And the beat goes on: the Hampton Roads (Va.) Daily Press, in an editorial yesterday, criticizes NASA for turning its back on the Earth through a series of “ominous signs”, including deleting a reference to the Earth while revising the agency’s mission statement. “The evidence that speaks the loudest is where NASA puts its money, and it has been raiding science budgets to find money for President Bush’s misguided quest to send humans back to the moon and on to Mars.” (And if you don’t think that language is strong enough, try this: “…a nationally important agency turned on its head to pursue the whim of a man who will never have time to achieve his goal before he’s out of office. What he’ll leave behind is the toll his fancy is taking on the capability and culture of that agency.”) The paper is particularly concerned because the nearby Langley Research Center focuses on aeronautics and atmospheric sciences, two areas that appear particularly vulnerable to cuts.
Lou Friedman, executive director of The Planetary Society, makes a big deal about wading his toes into the blogosphere, but really his first post is a conventional op-ed about the state of NASA’s support (or lack thereof) for science and exploration as a part of the Vision for Space Exploration. Friedman takes aim in particular at a speech made by presidential science advisor John Marburger, one that, in Marburger’s own words, “subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security, and economic interests.” “I am beginning to think that the new interpretation of the Vision, and the new direction of NASA, is more ideological than visionary, more about extending our economic interests than anything to do with the public good and public interest in space exploration,” Friedman writes. But other than calling this “anti-science rhetoric”, Friedman doesn’t explain why economic and security interests shouldn’t have a higher priority that science; one can argue that this has pretty much been the case for the entire history of NASA.
The greatest tragedy is that Bush doesn’t even care that much whether NASA succeeds in implementing VSE. How many times have you heard him mention it since his announcement in January 2003? The answer is a big “zero.”
What originally was intended as a political response to the loss of Columbia has mushroomed into a Don Quixote-like quest on the part of NASA. Unfortunately there won’t be much left once the big pushback starts next year. It will take strong leadership to repair the damage to NASA’s once stellar science and technology programs.
This is another example of federal budget cuts being critized because they will reduce funding for a particular program that in a particular area. But NASA needs to focus on Technology both Aero and Astro tech. It is in their name. They should not be the primary exploratory agency.
I can’t think of a better – or, worse – example of what should NOT be propagated than this latest screeching from the Planetary Society. To rant that space sustainability – finding a way to stay in space- permanently – by using space resources and creating a sustainable space economy – is something to condemn just shows – well- ignorance. I’d even go so far as to call it, in the long run, stupidity.
It’s exactly like condemning Lewis and Clark – and the people that followed them – for living off the land and starting businesses, rather than keeping their nose to the grindstone and focusing only on the narrow slot they think is important – flora and fauna. With that sort of paradigm, there would be no long-term space science; no long term space exploration. Nothing. Literally.
It is one thing to disagree with a position. But this goes too far; actually showing a lack of thinking, and even of immaturity. Nothing the Planetary Society otherwise does – creating innovative solar sail test missions, coordinating PC use for space science research – none of that creates enough Good to counterbalance the Bad that this sort of ignorant screeching does.
How many times have you heard him mention it since his announcement in January 2003? The answer is a big “zero.”
How many times should he have? What would be the point? You don’t necessarily support a program (particularly a controversial one) by making speeches. He threatened his first veto in order to keep the funding for it. He’s supporting it as best he can, given the politics and the priorities of the country right now.
Ive seen three different broad roles proposed for NASA:
1) Science agency. thats what Friedman wants
2) NACA-like tech development agency. Thats what the NewSpace people would like most
3) Federal space trucking company. Thats what it is now and will be if they stick to ESAS
Maybe someone should run a national poll on what it should be or something.
Now for personal opinion: 3rd is the worst possible option for the money.
posted notes on companies upfor bid in the NASA replacement for the shuttle tomorrow:
http://247wallst.blogspot.com/2006/08/investing-in-space-final-frontier.html
I had a conversation with Friedman on this subject over 17 years ago and he absolutely does not belive in any economic development of the solar system.
He called it “Dues ex machina” and that for anyone to say that space exploration was for economic development was basically a fool.
An interesting retort by another famous scientist at the time was “Well Lou does not believe in any endeavour that he is not involved with or that will happen beyond his tenure”
That was at a Space Studies Institute Meeting on Lunar Prospector in 1989.
Dennis
Dave Huntsman, it’s too bad, but I have to agree with you. All this from an organization that claims to support human missions to Mars!
Friedman: more about extending our economic interests than anything to do with the public good and public interest in space exploration.
And what is wrong with that? Sure, space exploration should be about the public good and public interest, but it should be about a lot more than that, too. This cuts to the core of my wider disagreement with many space scientists. Yes, the public good of science should be an important part of any space program, but it is a vast distortion of reality and what most human beings want to make it the only space program. That scientists have managed to convince Congress for decades that the one and only reason to explore space is for “science” is a travesty of what space exploration should be about — which is just that, exploration.
— Donald
I personally find the scientific and economic exploration of Phobos, Diemos and Ceres to be far more attractive than the moon, as a national goal, in terms of scientific necessity, technological motivation, basic physics, and material needs.
There was a discussion of this in earlier postings. The bottom-line is that science butresses all aspects of exploration, at least if you’re going to do it right. This has been demonstrated time and time again from the L&C Expedition to the geophysicists working for oil companies.
The big question is should exploration be done solely for the purpose of accruing knowledge for knowledge’s sake or should it be conducted for future economic gain (which was actually the principal motivation for L&C). For L&C, the “Vision” was expansion of the fledgling U.S. into a fur trading empire. (In retrospect this was about as kooky as the potential for mining He3 or O2 from lunar regolith.) However, the information gleaned from the L&C Expedition helped open up the western frontier in ways that no one at that time could imagine.
Bottom line is that we need to explore space with everything we got, applying the scientific method and practices everywhere along the way. But it may be way too premature to expect any economic payoff from space soon. The precedents for developing profitable industries in harsh, inhospitable environments have been very limited (e.g., Siberia and Antartica). The Moon makes these places look like Shangri-La.
