Look to the Stars - Bush should recruit high-profile figures to boost space program

Since the president didn't mention his new vision for space exploration during his State of the Union address, he should have at least had a couple of science stars on display in the gallery.

I would have recommended Dr. Hans Mark, who returned to help NASA soar in the 1980s and went on to become chancellor of the University of Texas System. I would also have saved a seat for Ray Bradbury, the science-fiction writer who has best captured the wonder of exploration.

At 75 and 83, they may seem more like the sage Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars than the kind of Han Solo who will rocket to the moon, but that's exactly the point. We need some perspective here about where we need to go and why.

I would turn to Dr. Mark because there were 35 launches during his years as deputy administrator at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and not a single failure.

The difference between then and now is that the bloom is off the nose cone. Several decades ago, the best and brightest in science and engineering went into the space program. Now there is fierce competition from the dot-com and biotech fields for talent, so the space program has to share.

Not surprisingly, veterans like Dr. Mark are saying that we need to recruit the best and the brightest back into the space program. He points out that in 1984, NASA had 25 members of the National Academy of Engineering. Now there are two.

Others worry that the top jobs at the Kennedy, Johnson and Langley space centers are filled by former generals, not administrators with engineering backgrounds.

That means there have not been enough people in the right positions to ask the kind of questions that would have prevented accidents like the Columbia tragedy. What's needed are more leaders with experience and clout, like the head of engineering for Lockheed-Martin, or MIT.

True, when the nation needed to catch up with Sputnik, President John Kennedy did appoint a lawyer, Jim Webb, to supervise NASA. But Mr. Webb's deputy was dean of engineering at MIT and president of the National Academy of Engineering.

In an interview last week, Dr. Mark said he was not concerned that President Bush didn't mention the space program in his speech because he set new space goals the week before. "He did the right thing by announcing his intentions at NASA, speaking directly to the people who need to hear him first," Dr. Mark said.

Dr. Mark said, "President Bush also did the right thing by saying the first step is to replace the aging shuttle program."

True, you can't get to Mars in a B-52. The shuttle is the equivalent of your father's Oldsmobile. And have you driven a 30-year-old car lately?

The next step, in Dr. Mark's view, should be something like a hypersonic airplane, that can take off and land horizontally. "The launch site would be less vulnerable to terrorism," he explains, "and you could carry all kinds of payload, people, cargo, etc."

This wouldn't be cheap, which is why the president probably didn't mention it in his speech. He is getting increased pressure to reduce the budget deficit. That's why he prudently suggested adding only $1 billion to the NASA budget for starters and redirecting another $11 billion.

What the president needs to do next is declare that we must have a working replacement for the shuttle by the end of his second term. That would really energize the space agency. And students.

Yes, it is more expensive to have manned flights, so it makes sense to have a mixture of manned and unmanned projects. It will take both. The presence of human judgment is still important. And the idea of putting a man – or woman – on Mars is essential to triggering the creative imagination that will be needed to get there.

Which brings us to Mr. Bradbury. Along with Steven Spielberg, Mr. Bradbury has best understood what a marvelous thing it is to look for tomorrow.

At the end of his book The Martian Chronicles, a young boy who has traveled with his family from Earth to Mars says he has always wanted to see a Martian. He asks his dad where they are, reminding, "You promised."

His dad points straight down to their reflection in the canal at their feet. "There they are," he says. They have become the Martians.

And that's what's exciting about the president's renewed vision for NASA. We will be the Martians. And the people on the moon.

We need to be there first to establish a framework for peace, like the shared international governance of Antarctica. Since there are others who would like their flag planted first by those moon rocks, we need to get moving.

Rena Pederson is editor at large at The Dallas Morning News. Her e-mail is rpederson@dallasnews.com.

O'Keefe: New NASA to be 'Distinctively Different' than Old Agency By Leonard David [Full Text] PASADENA, Calif. -- Tension runs high again at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) as the Mars Opportunity rover draws closer to the red planet.

Even with the successful Spirit landing three weeks ago, Opportunity’s plunge to Meridiani Planum on Mars remains a high-risk business.

"It’s my guess that the pucker-factor is going to be every bit as high," said NASA Administrator, Sean O’Keefe, who has arrived here to witness the rover’s entry, descent and landing. "This is the equivalent to the Super Bowl for these people."

O’Keefe showed a bit of his superstitious nature, noting that he’s wearing the exact same attire as he did for Spirit’s landing.

"Success is an objective we seek each and every mission…but also recognize that the risk of every one of these is an uncertain condition," O’Keefe said.

Future Mars plans to be unveiled

Looking toward the future, O’Keefe told SPACE.com that the soon-to-be-released NASA budget will augment Mars exploration plans, making them more in step with President George W. Bush’s new space exploration agenda.

Details within NASA’s budget for 2005 are to be unveiled on February 3.

Mars exploration, both robotic and human, will receive a coordinated boost given the White House push to move NASA beyond low Earth orbit, O’Keefe said. What is going to be "distinctively different" is integrating missions and objectives, as well as adding missions to achieve "a broader exploration agenda," he said.

International cooperation

This March in Montreal, the International Space Station partners will meet. That gathering will also explore what space cooperation might be feasible in future years, including joint collaboration in exploring space beyond low Earth orbit.

"There’s a real enthusiasm" in the International Space Station partners, regarding a broader exploration agenda, O’Keefe remarked. "I think there are some really exciting opportunities."

"I don’t expect to see firm decisions where all of a sudden we’re going to come up with 23,000 new ideas of what we’re going to do for the next 15 years together. But I think it’ll be the beginnings of having a different debate and opening up the range of discussion wider," O’Keefe told SPACE.com .

Hubble decision

The NASA Administrator also fielded questions regarding his decision to abandon in place the Hubble Space Telescope -- canceling a future servicing mission to the orbiting observatory.

Hubble is expected to continue operating at least through the 2007-2008 time period.

The plan now is to have an autonomous vehicle rendezvous with, dock to, then de-orbit Hubble into the Earth’s atmosphere, O’Keefe said. The huge observatory would then breakup and splatter into a select ocean impact zone.

"This was an extremely difficult decision", one that was a "very close call’, and one that was a "gut wrenching" judgment. "It was one based on risk, exclusively," he said.

No safe haven

The NASA chief said that his agency intends to follow the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) recommendations -- brought about by the tragic loss of a space shuttle crew now nearly a year ago.

There is far too much risk in a Hubble servicing mission, given its different inclination of orbit than the space station. Shuttle flight to Hubble would be "a one-of-a-kind, unique, very different, and riskier mission", O’Keefe said.

"On my call, exclusively…that’s not a risk that I could deem to be an acceptable one," O’Keefe concluded.

By flying a Hubble servicing mission with a shuttle, there would be no possible detour to the International Space Station. The station is now considered a "safe haven" in the event that a shuttle was damaged on liftoff, or in orbit, and could not be inspected and possibly fixed for a safe return to Earth. [End]

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.