House committee holds hearing to protect its Artemis pork
The space subcommittee of the House science committee yesterday held a hearing which appears to have been mostly designed to protect the Artemis pork that both parties have been funding for decades, designed not to get us into space but to funnel tax dollars into their districts.
The hearing had only two witnesses, one pro-SLS (Dan Dumbacher) and one only very slightly skeptical of it (Scott Pace). Both these men have been deep members of the Washington swamp for decades, and both made it clear that funding should continue for SLS, at a minimum through the third Artemis launch, presently scheduled for ’27, a launch date so uncertain no one should believe it.
NASA had been invited to send a witness, but it apparently declined to do so.
Pace, the supposedly skeptic of SLS, has actually been a big supporter for years. As executive secretary for Trump’s National Space Council during Trump’s first term, he consistently advocated big space and NASA-built rockets, showing continuous skepticism of commercial space. Even now, his suggestion that SLS be reconsidered after that third launch was very hesitant.
Essentially, this committee hearing was called by these congress critters to advocate the status quo, which is likely why NASA declined to send a witness. Why give them a chance to blast any potential or major change in Artemis and have the propaganda press savage NASA and the Trump administration with negative soundbites?
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
The space subcommittee of the House science committee yesterday held a hearing which appears to have been mostly designed to protect the Artemis pork that both parties have been funding for decades, designed not to get us into space but to funnel tax dollars into their districts.
The hearing had only two witnesses, one pro-SLS (Dan Dumbacher) and one only very slightly skeptical of it (Scott Pace). Both these men have been deep members of the Washington swamp for decades, and both made it clear that funding should continue for SLS, at a minimum through the third Artemis launch, presently scheduled for ’27, a launch date so uncertain no one should believe it.
NASA had been invited to send a witness, but it apparently declined to do so.
Pace, the supposedly skeptic of SLS, has actually been a big supporter for years. As executive secretary for Trump’s National Space Council during Trump’s first term, he consistently advocated big space and NASA-built rockets, showing continuous skepticism of commercial space. Even now, his suggestion that SLS be reconsidered after that third launch was very hesitant.
Essentially, this committee hearing was called by these congress critters to advocate the status quo, which is likely why NASA declined to send a witness. Why give them a chance to blast any potential or major change in Artemis and have the propaganda press savage NASA and the Trump administration with negative soundbites?
Readers!
My annual February birthday fund-raising drive for Behind the Black is now over. Thank you to everyone who donated or subscribed. While not a record-setter, the donations were more than sufficient and slightly above average.
As I have said many times before, I can’t express what it means to me to get such support, especially as no one is required to pay anything to read my work. Thank you all again!
For those readers who like my work here at Behind the Black and haven't contributed so far, please consider donating or subscribing. My analysis of space, politics, and culture, taken from the perspective of an historian, is almost always on the money and ahead of the game. For example, in 2020 I correctly predicted that the COVID panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Every one of those 2020 conclusions has turned out right.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
Yes, the choice of witnesses is…telling.
I think Eric Berger may be right, however, that Babin and Haridopolis may have been caught off guard by Scott Pace’s shift to a moderately critical posture on keeping SLS.
Dumbacher, however, sang from the proper script.
No one at NASA, of course, is going to go anywhere near a hearing like this until the new NASA administrator and his team are firmly in place. Hard to blame them.
Okay, I am 100% in favor of new space and efficient use of resources. But how to proceed? Someone please enlighten me if I am incorrect here, but does this imply that the national human space program will shift to contractors? Or is the plan to keep the program and all spacecraft certification requirements which are necessary for astronaut occupancy? Or is there going to be a relaxation of these requirements? Because from what I have heard they are quite stringent and difficult to meet.
Any comment would be met with gratitude.
Cluebat: I have been arguing for decades that the worst thing American needs is a “space program.” The very words imply supervision and control by the government, a top-down Soviet-style communist approach that generally doesn’t work, and when it does, it does so inefficiently.
Sadly, we have been trying to copy the Soviets now for more than a half century, which explains SLS and the failures of the shuttle program.
What we must want is a free, very chaotic, and competitive aerospace industry, with many companies following their own path to profit and exploration. Within that mix the federal government should be a player, buying what it needs from that private sector to do the exploration and research it considers important for national prestige and security. It however should run as little as possible, with the best option being it runs nothing.
Almost all the legal government “spacecraft certification requirements” are generally a hindrance and a problem. They are not written with the quickly evolving technology in mind, and in fact act to discourage that innovation. Moreover, it must be emphasized again and again that there is no one in the federal government qualified to set those requirements. The people who know are in the private sector who are actually doing the work. They know what they need to provide viable and safe transportation. They have to do it right, for if they don’t they won’t get any customers.
I hope that answers your questions.
