It occurred to me the other day that I’ve only posted ONCE on Logipundit on the subject of Space Exploration. This caught me off guard, because Space Exploration was my “first love” (as it were) in the issue department. My main challenge back in 2006 was figuring out why $16Billion dollars a year still meant it was going to take 20 years to get back to a place we’ve already gone before.  Now why in the name of God it didn’t occur to me that the reason that Space Exploration is so expensive is the same reason that healthcare and education is so expensive…I’ll never really know.

Space doesn't necessarily mean NASA

One thing that I’ll likely always believe is in the sheer and total importance of human space exploration. There are myriad reasons why the human race MUST explore well beyond earth orbit. (And as I said over 4 years ago, there is really only one all-encompassing reason: the survival of the human species.) But necessity has never meant that centralized Government was the only way (or the best way…or even a GOOD way) to do it.

A few weeks ago, I was listening to an interview of a guy named Rand Simburg, a “recovering aerospace engineer” who began to explain something that has been bugging me for years:  what is a “Conservative” Space Policy?

Here’s an excerpt from an article written a little over a year ago on the topic by Mr. Simburg:

Part of the mindset that grew out of that era was that Space = NASA, and that “Progress in Space” = “Funding NASA” and that not funding NASA, or adequately funding NASA, or changing NASA’s goals, is a step backwards. But as I noted at Popular Mechanics yesterdayon the 24th anniversary of the Challenger loss, that tragedy had a good outcome, in that it allowed private industry to start to become more involved in space exploration, a trend that continues (and that the Bush/Griffin administration did support, albeit with paltry funding, in the form of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program to pick up slack in delivering cargo to the space station after Shuttle is retired this year or next). We have been in fact developing, though far too slowly, the sort of private-enterprise (and more intrinsically American than Soviet in nature) space program that might have evolved more naturally had we not been sidetracked by Apollo in the sixties.

What the administration is doing finally ending the model of the government having a state socialist design bureau to build a monopoly transportation system for its own use, at tremendous cost, which is politically supportable because of all the pork it provides to Alabama, Florida, and Texas. It proposes to expand the COTS program to provision of crew changeout in addition to cargo delivery, encouraging competition, and providing a robust capability that won’t put us out of business when the government rocket fails, as has happened twice with the Shuttle in the past quarter century, for almost three years each time. Instead of a program projected to cost many tens of billions over the next decade for a NASA-owned-and-operated new rocket (Ares I) that will cost billions per flight of four astronauts, it is going to invest 6 billion dollars in developing private capability, with multiple competitors, and do it on a fixed-price, pay-for-performance basis, rather than the wasteful cost-plus model that inevitably results in overruns due to the perverse incentives.

This hit me in the face like a wet squirrel when I heard this explained in the interview.  Why have so many of us fallen into the trap of believing that space travel has to be planned, driven, funded, restricted, and controlled by Government and by Government only.

With that in mind, it is Mr. Simberg’s opinion that President Obama has unwittingly stumbled upon a Conservative policy stance in his space policy.  Why? Because he doesn’t care about Space.

Luckily, we’re going to get the chance to interview Mr. Simberg tomorrow night 10pm EST on the American Conservative Radio show.

UPDATE: The above show had to be rescheduled, so we finally had the chance to catch up with Mr. Simberg on our July 13 show.

To find out more about Mr. Simberg and his thoughts on the topic, please go to his blog at:

Space Policy in the Obama-era
Tagged on:                         

One thought on “Space Policy in the Obama-era

  • Yes Obama does not care about space, or national defense. Further, sending pork back to Texas, Florida, or Alabama runs pretty low on his priority list. He wouldn’t even park a Shuttle here at LBJ or the Kennedy space center, opting to help out his buddies in Los Angeles. I thought that was arrogant. This move was inevitable when, at the height of his popularity, W could not get the public behind a mission to Mars, which went over like the proverbial lead balloon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *