NASA Pundits Launch Debate Over Space Flight

CNET News.com ^ | September 20, 2007 | Stefanie Olsen

[anymouse]

At the 50th anniversary space conference here Thursday, a fight over the future role of NASA's space program inadvertently took off.

If it were up to Burt Rutan, the aerospace engineer known for building a suborbital rocket plane that won the Ansari X Prize, NASA wouldn't be developing a spacecraft to put another man on the moon by 2020. That government mission has already been accomplished, and a repeat performance is "silly," Rutan said during a panel held at California Institute of Technology, CalTech, which runs NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab.

"Taxpayer-funded NASA should only fund research and not development," Rutan said. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a manned spacecraft, you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by telling them) "No, you can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology."

"I think it's absurd they're doing Orion development at all. It should be done commercially," he said, referring to the name of the lunar spacecraft. Rutan and other panelists also question the importance of space flight at a time when environmental concerns are paramount.

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin responded to Rutan's vision in a speech following his panel. "Unlike Rutan, I will continue to think space programs are important," Griffin said.

Of course, Rutan has a big stake in commercial development of spacecraft. As founder and president of Scaled Composites, he develops rockets for future commercial space tourism. Rutan is among a cadre of technology entrepreneurs, including Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Paypal co-founder Elon Musk and Virgin CEO Richard Branson, who are working on ventures to send people into space.

Rutan designed SpaceShipOne, the rocket that won the $10 million Ansari X Prize by breaking the Earth's atmosphere twice during a set time. And his company is building SpaceShipTwo for Branson's Virgin Galactic, which aims to launch its first commercial flight in 2009. But Scaled Composites recently suffered a tragedy when two people were killed in an explosion at the company's facility in Mojave, Calif.

In his speech, Griffin talked about NASA's budget for the last 50 years, adjusted for inflation. He said that the most money NASA has ever received from the government was not the period during the Apollo missions, but over the 10 years from 1989 to 1998. "So we get more money today than (what was) given the agency during Apollo" (during the 1960s and 1970s.) NASA's budget for 2007 is $14 billion, or about 15 cents a day of a taxpayer's money, according to Griffin.

Part of Rutan's argument against NASA's development program was that after the early 1970s, when astronaut Alan Shepard golfed on the moon, there wasn't "much innovation."

Griffin didn't respond directly to whether or not there is a lack of innovation. But in response to criticism on an earlier panel that NASA's science budget has waned, he said the first decade of NASA's budget was proportionally the same as its most recent budget. During the first 10 years of the space agency, he further clarified, 58 percent of its budget was devoted to human spaceflight, 17 percent to science, 6 percent to aerospace and 10 percent to new technologies. In contrast, in 2006, 62 percent of NASA's budget was earmarked for spaceflight and 32 percent was for space science, he said. Last year, NASA didn't have a budget to develop new technologies.

"There is a mythology that science has been decimated by human spaceflight. That's not right." Griffin said.

He added that the current missions back to the moon and onto Mars by 2035 are sustainable programs, ones that wouldn't likely be stemmed by a change in administrations.

"We have here a program which is affordable, sustainable and which can be highly correlated to historical successes and developments from the past," said Griffin.

Rutan said that the goal of private space tourism is to reduce the cost of space travel and exploration. "If we go through a time period where the focus is on flying the consumer, these 'payloads' who pay to fly and can be reproduced with unskilled labor...with tools around the house," he joked, "there will be a breakthrough to enormous volume."

[anymouse]

"Taxpayer-funded NASA should only fund research and not development," Rutan said. "When you spend hundreds of billions of dollars to build a manned spacecraft, you're...dumbing down a generation of new, young engineers (by telling them) "No, you can't take new approaches, you have to use this old technology."

Rutan said that the goal of private space tourism is to reduce the cost of space travel and exploration.

[anymouse]

space ping

[Eyes Unclouded]

Burt! Can you imagine a Chinese flag on the moon? We gotta back its a **** measuring thing. Not to mention the benefits to science of a presence on the moon or the impending militarization of space.

[The_Victor]

Rutan and other panelists also question the importance of space flight at a time when environmental concerns are paramount.

Hmmmmmm

[Citizen Tom Paine]

When the world’s first orbiting battle station armed with particle beam, high energy laser and guided nuclear weapons becomes operational, as it comes over the horizon we better see a United States flag on it. If we don’t the world is probably going to enter a dark age which will last on the order of 5.000 years. The light of freedom will be extinguished. (Sorry for the run-on-sentence.)

[Coyoteman]

When the world’s first orbiting battle station armed with particle beam, high energy laser and guided nuclear weapons becomes operational, as it comes over the horizon we better see a United States flag on it.

Or, have something better.

Or, have something to take it out as needed.

But your point is 100% correct.

[IrishCatholic]

The thought that space will not be militarized, since it already is, is not realistic.
I thought the Chinese just proved that by blowing up a communications satellite.
Therefore what remains is those that will have the edge and those that will play catch up, if they can.
If liberals have their way it is millions in social spending and not a dime for defense.
Either we own space or someone else will.

[Nuc1]

When the world’s first orbiting battle station armed with particle beam, high energy laser and guided nuclear weapons becomes operational, as it comes over the horizon

It will be a target. Small, fast, lethal, lots, IMHO is the way to go. Brilliant pebbles?

[Names Ash Housewares]

The high frontier is as a strategic a goal as they come and it is all together appropriate that this nation on a federal level persue that with vigor and with a human presence, as well as commerical endeavors of course

The nations that lead on the frontier end up dictating the course of human history.