Thank you sir. It sounds like a great plan and I would be all for it. It also sounds like the beginning of a cat fight.
Cluebat: Heh. Aint’t that so? And ain’t we already in it? Fighting for freedom and liberty has never been easy. Our problem now is that Americans for too long ignored the fight.
They are in it now, however, good and proper.
Ok guys… I’m going to do some test posting, working with Shane the IT guy to try and iron out any problems with posting here..
To the point of this thread… It seems to me that contracting out manned space flight is a no brainer… But would / will this approach work with the robotic missions NASA shines with? James Webb was billions over budget, so would it have ever launched if farmed out to a private contractor? And where is the profit margin for an extended mission for a Mars Rover, never mind a voyager probe.
Given the tiny percentage of you guys tax dollars that NASA eats, it’s no biggie, but I have no doubt it could be better spent elsewhere ( IE. not on the SLS ), I’m interested in thoughts from boots on the ground.
( Please don’t jump down my throat… Because I’m pinko me, but replies are appreciated as I try and help iron out bugs in the reply system here..)
Lee S,
You’re correct that human spaceflight – from the US at least – will shortly be entirely provided by the private sector. I’m personally of the opinion that SLS and Orion will be cancelled sometime in the next 90 days. NASA will retain an astronaut corps in the near to medium term, but they will fly missions by, in essence, having NASA buy them tickets on commercially operated spacecraft.
Longer term, NASA may still have an astronaut corps for actual exploration missions, but they will be, more and more, outnumbered by more plebian types of people who just happen to live off-planet and wear spacesuits to work. By mid-century, for instance, I expect most of the US “sustainable human presence” on the Moon to be blue-collar “hardhats” sent there to build large items of industrial and habitation infrastructure – alongside what will probably be an even greater number of Optimus humanoid robots. Most of these non-robotic blue-collar astronauts will probably be of Mexican or Cuban ancestry given the demographics of the areas in which SpaceX has chosen to build its Starship production and operations infrastructure. Indeed some of these future space pioneers can probably already be observed on NASASpaceflight.com videos showing the ceaseless building going on at Starbase. The concrete never sets on Elon Musk’s earthly empire. That will continue to be true of whatever passes for concrete on the Moon and Mars.
NASA, and its long-time favorite contractor LockMart, have been very good at designing and building one-off deep space science probes for decades. What has been increasingly lacking of late is competent project management. NASA should retain its ace science, engineering and technician troops, but the Science Mission Directorate and the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate should have tiny HQ staffs and contract out the project management chores to the private sector as it has long done for the actual fabrication of parts. With the notable exception of Alan Stern, first-rate boffins tend to be second-rate – or worse – managers of projects and people. There are plenty of successful technical project managers in private industry who could be contracted to provide such services to NASA robotic exploration programs as they are ginned up. I hope NASA, under Jared Isaacman, moves decisively in such a direction.
Which is not to assume that deep space exploration will continue to be the exclusive demesne of NASA and academia. AstroForge’s Odin close-up asteroid survey spacecraft launched yesterday as a rideshare on the Intuitive Machines Athena lunar lander mission. It will go much more deeply into deep space than the Moon. And, should its survey target prove sufficiently promising, it will be followed by actual mining craft. Odin should also be expected to have siblings that will fly to other asteroidal targets of interest as quickly as AstroForge can afford to crank them out and launch them.
Nor are asteroids – both NEO and Main Belt – likely to be the limit of interest taken in deep space by private entities. Both long-term habitation and shorter-term-occupancy tourist resorts in deep space will begin to be significant things before this century is out and will be enormously important, economically, in the next century. Earth orbit, the Moon and Mars will get such things first, but I expect the fourth and fifth such areas of major interest to be the suitable environs of Jupiter and Saturn. Far enough away to avoid radiation belts, the views would be astounding.
To Cluebat.
I hold the polar opposite position of Mr. Zimmerman.
Where fiscal hawks want to shutter NASA Centers–China believes in spaceflight as a national asset.
Ayn Rand apologists HURT American spaceflight–and hostility towards SLS is the biggest problem with SLS.
The ABMA could have launched Earth’s first satellite–but we were interfered with.
There were plans for the Saturns to go to Mars–but that was put into the circular file because of the promise of a tiled vehicle that was going to revolutionize spaceflight.
Sounds familiar.
Instead of properly funding Marshall Space Flight Center as an American institution–people have constantly attacked MSFC–the American institution that created the Saturns.
MSFC used to be the ABMA –and Medaris and folks like Phil Bono talked about reusable troop rockets, Rhombus, etc.
We could have had Americans on Mars years ago had the right people been elected.
Lee S asked: “ It seems to me that contracting out manned space flight is a no brainer… But would / will this approach work with the robotic missions NASA shines with?”
