Other

Marburger responds to the Stanford workshop

In his prepared remarks Thursday at the Goddard Memorial Symposium, presidential science advisor John Marburger covered some of the same ground as he did in his speech there two years ago, where he said the debate over the Vision for Space Exploration was, at its core, “whether we want to incorporate the Solar System in our economic sphere, or not.” That rehashing was deliberate, he said, in order to reinforce the concept.

He did, though, take time to review some of the conclusions of the exploration workshop held at Stanford University last month, as described in the joint communiqué released after the event. He said while he agreed with some of the points, including one that said that “sustained human exploration requires enhanced international collaboration and offers the United States an opportunity for global leadership”, there was language in some of the others that made him “uneasy”.

For example, he disagreed with part of the first statement, which said, “The purpose of sustained human exploration is to go to Mars and beyond.” Marburger countered that the purpose of sustained lunar exploration was “to serve national and international interests”, which he added is broader than simply going somewhere and returning. He cited the policy statement released when the Vision for Space Exploration was announced, which states, “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” “Exploration that is not in support of something else,” Marburger said, “strikes me as somehow selfish and unsatisfying.”

He also disagreed with another part of the same point: “The significance of the Moon and other intermediate destinations is to serve as steppingstones on the path to that goal” of going to Mars and beyond. That language, he said, leaves out the economic potential of the Moon and other such “steppingstones”. “What are we going to do with those steppingstones once we’ve planted flags on Mars and beyond?” he said. “I read in these points a narrowing, not an expansion, of the Vision for Space Exploration. They ignore the very likely possibility that operations on the Moon and other intermediate destinations will serve national and international destinations other than science, but including science as a very important objective.”

“Exploration by a few is not the grandest achievement,” he said. “Occupation by many is grander.” (Although he added that by “occupation” he did not necessarily mean settlement but instead “routine access to resources”.) His long-term vision for the future is “one in which exploration has long since ceased and our successors reap the benefits of the new territories.”

37 comments to Marburger responds to the Stanford workshop

  • Marburger sounds more visionary than anyone else in the administration (and it’s nice that a “Science Advisor” recognizes that science is not the only, or even primary objective). Too bad that the current plans don’t reflect his views.

  • Bill White

    I agree with Rand, at least here:

    Marburger sounds more visionary than anyone else in the administration (and it’s nice that a “Science Advisor” recognizes that science is not the only, or even primary objective). Too bad that the current plans don’t reflect his views.
    .
    I would go on to ask whether there are ANY political leaders with any viability or clout inside the Beltway who openly agree with Marburger. From either party?

    If so, who?

  • MarkWhittington

    Marburger sounds more senisble here than he did in his musing about cooperating with the Chinese. Indeed. the statement about advancing US national security, et al, is somewhat at odds with his desire to clasp hands with Beijing.

  • The People

    I don’t think Marburger and the Stanford Gang differ that much. The VSE is sound, but why must NASA assume leadership of the entire thing? After all, this is a national policy, not marching orders for one agency.

    The National Security part is best left to DOD (after all, that’s why their space budget is so large). Likewise, the Commercial element should be conducted using an entirely different approach. NASA is certainly dropping the ball on this one. The only thing left is Science, and that is something that NASA has done exceptionally well over the last several decades.

  • Marburger has consistently laid out the administration’s view of the Vision for the last four years. I have also attempted to convey this view of the VSE to my space colleagues, with very limited success. I’ll add that it strongly influenced the conclusions of the Aldridge Commission, another ignored report to throw onto the ever-growing pile.

    NASA has interpreted the VSE as “Apollo to Mars” from the beginning. The struggle between the von Braunians, the Saganites, and the (minority) O’Neillians within and outside of the agency continues, with the former now holding the upper hand.

    From the beginning, the VSE was not just a “new NASA program” but rather, a question to the agency — can you create long-term space-faring capability with small, incremental but cumulative steps? That’s why using space resources was such a key part of it; we’ll never do much of anything in space unless we learn how to use what we find there to create new capability. If it’s impossible, then let us find that out.

