Posted on 03/12/2003 5:11:15 AM PST by RJCogburn
When asked how they would "heal" after the loss of space shuttle Columbia, NASA's engineers responded as one: NASA heals by solving yesterday's problems and launching the next mission. So, indeed, does the American nation. Thus, before the grief had fully faded into memory, we began asking ourselves what had gone wrong, and how to solve it.
Many solutions have been proposed, from the incremental (such as safety upgrades and improved inspections) to the radical (such as a new breed of space vehicles powered by plasma engines). But the most radical change, the one that would improve space exploration most dramatically, has been ignored: privatizing the space program.
There is a contradiction at the heart of the space program: space exploration, as the grandest of man's technological advancements, requires the kind of bold innovation possible only to minds left free to pursue the best of their thinking and judgment. Yet by placing the space program under governmental funding, we necessarily place it at the mercy of governmental whim. The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent and ill-defined goals.
The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need. The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors—which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments—which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles. But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles. The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well.
Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives. A private industry could have fired them—but not so in a government project, with home-district congressmen to lobby on their behalf.
Now comes evidence that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam. Although NASA was exempted from the restrictions on Freon use, which environmentalists believe causes ozone depletion, and despite the fact that the amount of Freon released by NASA's rockets would have been trivial, the space agency elected to stick with the politically correct foam.
It is impossible to integrate the contradictory. To whatever extent an engineer is forced to base his decisions, not on the realities of science but on the arbitrary, unpredictable, and often impossible demands of a politicized system, he is stymied. Yet this politicizing is an unavoidable consequence of governmental control over scientific research and development. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride, to a practical industry with real and direct benefits, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds.
Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space. After government involvement in space exploration is phased out, the free market will work to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft, both military and civilian. In addition, Congress should develop a system of property rights to any stellar body reached and exploited by an American company. This would provide economic incentive for the sorts of extremely ambitious projects NASA would not dare to propose to its Congressional purse-holders.
Extending man's reach into space is not, as some have claimed, our "destiny." Standing between us and the stars are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. But first, we must make a fundamental choice: will America continue to hold its best engineering minds captive to politics, or will we set them free?
I believe that profits will be made in space exploration in the not to distance future (certainly in my lifetime), but for now NASA is all we have.
But the most radical change, the one that would improve space exploration most dramatically, has been ignored: privatizing the space program.
Um...space is open to private enterprise. The only problem is that private enterprise isn't buying if it doesn't have to. For one thing, space exploration requires MASSIVE amounts of Research & Development (R&D). NASA's prime expenditures are R&D. Most businesses that want to stay in business slash R&D from their budgets at the first sign of economic downturns.
The results are written all over the past twenty years of NASA's history: the space program is a political animal, marked by shifting, inconsistent and ill-defined goals.
As one who's followed NASA since 1969, I can tell you that NASA's objectives have not changed in the least. What changed was public interest. And when public interest went away, so did a lot of public funding.
If you wish to challenge this, tell me the names of the astronauts who flew on the shuttle mission before the Columbia disaster. Hell, I'll even make it easier: tell me the name of the last shuttle to fly before the Columbia disaster! I'll wager that few (if any) can do it without doing a Google search.
Hence my point.
The space shuttle was built and maintained to please clashing constituencies, not to do a clearly defined job for which there was an economic and technical need.
Nonsense. The STS was built as a proof of concept for reusable space vehicles. Up until that time, all space vehicles were one-shot wonders. A reusable craft put the space program a very large step ahead in making space travel accessible for commercial purposes.
Granted, the shuttle is by no means perfection...but was the Model T automobile? No...the STS is but the first in a (hopefully) long series of reusable spacecraft.
The shuttle was to launch satellites for the Department of Defense and private contractors—which could be done more cheaply by lightweight, disposable rockets. It was to carry scientific experiments—which could be done more efficiently by unmanned vehicles.
While it is true that cheap rockets could have been used to launch military and commercial satellites, one must recall that we had a rash of those cheap rockets exploding following takeoff. That's the main reason why Galileo was launched via an STS mission. The rockets we normally used for those purposes were exploding en masse.
But one "need" came before all technical issues: NASA's political need for showy manned vehicles.
Which totally ignores the Mars Pathfinder mission. That was perhaps the most "showy" of all our recent expeditions. And lo! It was UNMANNED.
The result, as great a technical achievement as it is, was an over-sized, over-complicated, over-budget overly dangerous vehicle that does everything poorly and nothing well.
Show me one other space program on Earth that does it better than NASA. ESA? Puh-leeze!
Indeed, the space shuttle program was supposed to be phased out years ago, but the search for its replacement has been halted, largely because space contractors enjoy collecting on the overpriced shuttle without the expense and bother of researching cheaper alternatives.
This is pure, unadulterated RUBBISH. NASA briefly flirted with advancing the technology of reusable craft with the X1, but that project failed for a large number of reasons; not the least of which was that the thrusters had a habit of breaching the air frame of the spacecraft.
