Boeing Moving in at Kennedy

Now that's what I'm talking about.

The news that Boeing will take over a hanger at Kennedy Space Center for its own space program is exciting news to those of us who believe private spaceflight is the future. Hopefully, this private company won't be the last to get space on the port.

Seeing the final space shuttle flight has been a tough pill to swallow for everyone living in Florida this year, but this could create a genuinely brighter future, and one where there is more manned spaceflight, not less.

Dreaming of Mars

I hope this works.

From PCMag.com:
---
The Space Launch System (SLS) will be able to carry the Orion crew vehicle, as well as cargo, equipment, and science experiments to Earth's orbit and beyond, NASA said. Officials are targeting its first mission for late 2017.

"This launch system will create good-paying American jobs, ensure continued U.S. leadership in space, and inspire millions around the world," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, a former astronaut, said in a statement. "While I was proud to fly on the space shuttle, kids today can now dream of one day walking on Mars."
---

As I wrote before, it was sad to see the shuttle go, but it was really long overdue. If NASA can get another working manned-flight program that runs efficiently and gets us to Mars, that will be a wonderful thing.

And a particularly strange element of modern political opinion is that conservatives absolutely decried Obama for not supporting manned space flight. Maybe it is a military thing, but the supposed budget hawks of today do not have the same problem Bob Dole did when he voted against putting a man on the moon.

I just hope this doesn't deter the progress of private spaceflight. Politics and government can be counted on to eventually disappoint, and I sure hope the kids at SpaceX can keep the dream alive if NASA cannot.

Final descent

I was woken up this morning by a sonic boom. I'm gonna miss that.

So long shuttles.

Godspeed, Shuttle Program

With the launch of the Atlantis today, mankind saw its last scheduled blast into the stars, but by no means will this be the last time we reach to touch the face of God. Much has been made about the end of the space shuttle marking the end of an era for manned spaceflight, but it should be remembered this is the end of an era for a vehicle, not for trips to the stars.

"On the shoulders of the space shuttle, America shall continue the dream."

I don't know who it was who uttered those words as the shuttle lifted off the pad today, but they are words which must be remembered.

Those living in Cocoa Beach are understandably distraught and concerned about the future. The Obama haters are ironically quick to scream about how evil it is to end this long-running government program. (One wonders if he was expanding the shuttle program if they would call it socialism) Many people in the of Florida are feeling the sadness of knowing the orbiter is making its final runs around the Earth, and I too am a bit sad knowing there will never again be shuttle sent into space that looks like the toy vehicle I used to fly around on my ceiling fan in my room.

But what people who believe in spaceflight should be doing now is looking forward to the bright future. Space travel is about advancement, and the end of the space shuttle only bears this type of finality because the Constellation program is not as far along as we would hope. As I have noted before, there are also great opportunities which exist now with private spaceflight.

The shuttle was never going to take us to Mars, or even back to the moon. When we dream of a future where man lives in space, it is necessarily one where the shuttle is a museum piece, technology long surpassed by the next better rocket.

Continue to dream. Today is just the beginning.

Challenger: The Remembered Moment

The loss of the Challenger was somehow one of those moments everyone who lived through it seems to remember the same as 9-11 or, from what I have heard, the deaths of JFK and FDR. We all know exactly where we were when we learned the disaster had happened. Growing up in Florida, I was among those who had a front-row seat to the national tragedy.

My mother recalls watching the shuttle break apart on her way to lunch, not knowing what was going on until one of her students saw the splitting streaks of smoke and said 'Something is wrong.' I have a friend who recounted online today sitting with his first-grade class 30 miles from the launchpad and watching the shuttle go up, then turn into a fireball and crash back down.

I didn't watch it happen. My second-grade class at Beverly Shores Elementary had watched other launches, but this one occurred while we were at lunch. But we were all interested in the flight. My teacher had met Christa McAuliffe and we were planning to watch the video lessons the teacher would beam down to Earth. It was something we were all looking forward to, and living just an hour from Kennedy Space Center, the whole affair was something with which we were all connected in a more real way than, say, kids in Wisconsin.

When we came back from lunch, the teacher was crying. She sat us all down and explained to us what had happened. Things were quiet at first, then we started asking questions. How did this happen? Nobody knew yet. We had to wait. What about the astronauts? How were they? Somehow, we all presumed the astronauts could just hit the eject button and escape. She explained to us there was no way any of them could survive, and that they had all died.