    I doubt that this will have much impact on the agency’s thinking. But I’m glad that Marburger is out there re-stating it. Someone has to.

  • I’ll add that it strongly influenced the conclusions of the Aldridge Commission, another ignored report to throw onto the ever-growing pile.

    Paul, is there any prospect of getting Aldridge alumni together to make some sort of very public and noisy complaint about this? It could be a good way of kicking off a substantive debate among the candidates.

  • I doubt it. My fellow commissioners in science all have some high-profile piece of the NASA action, so they have no incentive to criticize it. The non-scientists are off doing non-space things (e.g., Mike Jackson is with DHS; Carly is no longer with HP — I’ve heard her rumored as a running mate for John McCain, which I doubt). Besides, I’m not even sure how many of my fellow commissioners really believe in what we wrote in the report. Finally, I’m not sure that we’d have any impact on things anyway — not enough people within NASA will champion it and not enough people outside of NASA care enough.

  • canttellya

    NASA has interpreted the VSE as “Apollo to Mars” from the beginning. The struggle between the von Braunians, the Saganites, and the (minority) O’Neillians within and outside of the agency continues, with the former now holding the upper hand.

    The von Braunians are the only ones who can deliver a vision of big rockets, big jobs, and big votes that interest the politicians. That is why they consistently carry the day.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Dr. Spudis,

    Is there any harm in you sending a query to your fellow commissioners on the possibility of making a joint statement? I know of at least one other who is dissatisfied with NASA’s implementation and their ignoring your broad-based, well-considered recommendations. Even just three presidentially appointed commissioners jointly raising their concerns would increase awareness and, with the media’s hunger to report contention, provide the opportunity to reiterate Marburger’s points about longer-term purpose versus near-term milestones.

    If there is anything to gain in such a declaration, the time is now—before the election and before the current architecture cuts so much metal and lays down so much programmatic ballast that it can’t be modified or replaced.

  • Al Fansome

    Rand & Paul,

    I agree with both of you — and commend Dr. Marburger for his vision and thinking.

    Paul, thank you for your service, and your thoughts about the Aldridge Commission status. I think it was (is still?) a wonderful blue print for future direction. It is too bad that the White House did not pick an Administrator who was committed to carrying out its recommendations.

    IMO, and based on the response so far on this website it appears that others might agree — Dr. Marburger’s statement contains the basis for significant criticism of Griffin.

    I assert that Griffin is the one person whose job it was to carry out White House policy. Griffin was in a position to do so, and he has ignored the policy described by Marburger. Let me back up that assertion.

    QUESTION: Griffin gives a lot of speeches. When was the last time that Griffin quoted the VSE policy that the objectives are “science, security, and economic benefits”?

    ANSWER: Never.

    QUESTION: Tell me where in the huge ESAS study report NASA followed White House policy and evaluated how well the various options were able “to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests”?

    ANSWER: You can’t, because NASA (and Griffin) ignored this White House policy directive.

    QUESTION: Who do you really think Marburger is talking about, or to, in the following statement?

    MARBURGER: “The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program.” Exploration that is not in support of something else strikes me as somehow selfish and unsatisfying, and not consistent with the fact that we are using public funds for this enterprise, no matter how small a fraction of the total budget they may be.”

    QUESTION: Marburger repeatedly brings up “sustainability” (like the following). Who is this statement really directed at?

    MARBURGER: ” If the architecture of the exploration phase is not crafted with sustainability in mind, we will look back on a century or more of huge expenditures with nothing more to show for them than a litter of ritual monuments scattered across the planets and their moons.”

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Al Fansome

    CANTELLYA: The von Braunians are the only ones who can deliver a vision of big rockets, big jobs, and big votes that interest the politicians. That is why they consistently carry the day.

    Cantellya,

    A suggested (friendly) amendment. I would modify this to say that the Von Braunians are the only ones to EFFECTIVELY deliver a vision of jobs that delivers votes, and political support.

