Senators Blast NASA For Lacking Vision 319
An anonymous reader writes "A Senate science subcommittee clashed with NASA's chief on Wednesday, saying the agency and the White House lacked a clear vision and goal for the program. Skeptical senators told the space agency that it should not just talk about plans, but set out to do something specific. Lawmakers expressed a bipartisan opposition to the agency's plans and the initiatives of the Obama White House." Updated 23:13 GMT by timothy: Reader Trent Waddington contributes this video link to the hearing, if you want to come to your own conclusions.
Plans but no strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
What I would propose for the future, therefore, is the formulation of such a strategy, clearly laid out and with recognisable milestones, goals, estimated returns on investment, and timelines. I think that the provision of such a structure will remove the dependence space exploration has on fragmented projects and provide a key benefit that has so far been absent - direction, in cooperation with other national space agencies.
In addition to the points mentioned above, an official strategy group could talk to politicians and businesspeople in a language they can understand. One of the first goals after the strategy would be agreed upon would be to confirm its legitimacy at the international level, in the USA, EU, UN and other international forums. The next step would be to get an international fund set up in order to secure a set percentage of GDP of each nation (possibly only developed nations) to be put towards space exploration. Even if one thosandth of national GDP was set aside by each nation, that would come to some $60 billion annually, or several times the budget of the combined existing space agencies.
This would be similar to foreign aid funds, although probably of a lesser amount, and would instantly multiply the budget available to space exploration groups by a fairly serious amount. Legislation would also be needed in order to provide international tax incentives for corporations and governments to focus their efforts on areas that would be conducive to space exploration and resource realisation, even tangentially. Legislation for the open sharing of relevant information within existing intellectual property laws would also be needed to further coopeation between private and public organisations, plus and this a vital part of the effort, the standardisation of equipment and systems to make them interchangeable.
A few further points:
Why would my nation wish to contribute to this effort?
In addition to the well known issues of potentially life threatening hazards on earth, whether environmental, asteroid strikes, or contagion, and it is not a question of if but when they will recur - they have already happened many times previously - there is the question of the vast resources available in space. By contributing on an annual basis according to its means, each nation and its citizens has a legitimate claim on the unfathomable amount of raw material which can be accessed by a properly run space programme.
What would this Global Space Initiative involve?
This group and strategy would have several purposes.
1. To create a master strategy for the human colonisation of space, taking into account the many different social and economic factors that would be involved.
2. To identify key early technologies that would be needed to realise the strategy, provide funding to create these technologies, and pressure governments to provide legislative and taxation benefits to groups developing them. There are a wide array of scientific and engineering feats that must be overcome before the reality of space exploration is commonly available. These would include things like semi autonomous robotics in order to take advantage of
The President has to lead (Score:3, Interesting)
Shutting down the only manned space project on the horizon, Obama proposed to offload low orbital manned flights to the private sector. While the libertarian and free marketer in me loves the idea of a competitive market for space travel, I'm not convinced it's time yet for NASA to leave that arena.
Every manned launch is a huge, critical path project requiring hundreds of technicians and engineers to monitor every aspect of the situation. Is it really appropriate to dump all of these people and hope that several privately held companies (one hopes American ones) can step up to the plate and recreate all of that expertise and best practices almost from scratch? Even if they hired all of these soon-to-be-unemployed aerospace experts, they would still need to put in a few years to build up the kind of institutional memory and procedures, not to mention physical infrastructure, that are required for a complex project like this.
NASA was building the next generation Orion manned spacecraft and Obama announced that he may not fund it. Congress, ESPECIALLY one that gets a few more Republican members in the 2012 election cycle, can override him and restore funding, but realistically the President has the power and means to kill a program if he doesn't like it. He can appoint a schmuck to replace the executive director, for example, and he can argue that the money for NASA would be better spent on school lunch for poor kids, or building shelters for the homeless, or any number of similar but meaningless populist mouthings that make great TV sound bites.
We probably will have to wait for a change of government before we can get back to having a NASA with vision AND the backing to make it a reality. Sitting around, waiting for the "right technology" to be developed, and then saying we can finally think about realistically exploring Mars--that's not a bold vision, that's a cop-out.
Typical US government (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't believe the grandstanding coming out of the US government nowadays. From berating car company executives for flying in their jets (no, they should buy multi-million dollar jets and just let them rot), to coming down on Toyoda as if he were the embodiment of all evil (yeah, US manufacturers NEVER had recalls. I have yet to see the Toyota equivalent of the Ford Pinto), and now NASA.
Oh we took away all your funding and tied you up in red tape, but now we will complain that you lack vision and have not made any progress! It's NASA's fault for literally not delivering the moon, on a budget that would be barely noticed by an average defense contractor. Because it's ok to pour $65 billion into F-22's, the 140+ million dollar planes that always seem to be in the shop (68% readiness you know if I paid $140 million I want the damned thing to work), but no additional funding is required to move forwards in space exploration (the NASA budget has been fairly constant at all time lows since 1993).
It's the politicians in the US that need fixing. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to more war. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the bailouts. They didn't listen when the public said "no" to the stimulus. There's a pattern here. "Voting" isn't going to change anything... real democracy died a long time ago, victim to the two party system set up by special interests.
Re:Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
For me it's as simple as survival. As long as humanity is confined to a single planet, we're vulnerable to being wiped out by a planetary scale disaster. Move some of us to a self-sufficient base on Mars, and even if Earth turns back into molten slag, humanity will continue to exist.
Exploring the bottom of our oceans doesn't accomplish that goal. I do agree it's a worthy goal, but if we are to decide where to expend limited resources, they should go towards the goal of ensuring the survival of the species.
Once we inhabit other planets in the solar system, the very next goal needs to be interstellar colonization to guard against a solar system level catastrophe. Even if that means pursuing the use of generational ships to do it.
Re:Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a declaration that within a decade we'll have a space infrastructure that can actually support multiple goals at once, including LEO tourism, NEO mining, a Mars and Moon landing, and deep space exploration. Not saying NASA shouldn't be doing pure science, but I feel we're to the point now where the infrastructure is more important, at least if we ever want space exploration and exploitation to become commonplace.
Of course, that is essentially what the White House's new innitiative is saying, they just haven't thrown enough money at it to make it happen.
Re:Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
Forget planets. Space based colonization is where it's at. Let's capture a high metal asteroid and park it at L4 or L5 and start building large habitats and solar concentrators.
Re:Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
Out of curiosity, why is the survival of the human race so important?
Why is the survival of life so important? Because as far as we know, humanity is the one and only chance for some of the earths biodiversity to ultimately survive. It took maybe more than half of the earths history for sentient life to arise, if it gets wiped out what are the odds it will happen again? Stewards indeed. On the other hand if you are content to see all life as we know it wiped out, theres not much more that can be said.
Are we that important to the galaxy or the universe that the survival of the human race is of such paramount importance? Seems like a bit of hubris to me.
The galaxy and earth in general are pretty hostile places. Why should we care what they think?
Re:NASA had plans... (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes, we know. We just find it hilarious that Republicans bitch and moan so much about "communism", and hold such a deep-seated hatred of everything Soviet, yet thanks to their stupid funding decisions the US will now have to basically rely on technology developed by the Republicans' enemy.
Re:Mars (Score:2, Interesting)
Then maybe you should go kill yourself? I mean why is your life so important that you must live and suck up the resources of this planet? What are resources but abstract human concepts that imply a scarcity to materials which are in abundance in our Universe? What importance is your existence? Does it really matter? I don't know and neither do you.
These are loaded questions that no human can really answer since our answers all come from the perspective of man. We are but ants in our Universe. It's rather disingenuous to ask a random /. when you couldn't even get a proper answer from a PhD in Philosophy. It's a question without an answer as of yet. The only answer someone might give you is from a book and it is 42, yet it provides no real insight other than the answer to the question is meaningless.
We continue to live because we are alive, and it is our desire out of billions of years of evolution to keep living through our children. The human race chooses to insure it's survival because it exists, that is the only answer that another person can really give you.
Why should we pursue the survival of the human race? We might be the only intelligent race in this entire Universe, is that something not worth saving? Maybe it's not, maybe it is, I don't know and neither do you.
Re:Mars (Score:4, Interesting)
What's the point of putting people on Mars? Spirit did more than any manned mission could
Totally false. I single person with a rover could have done in a day what spirit has done during it's whole mission. A human can make quicker and easier judgment calls about the terrain so they can travel further and faster without input from earth. A human could have driven Spirits entire path in a day on something no fast than a golf cart. A human can make fast judgment calls about what's interesting and want needs further investigation. A human can clean the dust off the solar cells and not have to rely on dust devils. A human can walk places the rover can't physically go. A human can conduct research at the site and doesn't have to rely on a few very specialized instruments that were put on board. Humans can fix broken or flaky equipment. But ultimately, I think the real point of putting people on Mars is that it's our nature to expand into new territories and discover new things. There is no more unclaimed space on our planet. At some point we need to figure out how to live beyond the earth. These are just first baby steps. We have the desire to walk on two feet (at least some of us do), it's instinctual, but we can't quite do it yet. We keep falling down, but we keep trying because something deep inside us is driving us. You're like the baby who looks at the one trying to walk and tells him he's wasting his time because it's easier to crawl.
NASA had vision in 1980 (AASM)... (Score:3, Interesting)
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/ [islandone.org]
"""
What follows is a portion of the final report of a NASA summer study, conducted in 1980 by request of newly-elected President Jimmy Carter at a cost of 11.7 million dollars. The result of the study was a realistic proposal for a self-replicating automated lunar factory system, capable of exponentially increasing productive capacity and, in the long run, exploration of the entire galaxy within a reasonable timeframe. Unfortunately, the proposal was quietly declined with barely a ripple in the press. What was once concievable with 1980's technology is now even more practical today. Even if you're just skimming through this document, the potential of this proposed system is undeniable. Please enjoy.
"""
Some individuals are still working towards that vision; one example:
http://www.openvirgle.net/ [openvirgle.net]
Ultimately, we will ideally end up with self-replicating space habitats that can duplicate themselves from sunlight and materials from the moons or asteroids of the solar system. There is enough relatively easily accessible materials to make habitats for trillions of people, probably quadrillions of people, and their associate biospheres. After we do that, then we can get back to talking about "Peak Oil" and limits to growth. :-)
The ultimate resource is the human imagination:
http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/ [juliansimon.com]
Why not shift 90% of the US defense budget to NASA? We're just making more enemies with most of it, anyway. :-(
Re:NASA had plans... (Score:5, Interesting)
No, I think it's actually an enlarged Apollo module and maybe a cargo module on top of a Shuttle fuel tank, with Shuttle main engines on the bottom of it, and Shuttle boosters strapped to the sides.
Apollo's F1 engines used kerosene, whereas the Shuttle's main engines use LOX and liquid H2, IIRC, so the two aren't really compatible, plus it's unlikely they'd go back to kerosene after already having the infrastructure in place for the newer fuels. Finally, the SSMEs (Space Shuttle Main Engines) are already developed and tested, so it's not hard to simply make more, or reuse the ones they already have. Building more F1 Apollo engines would probably be a big challenge since they haven't made any in decades and the plans are probably lost in a file cabinet somewhere, and all the fixtures and such are gone.
It's a perfectly sensible design, unlike an entirely-new design like the Ares. It reuses components that already exist and are highly tested and perfected, and simply jettisons the Orbiter and replaces it with a new capsule on top. It should be cheap and easy to build, unlike the Ares, and shouldn't have any problems except maybe for the capsule part, since that's the only new part.
Re:Plans but no strategy (Score:2, Interesting)
All of this sounds like a grand design, but here's the issue with the "milestones/goals" part of it: what we are doing in space today, what we are planning to do in the near term, has all been accessible since roughly the 80's. We go up, launch a sat, occasionally visit a space station. IANARS (IANA Rocket Scientist) but it seems that we are just refining techniques - the diminishing returns of the current state of the art, if you will.
