NASA, Other

Is the ISS Nobel-worthy?

That was the suggestion floated by NASA’s Alan Ladwig during a speech Friday morning at the 2nd Annual Space and Telecom Law Conference in Washington, organized by Space and Telecom Law Program of the University of Nebraska’s College of Law. Ladwig, who just transitioned from his former role as senior advisor to the administrator to deputy associate administrator for communications for public outreach, said that it was highly likely that regardless whatever decision the White House makes on the future of NASA’s human spaceflight program, the ISS will likely be extended beyond 2015: “If there’s anything I can probably say openly and make a bet on, is that the space station is going to continue.”

A big reason for continuing the space station, he said, is to maintain its international partnership and ensure that partners like Europe and Japan who just got the labs added to the station in the last couple of years can make maximum use of them. “We do think that, from an international perspective, the station is going forward,” he said. He then added, “One of the things my office is going to try and promote this year is to try and get the International Space Station nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. It’s been going on now for ten years. It’s the largest technological international endeavor ever undertaken, and it seems to be going pretty well… I think it’s a pretty good testament to what can be done when we collaborate together.”

One question about this effort is who would actually receive the prize: while the Peace Prize has routinely been awarded to agencies and organizations, there is no “International Space Station Organization” that would be the logical choice for laureate. Ladwig said after his talk that he didn’t yet know how to handle that, but was looking for potential nominators, including, perhaps, former vice president (and 2007 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate) Al Gore.

51 comments to Is the ISS Nobel-worthy?

  • Doug Lassiter

    It really comes down to the award criteria for the Nobel Prize. I would have thought that the prize was for an “achievement”, which is something that a person or group is really responsible for. (Yes, someone will start blathering critically about Obama’s “achievements” in world peace which I choose to think, not to demean them, as generally more virtual than actual so far.) It’s a nice thought, though, that the ISS consortium be recognized for the astounding international endeavor that it accomplished, and how that cooperation has contributed to world cooperation and peace. But it isn’t clear that the Nobel Prize is the best vehicle with which to do that.

    One slight awkwardness is that no one still has a compelling explanation of just what ISS was for (and in that sense the accomplishment is somewhat virtual in itself), though the fact that it was something that nations could join hands in achieving is probably enough.The idea that a space project can play a major role in such a profound national need as world peace has some depth and richness to it that our other rationales do not.

  • NASA Fan

    The ISS program, among many things, is a venue for the partners to become more related to each other. Peace springs forth through relatedness. The science and engineering done on the ISS (please hold off the debates about the value of it, while I try to make a point here) are done in the context of making a positive, and peaceful difference in the world.

    Reagan started it, Clinton brought the Russians in. All other presidents were indifferent. I suggest that Reagan and Clinton share the Prize , in the name of the ISS as an achievement in fostering peace among nations.

    If Obama wants to earn his Nobel Peace prize he will pick a path for NASA that continues in the tradition of ISS in fostering the relatedness of the worlds people in the pursuit of science and engineering that leaves the world better off than we found it. Moon base, Mars base, doesn’t matter…something grand that requires the worlds participation, including China, India and Pakistan…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Interesting first two comments.

    Obama has clearly set the pace for “potential” in terms of Nobels…I dont think that “being built” is any more a statement of worth for the prize then I think being elected is…so in that instance my thoughts would be to wait and see what we are able to actually accomplish on ISS after assembly complete occurs…

    At some point, another five or so years maybe we should all be able to get a sense of what if anything is going to be accomplished there. Of course this latest mission brought up butterflies…so well “low bar” maybe that works.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA FAN…what purpose would it serve to have China, India and Pakistan participation?

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bob Mahoney

    Reagan cannot share the prize; Nobel prizes are not bestowed posthumously.

    As for a compelling explanation of what it is for (aside from giving the govt space programs of the world something to do ;-) ), what’s wrong with “provide an international suite of multidisciplinary laboratories to enable thorough long-term research into the unique environment of low earth orbit?”

    They’ll love the ‘environment’ part, anyway…

  • “NASA FAN…what purpose would it serve to have China, India and Pakistan participation?” [Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ November 21st, 2009 at 6:54 pm]
    If NASA FAN will permit the presumption of an exegesis:
    There was a time when America and Russia were MAD at each other. Thankfully (hopefully) this is in the past. Whilst India & Pakistan and India & China are not MAD at each other (lacking enough warheads for total destruction) …they are somewhat PEEVED. Perhaps rather than pressing big red buttons or turning dual keys sino/hindic/punjabi handshakes in orbit might be a better way forward.

    One really CRAZY idea I had was a sort of space security council:
    1/ capable of putting your own people in orbit: veto rights. Currently: USA; Russia; China. (Potentially: ESA, India,…Iran!)
    2/ indigenous launch capacity to orbit: voting rights. (If you can get to GEO you get to use both arms!)
    3/ no space capabilities: general assembly/ talking shop. (Until you can buy/ build /borrow a launch technology from a voting/vetoing member!)
    Throw the Moon Treaty into the mix and stir well…

    Personally wrt the Nobel Peace Prize. I’m with Tom Lehrer. (Urban legend or no!) And with all due respect to your current President. What were they thinking? Alas the “Sea of Green” probably did not get nominated. Pity.

  • Robert G. Oler

    My take on ISS is that making something of it, is going to be the focus of the space policies of the US, Russia and Europe (the Japanese as well). the irony of it is (for the right wing of the GOP) is that it might be Obama’s policies which force the station to be used in an American commerical manner not something like the Europeans will use it (The Russians will give it a go but their science wont do much).

    Robert G. Oler

  • Mark R. Whittington

    ISS has been a joint project of several countries, including the United States, Russia, the European Union, Japan, and Canada, so in that sense it might well be a candidate for a Nobel Peace Prize for fostering international cooperation. Now I’ve been a skeptic about the ISS’s benefit, commiserate with cost, for quite some time. But the thing has about ten years to turn that around and changes minds on that question.

  • NASA Fan

    Rober tet al. “how does China, India and Pakistan benefit’

    While I am no expert on Geo-political nuances, etc. I would be that there are ‘communities’ within each of these countries that would love to be involved in science and engineering experimentation aboard the ISS, or aboard some other grand ‘Obama new direction for NASA international HSF project’.

    Perhaps the leaders of these countries, and other countries that are officially ‘peeved’ at one another, would rather die on a sword (which is what humanity has been up to for eons) than make peace….but if they could be persuaded by their respective internal countries ‘enlightened ones’ to ‘jump aboard’ some grand international effort, like say: “Visit a small NEO Earth orbit crossing asteroid to see what we can learn about it and see if we can disturb its orbit’, as a means of practicing what we all hope to avoid (diverting an asteroid headed our way!) , then this involvement has a way of bridging the gap between the differences that are the source of the ‘peeved at each other’, and perhaps be the source of normal (whatever that is, I know) country to country relations.

    A mission that could be viewed as a ‘save humanity mission’, like what I mention above, should be in the interest of every human on the planet, not just the leaders of traditionally ‘peeved at each other’ countries.

    I know, I know, sound like ‘Kumbaya’,,,but what better place than cooperation in space doing something no country can take on by itself as a means of resolving long standing international conflicts….no matter their scale.

    Okay, let the arrows fly!

  • David Davenport

    Nobel for ISS –> ISS life extension –> Shuttle life extension –> …

  • Doug Lassiter

    The idea of an international effort on the space front to develop and test ways to protect the Earth from destruction by an asteroid has some merit. That pushes hot buttons of defense and, unlike the many pleas for colonization of the solar system to save civilization, actually responds to a recognized threat. Protecting the Earth from destruction is truly an international responsibility, and not a U.S. responsibility. That effort could indeed build strongly on the template for international cooperation that was created in doing ISS.

    Now, there are some caveats. The first, and most obvious one, is how such an effort really depends on human space flight. We know how to visit and rendezvous with asteroids telerobotically, so what value does human space flight bring to the effort? Not saying it doesn’t bring any, but just that it isn’t clear to me what that value is. Another caveat is that any international effort to track, intercept, rendezvous with, and deflect something in space involves technologies that can be more ITAR sensitive than those required to just get people to a can in LEO. In that sense, there would also be some sensitivity in that we already have an agency that is responsible for defense, though that agency is responsible for defense of our own nation and not the world. I don’t think the DoD is being challenged to step up to the plate on defense for the Earth against AIDS, global warming, and H1N1 for example.

    If this president sees efforts in space as being meaningful for protection of life on the Earth, that could be spun as being more than just a new generation of down-looking Earth science spacecraft.

    So any effort to highlight ISS as having blazed a path towards future international cooperation on space efforts that are important to the world should be encouraged. Perhaps that’s a little more focused than saying that it just blazed a path to international technological hand shaking, which probably could have been done in other ways.

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof and NASA fan. as Rich Kolker use to say “this is the depressing part of the meeting”. both of you voice noble sentiments…my experience is that they are just sentiments…they do not have a chance to work in real life.

    Space “folks” are so wound up in space exploration and how neat it is and the future and etc etc that they think that the effort itself submerges almost everything else it doesnt.

    I agree that inside China and India and Pakistan and even probably Iran (yes IRAN) there are probably groups who would love to be involved with the rest of the ISS fan club and “become a Mouseketer”…but that will have zero affect on the rest of the domestic politics UNLESS THE LEADERS of that country are using it as a lever to change public opinions…and there is going to have to be other levers as well.

    Most people just dont wake up in the morning and say “wow I should be friends with so and so now because we are exploring the heavens together”. A lesson from Iraq is that nothing made people’s lives better or took away the angst to fight…unless their lives were actually made better.

    And this brings us back to the same old place. Unless you work in the effort in some fashion there is almost nothing that human spaceflight does which makes “your” life better.

    It is the old argument on “if you can go to the Moon why cannot you cure poverty”…you cannot. We could stop going to the Moon (heck we did) and we did not cure poverty. But the reverse is equally true. The US and USSR (or Russia) did not become friends because we built ISS, we built ISS because we had more or less stopped the cold war.

    At some point this might change, but it is going to have to change in the US before it changes internationally. IE people are going to have to believe that the space program (human spaceflight) changes their lives for the dollars we spend…then we can talk about changing international behavior.

    Nice thought though

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    I would add one more thing…again this is the depressing part of the meeting.

    World peace will not matter much if the US collapses and we are in my view not that far away from going over the hill economically. Stupid useless wars, idiotic spending on recovery plans that just are not well thought out…all are either fleas or leeches on the body of the US economy…that coupled with twentyish years of faulty management in terms of shipping jobs overseas (the “international economy”) might have gotten us cheap drills at Walmart but has started the process of dropping wages in The Republic to the point where there is almost not enough money in a paycheck to buy those drills (exaggeration but I Learned from bush the last…slam!!)

    Where US dollars and efforts have to go in the next bunch of years is creating a new US economy, one that brings back (or more correctly CREATES) manufacturing jobs to this country because the products that are made are ones that are specific to this country. This is why folks like Musk are so important…

    and to some extent this is why even though I disagree with the “global warming folks” I dont disagree with the dollars being spent to derive new energy sources…almost everything that uses an internal combustion engine can be made “somewhere else”. Green technologies are domestic to The Republic at least for a time.

    There are several aspects to this which are not covered here (laws regarding imports exports/getting runaway financing and merging under control..breaking up monoploies…gee starting to sound like TR ) but the point here is….

    We need as a country to focus the US space dollars with some modest exceptions completely on creating jobs inside this country that 1) are not dole jobs ie like we have now and 2) are multipliers of private enterprise…one space effort that did this a long time ago was the geosynch communications satellite)…

    nothing else really matters. really nothing else does there are other threats but there are no threats as great right now as our economic one. If ISS cannot be made to point the way to start multiplying the economy of the US then there is zero chance for future space efforts on the Moon or anywhere because there will not be the money for the government “investment”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • eng

    What US dollars??? This is a broke, dysfunctional country.

  • Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
    “they do not have a chance to work in real life.”

    After having fought a major continental war every – single – bloody – century ever since ooh… records began; a group of Europeans “woke up one morning” and decided IT WOULD NOT, COULD NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. Now don’t get me wrong. We still loathe the Frogs (1066 and all that!) And in return they loathe les rosbifs. (Agincourt, Crécy,…) The Germans are still German But we get along. We even praise Sarkozy & Merkel for putting the spanner in the works for Blair’s attempt at the EU presidency! And the French Director has chosen a British Astronaut even though Britain doesn’t contribute to ESA HSF!

    Robert, I would suggest you have a close look at how ESA is run. The result: something that is greater than the sum of its parts.

    If only your various States and NASA Centres could evolve away from the semi-feudal system that seems to permeate American Porc O.Fr. Politics, q.v. the ongoing tourney between the Baron of Shelbyville and Duke Nelson of Everglade. Epic tragedy!

    On joining the ISS
    …which is *way* up there in the global public consciousness; much more so than LHC, ITER etc. Is an affirmative statement for those leaders who see it as an equivalent to a place on the Security Council. The High Table as it were. Hence the Russian Intercosmos program that continues to this day. (All be it on a more commercial basis: Yi So Yeon) Whilst the American perspective may be a jaded Decline and Fall, after centuries of stagnation, the Chinese are gōnghé “gung ho” for Space. India even more so.

    Thanks to ComSats and the InterWeb we are even more of a global village. Good neighbours HELP each other! Especially if there is a fire to be put out!

    “Unless you work in the effort in some fashion there is almost nothing that human spaceflight does which makes “your” life better.”

    International partnerships and other ONGOING trust building exercises increase communication; making MAD exchanges a little less likely. That’s a win-win in my book.They also negate political short termism in long term projects.

    We are going to need that when we send the first interstellar probes.

  • NASA Fan

    Brobof : “if only your various States and NASA Centres could evolve away from the semi-feudal system”

    Robert: “We need as a country to focus the US space dollars ….are multipliers of private enterprise” …..”Robotic missions vs HSF to deter asteroids”

    Good points all. This may be off topic, and:

    NASA Centers are like human beings: they, like individual humans, do not like to be dominated by another Center. (Think how JSC dominates MSFC and KSC when it comes to all things HSF). There are many other reasons why NASA Centers don’t get along: some of it is they compete with each other for resources from NASA HQ (this is especially true among the GSFC’s, JPL’s, LaRC’s…)..and there are many other reasons, most related to a shrinking pool of resources.

    The problem with this bickering (and yes, there are plenty of folks who work across Center boundaries on projects/programs that work well, but lets skip that for a moment), is the bickering is NOT, as Robert is looking for, multiplying private space industry with US Gov’t Space dollars. Bickering costs and wastes money. (As an aside, someone should add up all the US Taxpayer NASA dollars each of the NASA Centers spend , competing for US Taxpayer NASA dollars – but I further digress, back to the discussion)

    As Robert points out as well, if the economy completely breaksdown, and folks with pitchforks storm Washington D.C., or the New Delhi Microsoft Help Centers, no one is going to be thinking about ‘hmm, is ISS worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize?” Let’s hope things don’t get that bad…and…

    …the worlds resources are finite. Fighting wars to ‘get my share of resources’ is a lost cause, and an outdated means of dealing with dwindling resources, as it whittles away the scare resources the warring country needs for pursuing any activity (including Space Activities) that address their own country’s interest.

    Cooperation in the use of the worlds resources is what is needed, by all nations.

    Now, rounding second base, I attempt to get this thread back where it belongs!

    Space is one place where pursing international partnership is leading by example as a way to ‘get something done with cooperation among nations’ that can’t be done alone by one country. (Indeed, NASA Science Mission Directorate just agreed to partner with ESA on all future Mars missions.)

    Yes, it is possible for a robotic mission to ‘alter the course of a NEO asteroid, but if it is a Human Space Flight endeavor, then I believe there will be more human to human interaction across international boundaries, than if it is a ‘robotic’ international endeavor, as the nature of HSF is more complex and involved and costly. (and the more it costs, the greater the need for international partnerships). More human to human interactions among nations is what is needed to foster world peace.

    Okay, rounding third and headed for home!

    HSF could be transformed to be an international effort, with participation by many countries, that could address survival issues for all humans, bringing together nations that were officially ‘peeved at each other’, and perhaps out of that ‘space peace dividend’ earn itself a Nobel Peace Prize. You could say HSF would now have a global customer.

    Sliding home!

    Obama seems to be positioning himself as an ‘international’ president. It’s time for him to act like one when it comes to HSF.

    Safe!

  • Bob Mahoney

    Re: Serious efforts at preparing to deflect an asteroid from hitting earth:

    Clarke had it dead-on right in Rendezvous with Rama; the only way a serious effort will ever be mounted to protect the Earth from an asteroid hit will be AFTER (at a minimum) a small one takes out a major city. THEN we will prepare to ensure it will never happen again…

    Such is human nature: we are always fighting yesterdays battles and fixing things to face yesterday’s crises.

  • NASA Fan

    Bob Mahoney: Such is human nature: we are always fighting yesterdays battles and fixing things to face yesterday’s crises.

    True. traffic lights go up after the fatal accident, not before hand when the citizenry is warning of such an event.

    Alas, a ‘practice run’ at deflecting an asteroid, before the real earth killer is detected, would make sense, but then governments would have to act with foresight.

    m

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bob Mahoney wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I agree with you BTW…and RWR is an outstanding book…in many ways it is the best of Clarkes books I didnt like the second one so much but the first one was splendid. I particularly enjoyed the interplay between the folks on the ship/”asteroid” and the folks on the Planetary counsel…great writing when the guy figured out why the size of the walls was different as an example.

    wish it was a movie!

    anyway. It strikes me all as a matter of perceived risk. I think dollars spent in detection are well spent but …anything more doesnt do all that much for me. I am all for flexible path to do a very intense scientific/operational effort.

    BTW I loved the “Hermanians”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Yes, it is possible for a robotic mission to ‘alter the course of a NEO asteroid, but if it is a Human Space Flight endeavor, then I believe there will be more human to human interaction across international boundaries, as the nature of HSF is more complex and involved and costly. (and the more it costs, the greater the need for international partnerships).”

    What, robotic missions have robotic interactions across international boundaries? That’s an amusing picture. Robots shaking hands, doing collaborative engineering, and trading stories over beer before transoceanic flights. I gather you’ve never been involved with an international science project (whether it be a NASA mission or a project from another agency, such as NSF or DOE). Those human-to-human interactions were what the entire efforts were built on.

    Ah, so that’s why human space flight should cost so much? Because costly endeavors better promote international partnerships? Never thought of that one. If high cost projects were the way to assure international good-will, one certainly doesn’t need to do them in space. There is nothing intrinsic about human space flight that makes it cost a lot. One could design science missions that would be vastly more expensive. One JWST will cost of order 5-10 space shuttle flights!

    But I think you’re exactly right that if a President with international consciousness is looking for a role for NASA, he could do worse than looking for goals for which the responsibility is truly international.

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan

    two points.

    First there is very little that outside forces can do to fix two people who are peeved at each other other then encourage the two peoples to stop being peeved at each other. Put and Israeli and a member of the PLA in space…you would at best have people behaving themselves in opposite corners of the space station. It wouldnt fix things on earth.

    Second…if there is a storming of DC as the economy falters…and I think that it might be….it wont be the mostly semi sophisticates and weak of mind from the “Palin Patriots”. They really have no more pull in American politics then say the “flower power” people.

    Who it will be who will shake things up is when the US middle class comes awake and says “what the heck is going on here?” and that day I think is sooner rather then later. When it comes you are going to see the federal government turned on its head.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof ..

    after WW2 Europe woke up and said “it will never happen again” in no small measure because the US left USFE (US forces Europe) in place.

    ESA is a fine organization. what it does is impressive…However it really doesnt do much more then NASA, consumes tax dollars not makes them…and with all due respect exist because folks are already friends.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    NASA Fan wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 7:30 pm

    Obama seems to be positioning himself as an ‘international’ president. It’s time for him to act like one when it comes to HSF…

    one final point before some sack time.

    If President Obama wants to be “an international president” then he will enjoy his single term as US President.

    As the last (in my opinion…even though I did not agree with his politics) successful US Speaker of the House said “all politics is local” and if Obama does not remember that then he is toast.

    His (Obama’s) numbers are on a slide. Not to worry to terribly much..Ronaldus the Great had similar slides and poll numbers his first three years…he (Reagan) was on tap to be a one term POTUS until things turned for him in 84…

    but there is something unique in the land now and it is reflected in the polling numbers.

    Ignore Rasmussen or “Fox opinion dynamics” polls, they are badly done partisan etc (even LUntz who comments for them says that). Clearly in other polling organizations (Peter Hart’s for instance) Obama is in a slide in no small measure because Americans are growing in the middle class fearful of their future because of the economic situation. And they are growing a little worried that he cannot handle it or handle the Congress and after his trip to China (which generated the poll) foreign affairs. I read a thing from Hart (who is a democrat) who noted that Obama’s polling numbers reflect about the same shift in the middle of America (where elections are won) as Bush had in the summer of 06 when Bush lost his Presidency (and this was over Iraq).

    David Gergen who is one of the bright lights in American politics is now starting to express the same views. Obama may, like Reagan (or Clinton) turn this and after a pretty bad two years turn his Presidency and the fortunes of The Republic around. And if he does not it is not clear to anyone serious in politics that the GOP in its current guise will benefit.

    But the last thing Obama needs is another international gambit in space that is seen to cost a lot of money and produce no real tangible results.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Uh, you guys need some tough-love face-slapping to regain your senses. Singing a few rounds of kum-ba-yah is for sitting around the campfire, not orbiting around the earth.

    This noble idea reflects the astronomically-scaled egomania of many members of NASA officialdom and the astronaut corps who see themselves as ending the Cold War with the Apollo-Soyuz handshake and Shuttle-Mir, purely through force of symbolism overcoming harsh earthside reality. This dangerous delusion has the world completely bass-ackwards. Cooperative space projects reflect, rather than instigate, changes in diplomatic relations, and reward those changes once they have occurred – rather than bribing, cajoling, or shaming national leaders into going against their perceptions of self-interest. To claim otherwise, to invert the causal chain, is like the robin imagining her singing brings the spring, or the rooster on his dungpile fantasizing that HE brings the dawn. And it can only lead to bad national choices that will only end in shock, dismay, and tears

    And I’m a realism-founded fan of the space station, and of the international partnership – but for objective reasons derived from feet on the ground rather than head in (or above) the clouds. There ARE good reasons for making such arrangements, but hollow (and deceptive) symbolism isn’t one of them.

  • hqguy

    Jim: Ladwig is a loose cannon. He was moved down several notches from his old position “advising the Administrator” to Public Affairs because he is in the dog house with Bolden. No one really pays much attention to him.

  • eng

    Ok, Jim, what, in your view, are the ‘objective’ reasons? We and the partners have got the ISS up in orbit and it is to stay up there for a long time. This is realism. (you can actually see it with binoculars) SpaceX and the similar would have no place to go to if not for the ISS.

    (p.s. I like the ISS and its partners as it is – thank you)

  • eng

    p.s. Jim, NASA has NO ‘objective reasons’ to launch humans into space altogether. And I challenge anyone here to offer one… International handshaking is the only reason, but not because it relates to space at all.

    Manned Space has always been about geopolitics.

    The Chinese will build their own (small at first) station, btw. They will muck around as we and the soviets had and will eventually fold, just like our spacelab… But one has to start somewhere. There is simply no need for humans being lobbed into space.

  • I have known Alan Ladwig for more than 35 years. In his defense, I have to say that few people have been on both sides of the fence with regard to NASA and the external world. Nor have many people seen the inner workings – and frustrations as closely as Alan has. As hard as it is for some space advocates to hear this, not everyone in the universe is as enamored with space exploration as the space advocacy crowd is. Indeed, many people have no idea why we are doing things in space.

    As Ladwig says NASA is part of the Federal Government and President Obama is the CEO of the Federal Government. NASA – like all other agencies – needs to adhere to larger, broader policies as well as ones specific to their agency. Given the focus on health care, the economy, two wars, and other things, NASA is not number one on the White House action item list. But it is on the list and much will be revealed in the coming weeks in that regard.

    As for reading into Ladwig’s re-assignment at NASA – it is my understanding that Bolden did not think that having a separate “Strategic Communications” function was called for and that he wanted it all to be merged into a cohesive unit at Public Affairs. Due to the complexities of workforce rules, he could not fully implement this until the 120 day time out period had expired – which is happening now.

    Is Alan a loose canon? Well, I am an expert in the art of flapping my jaw. If he is a loose canon, then he is the right kind for he is speaking the truth to those who would prefer not to hear it in they only way that gets their attention.

    As for having passion for space exploration – Ladwig has it in buckets. We first met in Washington, DC to talk about space in 1975. His passion for space exploration now is not at all diminished since that time. Indeed, it has grown – and it is reflected in what he says and how he says it. Unlike a lot of folks in the space world, Ladwig sees outside the confines of rocket science and space wonkery and appreciates the need for a space agency that is relevant and responsive to the needs and desires of the electorate – in ways that transcend traditional alliances.

    Alas, I fear that the most difficult opponents that Ladwig and the senior management of NASA will be facing will be among the so-called space advocate community. You can see a small example of it in the comments posted here.

  • Alan Ladwig

    I appreciate Keith’s spirited defense of my character and was fascinated to learn from hqguy that I’m “in the dog house with Bolden.” This will be news to both of us. Please stop by and introduce yourself so I can learn more about my future prospects at the Agency.

    In the meantime, thanks to Jeff for mentioning my remarks regarding a potential Noble Peace Prize nomination for ISS. I’ve been floating the idea in numerous venues with the specific intention of encouraging a public discussion. I hope the above postings are a just a start and I welcome additional comments.

  • Here are some links with more in-depth discussions of positive features, and pitfalls, in the partnership. In terms of values, I think we do spaceflight now for the same reason as in the 1960s — it gives the ultimate credibility to US technology in terms of commerce, science, military, education, management, and other characteristics that have profound national and international value. And it helps defend against uncontrolled surprises. But ‘world peace’? Or ‘saving time and money’? Not in this universe.

    10/01/2008 – MSNBC.com: US-Russian Space Partnership Works as Reluctant Co-Dependence
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26975208/

    05/09/2005 – MSNBC.com: Astronaut Susan Helms explains secret of space station’s success
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7763702/

    SPACE NEWS, September 9, 2002, page 15:
    Are Russian Space Bargains Really Such A Good Deal?
    http://www.jamesoberg.com/093002russianbargains.html

    Final chapter from ‘Star-Crossed Orbits’ (2002) on perils of partnerships in space
    http://www.jamesoberg.com/ch19_SCO.pdf

    Book Review: “Shuttle-Mir” — NASA’s Self-Congratulatory Whitewash (2002)
    http://www.jamesoberg.com/shuttlemir_review.pdf
    Charlie Precourt: ““So I just think that the fact that we’re cooperating with so many countries, eventually perhaps on the new Space Station, it will provide the psychological impetus for politicians to force themselves to find an agreement to disputes that otherwise they wouldn’t, because they’ll look up there and say, ‘Well, we have an investment in that, too. We have to keep this relationship going in a proper direction,’ rather than doing something rash. So I think it’s the right way to do business.””

    JimO: I’d trust Charlie at the helm of any space vehicle we could ever build. I’d trust him with my life or my kids’ lives. But putting him too close to the levers of national diplomacy and policy would be a classic case of venturing way, WAY beyond a person’s expertise, I suggest, with all due respect.

    07/18/2005 – The Space Review: “ASTP + 30 – Real Lessons”
    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/413/1

    Why I stay high on Tom Stafford’s s–t list.

  • common sense

    Dear Alan Ladwig,

    I am in favor of using HSF (be it ISS or otherwise) as a tool for softpower, as I assume you would like the Nobel price nomination to represent (?).

    However, I am a little worried that it might be too late for it. It feels like this should have happened some time ago, when? I don’t know. The ISS in my mind is the last product of the final stages of the Cold War which arguably ended in 1990 or so. What would be the grounds for such a nomination when the geopolitical issues have since shifted from political ideology to a more religious ideology? I am not sure how fitting it would be. Actually I would say that the focus shifted, not that it did not exist before. Now if it could be shown that ISS help cemented the relationship between all the participating country in a never seen before way, then may be, but still, I am doubtful. In other more blunt words, how would this compare to say Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King, Jr.? Just wondering.

    BTW: I am not tryin to start a controversy about ourPresident’s recent nomination… Just in case…

  • Robert G. Oler

    eng wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 11:23 am

    The Chinese will build their own (small at first) station, btw. ..

    we will see how that works out. I am starting to be convinced that China is more a Paper Dragon then anything “real” and maybe on the verge of its own little “implosion”. If I had to bet at the “real Asian” superpower…it would be “Inja” as the Brits use to call it…India.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Charlie Precourt: ““So I just think that the fact that we’re cooperating with so many countries, eventually perhaps on the new Space Station, it will provide the psychological impetus for politicians to force themselves to find an agreement to disputes that otherwise they wouldn’t, because they’ll look up there and say, ‘Well, we have an investment in that, too. We have to keep this relationship going in a proper direction,’ rather than doing something rash. So I think it’s the right way to do business.””

    I am not so kind. Charlie can, with proper training fly any vehicle known to man…but this statement above paints him as a self aggrandizing idiot who is good at parroting the NASA line and putting a self effacing spin on it.

    What I really mock is the line “investment in that, too”. LOL

    The investment in space “vehicles” at any level in any national venue, including ours is far less in the investment that we (or other people) have in their culture.

    Charlie peaked at being a good staff officer.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    @Robert Oler:

    Actullay don’t dismiss China just like that. And by the way, it is not just about China alone. China may end up being the political, economical and cultural “glue” in Asia. Chinese and their descendants are in most places with strong economies, e.g. Singapour and Malaysia. India may represent another pole of attraction but it will be very different from China. I suspect and I have nothing else than “gut feelings” that India somehow is closer to the “West” than China is or will be. I don’t think it is about “domination” as in Cold War domination. But there is a strong neglect about what China is and can do. It is always seen through our wetern eyes based on our own culture(s). And China is VERY different.

    I personally believe that Asia including China and other countries will become a political and economical super power, a la Europe if you wish. It will be “soft” domination, a la USA if you wish. Not military domination even thought it’ll be that too evntually. The USA is is a great position today to work out our relation with China. Space and trains may be a start but if we neglect it we may end up working FOR China and not WITH China pretty soon.

  • I always have a trick question for those who dismiss China. Who was the second country to develop high energy (LOX/LH2) rocketry? Outside of the space community, no one guesses correctly, and even inside, far too many guess wrong. It’s a classic case of perception versus reality.

    The ISS has one great achievement under its belt, albeit one that many in the space community ignore or actively belittle. I believe that even if it never achieves a single thing more, that one achievement will be worth every penny of what we’ve spent and then some (though I do recognize that utilizing the Shuttle made it cost far more than it had to). That is, with the ISS, the United States (and here there was almost no international involvement) demonstrated constructing a large, very complex structure out of many smaller components in the microgravity environment that dominates the Universe. While not underestimating earlier projects (e.g., Mir) that demonstrated a few of the techniques (self-docking modules) and discovered some of the problems that would have to be solved (vibration and resonant harmonics), the ISS represents a unique and unprecedented accomplishment. Whatever humanity does in space in the future, we will be using techniques first demonstrated on the ISS. The ISS is fully comparable to the first large ship with an iron structure, or the first sky scrapers, or even Imhotep’s invention of building large structures in stone.

    In my opinion, it has probably earned a Nobel Prize in architecture (even though I’m pretty sure there isn’t such a thing), if not the peace prize.

    — Donald

  • common sense

    “That is, with the ISS, the United States (and here there was almost no international involvement) demonstrated constructing a large, very complex structure out of many smaller components in the microgravity environment that dominates the Universe. ”

    Then I do not believe it is any ground for Nobel Peace prize if it is all ISS has achieved. I can’t remember any such a prize for the first automobile, train, airplane or ship.

  • Doug Lassiter

    With all due respect to Jim Oberg, I find his reflexive discomfort about seeing ISS as an instrument of peace a bit puzzling. OK, it may be singing kum-ba-yah around a campfire, but we’re not singing anything right now, and burning a lot of money while we’re not singing. The idea that one can’t use ISS as a symbol of international cooperation is just silly. No one is saying that ISS was responsible for detente any more than anyone is saying that Mother Teresa was responsible for saving the poor in India.

    I think it’s exactly right that such things are reflective of activities that bring peace more than they are of bringing peace themselves. But such reflection has value. Symbols are powerful. It’s also exactly right that the most expensive project in the world ever (probably by almost an order of magnitude) is not clearly justified by the international cooperation that it hosted. In that respect, the lessons that it teaches us may not apply well to future activities in space, so we should use it as a symbol with some care.

    I’m glad you’re a realism-founded fan of ISS, with your feet firmly on the ground. But unfortunately no one really has a good understanding of what ISS was for. So I’m not sure exactly where your feet are planted, but given the remarkably fluid goals of ISS over the years (is it for science? is it for exploration? is it for inspiration?), that ground is certainly shifting. I’d watch your step.

  • But unfortunately no one really has a good understanding of what ISS was for. So I’m not sure exactly where your feet are planted, but given the remarkably fluid goals of ISS over the years (is it for science? is it for exploration? is it for inspiration?)

    It was jobs, to give NASA something to do after Shuttle development tailed down, and later it became midnight basketball for Russian scientists. Like Apollo, it never had much to do with space, per se.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 3:04 pm

    I’m glad you’re a realism-founded fan of ISS, with your feet firmly on the ground. But unfortunately no one really has a good understanding of what ISS was for..

    actually I think that I do…

    Look when “Freedom” cranked up I thought that the entire goal of the space station was a good one. I soured on it during the Bush the first years because NASA couldnt build the darn thing and the cost just kept escalating beyond compare…and the agency seemed incapable of figuring out why….but I do think that Psycho Dan and Clinton managed to come up with a convincing reason “whY” and that reason got us where we are today.

    And oddly enough where we are today is where Reagan was when he and the group conjured up the station. We have a facility in LEO that is world class in terms of allowing microgravity research on orbit and is adept at allowing the assembling of things on orbit.

    The trick now is to figure out, at least on the US side as to how to make that investment usable for the rest of America and American infrastructure.

    those are not very glamorous task, but they are essential to creating a “space industry” in this country…and that industry is needed to 1) create a new economy for the country (our current one is very broke) and 2) create the foundation to be used in other events and venues.

    the trick is to come upwith the politics and policies that actually do just that.

    I’ve read all the “we have to go to Mars or the Moon again or whatever” and for the life of me it is about as silly as the guy down the street from me in Clear Lake. He had always wanted a classic car to restore…everytime I would talk to him he was always hot to do just that and on the lookout for one. Finally he found the car he wanted and sold me his 1972 four door Malibu so he could start the project. His project is still going on and I am now driving a very cherry restoration of the first car I had…and the one that got destroyed at NAS Norfolk….a 1972 four door Malibu.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    common sense wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 1:37 pm just got home and have a few chores before sundown…I will get back to this later, but with all due respect I am starting to think that the Reds have been taking us on a ride for sometime.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
    “ESA is a fine organization. what it does is impressive…However it really doesnt do much more then NASA, consumes tax dollars not makes them…”

    Spinoff! Space investment advances technology and the European industrial base and hence employment, skills and the wealth of the EU! That may not happen with NASA now but its a primary purpose of ESA!

    “and with all due respect exist because folks are already friends.”

    LOL. If you believe that you need to take some urgent lessons in modern Geo-politics. The Commission fights with the Council. The Council fights with the Parliament and the Member States fight about everything! Current bones of contention: Lisbon Treaty and Turkey! However we now try to reach consensus and compromise rather than ultimata and partisan politics. Multiple Parties and Coalition Politics. Much better than a two party system. IMHO.

    Now to turn to the more substantive issue:

    “after WW2 Europe woke up and said “it will never happen again” in no small measure because the US left USFE (US forces Europe) in place.

    Oh dear! Is that what stopped Britain from declaring war on Luxembourg? No. The USA left troops in place because it suited the USA to build up a McCarthyian “Red Menace” as the next threat against ‘civilization’ and thus maintain the MIC that Eisenhower warned you about. Even after the fall of USSR and the Peace Dividend and even after such partnerships as the ISS: your MIC is as big, if not bigger. And for what? To fight an neverendingly vague “war against terror”. Vague because terrorism takes many forms and is increasingly used to describe: “anyone who does not agree with us!” And neverending because where you have injustice: you have asymmetry hence “freedom fighting” tends to use asymmetric warfare. Or “Cast Lead vs Quassams.”

    Which leads us to:

    “Put and Israeli and a member of the PLA [Can’t bring yourself to say the word “Palestinian”? Hmm. Use an acronym meaning the Palestinian Liberation Army. Hmmmm.] in space you would at best have people behaving themselves in opposite corners of the space station. It wouldnt fix things on earth.” [Robert G. Oler wot wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 pm]

    But it might help. It would certainly be better than just having a a member of the IDF in space with the PLA left out in the cold! Personally I would have a member of the Palestinian National Authority [PNA] and Hamas. Then we really would see the sparks fly!
    However, the real lesson here is: fact check before making assertions.
    http://gaza-space.blogspot.com/2009/08/digital-planetarium-for-palestine.html

    “In an unlikely scientific partnership that crosses political barriers, Palestinian and Israeli researchers have joined forces to organize a science project onboard the space shuttle Columbia. [Alas! Peace never gets a chance.] The science project, which includes Palestinian biology student Tariq Adwan and Israeli medical student Yuval Landau, could help determine whether the cosmos is seeded with primordial life forms.”

    For all your faux news sources would suggest, there are Semites who just want to be friends. If only other people: generally non-Semites not interested in friendship, would stop building walls. And settlements!
    A joint Israeli-Palestinian mission to the ISS could be a useful future tactic to indicate that the old days of asymmetric support are over.(1) After they see for themselves the small scrap of land they are currently fighting over and the immensity of the rest of their mutually Abrahamic God’s Creation, we might see some common sense. If the ISS brought that about it would deserve a great deal more than the Nobel peace Prize.
    Safe! (Only – NASA fan please note – with wickets rather than bases!)

    BootNote:
    (1) “In 2007, the United States increased its military aid to Israel by over 25%, to an average of $3 billion per year for the following ten year period (starting at $2.550 billion for 2008, growing by $150 million each year).”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_%E2%80%93_United_States_military_relations#Military_aid (use http://tinyurl.com/ylqbnnj)
    Three billion per year! Now where have I heard that before…

    “They really have no more pull in American politics then say the “flower power” people.”
    Robert, would that be an oblique reference to “San Fran Nan?” And Obama Inhaled! They are already there Man, as President and Speaker! That’s why your GOP base are so freaked out!
    —–
    Doug Lassiter wrote @ November 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
    Sorry I missed your post on the first pass. Spot on Sir! I concur.

  • Jim Oberg wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
    With respect to a veteran cold warrior; would you not agree that ASTP; MIR-Shuttle and the ISS are not progressive steps in trust building? And as such, like: hotlines; demilitarising borders; reducing nuclear stockpiles and singing kum-ba-yah around the Camp David Fire… all add to detente. IMHO global geo-politics is no longer the simple us vs those damn Rooskies. (If, indeed it ever was, outside the simplistic propaganda of the time.) Nor was (is) it simple cause and effect. Instead, I would suggest, it takes the form of a problem in quantum computing: a multi-variate flux that resolves into a solution. Until the next problem comes along! If orbital campfires (or O2 candles) can help solve the next problem. I say bring it on!

  • Robert G. Oler

    brobof wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Jim Oberg wrote @ November 23rd, 2009 at 10:21 am
    With respect to a veteran cold warrior; would you not agree that ASTP; MIR-Shuttle and the ISS are not progressive steps in trust building?..

    Jim can speak for himself but I would be surprised if he agreed…I dont.

    ASTP had nothing to do with trust…and everything to do with showmanship…and some internal state politics. After it was over no one outside of the crew and a few folks at the various control centers said… (ok there might have been someone…maybe Charlie Precourt) “wow I trust Ivan more” or “I trust those Yankees more”) ..

    and it had nothing to do with the general state of US/USSR relationships. By the time ISS came around the “Trust” was already there…other wise we would not have had the joint missions/build to start with.

    Nor is the squabbling internal to ESA (and it produces no more spinoffs then NASA does and those are very few) compare to trying to work peace between say the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority. Not even in the same ballpark.

    What ended the cold war was Ronaldus the Great pushing Ivan until his economy fell apart and then being a very gracious victor. Space, at least human spaceflight had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

    Robert G. Oler

  • common sense

    “What ended the cold war was Ronaldus the Great pushing Ivan until his economy fell apart and then being a very gracious victor. Space, at least human spaceflight had nothing whatsoever to do with it.”

    One might argue that the USSR got into the Buran/Energia shuttle/launcher system to compete with our STS. The cost of their system (regardless of the technical achievement) was so high that at least in part it participated in the end of the USSR. So in the end “space” may have a lot to do with the end of the USSR…

  • eng

    While I agree with most of your texts regarding spaceflight in the US here, Robert, this “Ronaldus the Great” canard you keep peddling is not clever. Ron the Raygun was a simpleton cretin (from Hollywood). And I am from “Eastern Europe” (Hungary)

  • eng

    If you want to know the USSR died of internal causes…

  • eng

    BTW, the same thing approaching this country (the US)

  • Eng: “Ron the Raygun was a simpleton cretin (from Hollywood). And I am from “Eastern Europe” (Hungary)”

    Reminds me of an old Cold War joke:

    American and Russian argue over political freedomes.

    American: ” I can go out on the street and yell ‘Reagan is an idiot’, I’m free to do it.”

    Russian: “In Russia we have all those same rights.”

    American: “You can’t be serious, howe can I believe you?”

    Russian: “Sure, watch me go out on the street in Moscow and yell, ‘Reagan is an idiot’. We have the same rights as you do.

  • Robert G. Oler

    eng wrote @ November 24th, 2009 at 5:03 am

    I am not going to get into a debate on Ronaldus the Great or any other politican that is not related to space (trying to be on topic) except to say this.

    You are in my view free to have your own opinion (one of the joys of “us” winning)…but I will say this.

    In my life so far I have been privileged to met a reasonable number of national politicians AND have worked in a few national campaigns. So far in my adult life there are three politicans who “knew who they were”…Ronald Reagan, Howard Dean and John McCain of 00…things change of course and McCain of 08 knew quite less about “who he was” then the McCain of 00 did.

    The world is a safer place in my view because Ronald Reagan was “on watch” in the period from 81-88…

    Robert G. Oler

  • Andrew Robertson

    I think the ISS is a fantastic beacon for the future development of multinational cooperation that illuminates our future path to the stars… but it is not Nobel Prize worthy. Simply because 1) the Nobel Prize is for the most significant discoveries in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine or Biology, and 2) It can only be awarded to 3 people at most.

    To illustrate this, the 2013 Nobel Prize in physics went to three scientists for the discovery of the Higgs boson. It did not go to the dozens (hundreds) of researchers that also made significant contributions and it was never going to be awarded to the LHC collaboration.

    Only if an astronaut on the ISS makes a major discovery in one of the three disciplines will they be eligible, together with the experiment designers. But the ISS itself will never get one.

Leave a Reply to Alan Ladwig Cancel 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>