    The O’Neillians have a vision of “big jobs”, via creating new commercial industries and space resources, but they have not been effective (yet) in delivering votes.

    That said — let me note here something that I said in a different thread — last week during a congressional hearing, Senator KSC (Nelson) and Senator Michoud (Vitters) beat up Griffin about the “human spaceflight gap” and spent most of their time arguing that more money should go to COTS … not to accelerating Orion.

    As I mentioned in that separate thread, I detect a “disturbance in the force”.

    – Al

  • MarkWhittington

    “Paul, is there any prospect of getting Aldridge alumni together to make some sort of very public and noisy complaint about this? It could be a good way of kicking off a substantive debate among the candidates.”

    The problem is there has to be some kind of agreement on what, if anything, is wrong with VSE and if so what needs to be done to fix it.

    The problem with people who jump up and down and scream that we need to change everything to this or that hardware option have been made to look foolish time and time again, especially when it is pointed out that on a narrow, cost/benefit basis, the current approach is the better deal. There has been nothing from the other side that has proven otherwise.

    However, if the complaint is VSE insufficiently addresses the commercial needs of the nation, then the the complaint is on more solid ground.

    The answer to the complaint is not to argue endlessly over this hardware system or that. Changing the Orion launcher to an EELV or a Direct something or another will not advance the commercial potential for returning to the Moon one iota.

    Here’s a couple of suggestions:

    How about an early commitment to a Lunar COTS, once the lunar base is established? I think someone suggested such a thing in a piece in the Washington post…

    How about negotiating an international convention to encourage and protect private property on the Moon and other celestial bodies?

    More lunar/asteroid/Mars based prize competitions.

    Here’s a new one. The United States government will purchase X amount (sufficient to fuel a research reactor) of helium 3 extracted from the Moon from any private organization that manages to mine it. Also, of course, build/fund the building of the research reactor.

    I know it’s somewhat politically incorrect to actually try to be constructive in certain quarters, but there it is.

  • Bob Mahoney

    Mark,

    The issue has never been with VSE, but with NASA’s scheme for (supposedly) trying to implement it. As Marburger’s recent address reiterates, the VSE’s core idea is to open up the entire solar system to robust exploration and exploitation, not just go back to the Moon as 3 of your 4 suggestions (all worth considering) imply.

    What NASA is currently putting in place is so narrowly focused and so restrictive in its architecture that it seems tailor-made to inhibit commercial development of possible replacement hardware and/or restrict evolution of the hardware itself into systems better suited to support sustained operations.

    You suggest that NASA’s current designs come out of the cost/benefit analysis as the better deal. I would suggest that the cost/benefit analysis itself was the first flawed link in the chain, since it focused so heavily on minimizing individual mission payload launch mass over long-term sustainability and evolutionary growth potential.

    As I noted elsewhere, the hardware limitations are harmful enough but NASA’s handling of the VSE in terms of public relations has been horrific. They could not have done anything more perfectly symbolic than putting forward their policy that officially stripped the vision out of the Vision for Space Exploration.

    The more we can bring this travesty out into the light for the politicians and public to see and substantially debate the sooner we can return to a path that will have a higher chance of seeing the Vision through.

  • canttellya

    Here’s a new one. The United States government will purchase X amount (sufficient to fuel a research reactor) of helium 3 extracted from the Moon from any private organization that manages to mine it.

    That’s a really bad one. The US regularly has to scrub He-3 out of its tritium supply for nuclear weapons. My bet is that they throw the stuff away, but if they don’t, it’s more than enough for a research reactor, which shouldn’t be built anyway because D-He3 fusion is so much worse for fusion than D-T fusion, which itself is already a money-pit of ISS-like proportions (ITER).

    D-He3 enthusiasts like to talk about aneutronic fusion (which D-He3 really isn’t, due to side D-D reactions) but in practical terms the neutrons from D-T fusion can turn cheap lithium-6 into fuel. The only way to manufacture He-3 on earth in significant amounts is to make tritium from Li-6 and neutrons and wait around for it to decay to helium-3.