I doubt many in the rest of the country realize the degree to which this tragedy was felt by the state of Florida. Like all students at the time, we had read our Weekly Readers and were anxiously awaiting the launch of a teacher into space. But when disaster struck, we saw the lingering streaks of smoke in the sky that seemed to last all day. The local news replayed the tape again and again, even when the national news had tired of it.

We also waited for the successful launch that would put this tragedy out of our minds, but which would not come for a long and painful two years. Instead of another shuttle launch, we just got to hear reports about O-rings. I was just a kid, so I certainly didn't understand the devastation the shuttle loss caused to the local economy, but the loss of life and a presumably safe orbiter was on the top of most minds for a long time.

This anniversary snuck up on me, which is a little odd since I was just at Kennedy last weekend. I took my son there for the first time on a Cub Scouts campout where we slept under the Saturn V. My son was really struck by the stories of astronauts who had lost their life in the pursuit of space exploration. Tales of Apollo I, of Columbia and, of course, the Challenger were among the space stories that seemed to resonate the most with the 10-year-old child.

I've been hard on NASA sometimes since I launched this blog. The program can be defensive, acting like it should be exempt from the fiscal constraints of government. And I maintain our best chance at accomplishing truly successful space travel is by encouraging private sector involvement in spaceflight.

But there is no question mankind would not have accomplished what it has in outer space if not for the drive of the people at NASA. The fact astronauts are willing to put their lives on the line, even after the disasters which have destroyed 40 percent of our orbiters, is a huge part of that. We owe everybody who has ever ridden these high-powered dynamite sticks into orbit a huge debt of gratitude.

I think that is why losing Challenger is such a memorable experience for every American who lived through it. We all could feel, as those smokescreens besmirched out skies, that a sacrifice had just been made, but that our eyes still needed to focus on the stars. It was a soul-searching moment when, as an entire human race, we had to weigh the price of life against our wish to reach beyond the limits of our atmosphere.

The astronauts on that orbiter would never want the dream abandoned. I hope that never happens.

Slapping NASA

I appreciate when officials who are fighting so hard on NASA's behalf also decide to hold their feet to the fire. As I have noted before, the rocket scientists on the Space Coast can get a little noisy. That usually doesn't matter to officials fighting for the program because the squeaky O-ring gets the grease.

But when NASA suggested they can't build rockets on schedule, it pissed off Sens. Bill Nelson and Kay Bailey Hutchison. I am happy to see the two acting with a strong bipartisan voice. But it is noteworthy Nelson is the one spending more political capital here. Hutchison isn't seeking re-election, and while her credibility on this issue is a good thing to have in the debate, Nelson is expected to seek another term in the Senate in 2012.

But he also knows the space program only has credibility with the public if it can work in an efficient manner. When it issues reports suggesting it can't meet its budget and accomplish anything on schedule, that hurts the agency in the eyes of a public that questions all government spending. From the Senators' letter, all of which is available here via 13 News, notes that billions have been spent on the programs at NASA, and that the law requires they get the job done.

From the letter:
---
"By building on current capabilities and previous investments, and making effective use of NASA's existing workforce and contracts to focus on the immediate development of a heavy-lift rocket and crew vehicle, NASA can reach initial operating capability much more quickly than it can by conducting another vehicle study."
---

The point is that NASA has to operate with the fiscal responsibility the public is demanding of all other facets of government. This is part of the great American paradox in viewpoints. We love the idea of sending rockets into space, but we don't want it to cost anything. Jeff Greenfield once called this the American Ice Cream Sundae Diet.

I have made my views known on this. I want space flight privatized with ports government-run. But those who support complete government-controlled space exploration should demand the agency work within the same constraints as our schools, transportation departments, and military.

Well, not the military. Fiscal conservatives for some reason give them a pass.

Many on the right also give NASA a pass, but that won't last if the program can't finish its work on time and on budget. And support among the public at large is frankly waining every day. And if NASA can't fulfill its promises to the American people, politicians should stop letting those promises be made.

Private Spaceflight is the Future

Even as the fight for more shuttle flights continues in genuine bipartisan fashion, something truly important for the future of exploration occurred yesterday. The SpaceX Dragon launched from Cape Canaveral and landed.

As I have noted before, many of those politicians fighting so hard for socialized space exploration are completely hypocritical as they preach about the need to cut government spending. Yes, the government should have a role in space exploration, but after losing two shuttles and dragging our feet on significant advancements for the past four decades, it is clear to me that private spaceflight is the way of the future.

