Media Botches Story on Obama’s NASA Plans
Panic over "tearing down" barriers between military and civilian space programs is much ado about nothing.
We’ve all played it, as kids or adults, perhaps at parties. Take a group of people, have one of them write something down on a piece of paper, and whisper it in someone’s ear. Then the whisperee passes it on to the next person via the same method of communication, and so on, until everyone has “heard” it. The last person says out loud what the message was, and it is compared with the original written version. Quite often, and hilariously, there is little resemblance between initial input and final output, due to accumulating translation errors.
The same thing happens in the news business, particularly when the reporters aren’t very familiar with the field on which they’re reporting — and particularly when they think they are more familiar than they actually are. We had a good example of this over the holidays, when Bloomberg news came out with a “scoop.” The Obama transition team was considering recommending a merger of NASA and the Air Force, to address the threat of the Yellow Peril — Chinese beating us to the moon. Shortly afterward, it was breathlessly picked up by Fox News, DBTechno, and the Register in the UK, probably among others.
The story was nonsensical on several levels, right from the very first paragraph:
President-elect Barack Obama will probably tear down long-standing barriers between the U.S.’s civilian and military space programs to speed up a mission to the moon amid the prospect of a new space race with China.
While there may be “long-standing barriers” between civilian and military space programs — this is, in fact, why Dwight Eisenhower originally established a purely civilian space agency half a century ago — there is nothing in the article to indicate that they are going to be “torn down.” The only evidence that they come up with is that one of the options being considered for future human spaceflight is the so-called Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV), specifically Boeing’s Delta IV and Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V:
Obama’s transition team is considering a collaboration between the Defense Department and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration because military rockets may be cheaper and ready sooner than the space agency’s planned launch vehicle, which isn’t slated to fly until 2015, according to people who’ve discussed the idea with the Obama team.
The only problem with this is that — unless they are talking about some other vehicles, and if so, it’s hard to imagine what they are — the EELVs aren’t “military rockets.” Their development was subsidized with Air Force funds, but they were developed with Boeing and Lockheed Martin’s money as well, and they are commercial rockets, available to the military, commercial users, and NASA. There is no need to “tear down a barrier” for NASA to use them, as evidenced by the fact that NASA is already using them. For example, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was blasted to orbit and off to Mars with an Atlas V/Centaur over three years ago.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Rand Simberg is a recovering aerospace engineer and a consultant in space commercialization, space tourism and Internet security. He offers occasionally biting commentary about infinity and beyond at his weblog, Transterrestrial Musings.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
16 Comments
1. Cybergeezer:The New York Times will come out with front page coverage and “un-named sources” to “prove” this story is true. The NYT shall not be out-trashed by any source of propaganda.
Jan 6, 2009 - 6:30 am 2. yg1968:Griffin has an issue with using an EELV for getting to the moon with a large Orion capsule. He doesn’t have problems with man-rating EELVs by themself. In fact the plan is for NASA to ultimately use commercial lauch companies for getting to (and from) the ISS (SpaceX or other companies). Ares I main objectives are getting astronauts to the moon and also to help with the development of its cousin the Ares V (which shares many similar components with Ares I).
Jan 6, 2009 - 10:20 am 3. Rand Simberg:In fact the plan is for NASA to ultimately use commercial lauch companies for getting to (and from) the ISS (SpaceX or other companies).
That is COTS D. Which remains unfunded, so it’s not currently much of a “plan.” And Griffin is on record as saying that it would be too costly to “man rate” (whatever he thinks that means this week) the EELVs (ignoring the fact that he took exactly the opposite position before Congress in 2003, before he became administrator and came up with his new plans), which is one of the stated reasons to go to Ares 1.
Jan 6, 2009 - 11:15 am 4. Larry J:Ares I main objectives are getting astronauts to the moon.
Nope, the Ares I is designed to launch astronauts into low earth orbit (LEO). It lacks the power to launch anyone to the moon. Given what I’ve read, it barely has the power needed to launch the Orion capsule to LEO.
Jan 6, 2009 - 12:01 pm 5. Brian W:You missed the really idiotic bit at the end of the Bloomberg article where it said:
“China is designing satellites that, once launched, could catch up with and destroy U.S. spy and communication satellites, said a Nov. 20 report to Congress from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China’s State Council Information Office declined to comment on the nation’s anti- satellite or manned programs.”
If you look at the footnote for that (#179), it refers to pg 28 of the 2008 Chinese Military Power study. Which says the following:
“In addition to the direct-ascent ASAT program demonstrated in January 2007, China is developing other technologies and concepts for kinetic and directed-energy (e.g., lasers and radio frequency)weapons for ASAT missions.”
I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that such a co-orbital ASAT program is underway, except for a continuous stream of reports from the US that use each other as references.
Jan 6, 2009 - 1:07 pm 6. John Work:And even if the story were true, what significance would it have? Since the end of the Apollo program, NASA has become a bureaucratic, political pork-barrel. Its recent work on Ares has demonstrated a sad inability to even duplicate the work of forty years ago. Involving NASA with the Air Force would probably degrade our ability to compete with the Chinese, assuming (a big assumption) that that is even a priority of the Obama administration. And given the year-to-year budget process at NASA, there is no guarantee that they will have any space exploration programs to manage in the coming years.
In only a few years SpaceX has developed its own rocket motors and launch vehicles and is well on its way to leading the commercialization of space. We should hope the politicians don’t “help” them out as they’ve done for NASA. Apollo will stand as one of mankind’s greatest achievements, but today’s NASA has very little to contribute to the future.