    But fusion of any sort is a dumb idea anyway for a nation trying to make electricity. Good way to keep PhD’s busy though.

  • Real American

    Let me see if I have this straight. John Marburger invokes space exploration, so that a company that manufactures bombs and land mines can get a no bid NASA propulsion contract, so that they can remain profitable, so that his boss can continue to invade and occupy a country which presents no real threat to the United States of America, in order to kill its civilians, and steal their oil, resulting in the inevitable moral and financial bankruptcy of America.

    And you yahoos continue to praise this legacy of failure and shame.

    So you tell me, when are you people going to GROW UP

    Let me assure you, I am the one who is offended here.

  • The issue has never been with VSE, but with NASA’s scheme for (supposedly) trying to implement it.

    Anyone with any experience at all with Mark will tell you that he is chronically unable to make that distinction.

  • MarkWhittington

    Bob, argue that and you will lose every time. NASA will just come back and say that the Ares architecture is the most cost effective one to actually get people to the Moon and back. The arguement should not be on hardware. All that does is trying to decide on the best way *NASA* can go to the Moon, Mars, and so on. It should be, as Marburger wisely suggested, on the reason why we are going. Everything else follows.

  • MarkWhittington

    “Anyone with any experience at all with Mark will tell you that he is chronically unable to make that distinction.”

    There is no real distinction as no one has suggested a viable alternative.

  • Mark,
    Let’s not confuse COTS or Government Prizes with true private enterprise in space please.

    Private enterprise is a privately capitalized business selling goods/services to predominately private individuals. The government then goes and buys what little of that good or service that it needs from that market place. Total no brainier as a good idea.

    COTS as currently structured is not what I just stated above. It’s private business that is combining public/private capital to provide goods/services predominantly for the government. A few true private deals might also happen along the way, ie millionaires in space and Direct TV for example.

    At best it will just restart the organizational efficiency curve vs. Boeing or Lockheed. What it is doing right now is further fragmenting the current 5-25mT launch industry into smaller and smaller chunks idling existing capital and workforce in an already over crowded and very competitive market.

    He3 on the other hand is a very good example of a true commercial opportunity of space in which a private firm provides energy to predominately private individuals. In this scenario the logistics associated with just supplying a few large cities with He3 power would dwarf the current government efforts in space while providing in the form of waste gasses all the lunar generated propellant the government exploration program could ever need.

    Of course we still need to prove both the engineering and financial viability of He3 lunar mining and energy generation but at least it passes the test for a resource not found on Earth with potential sufficient value to be worthwhile to bring back to Earth from space representing a true O’Neillian world view of space development for profit.

    Simply switching where the government checks go to, from Boeing/Lockheed to SpaceX is no where near that true space commercialization model

    Could some explain to me how two organizations, namely Boeing and Lockheed, that have perfectly good launch systems don’t somehow qualify as Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS)?

  • Bill White

    Despite the very attractive interpretation of the VSE given by Marburger and Spudis, the fact remains that the President’s annual budget requests for NASA have been premised on ESAS. For at least three consecutive years.

    Marburger has consistently laid out the administration’s view of the Vision for the last four years. I have also attempted to convey this view of the VSE to my space colleagues, with very limited success. I’ll add that it strongly influenced the conclusions of the Aldridge Commission, another ignored report to throw onto the ever-growing pile.

    NASA has interpreted the VSE as “Apollo to Mars” from the beginning. The struggle between the von Braunians, the Saganites, and the (minority) O’Neillians within and outside of the agency continues, with the former now holding the upper hand.

    Yes, NASA has interpreted the VSE as “Apollo to Mars” from the beginning and for three years the White House has accepted that interpretation in every OFFICIAL sense that matters. If the budget documents incorporate ESAS of what “official” significance are Marburger’s comments? Except as a dissenter from the official policy.

    (Of note: Marburger has also dissented from the stance many Republicans take on “intelligent design”)

    In any event, there will be a new POTUS in less than a year. What is John McCain’s rapport with John Marburger?

    Anyone know?