Thomas…I totally agree with you about Phobos (and perhaps Deimos). Being in close vicinity to Mars, they make an ideal destination for crewed exploration of the Mars surface with directly controlled telerobots. In addition, they could harbor readily accessible materials for rocket propellant and in terms of energy expenditures, are just as accessible as the surface of our moon.
Here is a perfect justification for crewed exploration beyond Earth orbit that is both “scientifically” and economically driven.
Interesting. It appears that everybody here is in nearly complete agreement … that Lou Friedman is wrong.
Friedman: “more about extending our economic interests than anything to do with the public good and public interest in space exploration.”
Only an ivory tower academic, would suggest that growing the U.S. economy is not a “public good”.
I wonder who he thinks pays the taxes to pay for the billions in dollars he wants to spend on space science programs.
– Al
Tom and Thomas, I agree with you both regarding the asteroids and Martian moons, although I strongly disagree with the body of scientific opinion that the moon is uninteresting. Since all three goals have comparable (ball park!) technological and logistical requirements, I argue that a rational space program would develop a common set of skills that would allow persuit of all three goals.
Tom: For L&C, the “Vision” was expansion of the fledgling U.S. into a fur trading empire. (In retrospect this was about as kooky as the potential for mining He3 or O2 from lunar regolith.) However, the information gleaned from the L&C Expedition helped open up the western frontier in ways that no one at that time could imagine.
Exactly! We have no idea what’s out there, even on the moon, and we won’t as long as we’re confined to a few point landers. If there truly is nothing, than the robots would have been enough, but terrestrial history strongly suggests that’s unlikely. We’ll never know if we don’t go.
However, I would (honestly) like to know what is “kooky” about mining oxygen for use on the moon, for return stages, and possibly for use elsewhere? Having just written an Op Ed in Space News on that very subject, and having others in the planning stage, I would love know of the holes in my reasoning.
As for resource extraction in harsh environments, you forget deep sea drilling today, much of the 1800s mining in the deserts of the American West, Russian fur trapping expeditions (who may have been the first Europeans to reach California), Roman mining in the wastes of Britain and northern Europe, and so on. None of these are as hard as the moon, but all of them were extraordinarily difficult for the cultures that did them. (Also, mark my words, the second oil is discovered in quantity in or near Antarctica and prices elsewhere present a serious threat to Americans’ addiction to singularly driving themselves absurd distances in heavy chunks of metal, treaties won’t be worth the paper their written on and we’ll be mining Antacrica.)
— Donald
>Only an ivory tower academic, would suggest that >growing the U.S. economy is not a “public good”.
No, only a smart fellow would say that it just isn’t a very good way to do it. ISRU, anyone?
If you are to back up a claim that the moon is scientifically and economically interesting, as a scientist, I fully expect you to back up that claim with evidence. Until we have a full lunar reconnaissance mission, all I have to go on are apollo era samples, and they are decidedly uninteresting from a strictly materials point of view. The cost of the development of lunar resources does not, at this time, offer anything even vaguely representing a profitable payback scheme, particularly considering the type of hardware proposed to carry out the development mission. Two year Phobos missions come in as far cheaper and offer far more in the way of true scientific and technological advances, and also carry the promise of instant financial, scientific economic and materials science gratification.
If you need large amounts of oxygen in low earth orbit, then simply launching large amounts of water to low earth orbit seems like a reasonable solution, since it will serve as a fundamental driver of all future propulsion, launch and life support technology, which are clearly fundamental prerequisites to all that follows.
I still can’t believe I have to still explain such fundamental truths to space advocates. Somehow I am beginning to suspect that most space advocates are armchair advocates, and have not approached anything representing exhaustive study and analysis of space propulsion, launch, life support and materials development architectures.
The CEV and Ares I need to be immediately shelved. This is a non-negotiable demand, if I am ever to get involved with anything NASA or NOAA related. It is a philosophical as well as an engineering call, and a very easy one to make. The only way to do this is to vote and/or impeach this particular administration out of office, and then summarily either kill the VSE, or change its immediate goal.
The Ares V, with proper engineering oversight and modifications, such as fundamental advanced propulsion investments, tank and engine reusability and retrofit, and foam free launch operations, could still very well serve any future space development programs, and the EELVs, and a spectrum of other international and private launch services, can immediately be pressed into service for the ISS and any future crew transfer needs.
We need to throw every available asset at the problems, but the problems still remain propulsion, launch and life support. I still can hardly believe that a bunch of noobs like Marburger, Wingo, Spudis and Griffin have subverted that fundamental truth into a horrible fiscal reality. I’m sorry I have to be so harsh on these guys.
Really, I’m so sorry, but the truth hurts.
I also disagree with Louis Friedman. In fact, I’ve written a blog entry dedicated to his rant, and why he is only hurting himself here:
http://theluf.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-friedman-is-wrong.html
Thomas, you are no scientist. Last time I checked you were writing articles about racing.
In short, you are a liar.
Last time I checked you were writing articles about racing.
Could you provide us with a link?
In short, you are a liar.
Well, if so, I’m a liar that commits my lies to print. A link to expose my lies would be sufficient. While you are at it, give us a link to your global warming paper.
Thomas: Interesting blog you have…. Not a lot of science but lots of calling people/agencies fascists and the like. Also noticed you do that a lot on usenet too:
NASA is a bureaucratic organization in an administration beholden to
fascist concepts, particularly beholden to corporations such as ATK,
which has perverted some engineering decisions, clearly NASA is fascist.
In particular, the CEV and Arse I are fundamentally flawed given the
technological resources at their disposal, going forward with these
programs, VSE and ESAS, CEV and Arse I, would be almost irrational.
We need to shit can these people as soon as possible, early November.
Lautenberg and Griffin have literally poisoned science at NOAA and NASA.
Oh and apologies for feeding the troll… I didn’t notice his dogtag.
So now the topic is me. Good way to divert attention from the issues, that’s what good little … er … politicians do. Sometimes American politicians need to be reminded of the basis for their existance, the constitution, but heckfire, I suppose the founding fathers didn’t understand they would have a few science literate space advocates to deal with. But that’s another issue, not the issue at hand, which is VSE vs Space Science at NASA. I believe a great nation would adhere to a fundamental philosophy of Space Sciences, Life Sciences, Earth Sciences and the Natural Sciences at our great science institutions, NOAA and NASA, but perhaps your average republican politician in power in this nation today has some other definition of the use of science in public institutions.
Somehow, I don’t see how ‘exploration’ fits into that picture, except as something one would think would come naturally to happy and healthy citizens of a prosperous and secure nation. I don’t feel like any of those things with this administration, and I feel it is this administrations abandonment of the rational scientific decision making process that is the root of our national ‘problem’. If you don’t think there is a ‘problem’, then I can’t show you how scientific methods and rational thought might help you solve it. That kind of problem from the top percolates down through a nation, and I believe it has occured at NASA with VSE and ESAS. The shuttle and the station was hard enough on funds, but I’ve heard the term fiasco bantered about lately. Perhaps I was wrong, maybe they are just fiascoists.
If you are having trouble finding discussions on ‘fascism’ I believe I’ve listed some links.
There was an extremely interesting discussion between Brian Williams and George Bush tonight on CNBC/NBC tonight. The impromptu interview occurred during a walk through of the 9th Ward in New Orleans. Among other things, Williams asked Bush what he thought were the most important domestic endeavors for the U.S. Williams even couched the question in terms of Apollo.
I hate to rain on the parade, but Bush did not even mention VSE or anything related to space. He identified fixing the social security system and weaning American from dependence on oil as the two most important things he’d like to concentrate on. I couldn’t agree with him more, but unfortunately the War on Terrorism and Debacle in Irag has permanently marred his administration.
For this blog, the important message is that VSE is not a priority for this administration and never will be. That means that Griffin is basically on his own until more accurate estimates of of Ares I development costs come in.
For this blog, the important message is that VSE is not a priority for this administration and never will be.
Which brings up the point. If Bush doesn’t care about VSE, and there has been only lip service oversight by an almost dysfunctional congress, Griffin has (at least up until now) almost complete freedom to implement a vague vision any old way he pleases. Why hasn’t he?
I believe it’s because of the way this architecture has been slopped together behind the scenes of the incompetent facade of power, by the usual suspects, whoever they may have been. It will take historians years to sort out. I’ve already seem some discussion about it. However, the original VSE dictate was very specific and O’Keefe is long gone now. Griffin has had complete freedom in how he could have implemented launch. Yet he chose to ram ESAS down everyone’s throat. There just has to be an interesting story behind all of this.
What I find interesting is how easily this whole NASA science crisis gets lost in the tidal wave of the other severe problems this adminstration has created for the American people, and their international science and space partners. Space truly doesn’t seem important to the average American. Science even less so.
I think people are deluded that this will last beyond the next election, but then again, congress is dysfunctional. The status quo and business as usual crowd still has enormous momentum. Never underestimate the stupidity of a population dumbed down by years of corporate fascism. Economic security is far more important to them than science. They just can’t make the connection.
Looks like Lock-Mart is the winner. Boeing shouldn’t feel bad. NASA will be launching Orion on Delta-IVs after all is said and done.
X-33 all over again.
Science vs. Human Space Flight
You know this discussion reminds me of the Abbott and Costello routine. Who cares about Human Space Flight, I don’t know, third base. I know for sure the scientist in general really hate human space flight at least the ones not involved in NASA projects. Congress appears to care about it but I think that’s because someone whispered into their ear it was the cool thing to do especially if you don’t play the saxophone. There doesn’t appear to be enough good saxophone music since Clinton left office and I don’t mean the Kenny G type. I think space science is still up to bat and calling the shots or at least taking pot shots at NASA enough to wound but not maim after all NASA is a good portion of their bread and butter. What’s on second oh I know it’s the Space Entrepreneur! Anousheh Ansari heading to space to be the first woman space tourist on a Russian build human vehicle. So you have all these Enterpreneur’s who are hoping NASA is sacrificed in the name of science so they can move on to third base or maybe even home. So are these guys pro-science? We know they are anti-NASA because nothing good can come from the government. Just look at the mistakes they made in 1794. Speaking of the outfield, what about the Mars Society, if they catch ground ball where do they throw it, NASA or the Entrepreneurs? I won’t get into a discussion if they are in left or right field. Now George Bush is the Manager but it appears he isn’t at this game so I’ll assume he has no interest in this game. Now the coach we all know is Griffin. Mr. Griffin is really upset about the salary caps due to everyone liking football far more than baseball. Personally I’m a Hockey, Soccer & Rugby fan. Speaking of Soccer the international pastime, where are our international friends? Oh yea catching all the flak from our petty bickering and thinking why they playing. Well the Japanese love this game and seem ready to play for now. How ironic. Oh the Chinese hmmmmmm.
Next time Darth Vader vs. VSE
I feel better now…
Do you drive a monstrous SUV down to the corner quick stop to get a quart of orange juice as well? What the heck, this is America, now.
That’s just the way we do things here.
Tom: Boeing shouldn’t feel bad. NASA will be launching Orion on Delta-IVs after all is said and done.
I’m tempted to say I hope you are correct. However, at this point in time, I’m worried that a re-re-design will do more political damage than the unneeded launch vehicle.
Sam: X-33 all over again.
I’m tempted to agree with this, too. However, neither contractor has exactly a stellar track record of late. Well, at least the relatively small Orbital Sciences (who apparently came up with this whole capsule idea) is a team member . . . and there is COTS. . . .
— Donald
Actually, Donald, I’d say that Harvey Allen and AJ Eggers “came up with the whole capsule idea” given their work on blunt body re-entry vehicles back at Ames in the 1950s…as others have said, Max Faget had one good idea and he “borrowed” it from Harvey Allen.
Frankly, as a taxpayer, chosing the contractor with both zero experience designing and building manned spacecraft AND the rousing success of X-33 on their resume leaves me wondering who made this decision; NASA or the White House?
I found the following quote from a L-M vp (from Seth Borenstein’s AP story) as to why they “think” they can achieve LEO – maybe – to be priceless:
“…The last time NASA awarded a manned spaceship contract to Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., was in 1996 for a spaceplane that was supposed to replace the space shuttle. NASA spent $912 million and the ship, called X-33, never got built because of technical problems.
Lockheed Martin Vice President John Karas said his company will succeed with Orion compared to its failure with X-33, because “we’re not shooting as far… I’d say it (Orion) is within reach.”…”
He’d “say” it was within reach? Apparently he has never heard of Apollo, Gemini, et al, much less Soyuz and Shenzhou…
That’s a ringing declaration of confidence in his own team’s abilities, isn’t it?
My instinct is that LM lowballed it, by a huge amount – I heard their quote was $3.7 billion – which simply means that like everything else they’ve been awarded lately, the actually price will be three to four times that.
As Congress about how “affordable” the F-22 and JSF are turning out be…
And knowing LM, they’ll probably forget to do any necessary metric-to-English conversions.
Well, Sam, all I can say is, I hope you’re wrong (without having any real faith in it).
I stand corrected: I should have said that Orbital Science apparently proposed the whole idea of RETURNING to a capsule design.
Boeing’s recent history has been even worse than Lockheed Martin’s (at least Lockheed has been able to successfully market and produce commercial comsats); maybe they should have given Northrop the shot! How over-budget was the B-2? At least the damn thing works. . . .
Let us hope that one of the COTS folk succeeds.
— Donald
Actually, way back during OSP (Orbital Space Plance, NASA’s previous post-X-33, pre-CEV try at an EELV-launched LEO-only vehicle) Boeing had gone to a BBRV design, while LM was still trying to sell a lifting body.
Beyond all that, Boeing and Northrop have had a very good record working together on the F-18, while Boeing’s ability to deliver on the Delta IV, US-built ISS modules, shuttle, 777-series airliners, etc is not in question; I would have loved to have seen the respective past performance volumes in each proposal.
COTS is – at best – a technology demonstration program at this point; there is no chance it will provide a manned vehicle in time to replace the STS under the current deadline, and frankly, with a $500 million budget, no technical possibility that it could, either.
Space is hard, manned space is incredibly hard, and L-M has a track record that hardly inspires confidence.
It seems I have spurred some discussion of an important topic, which is good. Perhaps I should clarify at least one aspect of my comment about the inappropriateness of “economic and secuirty interests.” Despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the United States and Soviet Union (later Russia), and 45 years of history, no economic or security advantage has been found for human space flight. I am for hunman space flight, and when I try to imagine whether nationalistic rationales or international rationales are going to sustain a venture of humans beyond Earth orbit I cannot imagine a nationalistic one. It could not even sustain the space station.
Hey Lou
I think that you misread Marburger. His comment was that fields like nanotechnology and biotechnology, specifically programs at NIH and NSF would be better funded than space (of any type). Space science for the most part (as well as human spaceflight) will not be better funded (in comparison to the increases in the other agencies) because they are perceived to not contribute to funding your generation’s retirement plans.
How about proposing a grand tour of Near Earth Objects by multiple spacecraft as well as main belt and Ooort objects for their mineral resources and tie them specifically to that goal. Might be able to get those funds restored.
Dennis
“no economic . . . benefit”. I think that this hyperbole really undermines your case. OK, I will give you some: smoke detectors, velcro, advances in food packaging and freeze-drying technology, dustbusters, shock-absorbing helmets, trash compactors, sports bras, self-adjusting sunglasses, advances in radiation shielding, etc. etc.
So there are some small ones. The real problem though is that you don’t take into account other benefits. How many physists, chemists, etc. developed interest in their field because of NASA. Obviously there is no answer to this question, but surely you would admit that it is at the very least exaggeration to the point of oversimplification to say that there have been no economic benefits.
Apart from that though, lets say that you are right and there are absolutely no economic advantages for manned space travel (which is categorically wrong), is that really unusual for a Kuhnian paradigm shift?
We have had human space travel for fifty years. Perhaps it is too early to begin saying that there has been no economic benefit gained. Perhaps it would be better to say that it has returned fewer dividends than the investment at this present time. Put another way. Was there a significant economic benefit within fifty years of Newton’s Principia? Within fifty years of Galelio? Within fifty years of Mendel’s experiments in genetics?
OK, you may say that is fine and good, but those are different. Those are conceptual differences. I would argue though that it is just as much a conceptual leap to say — in a non-fantastical, realistic manner — that space should be an environment for human habitation.
But to concede a potential argument, lets look at other explorations. There was not a significant commercial benefit within fifty years of manned air travel (Nontgolfier in 1784)? There was not a significant commercial benefit of the discovery of North America by Europeans with in the first fifty years (Leif Ericson in Vinland), no significant economic within fifty years of Marco Polo’s contact with China, no significant economic benefit within the English colonizatin of North America within fifty years (colonies were subsidized by the crown). On and on and on.
Suffice to say that your argument is — apart from being wrong on its absolute assertions — is simplistically shortsighted.
Greg
Louis Friedman: Despite hundreds of billions of dollars spent by the United States and Soviet Union (later Russia), and 45 years of history, no economic or security advantage has been found for human space flight.
Substitute automated planetary exploration for human spaceflight in the above sentence, and it is still completely accurate. The benefits of both, for the most part, cannot be quantified. The wonder that I and many others feel watching astronauts build the Space Station is every bit as valuable (or otherwise) as the wonder that planetary scientists feel watching close-up but still remote observations of the planets.
The fact is, there are certain kinds of science that robotics is appropriate for — the kinds of reconnaissance that we have done to date. But, no robot or set of robots in any of our lifetimes is going to do the kind of detailed geologic field work that will be required to rule out life on Mars, or if it exists, to understand its distribution, palaeontology, biology, et cetera. It is only barely conceivable that you could automate the detection of life on Mars (don’t forget that, whatever its technical successes, Viking was a $5 billion failure to automate science).
I agree with those who state that this debate is pointless: you need both automated and human missions if you are going to have any hope of understanding the Solar System. Unfortunately, at this point in time, the up-front costs of human missions are far higher than those of most automated missions (though it is far from clear that this is true for the cost per unit science). Therefore, if you are going to do the kind of survey geology, and geologic field work, that will be required to understand any significant part of a world like Mars, you have to pay those up-front costs, and you cannot spend all of the money you have letting scientists do reconnaissance, or try to answer a small number of narrow questions with expensive robots.
Dr. Griffin has proven unfortunately ham-fisted politically, but he did not take all that much money from the scientists. He has chosen one of the lowest-cost options for NASA to send scientists back to the moon. The alternative to what he is doing (in the broad sense, not the technical details) is to give up on human spaceflight (or continue to fly the Shuttle which amounts to the same thing). A space program without the promise of human scientists on site on other worlds is not a scientifically “balanced” space program.
— Donald
Substitute automated planetary exploration for human spaceflight in the above sentence, and it is still completely accurate.
Well, maybe not ‘completely’. Study of the surprisingly dense plasma trapped in the magnetosphere of Jupiter led Hasegawa to the recognition of the interesting confinement properties of dipole fields, which has in turn prompted experimentation with dipoles for controlled nuclear fusion. We don’t have fusion reactors yet, but the results have helped direct current terrestrial research expenditures in potentially more useful directions.
Dennis,
I agree with you. Lou misread Marburger.
Marburger is saying that exploration — in itself — is an “in order to”, and that the real objective, against which we will measure the value of exploration are the “science, economic, and security” benefits.
This means that we must not do exploration for exploration’s sake. Instead, we do it for the “science benefits”, for the “economic benefits” and for the “security benefits”. But many people try to put the cart before the horse, and ignore those three valuable benefits.
In fact, Lou, I would suggest that Marburger is creating your case for you — there is a case to be made that Griffin is doing the opposite of what Marburger is suggesting — and making “exploration” more important than the “science, economic, and security benefits” by how he is reducing the science budget in the outyears. He is certainly not helping “security benefits” either by choosing to build a brand new LV based on the stick, instead of purchasing EELVs for the CLV.
You should be using Marburger’s statement as an underpinning of your core argument — that Griffin is ignoring Marburger by ignoring all three of those stated benefits and cutting the science budget to fund his huge exploration engineering projects. Marburger’s statement is a very good statement for the objectives of TPS.
You seriously misunderstood Marburger, and are missing an opportunity. If I was you, I would turn Marburger’s statement into a tool in the “Save our Science” campaign.
– Al
You seriously misunderstood Marburger
Yes, this is indeed a very misunderstood administration.
Perhaps you could clear everything up for us once and for all.
Al
Indeed. I really think that Marburger’s speech was an incredible opening for scientists and space exploration and development advocates. From the Speech:
*
As I see it, questions about the vision boil down to whether we want to incorporate the solar system in our economic sphere, or not.
**
In the process of incorporating the solar system into our economic sphere there are huge openings for space science as well as human exploration.
However, here is the quandary that we are in. Also from the speech:
**
Our national policy, declared by President [George W.] Bush and endorsed by Congress last December in the NASA authorization act, affirms that, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” So at least for now the question has been decided in the affirmative
The wording of this policy phrase is significant. It subordinates space exploration to the primary goals of scientific, security and economic interests. Stated this way, the “fundamental goal” identifies the benefits against which the costs of exploration can be weighed. This is extremely important for policy-making because science, security and economic dimensions are shared by other federally funded activities. By linking costs to these common benefits it becomes possible, at least in principle, to weigh investments in space exploration against competing opportunities to achieve benefits of the same type.
****
This is both the opportunity and the problem for the science and human spaceflight community. The implication (and Marburger goes into this later in the speech) is that, today the way that the space exploration vision is constructed, it does not contribute to the three goals as strongly as nanotech and biotech and that this is the reason that these disciplines are recieving more federal funding increases than NASA.
Therefore it is the responsibility of the space science community to take a look at their planning process and to look at proposals for space science missions with the greatest potential to contribute to economic, scientific, and security goals.
The same is true of the human spaceflight program. Today NASA HQ has put very little thought into this in regard to the VSE and this is the biggest complaint that I have toward NASA. Without this explicit linkage the future may be that NASA drifts just as they did with SEI into a completely unsustainable program.
There are huge opportunities here for everyone if we shake off the attitudes of past decades about space.
Dennis
Interesting comparison.
The Nanotech world “gets it” and has explicit linkages to economic value AND they reference Marburger’s speech.
http://www.foresight.org/publications/weekly0042.html
Dennis
I think you have pointed to the fundamental problem. VSE is not flawed, and encompasses all forms of space exploration. However, it has been hijacked and contorted into a self-serving enterprise for several influential members of congress and a sandbox for engineers pining for the Apollo era.
It didn’t start that way at all. When Sean O’Keefe took the helm of NASA in 2001, he quickly came to the conclusion that the Office of Space Science (the former Code S) was the shining star of the agency. He strongly endorsed all the missions and initiatives being worked by Code S at that time – especially the Nuclear Systems Initiative (another story altogether). O’Keefe proclaimed that all future missions in space (human or robotic) had to have a clear scientific basis. In fact, I recall the NASA Public Affairs Office confiding many times that Space Science was the only thing that kept NASA in the positive public eye.
After the Columbia accident in 2003, the Bush Administration came under pressure to straighten out the sorry affairs in NASA’s human spaceflight program. The solution was worked in secrecy (like many things done by this Administration), but the final result did not suggest the steering away from science and technology that we see now. In fact, I remember Ed Weiler (Code S Associate Administrator) and Orlando Figueroa (Mars Program Manager) showing George Bush a full scale exhibit of the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER) immediately prior to Bush’s announcement of VSE at NASA Headquarters. They were both impressed not only by Bush’s interest and good questions, but his intense enthusiasm for the current direction of NASA’s Mars and space science activities.
Once VSE was announced change started to come, but it was nothing like the current environment. Craig Steidle was brought in to head up the new Exploration Office, and he made it his priority to observe the management and operation of Weiler’s organization. When formally introduced to the folks at Headquarters, he commented that he wanted to learn from the organization that was doing it right and infuse similar practices into his new office. Although Steidle brought in a heavy dose of DOD procurement practices, he adopted an approach very much along the lines of Code S – heavy reliance on competition, and involvement of industry and academia. The only losers were NASA’s field centers, which felt that they were being given the shaft by spaceflight neophytes who didn’t appreciate their talents and expertise. Most importantly, they and their congressional delegations smelled the threat of downsizing. (Recall that there were serious discussions of converting some field centers into Federally Funded Research Centers (FFRDCs) at that time.)
This is when things began to sour. Steidle (who, along with Sean O’Keefe, was one of the most genial guys to trod the corriders of NASA Headquarters) came under attack from the NASA congressional delegations for his perceived neglect of the NASA centers. The big turning point came when O’Keefe decided to leave NASA after the 2004 election. (This came as no surprise since many suspected that he had taken the NASA job expecting to take over DOD in Bush’s second term.) At that time, most people thought that someone like O’Keefe would be appointed as Administrator. In fact, there was a strong rumor that Steidle himself would be appointed to that job.
What happened instead was the appointment of Mike Griffin. I don’t know much of what went into this decision, but I suspect there were several factors. A major one was The Planetary Society’s study and report, “Extending Human Presence into the Solar System,” which was led by Mike himself and provided the overarching framework for ESAS. The report impressed those who had grown annoyed with the more methodical and seemingly meandering “development spiral” approach implemented by Steidle and his crew. Griffin was also a firm believer in NASA as an institution, which assuaged the concerns of congressmen with NASA field centers as their constituents. Most importantly, the Administration just didn’t have the time or interest to give the decision much careful thought. Iraq and other political issues had the limelight, and they were satisfied to try a fresh approach.
Little did anyone know that the NASA Griffin embraced was the NASA of the past, not the one of the present. The NASA of yore was forged in the fires of a crash program. This is an unworkable model now. It clearly ignores the VSE goals of promoting economic interests (prioritizing NASA developed and owned systems over those of the commercial sector), scientific interests (cutting back on Mars and robotic solar system exploration), and security interests (not contributing to the EELV market).
Thanks for clearing that up, Tom. I think that barring any disasters, this program may actually blunder along for the next 20 years or so, kind of like Herman Munster, enthusiastic, but slightly dumb.
Hopefully, there will be plenty of laughs along the way too, because right now, it isn’t very funny.
Paul, yes, but as you state, that is a future benefit of automated reconnaissance. Yet scientists object to my argument that the skills we are learning in building a large structure in microgravity will prove of great benefit to humanity in the future. Neither of us really knows, but my position is at least as likely as yours.
Tom: I basically agree with your analysis; I have long argued that O’Keefe’s model was far more realistic, politically, than what Dr. Griffin has come up with. Unforunately, I doubt we can go back. Every “redesign” brings the entire endeavor closer to cancellation, or if it survives, to the Space Station model.
I wonder if there is a way “forward” from where we are now? Where others see a drift away from Shuttle-derived, I see a drift toward using other hardware used by the EELVs, and thus signs of hope for a lower-cost strategy. We may still have an unneeded launch vehicle, but getting rid of the SSMEs and using EELV engines reduces by one the number of engines we’re supporting. That’s not as good as using the EELVs would have been, but it’s a step in the right direction.
— Donald
We may still have an unneeded launch vehicle, but getting rid of the SSMEs and using EELV engines reduces by one the number of engines we’re supporting. That’s not as good as using the EELVs would have been, but it’s a step in the right direction.
So you’ve reversed your position that the SSMEs are our greatest national treasure. Viva la J2. Who knew!
Not at all. The SSMEs are probably the United States’ greatest technological achievement. However, using them as expendable engines makes sense only if you don’t have a workable alternative. Using the RS-68 engines may not be the most efficient route forward, but using them makes a great deal of economic and political sense.
— Donald
If that is the case, since the SSMEs are our greatest technological acheivement, the absolute best part of the shuttle, then doesn’t building upon that experience seem rational to you?
It’s the whole expendable philosophy of VSE and ESAS which dooms it. They even want to throw away the ISS and STS, without even attempting to use them for the next generation of reusable launch vehicle development. This is national folly of the highest order. I suppose in light of other national fiascos, it does seem rather insignificant, which is the only thing which allows it to muddle forward. In the end, we will have nothing. We will have landed on the moon again, and it will take another 10 years after than, to sort out a rational launch vehicle and space development architecture. I’ll most likely be dead by then.
If that’s the case, the only thing I have to look forward to is some cool Mars pictures. In other words, all I’ve got is MRO and LRO – both robotic space science missions, if I’m not mistaken, and a Pluto flyby.
Yes everybody, human space flight and space science is looking real good with VSE and ESAS.
The basic problem with the current approach to sending astronauts to the moon is that it’s not a good way to gain science, economic, or security benefits. It’s just a way to get a few astronauts to the moon.
Science: The scientific community would rather have human moon exploration than the Shuttle, but only if the moon exploration is done on a “pay as you go” basis as the VSE was originally meant to be. They don’t want it if it’s going to devour the robotic science programs. Even if an astronaut can do more than a robotic probe, the moon program development is too expensive, too risky, and too subject to delays and cost overruns. Why would they take that gamble when they have robotic probes that work for decades and whose technology continually improves? An incredible amount of science can be done with remote sensing, robotic landers, and sample returns.
Economics: The moon architecture doesn’t address economics very well either. As mentioned above, making a NASA run and operated system rather than using EELVs or other potential commercial launchers is not a good move economically. The robotic science missions use these launchers, and therefore provide business to the launch industry. However, that’s just the start. The commercial space industry – comsats, ground stations, remote sensing satellites, etc – builds and uses the same types of satellites that the space science probes use. The robotic space probes either improve the capabilties of that industrial base with advanced missions or allow development costs to be amortized with more conservative missions. The human moon architecture provides a lot less of this kind of help, dollar for dollar, because there aren’t a heck of a lot of commercial operations that need to send people to the moon on giant rockets.
Security: The same is true for security. There isn’t a lot that the CaLV can do to help with military communications, or combat terrorism, or detect an enemy missile attack, or help troops figure out where they are, or warn of natural disasters like hurricanes/tsunamis/etc, or help in recovery efforts after such a disaster, or understand climate change. Satellites help with all of these, and space science missions help directly with a lot of them, and indirectly for the rest by supporting the same industrial base.
If science, economics, and security are the real priorities, the Planetary Society should have an easy time protecting the science missions.
What would make the moon architecture more competive in science, economics, or security? One possibility would be to abandon the whole idea of a single-minded architecture to return to the moon. Instead, take smaller steps that have “dual” use – steps that get you closer to the moon, but that also have immediate scientific, economic, and/or security benefits. Another possibility would be to place a greater emphasis on early robotic lunar science or technology demonstrator missions that help the later human missions (remote sensing, rover, seismic, ISRU demo, etc). Another approach might be to shrink the NASA operated thing to the minimum needed to get a couple astronauts safely to the moon, and use the money saved to pay for pre-delivery of the tools, supplies, rovers, and so on they need by truly commercial operators. Greatly expanding the COTS and Centennial Challenge approaches would help. Who knows what kind of international bargains could be made (I’ll trade you 20 Ariane++ moon launches starting in 2014 for 50 U.S.-built satellites, or whatever, you get the idea). I really think that with a few changes the VSE still could be implemented in a way that does a good job at robotic and eventually human driven science, economics, and security.
It would also help everyone to have some idea of what NASA plans to do with the moon missions beyond just getting there, if indeed there will be any money left to do more. It’s a long way off, and plans will certainly change, but they should at least have a draft plan, or a set of options, presented so the science, economics, and security implications can really be judged by the science, commercial space, and security communities.
Ray makes some excellent points. I also feel that VSE could be saved, but the necessary changes would have to be enacted quickly.
The moon is pretty marginal when it comes to any foreseeable economic or security interests. There is much useful science to be gained there, but nothing that couldn’t be done telerobotically.
The best potential for crewed based missions is in the exploration of Mars. Believe it or not, there is a real need to send humans within close of the Mars surface to expand on the exploration roadmap originally developed by Scott Hubbard and Wes Huntress. This shouldn’t be confused with the “conestoga wagon to the west” strategy promulgated by Robert Zubrin and company. No, this strategy would feature an important intermediate step involving establishment of a crew-tended base camp on Phobos or Deimos. From this vantage point, Mars could be extensively studied using telerobots and directly controlled instruments.
Let’s face it, the further out you go, the less likely you’ll find enough economic or security benefit to justify the investment, at least in the near term. We’re only now beginning to see a market developing for suborbital passenger flights and limited stays in low earth orbit. Yes, it will probably be the purview of the rich for a while, but so was airline travel in the early 20th century.
If you want to have sustainable crewed exploration beyond Earth orbit, it needs to be tied to science (knowledge for knowledge’s sake) and be the only method in which the science objectives can be met. Pushing crewed missions just to have human eyes see what’s beyond the next hill won’t cut it.
That being said, I strongly feel that agressively expanding our fundamental knowledge of the solar system and space environments beyond will lead to discoveries that can be exploited by the commercial sector. You certainly aren’t going to do it with NASA dictating and controlling how these prospects should be pursued.
OK, I will give you some: smoke detectors, velcro, advances in food packaging and freeze-drying technology, dustbusters, shock-absorbing helmets, trash compactors, sports bras, self-adjusting sunglasses, advances in radiation shielding
Not this bullshit again.
* Velcro, de Mestral, 1948.
* Smoke detectors, Darby, 1902.
* Advances in food packaging, Neolithic age, Ugg et al.
* Freeze drying, Peruvian Incas, > 1000 years prior to NASA.
* DustBuster®, Black and Decker, before NASA.
* Shock absorbing helmets, grandchildren of Ugg, Bronze age.
* Trash compactor, http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=2234098, 1941.
* Sports Bra, Schreiber, 1979.
* Tenebrescence, Claffy, 1953.
* Advances in radiation shielding: Transhab, CANCELLED BY NASA!
Other than Transhab, these technologies WERE NOT INVENTED BY NASA!!!
The SSMEs are probably the United States’ greatest technological achievement.
By what dysfunctional criteria?
Chris,
You are a little harsh, but underneath the anger you have a point.
The NASA cheerleaders take the “spin off” argument way too far. They take credit for many breakthroughs for many things that NASA did not produce, and which existed long before NASA purchased them. (Two other examples are Teflon, and the cordless electric drill.)
In same vein, I have seen stories that give NASA credit for the creation of the huge breakthroughs in micro-electronics and semiconductors.
But there are some advances that come about via the huge amount of federal funds spent by NASA. Although NASA did not invent many of the products you list — I don’t doubt that they funded research that helped produce *incremental* advances and improvements in those products.
More importantly, even if the cheerleaders were 100% correct, the argument has a huge logical flaw. If what we really wanted was technologicial spin-offs, we would get much much better results (e.g. more technical product breakthroughs for every dollar spent) by funding them directly. The Department of Commerce has programs for this, which are much more effective than giving NASA money. But, by far the best way to do this would be to extend (and enlarge) the investment tax credit.
