Posted on 06/15/2004 2:59:12 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
"Where are they going without ever knowing the way?" Asked the band Fastball in their hit "The Way." The same question could have been asked of the U.S. manned space program for the last several decades. Where it manifestly was not headed was to the stars -- or anywhere out of low earth orbit for that matter.
As President Bush pointed out in his January speech at NASA Headquarters, "In the past 30 years, no human being has… ventured farther upward into space than 386 miles." In that speech, he laid out a stunning new vision for space exploration, which has since been badly misunderestimated.
Maybe many pressmen were muddled by the model -- or the chemicals -- of the Apollo era, but even space enthusiasts (author included) missed the main point, focusing only on the president's plan to return to the moon and travel to Mars. Those programs are there, and they're important components. But as a roundtable with John Marburger, the President's science advisor and retired Rear Adm Craig Steidle, NASA's Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems made clear, the president's vision thing is a great deal grander than most have grasped.
"The objective is everything," said Mr. Marburger said with delighted emphasis -- the moon, Mars and all the rest of the things under -- or at least in the gravitational sway of -- the sun. According to his science advisor, the president has accepted the notion that eventually, humans will incorporate accessible space into their economic zone.
To go where no man has gone before (it had to come somewhere), the president envisions a sustained, multi-generational drive upwards and outwards, with ultimate destination unknown. Mr. Bush has repeatedly used the terms "sustained" and "step by step" in speeches and policy statements. In his January space speech, Mr. Bush announced his "new plan to explore space and extend a human presence across the solar system." A few breaths later he said, "We'll make steady progress -- one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time." The president's policy paper, "A Renewed Spirit of Discovery," declares that two of the primary objectives are, to "Extend human presence across the solar system," and "Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond."
Fiscal sustainability is also a critical component. The president's people piqued pundits and policymakers a by pronouncing that they weren't sure what the final cost of the program would be, but they appear to have been being honest -- there's no way to know in 20 or 200 years. Still, costs will have to be controlled, since Cold-War competition can no longer serve as a catalyst for exploration. Instead of asking for a NASA budget spike (which Congress would spike), the administration is shooting for small, sustainable funding increases, with no slips and no skyrockets.
Robots are expected to play major roles, both as low-maintenance laborers and as surrogate surveyors. Mr. Steidle said he is also counting on the private sector for innovation. In April, he put out a formal request for information, asking companies for ideas about overcoming the first challenges ahead. About 15 trade studies are already underway, and many more will follow. To drive additional competition and innovation, NASA has set up a program of contests -- "Centennial Challenges" -- which will award cash prizes to those who overcome them.
In a sense, the president's vision marks the continuation of the Apollo missions, but there will be no more one- (or multiple Moon) shot wonders, no more marking time in low earth orbit. Instead, there will be a step-by-step move outwards. When humans reach the moon, they won't just grab a bite of green cheese and go. Instead, they'll survey, explore and begin building the infrastructure -- shelters, machinery, fuel and water depots -- for the next step outwards. They'll do the same when they reach Mars, the asteroid belt, the icy moons of Jupiter, and beyond.
On Wednesday, the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond, led by former U.S. Air Force Secretary Edward (Pete) Aldridge, will release its recommendations on how to implement that vision. It is expected to describe the major challenges NASA faces but not prescribe detailed solutions.
Will the spending to fulfill the vision be worth it? After all, many think that the billions literally burned as rocket fuel could serve some more significant social purpose. Against that, Mr. Marburger opined, "If we don't make some investment to see if [space exploration] works, 200 years from now we will still be wondering if it is feasible. We think it is a pretty good bet."
It is, for reasons both pragmatic and poetic. NASA is at a crossroads. At the end of the decade, the space shuttles will have to either be re-certified or retired. Going into the solar system will bring great wealth and human enrichment. The earth will eventually run out of resources; it will eventually be hit by a civilization-destroying asteroid; it will eventually be burned to a cinder by the sun. But space exploration is more than an escape strategy, more than an opportunity for economic gain. Space travel is also about the soul, about the aspiration of the human sprit. President Bush said, "We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is a part of our character." He might have added, as Fastball did, "You can see their shadows wandering off somewhere/They won't make it home but they really don't care/They wanted the highway/They're happier there, today."