    = = =

    Perhaps it shall be necessary to find a non-taxpayer source of revenue in implement an interpretation of the VSE that is committed to ISRU and to the incorporation of lunar resources into the terrestrial economy since President Bush has already submitted his last budget and I have very real doubts that any of McCain, Clinton or Obama will embrace this interpretation of the “Vision” — nor do I see any stout Congressional supporters of this interpretation of the “Vision”

  • Ray

    I agree with a lot of what Marburger says here. Below are my comments in a post at HobbySpace where the Stanford meeting statements were revealed a few weeks ago.

    http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=5427#c

    The 6 points that the Stanford workshop attendees agreed on seem pretty generic to me. Is there anything there that the most extreme ESAS supporter or opponent would disagree with?

    1 – purpose of human space exploration is Mars and beyond (Moon, etc are stepping stones). – I don’t agree. These are all destinations, not purposes. Why would we go to any of them? Is the purpose settlement? Science? Scouting around? Security? Engineering development? Industrial development? Jobs program? Incentive to develop CATS? Energy? Education? National chest-thumping? If it’s more than 1 purpose, what are the priorities? What intermediate destinations do they propose, anyway?

    2 – insights across traditional boundaries occurred in the workshop – ok, what insights?

    3 – exploration includes science, but there are other more important motivations – Ok, what are they? What are the priorities you’d recommend? Given those priorities, what do you suggest we do?

    4 – international collaboration – ok, the Aldridge Commission said this, too. Nothing seems to be happening in that area with ESAS (the human exploration part). How do you recommend making this happen, compared to NASA’s current plan?

    5 – NASA’s budget problems – Well, who is surprised about this? Does the workshop have a proposal that allows accomplishments within a more realistic budget, or do they expect to get a much bigger budget than today? If they expect a much bigger budget, how do they expect to make politicians want to fund it?

    6 – More is coming – That’s good, because the 6 points didn’t seem very substantive.

    The lead-up to the workshop sounded very interesting, but these 6 statements give the impression that they’re the “common denominator” that every one of 50 participants agreed on.

    Unfortunately, I don’t see a single mention of commercial or entrepreneurial space in the 6 statements. What role do they see commercial space playing? Do they see the effort driven by NASA-built and operated rockets? Do they see a role for CATS? Do they see a role for suborbital space? That seems to have been lost from the suggestions leading up to the workshop.

    There’s also nothing about specific missions. Personally I was most interested in the idea of L-point observatory servicing. This could possibly lead to asteroids and then Mars. However, asteroids and then Mars sound to me like “a bridge too far for NASA” at the moment, just like the ESAS Moon. The L-point goal seemed achievable within a reasonable schedule and budget, which made me a lot more interested. Much as I don’t like ESAS, the lead-up articles suggested it could be done with Ares 1/Orion with a Bigelow module and perhaps other (relatively!) minor enhancements. This could give results in the ESAS plan much earlier, and give Ares 1 something to do if Ares V is cancelled, or while it’s being built, besides crowding out commercial ISS support. It seemed like a good adjustment to ESAS that would be compatible either with the Moon or asteroids as the next step.

    Anyway, I hope #6 is true and more specifics and follow-on efforts, with specific recommendations involving commercial participation and worthwhile goals that can be reached on reasonable budgets and schedules, come out of the workshop in the weeks ahead.

  • Stephen: Private enterprise is a privately capitalized business selling goods/services to predominately private individuals. The government then goes and buys what little of that good or service that it needs from that market place. Total no brainier as a good idea.

    Maybe so, but this is so rare in products of the scale needed to get to and work in space that it almost does not exist. Name one large-scale transportation product in the United States that was not in large measure instigated by the government, and maintained today through large subsidies. Even if you ignore development and consider only current operating costs, the only truly privately financed large scale transportation industry I can think of is the freight railroads.

    I would suggest that there is a reason for this state of affairs in a supposedly capitalist nation. The key to the American success story is not “capitalism” by itself, it is our uniquely effective coupling between government development and implementation of new large-scale developments, and private developments and marking that ride on top of the government financed or encourage infrastructure. To focus on only one half of that equation (as the currently in vogue ideology insists on doing) risks killing the golden goose.