Jan 6, 2009 - 1:10 pm 7. Anonymous:Brian W says: “I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that such a co-orbital ASAT program is underway, except for a continuous stream of reports from the US that use each other as references.”
You missed that Chicomm kinetic live test everyone got pissed off about because it destroyed a satellite and left tons of debris in orbit? Whose satillites do you think these things are intended to hit? The Euroweenies? Japan? No, the Chinese are hoping to cripple US satellites when they finally make a move and take us on.
This is one of China’s top priorities because destroying the GPS system and US communications would immediately remove the most important US technical & teactical advantage and allow numbers to make a difference.
Jan 6, 2009 - 2:00 pm 8. AlexinCT:Brian W says: “I haven’t seen one shred of evidence that such a co-orbital ASAT program is underway, except for a continuous stream of reports from the US that use each other as references.”
You missed that Chicomm kinetic live test everyone got pissed off about because it destroyed a satellite and left tons of debris in orbit? Whose satillites do you think these things are intended to hit? The Euroweenies? Japan? No, the Chinese are hoping to cripple US satellites when they finally make a move and take us on.
This is one of China’s top priorities because destroying the GPS system and US communications would immediately remove the most important US technical & teactical advantage and allow numbers to make a difference.
Jan 6, 2009 - 2:01 pm 9. Brian W:I did not miss the direct ascent ASAT test in Jan 07. I was in the USAF at the time and intimately involved in that event.
All three documents referenced (Bloomberg piece, China Committee Report, China Military Power Report) clearly state that in addition to the direct ascent ASAT weapon they tested, the Chinese are developing a co-orbital ASAT weapon. But none of them actually cite any evidence to the fact, other than each other.
Direct ascent and co-orbital ASAT systems are completely different weapons from each other and you cannot simply turn one into the other.
Jan 6, 2009 - 4:49 pm 10. Jeff:AlexinCT is confusing a direct-ascent ASAT (clearly demonstrated by the Chinese two years ago) with a co-orbital ASAT (for which there is no clear evidence of development by the Chinese). A direct-ascent ASAT, moreover, would not be effective against spacecraft in MEO (GPS) or GEO (communications).
Jan 6, 2009 - 4:59 pm 11. Brent Michael Krupp:I wouldn’t accuse Heinlein of promulgating myths. In that story they had a huge linear accelerator that could throw boxcar sized cargoes at any target on Earth. That’s plenty useful militarily!
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress doesn’t say anything about the military value of simply having a base on the moon which, of course, isn’t terribly high.
Jan 6, 2009 - 6:48 pm 12. yg1968:I meant that Ares I is meant to be used with Ares V in order to get to the moon. I realize that Ares I (with the Orion capsule) by itself can’t get to the moon.
Jan 6, 2009 - 8:01 pm 13. huh:@ John Work
A few things NASA has done since Apollo:
120+ shuttle launches
Hubble Space Telescope
Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
Chandra X-ray Observatory
Spitzer Space Telescope
Cosmic Background Explorer
Unmanned missions to every planet in the solar system
Mars Exploration Rovers
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Phoenix Mars Lander
Cassini Probe
NEAR Shoemaker
Deep Space 1 & 2
Stardust
Deep Impact
Dawn
I’m not saying NASA isn’t a bureaucracy and doesn’t have waster but given its small share of the US budget, I’d say we get pretty good ROI.
Here is a list of NASA missions for anyone interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NASA_missions
Jan 6, 2009 - 8:12 pm 14. Kevin R.C. O'Brien:Thanks for the list, “huh.”
To me, the most impressive remains the Mars rovers. Five years into a ninety day mission to a harsh environment — and still truckin’. (Well, Opportunity is, anyway’ Spirit’s a hurtin’ puppy but not yet down and out).
A funny thing about journalism — journalists are generalists (I was an aviation & space journalist for several years). The specialist space journalist is a dying breed (Alan Boyle is almost the last man standing). When the generalists write about your particular field, you can see their errors and mistaken assumptions. But when they write about other fields, most people assume the journalists are getting it right. It’s interesting to get a pilot, a doctor, a soldier, and a manufacturer together to talk about what the press writes about their respective professions.
There’s no great conspiracy, just the human capacity for Getting It Wrong given a megaphone.
Jan 7, 2009 - 5:42 am 15. Rand Simberg:I wouldn’t accuse Heinlein of promulgating myths. In that story they had a huge linear accelerator that could throw boxcar sized cargoes at any target on Earth. That’s plenty useful militarily!
Not really. It’s a very inefficient use of the energy from a weaponry standpoint, and the planet would see it coming days away. And the launcher would simply be taken out with a nuke.
Jan 7, 2009 - 7:46 am 16. Larry J:AlexinCT is confusing a direct-ascent ASAT (clearly demonstrated by the Chinese two years ago) with a co-orbital ASAT (for which there is no clear evidence of development by the Chinese). A direct-ascent ASAT, moreover, would not be effective against spacecraft in MEO (GPS) or GEO (communications).
Just about any satellite with maneuvering capability could be used as a co-orbital ASAT. Plus, sometimes you don’t need to slam into a satellite to put it out of action. For example, if you obscure the Earth and/or sun sensors, you’ll cause most satellites to trip into survival mode. You can do that with little more than a spray can if you maneuver close enough. The Chinese have demonstrated a good proximity operations capability.
Their current direct ascent ASAT can’t go to MEO or LEO but the same kill vehicle on a bigger booster could.
Jan 7, 2009 - 12:22 pm