In another executive order from President Trump, that was issued Wednesday, August13, the emphasis is getting unnecessary delays out of the considerations for launches.
The order, "Enabling Competition in the Commercial Space Industry," directs multiple federal agencies to streamline launch licensing, fast-track spaceport construction and better support emerging in-space industries.
A quote being used in "all both" places I've read is an objection from an organization that is opposed to launches in general, Jared Margolis, senior attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.
"This reckless order puts people and wildlife at risk from private companies launching giant rockets that often explode and wreak devastation on surrounding areas," he said in a statement issued on Aug. 14. "Bending the knee to powerful corporations by allowing federal agencies to ignore bedrock environmental laws is incredibly dangerous and puts all of us in harm's way. This is clearly not in the public interest."
Clearly we've seen "giant rockets" explode (the last three Starships) but I haven't seen any reports that any one of them "wreaked devastation" on anything or anybody. I know some airplane flights in Caribbean were delayed or rerouted, but that doesn't seem to be "wreaked destruction" - more like "wreaked inconvenience." Please Mr. Margolis, in the amazing world of the internet, it's possible you'll come across this statement, so I say, "examples?"
I imagine you don't think this way, Mr. Margolis, but rocket companies really don't want their products to explode. It's bad for business! An old saying in the business (and many, many fields of engineering) is that "Boring Is Good!" Nobody who works on rockets wants them to explode while they're working on them - that should go without saying. Everybody involved wants their rockets to be so good they're boring to watch - although they may not think those words.
What this ruling is all about is cutting out time spent doing unnecessary tasks; that includes finding duplicate tasks, and those that simply don't contribute any improvement to the mission, or add any value. Space.com seems to object to NASA having a smaller role in approving missions. These few paragraphs seem to sum it up nicely.
NASA is named throughout the order, but mostly as a coordinating agency rather than a lead. It's tasked with the same directive to streamline reviews and evaluate paths to faster innovation, but isn't granted any new authority.
Duffy said the move will support NASA's work with commercial providers and improve access to launch infrastructure. But in practice, it seems more regulatory weight is being shifted to DOT, Office of Space Commerce and FAA.
The order reflects a growing trend of divestments and sweeping changes in arguably one of the most recognizable government agencies in the world. As space policy and licensing are rerouted to outside departments, NASA is also facing the largest budget cut in its history.
NASA has embarrassed themselves regularly since (at least) the end of the Space Shuttle program while the good things they've done have relied on the private sector. They've absolutely done some great things, but all of them have been on the unmanned, science probe side (Mars rovers, and the Ingenuity helicopter, the JWST, New Horizons to Pluto and more). The biggest waste of money in the history of spaceflight might well be the Space Launch System - SLS. Launches of one SLS for one mission have been priced at over $4 billion. Yeah SLS lifts more than a Falcon Heavy so you launch two Falcon Heavies and you're still under 10% of the cost of one SLS launch.
NASA needs to get out of the "getting there" business. No more programs like SLS. Budget cuts to NASA are a guaranteed impact of that.
NASA Acting Administrator Sean Duffy (left) sits next to President Donald Trump at a cabinet meeting. (Image credit: MANDEL NGAN / Contributor)
No comments:
Post a Comment