    That is why COTS, coupled with the market of the Space Station (and maybe the private TransHabs), is such an important development. It builds on concepts that have demonstrably worked in the past, in many nations not just our own, rather than the ideology of the moment — what is known to work, rather than what we wish would work.

    A question: is the Comsat industry any less a private industry because the government paid for most of the development and early implentation, and, today, one of its largest markets is military? If the answer to that is no, then why would not the same be true of a launch industry that starts out supplying government facilities and evolves toward more private markets as they become available?

    COTS as currently structured is not what I just stated above. It’s private business that is combining public/private capital to provide goods/services predominantly for the government.

    This is undoubtedly true, but that is because the government is the market there is. When there are more truly private markets in space, that will change. Saying that nothing can happen until those truly private markets are created, first, is a guaranteed way to make sure that nothing happens. If the existing partially private markets (comsats, imagesats, et cetera) were enough to drive dramatic improvements in launch vehicle technologies or business, we would have stormed the Solar Syste (or at least cis-lunar space) by now!

    Right now and for the foreseeable future, He3 is a dream not a market — and, lest we forget, who is funding fusion reactor development?

    Could some explain to me how two organizations, namely Boeing and Lockheed, that have perfectly good launch systems don’t somehow qualify as Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS)?

    Partly because, a) there is no real private market large enough to support these vehicles, and b) because these companies (especially the former, oddly enough) would rather feed at the government teet than take the admittedly great risk of creating the markets they need. SpaceX is at least following a dream, and in my book, there is nothing wrong with using government money to help them reach that dream.

    There are no quick or easy paths for humanity to move into space, and simply spouting “true private enterprise” — especially in the absence of a clear path for getting from where we are here to there and getting the managers of Grandma’s retirement money to pay for it — is certainly not one.

    Finally, I emphatically agree with the wider view here that Mars is not the end-goal of the space program. As we learn more about the other small worlds of the Solar System (i.e., the largest asteroids and moons), Mars isn’t looking all that special any more. The near term goals should be where we can start early commerce, and the moon and nearby asteroids (and the Martian moons) have much more to offer in that department than Mars does today.

    — Donald

  • Al Fansome

    MAHONEY: The issue has never been with VSE, but with NASA’s scheme for (supposedly) trying to implement it.

    SIMBERG: “Anyone with any experience at all with Mark will tell you that he is chronically unable to make that distinction.”

    WHITTINGTON: There is no real distinction as no one has suggested a viable alternative.

    Mr. Whittington,

    This is pure revisionism, and ignores the facts. In the first year of the VSE, NASA considered many other viable alternatives. More specifically, NASA broadly generated input on the alternatives. In September 2004, NASA signed contracts with eleven companies to evaluate exploration architectures.

    Keith has kindly kept a copy of NASA’s press release on the topic here:

    http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14924

    You can read their reports here:

    http://www.nasa.gov/lb/missions/solarsystem/vision_concepts.html

    where Craig Steidle (AA for ESMD) also states: “These study contracts reflect NASA’s new commitment to find the best outside expertise that will work in partnerships to benefit the nation’s goals for space exploration,” said retired Navy Rear Adm. Craig E. Steidle, Associate Administrator of NASA’s Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.

    “We are developing a sustained and affordable human and robotic program that will explore the solar system and beyond. We will accomplish this using the same ingenuity, commitment and unwavering determination that forged the success of the Apollo program,” said Steidle.”

    One of Mike Griffin’s first acts was to shut down this entire process. Griffin already had made up his mind when he was hired.

    Now, you may think that some of these companies are stupid, but you can’t argue that they are ALL stupid, and that nobody suggested a viable alternative.

    – Al

  • Bob Mahoney

    Donald:

    I don’t think that railroad freight strictly qualifies as purely commercial, either. The gov’t was involved with incentives early on (especially with the transcontinental effort) and has been heavily involved through subsidies with many current roads. Conrail certainly wasn’t a completely private affair, not by a long shot. Thus your point is reinforced.

    Al: Thank you for putting it so well. I’ve always had the sense that the ESAS effort was very much akin to the search for a location for a Manned Spacecraft Center in the early sixties, once described as a maze wherein everybody entering already knew where the exit was. And lest we forget Prometheus and the plan to target additional key enabling technologies that would open up the solar system. Hmmm, any chance Sean O’Keefe can be convinced to come back under another administration?

  • Anonymous

    It’s a pity that knowledge is no longer an objective in the minds of modern politicians. No, if it can’t feed little needs and wants, then it must be worthless. What kind of philosophy is that? No wonder space has dropped off the public radar…

  • It’s a pity that knowledge is no longer an objective in the minds of modern politicians. No, if it can’t feed little needs and wants, then it must be worthless. What kind of philosophy is that? No wonder space has dropped off the public radar…

    What is your point, and how does it relate to this post? Are you saying that science is the only thing that the space program should be about?

  • […] nation’s goal is essentially to incorporate the Solar System into our economic sphere, Foust reports. The presidential adviser also took issue with several statements made by the Stanford Group, which […]

  • Anonymous

    “What is your point, and how does it relate to this post? Are you saying that science is the only thing that the space program should be about?”

    Actually, I’m saying that NASA has been swamped by politics. Obama’s right to say that inspiration isn’t fueling our space program as much any more. I think the esteemed Mr. Marburger is right to say that we should be concerned about the economy. However, I don’t think these kinds of needs should be the only ones, or the first ones driving our venture into the solar system. But, what can I say? I’m a man of science first. I view politics through the lens of discovery primarily. Call me political novice, because I probably am. Thank you.
    (By the way, I’m not confessing any political affiliations in this post I’d rather keep that information to myself.)

  • Al Fansome

    ANONYMOUS: Actually, I’m saying that NASA has been swamped by politics.

    Anonymous,

    Consider that the creation of NASA was a pure political act — a political response to Sputnik. Consider that its defining program (Apollo) was a pure political response to the Soviet Union’s declaration that it was going to bury us. The tapes of JFK talking about the “why” of Apollo leave no doubt.

    Consider that NASA’s first Administrator — James Webb — was not a scientist or engineer. He was an A-1 political operator, who understood politics, and what the politicians wanted.

    There has never been a time when NASA has not been swamped by politics.

    In its entire history, science has NEVER been a primary purpose at NASA. Science has been, and always will be, a secondary by-product at best.

    Now we are all space advocates here. We all love science. However, we get into real trouble when we fool ourselves about why politicians write the big checks. This is a consistent blind spot of almost all scientists, and engineers, who work for NASA.

    Which is why I have been arguing that we need a James Webb — a non-scientists/non-engineer — as the Administrator of NASA.

    We need somebody who KNOWS what the politicians really want as Administrator — and who also happens to be a space advocate. The Deputy Administrator should be the scientist/engineer, and the NASA Chief Operating Officer.

    FWIW,

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Bob Mahoney

    Al,

    T. Keith Glennan, president of Case Western University & associated with NACA Lewis (now Glenn) Research Center, was NASA’s first administrator, appointed by Eisenhower. Webb was its second, appointed by Kennedy.

    But every one of your points remains valid. NACA’s former director, Hugh Dryden (as “scientist” as they come), was made Deputy Administrator the day NASA was created, and (I believe…trusting memory here) remained in that position under Webb.

  • Al Fansome

    Keith published something today that I think deserves amplification.

    GRIFFIN: Let us speak openly and honestly about the problems we face in carrying out our nation’s space program. Over the course of my career in this business, I have often been disheartened by the large number of diverse “entrepreneurs” in search of NASA funding who place their self interests over the greater good of the aerospace community. They do not respect the priorities set out for NASA by our duly-elected stakeholders in the White House and Congress, or even the priorities of their own respective science communities in National Academy decadal surveys. …. If we wish a better reality for tomorrow, we as a community must police this behavior; those who engage in it must be made to feel, and be, unwelcome in the community at large.

