I posted this a a reply to this piece by Rand Simberg. I liked it so much I decided to repost it here:
Both Republican and Democrat have good reasons both for and against the various ways of utilizing NASA. Neither side ever seems to mention the existence of NASA itself as an issue.
In large part, NASA enjoys broad political support due to the employment and economic boost that the various NASA centers scattered throughout the country bring to the local congressional district's economy.
To them, NASA exists merely as a way of funneling a few taxpayer dollars from everyone into their own personal fiefdoms. The congressman involved know that if they were to lose a NASA center in their district, then they would be toast at the next election.
No president since Kennedy wants to be seen as "anti-space". Kennedy provided a rudder (Apollo) the vessel (NASA) and the wind (taxpayer dollars). And an hour and a half after Armstrong stepped onto the moon, people turned the channel; the rudder was gone from that point on.
The Nixon/Carter years brought the shuttle, on the theory that adding lots more wind to the sails would enable the vessel to go around in circles really fast... ignoring the lack of a rudder.
Reagan made an attempt at justification of money for space via military applications like the SDI. While that rudder splintered, it sure provided a lot more wind for the sails.
Bush Sr. tried to make his own bold vision, but he didn't put a pricetag on it, and NASA shot back with some ridiculous number like a half a trillion dollars. oops.
With Clinton, it was more and more going around in circles without a rudder, plus a sweet deal with the Russians for an International Budget Buster.
Which brings us to Bush's speech last week. Now NASA has a rudder again - and a limit to the wind in the sails.
There is a lot to like about the Bush space plan. I like the 9 or ten year lag between now and when the CEV begins regular operations, and the 3-4 year gap between the end of shuttle operations and the beginning of CEV use. That gives plenty of time for private businesses to beat NASA to the orbital passenger market - a number of Xprize contenders could make the transition to orbital within a few years.
I like the fact that the money to fund this will come from a reorganization of fund allocation within NASA. The planned increases will beat inflation for a couple of years, but fall behind inflation thereafter. NASA has no choice but to downsize and refocus on core business. That means closures and job losses - most of which will happen during the next presidency.
I like the fact that the agreements reached with international partners will be adhered to, but that's it for the ISS and the space shuttle. Shuttles will only go to the ISS, to add to it or resupply it, transfer crew, and maybe boost the ISS orbit from time to time. Whatever shuttles are still in one piece after that can go into a museum (macabre prediction of the day: at least one more shuttle accident before the ISS is completed, based on age of fleet and present safety record). The stupidest idea in space travel, a vertically launched spacecraft with wings (to give the illusion that the "pilot" is flying a "spaceplane", which is really cool), will finally, mercifully come to an end. Only took two generations for the government to figure out that they had a bad design; a private company couldn't last two years on such a bad idea.
Which brings us to why there is no left/right dividing line when it comes to NASA. NASA is a Big Government Program. Many of the proponents of NASA in congress are supporting NASA because it gives them a larger place at the trough.
Left/right is only one axis of the political spectrum; but there is another axis which s largely ignored in political discussions. That axis is the authoritarian/libertarian axis. NASA falls above the line, and people like Burt Rutan, John Carmack, and Jeff Bezos are below the line.
The fact that the republicans and democrats do not bring up the issue of whether NASA (or the IRS, or the rest of the alphabet soup) should exist at all is the dirty little secret behind american politics for the last 90 years; they are not separate parties, merely different wings of the same party. And they are both above the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment