Over at The Space Review I have an article this week about how some scientists perceive the Vision for Space Exploration, based on comments made at a forum on Capitol Hill last month. Most of the responses are fairly predictable—they’re interested in the vision but are concerned about what it might to do astronomy and some planetary science programs—but I found particularly interesting this statement by Wes Huntress, the former NASA associate administrator for space science:
I worry that we’re still thinking like Apollo, and that the destination will become the objective, and the dates will become the measure. That’s death. If that happens, this policy will never be implemented successfully. It’s the goals that are important, not the destinations. The destinations follow from the goals, and they must be flexible if this is to be affordable. If you focus on specific dates, then they will drive the costs out of balance. That’s a classic formula for cost overruns.
Huntress makes a good point: the purpose for this vision is not to return humans to the Moon by 2020, but to expand the human presence in the solar system. On the other hand, having a specific goal and deadline can be far more easily understood—and far more motivating—than a nebulous, open-ended concept like spreading humanity through the solar system. Thoughts?
We had a debate on “goals” at the ISDC meeting – Jeff did you drop in on that? Anyway, I’d like to reiterate what I said there – we mean a couple of different things when we talk about goals: long-term vision is fine, but to actually get things done we need specific, measurable ones, time-based and realistic. Specific projects – and it should be expected that we’ll sometimes fail. And there should be hundreds of them, not just one. And mostly near term (less than 5 years). Think “first extraction of oxygen from lunar soil by 2009″, not “moon base by 2020″.
“first extraction of oxygen from lunar soil by 2009″
But what do we go in for a manned flight vehicle or is this a new robitic large scale mining sample return.
which is preferable?
What should it’s cost guide line reference be?
Which is the real goal, to put man back into space or to do robotic science?
Would most would say both types of missions?
Answering these question is a first step.
I am sure that there and others must be answered for a logical stepped process. As you noted as short but measureable on the path of success.
My biggest worry about Nasa being converted is that no one will have pockets deep enough to pay the bills, nor to buy the products that will become of this action.
Private industries with the right employee base and funding could duplicate some of Nasa acomplishments though.
Who would they do it for though?
It was tough enough to pay the bill for a soyuz ride by very rich individuals.
Who is there left if no Nasa?
Breaking up a big goal into smaller goals is reasonable.
The USA/USSR Space Race was based on achieving milestones: first satellite, first human in space, first human on the moon, etc.
The Vision for Space Exploration is based on milestones, too: first flight of CEV, robotic missions, crewed missions, etc. These milestones are less exciting than the Space Race ones, but it’s still important to have them.
NASA and many so-called space experts always think in terms of the “train cars,” never having figured out how to lay down the tracks, let alone aim the tracks in the right direction.
Direction (or vision), in this case, is outward from Earth along migratory wave fronts. Why this is so is buried deep in our genetic code, though such an explanation has little meaning to the average citizen (a sad commentary on the state of critical thinking in our country). Building the tracks is the metaphor for outlining a strategic plan. Such a plan might take the form of an economic development strategy. Destinations along the way and the manner in reaching them are all incidental, representing a diverse number of methods to implement the strategic plan. This represents the train car. If it derails, and the tracks are in good shape, the whole damn thing doesn’t come crashing down.
To recap:
Step One – VISION (initialization of interplanetary human migration to ensure survival of the human race according to our terms)
Step Two – STRATEGIC PLAN (Economic development plan designed to address space access, resource extraction and use, services, etc). National security concerns should also be pursued at this level.
Step Three – METHODS OF IMPLEMENTATION (all the ikcy stuff necessary to make the strategic plan work, managed below the White House level)
To make these elements work in some coherent way, one needs a leader. Not necessarily a flamboyant space-lover, but a good leader with charisma, friends in high places, superior management skills, and dedication to the cause for which he or she is assigned.
The space community needs new thinking as to how to get into space in a big way, do so via using the Vision for Space President Bush started, and use Networked Means to fill in the gaps in the governments skeleton of a master plan for space development. We need to think of nested goals, a la the type mentioned in the book: The Future and It’s Enemies”, goals that can be done both independent of each other, or in concert with each other. Much work remains to be done to verify industrial processes on the Moon, Mars, asteroids, in Earth orbit, and elsewhere. Work like power transmission, resource extraction and utilization, closed life support and resupply have all yet to be done by commercial companies for either government customers or private customers, or both. This work could be done for less than perhaps $50 million dollars each, and there are plenty of private spacecraft suppliers like Space Dev who could provide a basic spacecraft bus, and flight support and control via a commercial off the shelf means. This makes building the custom additions to these basic spacecraft easier, and much available technology is currently available to be plugged into existing spacecraft, and the above investigations or demonstrations are uniquely positioned for commercial/private space development companies to pursue and perfect.
No specific goals are mentioned, and I think the Aldridge commission was wise to not mention a specific destination, because they may well recognize the divisive nature of the Moon over Mars, Asteroid mining over Solar Power Satellites, and military space projects over commercial activity. We in the space community have wasted three decades in fighting amongst ourselves over destinations, means, ends, and above all, using the last three decades to put in orbit and beyond actual infrastructure that makes space access or utilization for every part of the space community available for all for their own specific destinations, goals, and reasons. No more infighting, science over commerce, or any conflict whatsoever if possible. We can’t afford to fight amongst each other in the space community; there are enough opponents of space activity as is to waste time fighting over doctrine, destinations, goals, whatever. So enable every choice as a generic default response, and specifics for goals, destinations, and specific hardware will follow from this seemingly undefined way of operating.
