Other

New paradigms in human spaceflight policy

As the shuttle programs ends and NASA’s future direction remains uncertain, it’s clear that there will be changes in how NASA and the nation approach human spaceflight. In an essay in this week’s issue of The Space Review, Roger Handberg argues that the US will have to take a different approach to international cooperation. In the past, the US was clearly the lead partner, dictating the direction of projects like the ISS and the roles of partners, but also paying the bulk of the costs of projects. “The historical pattern is simple: the US is willing to join international space projects as long as it remains the project leader and is relatively, if not completely, unconstrained by the international partners when the US decides significant changes are required,” he writes.

That approach is unlikely to continue given the apparent unwillingness of the US to spend the money sufficient to take such a dominant role, he argues, requiring more equitable international partnerships. “What this means is that the US must become comfortable with such close cooperation, as unilateral decisions with no prior consultation with partners will end,” he writes. “The advantage is that true cooperation translates into greater equality in terms of budget share—the US will no longer operate as the funder of last resort with the unpleasantness that situation generates. One downside is that projects will move more slowly (although in truth no one may notice, given the delays common presently) due to the need for effective consultation among the partners before programs are initiated and necessary changes are made.”

Meanwhile, the current situation offers an opportunity to ask the question of why do human spaceflight at all. “Is there a future for humans in space?” asked Scott Pace, director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University, in a talk last month at the Applied Physics Lab in Maryland. The answer to that question depends, he said, on two other questions: whether humans can live off the land in space, and if they can do anything useful economically. “Spending a small amount of money to answer those questions is a legitimate activity of a great power, and in the course of doing so there are geopolitical and technical benefits that accrue to us,” he said.

How, though, do you structure a human spaceflight program that can answer those questions? Pace suggested taking a page from the astronomy community, which performs decadal surveys to identify the missions they believe are most important in terms of the science they can generate—an approach that has since been adopted by planetary and earth scientists. “I can imagine a decadal-like group getting together” to examine what missions or concepts, like research into in situ resource utilization, would best answer those questions, he said. “We seem to have commissions on human spaceflight ever ten years anyway, why not make them routine?”

27 comments to New paradigms in human spaceflight policy

  • common sense

    ” “I can imagine a decadal-like group getting together” to examine what missions or concepts, like research into in situ resource utilization, would best answer those questions, he said. “We seem to have commissions on human spaceflight ever ten years anyway, why not make them routine?””

    PRECISELY! This is why a revived NIAC with the correct budget and mission is absolutely necessary. It would not only serve as a sourcee to identify technology but along wwith it a real path towards human exploration of space. AGAIN: This ought to be done with a new NASC in order to orchestrate the various players in this cacophony of HSF. I would however argue this ought to be a continuous effort not something done every 10 years. The major review itself might be but we need to adapt to incoming and upcoming technologies and overall geopolitcal, economical and societal situation of the US. Therefore it must be something that does not stop and go every 10 years.

  • sc220

    Applying a periodic evaluation of human space flight goals, objectives and missions would make a lot of sense. Similar to the NRC-convened decadal studies for Space Science, it would bring in thinking from outside the Agency, thus eliminating the in-breeding of ideas that runs rampant in NASA’s human space flight community. O’Keefe originally wanted the rest of the Agency to become more like SMD, but things became derailed when Griffin entered the picture. Now that Griffin is gone, we can get on with the transition that began many years ago. I’m sure that many in NASA’s human space flight workforce will be unhappy with the outcome. But to them, I say, “tough beans.” The days of being the privileged child are soon coming to an end.

  • Robert G. Oler

    The question is …what goal is worth any international cooperation in human spaceflight?

    that question seems to be unanswered.

    Robert G. Oler

  • ZJM

    ‘“Is there a future for humans in space?” asked Scott Pace, . . . The answer to that question depends, he said, on two other questions: whether humans can live off the land in space, and if they can do anything useful economically.’

    A future for humans in space certainly does depend on the ability to survive/subsist in space. But I am not so sure that the ability to “do anything useful economically” is also fundamentally necessary. Economic utility is of course important, but the pattern of European colonization of the New World (a flawed analogy in some respects, admittedly) also depended on some non-economic ends related to freedom of religion and politics.

    Translated: for some people or communities, a colony or other space presence need not be economically useful; it need only be economically -feasible-, which is a different question.

    -ZJM

  • common sense

    I should have added that a NIAC and a NASC appear necessary together but there ought to be some public input, a la Augustine panel to this endeavor: Space professionals but regular citizens as well ought to have a say in what the country does for anything and here in particular for space. There is a “danger” as we see all the time all kind of delusional ideas come around BUT it is very important there be a dialogue with the public at all levels in this business. After all and save for commercial the public is footing the bill.

  • Dennis

    Um… If humans have no future in space, then we simply have no future, since eventually it’s deep space, or bust for us. Granted it’s a very long term proposition, but we are still only one impact away from extinction. Only a fool carries all their eggs in one basket.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “This is why a revived NIAC with the correct budget and mission is absolutely necessary. It would not only serve as a sourcee to identify technology but along wwith it a real path towards human exploration of space.”

    I think Scott Pace’s suggestion is an intriguing one. But let’s not confuse the issue (and this relates to the comment about NIAC). This isn’t about deciding how to do it or charting a path, but about deciding what to do in the first place, and why we should be doing it. I don’t believe NIAC, which was a great endeavor, ever really dealt much with the latter. In fact, the Augustine committee didn’t really do much of it either. What the Aldridge committee was charged to address may have been more the question at hand. With respect to space exploration, they were asked to come up with a implementation strategy that was based on a reason.

    Understand that the main purpose of decadal surveys is establishing a high level consensus. The survey report is a document that reflects what a broad community REALLY WANTS TO DO. Congress buys in to consensus. What’s hard is developing a consensus without ending up with a weak plan. The Aldridge report may not have achieved that objective, because they weren’t asked to make it a consensus document. It was just a some pretty good ideas signed off on by some fairly senior people.

    The idea that this consensus should involve the public is exactly right, For a federally funded space program, the taxpayer is the ultimate customer. I wouldn’t like to see a complete democratization of the process, but some outreach to the public in this would be nice to see.

  • “Is there a future for humans in space?”

    If humans aren’t going to space, then what is the point of any of our space activities?

    Sure, some scientists get to scratch their curiosity itch, and some engineers get to flex their creativity muscle. But if humans aren’t going into space then I have a big problem with the government paying my tax dollars to assuage the curiosity of some brainiacs. Let academia take care of that.

    If humans aren’t going to space, then what is the point of any of our space activities?

    “if they can do anything useful economically”

    The question is not one of IF anything can be done economically in space, but rather HOW activities in space can be made economical. It’s certainly not going to be the case if all we ever do is craft really expensive and sophisticated tools (i.e. robots) to throw into the void.

    It also chaps my hide that space scientists and engineers are so ready to opine on matters economic when they have no more business doing so than I, a banker, have opining on the merits of one particular space science over another. (I recognize this doesn’t hold entirely true for Mr. Pace)

    Now, if y’all keep it up I may just have to start opening my big trap and sowing some discord in the waters of public discourse. Because I do have strong feelings on the matter (such as I’d rather we focused our space assets on studying our Solar system in depth rather than the far reaches of infinite space, which studies I seriously question as to whether they contribute to the creation of value to grow our economy).

    And that is the fundamental message – value creation. The U.S. has had basically three decades of value extraction from the economy, and that’s why it’s having such a hard time right now. The meta-structure has shifted away from value creation to focus on value extraction (even from the future, thanks to our good friend the NPV function). It needs to shift back to value creation (which it is starting to do on a micro scale), and space represents an enormous domain of value creation for not just the U.S. but all of humanity.

    It’s the entrepreneurs who espy the opportunities for value creation, not government bureaucrats. When the government works for its citizenry by enabling and facilitating, the entrepreneurs have the opportunity to create that value. This has held true time and again in the past, and there is no reason it should be any different this time around. The role of the government is not to provide transportation to space, the government’s role is to enable transportation to space.

    The sooner everyone in the space community can communicate “This is how my activities create value for our economy and our country (and our world)”, the better. The more that is communicated, even better, because the citizenry is desperately looking for ways to grow our economy, not just pillage it.

  • Heinrich Monroe

    I don’t think bankers have a lot of cred these days! Especially ones that use that profession as a basis to opine on space exploration.

    Nuclear energy was understood by observations of “deep space” (no, if we just had the Sun, with no conception of the other stuff, we wouldn’t have figured it out). The economic impact of that was profound. Such deep space observations now reveal that we’re sitting in a field of dark energy that is pushing the universe apart. You think that discovery of oil on Europa is going to beat that? Drill, baby, drill!

    Which space scientists and engineers were chapping your hide by opining on economics? That seems OT with respect to his post.

  • Anon2

    @Heinrich,

    If I recall the arrow went in the other direction. An understanding of nuclear physics on Earth finally explained how stars work….

  • NASA Fan

    The decadal studies are also a way to estimate costs for future out year budgets. Sadly, at least in the Earth Science decadal work that was done, these estimates are usually low; this locks in insufficient budgets to actually develop these missions. To wit: Earth Science will be lucky to get off 2 of it’s 12 decadal missions within the 10 years of the window.

    I can’t image this process being brought to HSF. For HSF they should call it ‘century’ studies because that is how long it will take to reach agreement on what to actually do in Space with Humans that the taxpayers actually want.

    Egad.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Ken M wrote:

    “The question is not one of IF anything can be done economically in space, but rather HOW activities in space can be made economical. It’s certainly not going to be the case if all we ever do is craft really expensive and sophisticated tools (i.e. robots) to throw into the void.”

    I agree with the first part, I dont agree with the second part.

    I argued as far back as the old Compuserve space forum, that there was such thing as a “launch bar”…meaning the cost barrier that determined the level of cost and sophistication of mainly robotic vehicles…but to some extent human space flight as well.

    The cheaper the cost to launch, the cheaper (and more plentiful) robots can be as well as being more specialized…and our tools are becoming that way. The cheaper to launch the more realistic it is however to have ‘humans” in the loop in space to do things.

    Where I think that this “balance” is going to be the most visible as time goes on is in the geosynchronous satellite servicing market. I am almost alone but in my view the lucrative future market for human intervention in space is going to be 1) building geosynch platforms in low earth orbit…and then 2) servicing them once they are in geo.

    And there is where you are going to see the “robot/human” bar be balanced out.

    If SpaceX and Bigelow work, in my view what you are going to see is the next “big step” is that some group of companies (or government) come up with the notion of building a geo platform that is really big, is assembled in LEO (on this side of the belt) by mostly humans, boosted to GEO and then serviced by human missions.

    The first candidate for this I believe will be either a communications platform OR a 10 or so meter Earth “observation” platform.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Bill White

    Robert,

    Nasaspaceflight dot com is reporting that instructions to slow or pause the dismantling of STS infrastructure have been issued and that Bolden is reviewing HLV options, today. An inline SSME based HLV appears to have momentum in these studies.

  • common sense

    “I think Scott Pace’s suggestion is an intriguing one. But let’s not confuse the issue (and this relates to the comment about NIAC). This isn’t about deciding how to do it or charting a path, but about deciding what to do in the first place, and why we should be doing it. I don’t believe NIAC, which was a great endeavor, ever really dealt much with the latter. In fact, the Augustine committee didn’t really do much of it either. What the Aldridge committee was charged to address may have been more the question at hand. With respect to space exploration, they were asked to come up with a implementation strategy that was based on a reason.”

    If you re-read my post you will see that I said a NIAC with the correct budget and mission. Why would you assume NIAC to be limited to what it used to do? The point is to expand NIAC’s mission to include a review of NASA’s HSF as well as plaanning. NASC would be there to help orchestrate the endeavor between all stakeholders. I did not address the “why” (implementation based on a reason) but rather the what and how. The why even though very important was not part of my post.

    “Understand that the main purpose of decadal surveys is establishing a high level consensus. The survey report is a document that reflects what a broad community REALLY WANTS TO DO. Congress buys in to consensus. What’s hard is developing a consensus without ending up with a weak plan. The Aldridge report may not have achieved that objective, because they weren’t asked to make it a consensus document. It was just a some pretty good ideas signed off on by some fairly senior people.”

    Same as above where NASC would help drive the consensus. Note here again that I am not saying NASC should operate as it did back in the 50’s or 60’s. The purpose this time would be to answer national priorities and make sure we get a coordinated response.

    “The idea that this consensus should involve the public is exactly right, For a federally funded space program, the taxpayer is the ultimate customer. I wouldn’t like to see a complete democratization of the process, but some outreach to the public in this would be nice to see.”

    This is the most difficult part of it though. If you looked at the public input given on the Augustine panel website you probably saw it ranged from somewhat sound engineering approaches to the goofiest ones. The process for weeding out the goofy proposals/entries must have been fun but probably tiresome… A real effort though MUST be made in this area. How do we communicate with the public? How do we make the public part of the process? There are many ways. I suggested in the past to create a Space Academy that would at least let the public know they can be part of this adventure and that there is a straight path to it. But this is at a decision level as to what we want to do that we need to make an effort. Note further that if the public is finally inside the process then there may not need be another “why debate”: Why? Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period.

  • mark valah

    Ken Murphy and Heinrich Monroe, I believe that a banker taking time to read this discussions and participate is great news, we need more money people involved with such interest.

    Beyond all details of the opinions expressed, there is a strong principle which seems to be lost in these details: knowledge is power.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Bill White wrote @ January 15th, 2010 at 1:31 pm
    . An inline SSME based HLV appears to have momentum in these studies…

    Bill. I read that story (and thanks for referencing it)…

    but I dont see all that much there. What Bolden is doing (or is reported to be doing) is telling folks to avoid taking any decision until the last possible moment, something I think that they were going to do anyway.

    But my big question is “gaining momentum” but with who? If it is “in the studies” that is one thing…NASA is going to come up with some system that it likes…the question then is as it has always been…what is the Obama administration willing to pay for and on what time scale.

    I frankly would be very surprised if the SSME is the engine of choice. It is a fine engine, but to dump them is to have the most expensive engine available and to toss it, that with the rest of the shuttle legacy system makes the vehicle all but unaffordable.

    Unless of course they are planning some grand redesign of the entire thing.

    On the other hand if they are holding out for a “fly off the spares” effort then some of the delay would make sense.

    My theory is that a lot of this is possibly going to be in flux with the political “situation” come Tuesday.

    Robert G. Oler

  • mark valah

    A large fraction of the essential tooling required to manufacture Shuttle components (the LH2 tank is the best example) has been dismantled. At this point in time only a serious chunk of budget will re-establish Shuttle operability beyond the reamaining flights scheduled.

  • common sense

    “If I recall the arrow went in the other direction. An understanding of nuclear physics on Earth finally explained how stars work….”

    Absolutely and the purpose was and still is to develop and understand nuclear weapons. But it’s another story.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Why would you assume NIAC to be limited to what it used to do?”

    Because if it didn’t, it probably wouldn’t be NIAC. NIAC has a lot of potential, but basic decisions about what the nation should do in space are not the subject for intellectual discourse among just people who are scientists and technologists. Why are such people the ones who can best engage the relevant stakeholders? I don’t think they are, though such people should certainly be included.

    I would be delighted if NIAC could figure out a way to send civilization out into the stars, but until the nation had decided that was important, it’s pretty irrelevant. Yes, the fault isn’t with NIAC, but with a nation that has never really decided why we’re doing human space flight. NIAC is about the how, not about the why.

    The NIAC I know of, with the mission they set out for themselves, is not, NOT going to develop a consensus among the relevant stakeholders on the rationale for human space flight.

    “Note further that if the public is finally inside the process then there may not need be another “why debate”: Why? Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period.”

    I’ll put a comma after your period, and perhaps a smileyface.

    You are not the public. You don’t get to tell us that what you want is what the public wants. You do not get to define the consensus that we need.

    Also, I don’t consider the public input to the Augustine panel to be relevant in this regard. (And I don’t think you do either.) That was public input about options for doing human spaceflight, mostly from what I would affectionately call space nuts. I want public input about the economic, social, scientific, education, security, and political aspects of human space flight. I want it in the context of what is good for the nation, and I want that input to leaders of our country, and not to a committee of technical and scientific experts. This is a discussion that I don’t think this country has ever had. This doesn’t happen by inviting white papers from the public, as the Augustine committee did. That’s not to criticize the Augustine panel. They did a remarkable piece of work. But this is about a lot more than how to let the public know they can be part of an adventure. I suspect most of the public couldn’t care less about being part of a space adventure, and would get a laugh out of a “space academy” that was trying to convince them about it.

  • common sense

    “The NIAC I know of, with the mission they set out for themselves, is not, NOT going to develop a consensus among the relevant stakeholders on the rationale for human space flight.”

    I said NASC would not NIAC. NIAC helps with technologies, NASC with consensus. In summary.

    “I’ll put a comma after your period, and perhaps a smileyface.”

    Not sure why ;)

    “You are not the public. You don’t get to tell us that what you want is what the public wants. You do not get to define the consensus that we need. ”

    ?????

    “I suspect most of the public couldn’t care less about being part of a space adventure, and would get a laugh out of a “space academy” that was trying to convince them about it.”

    Maybe so, maybe not. The public for sure does not care because they CANNOT be part of it. We’ll see after Virgin Galactic and Bigelow are able to do what they want and to some extent SpaceX.

    Sometime when I read your comments I have the feeling that you want HSF, somehow, but you can find all the reasons why it won’t happen. I am sure we can find all the reasons why not but I would like and am trying to find out why it WILL happen. Yet I am not hell bent on a Moon base, not even a Mars base…

    So what would you suggest to involve the public? Any idea? Do you want HSF? Maybe you don’t?

  • Doug Lassiter

    “I said NASC would not NIAC. NIAC helps with technologies, NASC with consensus. In summary.”

    Yes, the Space Council had that charge, but it didn’t really address it. It didn’t leave us with any cogent reason for human space flight that came across as a stakeholder consensus. At least none that survives to this day. The various incarnations of the NASC were successful in pushing legislation to accommodate someone else’s vision, and they did that very well, but I’m not aware they actually came up with policy. In many respects, they were rubber stamps for administration policy, rather than driving that policy. (Unless they drove it off a cliff, as they did with SEI.) Now, if you want to make it look like you have input on economic, social, scientific, education, security, and political issues regarding human space flight policy, you could just get relevant agency heads to sign off on it which is, I think, largely what NASC did. NASC was populated by high level managers, not communicators, and their passions were for their own agencies.

    My recollection of the Space Council isn’t that good, so I welcome any specific historical accounts that might contradict this impression.

    “????”

    Well, when you put in boldface that “Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period”, you’re shouting out what “we” want, and it’s not clear where you come up with that. The problem is that we don’t know what “we” want, which is precisely what this discussion is about.

    “So what would you suggest to involve the public? Any idea?”

    The justification for human space flight is a big enough question that one probably has to cultivate interest in and dialog about the question, rather than manage it with a committee that tries to answer it. The media has to take an interest in the question, which they will only do if they sense public interest in it. This country isn’t going to decide what do do about, say, gay marriage or illegal drug use, by having one committee reaching out for consensus, and yes, the answer of what to do about human space flight, and the need for humans to expand into space, is similarly elusive in many respects. Hey, how about a “sixty day study” on abortion! A group of leaders who are good communicators could start a dialog by asking hard questions, and letting some arguments run themselves out. That’s not a comfortable way to achieve consensus, but that’s sometimes how hard questions get resolved. I think what Scott Pace is asking for is a real national dialog (OK, call it an argument) about what human space flight is for. But nope, it’s not simple.

    “Do you want HSF? Maybe you don’t?”

    Heh. That’s an easy one. I want a human spaceflight program that has a real purpose. I want (as the Augustine committee fervently believed) a human spaceflight program that has goals, rather than destinations. I want a human spaceflight program that looks like something that benefits the nation, and not just Florida or Texas, and comes across as more than just a jobs program. I want a human spaceflight program that doesn’t hide behind words like “exploration” or “inspiration”. Do I find reasons that such a human space flight program won’t happen? Not hard to find reasons why a truly ambitious program isn’t happening right now, if that’s what you mean.

  • common sense

    “Yes, the Space Council had that charge, but it didn’t really address it. It didn’t leave us with any cogent reason for human space flight that came across as a stakeholder consensus. At least none that survives to this day. The various incarnations of the NASC were successful in pushing legislation to accommodate someone else’s vision, and they did that very well, but I’m not aware they actually came up with policy. In many respects, they were rubber stamps for administration policy, rather than driving that policy. (Unless they drove it off a cliff, as they did with SEI.) Now, if you want to make it look like you have input on economic, social, scientific, education, security, and political issues regarding human space flight policy, you could just get relevant agency heads to sign off on it which is, I think, largely what NASC did. NASC was populated by high level managers, not communicators, and their passions were for their own agencies.

    My recollection of the Space Council isn’t that good, so I welcome any specific historical accounts that might contradict this impression.”

    Again I am not necessarily speaking of how and what NASC used to do but what it could do for NASA, in particular HSF. History should help us define a better product not be a cut and paste of what was done. In my view a NASC would relief the heads of agencies and departments somehow but would also “force” them to be present to help the policy which is defined by the WH. NASC is not there to define policy but help implement it. They can be viewed as well as counselors. It must be a 2-way street. The WH probably has more on its plate than dealing with NASA. NASC would help explain the situation to the WH and how HSF say relate to any specific situation (economical, societal, geopolitical, etc). Then the WH may, or not, revise its overall space policy based on facts brought forth by NASC which in turn would orchestrate the efficient implementation of the policy, and so on and so forth. See what I mean?

    “Well, when you put in boldface that “Because we, the public, the customers, want it. Period”, you’re shouting out what “we” want, and it’s not clear where you come up with that. The problem is that we don’t know what “we” want, which is precisely what this discussion is about.”

    It was meant as “I” am the public. It was meant as follows: If the public as a means to demand that we pursue HSF one way or another then there is no reason to have a why debate. And I mean as a nation. Because I believe that if the private sector finds profit doing HSF then HSF it will be in the future but not necessarily as a government sponsored program. I was trying to address “why” NASA “must” do HSF. We don’t have to find any reason if the public demands so.

    “Hey, how about a “sixty day study” on abortion! A group of leaders who are good communicators could start a dialog by asking hard questions, and letting some arguments run themselves out. That’s not a comfortable way to achieve consensus, but that’s sometimes how hard questions get resolved. I think what Scott Pace is asking for is a real national dialog (OK, call it an argument) about what human space flight is for. But nope, it’s not simple.”

    Are you suggesting we act as a democracy??? Ah yeah I forgot… ;) That would be a good start right? Imagine a place not overtaken by pundits of any sides where the public would provide and be provided information on any subject. Now abortion involves a lot of passionate emotional response, that HSF would probably not except for some fearless advocates of 1 way trip to Mars. But hey I am ll for it. Difficult? Sure. Difficult because it would require leadership and the ability to give hard answer to hard questions which is out of the status quo world. Enough to see what happened to the stimulus money for commercial crew. Where was the public input? Outcry? No one cares because no one knows. Maybe had the public been aware of the redirection of the cash from one senator to the exclusive use of a DOA program, just maybe it would not have happened. But who is to gain/loose from it? Anyway… I’d love to see that happened outside of my dreams.

    “I want a human spaceflight program that has a real purpose. I want (as the Augustine committee fervently believed) a human spaceflight program that has goals, rather than destinations. I want a human spaceflight program that looks like something that benefits the nation, and not just Florida or Texas, and comes across as more than just a jobs program. I want a human spaceflight program that doesn’t hide behind words like “exploration” or “inspiration”. Do I find reasons that such a human space flight program won’t happen? Not hard to find reasons why a truly ambitious program isn’t happening right now, if that’s what you mean.”

    We may not agree on everything but I am with you on this one. What I think is sad is that someone at NASA or at the WH does have the tools to come up with a real good program and reason to do it. I fear it does not happen out of laziness dare I say incompetence? Harsh words? Well look at the state of our NASA HSF. Reality is harsh like the void of space. No one wants to face it: It’s hard work. Until then I’ll keep dreaming of my Space Academy and all that it could do for HSF, a lot more than nay mission to the Moon, Mars or Pluto for that matter for the public. You don’t have to believe me but I am sure that if you’d let yourself go to the idea you may see that tomorrow your children or mine could very well be part of it. The most difficult part of it all: A real mission.

    To be continued.

  • common sense

    Correction: It was not meant as “I” am the public.

  • Doug Lassiter

    “NASC is not there to define policy but help implement it.”

    Yup. You’ve got it. That’s why a NASC won’t serve the purpose at hand. We don’t need people to “implement” policy, but to help the taxpayer come to grips with what the policy should be. Right now, we don’t have a space policy for human space flight. The public doesn’t know why we do it. I don’t think NASA knows why we do it.

    “It was meant as “I” am the public. ” (and whatever your “correction” means)

    Which you are. A very small piece of it. That was my point.

    “Are you suggesting we act as a democracy???”

    No, I never used the d-word. I’m suggesting we act like a nation that derives policy from consensus goals. Goals that we talk about, and we gnash our teeth a little over. Goals that benefit Kansas as well as Florida. No such teeth gnashing has taken place in the public mouth about human space flight.

    But this is a democracy, and the folks who appropriate funds for human space flight listen real hard to what their constituents are saying and what their concerns are. Because if they don’t, democracy will take their job away from them.

    “Now abortion involves a lot of passionate emotional response, that HSF would probably not except for some fearless advocates of 1 way trip to Mars.”

    No, we aren’t talking about a trip to Mars. We’re talking about the importance to this country of expanding civilization into the solar system. That’s a BIG goal, and one that we as a country have not bought into. As stated before, NASA has no charter to do that. The only reason for the former is to set the stage for the latter. Goals, not destinations, right? Same with commercial space flight. CSF is just a way of getting there ideally cheaper and faster, not a reason for going.

    I want some national discourse on why we should be sending humans into space. You can hide behind the fact that human spaceflight is now a drop in the federal budget, but if what we’re really talking about is expansion of civilization into the solar system, that drop becomes very big. One has to wonder why a goal that big doesn’t engender passionate emotional response. The idea, it would seem, is if we don’t do it, we’re committing the human species to death. So, are you pro-life in that?

  • common sense

    “So, are you pro-life in that?”

    Who isn’t? I mean pro-life…

    Want to try a reason why we need HSF? I mean you, what is your reason why we should have HSF?

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Want to try a reason why we need HSF? I mean you, what is your reason why we should have HSF?”

    In my view, the single reasonable justification for human space flight is that humanity has to have the capability to leave the Earth in order to ensure survival. The justification is not “exploration”, or even “inspiration” which, in this era, can be done in other ways. It’s not mining helium-3 or palladium, or unobtainium. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t bring the solar system into our economic sphere, but just that it isn’t entirely clear that we’re going to need human flesh bearing shovels there to do it. The ideas of “national pride” and “soft power” pertain as well, but not very cleanly. Certainly not as cleanly as they did during the cold war.

    Now, that being said, it’s not clear that achieving this capability is a unilateral responsibility of our country, or that there is any need to make that capability available in the near term (thank goodness). Those arguments are ones that our leadership has to grapple with.

    See, this goes way beyond “destinations”. Destinations are a policy trap for people who can’t think bigger. The Augustine committee was smart enough to see that. Indeed, as per the title of this thread (trying to get back on topic here!), it is indeed a new paradigm in human space flight policy. Maybe it takes a step beyond Scott Pace’s question “Is there a future for humans in space?”, in that we have to reach for why a future for humans in space is even important, and perhaps more specifically, why having Americans in space is most important. We do not have a national consensus on that, and we haven’t even had a national discussion about it.

  • common sense

    The problem is multifold. To me “exploration” is good enough so to speak. BUT: Clearly it is not good enough to justify a real ambitious program. Clearly it should address immediate national priorities, which survival of the species is NOT. Amply demonstrated with Katrina and the levees, a problem known for years.

    So now what do we do? Immediate issues with the public include but not limited to: Economy, jobs, mortgage, education (of their kids of course not the others’ kids), security. At the very least. Where do you think you can have national coverage of a debate on survival of the species? Of course barring an upcoming immediate catastrophe. You and I, and others, can keep quibbling for ever as to how we justify HSF and why your, or my, point is the real reason why we need to do it but until the public buys into it it won’t happen, not the way you and/or I would like.

    And more to my point: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/08/nasa-asteroid-tracking-program-stalled-due-to-lack-of-funds.ars

    Good luck.

Leave a Reply to sc220 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>