It kind of already does. The Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) makes many of the most successful probes, such as the Mars rovers. However, JPL is owned and operated by Cal Tech. It isn’t exactly independent of NASA, as the NewSpace companies that are now working on lunar landers and rovers, but it gives a sign that private companies are able to do well in space.
“James Webb was billions over budget, so would it have ever launched if farmed out to a private contractor?”
James Webb turned out to be a development project, which is not so conducive to fixed price contracts or for on-time, on-budget projects. We could have saved nine billion dollars if Webb had not been started until the various technologies had been developed first. It probably would have launched around the same time, but nine billion dollars of other astronomy could have been funded during those twenty years.
A private space company on a fixed price contract would not have included technologies that still needed development.
“And where is the profit margin for an extended mission for a Mars Rover, never mind a voyager probe. ”
Extended missions can be options on the original contract, or they can be follow-on contracts signed after the mission has been shown to be a success, with the ability to continue operations. Either way, there are committees that oversee funding for such mission extensions. The New Horizons probe to Pluto received funding for a flyby of a second object through such a committee. The committee did not fund a third flyby.
_________________
I think Dick Eagleson is largely correct. Commercial space has a great future in space, just as commercial endeavors built the United States from a backwoods village to a world power.
_________________
Jeff Wright,
You wrote: “Instead of properly funding Marshall Space Flight Center as an American institution–people have constantly attacked MSFC–the American institution that created the Saturns.”
That is just resting on laurels. What has MSFC done for us lately? SLS? That is already obsolete, even if Starship has to be expendable on each flight. Like SLS is.
Commercial space can be even more of a national asset than manned space programs or even NASA as a whole. It already is working toward the very goals you lament NASA didn’t do in the past half century. And largely without taxpayer dollars. What kind of national asset has NASA been, where it has hindered our use of space. How much farther into space would we be if commercial space had had the ability to develop alongside NASA in the 1960s? And that commercial development would also have been largely without taxpayer dollars.
We had another opportunity for commercial space in the early 1980s, but Congress shut that down hard, and they did it with that promised tiled vehicle that was going to revolutionize spaceflight. If commercial space had been doing that, then they would have had the incentive to improve the Space Shuttle until it was doing the job it was intended to do, so that now we would have been much closer to that 1968 dream for space that we saw in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. How do I know commercial space would make such improvements? SpaceX is doing it now with Starship, which has a much better chance of revolutionizing spaceflight, which is far beyond the ability of SLS.
In fact, we are all looking forward to Starship’s operations, in the near future, as a frequent, inexpensive, commercial access point to space.
What has MSFC been allowed to do?
To Cluebat.
Some games theory.
Imagine I am a Grover Norquist type of anti-tax politician.
I manage to get a NEXTRAD shut down in order to save money–and also because I hate the NWS like some hate Marshall.
Due to the gap in coverage that I myself caused as a skinflint–a tornado shot the gap and kills many.
I then–as an ideolog say “that’s why you can’t trust government.”
Is that a fair criticism–when I caused that gap?
If one of two shuttle pads are no longer available to SLS–wouldnt a criticism about poor flight cadence also be dirty pool? (substitute pad for NEXTRAD).
Some homework for Cluebat.
Read up on the Flint water crisis and the role emergency managers and cost cutters played in that. Then take a look at the old Santorum AccuWeather bill.
@Edward..
Interesting reading… And points well explained, thank you. I have one question, do you have a decent source regarding New Horizons not getting funding for another target?
I have wondered why there was no 3rd target, given the spacecraft is still in good health, presuming there was simply nothing interesting to see on its route out of our solar system.
Another side note, the comments are working for me 100% right now… Is it the same for fellow contributors?
Lee S: Edward I think was unclear. New Horizons still has funding. The problem was they could not find a third target close enough to their current very fast route outward to make any fly-by possible.
Edward,
Ditto.
Jeff Wright,
What has MSFC been allowed to do?
It has been allowed to waste tens of billions of dollars over two decades on inferior rehashes of Apollo- and Shuttle-era hardware. The entire place is a monument to dysfunctional stasis and toxic nostalgia. It needs to be shut down.
The fact that SLS has only one usable launch pad is not the reason for its pathetic launch cadence. It simply takes too long and costs too much to build an entire SLS stack and there is zero prospect of any consequential improvement given the limitations of extant production equipment and the current contractor labor forces. The production rate of Saturns six decades ago vastly outclasses what has proven possible anent SLS. SpaceX, in contrast, is already cranking out Starships appreciably faster than Saturns were being produced back in the day and that production rate continues to rise.
Grover Norquist – about whom you seem to have something of an obsession – is not a politician. And, based on what DOGE has been uncovering when it turns over various government agency rocks, Norquist’s antipathy to excessive taxation looks pretty much spot on. Taxing more = wasting more.
