance of science versus commerce. Though Mars colonization is a few decades in the future at least I would imagine the general issue is very much a matter of debate even today and it would be interesting to know what the different views out there are.
It reads really nice.
I’ve read other nice mission statements from various administrations regarding the space program, however, so seeing will be believing.
I wouldn’t care if China was a democratic space power, but come on, what other reason is this communist country reaching out into space other than to expand and reach parity with the United States.
The proof is in the pudding. Bush’s budget request for NASA for FY2002 was $14.5 Billion, only a 2% increase above the previous year and not enough to count for federal pay raises and inflation. That figure was pushed up by Congress to about $14.9 Billion.
The FY2003 Request was for an even $15 Billion, still a minimal increase. And that request is totally in the shitter because Congress didn’t approve an appropriations bill for NASA this year. They’re limping along, like the rest of the government, at FY2002 funding levels, with no authority to begin any new projects or construction.
Once all this shakes out, NASA will be lucky to have escaped with what amounts to a cut in funding over the past two years. I point out that NASA’s entire budget is equal to the cost of building about a dozen stealth bombers.
So if you ask me, an upbeat, optimistic long-term plan for NASA enthusiastically endorsed by this administration is probably the most promising new propulsion technology they’ve yet discussed. It’s quite possible each and every one of us will be able to achieve orbit by expunging the enormous amount of smoke blown up our asses.
Ryan, China isn’t the only nation driving it’s space program forward. India is aiming for a moon mission by 2007, becoming just the fourth nation to send a probe to the moon (unless China gets there by then). I’m not entirely sure that India is a better bearer of nuclear and advanced space technology than is China.
I know many advocates of the space program lament that we’ve done very little since the Apollo missions (although I’m an avid follower of the various unmanned spacecraft missions). With the multi-national activity in low Earth and geosynchronous orbits, it’s a wonder that the U.S. administration hasn’t realized that they have to push further out into the solar system in order to maintain whatever advantage their early successes in the space program gave them. Certainly, the technology transfer can’t be dismissed by wise policticians, nor the potential public relations advantages.
[hijack]
Sofa King, NASA’s budget is roughly the deployment cost of seven B2 “Stealth” bombers.
[/hijack]
The first thing that Bush did was appoint a bean counter to be the head of NASA. My understanding was that the Bush space advisors told him that NASA was in a fiscal mess, with cost overruns everywhere, systemic failures, and poor priorities. As a result, I think the current budget allocations were basically ‘holding money’ until the various commissions could report back on what the U.S. really needs, and NASA could be re-structured to get rid of the fat and incompetance.
In that case, the first two budgets don’t really ‘count’. What matters is what his advisors are telling him to do now, and whether the Bush administration will follow through with funding requests to get it done. So the debate should be this year, and the first funding request for the ‘new’ NASA should come next year, I would think. That’s when we’ll be able to tell how serious Bush is about space.
You’re probably right, Sam, but according to my sources, the OMB request for FY2004 is already in the can, waiting to be revealed in–second week of February, I think?
Unless this report is spurred by the President’s already calculated request, rather than the other way around, I don’t see a lot of reason to suspect that anything will change.
And thank you for the clarification, Cerowyn. Regrettably, I don’t feel any more comforted by that observation.
Well, I hope this sort of competition between the superpowers will come up with some useful applications of technology used for space for here on Earth.
One of the things that gives me hope is that this is not a hostile Commission to Bush. In fact, he hand-picked six of the people on the commission, and all six could be counted on to come back with a strongly visionary, pro-space position. Here are Bush’s picks for the panel:
[ul]
[li]Buzz Aldrin - Apollo 11 Astronaut, President of Starcraft Enterprises and founder of ShareSpace Foundation[/li][li]Robert Walker, former Member of Congress and Chairman and CEO of The Wexler Group (and only member of congress ever to be awarded the NASA Distinguished Service Medal). Also a board member of Aerospace Corporation, SpaceDev, and the Space Foundation.[/li][li]Edward M. Bolen, President, General Aviation Manufacturers Association; [/li][li]Heidi R. Wood, Vice President, Morgan Stanley Aerospace Defense Analyst[/li][li]Neil de Grasse Tyson, Associate Astronomer and Director of the Hayden Planetarium, American Museum of Natural History.[/li][li]John W. Douglass, President and CEO of AIA, the Aerospace Industry Association[/li][/ul]
For a pro-space panel, about the only person missing is Burt Rutan. Bush knew exactly what kind of answer he was going to get from these guys before he appointed them.
In contrast, here are the six members picked by Congress:
[ul]
[li]John Hamre, former Deputy Secretary of the Defense, President and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies[/li][li]Robert J. Stevens, President and COO of Lockheed Martin Corporation[/li][li]William Schneider, Jr., former Under Secretary of State for Security Assistance, Science and Technology and President of International Planning Services, Inc.[/li][li]Tillie K. Fowler, former member of Congress and partner at Holland & Knight; [/li][li]R. Thomas Buffenbarger, President of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers[/li][li]F. Whitten Peters, former Secretary of the Air Force and partner at Williams & Connolly.[/li][/ul]
I find those choices interesting. Bush picks all people who are active in building the space industry - entrepreneurs and scientists. Congress picks a bunch of politicians, lawyers, a CEO and a Union rep.
I like Bush’s picks far better.
Ryan, the technology transfer from the space program is one of the prime motivators for politicians. From this site comes a story about making the American public more aware of space program-derived technologies:
They’re talking about interplanetary missions while it still costs 6000 dollars a pound just to get into low Earth orbit? Unless someone’s discovered antimatter mines on Mars, it just isn’t going to happen.
I am utterly craven in my lust for space stuff. I can’t help it, I know the money could be better spent on baby seals. I waited for years for the Hubble, and almost lost all grip on reason when I heard they screwed up the lens, gonna have to fix it. Next year. Be patient. OK, it was worth it but…aaaaaaarrrrgh!
But, really, there’s no place to go. Orbital stuff, space station sort of thing, likely has a good chance of providing a return, bound to be something worthwhile you can do in zero-G you can’t do otherwise. But go to Mars? Whatever for? Thats why we got robots, so people don’t get dead finding out Mars already is.
One thing: can someone please clarify this “atomic drive” stuff?
Huh? Whaaaaa? Is this like, dilithium crystals? And if you cut the trip time to Mars to three months, aren’t there some Delta-V things to consider? My math aint that great, but somebody out there’s got it. If you know, and don’t mind being identified as a smart-ass, please advise.
i don’t think americans care about space exploration anymore. We beat them damn ruskies to the moon, that’s all that ever mattered.
Well, sure, but its ours now! We got there first.