And Transterrestrial’s one-word subject on this post succinctly captures the midset of a key congressional committee’s chairperson.  Clearly the advantages of private sector investing their own money and competition is is completely opaque to the supergenius big brains who’ve somehow landed in the US government.

It’s time for NASA to back out. Space cannot be left to the modern equivalent of the WPA.

The administration may have made the right choice for the wrong reasons, but who can say what the reasoning might be? Can’t be to save money. It’s the biggest budget ever.  Spite directed at the previous administration? Possibly. An effort to hinder any military applications of technological gains? Could be that too. Proponents of the program cite that as one of its benefits. Rand Simberg at TransTerrestrial Musings, blogging with the authority of an aerospace engineer, takes on that and other points in this post.

But whatever the reason, enough of blunt instruments. Maybe it will spur some innovation. Chemical boosters will get you there but a hundred years from now they’ll be equated with the biplane. Remember the biplane? It was all the rage, oh, just about a hundred years ago. NASA itself is the biggest blunt instrument, but there’s precious little chance of them scaling back to be the safety oversight agency and grant-writing they should be. Sure, let them keep deep space to themselves, but leave LEO to the entrepreneurs. 

High time to get smart about space exploration, and it won’t happen with aerospace giants partnering with bloated government bureaucracies.

Get on the roof first. LEO is where it’s at. Then from there the Moon again and then the rest of the Solar System.

Figure out how to make a space station you can walk upright in like a human, instead of squeezing through little Habitrail tunnels and chambers. Yes, walk before you run, but walk upright, and when you can then humans will really be in space. That would be a major achievement, and it could be accomplished in Earth orbit.

Richard Shelby (R-AL) is pushing it, fine, but would he be if the Marshall Space Flight Center wasn’t in his state? Being lashed electorally (in other words, addicted) to protecting taxpayer-funded obsolete job descriptions is as stifling in a space program as in any other facet of an economy.

Plenty of other mixed blessings in here too. Some bad news that sounds like good news, etc. For instance: Administration makes free enterprise noises about turning over hauling to the ISS to private companies. Sounds good, and they’d make much PR hay about that to counter other massive anti-commerce moves. But that would be a small price to pay for getting what they really want, a law to make NASA one part of some international space exploration effort. In other words, turn NASA over to the UN so it becomes a handy conduit for funneling US advanced aerospace technology to our international “partners.” Not too much between-the-lines-reading needed there. Well we suppose it might be slightly more space-oriented of a change than making it officially subsidiary to the EPA, which parts of it already seem to have become.

Meanwhile: “As it stands, the U.S. must rely on Russia to ferry its astronauts to the International Space Station for most of the next decade.”

No mixed blessing there. That the US needs to rely on Russia for anything…well, since it’s too late to be unacceptable, we suppose it must be accepted. This would put the US officially behind them again in the space race for the first time in more than 40 years.