Rutan is a brilliant disigner, but to say that the feds get out exploring and populating the high frontier is like saying that we should get rid of the Marines and contract that out.

It is too important of a national interest.

We must alwaqys lead as a nation in this regard.

No one is standing in Rutans way. I cheer him on.

But I also strongly support NASA.

[Finny]

You are absolutely right. The nation with the best space technology will determine how the world is run. It's going to come down to China and the U.S. The War on Terror is a mosquito, figuratively speaking, one that could substantially weaken Western nations and give China an advantage it wouldn't otherwise have.

I think Rutan is right, at least in this respect: when commercial concerns are involved and it's their as$es on the line, you can bet that they'll fight harder than the other guy. If the U.S. is able to smooth the path for space entrepreneurs to profit commercially, then we'll have developed a hell of a leg-up on China, technologically, plus a gut motive for defense.

[finnman69]

[anymouse]

I guess you didn’t read the article. Neither Rutan or Griffith discussed military aspects of of space development. Both have ties to military space projects in their extensive careers.

the military has always and will always play a part in space. The question is will it be the only one to play in space? NASA plays the political sideshow role in space, hiding behind the fig leaf of science. But if we are to really develop space, the commercial sector needs to be allowed to do what it does best - innovate and make money.

That is what Rutan was complaining about. By NASA pushing Apollo Part Deux, they are not challenging engineers and entrepreneurs to find better, cheaper and safer ways to get back to the Moon and beyond.

[IrishCatholic]

I did read the article as posted. I am unaware of any of the military having a manned space program. I am aware of the military’s involvement in space as most of NASA derives their astronauts from service pilots.
“Apollo Part Deux” is by no means a step backwards. It is also not a misstep. If Orion becomes reality and an effective lift platform, then the private industry that builds it, can then also build it for civilian use. The last time I checked the military didn’t build the ships themselves.

So, the best way to move forward is to have Orion go to the moon and for us to build a base there. Open it up to private contractors and industry and then commercialize space. I am all for private involvement. I am all for private industry in space. It is the economic expansion and exploration that will finally get us going again.
But, to not discuss the military aspects of space is disingenuous. If China gets the high ground, they win. Then all your vaunted private industry is for nothing.

[billbears]

NASA plays the political sideshow role in space, hiding behind the fig leaf of science. But if we are to really develop space, the commercial sector needs to be allowed to do what it does best - innovate and make money.

Exactly.

NASA, wasting taxpayer dollars proudly since 1958

[anymouse]

If China gets the high ground, they win.

You actually think that China can build anything 1/2 as good as an American company can, let alone a significant presence in space? Stop Panda bear baiting.

If we stop emulating the former Soviet Union's space program and let American free enterprise provide many different flavors of space launch vehicles, we all win - including NASA and the military.

If you force everyone to use one government designed launch vehicle, you get more of the expensive, unreliable and overly-complex launch vehicles that have been hobbling NASA, the military, NRO, MDA and the majority of commercial payload customers for decades.

You might think the government can manage it's way out of a paper bag, but there is plenty of evidence that the private sector gets the job done, while the government just wastes tax money.

[IrishCatholic]

“You actually think that China can build anything 1/2 as good as an American company can, let alone a significant presence in space? Stop Panda bear baiting.”

They don’t have to build anything 1/2 as good. They only have to build it first.
China does have a credible threat. They have ballistic missiles (supplied by the Clintons). They have a manned space program (supplied by the Clintons) They have a stated desire to build a space base on the moon. Who says they can’t? Do you want to risk national security on this? It sounds as if you do.
Who builds Orion? Who builds the Abrams? Who builds the Raptor? Who builds the Lightning? When you talk about the government you are talking about private industry under government contract. I am not against private industry building anything.
As for what the government manages, they do pretty well with the military. And they waste plenty of money there too.
My prior post said that I did not oppose private space development. In fact I encouraged it. It would not be accurate to imply anything else. But in the strategic sense my point remains uncontested:
If China gets the high ground, they win.

[anymouse]

Give me a break. You can’t possibly think China will be building a lunar base anytime soon, do you? They can barely put a couple of Taikinauts in LEO using tech they bought from Russia or stole from us. Maybe you don’t have a firm understanding of space technology, but still it should seem obvious that it is a bit harder to go to the Moon, and hard still to establish a permanent presence there.

And even if the ChiComs managed to do so, so what? They spent a lot of their newfound wealth to do what we did nearly 40 years ago. You speak as if them getting a Moon base is some great threat to us. Hell, the best thing it could accomplish is to spur the US to stop pussyfooting around and let loose the commercial sector to get our boys and girls back on the Moon and beyond - fast, cheap and safely.

You should be more concerned with what China could do with the same technology with payloads aimed downward, rather than upward.

You need to stop drinking the “my rocket is bigger than your rocket” koolaid that kept us from really developing space over the last 30 years. Even the Russians have figured out that it is better to make a buck in space, than try to make a command economy work.

BTW, even NASA Administrator Mike Griffin agrees, he just has to pacify the old-timers under him and in Congress that would stab him in the back, if he dare agree with Rutan in public. Got to keep the pork flowing into those troughs.

[IrishCatholic]

Sorry, I wanted to indicate the best way forward was a revitalized space industry led first by NASA and then branching out finally to private industry.
I wanted to indicate that arrogance was a poor substitute for being first.
You want to belittle rather than talk. So what is the point of continuing when you have all the answers?