The only bright side I saw to the extension of shuttle flights was that it could bolster Suzanne Kosmas' chances of re-election. That didn't pan out. But with a new Congresswoman, one who hails from a movement all about the free market, I would like to ask now that the focus of Space Coast politics shift a little bit more toward assisting companies interested in exploration.

I hope Rep.-elect Sandy Adams, who comes into office weeks after SpaceX made it in and out of orbit safely, sees this shift as a positive one. The same the death of Disney's Orlando animation offices gave birth to a thousand locally-owned animation companies, so could the loss of the shuttle program create enormous private sector opportunities in the Cap Canaveral area.

If I were a benevolent dictator, I would maintain government operation of space ports like the Kennedy Space Center but completely privatize space exploration. If the government still kept a small fleet of space-capable vessels, or if the military ever had a genuine national interest to promote separate from exploration, the facilities of course would remain available the same way Air Force One can land in any airport in America. But the bulk of space exploration in the future needs to be done by private interests, not public ones.

The only reason this approach lacks political popularity is that it is marked with fear of the unknown. Until now, there hasn't been a lot of faith that SpaceX and other companies could pull off successful missions outside of Earth's atmosphere. Perhaps that will change after today. We will see.

But there is every reason to believe that the end of the shuttle program will bring with is more job opportunities than it costs. Private launches open the possibility of space tourism, and allow for more flights and more research being done by far more companies that currently can save space in the cargo bay.

Private companies will create more vessels than the handful of shuttles launched since the 1980s. Will there be crashes and tragedies? Of course. There are airplane crashes and automobile crashes now that cost us many lives every year, far more than the 24 astronauts who died serving as part of an elite but far-too-small force. But those tragedies will be met with swift responses, not the 30-month stop after the Columbia disaster or the 32-month delay after the Challenger explosion.

My point is not that space should become to frontier of careless profiteers. This new industry must be regulated heavily from the start, the same way airlines have to abide by strict protocols and regulations. But this is a new and exciting industry, one that should bring enormous economic growth to Florida, Texas and California.

And what an exciting industry at that.

A More Admirable Intraparty Dispute

Since I attacked Allen Boyd earlier this week for blaming Nancy Pelosi for November losses, I thought it only appropriate I weigh in on reports of Bill Nelson coming after Barack Obama. But I must say, I have very different view here.

The St. Pete Times is reporting that Florida's senior senator is angry at the White House for its soft approach to a number of very local problems. On his list of beefs are weak support for NASA, the BP claims process and a disappointing home foreclosure program. And I have to say, it is hard to find fault with Nelson's complaints.

The foreclosure program was teased during one of Obama's first town halls, one held in Fort Myers where I was present. At the time, he suggested very strongly that people who were underwater on their homes would be eligible for a new program to help fill that gap between the value of a home and the debt still owed. Problem is that the program, like so many efforts from Washington of late, was aimed at helping banks more than homeowners. An enormous number of underwater homeowners, including myself, couldn't prove they were far enough up crap creek to qualify for help. Those who could get help were in such dire straights it really made more sense to walk away, all associated personal shame aside.

Now, I have made my feelings known about NASA. I understand why Obama is doing what he is doing, but I also understand why Nelson, who has gone into space himself aboard a NASA shuttle, would fight so hard. And from a jobs perspective, it is truly terrible timing to stop shuttle launches when there isn't exactly a lot of opportunity for highly-skilled NASA layoff victims.

Then there is BP. This is a disaster which just won't stop hurting the administration. When Tony Hayward is having more PR success than the White House, something is wrong. The people should still be angry at BP, but they seem to have more lingering frustration with Obama.

So I think Nelson's arguments with the White House are justified. Plus, these are not problems which are antagonistic to progressives, the way Boyd's assault on Pelosi's leadership clearly was. But another thing separates Boyd and Nelson. Boyd only decided to complain after he got his bottom handed to him by voters this month. Nelson is most assuredly making noise now because he is up for re-election in 2012, but he is coming out now in hopes the administration can do something about all this.

The thing is, these problems will become a noose around the neck of a sitting Democratic senator if they can't get fixed in two years. No matter how much Nelson attacks the White House, he will be blamed for their failures, and he knows it.

But so will the White House. Florida will absolutely be a swing state again in 2012, and Obama will be in a far more defensive posture next go-round. He will need this state, whereas it was just gravy two years ago. Nelson's tough love could make a difference not only in his chances for re-election, but in Obama's.

Now we just need the White House to listen.

Space Jobs

So the House today made it so we get one more shuttle launch. I hope Suzanne Kosmas uses this to her advantage, but that's about all I can say.

Per the UPI Science News section, the House voted 304-118 to save the shuttle program for at least a little bit longer. This was a popular measure on both sides of the article, and shows how Democrats like Kosmas can save jobs in their district, even when the president doesn't include that in his budget. I'm happy Sen. Bill Nelson was visiting the House today making sure this got through. These are elected officials and they have constituents on the Space Coast, so this is what they are supposed to do.

But I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't just rip the band-aid off here. The Shuttle program is a dying program. I frankly find the popularity of this among conservatives a bit baffling. This is really an antiquated program, and a classic case of government continuing to fund something just because it is too painful to stop funding it.

I've noted before that those Republicans who dog stimulus spending on roads, which get used by millions every single day, are fairly hypocritical voting for millions to be spent sending people in aging cans into orbit. Like so much in government, our leaders seem unwilling to spend what it takes to reach loftier goals, but too reliant on pork to cut the losses and call it a day.

What we really need to do is find a way to reach further into the stars. I tend to think that can best be accomplished offering incentives to private space carrier providers, but it doesn't seem right now as if anyone is ready to put a Virgin Galactic ship on the pad as soon as the last shuttle lands.

I think the short-term possibilities in space tourism could be wonderful for the Space Coast economy. I think the long-term benefits on genuine intergalactic exploration are so great they can be ignored forever. But the vote today just hops NASA back on the same hamster wheel that has been spinning since the 1980s. Rather than waiting for the next Columbia disaster, I'd like to move on to the next step instead of keeping the shuttles on life support.

Can't spell Nauseate with NASA

The increasingly partisan fight about the funding of human space flight has become more irritating in the months since President Obama first announced he would let the shuttle program end. While I initially met this news with a certain amount of anxiety, the complete hypocracy demonstrated by Republican leadership on this issue has done nothing but convince me a privatization of space exploration will have to happen.

For what it is worth I, as benevolent dictator, would institute a hybrid privatization where space ports like Kennedy Space Center remained government operations, but the actual space travel was done by commercial operations. As soon as I organize my Dungeons and Dragons group to lead an armed insurrection, you can expect this change on the Space Coast soon.

The irony, of course, is that I consider this a fairly conservative view. End socialist space flight. I can't even think of a different phrasing that would make this seem like a liberal pinko idea. Yet Republican politicians are so interested in saving the government jobs tied to NASA, you would think this a crazy communist plot. Read this post on The Daily Caller from Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt. He says Obama's plans will "forfeit America's leadership in space and unneccesarily cut thousands of jobs across the nation." Anyone wonder how Mr. Aderholt voted on the stimulus? Anyone surprised?

Of course, here is Florida, congressmen of all political striped are angry about NASA cuts. Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, a Democrat facing a tough re-election bid this year, says Obama's plans to scale back programs like Orion will be "leaving NASA with no detailed plan or timeline for exploring beyond Earth's orbit" and will "cede our international leadership in space." While I disagree, I at least think Kosmas makes an argument consistent with what she stands for. The same can't be said for folks like Rep. Bill Posey.

The Space Coast congressman fought against a Constellation program cut, and in a statement afterward declared "House Democrats" had shot that down by closing the amendment process in the budget. Wonder how Kosmas feels about that. "The United States will soon yield its preeminence in space to Russia," Posey pleaded to Nancy Pelosi. So there you have it. Posey wants America to be more like Russia.

Obviously, members of Congress on either side are not really upset about a plan that loses "thousands of jobs across the nation." They are upset because it cuts jobs in their districts. Heck, if the jobs were spread more they likely wouldn't care. But especially irritating about folks like Aderholt and Posey is how fiercely they fight against the creation of any other government jobs. Republicans like to say government jobs don't count the same as private sector jobs, unless the jobs are at military bases or rocket launch pads.

And that is where the nauseating NASA defense sways me even more firmly into the commercial space flight camp. Maybe it took an inspiring message from Jack Kennedy to ever get a man on the moon, but today Richard Branson makes a lot prettier pitch. It seems to me the go-get-em entrepreneurial spirit of America which Republicans seem so willing to hang our economic hat upon may actually show more promise in the space program than in any other arena.

And if I'm wrong, then Richard Branson can always ask Congress for a bailout. And wouldn't the thrill of watching that vote go down be worth it?