I have not added up what NASA has spent in the last 5 decades, but it has to be approaching nearly a trillon dollars now (in current year dollars). If what the American people wanted was product breakthroughs, a trillion dollars in tax incentives (for new breakthrough products or technology) would have produced huge benefits for our economy, and for the American people themselves. Much larger than the list of spin-offs that NASA, and its cheerleaders, keep trotting out.
– Al
The arrogance of the velcro spinoff myth just really gets under my skin. Not only was it not invented by NASA, it wasn’t even invented by an american.
NASA really does take too much credit for spin-off technologies. Another thing that should get under peoples’ skins is justifying NASA investments for the sake of inspiring kids to learn math and science. If kids need to see astronauts covorting around in space in order to do their homework, then we are in a world of hurt.
It’s good for kids to be motivated by endeavors on the national scale, but it shouldn’t be one of the major reasons for the existence of these endeavors.
Tom,
I agree that NASA has lost its inspirational value. In fact, I think Mike Griffin would agree. Going around in circles in LEO for the last 25 years is not inspirational.
The biggest inspiration for today’s kids – to do their math & science homework these days – are the people who are becoming billionaires (and changing the world) because they are extremely good at math & science.
The dirty little secret is that our best and brightest are heading to Silicon Valley. They are not working in aerospace.
The real competition for these kids attention is not aerospace — but whether to work on Wall Street, or to become a lawyer. Both of these are relatively straight forward paths for a bright kid to become a millionaire (you still have to work hard … but it is a pretty straightforward path for a really bright hard working person who puts in their dues.)
In other words, our best and brightest have a straightforward path to becoming a millionaire, or they can roll the dice, and go for the big money. That is why they do their homework these days.
I have friends from who have taken all 3 of these paths.
– Al
As Al points out, most if not all spin-offs cost more by that route than they would have cost on their own. To press the point a little farther, I believe a proud list of spin-off is actually a bad sign.
“Look at all the x-treme technology we developed that no other industry was willing [or yet willing] to pay for” is not the mantra of an enterprise that’s serious about moving from the expensive bleeding edge to the routine and affordable. It wouldn’t thrill the hardware junkies, but I for one would be much happier were NASA boasting about the use of off-the-shelf technologies that could provide adequate (not ultimate) performance at a much lower price.
Chris, you are a jackass. Perhaps your parents didn’t tell you, but that is considered rude.
Greg
that is considered rude.
I much prefer rudeness to prevarication.
Paul
I did not lie, and I am not sure why you are accusing me of it. As I said in my original post, I think spinoffs are a small — though tangible — benefit of the space program. And the fact of the matter is that I am not alone is this belief. Am I allowed to disagree with you without being accused of dishonesty?
Either you don’t really know the nuances of the twenty-five cent word you used, or more likely you are one of those people who accuse others of lying when they disagree with you in a policy. You would be a good screaming head on Crossfire. Congratulations. That is a sign of true intelligence. Your oratory style rivals the prowess of Bill O’Reilly, Micheal Moore, and Rush Limbaugh.
I don’t know what Lou really expected out of this project. Bush’s proposal to fund the early years of the moon-Mars project out of moderate increases in the agency’s budget and modest cuts of other NASA programs never really added up. Not when you consider the scale of the project, NASA’s long history of cost overruns, Bush’s own poor budgeting and planning skills, and his own distaste for the programs likely to suffer cuts (i.e., science).
I haven’t been a Planetary Society member in many years (I dropped when I sensed that the society, along with NSS, was simply supporting whatever Goldin and NASA were doing). So, I don’t really know what Lou and the society have been saying about Bush’s plan since it was announced nearly 3 years ago. Were they skeptical, asking the right questions all along, or did they (like much of the rest of space community) simply embrace it like a parched man stuck for the years in the desert of LEO?
I’m wondering if his protests may be too little too late. It puts the onus on Congress to appropriate money it doesn’t really have for programs the administration doesn’t really care much about. With all the other priorities we have as a nation, that’s a hard sell.
I did not lie,
I was refering to the earlier post claiming velcro and various other technologies as NASA spinoffs. Claims like this are poster children for the word ‘prevarication’.
If you do not like your statements being labeled for what they are, refrain from making them.
Paul,
You are very wrong in using that word, because it implies a deliberate attempt on my part to mislead, which I assure you wasn’t the case. Rather than clarifying, you throw insults. Fine I was wrong about velcro. Live and learn. But I don’t see why me being wrong justifies you accusing me of prevarication. You could have simply explained calmly why I was wrong, and I would have said, “OK,” but that isn’t your style. You attack. You accuse. You insult. You question the morality of people you have never met. Why??
Look we don’t all have our PhD’s from Carnegie Mellon. I thought that this was a board where enthusiasts discuss ideas, exchange thoughts. You obviously don’t. For you it seems to be a place to slam people who are not as well versed in engineering as you are so I guess you can stroke your ego.
I would have said that we each bring talents to this board that are unique. I am a doctoral student in history, so naturally I bring insights you don’t. If you got something wrong or were mistaken about something, I wouldn’t accuse you of prevarication, dishonesty, lying, etc.; but apparently your rhetorical forte is Cicero’s ad hominem fallacy.
For you, the purpose of online communities seems to be about “winning.” And “winning” is best done by name calling. Lets just turn the internet into a land of Anne Coulter’s, whose first and only impulse is to fling insults. It’s no surprise that your blog has such little traffic with that attitude.
So fine, you’ll get what you asked for. I’ll refrain from posting, because I don’t want to be attacked as a liar any time I am wrong about something. I’d only ask that you think about what you gain from accusing someone of deliberately lying when you have no evidence for it that whatsoever. What is the point of winning an argument if you alienate the person who you are talking with? What is the point of online communities if a mistake is the equivalent of a deliberate lie?
Greg
Pot, kettle on line three.