Wanted: A Space Program with a Vision
Can the Obama administration breathe new life into NASA?
This was in fact the biggest policy change in over three decades and since Apollo (ignoring his father’s aborted attempt in 1989), when all human ventures beyond LEO had been shut down. But this time, the president had a Congress of his own party and a sense of urgency arising from the Columbia disaster. The loss of the second Shuttle orbiter, with only three left in the aging and irreplaceable fleet, dictated a change in direction.
So the new plans — to retire the Shuttle by 2010 (a date dictated primarily by the completion of the space station, for which it was essential), and to replace it with a “Crew Exploration Vehicle,” which (while not really replacing it, not having the payload or return capability) would be able to go back to the moon, and (at least in theory) to “Mars and beyond,” became the new national space policy.
As part of the new policy, a commission was formed, led by industry veteran Edward Aldridge, former head of the Aerospace Corporation and undersecretary of defense. Less than a year after the announcement, it issued its report, which recommended that NASA implement a program that was (unlike Apollo) “affordable and sustainable,” and that it support national security goals and involve private enterprise and international partners. A little over a year after the announcement, in the spring of 2005, Dr. Michael Griffin, another industry veteran with multiple graduate degrees in engineering and management, was brought in to lead NASA in the new policy direction.
So, five years after the president’s announcement, how is it going?
I would have to say, not well.
The new administrator came into the agency with his own ideas about what a launch architecture for the new goals should look like. While there are claims that they analyzed all the alternatives being studied at the time, the agency has never provided any significant details of its trade studies that supposedly support the decision to go exactly in the direction that the administrator wanted to go before he arrived: an Apollo-like crew system named “Orion,” and a new launch vehicle named “Ares,” ostensibly derived from the Shuttle.
Even ignoring the fact that there are some fundamental design issues with the launch vehicle (such as its unfortunate tendency to shake itself and the crew apart during launch and potential to drift into the tower immediately after ignition), the problem arises in the fact that Dr. Griffin himself characterized it as “Apollo on Steroids” when he introduced it. Apollo had none of the characteristics recommended by the Aldridge Commission — it was neither affordable or sustainable, and it contributed in no way to private enterprise or international cooperation (with the exception of the last flight, the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project).
Its only contribution to national security was in winning the space race during the Cold War, but there is no manned space race today on which national security hinges. In addition, the technical and budgetary issues have caused the schedule to slip out to 2015 for its first flight, increasing the so-called “gap” between the end of the Shuttle and a new government means of getting American astronauts to space. As I’ve pointed out before, it is not what we need to become a spacefaring nation. But Dr. Griffin remains adamant that it is the right choice, defending it as recently as this past Friday, but still not satisfying the critics, including yours truly.
He has expressed interest in staying on as administrator in the new administration, but only if he can continue down the path that he has started. Apparently, despite a desperation petition drive and email campaign by his friends and family, while the administration has been willing to keep some key Bush appointees — most notably Defense Secretary Gates — it has no interest in retaining the NASA administrator. There is no evidence that it wants to retain his launch architecture either, though there has been no statement either way. Regardless, Friday is his last day at the agency, and no replacement has yet been announced, though there is speculation about candidates.
But Mike Griffin’s departure, and even the end of his vehicle designs, doesn’t necessarily mean the end of the Vision for Space Exploration. The two are not synonymous, though many supporters of the current plans would like people to think they are. The vision isn’t about any specific vehicle concept, or even any specific destination, even though many talk about it as the “Moon program,” or the “Mars program.” Regardless of implementation, it was never any more — or any less — than establishing a national goal, for the first time since Apollo, to once again send humans beyond low earth orbit. All else is simply details. There are many ways to do it, and perhaps the new administration and administrator will be more imaginative in doing it in an affordable way that permits much more activity, instead of redoing what we did forty years ago. The money currently being spent on redundant dedicated launch vehicles for the space agency could finally be invested in actual space exploration hardware, such as earth departure stages, lunar landers, and even propellant depots, and leave the earth-to-orbit task to private enterprise.