    COWING: Mike Griffin’s statements at the Goddard Memorial Symposium last week would seem to utterly contradict what NASA put forth in the communications policy issued in March 2006. And just who does Mike Griffin think he is by advocating that anyone should “police” speech in a country where such speech is protected by the Constitution – under any possible circumstance as it relates to NASA? Moreover, what possible moral or legal authority does he have to suggest that “those who engage in it must be made to feel, and be, unwelcome in the community at large”? The fact that a Presidential appointee would say things like this in public – on the record – is troubling.

    Hear, hear Keith.

    Perhaps it is the cynic in me, but I believe it is well known by experienced insiders that NASA Administrator’s (as well as other government leaders) do what they can to punish those who disagree with them. They typically do as much as they think they can get away with, regardless of policy.

    Mike’s failing here is that he is so public about his intent to punish those who don’t agree with his priorities. I am quite certain that nobody inside NASA, who cares about their job, argues with Griffin on his ESAS choice. The existing NASA policy is a fig leaf.

    IMO, it is a sign of desperation that Griffin is trying to shut down debate/discussion by those who don’t work for him. He is clearly on the defensive. First we had the STA speech in January defending ESAS, then the AAAS speech attacking scientists, and now his AAS/Goddard speech. Then add his punitive attacks in the media that were clearly directed at the ULA (even though the criticism against ESAS is being driven by many others).

    Considering that Griffin will be gone in less than a year, I believe that a LOT of people will come out of the woodwork in or around January 2009.

    – Al

    “Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics.”

  • Ameriko Vespuci

    Hear, hear Keith.

    Hey Keith, do you get it yet?

    Pot, Kettle, Black, Keith of the sit down and shut up or we’ll ban you fame.

    I’m so sorry to have to be the one to tell you this, but I told you so.

    Welcome to America, Mr. Michael Griffin, of NASA.

    America is wonderful, no?

  • D. Messier

    You might want to check out “Censoring Science” by Mark Brown. It’s a pretty appalling read. The book recounts what was basically an orchestrated campaign run out of the White House to control and distort what scientists at NASA, NOAA and EPA said about global warming. Neither of Bush’s two appointed NASA administrators comes off real well. Much of this campaign was put into place and executed under Sean O’Keefe.

    None of this is really surprising if you’ve been following what this administration has been doing for the last seven years. It’s really the level of detail that is here. It is simply atrocious.

  • Dennis Wingo

    D.

    You mean those NASA scientist that are continually having to reduce the amount of warming because when audited their numbers don’t add up? Or how about Dr. Mike Mann of the Hockey Stick fame who’s calculations were audited by the national academy of sciences and found to be “Mathematically Incorrect”.

    You mean those guys?

  • D. Messier

    Yes, those guys. The ones who study this stuff for a living.

    There is serious evidence that instead of overstating the problem, they may be understating it. Warming may be happening a lot faster than people think, and the effects could hit us a lot sooner. That’s because it takes years and years to gather the data. The data are then put through a rigorous scientific process. So by the time things get published and any conclusions can be drawn, reality has moved ahead of the observations.

    Critics talk about this as if it’s a conspiracy by radical scientists. To what end? And why? I’ve never understood that.

  • Coffee Drinker

    Dennis, are you still trying to peddle your koolaide to schoolchildren? You need to stop drinking that stuff, it will only send you deeper into madness and irrelevance. Not that you can’t dig an even deeper hole for yourself.

  • reader

    I believe that a LOT of people will come out of the woodwork in or around January 2009.
    And in a time-honored tradition, crucify the old king while hailing the new one. I remember when Griffin originally came in after O’Keefe a lot of delusional enthusiasm about finally having someone with real engineering background at the helm ( which is about the worst thing that can happen to a hugely political entity like NASA )
    for chrissake, coming out of the woodwork four years later is not going to help anyone. Does nobody in that entire organization have .. whazit .. real balls to speak up when the time is critical to do so ?

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>