Judging from what I've read from this article thus far, the author is speaking entirely from ignorant hubris. I have yet to see one statement that speaks to the actual facts of the matter.
Now comes evidence that the political nature of the space program may have even been directly responsible for the Columbia disaster. Fox News reported that NASA chose to stick with non-Freon-based foam insulation on the booster rockets, despite evidence that this type of foam causes up to 11 times as much damage to thermal tiles as the older, Freon-based foam.
Thank the rabid environmentalists for that one, but don't blame NASA for having to submit to the will of the vocal minority.
Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of space. After government involvement in space exploration is phased out, the free market will work to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft, both military and civilian.
Sorry, but businesses these days are not disposed to take risks...especially when those risks run in the tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of dollars. If the space program were privatized today, space exploration would take a HUGE back seat, and we would be reduced to the "cost effective" cheap rockets that only go up once and burn up in re-entry. Moreover, scientific research in space would become nonexistent.
And these chumps call that PROGRESS? Give me a break.
Like it or not, going into space isn't something that a company can just hop into. Space exploration is a highly scientific, highly technical and highly *expensive* venture that -- at present -- only funding on a national scale can support. The space program has a _HUGE_ technological infrastructure that, if possessed by any one private enterprise, would constitute a technological monolopy that would make Microsoft look positively picayune.
Losing the Challenger and Columbia crews is bad enough. But needlessly capitalizing (no pun intended) on these tragedies to forward ridiculous notions that the private industry is somehow better suited than NASA to handle space exploration is not only absurd, it's pathetic.
-Jay
What are you talking about? There has been almost zero venture capital invested in space tourism.
I worded that poorly. I meant venture capital in non-NASA (hence private) efforts, not necessarily aimed at tourism. There have been two (that actually got to the point of building hardware) private launch industry efforts (if memory serves me), trying to develop launch facilities and vehicles, but I believe the prospectus did mention tourism as a potential return on investment. I don't honestly know how much venture capital they were able to draw in.
There has been almost zero venture capital invested in private launch systems (at least relative to investments in government launch systems). Other than Kistler, I'm not really aware of any. All other attempts have been with angels. And no one has raised significant funds of any type for a vehicle for tourists. That may change if someone wins the X-Prize in the next couple years.
It's not a technology problem--it's a financing problem.
Actually the reason is the "McNamara Syndrome." McNamara--the Whiz Kid--had an insight: paper studies were much cheaper than hardware. "Run along and do another study; don't bother me about building anything."
We in the evil contractor community have--at NASA's behest, had--oh, maybe a half-dozen "major" studies for replacing the shuttle. The best part was the acronyms: NLS (National Launch System), ALS (Advanced Launch System), NGLS (Next Generation Launch System), etc. Right now it is OSP (Orbital Space Plane); right after this study is completed we will get another acronym and another few million dollars to study it to death some more. There were also gigantic (but cheap) studies on Space Tugs, which morphed into Orbital Transfer Vehicles, which wasted away to nothing.
Remember: compared to hardware (with testing, facilities and actual stuff being purchased) such studies are fabulously cheap.
So are science-fiction novels, which can be had for much less, although rarely supported by detailed calculations, tables, charts and graphs.
So blame Wiley E. Coyote (McNamara), Super Genius, for his great "insight" that military and space systems could be very cheap--if never actually built.
--Boris
I though about this some last night, and realized that my venture capital perception came from the amount of news coverage that was given to the upstart launch company (name escapes me right now) that was working out of Matagorda Island. Giving it some thought, I realized they probably didn't receive any of the money that the news showed them pitching for. There are several small venture capital groups in the NASA/Clear Lake area south of Houston (they appear to be small, but I don't know their holdings) that specialize in space ventures, which were shown on the news to be interested in investing. They probably ended up spending one of the founder's personal fortunes
It's not a technology problem--it's a financing problem.
I agree, with the caveat that the lack of financial resources is a direct result of a lack of demonstrable profitability. I think we both look forward to someone winning the X-prize. Probably not so much for the actual dollars themselves, rather it will be the demonstration providing a boost that the private sector needs to draw in much larger investment.
Right. Remember that NASA is not a cabinet-level post. Hence NASA has no "line" in the budget. It is lumped under "Indpendent Agencies" in the budget and is actually 'part of' HUD (Housing and Urban Development, I kid you not).
Thus you find in HUD headquarters job titles such as 'Housing and Space Analyst'. One such published a treatise on the cost of housing, comparing everything from a mud hut, a tent, a flophouse, all the way to a penthouse apartment--oh, and the Space Station, too. See, the Space Station is a "dwelling place", i.e., it is "housing".
The HUD analyst demonstrated that the Space Station was the most expensive (hence least cost-effective) housing--and recommended the termination of the program.
Incidentally, every year during budget debates, one of the Kennedy larvae waits until the NASA budget comes up during the deliberations on HUD and proposes that NASA be abolished and its budget be shifted into HUD proper. Every single year in my memory, since the jerk ('from' Connecticut) got there...
--Boris --Boris
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.