The money spent on the Ares program to date may have been money wasted, but ultimately, it likely would have been anyway. If we can get off a wrong path, it’s better that it is done sooner than later, even after five years. And more inclusive alternatives that finally harnesses private enterprise, and innovative infrastructure on orbit, could enable not just NASA astronauts to go to the moon, but finally the rest of us as well, which would be much more in keeping with the vision.
<- 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.
23 Comments
1. Barry:As a kid watching the Apollo program that culminated with man on the moon in July 1969, I thought I would see an American astronaut walk on Mars in my lifetime. I don’t anymore.
Jan 14, 2009 - 4:02 am 2. ThinkingPerson:Can Obama revive NASA? Hell yes! He’s already going to close Guantanomo, end the Iraq War, bring all the soldiers home, give all the unemployed jobs or at least a “rebate”, let illegal immigrants have all citizens rights available, fix the entire US infrastructure, fix Social Security, lower taxes for everyone, end the Recession, save the Planet from Global Warming, install solar panels on every home, talk to Iran about just being friends, assure Russia we’ll stop putting defensive measure in Europe, cure AIDS, pay teachers as much as doctors and still have time to play Basketball on the new White House court! NASA will be a cake-walk! Just turn on his teleprompter and he’ll tell us all how!
Jan 14, 2009 - 7:15 am 3. Staring In Disbelief:There simply is no compelling reason to “send humans beyond LEO”. All the funding and leadership and decision and architecture and schedule difficulties are because no one has given a compelling answer to “WHY?” Apollo was a Cold War test of strength, nothing more. It was wonderful and exciting and I am so proud of our country for its accomplishment but it was a demonstration of national will & skill – that’s it. No more, no less. NASA has suffered the ignominious tragedy of having accomplished its mission (going to the moon) with such singular panache and skill that it has wandered around looking for a dragon to slay for 40 years, gradually ossifying into just another bureaucracy. It should have been shut down decades ago, we should have left space to commercial exploitation, or just concentrated on unmanned exploratory science (it’s only source of truly brilliant successes in the last 20 years).
I suppose in this looming age of even more Government Gigantism, NASA will find it’s place at the trough, but only as a jobs program, its heroic age over and the true value of its unmanned science program dwarfed and crowded by its rudderless and stupefyingly costly manned space programs.
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:27 am 4. Paul A'Barge:Just a suggestion: why not eliminate NASA and let those who want to go into space provide the funding and effort.
I have no desire to go and I want my tax dollars back.
Jan 14, 2009 - 10:22 am 5. gaetano marano:.
about the (faster, cheaper and safer) Space and Moon exploration…
these are five articles the new NASA Administrator should read:
1. about the NASA Administrator: ghostnasa.com/posts/043griffin.html
2. about the Direct’s BIG LOBBY: ghostnasa.com/posts/033directstruestory.html
3. about the Space Solar Power: ghostnasa.com/posts/038sspdebunked.html
4. about the RISKY Hubble SM4: ghostnasa.com/posts/039hubbledeathtrap.html
5. about the CREWLESS Shuttle: gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html
he’ll be HAPPY to read something of TRUE and RATIONAL about NASA and Space…
.
Jan 14, 2009 - 10:36 am 6. Dave Gore:We should leave manned efforts to the Chinese, the Russians, and privately funded ventures. Instead, NASA should concentrate on unmanned science missions and on robotic missions to near-Earth asteroids with the goal of mining and processing these resources.
Jan 14, 2009 - 10:54 am 7. John Moore:Apollo was a dramatic success (and, contrary to the article, contributed greatly to the nation’s technological base) because the project had a clear and very exciting vision. Few at the time were excited about beating the Russians – we were excited at the continuous push to put man on the moon – a program with visible and exciting achievements every year or two during its nine year course.
NASA achieved a remarkable success during Apollo, one it has never come close to since.
The Space Shuttle was a symptom of more typical government efforts. It wasn’t an inspiring project. It was justified by promising benefits to various constituencies (science, military, global idealists) and those promises forced a compromise design tha no engineer in his right mind would have come up with. It was a technological tour de force, built to a stupid specification.
The Space Station was another colossal waste. It has cost an incredible amount of money which could have been better spent, and provides virtually no value.