For there to be a next wave, we have to make some fundamental scientific progress. E.g. a space elevator is not merely a matter of improved engineering, we need some real breakthroughs in material sciences. I'm not trying to say "oh it's all hopeless" - not at all. Engineering can take you far, but the world's most advanced steam-engine train is still going to lose to the Shinkansen.
If you really believe in "let's all get together, sing kumbaya, and oh, build some stuff together", I think we'd be better off investing all that money into fundamental research. Can you imagine what (to use your number) $60B/year invested in the world's best minds would do in a decade? The only tiny wrinkle is that fundamental research doesn't exactly go with 'milestones' and 'deliverables'.
So, to some extent, I can see the critics' point. They're complete political whores, no doubt, but seriously, what ARE we doing up there?
Re:NASA had plans... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Playing to the votors - OT (Score:3, Interesting)
There aren't any. Not when Congress critters make more than the average American household (legally, who knows about back room/under the table dealings), get to vote on their own pay raises, and have no term limits. Where is the incentive to do anything besides make sure they get re-elected so they can keep getting paid and living in luxury? Especially when we as Americans keep people in office for decades and start to believe in family dynasties. (the Kennedy family for instance. When did political positions become something to hand down through generations? Doesn't anyone remember stuff like that in England was part of the reason we broke free?)
Just my $0.02...
Re:Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
To answer your underlying question, if you're a nihilist, then nothing has meaning and there's no reason to do anything. If, however, you find some meaning in existence, then it's fairly easy to extrapolate that the existence of others also has meaning, and it's a worthwhile goal to ensure that "others" will be able to continue existing for as long as possible.
Re:Mars (Score:3, Interesting)
I never said that, I said it's a question that fundamentally can not be answered.
Why is it imperative that you continue to exist? What gives you this right of free will? Why is it imperative that you do so without infringing upon the rights of others?
That imperative never existed to begin with, it is an abstract concept that you have created and put faith in.
Your imperative to not infringe upon the rights of others is based on the idea that if all humans around you did so, no one would have their existence terminated. It is ultimately tied to the idea of continuing your existence, of avoiding death.
If you did not believe your life is worth living, then why do you choose to obey any of the human laws? After all, they are nothing but rules we have created to insure our own survival. If you do not believe it is necessary to insure our survival then you also should have no reason to follow any laws, yet you do so because you are alive and because you wish to continue living.
The imperative is to prevent such a thing from ever happening.
What is importance? If humanity were wiped out tomorrow, the more important ideals of health care, world peace, etc would be nothing. We place importance on those values because we have faith in the continuation of the human species. If there were a looming threat that could wipe out humanity, nothing would be more important than to solve that simply because without our continued existence, none of our other values matter.
Don't even mention dollars, the dollar is an abstract human concept that values the labor of man and does not exist without human civilization.
Re:Plans but no strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:People are idiots (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Nice, noble goal. Unfortunately not exactly compatible with today's world.
Today if you had a launch vehicle, you couldn't do anything with it. Why is there (almost) no private launch capability in the US? Simple, really. First you need a license from the FAA - if it goes up in the air, they have to license it. It would be really a shame if you hit a Airbus with your nice shiny rocket. The actual chances of that happening are probably about 1 in a million. Still, they want you to have a license. And meet all of their regulations. Have your radios been properly certified? What alternate fields can you land on? Stuff like that. And a lot of siller stuff that utterly has no impact on any sort of space launch.
Next, we have the EPA. Oooh, you're going to use highly dangerous and toxic rocket fuel? Well, you need to fill out an application for a license and we will get back to you in five years. After the community response meeting and the environmental impact study. Is it going to make noise? Well then, better put that on your application because we wouldn't want to disturb the birds and lizards or the old hermit that lives 100 miles away.
At the present time any sort of "private launch" capability is pretty much a pipedream. What someone needs to do is pay off the Mexican government - closer to the equator anyway - and set up shop there. I am sure it would be cheaper and more effective than trying to navigate your way through the maze of regulations, licensing and nonsense that the US is going to put you through.
US based operations are pretty much doomed.