The Flint water crisis was not caused by rogue libertarians but by standard-issue idiot Democrats looking, as always, to short-sheet infrastructure maintenance in favor of continuing to expand governmental payrolls so as to increase their patronage footprint. That’s been going on in every major US city for decades. The latest case of such “Flint-ism” has been the recent urban wildfires that leveled large parts of Los Angeles.
Stanley Kubrick and his production team deserve even more credit than we give ’em for their vision of the future in this respect. I think it is important to notice how visible a role private enterprise plays in space in this alternative 2001. Pan Am seems to be the primary means of getting humans up to and down from Space Station V; on the station itself, we see featured an orbital hotel, run by Hilton Hotels; and a Howard Johnson’s restaurant. We don’t know who officially operates the station, but it is unmistakable that the private sector is essential to its ongoing viability.
All this is foreseen at the peak moment of the Great Society — the moment when the entire American presence in space was being fully controlled by a government agency.
Richard M.
Silent Running (1972)
Intro scene
https://youtu.be/Yq8y2aYX_8c?t=23
= “American Airlines Space Freighters”
and….
Mad Men
Don Draper & Hilton
“Where’s the Moon? I said I wanted Hilton on the Moon”
https://youtu.be/LUDmutJVjV8
and….
Mad Men
Don Draper & Hilton
“Where’s the Moon? I said I wanted Hilton on the Moon”
https://youtu.be/LUDmutJVjV8
Wayne,
Nice catches!
I remember the Mad Men one, but completely forgot that American Airlines reference in SILENT RUNNING. But it’s been ages since I’ve watched that one.
I just want to repeat that the great breakthrough that Musk & SpaceX are poised to achieve is the extremely low cost of large rocket manufacturing. Combine this with reusability and it makes the whole need for “national programs” to explore space obsolete. We need not care if NASA headquarters is in DC, Florida, Alabama or Rhode Island for that matter.
Let us look at the table included on this site
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2025/01/spacex-starship-roadmap-to-100-times-lower-cost-launch.html
Pick the $ to Kg in orbit price point you like. The point is that if these become even approximately true, we are back to the days where Admiral Byrd could organize a private expedition to Antarctica or further back in time as seen on this site below:
http://www.newworldexploration.com/explorers-tales-blog/private-companies-as-explorers-part-1
Low cost, reusable Starship enables private one ship expeditions to the moon on the order of $100 million lift costs and Nina – Pinta & Santa Maria type expeditions to Mars on the order of $300 million for lift costs.
The real issue as Robert, our kind host, has said time and time again is answering the question: “Will the government get out of the way?” Central to answering that question is determining if our lives and wealth are OURS to risk as we wish.
Great discussions here.
PS I love the opening to Silent Running and the majestic music as it the view sweeps out from Bruce Dern on Valley Forge and out across the fleet. Musk should play that in his coverage of his first human expedition to Mars.
Lee S,
“I have wondered why there was no 3rd target, given the spacecraft is still in good health, presuming there was simply nothing interesting to see on its route out of our solar system.”
Robert is correct. New Horizons is still funded to process data already collected and generate reports, but there is no third target, and I believe that it is no longer funded to continue a search for another flyby target. Apparently, I sometimes word things poorly.
________________
Jeff Wright,
Dick Eagleson was emulating your wording when he said to you: “[MSFC] has been allowed to waste tens of billions of dollars over two decades on inferior rehashes of Apollo- and Shuttle-era hardware.”
I wouldn’t have used the word “allowed” but the word “required.” NASA, and MSFC, have limited freedom to do as they please. Their funding comes with strings, and the SLS design was one of those strings.
“If one of two shuttle pads are no longer available to SLS–wouldnt a criticism about poor flight cadence also be dirty pool?”
Dick is also correct on the launchpad issue. SLS need not sit on the pad for many weeks before launch, and the VAB has four high bays for vertical stacking of rockets. Of course, that would also require more mobile launch pads and gantry towers, but the cadence would have to increase quite a bit before a second pad would be needed.
However, the cost of each SLS rocket is still far too high. It may have been acceptable in the “good old days” before reusability changed everything, but it is definitely not acceptable these days with two reusable rockets (three, if we separate the two Falcons), a third on its way, and ULA planning to reuse the Vulcan booster’s engines.
________________
Richard M,
“I think it is important to notice how visible a role private enterprise plays in space in this alternative 2001.”
Excellent point. You may have made this point before, but in my possible senility I keep forgetting to add it when I use this example. Please keep reminding me, if I continue forgetting.
________________
Doubting Thomas,
Thank you for the link to the cost/kg chart.
Depending upon what SpaceX charges for a Starship launch, the price per pound could be similar to the overnight price of sending a one-pound package from San Francisco to Paris.