Any decent space program needs to start with a popularly supported vision, and needs to make rapid, visible progress towards that vision. Otherwise, it’s just another government mess.
A popular vision requires human space flight. Period. End of story. Science will need to tag along for the ride, but it’s the only way to really get somewhere politically.
I fear that government needs to be involved – but a the vision should force it to be an enabler rather than a monopolizer. That will be very hard to do.
In spite of its leadership follies, NASA has many brilliant scientists and engineers, and they do a whole lot of really great work.
———
As an aside, for Ares, why didn’t they just rebuild Apollo using the original design, just adding in more modern electronics?
Jan 14, 2009 - 11:49 am 8. Richard:The vision needed for commercial space is commerce. What does space have that we need? Abundant energy. It was all worked out 30 years ago, amazingly enough by NASA itself.
http://www.amazon.com/High-Frontier-Human-Colonies-Apogee/dp/189652267X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1231962875&sr=8-1
Gerard O’Neil’s book “The High Frontier” laid it all out. After an initial investment, it pays for itself. The initial investment is substantial, which is why the private investors haven’t done it by themselves. Burt Rutan and Richard Branson are on their way to making that vision come true via the path of space tourism.
NASA is an agency whose primary mission has become the survival of NASA. The Space Shuttle? Give me a break, its a beast born of a committe whose primary mission is to distribute the contract work to every congressional district in order to ensure survival. The Space Station? Give me a break, its just a repeat of all the same mistakes as the Shuttle. The next “vision” of NASA won’t be any different or any better. About the only thing NASA does competently seems to be the robotic exploration done by JPL.
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:03 pm 9. BackwardsBoy:We paved the way into space for mankind, then let others overtake us. But when I remind myself that they must convince the technology-deficient lawyers in Congress to give them money, I understand why NASA will never achieve anything worthwhile again. At least it was fun while it lasted.
Jan 14, 2009 - 12:09 pm 10. Robert Horning:Paul A’Barge wrote:
“Just a suggestion: why not eliminate NASA and let those who want to go into space provide the funding and effort.
I have no desire to go and I want my tax dollars back.”
————————
I wish that really were the case. I really do wish that pork barrel projects like NASA (and others much more wasteful in federal and state governments) didn’t exist and instead private individuals could afford to go into space on their own.
Not only that, I wish the regulatory environment for building rockets and even the legal issues of what you can do in space were resolved by somebody other than a bunch of feel-good politicians that don’t think beyond the next election.
It wasn’t until recently with the establishment of the FAA-AST office that you could even get a permit to go into space at all, and even the current set of regulations for private spaceflight are mostly “provisional” or at least set up explicitly (if you listened to the legislative debates over them) to be a try this for now but we’ll throw the regs on in force shortly.
If Wilbur and Orville Wright had to follow the current FAA, EPA, OSHA, and other regulations for building aircraft, the current concept of an airplane would never have been built in the first place. Yet it is into this environment that modern spacecraft developer must enter in order to go into space on their own… with bureaucrats and politicians who explicitly don’t even want this sort of private activity going on.
Even if you get into space and, for instance, land on the Moon, what can you do when you get there? You can’t take a picture of the Earth from there (regulated by NOAA) or even take rocks from the surface, except for “scientific analysis”. You can’t even defend yourself against an attack by somebody else, as weapons are prohibited from going up in spacecraft. And this is but one of the problems facing would-be private spaceflight developers.
Legitimate private spaceflight has enough obstacles in the way that in effect NASA is actually needed to get at least something happening. If you want this situation to change, you need to change the whole situation and not just one little aspect like killing off NASA… which I happen to agree with but for other reasons than you have listed.
Jan 14, 2009 - 1:06 pm 11. myth buster:Here’s a good reason to go back to the Moon: Helium-3, which costs $23,000/ounce, is abundant on the Moon, though it is scarce on Earth. It is an ideal fuel for nuclear fusion, because it creates no neutron flux. That’s why we should go back. We mine Helium-3 and sell it.
Jan 14, 2009 - 6:57 pm 12. John Moore:Maybe we should get fusion working without He-3 first? It’s been just over the horizon for the last fifty years, and still isn’t in sight.
