Media Botches Story on Obama’s NASA Plans
Panic over "tearing down" barriers between military and civilian space programs is much ado about nothing.
There is NASA resistance to using EELVs, but not because they are “military rockets.” It’s because they are seen as a threat to the agency’s — or more specifically, administrator Mike Griffin’s — desire to develop a new NASA-only vehicle, called Ares 1, and perhaps later, the larger version of it, Ares 5. If the EELVs become viewed as viable launchers for the human missions, the case for the Ares, already weak — particularly considering its extensive development teething problems — becomes much weaker, perhaps to the point at which the program dies. (It should be noted that five years ago, prior to becoming NASA administrator, Dr. Griffin, who is apparently desperately attempting to hang on to his job, had no problems with using EELVs for crewed spaceflight.)
As for the “China space race” part, it makes little sense, either. This part is true, as far as it goes:
The potential change comes as Pentagon concerns are rising over China’s space ambitions because of what is perceived as an eventual threat to U.S. defense satellites, the lofty battlefield eyes of the military.
Yes, the Pentagon is legitimately concerned about the Chinese space threat, particularly since they have demonstrated the ability to destroy a low-earth-orbit satellite a couple of years ago, making a terrible mess up there in the process. But this part of the story is a complete non sequitur:
China, which destroyed one of its aging satellites in a surprise missile test in 2007, is making strides in its spaceflight program. The military-run effort carried out a first spacewalk in September and aims to land a robotic rover on the moon in 2012, with a human mission several years later.
Despite what some of the (non-transition) sources quoted say, there is little relationship between a human moon landing and space warfare in near-earth orbit. Guidance systems for the latter are easily developed in the absence of orbital rendezvous and docking, which have different requirements. And despite myths promulgated by science fiction about being bombarded from the moon, it is really not a militarily useful high ground against the earth.
Yes, it will save costs if NASA can use existing, or modified existing, vehicles, but this wouldn’t involve any “tearing down of walls,” and it should be done regardless of what the Chinese are doing, simply to make the program more affordable and sustainable.
How did this confusing and misleading story happen? In an email from someone familiar with the transition team’s activities, it seems pretty simple:
This story is very strange. We asked questions about EELVs; about how the DOD and NASA cooperate; and what has been discussed with China. They were unrelated questions. It seems as though the reporter tied them together for his odd conclusion.
Which demonstrates the old adage about a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, to paraphrase Mark Twain, a confusing story can find its way halfway around the world — and perhaps to the moon — before the reality can get its boots on. Particularly at Internet speed.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
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 |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
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