Science is not a prime reason for going to space in terms of selling space settlement/development to the mass of people outside the space science, or other science segments of the space community. People who are not scientists just don’t care about science done in space except in a general, generic way, so we can’t sell space to the masses via the rubric of science rationales. It just doesn’t work. So don’t do it. Space can and should be sold as multifaceted, transdisciplinary, with multiple applications, while at the same time appealing to specific small-scale Networked Means projects available to an incredible mix of investors, users, enthusiasts, and developers. Space development advocates, commercial companies, and disruptive technology developments have much to contribute to opening space to the masses, and we are just beginning to learn how to use Networked means to involve the great numbers of people outside the traditional confines of the space community in developing space.
People who have their own mix of funding, reasons, and ends which seem good to them are ready to be players in space development, and Networked Means enable them to be players, and to choose for themselves what projects, developments, and companies they choose to be a part of. The invisible hand of the market is just beginning to finger it’s way into space, and we can and should take it by the hand and lead it into space in a big way, via as many routes as possible.
A frequent criticism of the Vision for Space is that commercial operations are ignored, and I just don’t think this is the case, as the Aldridge commission says right off in their statements this spring, as well as in their report coming out next week, that NASA needs to involve the commercial world in providing goods and services to NASA, as well as involve them in opening up space via infrastructure built by private industry. If no one is providing processing of lunar or asteroidal soil for use in solar cells, semiconductors, oxygen, water, hydrogen, ceramics, glasses, etc, then do it. Prove the concept. Demonstrate that it can be done, and done economically, can be scaled up, and involves the private citizen as investors and equity holders in these companies. This would be perfect for small investors, giving say, a US Savings Bond’s worth of equity in these companies or in a pool of funds available for long term investment capital for space development projects.
Lastly, the space community is just beginning to find out that we know nothing about selling space to the masses, know nothing about making space sexy, modern, available to all, or involving us personally, and we desperately need to do this now. We also need to recognize that the space community does not effectively promote training or promotion of cadre; a tightly knit community of knowledgeable, effective sales agents for the general idea of space settlement and development as something the common man and woman can and should be a big, fundamental, integral part of from the get go, and we need to start to promote and look out for our own who want to learn to promote space to the masses, and do this as soon as possible. Charity begins at home, and the best investment in education and training for the space community is to train, promote, and look out for our own to begin with, because no one else outside the space community is going to look out for us, so we better start doing it for ourselves and each other, and do this now too.
“Direction (or vision), in this case, is outward from Earth along migratory wave fronts. Why this is so is buried deep in our genetic code, though such an explanation has little meaning to the average citizen (a sad commentary on the state of critical thinking in our country).”
I get annoyed every time I see this pseudoscientific argument-by-assertion. It’s reminiscent of Marxist arguments-from-inevitability.
It’s difficult to draw connections between complex behaviors and genes. Typically this involves either behaviors that are universal, or occur in a subpopulation where inheritance can be traced. Neither situation applies in this case.
That some behavior is (let us assume) genetically based does not imply it is good (for example, rape might have a genetic component), nor does it imply that policy should be based on it (there is likely a genetic predisposition to have sex; does this mean the government should have a National Sex Administration to encourage it?) The problem is a confusion between descriptive (what organisms do) and prescriptive (what they ‘should’ do). You can’t get from one to the other.
Settle down, Paul. Your misguided “argument” misses the point entirely. Reminds me of the angry rhetoric evident when religious zealots challenge scientific theories.
Migration is not pseudoscience, it is in fact a reality. Extending migration to include space is also not an outrageous concept, which is the point I was making.
I also take issue with the Marxist-like comparison. The idea of a big picture view on why space is important to the human race is simply a guide (hence, vision), not a structured master plan for taking over the Solar System. It’s an idea with scientific roots that can be translated into action not just by the government, but by entreprenuers and nongovernmental organizations.
I was also not making any evaluation about good or bad (these are human inventions). But setting that aside for a minute, the genetic predisposition for an organism and a population of organisms to survive and grow is not either good or bad, it simply is a fact. This survival instinct is also a major morivator for migration, as it is for humans (for a variety of push-pull factors).
Migration will occur not because it was initiated by decree. It will happen for a variety of complex reasons that are, in fact, routed to genes (and memes, in the case of higher-order animals like us). In fact, we might not be the ones to do it. With ~5 billion years left until the Sun dies, whole new species will emerge, perhaps more capable than us. Or, our machines will take over.
What, pray tell, is your plan?
Not to mention nuclear war, asteriod or near Earth object colision and of course green house gassing effects or the reverse to an ice age and other such natural or man made catastrofies which could all happen long before the sun were to burn out.
We must explore but we must also leave the pentyness of wars behind us when we go as well.
Conflict is one necessary component of evolution.
I subscribe to the belief that conflict leading to war will always be present within and between civilizations. Being technologically and socially advanced does not remove the threat of war. With billions of individuals, each with different personalities and ambitions, it is naive to think war, poverty, and other dark aspects of civilization can be permanently done away with. The multitude of environments in space will further diversify the already very complex human experience.
My argument about migration assumes that the Solar System is a biological realm chock full of different ecological niches, nothing more. Can we exploit them? Who knows? Having the foresight to see very general patterns in our future (not specific forecasts), based on precidents that go back hundreds of millions of years, is the kind of thinking we need when it comes to interplanetary, and eventually interstellar, human migration.