Jan 14, 2009 - 8:27 pm 13. progressoverpeace:You will never get coherent strategy from any government ventures. That’s just not how government works. The best way to get our space program moving is through the private sector (the same way that America was settled and developed).
Jan 14, 2009 - 9:36 pm 14. riff_raff:NASA: Space-based socialism.
Jan 15, 2009 - 6:26 am 15. njcommuter:Having vision means reaching for goals that other people don’t value. It means taking risks that others will not take. It means spending time, effort, and money that others will not spend. And each of these will be contested by people with good intentions and good values.
“Vision” is most easily maintained in small communities without outside interference. One definition of Congress is “outside interference.”
Jan 15, 2009 - 7:55 am 16. G Alston:We can solve a number of problems right here and right now thanks to NASA. Solar power generation from space can be done. We know how to do this. It’s a matter of doing it. But to do this we had to solve a number of smaller problems, i.e. getting the stuff in place, assembling large structures, and so on. The shuttle and ISS were the learning grounds. We now *know* how to build big stuff in space and make it run. We’ve done it. Sorry robot fans. Humans are needed for these things, and space is acually useful. It’s a matter of applying technology; i.e. it’s now about engineering.
ALmost everything we take for granted in the modern world was generated by NASA and military needs — computers, the internet, all of it. Robotic explorers. Robotic aircraft. Fuel efficient aircraft using new materials. GPS. Funding NASA is one of the few sane things that we spend money on in this country.
And I say this despite my conviction that NASA is a money sucking black hole like any other agency. At least this black hole gives something back. If it were up to me I’d fund them at about 50x what they now get. By my calculation NASA returns about $10 for every $1 invested.
Jan 15, 2009 - 10:32 am 17. Philip Wittamore:It looks like some of the people that work at NASA actually do have a space program with a vision: http://www.directlauncher.com/
Jan 15, 2009 - 1:13 pm 18. Andrew:NASA spends $18 billion a year to literally fly around in circles for no reason, with no tangible end product. It is a perpetual pork barrel project that mainly benefits Houston and Cape Canaveral. Somehow, NASA gets the credit for inventing a lot of things (like Tang, transistors, Teflon and Velcro) with which it had no connection.
Jan 15, 2009 - 2:08 pm 19. cedarford:John Moore – A popular vision requires human space flight. Period. End of story. Science will need to tag along for the ride, but it’s the only way to really get somewhere politically.
Garbage.
If America needs heroes – it would be cheaper to crank out a few heroes by awarding the Medal of Honor to living soldiers that legitimately did enough to warrant the award. Only dead guys who flopped on a grenade or allowed his unit to be ambushed by Taliban inspire few..
As is, for support – we have a public that knows we get tremendous benefit from unmanned near-Earth orbit satellites. Economic benefits, military benefits, scientific benefits so great that the public has no problem investing in that.
As we transitioned away from hugely expensive manned flight and the discoveries and real exploration are done by robotics….the more literate part of the population has thrilled to Hubble, the Rovers, Chandra, our deep space robots. Part of the reason NASA has not pushed the PR on unmanned to the masses is that much of the management and direction of NASA is dominated by “former Astronauts” who wish to keep manned exploration as the “marquee event” where the bulk of the resources go with very little public, commercial economic, or scientific benefit.
(Just as if you asked a bunch of helicopter pilots to design and run a future Army, you could be pretty sure what that Army would look like….)
***********
G Alston – We now *know* how to build big stuff in space and make it run. We’ve done it. Sorry robot fans. Humans are needed for these things, and space is acually useful. It’s a matter of applying technology; i.e. it’s now about engineering.
Not true. We, the Russians, and Japanese have craft that fly and dock robotically. Robots that have done repairs – simple stuff autonomously, more complicated tasks under the direction, even waldo-ing, of a ground controller. We can build big stuff if we want using only robots. Lack of human workers is not an impediment in space. If something breaks, a human might, just might be able to improvise a fix on certain components in less time than it takes to design and launch a robot…but not as cheaply.
Even the ballyhooed Hubble repairs that “vindicate” the usefullness of men is space, turn out when you factor in the shuttle and manpower costs as well as replacement components – to be more expensive than building and launching a better Hubble.