Charles Rousseaux is an editorial writer for The Washington Times and a frequent TCS contributor. He recently wrote for TCS about the builders of Iraq.
misunderestimation ping
Rather quiet, isn't it?
I have talked to them, and they like the way things are. The contractors will have to innovate, and they won't do that without a gun to their heads.
The bureaucrats will actually have to commit to a goal where their is a discernible difference between failure and success and they won't do that without a gun to their heads. Heck, pre-Columbia all they had to do to be considered successful was avoid disaster and they couldn't even do that.
That stuff sounds good, but
would anyone really say
NASA -- defined by
bureaucracies and
old boy networks, along with
weird academic
hierarchies -- stands
as a manifestation
of the human soul?
Thanks for the ping!
NASA's mantra under Clinton's appointee was "too male, too pale, and too stale."
A lot of the Apollo-era engineers, who had since entered senior management, were driven out during those years.
"It's been a long road, gettin' from there to here..."
America deserves better and this vision for space exploration is the better. The entire report comes out tomorrow.
But we're finally here.
Cold-War competition can no longer serve as a catalyst for exploration.
If China shows any sign of really going to the moon, that catalyst will be back.
What's missing inside NASA (and lots of other organizations) is that undefineable combination of leadership and competence that characterized Apollo.
But the bigger issue has nothing to do with NASA: no amount of leadership or enthusiasm will make up for the inability for the general population to dream. Nor can it make up for the levels of unchecked cynicism so common to those in positions of influence (and they have a vested interest in keeping people from dreaming).
Kennedy said we should go into space because it's easy, but because it's hard. But he was wrong -- we should go into space because it's intrinsically worth doing. The problem is: how do you make that case? How do you vault past the cynics to get to the dreamers, and how do you avoid disappointing them through failure?
I usually come on to these threads challenging the "privatize space" folks to present a business case for their cause. I personally think "privitization" is bound to fail except in cases where government R&D has already been done, and feasibility has been demonstrated. That's why a revitalized NASA is necessary. Space does offer tremendous potential, but it likewise requires the expenditure of tremendous resources -- amounts only a government can amass -- to make it work.
I hope W's team comes out with a realistic timeline, and I hope that they start it rolling during his next administration.
The issue is private property.
The gov't has already asserted sovereignty of outer space, so they could set up a mechanism for registering private property claims with no further action besides telling the clerk at the BLM which form to use.
"If China shows any sign of really going to the moon, that catalyst will be back."
Thats it! The chicom militarization of space will light a fire under NASA's butt.
By that I mean that the Federal space program is too timid and shortsighted to be effective. Enough is known about outer space, and it is obvious the Feds are not going to set up a space transportation infrastructure. So it is time, past time by 30 years, for the gov't to start recognizing private claims to celestial resources. They can update their mining law at the same time, it's always near the top of the workpile on the Hill anyway.
The business case could be NASA itself. There's billions of aerospace spending to be had, but conventional wisdom leads contractors to provide as few launches/programs/vehicles as possible to get those billions. The problem is that those billions are very, very static.
Growth just isn't in the picture. Hence the whole thing is one stinking, stagnant swamp begging to be drained.
This is my favorite part:
"president's people piqued pundits and policymakers a by pronouncing.."
....probably, perhaps..
You don't need to recognize asteroid mining as a valid business activity, someone else has already done that. But you need to recognize private property rights in outer space, and this has not been done.
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Burt Rutan would probably disagree with you.
Please note that Scaled Composites, like the other X-Prize contestants, is doing it's own R&D. Precisely because they don't have the sums to throw around that governments do, they have to find a different way--smaller, faster cheaper.
And yes, I know the X-Prize is not an orbital shot. But I expect there will be an X2, and an X3. And at every stage, I imagine, there will be one or more Burt Rutans to take up the challenge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.