The Mars manned expedition? Even humans on the moon when so many unresolved life support issues exist to enable a stay longer than a few days?
We have gotten more science about Mars already from orbiters and ground probes – for one 500th the cost – than a manned expedition could ever deliver.
Even in the future a few Martian sample return rockets, complete with excavating, sample collecting rovers, a core driller – and with a return payload of 500lbs – would have a cost of under 25 billion for 3 locales mined and samples returned vs. 1.3 -1.4 trillion for two astronauts to plant a flag, make a speech, and return with the same goodies from one spot.
One bennie of Mars is it’s low escape velocity means a very small rocket could do the job.
Of course, it would be even cheaper to examine stuff in situ and not bring it back. Even microbes if they ever find any.
**************
myth buster:
Here’s a good reason to go back to the Moon: Helium-3, which costs $23,000/ounce, is abundant on the Moon, though it is scarce on Earth. It is an ideal fuel for nuclear fusion, because it creates no neutron flux. That’s why we should go back. We mine Helium-3 and sell it.
We haven’t even figured out how to make deuterium-tritium fusion work with energy breakeven, let alone even begin to consider the far higher temp and confinement time needed for HE-3 fusion – which is best explained as 5 times more difficult in terms of temperature and confinment power/time, with far less margin to energy breakeven.
The reason it is mentioned is the “magic, ideal solution” to anti-nuke, anti-any radiation people that want the perfect energy solution.
D-T requires a nuke reactor to make tritium and then you have that dastardly fusion neutron that can make new uranium fuel, thorium fuel – fission some U-238 or make steel and other fusion reactor components radioactive. All things anti-nuke folks just hate.
The only reason it costs 23,000 a – gram I believe, not ounce…is that it is scarce and only valuable to scientists doing experiments.
Boost the supply with billions put into space mining and if fusion is still not deemed practical with HE-3 or any other high-value use, all you end up with are happy scientists paying a heck of a lot less for their nuclear and cryogenic experiments.
Jan 16, 2009 - 3:47 am 20. G Alston:#19 cedarford — “Not true. We, the Russians, and Japanese have craft that fly and dock robotically.”
Indeed. The ISS crew would be hungry sans Progress modules. I have a great video of the Jules Verne docking procedure. Smooth as silk. But as Napoleon was fond of saying, “no battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy.” You can’t count on everything being nominal.
Where humans are needed is where things do not go as planned, e.g. the landing of at least two of the Apollo craft. Docking to an existing structure isn’t the same thing as creating a structure. Not always. Things will go wrong. Waldos will break. It’s nice to have the ability to effect repair if need be. I think as complexity increases, so does the need for oversight. Specifically, this would apply to larger structures like solar power satellites. Especially the first ones.
I think I agree with much of your overall point. Certainly fixing a Hubble is more expensive overall than launching a new one. However, that said, the point was to learn how to do this and demonstrate the ability, which would have cost the same regardless. Mere accounting tricks don’t tell the entire story.
Jan 16, 2009 - 10:13 am 21. EasyEight:The best thing we could do for the future of spaceflight is get NASA out of spaceflight operations. NASA should be working overtime on R&D into next generation reusable space flight systems and technologies to get the private sector into space and help the nation develop something grander and more useful than an Apollo re-tread. NASA did this with aviation back in its NACA days, before it went to the Moon and lost its way. Then it can buy commercial systems, or buy rides to orbit, while continuing spaceflight technology development and deep space research missions.
Jan 17, 2009 - 5:26 pm 22. Marc Malone:The article and its responses are all intelligent, but I think everyone is overlooking one vital factor; private enterprise just cannot do it alone. Government is highly inefficient, but has a huge advantage; it needs not turn a profit.
However, for government to do the job, they need public support, which generally means good press (read sensationalism). Otherwise, science makes Americans yawn. If you make a video game out of controlling the robotics, or doing a launch, or somesuch, then suddenly, Americans get interested. And yes, we need heroes.
Jan 17, 2009 - 9:56 pm 23. G Alston:Human vs robot exploration?
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/01/moon-magnet.html
Human.
Next week: Ginger vs MaryAnn.
Jan 17, 2009 - 11:11 pm